pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.06944 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-07 · ⚛️ physics.ao-ph

Recognition: 1 theorem link

· Lean Theorem

AIMIP Phase 1: systematic evaluations of AI weather and climate models

Brian Henn , Christopher S. Bretherton , Nikolay Kodunov , Christian Lessig , Maria J. Molina , Troy Arcomano , Oliver Watt-Meyer , Guillaume Couairon
show 13 more authors
Renu Singh Robert Brunstein Yana Hasson Antonia Jost Noah Brenowitz Peter Manshausen Nathaniel Cresswell-Clay Dale Durran Kyle Joseph Chen Hall Janni Yuval Dmitrii Kochkov Stephan Hoyer Ignacio Lopez-Gomez
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-11 00:57 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.ao-ph
keywords AI weather modelsclimate model intercomparisonhistorical reanalysisEl Niño responseout-of-sample generalizationwarming trendsAIMIP
0
0 comments X

The pith

AI weather and climate models simulate historical climate and forcing responses as well as conventional physically-based models, though some underestimate warming trends and diverge in out-of-sample tests.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper sets up AIMIP Phase 1 as a standardized intercomparison where AI models must simulate the atmosphere from 1979-2024 given historical sea surface temperatures after training only on reanalysis data. It applies five consistent evaluation criteria to compare the AI models with each other and with a traditional physics-based model. The results show the AI approaches generally match the conventional model on historical climate, El Niño responses, and variability. This matters to a sympathetic reader because it offers the first systematic public benchmark for deciding when AI methods can be used with confidence in climate studies instead of relying solely on established physical models.

Core claim

AIMIP Phase 1 defines a common experiment, output format, and training rules for AI weather and climate models that forces them to simulate the atmosphere given specified historical sea surface temperatures over 1979-2024. Applying five evaluation criteria—biases, trends, response to El Niño-related sea surface temperature anomalies, temporal variability, and out-of-sample generalization—the project finds that the AI models reproduce historical climate and forcing responses at a level comparable to a conventional physically-based model, while some underestimate historical warming trends and their predictions diverge in the out-of-sample tests. The resulting dataset is released publicly for追加

What carries the argument

The common experiment specification and the five evaluation criteria that allow direct comparison of different AI architectural choices against a baseline physically-based model.

If this is right

  • AI models can be considered viable for reproducing historical climate states and responses to known forcings at a level comparable to traditional models.
  • Some AI models will require targeted fixes to avoid underestimating long-term warming trends.
  • Divergence among AI models in out-of-sample tests indicates that generalization to unseen conditions is not yet uniform.
  • The public release of the evaluation dataset enables additional community tests beyond the five core criteria.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the AIMIP evaluation standards are adopted widely, future AI model development will likely prioritize explicit constraints on trend accuracy and generalization.
  • The approach could be extended to test AI models under future emissions scenarios that go beyond historical data.
  • These results may encourage hybrid models that combine AI components with physical constraints to address the observed weaknesses in trend capture.

Load-bearing premise

That training solely against historical reanalysis data under the stated constraints, combined with the five chosen evaluation criteria, is sufficient to assess and build trust in the models' reliability for climate applications.

What would settle it

An independent run of the same models on a post-2024 observation period that shows all AI models matching the conventional model's accuracy without underestimating trends or diverging from each other would falsify the reported limitations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.06944 by Antonia Jost, Brian Henn, Christian Lessig, Christopher S. Bretherton, Dale Durran, Dmitrii Kochkov, Guillaume Couairon, Ignacio Lopez-Gomez, Janni Yuval, Kyle Joseph Chen Hall, Maria J. Molina, Nathaniel Cresswell-Clay, Nikolay Kodunov, Noah Brenowitz, Oliver Watt-Meyer, Peter Manshausen, Renu Singh, Robert Brunstein, Stephan Hoyer, Troy Arcomano, Yana Hasson.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Biases at 1◦ resolution versus ERA5, for the AIWCMs and a CMIP6 model (GFDL-CM4, bottom row). (a), (b): 2-meter air temperature biases over the training (1979-2014) and test (2015-2024) periods, respectively. GFDL-CM4 data end in 2014 and so are only available over the training period. (c), (d): surface precipitation biases over the same periods, for models that included surface precipitation outputs (Arch… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: RMSB area-weighted over the globe on the 1◦ grid. (a) through (g): surface variables; (h) 500 hPa geopotential height; (i) through (l), (m) through (p): temperature, specific humidity, and u, v wind at 850 hPa and 250 hPa, respectively. Bars indicate the ensemble medians and error bars indicate the ensemble ranges. 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Global- and annual-mean 2-meter air temperature, shown as anomalies from the training period (1979-2014) average. ERA5 is in black; AIWCM model ensemble means are shown, along with the CMIP6 GFDL-CM4 single-member prediction. The AIMIP test period (2015-2024) is shaded at right. 4.3 E2: Trends We compute trends first by computing global area-weighted annual mean series, and then fitting linear trends to th… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Trends of global- and annual-mean variables. (a through e) surface variables, (f) 500 hPa geopotential height, (g), (h) 850 hPa temperature and humidity, and (i), (j) 250 hPa temperature and humidity. In (d) mean sea level pressure trend is shown for all models that submitted this variable, but for ACE2.1-ERA5, MD-1.5 v0.9 and NeuralGCM surface pressure trend is shown. The dark background bar is ERA5. GFDL… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Trend maps at 1◦ resolution over the training period for (a) 2-meter temperature and (b) surface precipitation. We also show maps of trends computed at the gridpoint scale. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: ENSO coefficient maps at 1◦ resolution for ERA5 (upper left panels) and model coefficient errors versus ERA5 coefficients (subsequent panels) over the training period, for (a) 2-meter temperature and (b) surface precipitation. 6-hourly predictions), which may influence their ability to capture the daily average variability evaluated here. MD-1.5 v0.9 makes predictions only at a monthly timestep and is not … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Standard deviation of daily anomalies from monthly mean at 1◦ resolution over 1979, for 2-meter air temperature (a) and surface precipitation (b). Upper left panels shows anomaly standard deviation in ERA5, and subsequent panels show the error in model anomaly standard deviations. 23 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Global area-weighted mean of model daily anomaly standard deviation errors, relative to global-mean ERA5 daily variability, at 1 ◦ resolution for the set of variables shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Time-mean response to +2 K and +4 K SST perturbations, for 2-meter air temperature (a), (b) and surface precipitation (c), (d), respectively. Only +4 K SST perturbations are available for the GFDL-CM4 model. reliably predict future climate trends using historical information and reliable physical knowledge is a key challenge for the AIWCM community over the next few years. 25 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present the AI weather and climate model intercomparison project (AIMIP), phase 1. Drawing from the rich tradition of intercomparisons in climate model development, we specify a common experiment, output data format, and training constraints (namely, training against historical reanalysis data) for AIMIP Phase 1 models. We aim to identify differences in modeling frameworks and AI architectural choices that influence model behavior, and build trust in AI weather and climate models through open data and evaluation. AIMIP Phase 1 models must simulate the atmosphere given specified historical sea surface temperatures over 1979-2024. We evaluate the models' performance using five major evaluation criteria: biases, trends, response to El Ni\~{n}o-related sea surface temperature anomalies, temporal variability, and out-of-sample generalization tests. We find that the AI models are able to simulate the historical climate and response to forcing as well as a conventional physically-based model, but some AI models underestimate historical warming trends, and their predictions diverge in the out-of-sample generalization tests. We describe the AIMIP Phase 1 dataset that is publicly available for additional evaluations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the AI weather and climate model intercomparison project (AIMIP) Phase 1. It defines a common experimental protocol requiring participating AI models to simulate the atmosphere given prescribed historical sea surface temperatures (SSTs) over 1979-2024, with training constrained to historical reanalysis data. Performance is assessed against a conventional physically-based model using five criteria: biases, trends, response to El Niño-related SST anomalies, temporal variability, and out-of-sample generalization tests. The central finding is that the AI models perform comparably to the conventional model on these metrics, although some underestimate historical warming trends and diverge in generalization tests. A public dataset of the evaluations is released to support further analysis.

Significance. If the results hold under the stated protocol, this establishes an open, standardized benchmark for AI-based atmospheric models forced by prescribed SSTs. The public dataset and emphasis on identifying architectural differences represent concrete steps toward reproducibility and community evaluation in a rapidly developing area. The work draws productively from the tradition of climate model intercomparisons but remains scoped to atmospheric response rather than full coupled climate dynamics.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that AI models 'simulate the historical climate and response to forcing as well as a conventional physically-based model' is conditioned on an experimental setup that prescribes historical SSTs and evaluates only the atmospheric component. This omits coupled ocean-atmosphere dynamics, sea-ice interactions, and long-term feedbacks that govern internal variability and trend attribution in standard climate applications. The manuscript should explicitly state whether the conventional model was run under identical prescribed-SST boundary conditions and discuss the implications for generalizing the parity result to free-running coupled configurations.
  2. [Evaluation section (implied by abstract)] Evaluation criteria description: The five criteria (biases, trends, El Niño response, temporal variability, out-of-sample tests) are listed but lack detail on the precise metrics, statistical significance testing, error estimation, or how 'as well as' is quantified (e.g., no reported effect sizes or p-values for trend differences). Without these, it is difficult to assess whether the reported underestimation of warming trends by some AI models is robust or whether the generalization divergences are statistically meaningful.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and introduction] The abstract and introduction would benefit from a brief table or bullet list summarizing the exact training constraints, output variables, and data format requirements to improve readability for readers unfamiliar with the project.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which help clarify the scope and strengthen the presentation of our results. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that AI models 'simulate the historical climate and response to forcing as well as a conventional physically-based model' is conditioned on an experimental setup that prescribes historical SSTs and evaluates only the atmospheric component. This omits coupled ocean-atmosphere dynamics, sea-ice interactions, and long-term feedbacks that govern internal variability and trend attribution in standard climate applications. The manuscript should explicitly state whether the conventional model was run under identical prescribed-SST boundary conditions and discuss the implications for generalizing the parity result to free-running coupled configurations.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract should more precisely describe the experimental protocol. The conventional physically-based model was run with identical prescribed historical SST boundary conditions over 1979-2024 to enable a direct comparison of atmospheric responses. We will revise the abstract to state this explicitly and add a brief note on the implications: this setup isolates the atmospheric component's response to SST forcing and does not include coupled ocean-atmosphere dynamics, sea-ice interactions, or full long-term feedbacks, so the parity result applies specifically to prescribed-SST atmospheric simulations rather than free-running coupled climate models. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Evaluation section (implied by abstract)] Evaluation criteria description: The five criteria (biases, trends, El Niño response, temporal variability, out-of-sample tests) are listed but lack detail on the precise metrics, statistical significance testing, error estimation, or how 'as well as' is quantified (e.g., no reported effect sizes or p-values for trend differences). Without these, it is difficult to assess whether the reported underestimation of warming trends by some AI models is robust or whether the generalization divergences are statistically meaningful.

    Authors: The full manuscript's evaluation section defines concrete metrics for each criterion (e.g., global and regional mean biases, linear trend slopes computed via least-squares regression over 1979-2024, El Niño composite anomalies, standard deviation of monthly fields for temporal variability, and root-mean-square error on held-out years for generalization). The statement that AI models perform 'as well as' the conventional model is based on these metrics showing comparable magnitudes and patterns in the figures, with explicit call-outs where some AI models underestimate trends. We acknowledge the value of additional statistical detail and will expand the section to include trend standard errors, confidence intervals, and qualitative assessment of whether trend differences exceed inter-model spread or typical variability. Formal p-values for every pairwise difference are not computed in the current analysis, but the underestimation and generalization divergences are robustly visible in the provided figures and data. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical intercomparison with external benchmarks

full rationale

This is a protocol and evaluation paper for an AI model intercomparison project. It defines a common experimental setup (atmosphere-only simulations forced by prescribed historical SSTs 1979-2024), specifies five evaluation criteria, and reports direct comparisons of model output against independent reanalysis data plus a conventional physics-based model. No derivations, equations, fitted parameters, or self-referential claims appear; performance metrics are computed against external data sources that are not constructed from the AI models themselves. Out-of-sample tests and trend evaluations remain standard held-out or cross-validation procedures rather than tautological renamings of training inputs. The paper contains no load-bearing self-citations that substitute for independent evidence.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claims rest on the domain assumption that historical reanalysis data is a suitable and accurate target for training and benchmarking AI models, plus the premise that the five evaluation criteria adequately capture model fidelity for climate purposes.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Historical reanalysis data provides an accurate representation of past atmospheric states suitable for training and evaluating AI models.
    All models are required to train against this data over 1979-2024 as the core experimental constraint.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5587 in / 1295 out tokens · 82365 ms · 2026-05-11T00:57:30.221122+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    AIMIP Phase 1 models must simulate the atmosphere given specified historical sea surface temperatures over 1979-2024. We evaluate the models' performance using five major evaluation criteria: biases, trends, response to El Niño-related sea surface temperature anomalies, temporal variability, and out-of-sample generalization tests.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Hydrometeor., 4, 1147–1167,

    Adler, R., Huffman, G., Chang, A., Ferraro, R., Xie, P., Janowiak, J., Rudolf, B., Schneider, U., Curtis, S., Bolvin, D., Gruber, A., Susskind, J., and Arkin, P.: The Version 2 Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) Monthly Precipitation Analysis (1979-Present), J. Hydrometeor., 4, 1147–1167,

    1979

  2. [2]

    Allan, R., Willett, K., John, V ., and Trent, T.: Global Changes in Water Vapor 1979–2020, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 127, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JD036728,

    work page doi:10.1029/2022jd036728 1979

  3. [3]

    Arcomano, T., Henn, B., and Bretherton, C.: AIMIP Phase 1 Forcing Dataset, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17065758,

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.17065758

  4. [4]

    G., Chelliah, M., and Goldenberg, S

    Barnston, A. G., Chelliah, M., and Goldenberg, S. B.: Documentation of a highly ENSO-related sst region in the equatorial pacific: Research note, Atmosphere-Ocean, 35, 367–383, https://doi.org/10.1080/07055900.1997.9649597,

    work page doi:10.1080/07055900.1997.9649597 1997

  5. [5]

    Byrne, M. P. and O’Gorman, P. A.: Land–Ocean Warming Contrast over a Wide Range of Climates: Convective Quasi-Equilibrium Theory and Idealized Simulations, Journal of Climate, 26, 4000–4016, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00262.1,

    work page doi:10.1175/jcli-d-12-00262.1

  6. [6]

    Cinquini, L., Crichton, D., Mattmann, C., Harney, J., Shipman, G., Wang, F., Ananthakrishnan, R., Miller, N., Denvil, S., Morgan, M., Pobre, Z., Bell, G. M., Doutriaux, C., Drach, R., Williams, D., Kershaw, P., Pascoe, S., Gonzalez, E., Fiore, S., and Schweitzer, R.: The Earth System Grid Federation: An open infrastructure for access to distributed geospa...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.future.2013.07.002 2013

  7. [7]

    Couairon, G., Singh, R., Charantonis, A., Lessig, C., and Monteleoni, C.: ArchesWeatherGen: Skillful and compute-efficient probabilistic weather forecasting with machine learning, Science Advances, 12, eadx2372, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adx2372,

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.adx2372

  8. [8]

    AGU Advances 6(4), 2025–001706 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1029/2025A V001706

    Cresswell-Clay, N., Liu, B., Durran, D. R., Liu, Z., Espinosa, Z. I., Moreno, R. A., and Karlbauer, M.: A Deep Learning Earth System Model for Efficient Simulation of the Observed Climate, AGU Advances, 6, https://doi.org/10.1029/2025A V001706,

    work page doi:10.1029/2025a

  9. [9]

    P., Hewitt, H

    Dunne, J. P., Hewitt, H. T., Arblaster, J. M., Bonou, F., Boucher, O., Cavazos, T., Dingley, B., Durack, P. J., Hassler, B., Juckes, M., Miyakawa, T., Mizielinski, M., Naik, V ., Nicholls, Z., O’Rourke, E., Pincus, R., Sanderson, B. M., Simpson, I. R., and Taylor, K. E.: An evolving Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 7 (CMIP7) and Fast Track in s...

    work page doi:10.5194/gmd-18-6671-2025 2025

  10. [10]

    D., Kölling, T., Allured, D., Jelenak, A., Soerensen, A

    Eaton, B., Gregory, J., Drach, B., Taylor, K., Hankin, S., Caron, J., Signell, R., Bentley, P., Rappa, G., Höck, H., Pamment, A., Juckes, M., Raspaud, M., Blower, J., Horne, R., Whiteaker, T., Blodgett, D., Zender, C., Lee, D., Hassell, D., Snow, A. D., Kölling, T., Allured, D., Jelenak, A., Soerensen, A. M., Gaultier, L., Herlédan, S., Manzano, F., Bärri...

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.17801666

  11. [11]

    A., Senior, C

    Eyring, V ., Bony, S., Meehl, G. A., Senior, C. A., Stevens, B., Stouffer, R. J., and Taylor, K. E.: Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization, Geoscientific Model Development, 9, 1937–1958, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016, 2016a. Eyring, V ., Righi, M., Lauer, A., Evaldsson, M., Wen...

    work page doi:10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016 1937

  12. [12]

    L., Boyle, J

    Gates, W. L., Boyle, J. S., Covey, C., Dease, C. G., Doutriaux, C. M., Drach, R. S., Fiorino, M., Gleckler, P. J., Hnilo, J. J., Marlais, S. M., Phillips, T. J., Potter, G. L., Santer, B. D., Sperber, K. R., Taylor, K. E., and Williams, D. N.: An Overview of the Results of the Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP I), Bulletin of the American Me...

    work page doi:10.1175/1520- 1999

  13. [13]

    M., Hivon , E., Banday , A

    Gorski, K. M., Hivon, E., Banday, A. J., Wandelt, B. D., Hansen, F. K., Reinecke, M., and Bartelmann, M.: HEALPix: A Framework for High-Resolution Discretization and Fast Analysis of Data Distributed on the Sphere, The Astrophysical Journal, 622, 759–771, https://doi.org/10.1086/427976,

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/427976

  14. [14]

    G., Blanton, C., McHugh, C., Nikonov, S., Radhakrishnan, A., Rand, K., Zadeh, N

    Guo, H., John, J. G., Blanton, C., McHugh, C., Nikonov, S., Radhakrishnan, A., Rand, K., Zadeh, N. T., Balaji, V ., Durachta, J., Dupuis, C., Menzel, R., Robinson, T., Underwood, S., Vahlenkamp, H., Bushuk, M., Dunne, K. A., Dussin, R., Gauthier, P. P., Ginoux, P., Griffies, S. M., Hallberg, R., Harrison, M., Hurlin, W., Lin, P., Malyshev, S., Naik, V ., ...

    work page doi:10.22033/esgf/cmip6.8494

  15. [15]

    Hall, K. J. C. and Molina, M. J.: Monthly Diffusion v0.9: A Latent Diffusion Model for the First AI-MIP, http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.13481,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  16. [16]

    V ., and Watt-Meyer, O.: ai2cm/AIMIP: Manuscript preprint release, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20072878, 2026a

    Henn, B., Bretherton, C., Koldunov, N. V ., and Watt-Meyer, O.: ai2cm/AIMIP: Manuscript preprint release, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20072878, 2026a. Henn, B., Watt-Meyer, O., Arcomano, T., McGibbon, J., Clark, S., Wu, E., Perkins, W., Kwa, A., Duncan, J., and Bretherton, C.: ai2cm/ACE2.1-ERA5-AIMIP: ACE2.1-ERA5: AIMIP Phase 1 submission, https://doi....

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.20072878 1999

  17. [17]

    P., and Hoyer, S.: Neural general circulation models for weather and climate, Nature, 632, 1060–1066, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07744-y,

    30 Kochkov, D., Yuval, J., Langmore, I., Norgaard, P., Smith, J., Mooers, G., Klöwer, M., Lottes, J., Rasp, S., Düben, P., Hatfield, S., Battaglia, P., Sanchez-Gonzalez, A., Willson, M., Brenner, M. P., and Hoyer, S.: Neural general circulation models for weather and climate, Nature, 632, 1060–1066, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07744-y,

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07744-y

  18. [18]

    A., Simmons, A., Vamborg, F., and Rodwell, M

    Lavers, D. A., Simmons, A., Vamborg, F., and Rodwell, M. J.: An evaluation of ERA5 precipitation for climate monitoring, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 148, 3152–3165, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.4351,

    work page doi:10.1002/qj.4351

  19. [19]

    J., Ahn, M.-S., Ordonez, A., Ullrich, P

    Lee, J., Gleckler, P. J., Ahn, M.-S., Ordonez, A., Ullrich, P. A., Sperber, K. R., Taylor, K. E., Planton, Y . Y ., Guilyardi, E., Durack, P., Bonfils, C., Zelinka, M. D., Chao, L.-W., Dong, B., Doutriaux, C., Zhang, C., V o, T., Boutte, J., Wehner, M. F., Pendergrass, A. G., Kim, D., Xue, Z., Wittenberg, A. T., and Krasting, J.: Systematic and objective ...

    work page doi:10.5194/gmd-17-3919-2024 2024

  20. [20]

    Mauzey, C., Durack, P., Taylor, K. E., Florek, P., Doutriaux, C., Nadeau, D., Hogan, E., Kettleborough, J., Weigel, T., kjoti, jmrgonza, Nicholls, Z., Betts, E., Seddon, J., and Wachsmann, F.: PCMDI/CMOR: CMOR v3.8.0, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10946710,

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.10946710

  21. [21]

    WP-MIP: An Artificial Intelligence, Hybrid and Physically Based Model Intercomparison Project for Weather Prediction

    McTaggart-Cowan, R., Magnusson, L., Polichtchouk, I., Ackerley, D., Koehler, M., Casati, B., Chen, J.-H., Hudson, D., Ujiie, M., Aziz, N. A., et al.: WP-MIP: An Artificial Intelligence, Hybrid and Physically Based Model Intercomparison Project for Weather Prediction, arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.16643,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  22. [22]

    Rombach, R., Blattmann, A., Lorenz, D., Esser, P., and Ommer, B.: High-Resolution Image Synthesis with Latent Diffusion Models, http: //arxiv.org/abs/2112.10752,

    work page Pith review arXiv

  23. [23]

    T., Dong, B., and Gregory, J

    Sutton, R. T., Dong, B., and Gregory, J. M.: Land/sea warming ratio in response to climate change: IPCC AR4 model results and comparison with observations, Geophysical Research Letters, 34, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL028164,

    work page doi:10.1029/2006gl028164

  24. [24]

    Taylor, K. E., Williamson, D., and Zwiers, F.: AMIP Sea Surface Temperature and Sea Ice Concentration Boundary Conditions, https: //pcmdi.llnl.gov/mips/amip/details/index.html, accessed: 2024-04-01,

    2024

  25. [25]

    E., Juckes, M., Balaji, V ., Cinquini, L., Denvil, S., Durack, P

    Taylor, K. E., Juckes, M., Balaji, V ., Cinquini, L., Denvil, S., Durack, P. J., Elkington, M., Guilyardi, E., Kharin, S., Lautenschlager, M., Lawrence, B., Nadeau, D., and Stockhause, M.: CMIP6 Model Output Metadata Requirements, Data Reference Syntax (DRS) and Con- trolled V ocabularies (CVs), https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15670624,

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.15670624

  26. [26]

    A., Barnes, E

    Ullrich, P. A., Barnes, E. A., Collins, W., Dagon, K., Duan, S., Elms, J., Lee, J., Leung, L. R., Lu, D., Molina, M. J., O’Brien, T. A., and Rebassoo, F. O.: Recommendations for Comprehensive and Independent Evaluation of Machine Learning-Based Earth System Models, Journal of Geophysical Research: Machine Learning and Computation, 2, https://doi.org/10.10...

    work page doi:10.1029/2024jh000496

  27. [27]

    K., Kwa, A., Perkins, W

    Watt-Meyer, O., Henn, B., McGibbon, J., Clark, S. K., Kwa, A., Perkins, W. A., Wu, E., Harris, L., and Bretherton, C. S.: ACE2: ac- curately learning subseasonal to decadal atmospheric variability and forced responses, npj Climate and Atmospheric Science, 8, 205, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-025-01090-0,

    work page doi:10.1038/s41612-025-01090-0

  28. [28]

    J., Andrews, T., Bodas-Salcedo, A., Bony, S., Bretherton, C

    Webb, M. J., Andrews, T., Bodas-Salcedo, A., Bony, S., Bretherton, C. S., Chadwick, R., Chepfer, H., Douville, H., Good, P., Kay, J. E., Klein, S. A., Marchand, R., Medeiros, B., Siebesma, A. P., Skinner, C. B., Stevens, B., Tselioudis, G., Tsushima, Y ., and Watanabe, M.: 31 The Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project (CFMIP) contribution to CMIP6, ...

    work page doi:10.5194/gmd-10-359-2017 2017

  29. [29]

    Yuval, J., Langmore, I., Kochkov, D., and Hoyer, S.: Neural general circulation models for modeling precipitation, Science Advances, 12, 1060–1066, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adv6891,

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.adv6891

  30. [30]

    Simulation Characteristics With Prescribed SSTs, Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 10, 691–734, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/2017MS001208,

    work page doi:10.1002/2017ms001208

  31. [31]

    et al.: pangeo-data/xESMF: Universal Regridder for Geospatial Data, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4294774,

    Zhuang, J. et al.: pangeo-data/xESMF: Universal Regridder for Geospatial Data, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4294774,

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.4294774

  32. [32]

    Second, the AMIP algorithm for calculating monthly values for SST and SIC is problematic

    First, it does not extend past 2022, while AIMIP Phase 1 inference simulations cover through 2024 to maximize the possible length of high-quality obser- vational comparison. Second, the AMIP algorithm for calculating monthly values for SST and SIC is problematic. It involves specifying mid-month values that, when linearly interpolated in time, give the mo...

    2022

  33. [33]

    Different parts of the denoising are carried out by different networks, with the higher noise levels being denoised by less trained/early-stopped versions of the network

    cBottle1.3, like the published version, is an Ensemble-of-Experts model. Different parts of the denoising are carried out by different networks, with the higher noise levels being denoised by less trained/early-stopped versions of the network. This is to avoid overfitting at large noise levels (see Brenowitz et al. (2025) for details). For every model, we...

    2025

  34. [34]

    Numbers indicate the amount of noisy samples this network is trained on. Physics Indices: –p1 checkpoints: –training-state-000512000.checkpoint –training-state-002048000.checkpoint –training-state-009856000.checkpoint –p2 checkpoints: –training-state-000512000.checkpoint –training-state-002176000.checkpoint –training-state-009984000.checkpoint –p3 checkpo...

    1979

  35. [35]

    Computation is over 1979 and a cutoff of 0.1 mm is used to define a dry day

    41 Figure C11.Dry-day fraction error in ERA5 (top left panel) and dry day fraction errors versus ERA5 (subsequent panels). Computation is over 1979 and a cutoff of 0.1 mm is used to define a dry day. 42 Appendix D: Selected results at 2.8 ◦ resolution We show selected results at 2.8 ◦ resolution, with NeuralGCM instead of NeuralGCM-HRD. In Figs. D1 and D2...

    1979