###
气象:2010,36(3):107-111
本文二维码信息
码上扫一扫!
基于ECMWF海平面气压场的热带气旋路径预报效果检验
(1.国家气象中心, 北京 100081;2.浙江省宁波市气象台, 宁波 315012)
Verification of TC Track Forecasting Based on ECMWF Mean Sea Level Pressure Fields
(1.National Meteorological Center, Beijing 100081;2. Ningbo Meteorological Observatory, Ningbo 315012)
摘要
图/表
参考文献
相似文献
本文已被:浏览 1208次   下载 1931
投稿时间:2008-09-09    修订日期:2009-10-26
中文摘要: 将三次样条插值方法应用到欧洲中心(ECMWF)海平面气压场(24~120 h)进行热带气旋(TC)中心定位定强和误差计算,并与同期美国联合台风警报中心(JTWC)、日本气象厅(JMA)和中国中央气象台(CMO)综合预报进行路径误差对比分析。结果表明:72 h以内预报以JTWC表现最好,其次是JMA的综合预报,ECMWF客观预报最差,但ECMWF对于96 h和120 h的热带气旋(TC)中期路径趋势比JTWC综合预报有更好的参考价值。ECMWF对24~120 h TC中心定强偏高15~20 hPa。分别统计08时和20时TC路径预报误差发现,24 h和48 h二者没有差异,而72~120 h 20时预报水平好于08时。
Abstract:The cubic spline interpolation method is applied to make TC (Tropical Cyclone) track and intensity forecasting based on ECMWF (European Center for Medium range Weather Forecasts) daily mean sea level pressure (SLP) fields from 2004 to 2007, and errors are calculated. Compared with subjective TC track forecasting by JTWC (Joint Typhoon Warning Center), JMA (Japan Meteorological Agency) and CMO (Central Meteorological Office), the JTWC outperforms the other three for leading time within 72 hours, followed by JMA, and ECMWF is left behind among the four centers, while ECMWF does better than JTWC for 96 h and 120 h TC track forecasting. ECMWF provides higher pressure values up to 15-20 hPa than the observed for 24-120 h forecasting. Results based on the 20 BT initial fields display no differences from those of the 08 BT initial fields for 24-48 h forecasting, but are better than those of 08 BT for 72-120 h forecasting.
文章编号:     中图分类号:    文献标志码:
基金项目:2008年中国气象局台风业务科研发展专项资助
引用文本:
涂小萍,许映龙,2010.基于ECMWF海平面气压场的热带气旋路径预报效果检验[J].气象,36(3):107-111.
TU Xiaoping,XU Yinglong,2010.Verification of TC Track Forecasting Based on ECMWF Mean Sea Level Pressure Fields[J].Meteor Mon,36(3):107-111.