Scaling Laws of Global Weather Models

Neural scaling laws, which in some domains can predict the performance of large neural networks as a function of model, data, and compute scale, are the cornerstone of building foundation models in Natural Language Processing and Computer Vision. We study neural scaling in Scientific Machine Learning, focusing on models for weather forecasting. To analyze scaling behavior in as simple a setting as possible, we adopt a minimal, scalable, general-purpose Swin Transformer architecture, and we use continual training with constant learning rates and periodic cooldowns as an efficient training strategy. We show that models trained in this minimalist way follow predictable scaling trends and even outperform standard cosine learning rate schedules. Cooldown phases can be re-purposed to improve downstream performance, e.g., enabling accurate multi-step rollouts over longer forecast horizons as well as sharper predictions through spectral loss adjustments. We also systematically explore a wide range of model and dataset sizes under various compute budgets to construct IsoFLOP curves, and we identify compute-optimal training regimes. Extrapolating these trends to larger scales highlights potential performance limits, demonstrating that neural scaling can serve as an important diagnostic for efficient resource allocation. We open-source our code for reproducibility.

Compute-optimal scaling laws are relatively well studied for NLP and CV, where objectives are typically single-step and targets are comparatively homogeneous. Weather forecasting is harder to characterize in the same framework: autoregressive rollouts compound errors over long horizons, outputs couple many physical channels with disparate scales and predictability, and globally pooled test metrics can disagree sharply with per-channel, late-lead behavior implied by short-horizon training. We extend neural scaling analysis for autoregressive weather forecasting from single-step training loss to long rollouts and per-channel metrics. We quantify (1) how prediction error is distributed across channels and how its growth rate evolves with forecast horizon, (2) if power law scaling holds for test error, relative to rollout length when error is pooled globally, and (3) how that fit varies jointly with horizon and channel for parameter, data, and compute-based scaling axes. We find strong cross-channel and cross-horizon heterogeneity: pooled scaling can look favorable while many channels degrade at late leads. We discuss implications for weighted objectives, horizon-aware curricula, and resource allocation across outputs.

The scaling laws guiding modern model training were calibrated for a single regime: data-rich, single-epoch pretraining. The dominant such scaling law form, Chinchilla's $L = E + A/N^α+ B/D^β$, has three structural limitations outside that regime: it diverges as unique data shrinks instead of saturating at the uninformed baseline; it cannot represent overfitting when capacity exceeds the data; and it conflates total examples seen with unique examples available. We propose a closed-form extension, $L(N, D, T) = E + (L_0 - E)\,h/(1+h)$ with $h = a/N^α+ b/T^β+ c\,N^γ/D^δ$, that decomposes loss into undercapacity, undertraining, and overfitting terms. It saturates between the irreducible loss $E$ and an uninformed baseline $L_0$ fixed by the loss type, and reduces to Chinchilla in the data-rich, single-epoch limit. We validate it on four multi-epoch experiments spanning four architecture families (MLPs, ResNets, Fourier neural operators, and transformers) across vision, scientific ML, and language domains, and refit it to five published LLM scaling-law grids. Extrapolating to higher compute and larger unique data than seen at fit time, our form achieves state-of-the-art RMSE on every published LLM grid we evaluate and on most cells of our constructed experiments. Once calibrated, the form admits a cost-aware allocation that recovers Chinchilla's optimum when data is free and shifts toward smaller corpora and more epochs as data grows expensive.