Mikko Partio, Leila Hieta, Ossi Lainecs.LG physics.ao-ph
Accurate cloud-cover forecasts are important for temperature prediction, radiation forecasting, and solar-power operations. Short-range forecasting methods can preserve observed cloud placement during the first forecast hours, but their skill decreases when cloud fields evolve through formation, dissipation and deformation. Longer lead times require accounting for atmospheric evolution, but operational numerical weather prediction (NWP) forecasts may not accurately represent the satellite-observed cloud state at initialization. We develop CloudCast v2, a machine-learning model for 12-hour cloud-cover forecasting from observation-based initial conditions. The model is first trained on the Copernicus European Regional Reanalysis (Ridal2024) to learn cloud-evolution dynamics, and is then adapted to satellite-derived cloud fields using conditional flow matching (Lipman2023), a generative method that transforms noise into cloud-cover forecasts conditioned on the observed initial cloud fields and NWP inputs. CloudCast v2 reduces mean absolute error by 10% relative to its predecessor, CloudCast v1 (Partio2025), over the 1-12 h range. It also overtakes CloudCast v1 in fractions skill score, a neighborhood-based measure of spatial agreement, after approximately 3-6 h, depending on the cloudiness category. These results show that observation-initialized machine-learning forecasts can extend beyond the usual 1-3-hour nowcasting range while retaining spatial detail from satellite cloud fields.
Recent evidence reported by Tully, Longoni, and Appel (2025) suggests that lower artificial intelligence (AI) literacy predicts greater receptivity toward AI. We revisit this claim using the public data from Study 3 of that article, which measures past usage of five AI tool categories on a five-point frequency scale. We first reproduce the negative association between AI literacy and aggregate AI usage using OLS on participant-level averages, binary logit, ordered logit, and multinomial logit specifications. We then show that the aggregate relationship masks substantial heterogeneity by tool type. In our demographic-adjusted primary specification, AI literacy does not significantly predict text AI usage (ordered-logit $β$ = -0.090, p = .387), whereas it remains a strong predictor of non-text AI adoption ($β$ = -0.377, p < .001). The non-text effect is also robust under Tully et al.'s original Study 3 control specification ($β$ = -0.502, p < .001). Binary, ordered-logit, and multinomial specifications suggest that the non-text relationship is primarily an adoption/non-adoption pattern rather than evidence of intensive use: the demographic-adjusted odds ratio of ever having used a non-text AI tool is 0.68. Thus, in the study that measures self-reported past usage rather than stated preferences, the evidence does not support a simple claim that lower AI literacy predicts greater receptivity to AI in general. It points instead to a narrower pattern of broader adoption across lower-penetration, non-text AI tools.