Examining Fast Radiative Feedbacks Using Machine-Learning Weather Emulators

The response of the climate system to increased greenhouse gases and other radiative perturbations is governed by a combination of fast and slow feedbacks. Slow feedbacks are typically activated in response to changes in ocean temperatures on decadal timescales and manifest as changes in climatic state with no recent historical analogue. However, fast feedbacks are activated in response to rapid atmospheric physical processes on weekly timescales, and they are already operative in the present-day climate. This distinction implies that the physics of fast radiative feedbacks is present in the historical meteorological reanalyses used to train many recent successful machine-learning-based (ML) emulators of weather and climate. In addition, these feedbacks are functional under the historical boundary conditions pertaining to the top-of-atmosphere radiative balance and sea-surface temperatures. Together, these factors imply that we can use historically trained ML weather emulators to study the response of radiative-convective equilibrium (RCE), and hence the global hydrological cycle, to perturbations in carbon dioxide and other well-mixed greenhouse gases. Without retraining on prospective Earth system conditions, we use ML weather emulators to quantify the fast precipitation response to reduced and elevated carbon dioxed concentrations with no recent historical precedent. We show that the responses from historically trained emulators agree with those produced by full-physics Earth System Models (ESMs). In conclusion, we discuss the prospects for and advantages from using ESMs and ML emulators to study fast processes in global climate.

Recommendations for Comprehensive and Independent Evaluation of Machine Learning-Based Earth System Models

Machine learning (ML) is a revolutionary technology with demonstrable applications across multiple disciplines. Within the Earth science community, ML has been most visible for weather forecasting, producing forecasts that rival modern physics-based models. Given the importance of deepening our understanding and improving predictions of the Earth system on all time scales, efforts are now underway to develop forecasting models into Earth-system models (ESMs), capable of representing all components of the coupled Earth system (or their aggregated behavior) and their response to external changes. Modeling the Earth system is a much more difficult problem than weather forecasting, not least because the model must represent the alternate (e.g., future) coupled states of the system for which there are no historical observations. Given that the physical principles that enable predictions about the response of the Earth system are often not explicitly coded in these ML-based models, demonstrating the credibility of ML-based ESMs thus requires us to build evidence of their consistency with the physical system. To this end, this paper puts forward five recommendations to enhance comprehensive, standardized, and independent evaluation of ML-based ESMs to strengthen their credibility and promote their wider use.

Analyzing and Exploring Training Recipes for Large-Scale Transformer-Based Weather Prediction

The rapid rise of deep learning (DL) in numerical weather prediction (NWP) has led to a proliferation of models which forecast atmospheric variables with comparable or superior skill than traditional physics-based NWP. However, among these leading DL models, there is a wide variance in both the training settings and architecture used. Further, the lack of thorough ablation studies makes it hard to discern which components are most critical to success. In this work, we show that it is possible to attain high forecast skill even with relatively off-the-shelf architectures, simple training procedures, and moderate compute budgets. Specifically, we train a minimally modified SwinV2 transformer on ERA5 data, and find that it attains superior forecast skill when compared against IFS. We present some ablations on key aspects of the training pipeline, exploring different loss functions, model sizes and depths, and multi-step fine-tuning to investigate their effect. We also examine the model performance with metrics beyond the typical ACC and RMSE, and investigate how the performance scales with model size.