Abstract
First-generation AI weather models are often reported to underperform at extremes, mostly in reanalysis-based evaluations of deterministic regression systems. We verify eleven physical and AI forecast systems against European synoptic, solar, and rain-gauge stations over ten months for 10 m wind, 2 m temperature, hourly shortwave accumulation, and hourly precipitation, scoring mean absolute error (MAE) against ECMWF IFS in ERA5 1991-2020 climatological regimes. Among these systems, AI models do not show a uniform relative-skill deficit in the tails. Jua EPT-2.1 Europa leads all-conditions wind (+8.4%), while Jua EPT-2 HRRR leads temperature overall (+12.1%) and in the heat regime (+19.6 +/- 2.2%). EPT-2.1 Europa and DWD ICON Global lead at gale-force wind. Jua EPT-2.1 Helios leads solar overall (+10.2 +/- 1.7%), in overcast conditions (+16.4 +/- 3.4%), and in the clear-sky tail (+24.8 +/- 5.4%). For precipitation, three Jua models gain 14-15% at moderate intensity and 9-11% at P75-P95; EPT-2 Reasoning remains ahead above P95 (+1.7 +/- 0.5%). Failures are model-specific: ECMWF AIFS loses 4.9 +/- 2.0% in the heat tail, while NOAA GFS loses 22.8 +/- 2.0% there. Every model, including numerical weather prediction systems, shows a shared conditional bias toward the centre of the observed distribution, with an inter-model spread several times smaller than the shared signal. Missing relative skill at extremes is therefore not a property of AI weather models as a class, but of particular AI and physical models.