不同方法对青海2020年强降水模式产品预报性能的检验对比

doi:10.11755/j.issn.1006-7639(2022)-02-0333

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

基于多模式降水格点预报资料、青海省气象站实况资料及多源融合降水格点分析产品,针对青海省2020年7—8月强降水天气个例,采用TS(threat score)评分等传统检验方法和FSS(fraction skill score)评分及MODE(method of object-based diagnostic evaluation)空间检验方法,对比检验各模式在青海强降水中的预报性能。结果表明:(1)小雨及以上量级,欧洲中期天气预报中心(ECMWF)和美国国家环境预报中心(NCEP)全球模式、中国气象局全球同化预报系统(CMA-GFS)及GRAPES区域中尺度数值预报系统(GRAPES-Meso)的传统TS评分均较高且预报能力相差不大,但不同检验方法下评分最高的模式略有不同;(2)中雨及以上量级,各模式预报较观测普遍偏西,且传统TS评分差异较为明显,但不同检验方法下模式评分优劣表现较为一致;(3)大雨及以上量级,各模式预报较观测普遍偏北,且预报能力较差,传统TS评分为0,FSS评分有效提高了模式差异性的评估能力,MODE方法则给出了预报和观测对象属性的具体表现,但对检验参数的选取较为敏感。

关键词: 传统检验, FSS, MODE, 强降水, 青海

Abstract:

Based on the multi-mode precipitation gridded forecast data, observation data at meteorological stations of Qinghai Province and precipitation gridded analysis product of CMA multi-source precipitation analysis system (CMPAS), the prediction performance of models to heavy precipitation cases in Qinghai Province from July to August 2020 were comparatively tested by using traditional verification method such as threat score (TS) and spatial verification method such as fraction skill score (FSS) of neighborhood method and object-oriented diagnostic evaluation method (MODE). The main conclusions are as follows: (1) The traditional TS scores of global model of European Center of Medium-range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) and National Center for Environmental Prediction (NCEP), China Meteorological Administration global assimilation forecast system (CMA-GFS) and GRAPES regional mesoscale numerical prediction system (GRAPES-Meso) to light rain and above were higher, and the prediction performance difference of four models to light rain was little, but the models with the highest score under different verification methods were slightly different. (2) Compared with the observation, the forecasted locations of four models to moderate rain and above were generally to the west. The traditional TS scores of moderate rain and above were significantly different, but the performance score of models under different verification methods was relatively consistent. (3) Compared with the observation, the forecasted location of four models to heavy rain and above was generally to the north. The prediction ability of each model to heavy rain and above was poor, and the traditional TS scores of heavy rain and above were equal to 0, while FSS scores could effectively improve the evaluation ability to models difference, and MODE could give the specific performance of corresponding object attributes, which provides valuable reference for model application, but it was more sensitive to the selection of verification parameters.

Key words: traditional verification, FSS, MODE, heavy precipitation, Qinghai Province

中图分类号:

P456

沈晓燕, 申燕玲, 权晨, 杜华礼, 颜玉倩. 不同方法对青海2020年强降水模式产品预报性能的检验对比[J]. 干旱气象, 2022, 40(2): 333-343.

SHEN Xiaoyan, SHEN Yanling, QUAN Chen, DU Huali, YAN Yuqian. Verification and comparison of different methods to prediction performance of model products during the heavy precipitations in 2020 in Qinghai Province[J]. Journal of Arid Meteorology, 2022, 40(2): 333-343.

图/表 10

表1 2020年青海7—8月强降水天气个例信息

Tab.1 Information of heavy precipitation weather cases in Qinghai from July to August in 2020

时间	大到暴雨站数	强降水落区
2020年7月8日08:00(北京时,下同)至9日08:00	3	海南州、青海南部
2020年7月15日08:00至16日08:00	4	祁连山区、青海南部
2020年7月17日08:00至18日08:00	3	海东市
2020年8月3日08:00至4日08:00	3	青海南部
2020年8月5日08:00至6日08:00	11	海东市、海南州、黄南州
2020年8月6日08:00至7日08:00	5	海南州、黄南州
2020年8月10日08:00至11日08:00	4	海南州、黄南州
2020年8月16日08:00至17日08:00	5	祁连山区、海东市、海南州
2020年8月22日08:00至23日08:00	18	海东市、海南州、黄南州
2020年8月28日20:00至29日20:00	35	祁连山区、海东市

图1 青海省地形高度(彩色区,单位:m)与气象站点(黑点)分布

Fig.1 Distribution of topography elevation (colour areas, Unit: m) and meteorological stations (black dots) in Qinghai Province

图2 2020年7—8月青海强降水天气个例不同模式降水预报的平均TS评分(a)、漏报率(b)、空报率(c)及偏差(d)

Fig.2 The average TS score (a), MR (b), FAR (c), Bias (d) of precipitation forecast by different models for heavy precipitation weather cases in Qinghai Province from July to August 2020

图3 2020年7—8月青海强降水个例不同模式预报的平均FSS评分

Fig.3 The average FSS score of precipitation forecast by different models for heavy precipitation cases in Qinghai Province from July to August 2020

表2 2020年7—8月青海强降水天气个例MODE检验的预报与观测对象平均属性

Tab.2 The average attributes of forecast objects corresponding to observation for MODE test of heavy precipitation weather cases in Qinghai Province from July to August 2020

模式预报产品	中雨及以上量级				大雨及以上量级
模式预报产品	整体相似度	质心距离	面积比	交叉面积	整体相似度	质心距离	面积比	交叉面积
ECMWF	0.73	1.83	0.47	0.31	0.66	0.62	0.40	0.19
NCEP	0.77	1.82	0.49	0.38	0.51	1.12	0.15	0.09
CMA-GFS	0.71	1.93	0.41	0.29	0.67	1.10	0.47	0.18
GRAPES-Meso	0.67	1.69	0.40	0.30	0.67	0.90	0.41	0.18

图4 2020年7—8月青海强降水天气个例MODE检验的中雨及以上量级(a)和大雨及以上量级(b)预报与观测对象质心距离(单位:km)及方位角 (4位数字为强降水发生日期)

Fig.4 The centroid distance (Unit: km) and azimuth of moderate rain and above (a) and heavy rain and above (b) forecast objects corresponding to observation for MODE test of heavy precipitation weather cases in Qinghai Province from July to August 2020 (four digits for the occurrence date of heavy rainfall)

图5 2020年8月青海省3次暴雨天气个例的降水分析产品和模式预报产品(单位:mm) (从上至下依次是CMPAS和ECMWF、NCEP、CMA-GFS、GRAPES-Meso, 从左至右依次为case1、case2、case3)

Fig.5 The precipitation analysis product and forecast products of model for three rainstorm weather cases in Qinghai Province in August 2020 (Unit: mm) (The precipitation products are CMPAS, ECMWF, NCEP, CMA-GFS and GRAPES-Meso from top to bottom in turn; the cases are case1, case2 and case3 from left to right in turn)

图6 2020年8月青海省3次暴雨个例不同模式中雨及以上量级(a)和大雨及以上量级(b)预报的TS评分

Fig.6 TS score of moderate rain and above (a) and heavy rain and above (b) forecast by different models for three rainstorm cases in Qinghai Province in August 2020

图7 2020年8月青海省3次暴雨个例不同模式中雨及以上量级(a)和大雨及以上量级(b)预报的FSS评分

Fig.7 FSS score of moderate rain and above (a) and heavy rain and above (b) forecast by different models for three rainstorm cases in Qinghai Province in August 2020

图8 2020年8月青海省3次暴雨个例不同模式中雨及以上量级(a)和大雨及以上量级(b)预报的MODE检验

Fig.8 MODE test of moderate rain and above (a) and heavy rain and above (b) forecast by different models for three rainstorm cases in Qinghai Province in August 2020

参考文献 28

[1]	潘留杰, 张宏芳, 王建鹏. 数值天气预报检验方法研究进展[J]. 地球科学进展, 2014, 29(3):327-335.
[2]	朱占云, 潘娅英, 骆月珍, 等. 浙江省水库流域面雨量的多模式预报效果分析与检验[J]. 气象与环境科学, 2017, 40(3):93-100.
[3]	琚陈相, 刘军建, 杜娟, 等. RMAPS-CA在新疆区域预报效果对比检验与评估[J]. 沙漠与绿洲气象, 2020, 14(3):68-77.
[4]	王雨, 公颖, 陈法敬, 等. 区域业务模式6 h降水预报检验方案比较[J]. 应用气象学报, 2013, 24(2):171-178.
[5]	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.
[6]	徐姝, 熊明明, 王颖, 等. 改进的ECMWF集合预报融合产品在海河流域的检验与分析[J]. 气象与环境科学, 2018, 41(4):41-46.
[7]	井立红, 高婧, 赵忠, 等. 数值预报模式在新疆塔城地区降水预报中的检验[J]. 干旱气象, 2017, 35(1):134-141.
[8]	宋雯雯, 郭洁, 淡嘉, 等. 2019年汛期大渡河流域面雨量多模式预报效果检验[J]. 干旱气象, 2021, 39(4):678-686.
[9]	唐文苑, 周庆亮, 刘鑫华, 等. 国家级强对流天气分类预报检验分析[J]. 气象, 2017, 43(1):67-76.
[10]	颜玉倩, 沈晓燕, 肖宏斌, 等. 基于MET检验的青海大范围降水个例参数化方案优选[J]. 沙漠与绿洲气象, 2019, 13(6):59-64.
[11]	AHIJEVYCH D, GILLELAND E, BROWN B G, et al. Application of spatial verification methods to idealized and NWP-gridded precipitation forecasts[J]. Weather and Forecasting, 2009, 24(6):1485-1497. DOI URL
[12]	徐同, 戴建华, 李佳, 等. 强度尺度方法在模式定量降水预报检验中的应用[J]. 气象与环境科学, 2012, 35(1):1-7.
[13]	李佰平, 戴建华, 张欣, 等. 三类强对流天气临近预报的模糊检验试验与对比[J]. 气象, 2016, 42(2):129-143.
[14]	ROBERTS N M, LEAN H W. Scale-selective verification of rainfall accumulations from high-resolution forecasts of convective events[J]. Monthly Weather Review, 2008, 136(1):78-97. DOI URL
[15]	王彬雁, 陈朝平, 黄楚惠. SAL方法在四川降水预报检验中的应用[J]. 干旱气象, 2020, 38(3):472-479.
[16]	GILLELAND E, AHIJEVYCH D, BROWN B G, et al. Intercomparison of spatial forecast verification methods[J]. Weather and Forecasting, 2009, 24(5):1416-1430. DOI URL
[17]	EBERT E. Neighborhood verification: a strategy for rewarding close forecasts[J]. Weather and Forecasting, 2009, 24(6):1498-1510. DOI URL
[18]	DAVIS C, BROWN B, BULLOCK R. Object-based verification of precipitation forecasts. Part Ⅰ: methodology and application to mesoscale rain areas[J]. Monthly Weather Review, 2006, 134(7):1772-1784. DOI URL
[19]	DAVIS C, BROWN B, BULLOCK R. Object-based verification of precipitation forecasts. Part Ⅱ: application to convective rain systems[J]. Monthly Weather Review, 2006, 134(7):1785-1795. DOI URL
[20]	徐同, 张蕾, 李佳. MODE-TD检验方法在上海快速更新同化业务预报系统中的初步应用[J]. 沙漠与绿洲气象, 2020, 14(5):1-10.
[21]	唐文苑, 郑永光, 张小雯. 基于FSS的高分辨率模式华北对流预报能力评估[J]. 应用气象学报, 2018, 29(5):513-523.
[22]	潘留杰, 张宏芳, 陈小婷, 等. 基于邻域法的高分辨率模式降水的预报能力分析[J]. 热带气象学报, 2015, 31(5):632-642.
[23]	刘凑华, 牛若芸. 基于目标的降水检验方法及应用[J]. 气象, 2013, 39(6):681-690.
[24]	潘留杰, 张宏芳, 袁媛, 等. 基于T639细网格模式的陕西省秋淋天气预报效果评估[J]. 气象与环境学报, 2015, 31(6):9-17.
[25]	薛春芳, 潘留杰. 基于MODE方法的日本细网格模式降水预报的诊断分析[J]. 高原气象, 2016, 35(2):406-418. DOI
[26]	王彬雁, 陈朝平, 丛芳, 等. MODE方法在西南区域模式降水预报检验中的应用[J]. 高原山地气象研究, 2020, 40(2):26-30.
[27]	赵滨, 张博. 邻域空间检验方法在降水评估中的应用[J]. 暴雨灾害, 2018, 37(1):1-7.
[28]	潘留杰, 薛春芳, 张宏芳, 等. 三种高分辨率格点降水预报检验方法的对比[J]. 气候与环境研究, 2017, 22(1):45-58.