基于TIGGE多模式集合的24小时气温BMA 概率预报

利用TIGGE(THORPEX Interactive Grand Global Ensemble)单中心集合预报系统(ECMWF、United Kingdom Meteorological Office、China Meteorological Administration和NCEP)以及由此所构成的多中心模式超级集合预报系统24小时地面日均气温预报,结合淮河流域地面观测率定贝叶斯模型平均(Bayesian model averaging,BMA)参数,从而建立地面日均气温BMA概率预报模型.由此针对淮河流域进行地面日均气温BMA概率预报及其检验与评估,结果表明BMA模型比原始集合预报效果好;单中心的BMA概率预报都有较好的预报效果,其中ECMWF最好.多中心模式超级集合比单中心BMA概率预报效果更好,采用可替换原则比普通的多中心模式超级集合BMA模型计算量小,且在上述BMA集合预报系统中效果最好.它与原始集合预报相比其平均绝对误差减少近7%,其连续等级概率评分提高近10%.基于采用可替换原则的多中心模式超级集合BMA概率预报,针对研究区域提出了极端高温预警方案,这对防范高温天气有着重要意义.     

基于BMA方法的地面气温的10～15 d延伸期概率预报研究

利用TIGGE资料提供的欧洲中期天气预报中心(ECMWF)、美国国家环境预报中心(NCEP)、英国气象局(UKMO)三个预报中心2013年6月1日至8月31日的地面2 m气温10~15 d预报资料,对延伸期地面气温进行贝叶斯模式平均(Bayesian Model Averaging,BMA)预报试验。结果表明,BMA方法的预报效果随训练期长度而改变,训练期长度为30 d时预报效果最优。BMA方法可提供全概率密度函数,定量描述预报不确定性的大小,且陆地上预报不确定性大于海洋上的预报不确定性,高纬度地区预报不确定性大于低纬度地区的预报不确定性。利用CRPS评分对BMA概率预报技巧进行评估,发现预报技巧随预报时效的延长降低,且预报技巧在海洋上优于陆地、低纬度地区优于高纬度地区。此外,3 d、5 d和7 d滑动平均的预报值反映某些天气过程的平均要素预报,对于提高10~15 d延伸期概率预报技巧有一定效果,且滑动天数越长,预报效果越好。     

基于贝叶斯理论的单站地面气温的概率预报研究

基于贝叶斯理论,建立了将确定性预报向概率预报转换的基本模式,并利用TIGGE资料中欧洲中期天气预报中心(ECMWF)地面气温预报资料及地面气温观测资料,对概率化后的预报进行了评估与释用。结果表明,概率化后的预报结果不但能提供丰富的预报产品,而且所提供的预报均值优于原始的确定性预报。应用贝叶斯模式平均法(BMA)将中国气象局(CMA)、美国国家环境预报中心(NCEP)和ECMWF 3个模式的预报结果进行多模式集成,得到了更为合理的概率分布,其中分布的均值可作为模式的预报结果,方差和置信区间反映了预报量的可变范围。因此,基于贝叶斯预报模式的概率预报相对于确定性预报,不但能够提供更高精度的预报,而且能提供更全面的预报信息。BMA集成预报结果不但优于集合平均预报,而且还能定量描述预报的不确定性。利用ECMWF预报中心51个预报成员进行集成贝叶斯概率预报试验,发现BMA预报融合了各成员对预报不确定性的描述,还对概率预报的均值进行了调整,使之与观测值更为接近。BMA预报的概率密度分布更能反映大气的真实分布情况。     

清江流域降水的多模式BMA概率预报试验

基于TIGGE资料中的ECMWF、UKMO、JMA、CMA四套模式的2016年6月1至7月31日逐日降水集合预报资料,结合清江流域10个国家基准站观测数据,建立了流域贝叶斯模型平均(BMA)概率预报模型,开展流域多模式集合BMA技术的概率预报试验与评估。结果表明,在清江流域多模式集合的BMA模型最佳滑动训练期长度为40 d,BMA模型预报比原始集合预报有更高预报技巧,比四个原始集合预报MAE平均值减少近11%左右,而对于CRPS除了CMA中心无订正效果外,较其他三个模式平均值提高近15%左右。多模式集合BMA技术能预报降水全概率PDF曲线和大于某个降水量级的概率,同时能给出确定性降水预报,对于极端强降水(大暴雨一特大暴雨量级),BMA 75～90百分位数预报效果较好,对于强降水(暴雨量级),BMA 50～75百分位数预报效果较好,对于一般性降水(小雨一大雨量级),BMA确定性预报结果或50百分位数预报效果较好。     

多模式集成的概率天气预报和气候预测研究进展

基于大气的混沌特性,单一的确定性预报逐步向多值的不确定性概率预报转化已成为一种趋势。本文系统地评述了概率天气预报产生的背景,介绍了概率预报的相关概念及国内外的研究状况,着重讨论了多模式集成的概率预报的两种集成方法,即贝叶斯模式平均(Bayesian model averaging,BMA)和多元高斯集合核拟合法(Gaussian ensemble kernel dressing,GEKD),并给出了两个例子的概率预报试验结果。利用BMA方法制作的概率预报的方差较小,减小了预报的不确定性,因此预报结果更接近大气的真实值。作为另一种多模式集成方法,多元高斯集合核拟合法回报的地面气温距平均值及趋势的概率预测结果与实测结果基本一致。利用此方法建立了地面气温年代际变化的概率多模式集合预测模型,并从中提取年代际气候变化特征,对东亚季风区年代际预测具有重要应用价值。     

基于TIGGE资料的地面气温延伸期多模式集成预报

基于TIGGE资料中心提供的CMC、ECMWF、UKMO及NCEP四个集合预报中心2008年7月1日-9月30日北半球中纬度地区地面气温10 ～ 15 d延伸期集合预报产品,首先采用Tala-grand分布及离散度—误差关系评估了单个预报系统的预报性能,然后分别利用多模式集成平均(Ensemble Mean,EMN)、消除偏差集成平均(Bias-Removed Ensemble Mean,BREM)及多模式超级集合(Multi-model Superensemble,SUP)对地面气温进行多模式集成预报试验.由于逐日的延伸期预报准确率相对较低,因此人们更关注延伸期预报对天气过程的预报准确率.对各个集合预报系统的逐日预报资料以及逐日“观测”资料做滑动平均,并对处理后的资料进行多模式集成,最后对超级集合预报的训练期长度进行调试,以获得最佳训练期长度.结果表明,四个集合预报系统的离散度相对于均方根误差都偏小,ECMWF预报效果最好,NCEP次之,UKMO预报效果最差.EMN、BREM及SUP三种多模式集成方法的预报效果均优于单个系统且SUP对预报效果的改善最明显.滑动平均后,预报误差进一步降低,且滑动步长越长,误差越小.对于SUP的训练期,逐日预报和3d滑动平均10～12 d预报最佳训练期长度为75 d;13 ～ 15 d预报最佳训练期长度为35 d;5 d及7d滑动平均其训练期长度在各个时效均以35 d为宜.     

基于TIGGE资料的地面气温和降水的多模式集成预报

利用TIGGE资料集下中国气象局(CMA)、欧洲中期天气预报中心(ECMWF)、日本气象厅(JMA)、美国国家环境预报中心(NCEP)和英国气象局(UKMO)5个中心集合预报结果,对多模式集成预报方法进行讨论。结果表明,多模式集成方法的预报效果优于单个中心的预报,但对于不同预报要素多模式集成方法的适用性存在差异。滑动训练期超级集合(R-SUP)对北半球地面气温的改进效果最优,但此方法对降水场的改进效果并不理想。在北半球中低纬24 h累积降水的回报试验中,消除偏差(BREM)的结果优于单个中心的预报,且此方法预报结果稳定。进一步利用滑动训练期消除偏差(R-BREM)集合平均对2008年1月中国南方极端雨雪冰冻过程进行多模式集成预报试验,结果表明,在固定误差范围内,R-BREM将中国南方大部分地区的地面气温预报时效由最优数值预报中心的96 h延长至192 h,且除个别时效外,小雨、中雨的TS评分得到明显提高。     

2011年长江中下游梅雨期强降水延伸期集合预报性能初探

针对2011年长江中下游旱涝转换时期的环流形势、强降雨期间的四次强降雨过程对欧洲中心集合预报进行了预报性能初步分析。结果表明：集合平均预报对延伸期预报时效内的大尺度环流调整具有较好的预报性能,预报提前时效可达10~15 d。对强降水过程期间主要影响系统的预报在不同预报时效具有较好的稳定性。随着预报时效的临近,集合预报各个成员对天气系统预报的发散度逐渐减小。长江中下游强降水的发生与低层850 hPa较大的风速有密切关联,集合预报给出的延伸期预报时效内大风速出现的小概率预报信息是有意义的,可以为延伸期强降雨过程预报提供参考。     

超级集合预报在湖南地区的试验分析

基于TIGGE集合预报资料分析评估了欧洲中期天气预报中心(ECMWF)、日本气象厅(JMA)、美国国家环境预报中心(NCEP)、中国气象局(CMA)4个模式系统在湖南2008年低温雨雪冰冻天气过程中的气温预报技巧,并对湖南地面气温和欧亚地区500 hPa天气形势进行了超级集合预报试验.结果表明,在湖南地区,ECMWF的预报效果最好,CMA的预报效果最差,并且ECMWF的168 h预报误差小于CMA的24 h预报误差.滑动训练期超级集合预报误差比较稳定,预报效果优于最好的单中心模式和固定训练期超级集合预报.对于24～ 72 h预报时效滑动窗口可选取50 d左右,而对于96 ～168 h预报时效的滑动窗口有必要选取2个月以上.此外,滑动训练期超级集合预报各时效对500 hPa天气形势的预报技巧都比单中心的预报技巧高,并且和实况资料相比,其预报效果也比较好.     

地面气温的概率预报试验

基于TIGGE(THORPEX Interactive Grand Global Ensemble)资料,对中国气象局(CMA)集合数值预报产品进行温度概率预报试验。分别应用降尺度技术、系统偏差订正及降尺度与系统偏差订正相结合的方法对2008年1月的气温进行试验。结果表明,通过Brier评分和ROC分析的检验,在24～240 h预报中,都得到了明显改进,在进行降尺度和系统偏差订正相结合的方法下,预报技巧的改进更加明显,优于单个方法独自使用的效果。RPS评分检验则表明:在168 h内,两种改进方案相结合的概率预报效果明显优于单一改进方法的使用;168 h后,预报效果逐渐下降不如系统偏差订正的效果,但优于降尺度技术的改进。总体而言,3种方法对地面气温的概率预报都有正的技巧预报,对预报时效较短(7天前)温度概率预报技巧高于预报时效较长的(7天后)。     

An assessment of the predictability of the East Asian Subtropical Westerly Jet based on TIGGE data

The predictability of the position, spatial coverage and intensity of the East Asian subtropical westerly jet(EASWJ) in the summers of 2010 to 2012 was examined for ensemble prediction systems(EPSs) from four representative TIGGE centers,including the ECMWF, the NCEP, the CMA, and the JMA. Results showed that each EPS predicted all EASWJ properties well, while the levels of skill of all EPSs declined as the lead time extended. Overall, improvements from the control to the ensemble mean forecasts for predicting the EASWJ were apparent. For the deterministic forecasts of all EPSs, the prediction of the average axis was better than the prediction of the spatial coverage and intensity of the EASWJ. ECMWF performed best, with a lead of approximately 0.5–1 day in predictability over the second-best EPS for all EASWJ properties throughout the forecast range. For probabilistic forecasts, differences in skills among the different EPSs were more evident in the earlier part of the forecast for the EASWJ axis and spatial coverage, while they departed obviously throughout the forecast range for the intensity. ECMWF led JMA by about 0.5–1 day for the EASWJ axis, and by about 1–2 days for the spatial coverage and intensity at almost all lead times. The largest lead of ECMWF over the relatively worse EPSs, such as NCEP and CMA, was approximately 3–4 days for all EASWJ properties. In summary, ECMWF showed the highest level of skill for predicting the EASWJ, followed by JMA.     

Preliminary Comparison of the CMA, ECMWF, NCEP, and JMA Ensemble Prediction Systems

Based on The Observing System Research and Predictability Experiment (THORPEX) Interactive Grand Global Ensemble (TIGGE) dataset,using various verification methods,the performances of four typical ense...     

夏季亚欧中高纬度环流的集合预报效果检验

使用NCEP集合预报资料, 对亚洲中高纬地区2003年6—8月500 hPa高度场的集合预报效果进行了检验。环流预报效果检验结果表明:预报时效大于5 d时, 集合平均预报明显优于单一预报; 使用相同模式分辨率时, 集合平均能将可用预报时效延长12 h以上, 达到7.5 d; 通过集合预报可获得真正意义的概率预报结果, 取得较单一高分辨率预报好的预报效果。阻塞过程的个例分析也表明集合平均的预报效果明显优于单一确定性预报; 特征等值线可反映集合成员的不一致信息和少数集合成员的异常表现, 以此为基础, 可估计分析对象出现与否的概率, 达到提高预报效果的目的。     

Evaluation of TIGGE Ensemble Forecasts of Precipitation in Distinct Climate Regions in Iran

The application of numerical weather prediction(NWP) products is increasing dramatically. Existing reports indicate that ensemble predictions have better skill than deterministic forecasts. In this study, numerical ensemble precipitation forecasts in the TIGGE database were evaluated using deterministic, dichotomous(yes/no), and probabilistic techniques over Iran for the period 2008–16. Thirteen rain gauges spread over eight homogeneous precipitation regimes were selected for evaluation.The Inverse Distance Weighting and Kriging methods were adopted for interpolation of the prediction values, downscaled to the stations at lead times of one to three days. To enhance the forecast quality, NWP values were post-processed via Bayesian Model Averaging. The results showed that ECMWF had better scores than other products. However, products of all centers underestimated precipitation in high precipitation regions while overestimating precipitation in other regions. This points to a systematic bias in forecasts and demands application of bias correction techniques. Based on dichotomous evaluation,NCEP did better at most stations, although all centers overpredicted the number of precipitation events. Compared to those of ECMWF and NCEP, UKMO yielded higher scores in mountainous regions, but performed poorly at other selected stations.Furthermore, the evaluations showed that all centers had better skill in wet than in dry seasons. The quality of post-processed predictions was better than those of the raw predictions. In conclusion, the accuracy of the NWP predictions made by the selected centers could be classified as medium over Iran, while post-processing of predictions is recommended to improve the quality.     

Improving Multi-Model Ensemble Forecasts of Tropical Cyclone Intensity Using Bayesian Model Averaging

This paper proposes a method for multi-model ensemble forecasting based on Bayesian model averaging (BMA), aiming to improve the accuracy of tropical cyclone (TC) intensity forecasts, especially forecasts of minimum surface pressure at the cyclone center (P_min). The multi-model ensemble comprises three operational forecast models: the Global Forecast System (GFS) of NCEP, the Hurricane Weather Research and Forecasting (HWRF) models of NCEP, and the Integrated Forecasting System (IFS) of ECMWF. The mean of a predictive distribution is taken as the BMA forecast. In this investigation, bias correction of the minimum surface pressure was applied at each forecast lead time, and the distribution (or probability density function, PDF) of P_min was used and transformed. Based on summer season forecasts for three years, we found that the intensity errors in TC forecast from the three models varied significantly. The HWRF had a much smaller intensity error for short lead-time forecasts. To demonstrate the proposed methodology, cross validation was implemented to ensure more efficient use of the sample data and more reliable testing. Comparative analysis shows that BMA for this three-model ensemble, after bias correction and distribution transformation, provided more accurate forecasts than did the best of the ensemble members (HWRF), with a 5%–7% decrease in root-mean-square error on average. BMA also outperformed the multi-model ensemble, and it produced “predictive variance” that represented the forecast uncertainty of the member models. In a word, the BMA method used in the multi-model ensemble forecasting was successful in TC intensity forecasts, and it has the potential to be applied to routine operational forecasting.     

基于卡尔曼滤波的中国区域气温和降水的多模式集成预报

利用TIGGE资料集下欧洲中期天气预报中心(ECMWF)、日本气象厅(JMA)、美国国家环境预报中心(NCEP)、中国气象局(CMA)和英国气象局(UKMO)5个模式预报的结果,对基于卡尔曼滤波的气温和降水的多模式集成预报进行研究。结果表明,卡尔曼滤波方法的预报效果优于消除偏差集合平均(BREM)和单模式的预报,但是对于地面气温和降水,其预报效果也存在一定的差异。在中国区域2 m气温的预报中,卡尔曼滤波的预报结果最优。而对于24 h累积降水预报,尽管卡尔曼滤波在所有量级下的TS评分均优于BREM,但随着预报时效增加,其在大雨及以上量级的TS评分跟最佳单模式UKMO预报相当,改进效果不明显。卡尔曼滤波在地面气温和24 h累积降水每个预报时效下的均方根误差均最优,预报效果更佳且稳定。     

Comparison of Statistical Post-Processing Methods for Probabilistic Wind Speed Forecasting

In this study, the statistical post-processing methods that include bias-corrected and probabilistic forecasts of wind speed measured in PyeongChang, which is scheduled to host the 2018 Winter Olympics, are compared and analyzed to provide more accurate weather information. The six post-processing methods used in this study are as follows: mean bias-corrected forecast, mean and variance bias-corrected forecast, decaying averaging forecast, mean absolute bias-corrected forecast, and the alternative implementations of ensemble model output statistics (EMOS) and Bayesian model averaging (BMA) models, which are EMOS and BMA exchangeable models by assuming exchangeable ensemble members and simplified version of EMOS and BMA models. Observations for wind speed were obtained from the 26 stations in PyeongChang and 51 ensemble member forecasts derived from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF Directorate, 2012) that were obtained between 1 May 2013 and 18 March 2016. Prior to applying the post-processing methods, reliability analysis was conducted by using rank histograms to identify the statistical consistency of ensemble forecast and corresponding observations. Based on the results of our study, we found that the prediction skills of probabilistic forecasts of EMOS and BMA models were superior to the biascorrected forecasts in terms of deterministic prediction, whereas in probabilistic prediction, BMA models showed better prediction skill than EMOS. Even though the simplified version of BMA model exhibited best prediction skill among the mentioned six methods, the results showed that the differences of prediction skills between the versions of EMOS and BMA were negligible.