History of

numerical weather
prediction

The ENIAC main control panel at the Moore School

of Electrical Engineering
The history of numerical weather
prediction considers how current
weather conditions as input into
mathematical models of the atmosphere
and oceans to predict the weather and
future sea state (the process of
numerical weather prediction) has
changed over the years. Though first
attempted manually in the 1920s, it was
not until the advent of the computer and
computer simulation that computation
time was reduced to less than the
forecast period itself. ENIAC was used to
create the first forecasts via computer in
1950, and over the years more powerful
computers have been used to increase
the size of initial datasets as well as
include more complicated versions of the
equations of motion. The development of
global forecasting models led to the first
climate models. The development of
limited area (regional) models facilitated
advances in forecasting the tracks of
tropical cyclone as well as air quality in
the 1970s and 1980s.

Because the output of forecast models

based on atmospheric dynamics requires
corrections near ground level, model
output statistics (MOS) were developed
in the 1970s and 1980s for individual
forecast points (locations). The MOS
apply statistical techniques to post-
process the output of dynamical models
with the most recent surface
observations and the forecast point's
climatology. This technique can correct
for model resolution as well as model
biases. Even with the increasing power of
supercomputers, the forecast skill of
numerical weather models only extends
to about two weeks into the future, since
the density and quality of observations—
together with the chaotic nature of the
partial differential equations used to
calculate the forecast—introduce errors
which double every five days. The use of
model ensemble forecasts since the
1990s helps to define the forecast
uncertainty and extend weather
forecasting farther into the future than
otherwise possible.

Background
Until the end of the 19th century, weather
prediction was entirely subjective and
based on empirical rules, with only
limited understanding of the physical
mechanisms behind weather processes.
In 1901 Cleveland Abbe, founder of the
United States Weather Bureau, proposed
that the atmosphere is governed by the
same principles of thermodynamics and
hydrodynamics that were studied in the
previous century.[1] In 1904, Vilhelm
Bjerknes derived a two-step procedure
for model-based weather forecasting.
First, a diagnostic step is used to process
data to generate initial conditions, which
are then advanced in time by a prognostic
step that solves the initial value
problem.[2] He also identified seven
variables that defined the state of the
atmosphere at a given point: pressure,
temperature, density, humidity, and the
three components of the flow velocity
vector. Bjerknes pointed out that
equations based on mass continuity,
conservation of momentum, the first and
second laws of thermodynamics, and the
ideal gas law could be used to estimate
the state of the atmosphere in the future
through numerical methods.[3] With the
exception of the second law of
thermodynamics,[2] these equations form
the basis of the primitive equations used
in present-day weather models.[4]

In 1922, Lewis Fry Richardson published

the first attempt at forecasting the
weather numerically. Using a hydrostatic
variation of Bjerknes's primitive
equations,[2] Richardson produced by
hand a 6-hour forecast for the state of
the atmosphere over two points in
central Europe, taking at least six weeks
to do so.[3] His forecast calculated that
the change in surface pressure would be
145 millibars (4.3 inHg), an unrealistic
value incorrect by two orders of
magnitude. The large error was caused
by an imbalance in the pressure and wind
velocity fields used as the initial
conditions in his analysis.[2]

The first successful numerical prediction

was performed using the ENIAC digital
computer in 1950 by a team composed
of American meteorologists Jule
Charney, Philip Thompson, Larry Gates,
and Norwegian meteorologist Ragnar
Fjørtoft, applied mathematician John von
Neumann, and computer programmer
Klara Dan von Neumann.[5][6] They used a
simplified form of atmospheric dynamics
based on solving the barotropic vorticity
equation over a single layer of the
atmosphere, by computing the
geopotential height of the atmosphere's
500 millibars (15 inHg) pressure
surface.[7] This simplification greatly
reduced demands on computer time and
memory, so the computations could be
performed on the relatively primitive
computers of the day.[8] When news of
the first weather forecast by ENIAC was
received by Richardson in 1950, he
remarked that the results were an
"enormous scientific advance."[2] The first
calculations for a 24‑hour forecast took
ENIAC nearly 24 hours to produce,[2] but
Charney's group noted that most of that
time was spent in "manual operations",
and expressed hope that forecasts of the
weather before it occurs would soon be
realized.[7]

An example of 500 mbar geopotential height

prediction from a numerical weather prediction
model. It also shows an Omega block.

Early years
In September 1954, Carl-Gustav Rossby
assembled an international group of
meteorologists in Stockholm and
produced the first operational forecast
(i.e. routine predictions for practical use)
based on the barotropic equation.[9]
Operational numerical weather prediction
in the United States began in 1955 under
the Joint Numerical Weather Prediction
Unit (JNWPU), a joint project by the U.S.
Air Force, Navy, and Weather Bureau.[10]
The JNWPU model was originally a three-
layer barotropic model, also developed
by Charney.[11] It only modeled the
atmosphere in the Northern
Hemisphere.[12] In 1956, the JNWPU
switched to a two-layer thermotropic
model developed by Thompson and
Gates.[11] The main assumption made by
the thermotropic model is that while the
magnitude of the thermal wind may
change, its direction does not change
with respect to height, and thus the
baroclinicity in the atmosphere can be
simulated using the 500 mb (15 inHg)
and 1,000 mb (30 inHg) geopotential
height surfaces and the average thermal
wind between them.[13][14] However, due
to the low skill showed by the
thermotropic model, the JNWPU reverted
to the single-layer barotropic model in
1958.[2] The Japanese Meteorological
Agency became the third organization to
initiate operational numerical weather
prediction in 1959.[15] The first real-time
forecasts made by Australia's Bureau of
Meteorology in 1969 for portions of the
Southern Hemisphere were also based
on the single-layer barotropic model.[16]

Later models used more complete

equations for atmospheric dynamics and
thermodynamics. In 1959, Karl-Heinz
Hinkelmann produced the first
reasonable primitive equation forecast,
37 years after Richardson's failed
attempt. Hinkelmann did so by removing
small oscillations from the numerical
model during initialization. In 1966, West
Germany and the United States began
producing operational forecasts based
on primitive-equation models, followed
by the United Kingdom in 1972 and
Australia in 1977.[2][16] Later additions to
primitive equation models allowed
additional insight into different weather
phenomena. In the United States, solar
radiation effects were added to the
primitive equation model in 1967;
moisture effects and latent heat were
added in 1968; and feedback effects
from rain on convection were
incorporated in 1971. Three years later,
the first global forecast model was
introduced.[11] Sea ice began to be
initialized in forecast models in 1971.[17]
Efforts to involve sea surface
temperature in model initialization began
in 1972 due to its role in modulating
weather in higher latitudes of the
Pacific.[18]
Global forecast models

Models use systems of differential equations based

on the laws of physics, fluid motion, and chemistry,
and use a coordinate system which divides the
planet into a 3D grid. Winds, heat transfer, radiation,
relative humidity, and surface hydrology are
calculated within each grid and evaluate interactions
with neighboring points.

A global forecast model is a weather

forecasting model which initializes and
forecasts the weather throughout the
Earth's troposphere. It is a computer
program that produces meteorological
information for future times at given
locations and altitudes. Within any
modern model is a set of equations,
known as the primitive equations, used
to predict the future state of the
atmosphere.[19] These equations—along
with the ideal gas law—are used to evolve
the density, pressure, and potential
temperature scalar fields and the flow
velocity vector field of the atmosphere
through time. Additional transport
equations for pollutants and other
aerosols are included in some primitive-
equation high-resolution models as
well.[20] The equations used are nonlinear
partial differential equations which are
impossible to solve exactly through
analytical methods,[21] with the exception
of a few idealized cases.[22] Therefore,
numerical methods obtain approximate
solutions. Different models use different
solution methods: some global models
and almost all regional models use finite
difference methods for all three spatial
dimensions, while other global models
and a few regional models use spectral
methods for the horizontal dimensions
and finite-difference methods in the
vertical.[21]

The National Meteorological Center's

Global Spectral Model was introduced
during August 1980.[12] The European
Centre for Medium-Range Weather
Forecasts model debuted on May 1,
1985.[23] The United Kingdom Met Office
has been running their global model
since the late 1980s,[24] adding a 3D-Var
data assimilation scheme in mid-
1999.[25] The Canadian Meteorological
Centre has been running a global model
since 1991.[26] The United States ran the
Nested Grid Model (NGM) from 1987 to
2000, with some features lasting as late
as 2009. Between 2000 and 2002, the
Environmental Modeling Center ran the
Aviation (AVN) model for shorter range
forecasts and the Medium Range
Forecast (MRF) model at longer time
ranges. During this time, the AVN model
was extended to the end of the forecast
period, eliminating the need of the MRF
and thereby replacing it. In late 2002, the
AVN model was renamed the Global
Forecast System (GFS).[27] The German
Weather Service has been running their
global hydrostatic model, the GME, using
a hexagonal icosahedral grid since
2002.[28] The GFS is slated to eventually
be supplanted by the Flow-following,
finite-volume Icosahedral Model (FIM),
which like the GME is gridded on a
truncated icosahedron, in the mid-2010s.

Global climate models

In 1956, Norman A. Phillips developed a
mathematical model which could
realistically depict monthly and seasonal
patterns in the troposphere, which
became the first successful climate
model.[29][30] Following Phillips's work,
several groups began working to create
general circulation models.[31] The first
general circulation climate model that
combined both oceanic and atmospheric
processes was developed in the late
1960s at the NOAA Geophysical Fluid
Dynamics Laboratory.[32] By the early
1980s, the United States' National Center
for Atmospheric Research had developed
the Community Atmosphere Model; this
model has been continuously refined into
the 2000s.[33] In 1986, efforts began to
initialize and model soil and vegetation
types, which led to more realistic
forecasts. For example, the Center for
Ocean-Land Atmosphere Studies (COLA)
model showed a warm temperature bias
of 2-4 °C (4-7 °F) and a low precipitation
bias due to incorrect parameterization of
crop and vegetation type across the
central United States.[34] Coupled ocean-
atmosphere climate models such as the
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and
Research's HadCM3 model are currently
being used as inputs for climate change
studies.[31] The importance of gravity
waves was neglected within these
models until the mid-1980s. Now, gravity
waves are required within global climate
models in order to properly simulate
regional and global scale circulations,
though their broad spectrum makes their
incorporation complicated.[35] The
Climate System Model (CSM) was
developed at the National Center for
Atmospheric Research in January
1994.[36]

Limited-area models
The horizontal domain of a model is
either global, covering the entire Earth, or
regional, covering only part of the Earth.
Regional models (also known as limited-
area models, or LAMs) allow for the use
of finer (or smaller) grid spacing than
global models. The available
computational resources are focused on
a specific area instead of being spread
over the globe. This allows regional
models to resolve explicitly smaller-scale
meteorological phenomena that cannot
be represented on the coarser grid of a
global model. Regional models use a
global model for initial conditions of the
edge of their domain in order to allow
systems from outside the regional model
domain to move into its area. Uncertainty
and errors within regional models are
introduced by the global model used for
the boundary conditions of the edge of
the regional model, as well as errors
attributable to the regional model
itself.[37]

In the United States, the first operational

regional model, the limited-area fine-
mesh (LFM) model, was introduced in
1971.[11] Its development was halted, or
frozen, in 1986. The NGM debuted in
1987 and was also used to create model
output statistics for the United States.[38]
Its development was frozen in 1991. The
ETA model was implemented for the
United States in 1993[12] and in turn was
upgraded to the NAM in 2006. The U.S.
also offers the Rapid Refresh (which
replaced the RUC in 2012) for short-
range and high-resolution applications;
both the Rapid Refresh and NAM are built
on the same framework, the WRF. Metéo
France has been running their Action de
Recherche Petite Échelle Grande Échelle
(ALADIN) mesoscale model for France,
based upon the ECMWF global model,
since 1995.[39] In July 1996, the Bureau
of Meteorology implemented the Limited
Area Prediction System (LAPS).[40] The
Canadian Regional Finite-Elements
model (RFE) went into operational use on
April 22, 1986.[41] It was followed by the
Canadian Global Environmental
Multiscale Model (GEM) mesoscale
model on February 24, 1997.[39]
The German Weather Service developed
the High Resolution Regional Model
(HRM) in 1999, which is widely run within
the operational and research
meteorological communities and run
with hydrostatic assumptions.[42] The
Antarctic Mesoscale Prediction System
(AMPS) was developed for the
southernmost continent in 2000 by the
United States Antarctic Program.[43] The
German non-hydrostatic Lokal-Modell for
Europe (LME) has been run since 2002,
and an increase in areal domain became
operational on September 28, 2005.[44]
The Japanese Meteorological Agency
has run a high-resolution, non-hydrostatic
mesoscale model since September
2004.[45]

Air quality models

Visualization of a buoyant Gaussian air pollutant

dispersion plume

The technical literature on air pollution

dispersion is quite extensive and dates
back to the 1930s and earlier. One of the
early air pollutant plume dispersion
equations was derived by Bosanquet and
Pearson.[46] Their equation did not
assume Gaussian distribution nor did it
include the effect of ground reflection of
the pollutant plume. Sir Graham Sutton
derived an air pollutant plume dispersion
equation in 1947 which did include the
assumption of Gaussian distribution for
the vertical and crosswind dispersion of
the plume and also included the effect of
ground reflection of the plume.[47] Under
the stimulus provided by the advent of
stringent environmental control
regulations, there was an immense
growth in the use of air pollutant plume
dispersion calculations between the late
1960s and today. A great many computer
programs for calculating the dispersion
of air pollutant emissions were
developed during that period of time and
they were called "air dispersion models".
The basis for most of those models was
the Complete Equation For Gaussian
Dispersion Modeling Of Continuous,
Buoyant Air Pollution Plumes The
Gaussian air pollutant dispersion
equation requires the input of H which is
the pollutant plume's centerline height
above ground level—and H is the sum of
Hs (the actual physical height of the
pollutant plume's emission source point)
plus ΔH (the plume rise due the plume's
buoyancy).
To determine ΔH, many if not most of the
air dispersion models developed
between the late 1960s and the early
2000s used what are known as "the
Briggs equations." G. A. Briggs first
published his plume rise observations
and comparisons in 1965.[48] In 1968, at
a symposium sponsored by Conservation
of Clean Air and Water in Europe, he
compared many of the plume rise
models then available in the literature.[49]
In that same year, Briggs also wrote the
section of the publication edited by
Slade[50] dealing with the comparative
analyses of plume rise models. That was
followed in 1969 by his classical critical
review of the entire plume rise
literature,[51] in which he proposed a set
of plume rise equations which have
become widely known as "the Briggs
equations". Subsequently, Briggs
modified his 1969 plume rise equations
in 1971 and in 1972.[52][53]

The Urban Airshed Model, a regional

forecast model for the effects of air
pollution and acid rain, was developed by
a private company in the USA in 1970.
Development of this model was taken
over by the Environmental Protection
Agency and improved in the mid to late
1970s using results from a regional air
pollution study. While developed in
California, this model was later used in
other areas of North America, Europe
and Asia during the 1980s.[54] The
Community Multiscale Air Quality model
(CMAQ) is an open source air quality
model run within the United States in
conjunction with the NAM mesoscale
model since 2004.[55][56] The first
operational air quality model in Canada,
Canadian Hemispheric and Regional
Ozone and NOx System (CHRONOS),
began to be run in 2001. It was replaced
with the Global Environmental Multiscale
model - Modelling Air quality and
Chemistry (GEM-MACH) model in
November 2009.[57]

Tropical cyclone models

Top: WRF model simulation of Hurricane Rita tracks.
Bottom: The spread of NHC multi-model ensemble
forecast.

During 1972, the first model to forecast

storm surge along the continental shelf
was developed, known as the Special
Program to List the Amplitude of Surges
from Hurricanes (SPLASH).[58] In 1978,
the first hurricane-tracking model based
on atmospheric dynamics – the movable
fine-mesh (MFM) model – began
operating.[11] Within the field of tropical
cyclone track forecasting, despite the
ever-improving dynamical model
guidance which occurred with increased
computational power, it was not until the
decade of the 1980s when numerical
weather prediction showed skill, and until
the 1990s when it consistently
outperformed statistical or simple
dynamical models.[59] In the early 1980s,
the assimilation of satellite-derived
winds from water vapor, infrared, and
visible satellite imagery was found to
improve tropical cyclones track
forecasting.[60] The Geophysical Fluid
Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) hurricane
model was used for research purposes
between 1973 and the mid-1980s. Once
it was determined that it could show skill
in hurricane prediction, a multi-year
transition transformed the research
model into an operational model which
could be used by the National Weather
Service in 1995.[61]

The Hurricane Weather Research and

Forecasting (HWRF) model is a
specialized version of the Weather
Research and Forecasting (WRF) model
and is used to forecast the track and
intensity of tropical cyclones. The model
was developed by the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, the
University of Rhode Island, and Florida
State University.[62] It became operational
in 2007.[63] Despite improvements in
track forecasting, predictions of the
intensity of a tropical cyclone based on
numerical weather prediction continue to
be a challenge, since statiscal methods
continue to show higher skill over
dynamical guidance.[64]

Ocean models
The first ocean wave models were
developed in the 1960s and 1970s.
These models had the tendency to
overestimate the role of wind in wave
development and underplayed wave
interactions. A lack of knowledge
concerning how waves interacted among
each other, assumptions regarding a
maximum wave height, and deficiencies
in computer power limited the
performance of the models. After
experiments were performed in 1968,
1969, and 1973, wind input from the
Earth's atmosphere was weighted more
accurately in the predictions. A second
generation of models was developed in
the 1980s, but they could not realistically
model swell nor depict wind-driven
waves (also known as wind waves)
caused by rapidly changing wind fields,
such as those within tropical cyclones.
This caused the development of a third
generation of wave models from 1988
onward.[65][66]

Within this third generation of models,

the spectral wave transport equation is
used to describe the change in wave
spectrum over changing topography. It
simulates wave generation, wave
movement (propagation within a fluid),
wave shoaling, refraction, energy transfer
between waves, and wave dissipation.[67]
Since surface winds are the primary
forcing mechanism in the spectral wave
transport equation, ocean wave models
use information produced by numerical
weather prediction models as inputs to
determine how much energy is
transferred from the atmosphere into the
layer at the surface of the ocean. Along
with dissipation of energy through
whitecaps and resonance between
waves, surface winds from numerical
weather models allow for more accurate
predictions of the state of the sea
surface.[68]

Model output statistics

Because forecast models based upon
the equations for atmospheric dynamics
do not perfectly determine weather
conditions near the ground, statistical
corrections were developed to attempt to
resolve this problem. Statistical models
were created based upon the three-
dimensional fields produced by
numerical weather models, surface
observations, and the climatological
conditions for specific locations. These
statistical models are collectively
referred to as model output statistics
(MOS),[69] and were developed by the
National Weather Service for their suite
of weather forecasting models by
1976.[70] The United States Air Force
developed its own set of MOS based
upon their dynamical weather model by
1983.[71]
Ensembles
As proposed by Edward Lorenz in 1963, it
is impossible for long-range forecasts—
those made more than two weeks in
advance—to predict the state of the
atmosphere with any degree of skill,
owing to the chaotic nature of the fluid
dynamics equations involved. Extremely
small errors in temperature, winds, or
other initial inputs given to numerical
models will amplify and double every five
days.[72] Furthermore, existing
observation networks have limited
spatial and temporal resolution (for
example, over large bodies of water such
as the Pacific Ocean), which introduces
uncertainty into the true initial state of
the atmosphere. While a set of
equations, known as the Liouville
equations, exists to determine the initial
uncertainty in the model initialization, the
equations are too complex to run in real-
time, even with the use of
supercomputers.[73] These uncertainties
limit forecast model accuracy to about
six days into the future.[74]

Edward Epstein recognized in 1969 that

the atmosphere could not be completely
described with a single forecast run due
to inherent uncertainty, and proposed a
stochastic dynamic model that produced
means and variances for the state of the
atmosphere.[75] While these Monte Carlo
simulations showed skill, in 1974 Cecil
Leith revealed that they produced
adequate forecasts only when the
ensemble probability distribution was a
representative sample of the probability
distribution in the atmosphere.[76] It was
not until 1992 that ensemble forecasts
began being prepared by the European
Centre for Medium-Range Weather
Forecasts, the Canadian Meteorological
Centre,[77] and the National Centers for
Environmental Prediction. The ECMWF
model, the Ensemble Prediction
System,[78] uses singular vectors to
simulate the initial probability density,
while the NCEP ensemble, the Global
Ensemble Forecasting System, uses a
technique known as vector
breeding.[79][80]

See also
André Robert
Atmospheric model
Frederick Gale Shuman
Timeline of scientific computing

References
1. Abbe, Cleveland (December 1901). "The
Physical Basis of Long-Range Weather
Forecasts" (PDF). Monthly Weather
Review. 29 (12): 551–61.
Bibcode:1901MWRv...29..551A .
doi:10.1175/1520-
0493(1901)29[551c:TPBOLW]2.0.CO;2 .
Retrieved 2010-12-23.
2. Lynch, Peter (2008-03-20). "The origins
of computer weather prediction and
climate modeling" (PDF). Journal of
Computational Physics. University of
Miami. 227 (7): 3431–44.
Bibcode:2008JCoPh.227.3431L .
doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2007.02.034 . Retrieved
2010-12-23.
3. Lynch, Peter (2006). "Weather
Prediction by Numerical Process". The
Emergence of Numerical Weather
Prediction. Cambridge University Press.
pp. 1–27. ISBN 978-0-521-85729-1.
4. Edwards, Paul. "Before 1955: Numerical
Models and the Prehistory of AGCMs" .
Atmospheric General Circulation
Modeling: A Participatory History.
University of Michigan. Retrieved
2010-12-23.
5. Witman, Sarah (16 June 2017). "Meet
the Computer Scientist You Should Thank
For Your Smartphone's Weather App" .
Smithsonian. Retrieved 22 July 2017.
6. Edwards, Paul N. (2010). A Vast
Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data,
and the Politics of Global Warming . The
MIT Press. ISBN 978-0262013925.
7. Charney, Jule; Fjørtoft, Ragnar; von
Neumann, John (November 1950).
"Numerical Integration of the Barotropic
Vorticity Equation". Tellus. 2 (4): 237–254.
Bibcode:1950Tell....2..237C .
doi:10.1111/j.2153-3490.1950.tb00336.x .
8. Cox, John D. (2002). Storm Watchers.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. p. 208. ISBN 0-
471-38108-X.
9. Harper, Kristine; Uccellini, Louis W.;
Kalnay, Eugenia; Carey, Kenneth; Morone,
Lauren (May 2007). "2007: 50th
Anniversary of Operational Numerical
Weather Prediction". Bulletin of the
American Meteorological Society. 88 (5):
639–650. Bibcode:2007BAMS...88..639H .
doi:10.1175/BAMS-88-5-639 .
10. American Institute of Physics (2008-
03-25). "Atmospheric General Circulation
Modeling" . Archived from the original on
2008-03-25. Retrieved 2008-01-13.
11. Shuman, Frederick G. (September
1989). "History of Numerical Weather
Prediction at the National Meteorological
Center". Weather and Forecasting. 4 (3):
286–296. Bibcode:1989WtFor...4..286S .
doi:10.1175/1520-
0434(1989)004<0286:HONWPA>2.0.CO;2
. ISSN 1520-0434 .
12. Kalnay, Eugenia (2003). Atmospheric
modeling, data assimilation and
predictability (PDF). Cambridge University
Press. pp. 1–3, 18, 20. ISBN 0-521-79179-
0. Retrieved 2011-02-25.
13. Gates, W. Lawrence; Pocinki, Leon S.;
Jenkins, Carl F. (August 1955). Results Of
Numerical Forecasting With The
Barotropic And Thermotropic Atmospheric
Models . Hanscom Air Force Base: Air
Force Cambridge Research Laboratories.
Retrieved 2011-02-11.
14. Thompson, P. D.; W. Lawrence Gates
(April 1956). "A Test of Numerical
Prediction Methods Based on the
Barotropic and Two-Parameter Baroclinic
Models". Journal of Meteorology. 13 (2):
127–141. Bibcode:1956JAtS...13..127T .
doi:10.1175/1520-
0469(1956)013<0127:ATONPM>2.0.CO;2 .
ISSN 1520-0469 .
15. Ichikawa, Atsunobu (2004). Global
warming - the research challenges: a
report of Japan's global warming
initiative . Springer. p. 66. ISBN 978-1-
4020-2940-0.
16. Leslie, L.M.; Dietachmeyer, G.S.
(December 1992). "Real-time limited area
numerical weather prediction in Australia:
a historical perspective" (PDF). Australian
Meteorological Magazine. Bureau of
Meteorology. 41 (SP): 61–77. Retrieved
2011-01-03.
17. Stensrud, David J. (2007).
Parameterization schemes: keys to
understanding numerical weather
prediction models . Cambridge University
Press. p. 137. ISBN 978-0-521-86540-1.
18. Houghton, John Theodore (1985). The
Global Climate . Cambridge University
Press archive. pp. 49–50. ISBN 978-0-521-
31256-1.
19. Pielke, Roger A. (2002). Mesoscale
Meteorological Modeling. Academic
Press. pp. 48–49. ISBN 0-12-554766-8.
20. Pielke, Roger A. (2002). Mesoscale
Meteorological Modeling. Academic
Press. pp. 18–19. ISBN 0-12-554766-8.
21. Strikwerda, John C. (2004). Finite
difference schemes and partial differential
equations . SIAM. pp. 165–170. ISBN 978-
0-89871-567-5.
22. Pielke, Roger A. (2002). Mesoscale
Meteorological Modeling. Academic
Press. p. 65. ISBN 0-12-554766-8.
23. European Center for Medium Range
Forecasts (2002-01-21). "Brief history of
the ECMWF analysis and forecasting
system" . Archived from the original on
2011-02-01. Retrieved 2011-02-25.
24. British Atmospheric Data Centre
(2007-01-05). "The History of the Unified
Model" . Retrieved 2011-03-06.
25. Candy, Brett, Stephen English, Richard
Renshaw, and Bruce Macpherson (2004-
02-27). "Use of AMSU data in the Met
Office UK Mesoscale Model" (PDF).
Cooperative Institute for Meteorological
Satellite Studies. p. 1. Retrieved
2011-03-06.
26. Ritchie, H.; C. Beaudouin (1994).
"Approximations and Sensitivity
Experiments with a Baroclinic Semi-
Lagrangian Spectral Model". Monthly
Weather Review. 122 (10): 2395.
Bibcode:1994MWRv..122.2391R .
doi:10.1175/1520-
0493(1994)122<2391:aasewa>2.0.co;2 .
27. Environmental Modeling Center
(2010). "Model Changes Since 1991" .
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. Retrieved 2011-02-25.
28. Eikenberg, S., K. Frohlich, A. Seifert, S.
Crewell, and M. Mech (2011-02-25).
"Evaluation of ice and snow content in the
global numerical weather prediction
model GME with CloudSat" (PDF).
Geoscientific Model Development. 4: 422.
Bibcode:2011GMDD....4..419E .
doi:10.5194/gmdd-4-419-2011 . Retrieved
2011-03-15.
29. Phillips, Norman A. (April 1956). "The
general circulation of the atmosphere: a
numerical experiment". Quarterly Journal
of the Royal Meteorological Society. 82
(352): 123–154.
Bibcode:1956QJRMS..82..123P .
doi:10.1002/qj.49708235202 .
30. Cox, John D. (2002). Storm Watchers.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. p. 210. ISBN 0-
471-38108-X.
31. Lynch, Peter (2006). "The ENIAC
Integrations". The Emergence of
Numerical Weather Prediction. Cambridge
University Press. pp. 206–208. ISBN 978-
0-521-85729-1.
32.
http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/brea
kthroughs/climate_model/welcome.html
33. Collins, William D.; et al. (June 2004).
"Description of the NCAR Community
Atmosphere Model (CAM 3.0)" (PDF).
University Corporation for Atmospheric
Research. Retrieved 2011-01-03.
34. Xue, Yongkang; Michael J. Fennessey
(1996-03-20). "Impact of vegetation
properties on U. S. summer weather
prediction" (PDF). Journal of Geophysical
Research. American Geophysical Union.
101 (D3): 7419.
Bibcode:1996JGR...101.7419X .
doi:10.1029/95JD02169 . Archived from
the original (PDF) on 2010-07-10.
Retrieved 2011-01-06.
35. McGuffie, K.; A. Henderson-Sellers
(2005). A climate modelling primer. John
Wiley and Sons. p. 188. ISBN 978-0-470-
85751-9.
36. Washington, Warren (2006). Odyssey
in Climate Modeling, Global Warming, and
Advising Five Presidents (2 ed.).
Lulu.com. p. 62. ISBN 978-1-4303-1696-1.
37. Warner, Thomas Tomkins (2010).
Numerical Weather and Climate
Prediction . Cambridge University Press.
p. 259. ISBN 978-0-521-51389-0.
38. Explanation of Current NGM MOS .
National Weather Service Meteorological
Development Lab (1999). Retrieved 2010-
05-15.
39. Côté, Jean, Sylvie Gravel, André
Méthot, Alain Patoine, Michel Roch, and
Andrew Staniforth (June 1998). "The
Operational CMC–MRB Global
Environmental Multiscale (GEM) Model.
Part I: Design Considerations and
Formulation". Monthly Weather Review.
American Meteorological Society. 126 (6):
1373–1374.
Bibcode:1998MWRv..126.1373C .
doi:10.1175/1520-
0493(1998)126<1373:TOCMGE>2.0.CO;2 .
ISSN 1520-0493 .
40. Puri, K., G. S. Dietachmayer, G. A. Mills,
N. E. Davidson, R. A. Bowen, L. W. Logan
(September 1998). "The new BMRC
Limited Area Prediction System, LAPS".
Australian Meteorological Magazine. 47
(3): 203–223.
41. R. Benoit; J. Côté; J. Mailhot (August
1989). "Inclusion of a TKE Boundary Layer
Parameterization in the Canadian Regional
Finite-Element Model". Monthly Weather
Review. American Meteorological Society.
117 (8): 1726–1750.
Bibcode:1989MWRv..117.1726B .
doi:10.1175/1520-
0493(1989)117<1726:IOATBL>2.0.CO;2 .
ISSN 1520-0493 .
42. Brazilian Navy Hydrographic Center
(2009-09-29). "HRM - Atmospheric
Model" . Archived from the original on
2012-04-03. Retrieved 2011-03-15.
43. Masciadri, Elena; Marc Sarazin (2009).
Optical turbulence: astronomy meets
meteorology : proceedings of the optical
turbulence characterization for
astronomical applications, Sardinia, Italy,
15–18 September 2008 . Imperial College
Press. p. 173. ISBN 978-1-84816-485-7.
44. Schultz, J.-P. (2006). "The New Lokal-
Modell LME of the German Weather
Service" (PDF). Consortium for Small-
scale Modeling (6). Retrieved 2011-03-15.
45. Narita, Masami; Shiro Ohmori (2007-
08-06). "3.7 Improving Precipitation
Forecasts by the Operational
Nonhydrostatic Mesoscale Model with the
Kain-Fritsch Convective Parameterization
and Cloud Microphysics" (PDF). 12th
Conference on Mesoscale Processes.
American Meteorological Society.
Retrieved 2011-02-15.
46. Bosanquet, C. H. and Pearson, J. L.,
"The spread of smoke and gases from
chimneys", Transactions of the Faraday
Society, 32:1249, 1936
47. Sutton, O. G., "The problem of diffusion
in the lower atmosphere", Quarterly
Journal of the Royal Meteorological
Society, 73:257, 1947 and "The theoretical
distribution of airborne pollution from
factory chimneys", Quarterly Journal of the
Royal Meteorological Society, 73:426,
1947
48. Briggs, G. A., "A plume rise model
compared with observations", Journal of
the Air Pollution Control Association,
15:433–438, 1965
49. Briggs, G.A., "CONCAWE meeting:
discussion of the comparative
consequences of different plume rise
formulas", Atmospheric Environment,
2:228–232, 1968
50. Slade, D. H. (editor), "Meteorology and
atomic energy 1968", Air Resources
Laboratory, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1968
51. Briggs, G. A., "Plume Rise", United
States Army Environmental Command
Critical Review Series, 1969
52. Briggs, G. A., "Some recent analyses of
plume rise observation", Proceedings of
the Second International Clean Air
Congress, Academic Press, New York,
1971
53. Briggs, G. A., "Discussion: chimney
plumes in neutral and stable
surroundings", Atmospheric Environment,
6:507–510, 1972
54. Steyn, D. G. (1991). Air pollution
modeling and its application VIII, Volume
8. Birkhäuser. pp. 241–242. ISBN 978-0-
306-43828-8.
55. Community Modeling; Analysis
System Center (June 2010). "Welcome to
CMAQ-Model.org" . University of North
Carolina-Chapel Hill. Archived from the
original on December 11, 2009. Retrieved
2011-02-25.
56. Marz, Loren C. (2009-11-04). "North
American Mesoscale (NAM) - Community
Multi-scale Air Quality (CMAQ) Ozone
Forecast Verification for Knoxville,
Tennessee (Summer 2005)" . Retrieved
2011-02-25.
57. Anselmo, David, Michael D. Moran,
Sylvain Ménard, Véronique S. Bouchet,
Paul A. Makar, Wanmin Gong, Alexander
Kallaur, Paul-André Beaulieu, Hugo Landry,
Craig Stroud, Ping Huang, Sunling Gong,
and Donald Talbot (2010). "J10.4: A New
Canadian Air Quality Forecast Model:
GEM-MACH15" (PDF). 16th Conference
on Air Pollution Meteorology. American
Meteorological Society. Retrieved
2011-02-25.
58. Jelesnianski, C. P., J. Chen, and W. A.
Shaffer (April 1992). "SLOSH: Sea, lake,
and Overland Surges from Hurricanes.
NOAA Technical Report NWS 48" (PDF).
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. p. 2. Retrieved 2011-03-15.
59. Franklin, James (2010-04-20).
"National Hurricane Center Forecast
Verification" . National Hurricane Center.
Retrieved 2011-01-02.
60. Le Marshall; J. F.; L. M. Leslie; A. F.
Bennett (1996). "Tropical Cyclone Beti - an
Example of the Benefits of Assimilating
Hourly Satellite Wind Data" (PDF).
Australian Meteorological Magazine. 45:
275.
61. Geophysical Fluid Dynamics
Laboratory (2011-01-28). "Operational
Hurricane Track and Intensity
Forecasting" . National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved
2011-02-25.
62. "Weather Forecast Accuracy Gets
Boost with New Computer Model" . UCAR
press release. Retrieved 2007-07-09.
63. "New Advanced Hurricane Model Aids
NOAA Forecasters" . NOAA Magazine.
Retrieved 2007-07-09.
64. Rappaport, Edward N.; Franklin, James
L.; Avila, Lixion A.; Baig, Stephen R.; Beven
II, John L.; Blake, Eric S.; Burr, Christopher
A.; Jiing, Jiann-Gwo; Juckins, Christopher
A.; Knabb, Richard D.; Landsea,
Christopher W.; Mainelli, Michelle;
Mayfield, Max; McAdie, Colin J.; Pasch,
Richard J.; Sisko, Christopher; Stewart,
Stacy R.; Tribble, Ahsha N. (April 2009).
"Advances and Challenges at the National
Hurricane Center". Weather and
Forecasting. 24 (2): 395–419.
Bibcode:2009WtFor..24..395R .
doi:10.1175/2008WAF2222128.1 .
65. Komen, G. J., L. Cavaleri, M. Donelan
(1996). Dynamics and modelling of ocean
waves . Cambridge University Press.
p. 205. ISBN 978-0-521-57781-6.
66. Robinson, Ian S. (2010).
Understanding the Oceans from Space:
The Unique Applications of Satellite
Oceanography . Springer. p. 320.
ISBN 978-3-540-24430-1.
67. Lin, Pengzhi (2008). Numerical
modeling of water waves . Psychology
Press. p. 270. ISBN 978-0-415-41578-1.
68. Bender, Leslie C. (January 1996).
"Modification of the Physics and Numerics
in a Third-Generation Ocean Wave Model".
Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic
Technology. 13 (3): 726.
Bibcode:1996JAtOT..13..726B .
doi:10.1175/1520-
0426(1996)013<0726:MOTPAN>2.0.CO;2 .
ISSN 1520-0426 .
69. Baum, Marsha L. (2007). When nature
strikes: weather disasters and the law .
Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 189.
ISBN 978-0-275-22129-4.
70. Harry Hughes (1976). Model output
statistics forecast guidance. United States
Air Force Environmental Technical
Applications Center. pp. 1–16.
71. L. Best; D. L.; S. P. Pryor (1983). Air
Weather Service Model Output Statistics
Systems. Air Force Global Weather
Central. pp. 1–90.
72. Cox, John D. (2002). Storm Watchers.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. pp. 222–224.
ISBN 0-471-38108-X.
73. Manousos, Peter (2006-07-19).
"Ensemble Prediction Systems" .
Hydrometeorological Prediction Center.
Retrieved 2010-12-31.
74. Weickmann, Klaus, Jeff Whitaker,
Andres Roubicek and Catherine Smith
(2001-12-01). The Use of Ensemble
Forecasts to Produce Improved Medium
Range (3–15 days) Weather Forecasts.
Climate Diagnostics Center. Retrieved
2007-02-16.
75. Epstein, E.S. (December 1969).
"Stochastic dynamic prediction". Tellus. 21
(6): 739–759.
Bibcode:1969Tell...21..739E .
doi:10.1111/j.2153-3490.1969.tb00483.x .
76. Leith, C.E. (June 1974). "Theoretical
Skill of Monte Carlo Forecasts". Monthly
Weather Review. 102 (6): 409–418.
Bibcode:1974MWRv..102..409L .
doi:10.1175/1520-
0493(1974)102<0409:TSOMCF>2.0.CO;2 .
ISSN 1520-0493 .
77. Houtekamer, Petere; Gérard Pellerin
(2004-11-12). "The Canadian ensemble
prediction system (EPS)" (PDF).
Environmental Modeling Center. Retrieved
2011-03-06.
78. "The Ensemble Prediction System
(EPS)" . ECMWF. Archived from the
original on 2010-10-30. Retrieved
2011-01-05.
79. Toth, Zoltan; Kalnay, Eugenia
(December 1997). "Ensemble Forecasting
at NCEP and the Breeding Method".
Monthly Weather Review. 125 (12): 3297–
3319. Bibcode:1997MWRv..125.3297T .
doi:10.1175/1520-
0493(1997)125<3297:EFANAT>2.0.CO;2 .
ISSN 1520-0493 .
80. Molteni, F.; Buizza, R.; Palmer, T.N.;
Petroliagis, T. (January 1996). "The
ECMWF Ensemble Prediction System:
Methodology and validation". Quarterly
Journal of the Royal Meteorological
Society. 122 (529): 73–119.
Bibcode:1996QJRMS.122...73M .
doi:10.1002/qj.49712252905 .
Retrieved from
"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=History_of_numerical_weather_prediction&ol
did=845731325"

Last edited 5 months ago by Inver…

Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless

otherwise noted.