高级搜索

山东半岛两种天气类型的多模式暴雨预报检验分析

Verification and analysis of multi-model rainstorm forecasting in Shandong Peninsula for two weather patterns

  • 摘要: 为分析不同数值模式在山东半岛暴雨预报中的表现,利用山东半岛302个国家和区域气象站降水实况资料、地面-卫星-雷达三源融合实况格点降水数据(CMPAS-5 km)及高分辨率数值预报模式ECMWF、CMA-GFS、CMA-MESO、CMA-SH9 (以下分别简称EC、GFS、MESO、SH)产品,对2021—2023年山东半岛副高边缘切变型和气旋型暴雨,采用传统检验方法及面向对象目标的两种空间检验方法(MODE、SAL)分析模式暴雨预报能力。结果表明:(1) 依据传统检验方法,针对副高边缘切变型暴雨的预报,MESO为最优模式,GFS漏报率最高,但空报率较低,EC空报率较高;针对气旋型暴雨的预报,SH表现最优,MESO漏报率最低,总体来看中尺度模式预报效果优于大尺度模式。(2) 基于MODE方法的各模式目标整体相似度检验表现为气旋型暴雨大于副高边缘切变型暴雨,针对副高边缘切变型和气旋型暴雨,目标对象重叠面积比例均值排名分别为MESO > SH > EC > GFS、SH > EC > MESO > GFS,EC和GFS对副高边缘切变型暴雨存在预报对象面积较实况偏小的情况,SH面积预报偏大,几乎所有模式对两种暴雨质心的预报均存在偏北或偏西情况,综合来看,副高边缘切变型暴雨优先参考中尺度模式,气旋型暴雨优先参考SH和EC。(3) 基于SAL空间检验结果,在降水平均强度方面,副高边缘切变型优先参考MESO,而气旋型优先参考大尺度模式。

     

    Abstract: To study the performance of different numerical models in forecasting rainstorms in Shandong Peninsula, precipitation data from 302 national and regional meteorological stations, the 5 km real-time data (CMPAS-5 km) from the CMA Multi-source Precipitation Analysis System, and products of high-resolution numerical models ECMWF, CMA-GFS, CMA-MESO, and CMA-SH9 (hereinafter referred to as EC, GFS, MESO, and SH, respectively) were used. For the rainstorm cases of the shear line pattern at the edge of western Pacific subtropical high (shear line rainstorms, hereinafter) and the cyclone pattern (cyclonic rainstorms, hereinafter) in Shandong Peninsula from 2021 to 2023, the traditional verification and two spatial verification methods (MODE and SAL) were employed to analyze the forecast ability of the models. The results are as follows. (1) According to traditional verification methods, MESO proved to be optimal for the shear line rainstorms, GFS exhibited the highest missing alarm rate but a lower false alarm rate, while EC had a higher false alarm rate. For cyclonic rainstorms, SH performed the best, and MESO had the lowest missing alarm rate. Overall, meso-scale models outperformed large-scale models. (2) The MODE-derived overall object-based similarity for the cyclonic rainstorms exceeded that for the shear line rainstorms. For the shear line and the cyclonic rainstorms, the mean overlapping area ratio was ranked as MESO > SH > EC > GFS and SH > EC > MESO > GFS, respectively. EC and GFS tended to underestimate the area of shear line rainstorms, whereas SH tended to overestimate it. Almost all models exhibited a northward or westward deviation in rainstorm object centroids for both patterns. Overall, for the shear line rainstorms at the edge of the western Pacific subtropical high, meso-scale models (SH and MESO) were preferred. For the cyclonic rainstorms, priority was given to SH and EC. (3) Based on the SAL spatial verification results, for the shear line rainstorms, MESO was recommended in average precipitation intensity forecasting, whereas large-scale models were more appropriate for the cyclonic rainstorms.

     

/

返回文章
返回