本文已被:浏览 1458次 下载 2468次
投稿时间:2012-08-02 修订日期:2012-10-04
投稿时间:2012-08-02 修订日期:2012-10-04
中文摘要: 基于我国T213全球集合预报系统,设计了两种模式随机扰动方案,第一种方案对物理过程和动力过程积分总倾向项进行随机扰动(简称STPS),第二种方案仅对参数化的物理过程的积分倾向项进行随机扰动(简称SPPS)。将两种方案分别引入模式进行数值试验,评估集合预报效果,分析随机扰动特征及扰动传播机制。结果表明:两种随机扰动方案对T213模式预报变量都产生了明显的影响,垂直方向和水平方向上,扰动值都随着积分时间增加而增长,中高纬地区尤为显著。两种方案的差异是STPS方案预报变量扰动值偏大;SPPS方案预报变量扰动值更为合理,SPPS的扰动大值中心随预报时效增加从低纬向中高纬传播,且总能量偏差具有从小尺度向大尺度传播的特征。与STPS方案相比,SPPS方案的集合预报离散度、集合平均的均方根误差在积分后期明显更有优势,高度场和风场的预报准确性提高,降水量预报技巧也得到明显的改进。表明SPPS方案能更加合理地体现模式物理过程的不确定性,在一定程度上提高集合预报系统的预报能力。
Abstract:Based on the CMA T213 global ensemble forecast system, two different schemes of model stochastic perturbation are designed in this paper. The first scheme imposes the perturbation on the total tendency of physical process and dynamical process (STPS). The second scheme perturbates the parameterized physical process (SPPS). We separately introduce the two schemes into model to perform numerical tests. Then we evaluate the performance of ensemble forecast, analyze the characteristics of stochastic perturbation and understand the perturbation propagation mechanism. The result shows that both schemes of stochastic perturbation significantly influence the T213 model forecast variables. Perturbation values in vertical direction and horizontal direction increase along with the increase of integration time, especially in the region of middle and high latitudes. The difference between the two schemes is that the forecast variable of STPS scheme is more disturbed than SPPS scheme at the total stage of integration. The forecast variable of SPPS is more reasonable compared with STPS. The center of SPPS maximum perturbation value propagates from low latitudes to high latitudes with the increase of integration time. The total perturbation energy has the characteristics of propagating from small scale to large scale. Compared with STPS, SPPS ensemble forecast has advantages on the aspects of ensemble forecast dispersion and root mean square error of ensemble at the late stage of integration, improving the accuracy in forecasting the geopotential height field and wind field, and the techniques in forecasting precipitation. Finally, this paper proves that SPPS scheme can more reasonably reflect the uncertainty of the model physical process and it enhances the forecast ability of the ensemble forecast system at a certain degree.
文章编号: 中图分类号: 文献标志码:
基金项目:“十一五”国家科技支撑计划项目(2009BAC51B00)、国家重点基础研究发展计划(2012CB417204)、公益性行业(气象)科研专项(GYHY200906007)及国家自然科学基金面上项目(41075035)共同资助
引用文本:
谭宁,陈静,田华,2013.两种模式随机扰动方案比较及扰动传播分析[J].气象,39(5):543-555.
TAN Ning,CHEN Jing,TIAN Hua,2013.Comparison Between Two Global Model Stochastic Perturbation Schemes and Analysis of Perturbation Propagation[J].Meteor Mon,39(5):543-555.
谭宁,陈静,田华,2013.两种模式随机扰动方案比较及扰动传播分析[J].气象,39(5):543-555.
TAN Ning,CHEN Jing,TIAN Hua,2013.Comparison Between Two Global Model Stochastic Perturbation Schemes and Analysis of Perturbation Propagation[J].Meteor Mon,39(5):543-555.