atmosphere

Article
Tropical Cyclone Intensity Prediction Using Deep
Convolutional Neural Network
Xiao-Yan Xu 1 , Min Shao 2, * , Pu-Long Chen 3 and Qin-Geng Wang 1

1 School of the Environment, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210046, China;

[email protected] (X.-Y.X.); [email protected] (Q.-G.W.)
2 School of the Environment, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing 210023, China
3 Net Zero Era (Jiangsu) Environmental Technology Co., Ltd., Suzhou 215000, China; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: In this study, deep convolutional neural network (CNN) models of stimulated tropical
cyclone intensity (TCI), minimum central pressure (MCP), and maximum 2 min mean wind speed
at near center (MWS) were constructed based on ocean and atmospheric reanalysis, as well Best
Track of tropical hurricane data over 2014–2018. In order to explore the interpretability of the model
structure, sensitivity experiments were designed with various combinations of predictors. The model
test results show that simplified VGG-16 (VGG-16 s) outperforms the other two general models
(LeNet-5 and AlexNet). The results of the sensitivity experiments display good consistency with the
hypothesis and perceptions, which verifies the validity and reliability of the model. Furthermore, the
results also suggest that the importance of predictors varies in different targets. The top three factors
that are highly related to TCI are sea surface temperature (SST), temperature at 500 hPa (TEM_500),
and the differences in wind speed between 850 hPa and 500 hPa (vertical wind shear speed, VWSS).
VWSS, relative humidity (RH), and SST are more significant than MCP. For MWS and SST, TEM_500,
and temperature at 850 hPa (TEM_850) outweigh the other variables. This conclusion also implies
that deep learning could be an alternative way to conduct intensive and quantitative research.

Citation: Xu, X.-Y.; Shao, M.; Chen, Keywords: tropical cyclone; deep learning; convolutional neural network; interpretability
P.-L.; Wang, Q.-G. Tropical Cyclone
Intensity Prediction Using Deep
Convolutional Neural Network.
Atmosphere 2022, 13, 783. https://
1. Introduction
doi.org/10.3390/atmos13050783
Tropical cyclone (TC), one of the most severe weather systems which develop over the
Academic Editor: Corene Matyas tropical ocean, have been drawing large attention due to their devastating impact on human
Received: 12 April 2022 beings [1]. It has been found that the intensity of TC mainly depends on three factors [2]: the
Accepted: 10 May 2022 initial intensity of TC, the thermodynamic state of the atmosphere, and the heat exchange
Published: 12 May 2022 between the ocean and TCs. However, it is still difficult to predict TC intensity (TCI)
accurately due to the limited understanding of TC dynamics and sparse observation over
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
the ocean [3,4]. More importantly, TC has shown 13~15% intensifying trend over the past
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
37 years, since the late 1970s, [5] and the current situation is not optimistic. Therefore, it
published maps and institutional affil-
is essential to develop advanced models to better understand and predict TCI, as their
iations.
associated destructive winds, extreme precipitation [6,7], floods [8], landslides [9], and
other drastic disasters are threatening human life and property.
Based on atmospheric processes and variables, numerous models have been con-
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. structed to predict the track of a TC and TCI. Predicting models can generally be divided
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. into two types: numerical models and statistical models. Numerical models heavily rely on
This article is an open access article complex physical processes to forecast TCI and its track. Shao and Smith [10] improved
distributed under the terms and the prediction of hurricanes Florence and Michael by assimilating atmospheric retrievals
conditions of the Creative Commons from hyperspectral instruments into the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) system.
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// Such processes need to deal with a large amount of data and cost intensive computation
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).

Atmosphere 2022, 13, 783. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13050783 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/atmosphere

Atmosphere 2022, 13, 783 2 of 11

resources. Furthermore, the poor understanding of complex physical processes, the inaccu-
rate vortex initialization, and large calculation process hinder numerical models’ ability to
simulate precisely and efficiently [11].
Considering the constraints of numerical models, statistical models are more flexible
and consume fewer computational resources, opening up new opportunities for growth un-
der the prosperity of big data. To some extent, traditional statistical models such as standard
multiple regression [12], Generalized Additive Model (GAM) [13], and Statistical Hurri-
cane Intensity Prediction Scheme (SHIPS) [14] could be used to predict TCs. Nevertheless,
ordinary non-linear regression still has a limited ability to describe non-linear relations.
With the development of machine learning methods, especially the appearance of
neural networks with activation functions, various advanced models have been employed
to forecast TCs. Sen et al. [15] applied an Artificial Neural Network (ANN) to improve
the performance of non-linear autoregressive models that forecast cyclone disturbances.
Furthermore, deep learning techniques such as using a Convolutional Neural Network
(CNN), which was designed to process images exclusively, have been widely applied to
learn features from satellite imagery data [16,17]. Pradhan et al. [18] designed CNN based
on LeNet-5 [19] to extract features from satellite imagery and estimated TCI. To achieve
a more accurate prediction, deeper networks were employed and more information was
integrated and fed into the network. Higa et al. [20] applied complicated Visual Geometry
Group Network-16 (VGG-16) to capture more features from the satellite imagery of TC.
Giffard-Roisin et al. [21] constructed fused deep learning models consisting of two CNN
modules to learn from wind fields and geopotential height fields. However, most of this
research focused on satellite imagery and ignored the importance of atmospheric and ocean
data. Zhang et al. [22] considered nine predictors when building CNN, e.g., brightness,
temperature, relative vorticity, and geopotential height (GEOPH), but the sea surface tem-
perature (SST) was not included. In this case, more factors that have direct or substantial
impacts on TC should be taken into consideration, such as SST [23,24] and vertical wind
shear (VWS) [25], which can more effectively identify and affect the dynamic and thermody-
namic processes of the interaction between ocean and TCs. Additionally, the interpretability
study of machine learning is a new field that verifies the reliability of models. However,
models are hardly applied to conduct interpretability experiments and some researchers
ignore the importance of ‘visualizing’ the black box. Correspondingly, having an in-depth
understanding of model results improves our perspective on the importance of factors and
the mechanisms of TC formation.
In this paper, data and the model construction are described in Section 2. Briefly,
2014–2018 atmospheric and ocean reanalysis data are used to construct the predicting
model, which is based on the simplified version of VGG-16 (VGG-16s) [26]. Then, we
evaluate its performance by comparing it with two other underlying CNN models in
Section 3.1. Moreover, we extend the application for an in-depth understanding of the
interpretability of our model results by analyzing the importance of variables in Section 3.2.

2. Data and Methods

2.1. Data
The fifth generation of atmospheric reanalysis from ECMWF (ERA5) ranging from 2014
to 2018 was used to provide necessary meteorological and ocean predictors in our research.
The temporal and horizontal resolutions of ERA5 are 3 h and 0.25◦ × 0.25◦ , respectively. We
mainly focused on the TCs that entered the region with latitude ranges between 1.5◦ N and
30.25◦ N and longitude ranges between 129.75◦ E and 180◦ E, which mainly consists of the
Northwest Pacific Ocean, as shown in the red box in Figure 1. Target data of 6 h intervals
within the study region, including TCI, minimum central pressure (MCP), and maximum
2 min mean wind speed at near center (MWS), were obtained from Best Track (BT) data
from the China Meteorological Administration Tropical Cyclone Data Center, Beijing [27,28]
and data are available at http://tcdata.typhoon.org.cn/en/zjljsjj_sm.html (accessed on
15 February 2022). In order to keep the coherency of data structure, we pre-processed the
Atmosphere 2022, 13, 783 3 of 11

input feature and target data into the same temporal resolution (6 h). Ten predictors were
utilized in the model: SST, temperature at 850 and 500 hPa (TEM_850 and TEM_500), the
average of divergence (DIV) at 850 hPa and 1000 hPa, GEOPH at 850 hPa, relative humidity
(RH) at 1000 hPa, meridional and zonal components of wind speed (V and U, respectively)
at 850 hPa, and VWS between 500 and 850 hPa. It is noted that the VWS is characterized
by the differences of wind speed and wind direction between 850 hPa and 500 hPa (VWSS
and VWSD, respectively). In addition, U and V contain the information of TC central wind
speed and TCI. In other words, U and V are not independent variables to the target TCI
and MWS. Therefore, these two factors were not considered as the model predictors nor as
sensitivity experiments targeting TCI and MWS. For different targets, the predictors used
in the experiment are shown in Table 1. Five-year data from 2014 to 2018 were used to train,
validate, and test the model. In the shuffled dataset, a total of 2970 samples were obtained.
Of these, 60% of the data made up training dataset, 20% made up validation dataset, and
20% made up testing dataset.

Figure 1. Bounding box (red box) of ERA5 for model construction and targeted TC tracks. TS: Tropical
Storm; STS: Severe Tropical Storm; TY: Typhoon; STY: Severe Typhoon; SuperTY: Super Typhoon.

Table 1. The targets and their predictors.

Target Predictors Number Task Type

TEM_850,TEM_500, GEOPH,
MCP 10 Regression
RH, SST, U, V, VWSS, VWSD
TEM_850,TEM_500,GEOPH, RH,
MWS 8 Regression
SST, VWSS, VWSD
TEM_850,TEM_500, GEOPH,
TCI 8 Classification
RH, SST, VWSS, VWSD

2.2. Model
Generally, CNN comprises of the convolutional layer, the pooling layer, the fully
connected layer, and the non-linear activation function. Focusing on the ‘deep in’ neural
network, Simonyan and Zisserman [26] created VGG-16 with 13 convolutional layers to
classify high-resolution images. Deeper layers can avoid missing features but also increase
the number of parameters. Thus, a smaller kernel of 3 × 3 size is utilized to improve
Atmosphere 2022, 13, 783 4 of 11

efficiency. Owing to the limitation of sample size, we reduced the number of convolutional
layers to 10, resulting in the simplified VGG-16 (VGG-16s).
The architecture of VGG-16s is shown in Figure 2. Before feeding data into the network,
data are organized into four dimensions, which are samples, feature types, the height of
the feature map, and the width of the feature map. The spatial grids of each feature can be
seen as a channel of the picture, so the shape of input sample is 10 (8 for TCI) × 115 × 201.
For the first convolutional block, 64 filters of 3 × 3 size are used to extract features. After
that, the max pooling layer performs down-sampling and reduces the feature map size to
57 × 100. For the second, third, fourth, and fifth convolutional blocks, feature maps are
processed similarly. There are 128, 256, 512, and 512 filters of 3 × 3 kernel size to capture
features and the size of feature maps are, respectively, reduced to 28 × 50, 14 × 25, 7 × 12,
and 3 × 6 after max pooling. We used the ReLU function as the activation function and
the padding option was applied to avoid missing information. Then, the 3D matrix of
3 × 6 × 512 size was flattened into a vector of 9216 size, and three fully connected neural
networks with 4096 nodes are utilized to output the target.

Figure 2. The architecture of VGG-16s.

2.3. Experiment Set-Up

In this paper, the VGG-16s was developed and two classical CNN models were
chosen to evaluate the performance of VGG-16s, which are LeNet-5 and AlexNet [29].
LeNet-5 has the initial structure of complex CNN models, which combines the pooling
layer and the convolution layer. Additionally, it is designed to accomplish simple-image
recognition tasks such as identifying handwritten numbers. The modules of AlexNet and
LeNet-5 are quite similar. However, AlexNet has 1000 times more parameters to learn than
LeNet-5. Consequently, dropout layers are employed to prevent overfitting. To further
avoid overfitting, early stopping was applied to find the best epoch and the dropout
number was set to 0.5. Learning rate was chosen by learning rate decay strategy. Other
parameters are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Experimental design.

Network Target Learning Rate Weight Decay Loss Function Optimizer

MCP/MWS 1× 10−7 5× 10−5 MSE Adam
LeNet-5
TCI 1 × 10−6 5 × 10−5 Cross Entropy Adam
MCP/MWS 2 × 10−6 5 × 10−5 MSE Adam
AlexNet
TCI 1 × 10−5 5 × 10−5 Cross Entropy Adam
MCP/MWS 8 × 10−6 5 × 10−5 MSE Adam
VGG-16s
TCI 4 × 10−6 5 × 10−5 Cross Entropy Adam
Atmosphere 2022, 13, 783 5 of 11

Then, we used the VGG-16s model to carry out experiments and tried to explore the
difference of predictor importance among the three targets. In detail, sensitivity experi-
ments were conducted relying on training a few models with different predictors. For MCP
and MWS, experiments were designed by training models based on removing one predictor
each time. The differences of test results from different runs revealed the importance of
the removed predictors. Furthermore, the change range of metrics could measure the
importance magnitude. For TCI, experiments were designed by using one predictor to
train the model each time. For example, if the model trained with SST outperforms the
model trained with RH, SST possibly outweighs RH for TCI.
To evaluate the performance of models on test datasets, coefficients of determination
(R2 ), root mean square error (RMSE), mean absolute error (MAE), and symmetric mean
absolute percentage error (SMAPE) were used for the regression task. On the basis of
their definition, the lower the MAE, RMSE, and SMAPE are, the better the model will
be. Accuracy (ACC), precision (Pre), recall (Rec), and F1-score (F1) are metrics for the
classification task.
ACC is the proportion of correctly classified samples in total samples:

NT
ACC = (1)
Ns

where NT represents the number of samples that were correctly classified; Ns represents
the number of total test samples.
Pre indicates the proportion of true positive results in all positive results. In a certain
category, the calculation formula is as follows:

NTP
Pre = (2)
NTP + NFP

where NTP represents the number of samples that were correctly classified as true category;
NFP represents the number of samples that were incorrectly classified as true category.
Rec is the number of true positive samples divided by original positive samples. In a
certain category, the calculation formula is as follows:

NTP
Rec = (3)
NTP + NFN

where NFN represents the number of samples that were incorrectly classified as the
false categories.
To balance Pre and Rec, F1 is utilized to combine these two indexes. If F1 is high, both
the precision and recall of the classifier indicate good results. In a certain category, the
calculation formula is as follows:
1
F1 = 1 1
(4)
Pre + Rec

In summary, ACC is used to measure the model performance on overall samples.

Pre and Rec are complementary metrics to assess judgement errors based on the positive
prediction results and judgement omissions based on true positive values. F1 is designed
to integrate Pre and Rec. In addition, Pre, Rec, and F1 are based on the number of TCI levels,
which is seven in this study. Thus, the macro-average method, which calculates average
values of all categories, was used to integrate.

3. Results
3.1. Model Comparison
The estimation metrics of different models when predicting three selected targets are
shown in Table 3. Generally, VGG-16s achieved a better prediction performance with three
targets than the other two models. Especially in comparison to LeNet-5, the R2 of VGG-16s
Atmosphere 2022, 13, 783 6 of 11

increased by 33%, and RMSE, MAE, and SMAPE of VGG-16s, respectively, reduced by 30%,
36%, and 36% for the MCP forecast. In terms of predicting MWS, the improvements shown
on four indices (R2 , RMSE, MAE and SMAPE) are 31%, 35%, 41%, and 39% compared
to LeNet-5. Figure 3 shows the comparison between the observed values and prediction
results of MCP and MWS from three models. It was found that the prediction results of
VGG-16s (the red dashed lines) are closer to the observed values (the black solid lines) than
the prediction results of LeNet-5 and AlexNet, which are consistent with the metrics results.
Such improvements indicate that deeper layers could help the model capture more details
and can deal with multi-channels consisting of various factors.

Table 3. The performance of three models in stimulating MCP, MWS, and TCI.

Target Evaluating Indicator LeNet-5 AlexNet VGG-16s

R2 0.60 0.77 0.80
RMSE (hPa) 14.93 11.20 10.44
MCP
SMAPE 1.18 0.87 0.75
MAE (hPa) 11.54 8.53 7.34
R2 0.65 0.83 0.85
RMSE (m/s) 8.65 6.03 5.62
MWS
SMAPE 26.07 17.56 15.49
MAE (m/s) 6.82 4.56 4.16
ACC 0.53 0.59 0.61
Pre 0.52 0.57 0.55
TCI
Rec 0.49 0.57 0.58
F1 0.50 0.56 0.55

Figure 3. Comparison between observations and predictions from three models. (a) MCP. (b) MWS.

However, VGG-16s showed a slightly superior performance when classifying TCI.

Compared with LeNet-5, four indicators increased by 15%, 5.8%, 18%, and 10%, respectively.
This smaller improvement is possibly due to the insufficient predictors, the imbalance
of samples, and inadequate model structure. Therefore, the model needs to be further
optimized and more predictors need to be selected to achieve further improvements. In
addition, the macro-average Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) [30] curves and ROC
Atmosphere 2022, 13, 783 7 of 11

curves of different categories of three models are shown in Figure 4. It manifests that the
area under the macro-average ROC curve elevates gradually and VGG-16s has the best
classification performance on major classes. In summary, VGG-16s performs better than
LeNet-5 and AlexNet with regard to the project of three targets. Thus, VGG-16s is applied
to sensitivity experiments.

Figure 4. ROC curves of three models on the test results of TCI. (a) LeNet-5. (b) AlexNet. (c) VGG-16s.
True Positive Rate (TPR): the percentage of actual positives that are accurately identified; False
Positive Rate (FPR): the percentage of actual negatives that are incorrectly identified as positives.
Higher TPR and lower FPR indicate better performance. The area under the ROC curve is also a
measure of test results, where a greater area means better performance.

3.2. Sensitivity Experiments

The sensitivity results are shown in Figures 5 and 6. The results show that SST, VWSS,
and TEM_500 are the top three important factors in TCI predictions. VWSS, RH, and
SST make the most contributions to MCP among the selected factors. SST, TEM_500, and
TEM_850 are the top three factors exhibiting closer relations to MWS. Common features can
be found in the sensitivity results among three targets. Firstly, SST is a critical variable for
three targets, which is due to the fact that ocean potential heat is a crucial energy resource
to the formation and enhancement of TC. Generally, a high SST can be seen as a signal that
a large amount of water in the ocean evaporates into the atmosphere, which is favorable
to a low-pressure center and intensifying TC [23,31,32]. Secondly, TEM_500 is important
for both MWS and TCI. This can be attributed to the moisture budget and heat exchange.
When wet air mass rises, it releases latent heat that warms the surroundings to keep a
warm core. After that, dry air continues rising and become colder. Therefore, the lower
the upper air temperature, the more latent heat is released at around 500 hPa, which is
possibly similar to the characteristic of outflow temperature [33,34]. Thirdly, VWSS has a
high sensitivity to MCP and TCI, which is potentially related to the ventilation effect [35].
A deeper VWS may induce the upper and lower layers of TC to be in different phases,
disrupting the energy transport and weakening the warm core. Consequently, a high VWSS
is not conducive to TC intensification and is usually seen as a key factor impeding the
development of TC. Furthermore, VWS is of great significance to MCP, which suggests
that VWS may more directly influence a low-pressure center. Additionally, it is noted that
GEOPH is not quite vital to the predicted three targets, especially to TCI and MWS. A
possible explanation is that GEOPH is more likely to impact TC track than intensity [36].
Moreover, some differences are expected among three targets, particularly between MCP
and MWS. This result indicates that RH is more important to MCP than the other two
targets. Statistical data show that TC rapid intensification cases have higher values of
850~700 hPa relative humidity [37]. Areas with a high RH may imply violent evaporation,
strong air–sea interaction cycle, and deep lowering of the pressure field [32]. In contrast,
vertical temperature distribution is significant for MWS. However, a few previous works
focused on the relations between temperature at certain layers and MWS. Therefore, this
problem must be further investigated by numerical models.
Atmosphere 2022, 13, 783 8 of 11

Figure 5. Performance comparison results of models stimulating TCI trained with certain predictors.
(a,b) show the performance results in ACC and F1, respectively. Red solid lines show the values
of estimation metrics. Grey dashed lines show the performance of control models inputting all
predictors. Blue dotted lines show the difference of performance between the control model and the
experimental model.

Figure 6. RMSE changes as a result of removing the corresponding predictor. (a) Result of MCP.
(b) Result of MWS. Grey dashed lines: the RMSE of control model which was constructed by
all predictors.

4. Discussion
A precise TC forecast model could help to identify risks and reduce the loss caused by
TCs. In this paper, we compared three basic CNN models based on ocean, atmospheric,
and TC data, and VGG-16s was found to perform well. More advanced models such as
ResNet [38] and efficient methods such as Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique
(SMOTE) [39] and Under-sampling (US) [40] that deal with small samples problem should
be considered and used to improve model performance, especially for classification tasks.
Additionally, the integrated models which combine the merits and function of numerical
weather forecast models and machine learning models are possibly meaningful to the
development of TC forecasting. Moreover, selecting the best predictor group is instrumental
to model efficiency. For example, studies indicate that the tropical cyclone heat potential
(TCHP) is more closely related to the central pressure than SST [41]. Therefore, TCHP
is possibly a more crucial factor to be chosen as a predictor. Currently, an excessive and
insufficient input could bring high computation and poor performance. Thus, choosing the
appropriate method when selecting factors is vital.
Atmosphere 2022, 13, 783 9 of 11

Studying interpretability is also critical to convince decision makers and researchers to

apply models with confidence. In this study, we explored the interpretability of VGG-16s.
The results display how the deep learning model makes predictions on targets, which
is an alternative way to make structures more visible and explainable. Furthermore,
interpretability techniques of deep learning are worthy of being further studied, not merely
focusing on factor importance. For instance, saliency maps [42] are promising to explore
the spatial patterns of features.
Scenario studies could be carried out based on advanced models. In this research, an
interpretability analysis also provides a reference for finding the most direct impact of TC
and identifying the priority of function route of TC. Although some preliminary conclusions
were found, various issues are still difficult to understand and elucidate comprehensively.
In essence, deep learning is still a black box which adds difficulties to mechanism study.
Consequently, it is a vital and profound direction for deep research to not only expand the
study field of interpretability, but also to consider how to integrate numerical models.

5. Conclusions
In summary, VGG-16s with 10 convolution layers was constructed to stimulate the
TCI, MCP, and MWS of TCs. Then, we compared VGG-16s with LeNet-5 and AlexNet, and
the results indicate that VGG-16s outperforms the other two models on the three targets,
which implies that VGG-16s is probably more appropriate to stimulate TCI, MCP, and MWS.
The VGG-16s model structure was further utilized to analyze interpretability by studying
sensitivity. The result suggests that the structure of VGG-16s has good interpretability and
the importance of predictors varies in different targets, though three targets are all used to
depict TC intensity. The top three factors which are highly related to TCI are SST, TEM_500,
and VWSS. VWSS, RH, and SST are more critical to MCP. For MWS, SST, TEM_500, and
TEM_850 outweigh the other variables. Additionally, the difference in rank manifests that
factors have a distinct function route influencing TC intensity. More importantly, deep
learning provides an alternative approach to exploring TC formation and intensification,
which will bring benefits to promote a more advanced forecast system.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, X.-Y.X. and M.S.; methodology, X.-Y.X.; software, X.-Y.X.;
validation, P.-L.C.; formal analysis, X.-Y.X. and M.S.; investigation, X.-Y.X. and M.S.; resources, Q.-
G.W.; data curation, X.-Y.X. and M.S.; writing—original draft preparation, X.-Y.X.; writing—review
and editing, M.S.; visualization, X.-Y.X. and M.S.; supervision, M.S. and Q.-G.W.; project administra-
tion, M.S. and Q.-G.W.; funding acquisition, M.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (No. BK20210574).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: ERA5 data are available at https://www.ecmwf.int/en/forecasts/
datasets/reanalysis-datasets/era5 (accessed on 10 February 2022); BT data are available at http:
//tcdata.typhoon.org.cn/en/zjljsjj_sm.html (accessed on 15 February 2022).
Acknowledgments: The model was constructed on the basis of the VGGNet which is proposed by
the University of Oxford Visual Geometry Group. The data used as predictors were provided by
ECMWF and the target data were provided by China Meteorological Administration Tropical Cyclone
Data Center. We appreciate the support of these institutes.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Atmosphere 2022, 13, 783 10 of 11

References
1. Peduzzi, P.; Chatenoux, B.; Dao, H.; De Bono, A.; Herold, C.; Kossin, J.; Mouton, F.; Nordbeck, O. Global trends in tropical cyclone
risk. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2012, 2, 289–294. [CrossRef]
2. Emanuel, K.A. Thermodynamic control of hurricane intensity. Nature 1999, 401, 665–669. [CrossRef]
3. Xu, Y.; Zhang, L.; Gao, S. The Advances and Discussions on China Operational Typhoon Forecasting. Meteorol. Mon. 2010, 36,
43–49.
4. Wang, Y.; Wu, C.C. Current understanding of tropical cyclone structure and intensity changes—A review. Meteorol. Atmos. Phys.
2004, 87, 257–278. [CrossRef]
5. Mei, W.; Xie, S.P. Intensification of landfalling typhoons over the northwest Pacific since the late 1970s. Nat. Geosci. 2016, 9,
753–757. [CrossRef]
6. Chen, Y.; Zhai, P.M. Persistent extreme precipitation events in China during 1951–2010. Clim. Res. 2013, 57, 143–155. [CrossRef]
7. Van Oldenborgh, G.J.; van der Wiel, K.; Sebastian, A.; Singh, R.; Arrighi, J.; Otto, F.; Haustein, K.; Li, S.H.; Vecchi, G.; Cullen, H.
Attribution of extreme rainfall from Hurricane Harvey, August 2017. Environ. Res. Lett. 2017, 12, 124009. [CrossRef]
8. Jonkman, S.N.; Maaskant, B.; Boyd, E.; Levitan, M.L. Loss of life caused by the flooding of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina:
Analysis of the relationship between flood characteristics and mortality. Risk Anal. Off. Publ. Soc. Risk Anal. 2009, 29, 676–698.
[CrossRef]
9. Lee, C.T.; Huang, C.C.; Lee, J.F.; Pan, K.L.; Lin, M.L.; Dong, J.J. Statistical approach to storm event-induced landslides susceptibility.
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2008, 8, 941–960. [CrossRef]
10. Shao, M.; Smith, W.L. Impact of Atmospheric Retrievals on Hurricane Florence/Michael Forecasts in a Regional NWP Model. J.
Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2019, 124, 8544–8562. [CrossRef]
11. Ma, L. Research Progress on China typhoon numerical prediction models and associated major techniques. Prog. Geophys. 2014,
29, 1013–1022. [CrossRef]
12. Demaria, M.; Kaplan, J. A statistical hurricane intensity prediction scheme (SHIPS) for the Atlantic Basin. Weather Forecast. 1994,
9, 209–220. [CrossRef]
13. Wahiduzzaman, M.; Luo, J.J. Modeling of tropical cyclone activity over the North Indian Ocean using generalised additive model
and machine learning techniques: Role of Boreal summer intraseasonal oscillation. Nat. Hazards. 2022, 111, 1801–1811. [CrossRef]
14. DeMaria, M.; Mainelli, M.; Shay, L.K.; Knaff, J.A.; Kaplan, J. Further improvements to the Statistical Hurricane Intensity Prediction
Scheme (SHIPS). Weather Forecast. 2005, 20, 531–543. [CrossRef]
15. Sen, S.; Nayak, N.C.; Mohanty, W.K. Long-term forecasting of tropical cyclones over Bay of Bengal using linear and non-linear
statistical models. Geojournal 2021, 86, 1–23. [CrossRef]
16. Chen, B.; Chen, B.-F.; Lin, H.-T. Rotation-blended CNNs on a new open dataset for tropical cyclone image-to-intensity regres-
sion. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD), London, UK,
19–23 August 2018; pp. 90–99. [CrossRef]
17. Tan, J.; Yang, Q.; Hu, J.; Huang, Q.; Chen, S. Tropical Cyclone Intensity Estimation Using Himawari-8 Satellite Cloud Products
and Deep Learning. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 812. [CrossRef]
18. Pradhan, R.; Aygun, R.S.; Maskey, M.; Ramachandran, R.; Cecil, D.J. Tropical Cyclone Intensity Estimation Using a Deep
Convolutional Neural Network. IEEE Trans. Image Processing A Publ. IEEE Signal Processing Soc. 2018, 27, 692–702. [CrossRef]
19. Lecun, Y.; Bottou, L.; Bengio, Y.; Haffner, P. Gradient-Based Learning Applied to Document Recognition. Proc. IEEE 1998, 86,
2278–2324. [CrossRef]
20. Higa, M.; Tanahara, S.; Adachi, Y.; Ishiki, N.; Nakama, S.; Yamada, H.; Ito, K.; Kitamoto, A.; Miyata, R. Domain knowledge
integration into deep learning for typhoon intensity classification. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 12972. [CrossRef]
21. Giffard-Roisin, S.; Yang, M.; Charpiat, G.; Kumler Bonfanti, C.; Kegl, B.; Monteleoni, C. Tropical Cyclone Track Forecasting Using
Fused Deep Learning From Aligned Reanalysis Data. Front. Big Data 2020, 3, 1–13. [CrossRef]
22. Zhang, R.; Liu, Q.; Hang, R.; Liu, G. Predicting Tropical Cyclogenesis Using a Deep Learning Method From Gridded Satellite and
ERA5 Reanalysis Data in the Western North Pacific Basin. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2022, 60, 1–10. [CrossRef]
23. Wendland, W.M. Tropical storm frequencies related to sea-surface temperatures. J. Appl. Meteorol. 1977, 16, 477–481. [CrossRef]
24. Mei, W.; Xie, S.P.; Primeau, F.; McWilliams, J.C.; Pasquero, C. Northwestern Pacific typhoon intensity controlled by changes in
ocean temperatures. Sci. Adv. 2015, 1, e1500014. [CrossRef]
25. Liang, X.J.; Li, Q.Q. Revisiting the response of western North Pacific tropical cyclone intensity change to vertical wind shear in
different directions. Atmos. Ocean. Sci. Lett. 2021, 14, 100041. [CrossRef]
26. Simonyan, K.; Zisserman, A. Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognition. arXiv 2014, 1409, 1556.
27. Lu, X.Q.; Yu, H.; Ying, M.; Zhao, B.K.; Zhang, S.; Lin, L.M.; Bai, L.N.; Wan, R.J. Western North Pacific Tropical Cyclone Database
Created by the China Meteorological Administration. Adv. Atmos. Sci. 2021, 38, 690–699. [CrossRef]
28. Ying, M.; Zhang, W.; Yu, H.; Lu, X.Q.; Feng, J.X.; Fan, Y.X.; Zhu, Y.T.; Chen, D.Q. An Overview of the China Meteorological
Administration Tropical Cyclone Database. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 2014, 31, 287–301. [CrossRef]
29. Krizhevsky, A.; Sutskever, I.; Hinton, G.E. ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. Commun. ACM 2017,
60, 84–90. [CrossRef]
30. Hanley, J.A.; McNeil, B.J. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 1982,
143, 29–36. [CrossRef]
Atmosphere 2022, 13, 783 11 of 11

31. Emanuel, K.A. The dependence of hurricane intensity on climate. Nature 1987, 326, 483–485. [CrossRef]
32. Holland, G.J. The maximum potential intensity of tropical cyclones. J. Atmos. Sci. 1997, 54, 2519–2541. [CrossRef]
33. Ramsay, H.A. The Effects of Imposed Stratospheric Cooling on the Maximum Intensity of Tropical Cyclones in Axisymmetric
Radiative-Convective Equilibrium. J. Clim. 2013, 26, 9977–9985. [CrossRef]
34. Wang, S.; Camargo, S.J.; Sobel, A.H.; Polvani, L.M. Impact of the Tropopause Temperature on the Intensity of Tropical Cyclones:
An Idealized Study Using a Mesoscale Model. J. Atmos. Sci. 2014, 71, 4333–4348. [CrossRef]
35. Gray, W.M. Global view of the origin of tropical disturbances and storms. Mon. Weather Rev. 1968, 96, 669–700. [CrossRef]
36. Ren, S.; Liu, Y.; Wu, G. Interactions between typhoon and subtropical anticyclone over western pacific revealed by numerical
experiments. Acta Meteorol. Sin. 2007, 65, 329–340.
37. Kaplan, J.; DeMaria, M. Large-scale characteristics of rapidly intensifying tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic basin. Weather
Forecast. 2003, 18, 1093–1108. [CrossRef]
38. He, K.; Zhang, X.; Ren, S.; Sun, J. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Conference on
Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Las Vegas, NV, USA, 27–30 June 2016; pp. 770–778. [CrossRef]
39. Chawla, N.; Bowyer, K.; Hall, L.; Kegelmeyer, W. SMOTE: Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique. J. Artif. Intell. Res. (JAIR)
2002, 16, 321–357. [CrossRef]
40. Gong, B.; Ordieres-Meré, J. Prediction of daily maximum ozone threshold exceedances by preprocessing and ensemble artificial
intelligence techniques: Case study of Hong Kong. Environ. Model. Softw. 2016, 84, 290–303. [CrossRef]
41. Wada, A.; Usui, N. Importance of tropical cyclone heat potential for tropical cyclone intensity and intensification in the western
North Pacific. J. Oceanogr. 2007, 63, 427–447. [CrossRef]
42. Simonyan, K.; Vedaldi, A.; Zisserman, A. Deep Inside Convolutional Networks: Visualising Image Classification Models and
Saliency Maps. arXiv 2014, arXiv:1312.6034.