7.5 Numerical Weather Prediction 301
features on the charts. As forecasters began to
acquire experience from a backlog of past weather
situations, they were able to refine their forecasts
somewhat by making use of historical analogs of
the current weather situation, without reference to
the underlying dynamical principles introduced in
this chapter. However, it soon became apparent
that the effectiveness of this so-called “analog tech-
nique” is inherently limited by the unavailability of
very close analogs in the historical records. On a
global basis the three-dimensional structure of the
atmospheric motion field is so complicated that a
virtually limitless number of distinctly different
flow patterns are possible, and hence the probabil-
ity of two very similar patterns being observed, say,
during the same century, is extremely low. By 1950
the more advanced weather forecasting services
were already approaching the limit of the skill that
could be obtained strictly by the use of empirical
techniques.
The earliest attempts at numerical weather predic-
tion, based on the methodology described in Section
7.2.9, date back to the 1950s and primitive equation
models came into widespread use soon afterward. In
comparison to the models developed in these pio-
neering efforts, today’s numerical weather prediction
models have much higher spatial resolution and con-
tain a much more accurate and detailed representa-
tion of the physical processes that enter into the
primitive equations. The increase in the physical
complexity of the models would not have been possi-
ble without the rapid advances in computer technol-
ogy that have taken place during the past 50 years: to
make a single forecast for 1 day in advance by run-
ning current operational models on a computer of
the type available 50 years ago would require millen-
nia of computer time! The payoff of this monumental
effort is the remarkable improvement in forecast
skill documented in Fig. 1.1.
The initial conditions for modern numerical
weather prediction are based on an array of global
observations, an increasing fraction of which are
remote measurements from radiometers carried on
board satellites. In situ observations include surface
reports, radiosonde data, and flight level data from
commercial aircraft. In situ measurements of pres-
sure, wind, temperature, and moisture are combined
with satellite-derived radiances in dynamically con-
sistent, multivariate four-dimensional data assimila-
tion systems like the one described in the Appendix
of chapter 8 on the book web site.
The global observing system describes only the
resolvable scales of atmospheric variability, and the
analysis is subject to measurement errors even at
the largest scales. The data assimilation scheme is
designed to correct for the systematic errors in the
observations and to minimize the impact of random
errors on the forecasts. The errors in the initial con-
ditions for numerical weather prediction have been
continually shrinking in response to a host of incre-
mental improvements in the observing and data
assimilation systems. Nevertheless, there will always
remain some degree of uncertainty (or errors) in
the initial conditions and, due to the nonlinearity
of atmospheric motions, these errors inevitably
amplify with time. Beyond some threshold forecast
interval the forecast fields are, on average, no more
like the observed fields against which they are veri-
fied than two randomly chosen observed fields for
the same time of year are like one another. For the
extratropical atmosphere this so-called limit of
deterministic predictability is believed to be on the
order of 2 weeks.
Figure 7.25 shows a set of forecasts, made on suc-
cessive days, for the same time, together with the ver-
ifying analysis (i.e., the corresponding “observed”
fields for the time that matches the forecast). This
particular example was chosen because the level of
skill is typical of wintertime forecasts made with
today’s state-of-the art numerical weather prediction
systems. Forecast skill declines monotonically as the
forecast interval lengthens. The 1- and 3-day fore-
casts replicate the features in the verifying analysis
with a high degree of fidelity; the 7-day forecast still
captures all the major features in the field, but misses
many of the finer details. The 10-day forecast is
worthless over much of the hemisphere, but even at
this long lead time, the more prominent features in
the verifying analysis are already apparent over the
Atlantic, European, and western North American
sectors.
The increase in the uncertainty of the forecasts
with increasing forecast interval is illustrated in
Fig. 7.26 in the context of a simplified forecast
model based on the Lorenz attractor described in
Box 1.1. In the first experiment shown in the left
panel, the initial conditions that make up the
ensemble lie within a region of the attractor for
which the forecast uncertainty actually declines for
a while as the numerical integration proceeds,
as evidenced by the decreasing size of successive
forecast ellipses. In the second experiment (middle
P732951-Ch07.qxd 12/16/05 11:05 AM Page 301