Exploring the Origin of the Two-Week Predictability Limit: A Revisit of Lorenz’s Predictability Studies in the 1960s

Abstract

The 1960s was an exciting era for atmospheric predictability research: a finite predictability of the atmosphere was uncovered using Lorenz’s models and the well-acknowledged predictability limit of two weeks was estimated using a general circulation model (GCM). Here, we delve into details regarding how a correlation between the two-week predictability limit and a doubling time of five days was established, recognize Lorenz’s pioneering work, and suggest non-impossibility for predictability beyond two weeks. We reevaluate the outcomes of three different approaches—dynamical, empirical, and dynamical-empirical—presented in Lorenz’s and Charney et al.’s papers from the 1960s. Using the intrinsic characteristics of the irregular solutions found in Lorenz’s studies and the dynamical approach, a doubling time of five days was estimated using the Mintz–Arakawa model and extrapolated to propose a predictability limit of approximately two weeks. This limit is now termed “Predictability Limit Hypothesis”, drawing a parallel to Moore’s Law, to recognize the combined direct and indirect influences of Lorenz, Mintz, and Arakawa under Charney’s leadership. The concept serves as a bridge between the hypothetical predictability limit and practical model capabilities, suggesting that long-range simulations are not entirely constrained by the two-week predictability hypothesis. These clarifications provide further support to the exploration of extended-range predictions using both partial differential equation (PDE)-physics-based and Artificial Intelligence (AI)—powered approaches.