Verification against in-situ observations for Data-Driven Weather Prediction

Data-driven weather prediction models (DDWPs) have made rapid strides in recent years, demonstrating an ability to approximate Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP) models to a high degree of accuracy. The fast, accurate, and low-cost DDWP forecasts make their use in operational forecasting an attractive proposition, however, there remains work to be done in rigorously evaluating DDWPs in a true operational setting. Typically trained and evaluated using ERA5 reanalysis data, DDWPs have been tested only in a simulation, which cannot represent the real world with complete accuracy even if it is of a very high quality. The safe use of DDWPs in operational forecasting requires more thorough"real-world"verification, as well as a careful examination of how DDWPs are currently trained and evaluated. It is worth asking, for instance, how well do the reanalysis datasets, used for training, simulate the real world? With an eye towards climate justice and the uneven availability of weather data: is the simulation equally good for all regions of the world, and would DDWPs exacerbate biases present in the training data? Does a good performance in simulation correspond to good performance in operational settings? In addition to approximating the physics of NWP models, how can ML be uniquely deployed to provide more accurate weather forecasts? As a first step towards answering such questions, we present a robust dataset of in-situ observations derived from the NOAA MADIS program to serve as a benchmark to validate DDWPs in an operational setting. By providing a large corpus of quality-controlled, in-situ observations, this dataset provides a meaningful real-world task that all NWPs and DDWPs can be tested against. We hope that this data can be used not only to rigorously and fairly compare operational weather models but also to spur future research in new directions.