They are not programmed with "if the pressure rises here then there will be a Scandinavian high over here, because that's what happened in 19xx".
Originally Posted by: Rob K
True enough, although it's worth mentioning that's how Graphcast works, the new ECM/Google ML model.
The holy grail would be merging the two codebases, but that'd be a hell of a job. In other words, "the physics over our grid points would say x will happen, but checking with ML shows that 9 out of 10 times something pops up and messes it up, so we'll go with that instead".
You could call it the "No white Christmases ever again for Kent" model! 😂
(There were also "bias corrected" versions of some models available in the past, but the difference between those and the normal models was minimal at best in terms of overall accuracy. It could well be that there are certain tweaks applied to the traditional models to reduce known errors...)
And doing more digging, how's this for interesting? It's from the GFS changelog back in 2019.
https://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/emc/docs/FV3GFS_OD_Briefs_10-01-18_4-1-2019.pdf Initial discovery of odd convection in FV3GFS (Mark Klein, WPC)
Fixed an issue with climatological tendencies applied to the model (4x/day!)
Fit-to-radiosondes
GFS and FV3GFS winds too weak, but FV3GFS is closer to obs.
FV3GFS winds better in troposphere but worse in stratosphere
Fit-to-analyses FV3GFS reduced GFS cold bias in middle to upper stratosphere.
FV3GFS wind RMS worse in stratosphere but comparable to EC