CMA数值模式对台风杜苏芮(2305)的预报性能分析
DOI:
作者:
作者单位:

国家气象中心

作者简介:

通讯作者:

中图分类号:

基金项目:

中国气象局创新发展专项(CXFZ2022J027)


请扫码阅读

The CMA Model Forecast Verification of Typhoon Doksuri(2305)
Author:
Affiliation:

National Meteorological Center

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
  • |
  • 文章评论
    摘要:

    2023年第5号台风杜苏芮海上维持超强台风时间长达约72h,登陆福建时为强台风级,登陆后维持时间长达22h,给我国近海、沿海和内陆地区造成了严重的风雨影响。各家数值模式预报出现较大分歧,给综合预报造成较大困难。为了更好的对模式做出解释应用,本文重点检验了CMA-TYM和CMA-GFS的路径和强度预报在杜苏芮预报过程中的表现,并采用ECMWF和NCEP预报与之对比,从而找到国产模式的优势和不足。检验结果发现,CMA-TYM路径预报误差与NCEP相近,大于ECMWF和CMA-GFS。在台风生成初期,对其移动方向预报出现较大偏差,明显偏向了实况路径的右侧。23日开始的路径预报对登陆点把握良好,误差主要由于对移动速度的预报偏快。且CMA-TYM对快速加强过程的预报效果较其他模式具有显著优势。CMA-GFS的路径预报质量较好,平均误差略大于ECMWF,但小于NCEP和CMA-TYM,尤其是对长时效预报具有较好的可参考性,但对强度预报明显偏弱。

    Abstract:

    Typhoon Doksuri(2305) maintained a super typhoon at sea for about 72h, landed in Fujian with severe typhoon and maintained for 22h after landing, causing serious wind and rain impacts to China's offshore, coastal and inland areas. There are great differences in the forecast of various numerical models, which causeds great difficulties to forecaster. In order to better explain and apply the model, this paper focuses on the verification for the performance of CMA-TYM and CMA-GFS track and intensity prediction in the process of Doksuri prediction, and compares compared the with ECMWF and NCEP forecasts to find out the advantages and disadvantages of CMA models. The results showed that CMA-TYM track forecast errors were similar to NCEP, and greater than ECMWF and CMA-GFS, the prediction of its movement direction at the initial stage had a large deviation, which was obviously biased to the right side of the real track. The track forecast starting on the 23rd had a good grasp of the landing point, and the error was mainly due to the faster prediction of the moving speed. Compared with other models, the CMA-TYM prediction effect of fast strengthening process had significant advantages. The average error of CMA-GFS was slightly larger than ECMWF, but smaller than NCEP and CMA-TYM. CMA-GFS had a good reference for long-term prediction, but it was obviously weak for intensity prediction.

    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:
文章历史
  • 收稿日期:2023-10-08
  • 最后修改日期:2023-11-06
  • 录用日期:2023-11-16
  • 在线发布日期:
  • 出版日期: