- Property & Casualty
- Life & Health
- Knowledge Center
-
About Us
About Us OverviewCorporate Information
TOP
Weather and climate hazards remain among the most material sources of uncertainty for insurers and reinsurers, shaping loss experience across property, agricultural, marine, and energy lines, including associated business-interruption coverages. Tropical cyclones, floods, hail, drought, and wildfires generate both frequent attritional losses and rare, severe tail events that strain capital, challenge catastrophe models, and test the adequacy of reinsurance protections. In this setting, the accuracy, timeliness, and probabilistic quality of forecasts are not merely scientific concerns; they are operational inputs to underwriting selection, claims-surge management, reinsurance structuring, and regulatory capital.
The industry has long depended on numerical weather prediction (NWP), which integrates the governing equations of atmospheric motion and thermodynamics on computational grids. Skill has improved markedly, yet practical constraints persist. High-resolution deterministic runs and large ensembles are expensive and slow, and latency from initialization to product delivery can limit how quickly exposure, staffing, and hedging can adjust to rapidly evolving events. The premium value of ensembles – quantifying distributions and tails rather than a single trajectory – has often collided with compute budgets and operational deadlines.
Here, generative AI refers to models trained on large archives of weather data – especially reanalyses and, in some cases, operational analyses1 – that learn how atmospheric variables evolve together. At runtime, they infer future states from these learned relationships rather than numerically solving the full set of physical equations, enabling skillful forecasts in minutes at much lower computational cost and at resolutions suitable for practical use. Reanalysis datasets – like ERA5, compiled by the Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) – provide multi-decade, globally consistent fields that ground the models in variability across scales, including extreme events.2
Among the most influential systems is Google DeepMind’s GraphCast.3 It represents the atmosphere on a spherical graph, passes information between nodes to capture multiscale interactions, and runs autoregressively in six-hour steps to produce forecasts out to 10 days. A peer-reviewed study in Science reported that GraphCast outperformed ECMWF’s high-resolution deterministic model (HRES) on about 90% of 1,380 verification targets while delivering forecasts with very low latency.4 For insurers, this enables rapid, high-skill deterministic guidance on wind, precipitation, and temperature – parameters that directly inform windstorm loss estimation, flood claims triage, and real-time operational monitoring during active events.
Probabilistic modeling has advanced just as quickly. DeepMind’s GenCast5 extends this paradigm to ensembles using diffusion-based generative modeling. In results published in Nature in 2025, GenCast produced global 15‑day ensembles at 0.25° resolution with 12‑hour time steps in around eight minutes, surpassing the skill of ECMWF’s ENS – its operational ensemble system – on most evaluated targets.6 Because loss ratios and capital charges are often driven by tails rather than means, frequent, affordable ensemble updates materially improve tail quantification, facilitating recalibration of parametric triggers, revisions to event-response footprints, and more precise reserving as a catastrophe unfolds.
A wider ecosystem is pushing the field forward. Huawei’s Pangu-Weather, published in Nature in 2023, demonstrated competitive medium-range skill at substantially lower computational cost,7 which matters where access to high-performance computing is constrained. NVIDIA’s FourCastNet family, together with the Earth‑2 platform, combines Fourier-operator8 and transformer-style architectures with GPU (Graphics Processing Unit) acceleration to deliver rapid global forecasts and support very large ensembles.9 Generative AI is also entering climate modeling through hybrid systems such as NeuralGCM.10 These models retain a physics-based core and use machine learning to represent processes that are difficult to resolve directly. They are designed to remain stable from day-to-day weather out to multi-decade simulations, pointing toward a single framework that links near-term hazard forecasts with long-term climate-risk projections.
Microsoft’s Aurora adds a foundation-model approach: a ~1.3‑billion-parameter 3D architecture pretrained on more than one million hours of heterogeneous Earth-system data and then fine-tuned for tasks including high-resolution weather, air quality, ocean waves, and tropical-cyclone track. Peer-reviewed and technical materials report that Aurora matches or exceeds operational baselines across these tasks at orders-of-magnitude lower computational cost, with sub-minute generation of 10‑day high-resolution forecasts using modern GPU acceleration.11
Perhaps the most consequential endorsement has come from ECMWF. On 25 February 2025, the Centre made its Artificial Intelligence Forecasting System (AIFS) operational for deterministic forecasts, running alongside the traditional physics-based Integrated Forecasting System (IFS).12 On 1 July 2025, ECMWF took the ensemble version of AIFS into operations, delivering products through its standard dissemination and open-data channels.13 Early verification indicated parity or superiority to conventional models on key metrics, including reported gains of up to roughly 20% in tropical-cyclone track forecasts.14 For insurers with coastal exposures, improved track guidance translates into more reliable surge preparation, more accurate event footprints, and tighter interim loss estimates. AI forecasts now flow through ECMWF’s operational and open-data streams—the same channels widely used by third-party modeling and analytics workflows.15
Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP) – NWP uses physics-based computer models to simulate the atmosphere and advance conditions forward in time. Its strengths are scientific grounding, mature procedures for ingesting and assimilating observations, and decades of systematic verification. Limitations include substantial computing requirements and slower turnaround, which can constrain update frequency and spatial resolution. Skill is generally strongest from the near term into the medium range – hours to roughly 10 days – with performance varying by region, season, and weather regime.
Ensemble Models – Ensemble forecasting generates many plausible versions of a forecast by perturbing initial conditions, varying model settings, or combining different modeling systems, including modern AI members. Rather than a single answer, ensembles provide a distribution of outcomes with associated probabilities, enabling clearer statements about uncertainty and extremes. To remain reliable, ensembles should be calibrated and bias-corrected so that their spread reflects observed uncertainty. Practical considerations include larger data volumes, ongoing quality control, and clear communication of probabilistic results.
Differentiable General Circulation Models (dGCMs) – dGCMs combine a traditional physics core with machine-learning components in a framework that can be tuned more directly using data. The aim is to preserve physical structure while improving elements that are difficult to represent explicitly. In principle, this supports consistent performance from day-to-day weather prediction through multi-decade climate simulations. Current priorities include demonstrating reliability in extreme events, limiting slow drift over long runs, managing regional biases, and maintaining transparency about the behavior of learned components.
The implications for underwriting, reinsurance, and capital are immediate. Faster and cheaper ensembles support more frequent loss intelligence during events, allowing claims organizations to pre-position resources and secure temporary housing and repair capacity with better lead time. Underwriters can refresh spatial risk scores intra-day as a storm tracks or rainfall envelopes shift, improving exposure management and enabling real-time adjustments to binding authority or aggregation limits.
Reinsurance teams can run scenario trees with materially larger samples, refining layer attachments and reinstatement structures as uncertainty collapses. Capital modeling benefits from better characterization of distribution tails under Solvency II16 and NAIC RBC17 regimes, particularly when event sets are resampled or conditioned on updated dynamical guidance. When combined with well-calibrated vulnerability and financial modules, improvements at the forecast layer yield more stable PMLs (Probable Maximum Loss), tighter AAL (Average Annual Loss) confidence intervals, and sharper interim ranges for boards, investors, and regulators.
Adoption requires rigor. Independent assessments show that while AI weather-prediction models now rival or exceed top physics-based systems on tropical-cyclone track forecasts, intensity – especially in the first 24 hours and during rapid intensification – remains more challenging, with a tendency toward underestimation that can reflect training-data and resolution limits.18 ECMWF’s AIFS notes likewise indicate that small-scale structures can be smoothed and that bias handling for precipitation and other fields remains an active area of development.19 Before model outputs inform high-stakes financial decisions, calibration against local climatology, regime-aware post-processing, and cross-model blending should be applied, and results documented against consistent verification standards.
Integration should prioritize end-to-end consistency and low latency. Meteorological fields should be converted into hazard surfaces at the same resolution as exposure geocoding, then linked to current vulnerability curves and policy terms. Because modern AI systems can refresh ensembles multiple times per day, stream-based assimilation into live catastrophe views is preferable to once-a-day batch updates. Data governance deserves equal attention: model-risk documentation that tracks versions, training-data vintages, and post-processing choices should be maintained for auditability, and clear change-management procedures should be in place. The goal is to ensure that forecast-layer gains carry through to portfolio metrics and capital calculations with minimal delay and without loss of fidelity.
Generative AI will not displace physics overnight. Physics-based systems remain essential for data assimilation, out-of-distribution scenarios, and physically grounded validation. What is changing is the economics and cadence of forecasting: data-driven models deliver lower latency and cost at useful resolutions, making frequent updates and large ensembles feasible in daily operations.
The most effective path forward is complementary use. Physics anchors forecasts in conservation laws and long verification records, while AI provides rapid emulation, bias correction, downscaling, and large probabilistic samples. In practice this means AI post-processing of deterministic output, AI‑augmented ensemble perturbations, learned parameterizations within physical models, and targeted surrogates for the most computationally intensive steps. Progress should be guided by disciplined verification and clear governance. Deterministic and probabilistic skill should be tracked with established scores, models and datasets should be versioned, and known biases and calibration procedures should be documented. The result is a broader, faster toolkit—richer probabilistic guidance linked across weather and climate horizons—deployed with transparent calibration and oversight.
