Cited by 26Meteorological Phenomena and SimulationsData Mining and Machine Learning ApplicationsMachine Learning and Data Classification

A Machine Learning Tutorial for Operational Meteorology. Part I: Traditional Machine Learning

Open access
Chase, Randy J., Harrison, David R., Burke, Amanda, Lackmann, Gary M., McGovern, Amy·2022·Weather and Forecasting

Abstract

Recently, the use of machine learning in meteorology has increased greatly. While many machine learning methods are not new, university classes on machine learning are largely unavailable to meteorology students and are not required to become a meteorologist. The lack of formal instruction has contributed to perception that machine learning methods are “black boxes” and thus end-users are hesitant to apply the machine learning methods in their everyday workflow. To reduce the opaqueness of machine learning methods and lower hesitancy toward machine learning in meteorology, this paper provides a survey of some of the most common machine learning methods. A familiar meteorological example is used to contextualize the machine learning methods while also discussing machine learning topics using plain language. The following machine learning methods are demonstrated: linear regression, logistic regression, decision trees, random forest, gradient boosted decision trees, naïve Bayes, and support vector machines. Beyond discussing the different methods, the paper also contains discussions on the general machine learning process as well as best practices to enable readers to apply machine learning to their own datasets. Furthermore, all code (in the form of Jupyter notebooks and Google Colaboratory notebooks) used to make the examples in the paper is provided in an effort to catalyze the use of machine learning in meteorology.

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/waf-d-22-0070.1

Cites

90 of 90 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. [4]4. Billet, J., M. DeLisi, B. Smith, and C. Gates, 1997: Use of regres- sion techniques to predict hail size and the probability of large hail. Wea. Forecasting, 12, 154-164, https://doi.org/10. 1175/1520-0434(1997)012,0154:UORTTP.2.0.CO;2.
  2. [8]8. Breiman, L., 1984: Classification and Regression Trees. Routledge, 368 pp.
  3. [11]11. Cains, M. G., and Coauthors, 2022: NWS forecasters' perceptions and potential uses of trustworthy AI/ML for hazardous weather risks. 21st Conf. on Artificial Intelligence for Environmental Sci- ence, Houston, TX, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 1.3, https://ams.confex. com/ams/102ANNUAL/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/393121.
  4. [13]13. FIG. A3. As in Fig. 15, but for the test dataset. Meteor. Climatol., 60, 341-359, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC- D-20-0177. · DOI
  5. [21]21. Elmore, K. L., and H. Grams, 2016: Using mPING data to gener- ate random forests for precipitation type forecasts. 14th Conf. on Artificial and Computational Intelligence and its Applica- tions to the Environmental Sciences, New Orleans, LA, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 4.2, https://ams.confex.com/ams/96Annual/ webprogram/Paper289684.html.
  6. [30]30. Goodfellow, I., Y. Bengio, and A. Courville, 2016: Deep Learning. MIT Press, 800 pp., http://www.deeplearningbook.org.
  7. [66]66. I. Ebert-Uphoff, D. J. Gagne II, and A. Bostrom, 2021: The need for ethical, responsible, and trustworthy artificial intelli- gence for environmental sciences. arXiv, 2112.08453, https:// arxiv.org/abs/2112.08453. · arXiv
  8. [77]77. Quinlan, J., 1993: C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning. Morgan Kaufmann, 302 pp.
  9. [82]82. Sessa, M. F., and R. J. Trapp, 2020: Observed relationship be- tween tornado intensity and pretornadic mesocyclone charac- teristics. Wea. Forecasting, 35, 1243-1261, https://doi.org/10. 1175/WAF-D-19-0099.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chase, R. J., Harrison, D. R., Burke, A., Lackmann, G. M., & McGovern, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Oklahoma (US)
  • NOAA Storm Prediction Center (US)
  • North Carolina State University (US)
Venue
Weather and Forecasting
Published
2022-08
Volume
37
Issue
8
Pages
1509-1529
ISSN
  • 0882-8156 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-0434
OpenAlex
W4224009465
Cited by
25
References
88
Citations by year
2025: 6 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 1
FWCI
2.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Weather and Forecasting (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (2019758)
  • U.S. Department of Commerce (NA21OAR4320204)
  • University of Oklahoma (NA21OAR4320204, NA16OAR4320115)
  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NA16OAR4320115, #NA21OAR4320204)
  • NOAA Research (NA21OAR4320204, NA16OAR4320115)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Meteorological Phenomena and Simulations
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Data Mining and Machine Learning Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
Keywords
operational meteorology, linear regression, logistic regression, decision tree, random forest, gradient boosting decision tree, naive Bayes, support vector machine, machine learning education, black box opacity, Jupyter notebooks, Google Colaboratory

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