主办单位：中国气象局沈阳大气环境研究所
国际刊号：ISSN 1673-503X
国内刊号：CN 21-1531/P
气象与环境学报

气象与环境学报 ›› 2023, Vol. 39 ›› Issue (6): 44-50.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-503X.2023.06.006

• 论文 • 上一篇    下一篇

基于目标对象检验法的四川省两种数值模式暴雨预报对比分析

王佳津1,2(),王彬雁1,2,肖递祥1,2,*(),龙柯吉1,2   

  1. 1. 四川省气象台, 四川成都 610072
    2. 中国气象局成都高原气象研究所/高原与盆地暴雨旱涝灾害四川省重点实验室, 四川成都 610072
  • 收稿日期:2022-12-30 出版日期:2023-12-28 发布日期:2024-01-27
  • 通讯作者: 肖递祥 E-mail:w_jiajin@163.com;5955532@qq.com
  • 作者简介:王佳津, 高级工程师, 主要从事高影响天气及模式解释应用研究, E-mail: w_jiajin@163.com
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金重点项目(91937301);四川省科技计划重点研发项目(2022YFS0542);中国气象局创新发展专项(CXFZ2021J027);中国气象局创新发展专项(CXFZ2023J016);中国气象局西南区域气象中心成渝双城经济圈气象服务技术创新团队项目;高原与盆地暴雨旱涝灾害四川省重点实验室研究型业务面上专项(SCQXKJQN202213);高原与盆地暴雨旱涝灾害四川省重点实验室研究型业务面上专项(SCQXKJQN202214);高原与盆地暴雨旱涝灾害四川省重点实验室重点专项(SCQXKJZD2020002);中国气象局复盘总结专项(FPZJ2023-112)

Comparative analysis of heavy rain forecast in Sichuan province from two numerical models based on the object recognition method

Jiajin WANG1,2(),Binyan WANG1,2,Dixiang XIAO1,2,*(),Ke-ji LONG1,2   

  1. 1. Sichuan Meteorological Observatory, Chengdu 610072, China
    2. Heavy Rain and Drought-Flood Disasters in Plateau and Basin Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Chengdu 610072, China
  • Received:2022-12-30 Online:2023-12-28 Published:2024-01-27
  • Contact: Dixiang XIAO E-mail:w_jiajin@163.com;5955532@qq.com

RichHTML

4

PDF (PC)

154

摘要：

根据2021年四川省31次暴雨过程预报偏差检验, 选取ECMWF预报雨带明显偏西、CMA-MESO预报较好的3次个例, 基于目标对象检验法对强降水落区(≥25 mm)从位置偏差、面积偏差、雨带走向和降水强度4个方面对两模式的预报偏差特征和主要原因进行对比分析。结果表明: ECMWF模式降水落区预报较实况偏西偏北, 且偏西偏差距离(59.06~123.67 km)显著大于偏北偏差距离(8.23~53.59 km), 而CMA-MESO模式雨带走向和位置预报与实况更为接近。两模式降水面积预报均大于实况, ECMWF模式较实况偏大7.0%~34.3%, CMA-MESO模式偏大25.2%~45.9%。两模式降水量平均值预报与实况偏差幅度为-3.5%~20.0%, 但降水量极值预报较实况偏差较大, 偏差幅度为50.1%~196.9%。检验分析表明, 出现在副热带高压边缘, 受高原涡或西南涡影响的四川暴雨过程, 在ECMWF模式预报强降水落区(≥25 mm)偏西的情况下, CMA-MESO模式可以提供订正参考。

关键词: 目标对象检验法, ECMWF模式, CMA-MESO模式

Abstract:

According to the deviation test of 31 heavy rain process forecasts in Sichuan province in 2021, 3 forecasting cases predicted by the ECMWF (European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts) model and the CMA-MESO (China Meteorological Administration Mesoscale Model) model were selected for comparisons.For these three cases, the rain bands predicted by the ECMWF model were westerly biased, and those produced by the CMA-MESO were better.Based on the object-oriented verification method, the characteristics and main reasons for the bias of the two models in the heavy precipitation falling area (≥25 mm) were compared from four aspects: location deviation, area deviation, rain band trend, and precipitation intensity.The results show that the falling region of the precipitation forecasted by the ECMWF model biases westward and northward, and the westward deviation distance (59.06~123.67 km) is significantly larger than the northerly deviation distance (8.23~53.59 km), while that forecasted by the CMA-MESO model is closer to the forecast.The precipitation areas forecasted by the ECMWF and CMA-MESO models both exceed the actual areas with the ECMWF model being over 7.0%~34.3% and CMA-MESO model being over 25.2%~45.9%, respectively.The deviation between the average precipitation forecast and the actual precipitation is -3.5%~20.0%, but the extreme precipitation forecast is larger than the actual precipitation deviation, with a deviation range of 50.1%~196.9%.The test analysis shows that the CMA-MESO model can provide a correction reference for the heavy rainfall process in Sichuan province, which occurs at the edge of subtropical high and is affected by the plateau vortex or the southwest vortex when the ECMWF model forecasts the heavy rainfall area (≥25 mm) to the west.

Key words: Target object verification method, ECMWF model, CMA-MESO model

中图分类号: