CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 1,547Meteorological Phenomena and SimulationsModel Reduction and Neural NetworksHydrological Forecasting Using AI

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

FourCastNet: A Global Data-driven High-resolution Weather Model using Adaptive Fourier Neural Operators

Open access
Pathak, Jaideep, Subramanian, Shashank, Harrington, Peter, Raja, Sanjeev, Chattopadhyay, Ashesh, Mardani, Morteza, Kurth, Thorsten, Hall, David, Li, Zongyi, Azizzadenesheli, Kamyar, Hassanzadeh, Pedram, Kashinath, Karthik, Anandkumar, Animashree·2022·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2202.11214arXiv 2202.11214
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

FourCastNet, short for Fourier Forecasting Neural Network, is a global data-driven weather forecasting model that provides accurate short to medium-range global predictions at $0.25^{\circ}$ resolution. FourCastNet accurately forecasts high-resolution, fast-timescale variables such as the surface wind speed, precipitation, and atmospheric water vapor. It has important implications for planning wind energy resources, predicting extreme weather events such as tropical cyclones, extra-tropical cyclones, and atmospheric rivers. FourCastNet matches the forecasting accuracy of the ECMWF Integrated Forecasting System (IFS), a state-of-the-art Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP) model, at short lead times for large-scale variables, while outperforming IFS for variables with complex fine-scale structure, including precipitation. FourCastNet generates a week-long forecast in less than 2 seconds, orders of magnitude faster than IFS. The speed of FourCastNet enables the creation of rapid and inexpensive large-ensemble forecasts with thousands of ensemble-members for improving probabilistic forecasting. We discuss how data-driven deep learning models such as FourCastNet are a valuable addition to the meteorology toolkit to aid and augment NWP models.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2202.11214

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?

  • Recent advances in MLWP provide greater accuracy and efficiency than NWP for non-probabilistic forecasts.

    “Recent advances in machine learning (ML)-based weather prediction (MLWP) have been shown to provide greater accuracy and efficiency than NWP for non-probabilistic forecasts2,3,13–18.”

    From Probabilistic weather forecasting with machine learning (2025) · cites this paper as [13]

    Section 3.3 reports that FourCastNet outperforms IFS on some accuracy metrics for selected variables at lead times of about 48 hours or less, and Section 4 reports substantially lower computational cost. But Section 4 explicitly says IFS is generally more accurate than FourCastNet. The paper therefore does not support the unqualified claim of greater accuracy for non-probabilistic forecasts. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    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: 34

  1. Peter Bauer, Alan Thorpe, and Gilbert Brunet. The quiet revolution of numerical weather prediction. Nature, 525 (7567):47-55, 2015.
  2. Richard B Alley, Kerry A Emanuel, and Fuqing Zhang. Advances in weather prediction. Science, 363(6425):342-344, 2019.
  3. Lewis Fry Richardson. Weather prediction by numerical process. Cambridge university press, 2007.
  4. MG Schultz, C Betancourt, B Gong, F Kleinert, M Langguth, LH Leufen, Amirpasha Mozaffari, and S Stadtler. Can deep learning beat numerical weather prediction? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 379(2194): 20200097, 2021.
  5. V Balaji. Climbing down charney's ladder: machine learning and the post-dennard era of computational climate science. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 379(2194):20200085, 2021.
  6. Christopher Irrgang, Niklas Boers, Maike Sonnewald, Elizabeth A Barnes, Christopher Kadow, Joanna Staneva, and Jan Saynisch-Wagner. Towards neural Earth system modelling by integrating artificial intelligence in Earth system science. Nature Machine Intelligence, 3(8):667-674, 2021.
  7. Markus Reichstein, Gustau Camps-Valls, Bjorn Stevens, Martin Jung, Joachim Denzler, Nuno Carvalhais, et al. Deep learning and process understanding for data-driven earth system science. Nature, 566(7743):195-204, 2019.
  8. Sebastian Scher and Gabriele Messori. Predicting weather forecast uncertainty with machine learning. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 144(717):2830-2841, 2018.
  9. Sebastian Scher and Gabriele Messori. Weather and climate forecasting with neural networks: using general circulation models (gcms) with different complexity as a study ground. Geoscientific Model Development, 12(7):2797-2809, 2019.
  10. Ashesh Chattopadhyay, Ebrahim Nabizadeh, and Pedram Hassanzadeh. Analog forecasting of extreme-causing weather patterns using deep learning. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 12(2):e2019MS001958, 2020a.
  11. Jonathan A Weyn, Dale R Durran, and Rich Caruana. Can machines learn to predict weather? using deep learning to predict gridded 500-hpa geopotential height from historical weather data. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 11(8):2680-2693, 2019.
  12. Jonathan A Weyn, Dale R Durran, and Rich Caruana. Improving data-driven global weather prediction using deep convo- lutional neural networks on a cubed sphere. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 12(9):e2020MS002109, 2020.
  13. Jonathan A Weyn, Dale R Durran, Rich Caruana, and Nathaniel Cresswell-Clay. Sub-seasonal forecasting with a large ensemble of deep-learning weather prediction models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.05107, 2021. · arXiv
  14. Stephan Rasp, Peter D Dueben, Sebastian Scher, Jonathan A Weyn, Soukayna Mouatadid, and Nils Thuerey. Weather- bench: a benchmark data set for data-driven weather forecasting. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 12(11):e2020MS002203, 2020.
  15. Stephan Rasp and Nils Thuerey. Data-driven medium-range weather prediction with a resnet pretrained on climate simulations: A new model for weatherbench. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 13(2):e2020MS002405, 2021a.
  16. Stephan Rasp and Nils Thuerey. Purely data-driven medium-range weather forecasting achieves comparable skill to physical models at similar resolution. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.08626, 2020. · arXiv
  17. Ashesh Chattopadhyay, Mustafa Mustafa, Pedram Hassanzadeh, Eviatar Bach, and Karthik Kashinath. Towards physically consistent data-driven weather forecasting: Integrating data assimilation with equivariance-preserving spatial transformers in a case study with era5. Geoscientific Model Development Discussions, pages 1-23, 2021.
  18. Troy Arcomano, Istvan Szunyogh, Jaideep Pathak, Alexander Wikner, Brian R Hunt, and Edward Ott. A machine learning-based global atmospheric forecast model. Geophysical Research Letters, 47(9):e2020GL087776, 2020.
  19. Matthew Chantry, Hannah Christensen, Peter Dueben, and Tim Palmer. Opportunities and challenges for machine learning in weather and climate modelling: hard, medium and soft ai. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 379(2194):20200083, 2021.
  20. Peter Grönquist, Chengyuan Yao, Tal Ben-Nun, Nikoli Dryden, Peter Dueben, Shigang Li, and Torsten Hoefler. Deep learning for post-processing ensemble weather forecasts. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 379 (2194):20200092, 2021.
  21. Stephan Rasp and Nils Thuerey. Data-driven medium-range weather prediction with a resnet pretrained on climate simulations: A new model for weatherbench. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, page e2020MS002405, 2021b.
  22. John Guibas, Morteza Mardani, Zongyi Li, Andrew Tao, Anima Anandkumar, and Bryan Catanzaro. Adaptive Fourier Neural Operators: Efficient token mixers for transformers. International Conference on Representation Learning (to appear), April 2022.
  23. Zongyi Li, Nikola Kovachki, Kamyar Azizzadenesheli, Burigede Liu, Kaushik Bhattacharya, Andrew Stuart, and Anima Anandkumar. Fourier neural operator for parametric partial differential equations. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2021a.
  24. Hans Hersbach, Bill Bell, Paul Berrisford, Shoji Hirahara, András Horányi, Joaquín Muñoz-Sabater, Julien Nicolas, Carole Peubey, Raluca Radu, Dinand Schepers, Adrian Simmons, Cornel Soci, Saleh Abdalla, Xavier Abellan, Gianpaolo Balsamo, Peter Bechtold, Gionata Biavati, Jean Bidlot, Massimo Bonavita, Giovanna De Chiara, Per Dahlgren, Dick Dee, Michail Diamantakis, Rossana Dragani, Johannes Flemming, Richard Forbes, Manuel Fuentes, Alan Geer, Leo Haimberger, Sean Healy, Robin J. Hogan, Elías Hólm, Marta Janisková, Sarah Keeley, Patrick Laloyaux, Philippe Lopez, Cristina Lupu, Gabor Radnoti, Patricia de Rosnay, Iryna Rozum, Freja Vamborg, Sebastien Villaume, and Jean-Noël Thépaut. The ERA5 global reanalysis. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 146(730):1999-2049, 2020. ISSN 1477-870X.
  25. Eugenia Kalnay, Masao Kanamitsu, Robert Kistler, William Collins, Dennis Deaven, Lev Gandin, Mark Iredell, Suranjana Saha, Glenn White, John Woollen, et al. The ncep/ncar 40-year reanalysis project. Bulletin of the American meteorological Society, 77(3):437-472, 1996.
  26. Eugenia Kalnay. Atmospheric modeling, data assimilation and predictability. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
  27. Tim Palmer. The ecmwf ensemble prediction system: Looking back (more than) 25 years and projecting forward 25 years. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 145:12-24, 2019.
  28. Peter Bauer, Tiago Quintino, Nils Wedi, Antonio Bonanni, Marcin Chrust, Willem Deconinck, Michail Diamantakis, Peter Düben, Stephen English, Johannes Flemming, et al. The ecmwf scalability programme: Progress and plans. European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts, 2020. doi:10.21957/gdit22ulm. URL https: //www.ecmwf.int/node/19380. · DOI
  29. Geir Evensen. The ensemble kalman filter: Theoretical formulation and practical implementation. Ocean dynamics, 53 (4):343-367, 2003.
  30. Benjamin Fildier, William D. Collins, and Caroline Muller. Distortions of the rain distribution with warming, with and without self-aggregation. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 13(2):e2020MS002256, 2021. doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/2020MS002256. URL https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/ 10.1029/2020MS002256. e2020MS002256 2020MS002256. · DOI
  31. Ashesh Chattopadhyay, Mustafa Mustafa, Pedram Hassanzadeh, and Karthik Kashinath. Deep spatial transformers for autoregressive data-driven forecasting of geophysical turbulence. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Climate Informatics, pages 106-112, 2020b.
  32. Samyam Rajbhandari, Jeff Rasley, Olatunji Ruwase, and Yuxiong He. Zero: Memory optimizations toward training trillion parameter models. In SC20: International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, pages 1-16. IEEE, 2020.
  33. K Kashinath, M Mustafa, A Albert, JL Wu, C Jiang, S Esmaeilzadeh, K Azizzadenesheli, R Wang, A Chattopadhyay, A Singh, et al. Physics-informed machine learning: case studies for weather and climate modelling. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 379(2194):20200093, 2021.
  34. Troy Arcomano, Istvan Szunyogh, Alexander Wikner, Jaideep Pathak, Brian R Hunt, and Edward Ott. A hybrid approach to atmospheric modeling that combines machine learning with a physics-based numerical model. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 2021.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Pathak, J., Subramanian, S., Harrington, P., Raja, S., Chattopadhyay, A., Mardani, M., Kurth, T., Hall, D., Li, Z., Azizzadenesheli, K., Hassanzadeh, P., Kashinath, K., & Anandkumar, A.
Affiliations
  • Nvidia (United States) (US)
  • Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Rice University (US)
  • California Institute of Technology (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2022
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2202.11214
arXiv
2202.11214
OpenAlex
W4225906496
Cited by
1,547
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 535 · 2025: 445 · 2024: 344 · 2023: 171 · 2022: 50
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Energy (-AC02-05CH11231, 05CH11231, DE AC02 05CH11231, DE-AC02-)
  • Nvidia
  • National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (DE–AC02–05CH11231, 05CH11231, AC02-05CH11231)
  • Office of Science (DEAC02–05CH11231, AC02-05CH11231, DE-AC02, 05CH11231)
  • Office of Naval Research (N00014-20-1-2722, DE-AC02-05CH11231, N00014-20, N00014)
  • Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (AC02‐05CH11231, DE-AC02-05CH11231, 05CH11231)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Meteorological Phenomena and Simulations
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Model Reduction and Neural Networks
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Hydrological Forecasting Using AI
Keywords
FourCastNet, Fourier neural operator, global weather forecasting, numerical weather prediction, precipitation forecasting, surface wind speed, atmospheric water vapor, tropical cyclones, atmospheric rivers, ensemble forecasting, probabilistic 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