双月刊

ISSN 1006-9895

CN 11-1768/O4

基于2118台风“圆规”探讨模式扰动方案对台风区域集合预报的影响
作者:
作者单位:

1.广东海洋大学;2.南京信息工程大学

作者简介:

通讯作者:

基金项目:

国家重点研发计划项目2019YFC1510002,国家自然科学基金项目42130605、41705140,广东省基础与应用基础研究基金项目2019B1515120018,深圳科技计划项目JCYJ20210324131810029


Comparison between Multi-Physics and Stochastic Approaches for the 18th October 2021 Typhoon
Author:
Affiliation:

1.Guangdong Ocean University;2.Nanjing University of Information Science & Technology

Fund Project:

  • 摘要
  • |
  • 图/表
  • |
  • 访问统计
  • |
  • 参考文献
  • |
  • 相似文献
  • |
  • 引证文献
  • |
  • 资源附件
    摘要:

    为了探讨不同模式扰动方案对台风区域集合预报的影响,本文以2021年18号台风“圆规”为例,基于WRF模式,采用了多物理过程参数化方法(MP)、随机变化参数扰动方法(SPP)和物理倾向随机扰动(SPPT)三种不同的方法,设计了EXP1(MP)、EXP2(SSP+SPPT)和EXP3(MP+SSP+SPPT)三组敏感性试验进行了比较研究。结果表明:三组区域集合预报试验都能较好地模拟台风路径和台风增强的过程,其中EXP3试验效果最好,EXP3试验的路径偏差值为三组集合预报试验最小的,其平均值为52.8km,而CTRL、EXP1和EXP2的平均值分别为61.8、54.4和65.7km;三组集合预报试验的扰动能量值基本都大于控制试验CTRL,且EXP3的扰动能量发展最快,扰动能量值基本为最大的;三组集合预报试验的Brier评分相较于控制试验CTRL有所改善,且EXP3的Brier评分值为三组集合预报试验改善最大的,EXP1和EXP2相对于CTRL试验的改善率为45%和48.76%,而EXP3能达到70%,EXP2与EXP1的预报效果相当,EXP3相较于EXP1和EXP2预报效果有所改善,其相对于EXP1和EXP2的改善率达到57.5%和40%。

    Abstract:

    In this study, three model perturbation schemes, the stochastically perturbed parameter scheme (SPP), stochastically perturbed physics tendency (SPPT), and multi-physics process parameterization (MP), were used to represent the model errors in the regional ensemble prediction systems (REPS). To study the effects of different model perturbation schemes on Typhoon forecasting, three sensitive experiments using three different combinations (EXP1: MP, EXP2: SPPT + SPP, and EXP3: MP + SPPT + SPP) of the model perturbation schemes were set up based on the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF)-V4.2 model for the Typhoon "Kompasu" on the 18th of 2021. The results show that for typhoon forecasting, ensemble forecasting experiments could simulate the process of typhoon intensification and the path of typhoon, and the simulation result of EXP3 was the best. The path bias of EXP3 was the smallest of the three ensemble forecast experiments with an average value of 52.8 km, while the values of CTRL, EXP1 and EXP2 were 61.8, 54.4 and 65.7 km, respectively. For the perturbation energy, the perturbation energy of the three sets of ensemble prediction experiments were larger than the CTRL. The perturbation energy of EXP3 developed the fastest, and the perturbation energy was the largest. The Brier scores of the three sets of experiments improved the forecast results compared to the CTRL, and the Brier score values of EXP3 were the most improved of the three sets of experiments, with EXP1 and EXP2 showing improvements of 45% and 48.76% relative to the CTRL, while EXP3 was able to reach 70%. The forecasts of EXP2 and EXP1 were comparable, and EXP3 had improved the forecasts compared to EXP1 and EXP2, and its improvement rate reached 57.5% and 40% relative to EXP1 and EXP2.

    参考文献
    相似文献
    引证文献
引用本文
分享
文章指标
  • 点击次数:
  • 下载次数:
  • HTML阅读次数:
  • 引用次数:
历史
  • 收稿日期:2022-07-17
  • 最后修改日期:2023-01-13
  • 录用日期:2023-03-23
  • 在线发布日期: 2023-04-24
  • 出版日期: