Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 507

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Some aspects of the improvement in skill of numerical weather prediction

Open access
Simmons, A. J., Hollingsworth, A.·2002·Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society

Abstract

Recent verification statistics show a considerable improvement in the accuracy of forecasts from three global numerical weather prediction systems. The improvement amounts to about a 1‐day gain in predictability of mean‐sea‐level pressure and 500 hPa height over the last decade in the northern hemisphere, with a similar gain over the last 3 years in the southern hemisphere. Differences between the initial analyses from the three systems have been substantially reduced. Detailed study of the European Centre for Medium‐Range Weather Forecasts verifications shows that identifiable improvements in the data assimilation, model and observing systems have significantly increased the accuracy of both short‐ and medium‐range forecasts, although interannual (flow‐dependent) variations in error‐growth characteristics complicate the picture. The implied r.m.s. error of 500 hPa height analyses has fallen well below the 10 m level typical of radiosonde measurement error. Intrinsic error‐doubling times, computed from the divergence of northern hemisphere forecasts started 1 day apart, exhibit a small overall reduction over the past 10 years at day two and beyond, and a much larger reduction at day one. Error‐doubling times for the southern hemisphere have become generally shorter and are now similar to those for the northern hemisphere. One‐day forecast errors have been reduced so much in the southern hemisphere that medium‐range forecasts for the region have become almost as skilful as those for the northern hemisphere. The approach to saturation of forecast error beyond the 10‐day range has been examined for sets of 21‐day forecasts. When the systematic (sample‐mean) component of the error is subtracted, forecast errors and the differences between successive forecasts both appear to level out near the end of the 21‐day range at values close to the limit set by the natural level of variance of the atmosphere for the northern hemisphere. A number of features of the model 500 hPa height fields remain quite realistic at the three‐week range. The most obvious discrepancy in mean climate is in the Pacific/North‐American sector, and variance is too high in the southern hemisphere. Copyright © 2002 Royal Meteorological Society

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 · 10.1256/003590002321042135

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 507

Metadata

Authors
Simmons, A. J., & Hollingsworth, A.
Venue
Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-01
Volume
128
Issue
580
Pages
647-677
ISSN
  • 0035-9009 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-870X
OpenAlex
W2038418888
Cited by
507
References
1
FWCI
17.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Some aspects of the improvement in skill of numerical weather prediction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1256/003590002321042135
The paper
Simmons, A. J., & Hollingsworth, A. (2002). Some aspects of the improvement in skill of numerical weather prediction. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society. https://doi.org/10.1256/003590002321042135

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.