Cited by 57Tropical and Extratropical Cyclones ResearchMeteorological Phenomena and SimulationsClimate variability and models

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A global evaluation of multi‐model ensemble tropical cyclone track probability forecasts

Open access
Titley, Helen A., Bowyer, Rebecca L., Cloke, Hannah L.·2020·Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society

Abstract

At the Met Office, dynamic ensemble forecasts from the Met Office Global and Regional Ensemble Prediction System (MOGREPS‐G), the European Centre for Medium‐Range Weather Forecasts Ensemble (ECMWF ENS) and National Centers for Environmental Prediction Global Ensemble Forecast System (NCEP GEFS) global ensemble forecast models are post‐processed to identify and track tropical cyclones. The ensemble members from each model are also combined into a 108‐member multi‐model ensemble. Track probability forecasts are produced for named tropical cyclones showing the probability of a location being within 120 km of a named tropical cyclone at any point in the next 7 days, and also broken down into each 24‐hour forecast period. This study presents the verification of these named‐storm track probabilities over a two‐year period across all global tropical cyclone basins, and compares the results from basin to basin. The combined multi‐model ensemble is found to increase the skill and value of the track probability forecasts over the best‐performing individual ensemble (ECMWF ENS), for both overall 7‐day track probability forecasts and 24‐hour track probabilities. Basin‐based and storm‐based verification illustrates that the best performing individual ensemble can change from basin to basin and from storm to storm, but that the multi‐model ensemble adds skill in every basin, and is also able to match the best performing individual ensemble in terms of overall probabilistic forecast skill in several high‐profile case‐studies. This study helps to illustrate the potential value and skill to be gained if operational tropical cyclone forecasting can continue to migrate away from a deterministic‐focused forecasting environment to one where the probabilistic situation‐based uncertainty information provided by the dynamic multi‐model ensembles can be incorporated into operational forecasts and warnings.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/qj.3712

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • GenCast can provide substantial value in decisions about when and how to prepare for tropical cyclones.

    “This shows that GenCast can provide substantial value in decisions about when and how to prepare for tropical cyclones34.”

    From Probabilistic weather forecasting with machine learning (2025) · cites this paper as [34]

    The Discussion (section 4; page unavailable) says the evaluated tropical-cyclone track probability forecasts have substantial potential value for decision makers, including those considering shutters or evacuation. The paper evaluates other ensemble systems, not GenCast, so it does not establish that value for GenCast specifically. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 37

  1. 10.1002/qj.234 · DOI
  2. 10.1002/qj.2964 · DOI
  3. 10.1029/2019GL082410 · DOI
  4. 10.1002/qj.2838 · DOI
  5. 10.1175/WAF-D-11-00007.1 · DOI
  6. 10.1175/1520-0493(2000)128<1187:TCTFUA>2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  7. 10.1175/MWR3390.1 · DOI
  8. 10.1175/WAF-D-13-00058.1 · DOI
  9. 10.1002/qj.1895 · DOI
  10. 10.1111/j.1600-0870.2005.00103.x · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1175/MWR-D-11-00220.1 · DOI
  12. 10.1002/met.1599 · DOI
  13. 10.1175/1520-0493(1995)123<3458:FTOTUS>2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  14. 10.1002/qj.383 · DOI
  15. Jolliffe I.T., 2012, Forecast Verification: A practitioner's guide in atmospheric science
  16. 10.1175/1520-0434(2003)018<0080:SDTCIF>2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  17. 10.1002/qj.1942 · DOI
  18. 10.1175/WAF-D-17-0058.1 · DOI
  19. 10.1175/BAMS-D-18-0044.1 · DOI
  20. 10.1175/2009WAF2222327.1 · DOI
  21. 10.1002/met.1444 · DOI
  22. 10.1002/qj.3383 · DOI
  23. 10.1002/qj.334 · DOI
  24. 10.1002/qj.49712656313 · DOI
  25. 10.1002/met.1720 · DOI
  26. 10.1175/2007WAF2007028.1 · DOI
  27. 10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00191.1 · DOI · Paper page
  28. 10.1016/j.tcrr.2019.10.005 · DOI
  29. 10.1175/1520-0493(1997)125<3297:EFANAT>2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  30. Van der Grijn G.(2002)Tropical Cyclone Forecasting at ECMWF: New products and validation. ECMWF Technical Memorandum Vol. 386. Reading UK: ECMWF 1–13.
  31. 10.1175/1520-0493(2001)129<2521:SFOTSU>2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  32. 10.1016/B978-0-12-385022-5.00008-7 · DOI · Paper page
  33. 10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0133.1 · DOI
  34. 10.1175/WAF-D-17-0056.1 · DOI
  35. 10.1002/qj.1937 · DOI
  36. 10.1175/WAF-D-14-00136.1 · DOI
  37. 10.1175/WAF-D-17-0071.1 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Titley, H. A., Bowyer, R. L., & Cloke, H. L.
Affiliations
  • Met Office (GB)
  • Uppsala University (SE)
Corresponding author
Titley, Helen A.
Venue
Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-01
Volume
146
Issue
726
Pages
531-545
ISSN
  • 0035-9009 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-870X
OpenAlex
W2990291571
Cited by
57
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7
FWCI
1.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Uppsala University Publications (Uppsala University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • CentAUR (University of Reading) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Met Office
  • Natural Environment Research Council (NE/P000525/1)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Tropical and Extratropical Cyclones Research
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Meteorological Phenomena and Simulations
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate variability and models
Keywords
multi-model ensemble, ensemble forecasting, tropical cyclone tracking, forecast verification, probabilistic forecasting, ECMWF ensemble, tropical cyclone basins, deterministic forecasting

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review