A Station-Based Evaluation of Machine Learning-based Weather Forecasting Models in Northern Norway
Authors: Siyan Chen, Lars Uebbing, Eirik Mikal Samuelsen, Georgios Leontidis, Arnt-Børre Salberg, Sébastien Lefèvre, Robert Jenssen, Kristoffer Wickstrøm
Organizations: UiT The Arctic University of Norway · The Norwegian Meteorological Institute · Norwegian Computing Center · University of South Brittany · University of Copenhagen
Recent machine learning weather prediction (MLWP) models have demonstrated remarkable forecasting skill on global reanalysis-based benchmarks. However, their performance remains unclear in challenging environments such as Northern Norway, where narrow fjords and rapidly changing weather result in highly variable local wind conditions. In this case study, we evaluate FourCastNet3 (FCN3), GraphCast, and ECMWF High Resolution Forecast (HRES) for wind speed forecasting using multi-year station observations from Northern Norway, focusing on their relative performance, generalization beyond the training period, and performance under high-wind conditions. Our results show that HRES slightly outperforms FCN3 and GraphCast, with an overall RMSE of 2.89 ms−1, compared to 2.96 ms−1 for FCN3 and 2.94 ms−1 for GraphCast. Notably, the MLWP models maintain comparable performance beyond their respective training periods, with no clear evidence of noticeable degradation. FCN3 performs best under high-wind conditions, although all models substantially underestimate strong winds. Our findings suggest that MLWP has become competitive with NWP for local wind, but further refinements are still needed to capture complex terrain better.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Mean RMSE of wind speed forecasts from FCN3, GraphCast, and HRES at lead times from +6 to +72 hours with shaded bands indicating ±1 standard error, calculated using station observations as the reference. Results are aggregated across all 12 stations and all evaluation years from 2016 to 2022.
Figure 2: Locations of the 12 meteorological stations in Northern Norway, grouped by terrain category. Grid lines indicate 0.25∘×0.25∘ cells.
N=366,585
Model
RMSE ↓
nRMSE ↓
Bias (→0)
nBias (→0)
Corr.
HRES
2.89(0.75)
53.06(15.00)
−1.21(0.85)
−21.29(15.76)
0.685(0.088)
FCN3
2.96(0.71)
54.27(14.20)
−0.85(1.04)
−15.63(19.32)
0.648(0.088)
GraphCast
2.94(0.86)
53.43(14.61)
−1.26(0.99)
−21.40(16.68)
0.682(0.095)
Table 1: Model performance evaluated against station observations and ERA5 across all stations during 2016–2022.
Figure 3: RMSE performance of FCN3, GraphCast, and HRES across forecast lead times, stations, and years.
Figure 4: Model Performance on ETS by Beaufort force category
N=40,247
Model
RMSE ↓
nRMSE ↓
Bias (→0)
nBias (→0)
Corr.
HRES
6.05(1.88)
45.59(14.97)
−5.50(2.07)
−41.51(16.69)
0.480(0.156)
FCN3
5.77(1.96)
43.42(15.45)
−4.97(2.39)
−37.58(18.75)
0.464(0.121)
GraphCast
6.01(1.93)
45.14(14.75)
−5.43(2.16)
−40.82(16.58)
0.488(0.12)
Table 3: High-wind performance across all stations during 2016–2022.
Figure 5: Scatter plots of observed versus predicted wind speeds at four selected stations.
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Configuration
Time (hours)
Memory (GB)
FCN3
9.05–9.50
66–68
GraphCast
13.99–14.51
58–61
Appendix
Table 4: Computational requirements for the FCN3 and GraphCast experiments. Execution times and peak memory usage are reported for individual annual tasks.
Force
Description
Wind speed (m/s)
0
Calm
0.0–0.5
1
Light air
0.5–1.6
2
Light breeze
1.6–3.4
3
Gentle breeze
3.4–5.5
4
Moderate breeze
5.5–8.0
5
Fresh breeze
8.0–10.8
Appendix
Table 5: Beaufort wind force scale.
Station ID
Station
Latitude
Longitude
Elevation
Terrain label
SN91740
Sørkjosen Lufthavn
69.7900
20.9520
2.76
Fjord
SN95350
Banak
70.0600
24.9790
6.54
Fjord
SN90720
Måsvik
69.9900
18.6940
11.04
Fjord
SN90490
Tromsø-Langnes
69.6767
18.9133
8.97
Fjord
SN87110
Andøya
69.3070
16.1310
4.35
Marine Coast
SN96400
Slettnes Fyr
71.0890
28.2170
9.11
Marine Coast
Appendix
Table 6: Geographical and terrain characteristics of the 12 observation stations.
N=366,948
Model
RMSE ↓
nRMSE ↓
Bias (→0)
nBias (→0)
Corr.
HRES
1.31,(0.57)
27.17,(4.93)
−0.32,(0.58)
−4.95,(9.46)
0.853(0.036)
FCN3
1.24,(0.40)
26.13,(2.67)
0.04,(0.10)
0.81,(2.17)
0.846(0.036)
GraphCast
1.14,(0.37)
24.34,(3.80)
−0.37,(0.46)
−5.30,(9.49)
0.890(0.034)
Appendix
Table 7: Model performance evaluated against ERA5 across all stations during 2016–2022.
Model
N
RMSE ↓
nRMSE ↓
Bias (→0)
nBias (→0)
CARRA1
121,955
2.41 (0.57)
44.67 (14.20)
-0.28 (0.69)
-3.78 (10.46)
ERA5
122,615
2.71 (0.74)
50.19 (16.54)
-0.89 (1.02)
-16.47 (18.98)
Appendix
Table 8: CARRA1 and ERA5 performance against station observations.
Figure 6: Station-level lead time RMSE
Figure 7: Scatter plot for Skrova Fyr.
Figure 8: Scatter plot for Bardufoss.
Figure 9: Scatter plots of observed and predicted wind speeds at stations.
Figure 10: Station-Wise RMSE / nRMSE / Bias / nBias against Station Observations
Figure 11: Zoomed-in views of the local surroundings of the 12 stations.
Weather forecasting predicts future atmospheric conditions, from local storms to global patterns, using physical models, observations, and machine learning.
Accurate and timely weather forecasts are critical for high-impact decisions in modern society. Machine-learning-based weather prediction is emerging as an alternative for producing initial conditions, forecasts, and even both in end-to-end systems. These methods deliver predictions faster and often with higher skill than traditional numerical weather prediction (NWP). However, even end-to-end models typically rely on NWP-generated reanalyses for supervision, thereby inheriting the biases and resolution limitations of those NWPs, and limiting adaptation to settings where suitable reanalysis products are unavailable, infrequently updated, or expensive to produce. Here we introduce ObsCast, a regional system that generates both analysis and predictions, without using any NWP-derived data in either training or inference, while still achieving state-of-the-art performance in short-term high-resolution regional modeling. Over the contiguous United States and Europe, ObsCast outperforms operational NWP for near-surface variables through 18 h and produces skillful precipitation forecasts. It provides a simpler and more adaptable route to build and refine regional forecasting services directly from local observations, without the need to develop complex and costly traditional forecasting pipelines.
Pengcheng Zhao, Siqi Xiang, Weixin Jin +10
1Microsoft Corporation. · University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom. · 3The Alan Turing Institute, London, United Kingdom.
Accurate day-ahead wind-power production forecasting is increasingly important for energy system operations, market activity and balancing Great Britain's grid as wind generation grows. In this study, we train multi-site deep neural networks (DNNs) using pooled historical production and reanalysis weather data from 88 onshore wind Balancing Mechanism Units (BMUs). Forecasts are produced at 09:00 UK time for the following midnight-to-midnight delivery day, matching NESO's operational day-ahead forecasting schedule. We use reanalysis weather as future covariates during training and numerical weather prediction (NWP) forecasts during inference, extending training beyond the available historical NWP archive. Our multi-site recurrent neural network outperforms site-specific RNNs and a multi-site XGBoost model, while processing the full future-weather trajectory for the forecast horizon further improves accuracy relative to hour-aligned approaches. Our best model, an RNN with a bidirectional weather encoder (BiRNN) for NWP trajectory processing, reduces MW mean absolute error and root mean squared error relative to NESO by 17.94% and 12.51%, respectively, across 638,246 matched BMU-hour observations under conditions approximating unconstrained wind farm operations. In 40 leave-one-out trials, the BiRNN achieves lower MAE than NESO at 32 excluded sites, indicating transferable forecasting ability despite reduced accuracy when sites are omitted from training. Our capacity-estimation, data-cleaning and reanalysis-based training approach provides a basis for scaling NWP-aware multi-site forecasting to additional wind farms, longer production histories, and increased forecast accuracy beyond that seen in this study.
We present Varda-single-1.0, a medium-range data-driven weather prediction system built for the Alpine domain. It provides hourly deterministic regional forecasts on a mesh of 1 km resolution and global forecasts on a 31 km mesh. The system comprises two independently trained stretched-grid Graph Transformer models with encoder-processor-decoder architecture, developed in the Anemoi framework: a 6-hourly autoregressive forecaster and a temporal downscaler reconstructing hourly forecasts between the forecaster's steps. Its training curriculum includes pre-training on ERA5 reanalysis data, followed by training on a 20-year kilometre-scale regional reanalysis, and finally fine-tuning on operational kilometre-scale analyses. Verified over one year against operational analyses and surface station observations, Varda-single is competitive with or improves on MeteoSwiss' operational numerical weather prediction baselines for most headline scores and variables. It broadly matches the skill of the high-resolution 1 km ICON-CH1-EPS control at lead times up to +33 h and generally outperforms the 2 km ICON-CH2-EPS control at lead times up to +120 h. Despite competitive aggregate scores, Varda-single underestimates some local wind maxima and produces overly smooth convective precipitation fields, consistent with the smoothing associated with squared-error training. To gain insight into the model's behaviour, we investigate three case studies beyond the aggregated headline scores, and find particular weaknesses in Varda-single's representation of local winds over complex terrain. Varda-single represents an important step in the development of high-resolution ML forecasting over complex terrain, in complementing the operational regional numerical weather prediction models of MeteoSwiss with data-driven models and in providing a pretrained model for researchers and user-specific applications.
Alberto Pennino, Francesco Zanetta, Michele Cattaneo +28
Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology MeteoSwiss · Swiss Data Science Center (SDSC), ETH Zürich · Center for Climate Systems Modeling (C2SM), ETH Zürich +4