Evaluating the impact of land surface on medium‐range weather forecasts using screen‐level analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this study screen‐level analyses of air temperature and humidity are used to objectively evaluate the impact of a new land‐surface package being considered for implementation in Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC)'s medium‐range global deterministic numerical weather prediction (NWP) system. Through its control of heat, moisture, and momentum fluxes to the atmosphere, the land surface has a substantial impact on near‐surface meteorology and on the atmospheric boundary layer. The approach examined in this study is based on the comparison between model forecasts and screen‐level analyses. It demonstrates the impact on medium‐range NWP of a new land‐surface package that includes (i) a new set of databases to specify soils and land‐cover characteristics, (ii) improved land‐surface initial conditions obtained by the assimilation of space‐based remote‐sensing observations, and (iii) a more sophisticated scheme for land‐surface modelling. The evaluation method is shown to provide useful information on the impact of the new land‐surface package, including lead‐time‐averaged difference maps as well as plots showing the evolution with lead time of the standard deviation of errors (STDE) and of the temporal correlation between forecasts and analyses. The new land‐surface package has a positive impact on near‐surface forecasts of air temperature and humidity for a summertime period, with smaller STDE and larger temporal correlation for both variables. The improvement is greater for humidity than for air temperature. The maximum impact is found around seven‐day lead time, with substantial gains in absolute and relative values for STDE and temporal correlation. The positive impact is also quantified in terms of prediction hours, with gains of about one day at the medium range. Details of the pros and cons for this objective evaluation approach are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".