ANALYSIS OF PERFORMANCE OF REGIONAL TYPHOON MODEL IN NATIONAL METEOROLOGICAL CENTER
-
摘要: 为了更好发挥区域台风模式GRAPES_TYM在业务预报中的参考作用，利用2017年GRAPES_TYM升级版本对2014—2016年的回算结果同美国国家环境预报中心的全球模式（NCEP-GFS）以及欧洲中期天气预报中心（ECMWF）的中期预报模式(EC-IFS)进行了对比分析。结果显示：两个全球模式的预报路径平均误差小于区域台风模式GRAPES_TYM的平均路径误差；GRAPES_TYM和NCEP-GFS的路径预报均存在明显的移向正偏差，EC-IFS移向偏差不明显；GRAPES_TYM对我国近海登陆的热带气旋120 h路径预报误差小于NCEP全球模式，同ECMWF差别不大；区域模式的强度（近地面最大风速）预报平均误差在72 h前小于两个全球模式，而三个模式在强度预报上存在明显负偏差，负偏差主要存在于25 °N以南（这一区域为强台风和超强台风主要区域）。Abstract: The retrospective runs of TCs with history longer than 48 h in 2014—2016 are carried out. The track and maximum surface wind speed errors are analyzed and compared with two global models: NCEP global forecast system (NCEP-GFS) and ECMWF Integrated Forecast System (EC-IFS). The statistic results show: the mean track errors of two global models are smaller through 24~120 h forecast than these of GRAPES_TYM. There exist larger cross-track errors in NCEP-GFS and GRAPES_TYM but there are no obvious cross-track errors in EC-IFS forecast. The 120 h track errors of GRAPES_TYM are smaller than NCEP-GFS for the TCs that travelled westward or north-westward and made landfall. The mean errors of maximum surface wind speed of GRAPES_TYM are smaller than these of the other two global models before 72 h; there exist negative bias for all the three models especially in the area to the south of 25 °N where many severe typhoon and super typhoon developed.
-
Key words:
- TC forecast Track errors /
- Maximum surface wind speed /
- errors Statistic analyses /
-
图 4 120 h路径误差
不同颜色代表不同等级的误差，箭头的方向代表路径偏差方向。a. GRAPES_TYM；b. NCEP_GFS；c. EC-IFS。长短代表误差的相对大小。Min:最小值；Max:最大值；ME:平均值。
图 5 120 h相对误差
单位：km。a. NCEP-GFS路径误差-GRAPES_TYM路径误差；b. EC-IFS路径预报误差-GRAPES_TYM路径误差。Mum:样本数；PPR：误差小于GRAPES_TYM的样本占总样本的比例；Skill:相对误差减小的百分比；Min:最小值；Max:最大值；ME:平均值。
图 7 72 h近地面最大风速偏差地域分布
a. GRAPES_TYM；b. NCEP_GFS；c. EC-IFS。Min：最小值；Max：最大值；ME：平均值; MAE：绝对值平均。
图 8 1622号台风的预报路径
黑色为最佳路径，不同颜色代表不同初始时刻的预报，间隔12 h（00Z和12Z）。a. GRAPES_TYM; b. NCEP-GPS; c. EC-IFS。
表 1 GRAPES_TYM、NCEP-GFS以及EC-IFS概况
模式 分辨率 涡旋初始化 GRAPES_TYM 0.12 °/50 强度调整 NCEP-GFS T1534(13 km)/64 涡旋重订位+中心气压同化 EC-IFS TCo1279(9km)/137 无 
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] ROGERS R, ABERSON S, BLACK P, et al. The intensity forecasting experiment: A NOAA multiyear field program for improving tropical cyclone intensity forecasts[J]. Bull Amer Meteor Soc, 2006, 87:1 523-1 538. [2] DEMARIA M, MAINELLI M, SHAY L K, et al. Further improvements to the statistical hurricane intensity prediction scheme (SHIPS)[J]. Wea Forecasting, 2005, 20(4): 531-543. [3] GOPALAKRISHNAN G, GOLDENBERGS, QUIRINO T S, et al. Toward improving high-resolution numerical hurricane forecasting: influence of model horizontal grid resolution, initialization and physic[J]. Wea Forecasting, 2012, 27: 647-666. [4] ZHANG X, QUIRINO T S, YEH K S, et al. HWRFx: Improving hurricane forecast with high-resolution modeling[J]. Computing in Science and Engineering, 2011, 13(1): 13-21. [5] WANG Y. An explicit simulation of tropical cyclones with a triply nested movable mesh primitive equation model: TCM3. Part Ⅰ: Model description and control experiment[J]. Mon Wea Rev, 2001, 129(6):1 370-1 394. [6] WANG Y. An explicit simulation of tropical cyclones with a triply nested movable mesh primitive equation model: TCM3. Part Ⅱ: Model refinements and sensitivity to cloud microphysics parameterization[J].Mon Wea Rev, 2002, 130(12): 3 022-3 036. [7] CHA D H, WANG Y. A dynamical initialization scheme for real-time forecasts of tropical cyclones using the WRF model[J]. Mon Wea Rev, 2013, 141: 964-986. [8] WANG Y. On the bogusing of tropical cyclones in numerical models: The influence of vertical structure[J]. Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, 1998, 65: 153-170. [9] NGUYEN H V, CHEN Y L. High resolution initialization and simulations of Typhoon Morakot (2009)[J]. Mon Wea Rev, 2011, 139: 1 463-1 491. [10] TALLAPARAGADA V, KIEU C, KWON Y, et al. Evaluation of storm structure from the operational HWRF during 2012 implementation[J]. Mon Wea Rev, 2014, 142: 4 308-4 225. [11] TALLAPARAGADA V, KIEU C, KWON Y, et al. Significant advances to the NCEP operational HWRF modeling system for improved hurricane forecasts[C]//Proc. 30th Conf. on Hurricane and Tropical Meteorology. SanDiego, CA, Amer Meteor Soc, 14D.1.[Available on line at http://amd.confex.com/ams/31Hurr/webprogram/Paper244632.html.] [12] TALLAPARAGADA V, KIEU C, TRAHAN S, et al. Forecasting tropical cyclones in the Western North Pacific basin using NCEP operational HWRF model: Real-time implementation in 2013[J]. Wea Forecasting, 2015, 30: 1 355-1 373. [13] TALLAPARAGADA V, KIEU C, TRAHAN S, et al. Forecasting tropical cyclones in the Western North Pacific basin using the NCEP Operational HWRF Model: Models upgrades and evaluation of real-time performance in 2013[J]. Wea Forecasting, 2016, 31: 877-894. [14] 陈子通, 戴光丰, 钟水新, 等.中国南海台风模式(TRAMS v2.0)技术特点及其预报性能[J].热带气象学报, 2016, 32(6): 831-840. [15] 陈子通, 戴光丰, 钟水新, 等.模式动力过程与物理过程耦合及其对台风预报的影响研究[J].热带气象学报, 2016, 32(1):1-8. [16] 钟水新, 陈子通, 戴光丰, 等.地形重力波拖曳参数化对热带气旋强度和路径预报影响的研究[J].大气科学, 2014, 38(2):273-284. [17] 徐道生, 陈子通, 戴光丰, 等.对流参数化方案的改进对GRAPES模式台风预报的影响研究[J].热带气象学报, 2014, 30(2):210-218. [18] 薛纪善, 陈德辉.数值预报系统GRAPES的科学设计与应用[M].北京:科学出版社, 2008. [19] 邓华, 薛纪善, 徐海明, 等. GRAPES中尺度模式中不同对流参数化方案模拟对流激发的研究[J].热带气象学报, 2008, 24(4):327-334. [20] 麻素红, 张进, 沈学顺, 等.模式参考大气及涡旋初始化方案改进对GRAPES_TYM台风预报的影响[J].应用气象学报, 2018, 29(3): 257-269. [21] 张进, 麻素红, 陈德辉, 等. GRAPES_TYM改进及其在2013年西北太平洋和南海台风预报的表现[J].热带气象学报, 2017, 33(1):64-73. [22] WANG Y. On an inverse balance equation in sigma-coordinates for model initialization[J]. Mon Wea Rev, 1995, 123: 482-488. -
点击查看大图
图(9) / 表(1)
计量
- 文章访问数: 1044
- HTML全文浏览量: 68
- PDF下载量: 484
- 被引次数: 0
粤公网安备 4401069904700003号