| 多数值模式对2021年7月两次大暴雨过程预报能力检验评估 |
| |
| 引用本文： | 屠妮妮,衡志炜,何光碧,吴蓬萍.多数值模式对2021年7月两次大暴雨过程预报能力检验评估[J].高原山地气象研究,2022,42(2):46-55. |
| |
| 作者姓名： | 屠妮妮 衡志炜 何光碧 吴蓬萍 |
| |
| 作者单位： | 中国气象局成都高原气象研究所/高原与盆地暴雨旱涝灾害省重点实验室，成都 610072 |
| |
| 基金项目： | 高原与盆地暴雨旱涝灾害四川省重点实验室科技发展基金项目（SCQXKJYJXZD202103） |
| |
| 摘 要： | 传统点对点的二分类检验方法能够客观反映模式预报的整体表现，但该方法存在双重惩罚现象。本文在传统检验基础上结合FSS（Fraction Skill Score）评分和MODE（Method of Object-based Diagnostic Evaluation）方法，对2021年7月影响四川的两次区域性大暴雨过程开展检验评估，对比分析了华东区域BCSH模式、ECMWF模式、西南区域SW3KM和SW9KM模式的预报性能。结果表明:（1）BCSH和ECMWF模式在小到中雨评分上略优于西南区域2个模式，SW3KM模式优势体现在暴雨预报上；BCSH和SW9KM模式预报偏差无显著规律，ECMWF模式小到大雨多空报，SW3KM模式中到暴雨多空报。（2）邻域半径为7个格点时，SW3KM模式在72 h预报时效上小雨、36~72 h大雨、24~66 h暴雨评分高于其它模式；区域模式分辨率提高，其FSS和TS评分相应增加，随着预报时间延长，区域模式FSS评分以大于ECMWF模式为主，SW9KM模式各级降水评分整体低于SW3KM模式。（3）4个模式降水落区质心位置预报的经向偏差略大于纬向，BCSH和SW9KM模式降水质心较实况偏西北，ECMWF模式暴雨质心偏西北、大暴雨质心偏西南，SW3KM模式暴雨质心多偏西南、大暴雨质心较实况多偏西北。ECMWF模式对雨带走向和面积的把控好于区域模式；SW3KM模式在72 h预报时效上多个属性值优于BCSH模式，SW3KM模式匹配目标属性值以优于SW9KM模式为主；BCSH、ECMWF和SW3KM模式均存在降水强度预报偏大的特征。
|
| 关 键 词： | 数值模式 TS评分 邻域法 MODE方法 暴雨 |
| 收稿时间： | 2021-10-25 |
Verification of Forecasting Ability of Two Rainstorm in July 2021 by Multiple Numerical Models |
| |
| Affiliation: | Institute of Plateau Meteorology, CMA, Chengdu/Heavy Rain and Drought-Flood Disasters in Plateau and Basin Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Chengdu 610072, China |
| |
| Abstract: | The traditional point-to-point binary classification test method can objectively reflect the overall performance of the model forecast, but the method has a double penalty phenomenon. Based on traditional methods, combined with FSS and MODE, the two regional heavy rains affecting Sichuan in July 2021 were evaluated, and the forecast performance of the four models of BCSH, ECMWF, SW3KM and SW9KM were compared and analyzed. The following conclusions are drawn: (1) The TS scores of BCSH and ECMWF models were slightly better than the other two models in terms of light rain to moderate rain. The advantage of the SW3KM model was in the forecast of heavy rain; the BS of the BCSH and SW9KM models had no significant regularity. The ECMWF model had more false alarm from light rain to heavy rain, and the SW3KM model had more false alarm from moderate to heavy rain. (2) The FSS of light rain based on SW3KM model at 72h forecast time, the FSS of heavy rain during 36~72 h and the FSS of rainstorm during 24~66 h were higher than other models; with the improvement of the regional model, the FSS and TS scores increased accordingly. With the extension of the forecast time, the FSS score of the regional model was mainly higher than that of ECMWF model, and the FSS and TS scores of all levels in SW9KM model was lower than that of SW3KM model. (3) The meridional deviation of the precipitation forecasts of the four models was slightly larger than that of the latitude. The centroids of precipitation of BCSH and SW9KM models were in the northwest, and the rainstorm centroid of ECMWF model was in the northwest and the heavy rainstorm was in the southwest, while the centroid of rainstorm of SW3KM model was in the southwest and the heavy rainstorm was in the northwest. The ECMWF model was better than the regional model in controlling the direction and area size of the rainband; the SW3KM model was better than the BCSH model in 72 h forecasting time, and the matching target attribute value of SW3KM model was mainly better than that of SW9KM model; BCSH, ECMWF and SW3KM models had strong forecast of precipitation intensity. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
|
| 点击此处可从《高原山地气象研究》浏览原始摘要信息 |
|
点击此处可从《高原山地气象研究》下载全文 |
|
