高级检索
龚伟伟, 师春香, 张涛, 姜立鹏, 庄媛, 孟现勇. 中国区域多种数值模式资料的地面气象要素评估[J]. 气候与环境研究, 2015, 20(1): 53-62. DOI: 10.3878/j.issn.1006-9585.2014.13153
引用本文: 龚伟伟, 师春香, 张涛, 姜立鹏, 庄媛, 孟现勇. 中国区域多种数值模式资料的地面气象要素评估[J]. 气候与环境研究, 2015, 20(1): 53-62. DOI: 10.3878/j.issn.1006-9585.2014.13153
GONG Weiwei, SHI Chunxiang, ZHANG Tao, JIANG Lipeng, ZHUANG Yuan, MENG Xianyong. Evaluation of Surface Meteorological Elements from Several Numerical Models in China[J]. Climatic and Environmental Research, 2015, 20(1): 53-62. DOI: 10.3878/j.issn.1006-9585.2014.13153
Citation: GONG Weiwei, SHI Chunxiang, ZHANG Tao, JIANG Lipeng, ZHUANG Yuan, MENG Xianyong. Evaluation of Surface Meteorological Elements from Several Numerical Models in China[J]. Climatic and Environmental Research, 2015, 20(1): 53-62. DOI: 10.3878/j.issn.1006-9585.2014.13153

中国区域多种数值模式资料的地面气象要素评估

Evaluation of Surface Meteorological Elements from Several Numerical Models in China

  • 摘要: 利用中国气象局国家级自动站(2421个站)的观测资料,分别对2010年7月1日至2013年6月30日 的欧洲中期数值预报中心(ECMWF)、日本气象厅(JMA)和美国国家海洋大气局的全球预测系统(GFS)数值模式资料的地面气温、相对湿度和风速在中国区域的适用性进行了比较研究.结果表明,3种数值模式资料都能在一定程度上反映观测资料所具有的时间和空间分布特征,东部地区的适用性要高于西部地区.不同的地面气象要素,差异较大:对于地面气温和地面相对湿度,ECMWF比 JMA和GFS更接近实际观测,ECMWF和JMA的分析场数据质量要好于预报场;ECMWF和JMA地面气温在冬季与观测差异最大,GFS地面气温在夏季与观测差异最大;3种数值模式资料的地面相对湿度在秋季和冬季与观测差异最大;对于地面风速,在江淮流域和华南等东部区域JMA与实际观测差异最小,在北部和西部区域ECMWF最好,JMA和GFS地面风速在冬季与实际观测差异最大.

     

    Abstract: The applicability of surface meteorological elements such as surface air temperature, relative humidity, and wind speed from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA), and Global Forecast System (GFS) is evaluated in China by comparison with automatic observations from 2421 stations reported by the Chinese Meteorological Administration from 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2013. The results indicate that the three numerical models can essentially display spatiotemporal consistence with observation and that their performance in East China is more reliable than that in the western area. The various surface meteorological variables of the numerical models are key to these differences. For example, the surface air temperature and relative humidity of ECMWF are closer to the observations than the JMA and GFS. Moreover, the qualities of surface air temperature and relative humidity from both ECMWF and JMA are better in the analysis field than those in prediction field. In addition, for surface air temperature, the largest differences with observation are noted with ECMWF and JMA in winter and GFS in summer. For surface relative humidity, the discrepancy of the three numerical models is the most significant in autumn and in winter. For the surface wind speed from these numerical models, JMA is the closest to the observation in eastern China, whereas ECMWF is the best in northern and western China. However, from the perspective of time, the differences among JMA, GFS, and the observations are the most obvious in winter.

     

/

返回文章
返回