高级检索

    湖南省低云量预报订正方法研究

    Research on correction methods for low cloud cover forecasts in Hunan province

    • 摘要: 利用2023年6月1日至2024年5月31日湖南区域三维云量融合实况分析产品(3DCloudA)的低层云量数据,结合CMA-WSP2.0气象预报数据(NWP),利用概率密度匹配法(PDF)和LightGBM(LGB)机器学习方法,开展湖南低云量订正预报方法研究,结果表明:NWP的低云量预报结果在四季都偏大,秋冬季偏大更为明显。PDF与LGB方法对数值模式均有较好的订正效果,LGB方法在春、秋、冬三季预报效果都相对更好,平均偏差分别为-1.6%、1.5%、-1.3%。PDF与LGB方法订正后RMSE均有降低,LGB方法降低更加明显,RMSE在各个季节基本都减小了10%以上。LGB订正模型的RMSE分布呈无偏状态。LGB方法订正后的相关系数在各季均有一定提升,夏季提升相对较为明显,平均相关系数从0.26提升至0.32。从标准差比值来看,LGB方法在四季的标准差比值均小于1,PDF方法相对LGB方法更接近于1。分别选取晴天和雨天的天气个例评估模型在极端云量事件中的表现。在晴天,两种方法均有较好的预报结果;而在雨天,基于极端事件建模的LGB方法对于极端情况的低云量有更好的预报效果。

       

      Abstract: Utilizing the low-level cloud cover data from the Three-Dimensional Cloud Merge Analysis(3DCloudA) product for the Hunan region from June 1, 2023, to May 31, 2024, combined with CMA-WSP2.0 meteorological forecast data(NWP), this study investigates correction methods for low cloud cover forecasts in Hunan using the Probability Density Function (PDF) matching method and the LightGBM (LGB) machine learning approach. The results indicate that the NWP low cloud cover forecasts are consistently overestimated across all four seasons, with more pronounced overestimations in autumn and winter. Both the PDF and LGB methods demonstrate effective corrections to the numerical model, with the LGB method showing relatively better performance in spring, autumn, and winter, with mean biases of -1.6%, 1.5%, and -1.3%, respectively. The Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) shows reduction after corrections by both methods, with the LGB method exhibiting more significant reduction, reducing the RMSE by over 10% in most seasons. The distribution of RMSE for the LGB correction model is unbiased. The correlation coefficients improved across all seasons after LGB method corrections, with a notable increase in summer, where the average correlation coefficient rose from 0.26 to 0.32. In terms of the standard deviation ratio, the LGB method's ratio is less than 1 across all seasons, whereas the PDF method's ratio is closer to 1 compared to the LGB method. Case studies are conducted for both clear-sky and rainy conditions to assess model performance in extreme cloud cover events. Under clear-sky conditions, both methods produced satisfactory forecasts; whereas during rainy conditions, the extreme-event-optimized LGB method exhibited superior forecasting capability for extreme low cloud cover cases.

       

    /

    返回文章
    返回