the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Evaluating Skill and Stability of ArchesWeather and ArchesWeatherGen under Multi-Decadal Climate Simulations
Abstract. We evaluate the climate simulation capabilities of ArchesWeather and ArchesWeatherGen, two machine learning models originally trained for weather forecasting and evaluated up to a 10-day lead time. ArchesWeather is a deterministic model, while ArchesWeatherGen is a probabilistic flow-matching model leveraging ArchesWeather's forecasts, enabling ensemble based uncertainty quantification. In this work, we adapt these models to act as forced atmospheric models by using additional conditioning on the monthly mean sea surface temperature (SST) and sea ice cover (SIC) as boundary conditions. In particular, we follow the AI Model Intercomparison Project (AIMIP) Phase 1 protocol, which, analogous to the Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP), proposes a standardized experimental setup to evaluate the climate skill of machine learning based forced atmospheric models. We present a comprehensive evaluation of both models under these conditions, including comparison against numerical climate models, ablation studies that examine key design choices in the extension, and an analysis of forced versus unforced configurations. Despite being originally developed for weather forecasting, we demonstrate that forced configurations of ArchesWeather and ArchesWeatherGen produce stable long-term climate simulations, have a stable annual cycle, and capture the drift of many climate variables. The models faithfully reproduce ERA5's climatology, large-scale circulations and interannual variability, and they capture the tails of the distributions.
Status: open (until 17 Sep 2026)
-
CEC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3782 - No compliance with the policy of the journal', Juan Antonio Añel, 07 Aug 2026
reply
-
CC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Robert Brunstein, 10 Aug 2026
reply
Dear Editor,
thank your for pointing this out. We will address your concerns regarding data availability and repository structure and respond again immediately when we resolved this issue.
Best regards,
Robert BrunsteinCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3782-CC1
-
CC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Robert Brunstein, 10 Aug 2026
reply
Data sets
ERA5 Bill Bell, Hans Hersbach, Adrian Simmons, Paul Berrisford, Per Dahlgren, András Horányi, Joaquín Muñoz-Sabater, Julien Nicolas, Raluca Radu, Dinand Schepers, Cornel Soci, Sebastien Villaume, Jean-Raymond Bidlot, Leo Haimberger, Jack Woollen, Carlo Buontempo, and Jean-Noël Thépaut https://doi.org/10.24381/cds.adbb2d47
AIMIP forcing dataset Troy Arcomano, Brian Henn, and Christopher Bretherton https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16782372
Model code and software
Geoarches Guillaume Couairon, Renu Singh, and Robert Brunstein https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20784770
Interactive computing environment
Geoarches Documentation Renu Singh, Aymeric Delefosse, and Adrien Le Coz https://geoarches.readthedocs.io/en/latest/archesweather/run/
Viewed
Since the preprint corresponding to this journal article was posted outside of Copernicus Publications, the preprint-related metrics are limited to HTML views.
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 188 | 0 | 1 | 189 | 0 | 0 |
- HTML: 188
- PDF: 0
- XML: 1
- Total: 189
- BibTeX: 0
- EndNote: 0
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Since the preprint corresponding to this journal article was posted outside of Copernicus Publications, the preprint-related metrics are limited to HTML views.
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Dear authors,
Unfortunately, after checking your manuscript, it has come to our attention that it does not comply with our "Code and Data Policy".
First, the "Code and Data Availability" section in your manuscript points to some GitHub sites. However, GitHub is not a suitable repository for scientific publication. GitHub itself instructs authors to use other long-term archival and publishing alternatives, such as Zenodo. Internally in the system, you have shared several repositories and sites containing additional information. The problem here is that the mentioned information is not available for Discussions, as it should be, and openly available.
The GMD review and publication process depends on reviewers and community commentators being able to access, during the discussion phase, the code and data on which a manuscript depends, and on ensuring the provenance of replicability of the published papers for years after their publication. Therefore, I am publishing here the information shared internally to the editors so that all the readers have access to it, and the Discussions stage is developed with guarantees:
I must note that if you do not fix this problem, we cannot accept your manuscript for publication in GMD.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor