2013年汛期华中区域业务数值模式降水预报检验

为充分了解华中区域中尺度业务数值预报模式更新为WRF后的预报性能,对该模式2013年汛期24 h和48 h的累积降水预报产品,采用TS评分、预报正确率、漏报率、空报率、偏差及ETS评分等统计量对其进行了较详细的评估。结果表明：从日平均降水率分布来看,24 h预报的降水中心位置和强度与实况更接近,48 h的预报明显偏大、偏强;汛期总体降水检验表明,该模式的降水预报以偏大为主,随着降水量级的增大,TS和ETS评分逐渐减小,且ETS评分逐渐靠近TS;逐月降水检验结果发现,该区域汛期月晴雨预报正确率与雨日率呈正相关;通过梅雨期WRF与GRAPES_Meso的预报对比检验可见,两个模式都表现出了较好的预报性能。值得指出的是,随着降水量级的增大,WRF模式降水预报优势逐渐显现。总的来说,该模式的降水预报产品具有一定的参考价值。     

Multiseason evaluation of the MM5, COAMPS and WRF over southeast United States

Three models, MM5, COAMPS, and WRF, have been applied for the warm season in 2003 and the cool season in 2003?C2004 to evaluate their performances. All models run over the same domain area covering the north Gulf Mexico and southeastern United States (US) region with the same spatial resolution of 27?km. It was found that the temporal variations of the mean error distribution and strength at 24 and 36?h were rather weak for surface temperature, sea level pressure, and surface wind speed for all models. A warm bias in surface temperature forecasts dominated over land during the warm season, whereas a cool bias existed during the cool season. The MM5 and WRF produced negative biases of sea level pressure during the warm season and positive biases during the cool season while the COAMPS yielded a similar distribution of sea level pressure biases during both seasons. During both seasons, similar surface wind speed biases produced by each model included a high wind speed forecast over most areas by MM5 while the COAMPS and WRF yielded weak surface winds over the western Plains and stronger surface winds over the eastern Plains. Root-mean-squared errors revealed that the forecast of surface temperature, sea level pressure, and surface wind speed were degraded with the increase of forecast time. For rainfall evaluation, it was found that the MM5 underpredicted seasonal precipitation while the COAMPS and WRF overpredicted. The bias scores revealed that the MM5 yielded an underprediction of the coverage of precipitation areas, especially for heavier rainfall events. The MM5 presented the lower threat score at lighter rainfall events compared to the COAMPS and WRF. For moderate and heavier thresholds, all models lacked forecast accuracy. The WRF accuracy in predicting precipitation was heavily dependent upon the performance of the selected cumulus parameterization scheme. Use of the Grell?CDevenyi and Bette?CMiller?CJanjic schemes helps suppress precipitation overprediction.     

山东省多模式强降水落区预报检验

由于模式对于强降水落区预报有一定的偏差,TS评分不能完美的刻画模式预报强降水的问题,制定了强降水落区偏离程度的检验方法,基于此种方法对多模式(EnWRF、WRF-RUC、T639和EC-thin)山东省2014、2015年5—9月16次强降水过程预报的降水落区形态进行检验。结果表明:除了副高摆动引起的局地强对流天气外,其他过程模式预报均有指示意义,其中预报效果最好的是EnWRF和EC-thin,降水落区的形态与实况的相似度极高,并且表现出一定的互补性。多数情况下,模式预报的强降水中心整体比实况偏小,EC-thin和EnWRF漏报次数最少、准确次数最多,T639次之,WRF-RUC漏报次数最多并且准确次数最少。对于预报有偏离的过程,各模式整体雨区的偏离方向大多偏西或偏北。     

Intercomparison of the performance of MM5/WRF with and without satellite data assimilation in short-range forecast applications over the Indian region

The present study is conducted to verify the short-range forecasts from mesoscale model version5 (MM5)/weather research and forecasting (WRF) model over the Indian region and to examine the impact of assimilation of quick scatterometer (QSCAT) near surface winds, spectral sensor microwave imager (SSM/I) wind speed and total precipitable water (TPW) on the forecasts by these models using their three-dimensional variational (3D-Var) data assimilation scheme for a 1-month period during July 2006. The control (without satellite data assimilation) as well as 3D-Var sensitivity experiments (with assimilating satellite data) using MM5/WRF were made for 48 h starting daily at 0000 UTC July 2006. The control run is analyzed for the intercomparison of MM5/WRF short-range forecasts and is also used as a baseline for assessing the MM5/WRF 3D-Var satellite data sensitivity experiments. As compared to the observation, the MM5 (WRF) control simulations strengthened (weakened) the cross equatorial flow over southern Arabian sea near peninsular India. The forecasts from MM5 and WRF showed a warm and moist bias at lower and upper levels with a cold bias at the middle level, which shows that the convective schemes of these models may be too active during the simulation. The forecast errors in predicted wind, temperature and humidity at different levels are lesser in WRF as compared to MM5, except the temperature prediction at lower level. The rainfall pattern and prediction skill from day 1 and day 2 forecasts by WRF is superior to MM5. The spatial distribution of forecast impact for wind, temperature, and humidity from 1-month assimilation experiments during July 2006 demonstrated that on average, for 24 and 48-h forecasts, the satellite data improved the MM5/WRF initial condition, so that model errors in predicted meteorological fields got reduced. Among the experiments, MM5/WRF wind speed prediction is most benefited from QSCAT surface wind and SSM/I TPW assimilation while temperature and humidity prediction is mostly improved due to latter. The largest improvement in MM5/WRF rainfall prediction is due to the assimilation of SSM/I TPW. The assimilation of SSM/I wind speed alone in MM5/WRF degraded the humidity and rainfall prediction. In summary the assimilation of satellite data showed similar impact on MM5/WRF prediction; largest improvement due to SSM/I TPW and degradation due to SSM/I wind speed.     

Operational convective-scale data assimilation over Iran: A comparison between WRF and HARMONIE-AROME

The impact of applying three-dimensional variational data assimilation (3D-Var DA) on convective-scale forecasts is investigated by using two mesoscale models, the Weather Research and Forecasting model (WRF-ARW) and the Hirlam and Aladin Research Model On Non-hydrostatic-forecast Inside Europe (HARMONIE-AROME). One month (1 to 30 December 2013) of numerical experiments were conducted with these two models at 2.5 km horizontal resolution, in order to partly resolve convective phenomena, on the same domain over a mountainous area in Iran and neighboring areas. Furthermore, in order to estimate the domain specific background error statistics (BES) in convective scales, two months (1 November to 30 December 2017) of numerical experiments were carried out with both models by downscaling operational ECMWF forecasts. For setting the numerical experiments in an operational scenario, ECMWF operational forecast data were used as initial and lateral boundary conditions (ICs/LBCs). In order to examine the impact of data assimilation, the 3D-Var method in cycling mode was adopted and the forecasts were verified every 6 hours up to 36 hours for selected meteorological variables. In addition, 24 h accumulated precipitation forecasts were verified separately. Generally, the WRF and HARMONIE-AROME exhibit similar verification statistics for the selected forecast variables. The impact of DA on the numerical forecast shows some evidence of improvement in both models, and this effect decreases severely at longer lead times. Results from verifying the 24 h convective-scale precipitation forecasts from both models with and without DA suggest the superiority of the WRF model in forecasting more accurately the occurred precipitation over the simulation domain, even for the downscaling run.     

智能网格SCMOC及多模式降水预报对比

以三源融合网格实况降水分析资料CMPAS为参照,基于二分法经典检验、预报评分综合图和面向对象MODE检验等方法,对比分析2021年智能网格预报SCMOC以及ECMWF全球、CMA-Meso中尺度模式在秦岭及周边地区的降水预报表现,主要结论如下：1)ECMWF能够很好地刻画日平均降水量、日降水量标准差以及地形影响下降水量、降水频次的空间分布特征,但对于0.1 mm以上量级的降水预报频次远高于观测,暴雨预报频次低于观测,SCMOC、CMA-Meso日降水量大于等于0.1 mm的降水频次和暴雨频次预报更好;SCMOC不足在于降水的空间精细分布特征描述能力相对较弱。2)ECMWF预报的大于等于0.1 mm降水频次日峰值出现时间整体较观测偏早3 h左右,CMA-Meso、SCMOC与观测总体吻合较好。3)三种产品24 h降水量大于等于0.1 mm的TS(Threat Score)评分数值上基本一致,但降水预报表现的特征显著不同,SCMOC成功率高、命中率低,漏报多、空报少,ECMWF、CMA-Meso则相反;24 h、3 h大雨以上量级降水SCMOC的TS评分、成功率、命中率一致优于其他两种产品...     

一次粤西南暴雨过程的预报误差来源分析

本文基于WRF模式研究了2015年5月16～17日广东西南地区的一次暴雨过程的预报误差来源。首先比较了以NCEP_FNL为初始资料的WRF模式的模拟预报（记为WRF_FNL）和ECMWF（European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts）关于该次暴雨过程的确定性预报。结果表明,ECMWF具有较高的预报技巧,因此,认为ECMWF的模式和初始场都较为准确。进一步,以ECMWF的初值作为初始场,选用相同的物理参数化方案,再次用WRF模式进行预报（预报结果记为WRF_EC）。结果表明相对WRF_FNL,WRF_EC的预报结果有明显改善。这表明,初始场的改进对预报有较大的影响,初始误差是预报误差的重要来源。进一步,分析了初始误差的主要来源区域和来源变量。结果表明,南海北部湾至广西西南区域为本次暴雨预报初始误差的主要来源区域,而初始温度场和初始湿度场则为此次暴雨预报初始误差的主要来源变量。同时改进初始温度场和湿度场可以较大程度提高本次暴雨过程的预报技巧。     

Estimating the accuracy of the very heavy snowfall forecast in the Urals by the WRF model

The results of the forecast of two heavy snowfalls registered on October 18 and 23, 2014 in the Urals using the WRF model are presented. The application of the WRF-ARW atmospheric model to the computation of weather forecasts for the conditions of heavy widespread precipitation in the form of snow is considered. The obtained estimates of precipitation forecast are compared with the estimates of the GFS NCEP global model. The results demonstrate that both models have approximately the same accuracy of precipitation forecast in the context of the process under consideration.     

多模式短期集合降水概率预报试验

利用AREM、MM5和WRF3个中尺度数值模式,通过积云参数化和边界层方案组合构成15个集合成员,对中国2003年7月汛期降水分别采用平均法、相关法、Rank法开展多模式短期集合降水概率预报试验。结果表明：用上述3种方法制作的多模式短期集合概率预报都能对降水落区及中心做出较准确的预报,但平均法和相关法易使降水落区虚假放大,Rank法则能较好地刻画降水落区边界及强度,其概率预报效果优于平均法和相关法结果。采用BS（Brier score）、RPS（ranked probability score）评分和ROC（relative operating characteristic）曲线对3种方法的降水概率预报效果评价时发现,对某一临界值等级的概率预报,3种方法结果差异较小;但对某一天降水概率预报结果的综合评价表明,Rank法显著优于前两种方法;降水强度大、范围广的降水的RPS评分和各级的BS评分较高,表明多模式降水概率预报也具艰巨性。     

基于西南区域模式预报的川西高原东坡过渡带降水地形订正试验

基于西南区域模式（SWCWARMS）网格降水预报,通过地形降水估算量构建地形降水订正方程,分别应用模式地形和实际地形的订正方案对2020年6~8月发生在川西高原东坡过渡带的11次强降水过程进行订正试验。结果表明:应用模式地形订正后各量级降水预报的平均TS（Threat Score）评分较模式预报均有所提高,大雨及以上量级TS评分提高4%以上,平均空报、漏报率均减小,订正效果优于应用实况地形订正的效果。该方法具有普适性,对于地形复杂的川西高原东坡、攀西河谷及盆地西部沿山地区,预报和实况落区相似、不相似及强、弱降水过程均适用。      

bbGPS/PWV资料三维变分同化改进MM5降水预报连续试验的评估

利用区域地基GPS网反演的高时空密度的大气垂直方向水汽总量，也称为可降水量（PWV），可大大弥补常规探空探测水汽资料的不足。为了全面评估区域GPS网PWV资料同化对业务数值天气预报改进程度的目的，在个例研究分析的基础上，进行了连续38天的GPS/PWV资料三维同化（3D-Var）改进数值业务预报的试验。研究方法是根据长江三角洲地区GPS气象网在2002年梅雨和盛夏季节观测的刖资料，通过三维变分同化建立中尺度数值预报模式MM5的初始场，逐日作出长江三角洲地区24小时的降水量预报。以6小时累积雨量为对象，与未同化GPS／刖资料的MM5的相应预报比较，通过多种评分方法，评估了GPS／PWV资料改进MM5降水预报的效果。结果表明GPS／PWV资料同化后的MM5降水预报能力在大部分时间和大部分地区都有所提高，主要是伪击率有较明显的下降，对小范围降水预报的改进更为明显。预报明显改进的区域恰好位于GPS站填补常规探空站间距较大的地区。     

基于目标对象检验法的多种模式强降水能力的比较

针对传统TS检验方法的不足,引入了目标对象检验方法,通过对降水落区的面积、位置、形状和强度进行匹配,可获取空间场潜在的预报信息。以欧洲中心细网格、T639、山东WRF集合模式和华东区域中尺度模式(BCSH)为例,采用强降水过程模式预报最优次数及要素箱线图统计方法,得到模式及集合预报产品的性能特征,根据环流形势及影响系统对强降水分型,结果表明:热带气旋与中低纬度系统相互作用的强降水过程模式预报效果最好,最具参考性;低涡和切变线相伴随的强降水过程效果次之,且以BCSH和山东WRF集合最大值预报效果更好,各模式对低槽系统强降水预报能力一般,对温带气旋类型强降水过程模式预报效果差的概率最大。     

Verification of the Weather Research and Forecasting Model when Forecasting Daily Surface Conditions in Southern Alberta

The Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model was compared with daily surface observations to verify the accuracy of the WRF model in forecasting surface temperature, pressure, precipitation, wind speed, and direction. Daily forecasts for the following two days were produced at nine locations across southern Alberta, Canada. Model output was verified using station observations to determine the differences in forecast accuracy for each season.

Although there were seasonal differences in the WRF model, the summer season forecasts generally had the greatest accuracy, determined by the lowest root mean square errors, whereas the winter season forecasts were the least accurate. The WRF model generally produced skillful forecasts throughout the year although with a smaller diurnal temperature range than observed. The WRF model forecast the prevailing wind direction more accurately than other directions, but it tended to slightly overestimate precipitation amounts. A sensitivity analysis consisting of three microphysics schemes showed relatively minor differences between simulated precipitation as well as 2?m surface temperatures.     

基于WRF模式的云贵川渝地质灾害气象预报系统的应用

介绍了国家气象中心和中国科学院成都山地灾害与环境研究所联合研发的基于ArcGis9.1的云贵川渝地区地质灾害预报系统。该系统是在可拓模型理论基础上建立的,其优点在于能将气象要素和地面要素紧密地结合在一起,形成雨—地耦合的区域泥石流预报模型。系统采用区域精细化数值天气预报模式WRF提供的高时空分辨率的精细降雨预报作为模型的动态输入,实现地质灾害发生概率的预报。目前,系统已经在中央气象台进行业务运行,每日在精细化数值天气预报系统提供的1小时间隔的数值降水预报支持下,定时启动预报系统。该预报产品目前已成为区域精细化地质灾害预报的重要参考。为了进行地质灾害预报效果的检验和评估,首先利用2007年6—7月份实况降水对WRF模型的预报降水进行检验。结果表明:中尺度数值预报模式WRF对区域性、持续时间长的暴雨过程预报能力较高,对于地质灾害预报服务具有较好的应用价值。此外,对2007年7月2—5日发生在四川盆地东部的部分地区的群发地质灾害个例分析及对2007年7月份该地质灾害预报系统的整体预报效果进行检验,结果表明:系统囊括了该次灾情大部分灾情点,总体预报准确率较高,业务中具有一定的应用价值。     

MM5、WRF-RUC及T639模式对山东沿海风力预报分级检验

为客观评价不同的数值模式对山东沿海风的预报性能,结合中国气象局降水分级预报评分办法,定义了一种风力预报分级检验办法.对MM5、WRF-RUC和T639模式在山东沿海9个精细化海区代表站的日最大风速预报进行了检验,结果发现:各模式普遍存在对于小风天气预报偏大、大风天气预报偏小的特点.T639模式风力预报偏弱,因此,对于4级以下的风预报评分较高,而对于8级以上大风几乎没有预报能力.MM5和WRF-RUC模式对于4级以上的较强风力的预报结果明显好于T639模式,其中WRF-RUC模式预报准确率稍高于MM5模式,但风力越大,各模式均漏报越多.各模式分析场以及24 h风力预报与实况的一致性检验表明:5级以下的风力,MM5和WRF模式预报风力与实况基本为一致,但对于6级以上的大风,MM5模式预报较分散,WRF模式预报更接近实况风力.综合各模式对于风力预报的平均绝对误差,WRF-RUC模式预报误差最小,具有较高的参考价值.MM5模式预报准确率稍低于WRF-RUC模式,且存在一定的不稳定性.     

三种数值模式对山西降水预报性能的对比检验

利用MM5、T213和Grapes3种数值模式的降水预报产品和山西省108个标准测站的降水实况资料,采用客观统计检验方法,对2008年7月各模式在山西省的累加降水预报进行了对比检验。结果表明：24h中雨以下预报1、213优于MM5,中雨以上MM5则略优于T213,48h预报各级降水MM5都优于T213,T213和MM5对暴雨都有一定的预报能力。无论哪个预报时效和降水量级,Grapes均无明显优势。Grapes预报降水量级和降水范围都偏小,空报较少,漏报严重,尤其48h和72h10mm以上降水基本都漏报。MM5预报降水量级和预报范围都偏大,10mm以上降水TS评分较其它模式高,但同时空报也比较严重。3种模式TS评分均随降水量级的增大而减小,T213和Grapes的TS评分随预报时效的增加而减小,MM5的TS评分随预报时效的增加变化不大。     

辽宁省夏季多模式降水预报检验及晴雨预报技术研究

利用辽宁省291个国家气象观测站的降水资料,对2019年夏季（6-9月）8种模式降水预报及中央气象台格点降水预报进行了检验评估和比较,并采用消空方法进行晴雨预报技术研究。结果表明：2019年,EC模式具有最优的暴雨预报性能,而日本模式暴雨TS评分最高;中尺度模式对于局地性暴雨和短时强降水具有较好的预报潜力,性能较好的是GRAPES_MESO模式和睿图东北3 km模式;全球模式对24 h暴雨的预报频率比实况偏低30%,3 h强降水则偏低60%,中尺度模式对24 h暴雨的预报频率比实况偏高30%,3 h强降水则偏低20%。由于对小量级降水存在较多空报,各模式原始预报的晴雨预报大多呈现空报偏多的情况;使用小量级降水剔除的消空策略能够明显提高晴雨准确率,消空之后EC模式具有最优的晴雨预报性能。分别使用24 h和3 h累计降水量优化消空策略,发现分别取1.0 mm和0.8 mm的阈值进行消空可以使24 h晴雨准确率提高15.58%,3 h晴雨准确率提高10%-30%。     

混合集合预报法在华南暴雨短期预报中的试验

-WRF多模式集合3组试验,对比分析混合集合预报法与传统方法的降水预报效果。结果表明:ARPS模式集合改善了广东省南部局地强降水预报,该方法在中雨、大雨、暴雨量级改进效果显著。WRF模式集合对广东省北部强降水预报优于ARPS模式集合,但空报、漏报率较大,该方法有一定局限性。ARPS-WRF多模式集合在降水落区和量级预报上均优于传统方法。混合集合预报法利用低分辨率 (36 km) 集合预报和高分辨率 (12 km) 控制预报实现了高分辨率 (12 km) 集合预报,改善了降水预报效果,该方法可为业务高分辨率集合预报提供参考。     

Rainfall Assimilation Using a New Four-Dimensional Variational Method: A Single-Point Observation Experiment

Accurate forecast of rainstorms associated with the mei-yu front has been an important issue for the Chinese economy and society. In July 1998 a heavy rainstorm hit the Yangzi River valley and received widespread attention from the public because it caused catastrophic damage in China. Several numerical studies have shown that many forecast models, including Pennsylvania State University National Center for Atmospheric Research’s fifth-generation mesoscale model (MM5), failed to simulate the heavy precipitation over the Yangzi River valley. This study demonstrates that with the optimal initial conditions from the dimension-reduced projection four-dimensional variational data assimilation (DRP-4DVar) system, MM5 can successfully reproduce these observed rainfall amounts and can capture many important mesoscale features, including the southwestward shear line and the low-level jet stream. The study also indicates that the failure of previous forecasts can be mainly attributed to the lack of mesoscale details in the initial conditions of the models.     

安徽省2021年梅雨期降水预报检验分析

检验梅雨期降水的预报效果,对于提升梅雨期降水预报能力、减少梅雨期降水带来的人员伤亡和经济财产损失有着重要的意义。文章对安徽省2021年梅雨期（6月10日—7月10日）六个客观模式和一个主观订正预报产品进行了检验分析,其中包含了三个区域模式数值预报（中国气象局中尺度天气数值预报系统（简称CMA-MESO）、中国气象局上海数值预报模式系统（简称CMA-SH9）、安徽WRF）、三个全球模式数值预报（中国气象局全球同化预报系统（简称CMA-GFS）、欧洲中期天气预报中心确定性预报模式（简称ECMWF）、美国国家环境预报中心全球预报系统（简称NCEP-GFS））和安徽智能网格主观订正预报的降水产品,进行了检验分析,结果表明：传统检验中安徽智能网格和区域模式对晴雨准确率的预报效果优于全球模式,又以CMA-MESO最优;在暴雨及以上量级的强降水预报中,传统检验表明安徽智能网格预报的得分最高（23.83）,ECMWF模式则是客观模式预报中效果最好的（20.12）,CMA-SH9次之（19.34）;通过对除安徽智能网格以外的各个客观数值模式进行的MODE空间检验可知,不同数值模式间暴雨预报误差原因不尽相同,ECMWF与各区域数值模式主要是由雨区位置的预报偏差,尤其是纬度偏差导致的,NCEP-GFS全球模式对降水强度和雨区面积的预报偏弱偏小比较明显,CMA-GFS在强降水方面的预报可参考性较差;各个主客观预报暴雨及以上量级预报,整体表现出较明显的日变化特征,在午夜前后、上午时段TS评分较高,而午后到傍晚评分较低,这个现象或许是梅雨期的午后降水多以地表太阳加热引起的短历时热对流降水为主造成的。