
Google has a new AI model and website for forecasting tropical storms
Google is using a new AI model to forecast tropical cyclones and working with the US National Hurricane Center (NHC) to test it out.
Google DeepMind and Google Research launched a new website today called Weather Lab to share AI weather models that Google is developing. It says its new, experimental AI-based model for forecasting cyclones — also called typhoons or hurricanes when they reach a certain strength — can generate 50 different scenarios for a storm's possible track, size, and intensity up to 15 days in advance. The NHC is working with Google to evaluate the effectiveness of the model.
The collaboration comes after the Trump administration and DOGE slashed the National Weather Service's staff and capacity for federal climate and weather research. Other companies and weather agencies are also exploring whether AI can improve forecasts, but technological advances so far don't eliminate the need for traditional weather models.
Google released a research paper today, which has yet to be peer-reviewed, on how its tropical cyclone model works. It claims that its model's predictions are at least as accurate as those of traditional physics-based models. We'll have to see what the National Hurricane Center's rating of it is as the Atlantic hurricane season churns through November.
For now, the aim is to strengthen NHC's forecasting in order to give people more accurate warnings and time to prepare for a storm. According to Google, its model's five-day predictions for cyclone tracks in the North Atlantic and East Pacific were 87 miles (140 km) closer, on average, to the storm's actual track than predictions from the European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) in 2023 and 2024.
Weather Lab's interactive website lets people see how AI models compare to the ECMWF's physics-based models. But Google is emphasizing that its website is just a research tool for now — not something the public should rely on for forecasts.
Google's cyclone model is trained on data from Europe's ERA5 archive, which includes hundreds of millions of observations collected by weather agencies around the world combined with predictions from a traditional weather model. The company also used ERA5 to train its previous AI weather prediction model GenCast. That model outperformed one of ECMWF's leading physics-based models 97.2 percent of the time, according to research published in the journal Nature in December 2024.
Animation showing the Google model's prediction for Cyclone Alfred when it was a Category 3 cyclone in the Coral Sea. The model's ensemble mean prediction (bold blue line) correctly anticipated Cyclone Alfred's rapid weakening to tropical storm status and eventual landfall near Brisbane, Australia, seven days later, with a high probability of landfall somewhere along the Queensland coast. Credit: Google
The company says it's also working with the Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere at Colorado State University and other researchers in the UK and Japan to improve its AI weather models.
The importance of real-world observations and older weather models in developing these new kinds of tools is one reason why AI is so far only poised to assist traditional weather forecasting instead of replacing it. Adjusting to a changing climate will also hinge on the ability to collect and analyze new data on increasingly extreme and erratic weather events.
How well the US can keep up with this kind of research, however, is a growing concern under the Trump administration. DOGE's rampage through the federal government has taken its toll at the federal agency that houses the NHC and the National Weather Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The National Weather Service reduced the number of weather balloon launches after staffing cuts, and NOAA is increasingly relying on weather balloon data from private companies. Project 2025 called for dismantling NOAA — which leads climate research on top of providing weather forecasts — and privatizing much of its services. Some advocates are raising alarm over the prospect of turning weather forecasts into a paid product instead of a free service available to anyone and everyone.
'For a long time, weather has been viewed as a public good, and I think, you know, most of us agree with that … Hopefully we can contribute to that, and that's why we're trying to kind of partner with the public sector,' Peter Battaglia, a research scientist at Google DeepMind, said in a press call when The Verge asked about concerns surrounding privatizing weather services.
Tellingly, Google's announcement today doesn't mention the climate crisis like the company has in previous launches for this kind of program. 'As climate change drives more extreme weather events, accurate and trustworthy forecasts are more essential than ever,' it said in a December 4 announcement for GenCast.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Vox
10 minutes ago
- Vox
What drove the tech right's — and Elon Musk's — big, failed bet on Trump
is a senior writer at Future Perfect, Vox's effective altruism-inspired section on the world's biggest challenges. She explores wide-ranging topics like climate change, artificial intelligence, vaccine development, and factory farms, and also writes the Future Perfect newsletter. While tech has generally been very liberal in its political support and giving, there's been an emergence of a real and influential tech right over the last few years. Allison Robbert/AFP via Getty Images I live and work in the San Francisco Bay Area, and I don't know anyone who says they voted for Donald Trump in 2016 or 2020. I know, on the other hand, quite a few who voted for him in 2024, and quite a few more who — while they didn't vote for Trump because of his many crippling personal foibles, corruption, penchant for destroying the global economy, etc. — have thoroughly soured on the Democratic Party. Future Perfect Explore the big, complicated problems the world faces and the most efficient ways to solve them. Sent twice a week. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. It's not just my professional networks. While tech has generally been very liberal in its political support and giving, the last few years have seen the emergence of a real and influential tech right. Elon Musk, of course, is by far the most famous, but he didn't start the tech right by himself. And while his break with Trump — which Musk now seems to be backpedaling on — might have changed his role within the tech right, I don't think this shift will end with him. The rise of the tech right The Bay Area tech scene has always to my mind been best understood as left-libertarian — socially liberal, but suspicious of big government and excited about new things from cryptocurrency to charter cities to mosquito gene drives to genetically engineered superbabies to tooth bacteria. That array of attitudes sometimes puts them at odds with governments (and much of the public, which tends to be much less welcoming of new technology). The tech world valorizes founders and doers, and everyone knows two or three stories about a company that only succeeded because it was willing to break some city regulations. Lots of founders are immigrants; lots are LGBTQ+. For a long time, this set of commitments put tech firmly on the political left — and indeed tech employees overwhelmingly vote and donate to the Democratic Party. Related The AI that apparently wants Elon Musk to die But over the last 10 years, I think three things changed. The first was what Vox at the time called the Great Awokening — a sweeping adoption of what had been a bunch of niche liberal social justice ideas, from widespread acceptance of trans people to suspicion of any sex or race disparity in hiring to #MeToo awareness of sexual harassment in the workplace. A lot of this shift at tech companies was employee driven; again, tech employees are mostly on the left. And some of it was good! But some of it was illiberal — rejecting the idea that we can and should work with people we profoundly disagree with — and identitarian, in that it focused more on what demographic categories we belong to than our commonalities. We're now in the middle of a backlash, which I think is all the more intense in tech because the original woke movement was all the more intense in tech. The second thing that changed was the macroeconomic environment. When I first joined a tech company in 2017, interest rates were low and VC funding was incredibly easy to get. Startups were everywhere, and companies were desperately competing to hire employees. As a result, employees had a lot of power; CEOs were often scared of them. The third was a deliberate effort by many liberals to go after a tech scene they saw as their enemy. The Biden administration ended up staffed by a lot of people ideologically committed to Sen. Elizabeth Warren's view of the world, where big tech was the enemy of liberal democracy and the tools of antitrust should be used to break it up. Lina Khan's Federal Trade Commission acted on those convictions, going after big tech companies like Amazon. Whether you think this was the right call in economic terms — I mostly think it was not — it was decidedly self-destructive in political terms. So in 2024, some of tech (still not a majority, but a smaller minority than in the past two Trump elections) went right. The tech world watched with bated breath as Musk announced DOGE: Would the administration bring about the deregulation, tax cuts, and anti-woke wish list they believed that only the administration could? …and the immediate failure The answer so far has been no. (Many people on the tech right are still more optimistic than me, and point at a small handful of victories, but my assessment is that they're wearing rose-colored glasses to the point of outright blindness.) Some deregulation has happened, but any beneficial effects it would have had on investment have been more than canceled out by the tariffs' catastrophic effects on businesses' ability to plan for the future. They did at least get the tax cuts for the rich, if the 'big, beautiful bill' passes, but that's about all they got — and the ultra-rich will be poorer this year anyway thanks to the unsteady stock market. The Republicans, when out of power, had a critique of the Democrats which spoke to the tech right, the populist right, the white supremacists and moderate Black and Latino voters alike. But it's much easier to complain about Democrats in a way that all of those disparate interest groups find compelling than to govern in a way that keeps them all happy. Once the Trump administration actually had to choose, it chose basically none of the tech right's priorities. They took a bad bet — and I think it'd behoove the Democrats to think, as Trump's coalition fractures, about which of those voters can be won back.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Britain says Google's online-ad commitments no longer needed
LONDON (Reuters) -Britain's antitrust regulator said commitments it secured from Google in 2022 related to online advertising were no longer needed after the tech company decided against a standalone prompt for third-party cookies in April. The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) had been concerned that Google's original plan to downgrade third-party cookies could have weakened competition in digital advertising. In 2022 it accepted commitments from Google that addressed its concerns about its "privacy sandbox" proposals, specifically around plans to remove some third-party cookies from its Chrome browser. "The CMA believes the commitments are no longer necessary and is now consulting before it takes a decision on whether to release them later this year," it said on Friday.


Scientific American
20 minutes ago
- Scientific American
Quantum Computers Simulate Particle 'String Breaking' in a Physics Breakthrough
Subatomic particles such as quarks can pair up when linked by 'strings' of force fields — and release energy when the strings are pulled to the point of breaking. Two teams of physicists have now used quantum computers to mimic this phenomenon and watch it unfold in real time. The results, described in two Nature papers on June 4, are the latest in a series of breakthroughs towards using quantum computers for simulations that are beyond the ability of any ordinary computers. 'String breaking is a very important process that is not yet fully understood from first principles,' says Christian Bauer, a physicist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) in Berkeley, California. Physicists can calculate the final results of particle collisions that form or break strings using classical computers, but cannot fully simulate what happens in between. The success of the quantum simulations is 'incredibly encouraging,' Bauer says. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. String simulations Each experiment was conducted by an international collaboration involving academic and industry researchers — one team at QuEra Computing, a start-up company in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and another at the Google Quantum AI Lab in Santa Barbara, California. The researchers using QuEra's Aquila machine encoded information in atoms that were arranged in a 2D honeycomb pattern, each suspended in place by an optical 'tweezer'. The quantum state of each atom — a qubit that could be excited or relaxed — represented the electric field at a point in space, explains co-author Daniel González-Cuadra, a theoretical physicist now at the Institute for Theoretical Physics in Madrid. In the other experiment, researchers encoded the 2D quantum field in the states of superconducting loops on Google's Sycamore chip. The teams used diametrically opposite quantum-simulation philosophies. The atoms in Aquila were arranged so that the electrostatic forces between them mimicked the behaviour of the electric field, and continuously evolved towards their own states of lower energy — an approach called analogue quantum simulation. The Google machine was instead used as a 'digital' quantum simulator: the superconducting loops were made to follow the evolution of the quantum field 'by hand', through a discrete sequence of manipulations. In both cases, the teams set up strings in the field that effectively acted like rubber bands connecting two particles. Depending on how the researchers tuned the parameters, the strings could be stiff or wobbly, or could break up. 'In some cases, the whole string just dissolves: the particles become deconfined,' says Frank Pollmann, a physicist at the Technical University of Munich (TUM) in Garching, Germany, who helped to lead the Google experiment. Fast progress Although simulating strings in a 2D electric field could have applications for studying the physics of materials, it is still a long way from fully simulating high-energy interactions, such as those that occur in particle colliders, which are in 3D and involve the much more complex strong nuclear force. 'We do not have a clear path at this point how to get there,' says Monika Aidelsburger, a physicist at the Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics in Munich, Germany. Still, the latest results are exciting, and progress in quantum simulation in general has been 'really amazing and very fast,' Aidelsburger says. Last year, Bauer and his LBNL colleague Anthony Ciavarella were among the first teams to simulate the strong nuclear force on a quantum computer. Approaches that replace qubits with qudits — which can have more than two quantum states and can be more realistic representations of a quantum field — could also make simulations more powerful, researchers say.