###
气象:2014,40(11):1308-1315
本文二维码信息
码上扫一扫!
湖北省不同资料反演大气可降水量的误差分析
(1 武汉中心气象台,武汉 430074;2 武汉暴雨研究所,武汉 430074)
Error Analysis of Estimating Precipitable Water Vapor from Different Databases in Hubei Province
(1 Wuhan Central Meteorological Observatory, Wuhan 430074;2 Wuhan Institute of Heavy Rain, CMA, Wuhan 430074)
摘要
图/表
参考文献
相似文献
本文已被:浏览 1856次   下载 2374
投稿时间:2013-12-09    修订日期:2014-05-22
中文摘要: 利用常规探空、秒级原始探空、GPS/MET、微波辐射计、GFS再分析资料以及区域中尺度WRF模式的预报场资料计算整层可降水量,对多种资料计算的整层可降水量进行误差特征和原因分析,结果表明:秒级探空和常规探空计算的整层可降水量基本一致。GPS/MET、微波辐射计、GFS以及WRF计算的整层可降水量与常规(秒级)探空的相关系数分别为0.94、0.92、0.93、0.80,有降水时GPS/MET和微波辐射计与常规探空的相关系数分别下降到0.85和0.81,但有降水时GPS/MET误差分布较集中,而有降水时微波辐射计误差显著增大,主要由于1~2 km处水汽密度误差异常增大。除微波辐射计和GFS宜昌站计算的整层可降水量为相对常规探空偏高,其他资料均为偏低,GPS/MET宜昌和恩施站平均偏低3 mm,GFS武汉和恩施站分别偏低1和7 mm,WRF恩施平均偏低2 mm,WRF武汉和宜昌平均偏低6~8 mm。GFS恩施站可降水量偏低是由于GFS资料中恩施地面气压比实际偏低,但其露点温度整层均比常规探空偏高。除GFS恩施站外,GFS武汉、GFS宜昌和WRF 3站的露点温度相对常规探空资料露点温度均表现为:850 hPa以下偏低,850 hPa以上偏高。WRF 12 h预报场的整层可降水量与常规探空整层可降水量的相关性和误差均优于24 h预报场。
Abstract:Using the sounding observation data (SO), raw sounding observation data (RSO), GPS/MET data, microwave radiometer data (MWR), GFS reanalyzed data and the mesoscale area limited model WRF data, the precipitable water vapor (PWV) was estimated. Through the error analysis of different data, it is found that the SO PWV and RSO PWV are the same basically. The correlation coefficient of the GPS/MET PWV, the MWR PWV, the GPS PWV, the WRF PWV and the SO PWV are 0.94, 0.92, 0.93, 0.80, respectively. The correlation coefficients of the GPS/MET PWV, the MWR PWV and the SO PWV reduce to 0.85 and 0.81 seperately when raining, and the error distribution of the GPS/MET PWV is concentrated, while the error distribution of the MWR PWV increases significantly, because the water vapor density error increases abnormally in the part 1-2 km. The PWV is generally low, except for the MWR PWV and the GPS/MET PWV at Yichang. The GPS/MET PWV is averagely 3 mm lower than the SO PWV at Yichang and Enshi, the GFS PWV at Wuhan and Enshi is respectively 1 mm and 7 mm, the WRF PWV at Enshi is averagely 2 mm and 6-8 mm at Wuhan and Yichang. The surface pressure of GFS is lower than the observation at Enshi is the reason for the GFS PWV errors, but the dew point temperature of GFS is higher than SO. The dew point temperature analysis shows that the GFS at Wuhan, the GFS at Yichang, and WRF at three stations are lower below 850 hPa and higher above 850 hPa than SO, except for the GFS at Enshi. The correlation coefficient and the error distribution of the WRF PWV and the SO PWV analysis show that the 12 h forecasting is better than 24 h.
文章编号:     中图分类号:    文献标志码:
基金项目:湖北省气象局科技发展基金重点项目(2013Z02)资助
引用文本:
王继竹,郭英莲,徐桂荣,付志康,龙利民,韩芳蓉,2014.湖北省不同资料反演大气可降水量的误差分析[J].气象,40(11):1308-1315.
WANG Jizhu,GUO Yinglian,XU Guirong,FU Zhikang,LONG Limin,HAN Fangrong,2014.Error Analysis of Estimating Precipitable Water Vapor from Different Databases in Hubei Province[J].Meteor Mon,40(11):1308-1315.