CATEGORIZED CORRECTION FORECAST FOR ACCUMULATIVE PRECIPITATION OF HEAVY RAINFALL PROCESSES BASED ON OPTIMAL PROBABILITY (OPPF) IN MEDIUM-EXTENDED-RANGE FORECAST TIME
-
摘要: 采用ECMWF集合预报降水量资料和中国降水量观测资料，研发了基于最优概率的过程累计降水量分级订正预报(OPPF)技术，并在遵循总体技术思路的基础上设计出三种不同的OPPF计算方案(OPPF1、OPPF2、OPPF3)，继而选用2015—2017年汛期(5—9月)中国91次区域性强降水过程进行回报试验和预报效果对比评估，结果表明：(1)在中期延伸期预报时效(96~360小时)，对强降水和有无降水的预报效果，三种OPPF均明显优于集合平均(EMPF)和控制预报(CTPF)；对中等以上或较强以上强度降水的预报效果，OPPF1和OPPF3明显优于CTPF、与EMPF基本接近。(2)三种OPPF相比，OPPF3的预报效果较OPPF1总体略胜一筹，两者均好于OPPF2。(3)预报效果存在明显的地域差异，南方地区强降水预报的TS评分明显大于北方地区，且OPPF3预报效果明显优于EMPF；在96~240小时预报时效，东北地区东部OPPF3强降水的预报效果也明显好于EMPF。Abstract: By taking the ensemble prediction data from ECMWF and the observations data of precipitation in China, the technology of categorized correction forecast for accumulative precipitation of heavy rainfall processes based on optimal probability (OPPF) is developed, and 3 calculation schemes of OPPF (namely OPPF1, OPPF2, and OPPF3) are designed according to overall technical route. Then the reforecast test is carried out for the accumulative precipitation of 91 heavy rainfall processes from May to September during 2015 to 2017 in China, and the forecast performance of the 3 OPPFs against that of ensemble mean (EMPF) and control number (CTPF) is evaluated and contrasted. The results show that: (1) In the medium-extended-range forecast time (96~360 h), the performance of the 3 OPPFs are better than that of EMPF and CTPF for heavy precipitation forecast and clear-rain forecast. The performance of OPPF1 and OPPF3 is better than that of CTPF and close to that of EMPF for precipitation above moderate intensity or larger intensity. (2) Among the 3 OPPFs, the forecast performance of OPPF3 is slightly better than that of OPPF1 in overall. Meanwhile the forecast performance of OPPF3 and OPPF1 is better than that of OPPF2. (3) There are obvious regional differences in forecast performances. TS in southern China are higher than in northern China, and the performance of OPPF3 for heavy precipitation is better than that of EMPF in southern China. During 96~240 h forecast time, the performance of OPPF3 for heavy precipitation is also better than that of EMPF in the eastern part of Northeast China.
-
图 1 历史同期观测样本时段截取示意图
YYYY1MM1DD1HH1为当前实时预报的强降水过程起始时刻，T1=MM1DD1HH1，dt=t2-t1，t1和t2为该强降水过程对应的开始、结束预报时效，m×dt≤30天×24小时/天＜(m+1)×dt。
图 3 三种OPPF以及EMPF和CTPF对2015—2017年5—9月中国91次区域性强降水过程累计降水量(PPr)预报的TS评分
a. PPr≥0.1 mm；b. PPr≥10 mm；c. PPr≥25 mm；d. PPr≥50 mm；e. PPr≥100 mm；f. PPr≥250 mm。
图 4 OPPF3和EMPF对2015—2017年5—9月中国91次区域性强降水过程累计降水量≥50 mm预报的TS评分分布
a. OPPF3 96小时；b. EMPF 96小时；c. OPPF3 168小时；d. EMPF 168小时；e. OPPF3 240小时；f. EMPF 240小时；g. OPPF3 360小时；h. EMPF 360小时。
表 1 OPPF1方案计算所得2015年7月29日12时起报的96~144小时强降水过程累计降水量各预报等级的最优概率阈值(OPCVk)。
k 1 2 3 4 5 6 Gk/mm 0.1 10 25 50 100 250 OPCVk/% 80.39 41.18 21.57 9.80 3.92 1.96 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 OPPF3方案计算所得2015年7月29日12时起报的96~144小时强降水过程累计降水量各预报等级的最优概率阈值(OPCVk)及其计算预报等级值(GkL)。
k 1 2 3 4 5 6 Gk/mm 0.1 10 25 50 100 250 OPCVk/% 31.37 45.10 27.45 23.53 9.80 3.92 GkL/mm 2.9 9.4 22.8 35 71 175
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] 丁一汇.论河南"75.8"特大暴雨的研究:回顾与评述[J].气象学报, 2015, 73(3): 411-424. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-QXXB201503001.htm [2] 郁淑华.长江上游暴雨对1998年长江洪峰影响的分析[J].气象, 2000, 26(1): 56-58. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/qx200001012 [3] 牛若芸, 刘凑华, 刘为一, 等. 1981-2015年中国95°E以东区域性暴雨过程时、空分布特征[J].气象学报, 2018, 76(2): 182-195. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/qxxb201802002 [4] 戴泽军, 刘志雄, 李易芝, 等.近54 a湖南区域暴雨的时空分布特征[J].暴雨灾害, 2015, 34(1): 41-46. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-9045.2015.01.006 [5] 刘雨佳, 张强, 余予.华南地区1961-2014年暴雨及典型暴雨事件统计分析[J].暴雨灾害, 2017, 36(1): 26-32. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-9045.2017.01.004 [6] 翟盘茂, 李蕾, 周佰铨, 等.江淮流域持续性极端降水及预报方法研究进展[J].应用气象学报, 2016, 27(5): 631-640. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/yyqxxb201605011 [7] 吴乃庚, 林良勋, 曾沁, 等.广东高空槽后暴雨的多尺度天气特征及概念模型[J].热带气象学报, 2012, 28(4): 506-516. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-4965.2012.04.009 [8] 张红华, 姚秀萍, 高媛, 等. 2016年江淮地区梅汛期首场持续性暴雨的持续原因初探[J].热带气象学报, 2018, 34(5): 674-684. http://www.itmm.org.cn/rdqxxb/ch/reader/view_abstract.aspx?file_no=20180509&flag=1 [9] 杨玮, 徐敏, 周顺武, 等.江淮流域6-7月极端强降水事件时空变化及环流异常[J].高原气象, 2017, 36(3): 718-735. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/gyqx201703013 [10] 代刊, 曹勇, 钱奇峰, 等.中短期数字化天气预报技术现状及趋势[J].气象, 2016, 42(12): 1 445-1 455. doi: 10.7519/j.issn.1000-0526.2016.12.002 [11] 曹勇, 刘凑华, 宗志平, 等.国家级格点化定量降水预报系统[J].气象, 2016, 42(12): 1 476-1 482. doi: 10.7519/j.issn.1000-0526.2016.12.005 [12] 王毅, 马杰, 代刊. "7·20"华北强暴雨集合预报的中期预报转折和不确定性分析[J].气象, 2018, 44(1): 53-64. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-6190.2018.01.012 [13] 黄威, 牛若芸.基于集合预报和支持向量机的中期强降雨集成预报试验[J].气象, 2017, 43(9): 1 110-1 116. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/qx201709008 [14] 罗芳琼, 吴建生, 金龙.基于最小二乘支持向量机集成的降水预报模型[J].热带气象学报, 2011, 27(4): 577-584. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-4965.2011.04.015 [15] 吴启树, 韩美, 刘铭, 等.基于评分最优化的模式降水预报订正算法对比[J].应用气象学报, 2017, 28(3): 306-317. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/yyqxxb201703005 [16] 曹萍萍, 陈朝平, 徐栋夫, 等.基于集合预报的四川夏季强降水订正试验[J].热带气象学报, 2017, 33(1): 111-118. http://www.itmm.org.cn/rdqxxb/ch/reader/view_abstract.aspx?file_no=20170112&flag=1 [17] 李霁杭, 高郁东, 万齐林.基于观测路径的集合预报样本优选对热带气旋的模拟研究[J].热带气象学报, 2019, 35(2): 197-209. http://www.itmm.org.cn/rdqxxb/ch/reader/view_abstract.aspx?file_no=20190206&flag=1 [18] 童文雪, 李刚, 孙娟珍.针对对流降水预报的BJ-RUC系统1小时更新循环方案研究[J].热带气象学报, 2018, 34(2): 177-187. http://www.itmm.org.cn/rdqxxb/ch/reader/view_abstract.aspx?file_no=20180204&flag=1 [19] 周宁芳, 马杰, 刘凑华. 2016年梅汛期降雨环流特征及ECMWF中期预报偏差分析[J].热带气象学报, 2018, 34(4): 499-506. http://www.itmm.org.cn/rdqxxb/ch/reader/view_abstract.aspx?file_no=20180407&flag=1 [20] 张宏芳, 潘留杰, 杨新. ECMWF、日本高分辨率模式降水预报能力的对比分析[J].气象, 2014, 40(4): 424-432. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-1742.2014.04.016 -
点击查看大图
图(5) / 表(2)
计量
- 文章访问数: 152
- HTML全文浏览量: 26
- PDF下载量: 32
- 被引次数: 0
