Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 184

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Scientific Challenges of Convective-Scale Numerical Weather Prediction

Open access
Yano, Jun-Ichi, Ziemiański, Michał Z., Cullen, Mike, Termonia, Piet, Onvlee, Jeanette, Bengtsson, Lisa, Carrassi, Alberto, Davy, Richard, Deluca, Anna, Gray, Suzanne L., Homar, Víctor, Köhler, Martin, Krichak, Simon, Michaelides, Silas, Phillips, Vaughan T. J., Soares, Pedro M. M., Wyszogrodzki, Andrzej A.·2018·Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society

Abstract

After extensive efforts over the course of a decade, convective-scale weather forecasts with horizontal grid spacings of 1–5 km are now operational at national weather services around the world, accompanied by ensemble prediction systems (EPSs). However, though already operational, the capacity of forecasts for this scale is still to be fully exploited by overcoming the fundamental difficulty in prediction: the fully three-dimensional and turbulent nature of the atmosphere. The prediction of this scale is totally different from that of the synoptic scale (10 3 km), with slowly evolving semigeostrophic dynamics and relatively long predictability on the order of a few days. Even theoretically, very little is understood about the convective scale compared to our extensive knowledge of the synoptic-scale weather regime as a partial differential equation system, as well as in terms of the fluid mechanics, predictability, uncertainties, and stochasticity. Furthermore, there is a requirement for a drastic modification of data assimilation methodologies, physics (e.g., microphysics), and parameterizations, as well as the numerics for use at the convective scale. We need to focus on more fundamental theoretical issues—the Liouville principle and Bayesian probability for probabilistic forecasts—and more fundamental turbulence research to provide robust numerics for the full variety of turbulent flows. The present essay reviews those basic theoretical challenges as comprehensibly as possible. The breadth of the problems that we face is a challenge in itself: an attempt to reduce these into a single critical agenda should be avoided.

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 · 10.1175/bams-d-17-0125.1

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

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

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 184

Metadata

Authors
Yano, J.-I., Ziemiański, M. Z., Cullen, M., Termonia, P., Onvlee, J., Bengtsson, L., Carrassi, A., Davy, R., Deluca, A., Gray, S. L., Homar, V., Köhler, M., Krichak, S., Michaelides, S., Phillips, V. T. J., Soares, P. M. M., & Wyszogrodzki, A. A.
Venue
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
Published
2018-04
Volume
99
Issue
4
Pages
699-710
ISSN
  • 0003-0007 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-0477
OpenAlex
W2767478600
Cited by
184
References
2
FWCI
5.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Scientific Challenges of Convective-Scale Numerical Weather Prediction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1175/bams-d-17-0125.1
The paper
Yano, J.-I., Ziemiański, M. Z., Cullen, M., Termonia, P., Onvlee, J., Bengtsson, L., Carrassi, A., Davy, R., Deluca, A., Gray, S. L., Homar, V., Köhler, M., Krichak, S., Michaelides, S., Phillips, V. T. J., Soares, P. M. M., & Wyszogrodzki, A. A. (2018). Scientific Challenges of Convective-Scale Numerical Weather Prediction. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-d-17-0125.1

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.