ECMWF和GFS模式对一例温带气旋预报性能的对比分析  

Forecasting performance analysis of ECMWF and GFS model for a case of extra-tropical cyclone

作　　者：李庆[1] 王力群[1] 马卫民[1] 姜旻[1] 

机构地区：[1]中国卫星海上测控部,江苏江阴214431

出　　处：《海洋预报》2014年第1期22-28,共7页Marine Forecasts

摘　　要：利用ECMWF(欧洲中期天气预报中心)的确定性、集合(平均值和标准差)预报产品和NCEP/GFS(美国国家环境预报中心/全球预报系统)的确定性预报产品,对比分析了它们对西南太平洋一例中α尺度温带气旋的预报性能,结果表明:GFS10—7天前的形势预报较差,6—4天的形势预报较好,但对气旋的强度和位置预报较差;ECMWF确定性模式对该气旋的中期形势预报较GFS模式稳定,两家模式短期形势预报都很准确;ECMWF集合(平均)预报的中期形势较确定性预报更稳定,对天气系统位相的预报更准确,但强度预报偏弱,其标准差场可以定性评估形势场预报的准确性;上述三类产品的综合预报可以有效改善NMWW3(多重网格WAVEWATCHⅢ)模式海浪中期形势和短期要素预报。By using ECMWF （European Centre for Medium-range Weather Forecasts） ensemble prediction products （mean and standard deviation） and NCEP/GFS （National Center for Environmental Prediction/Global Forecast System） deterministic forecast products,the forecasting performance for a case of alpha meso-scale extra-tropical cyclone in the Southwest Pacific was comparatively analyzed.The results are shown as follows：（1） GFS provides poor situation forecasting for 10-7 day,poor intensity and position forecasting for 6-4 day,while does better in 6-4 day situation forecasting; （2） as for the medium-range situation prediction for the cyclone,ECMWF deterministic model is more stable than GFS,and the short-range situation predictions of the two models are both accurate; （3） the medium-range situation perdition of EC-ENS（ECMWF ensemble （mean） is more stable than its deterministic model,and the forecast phase for weather systems is more accurate,but the forecast intensity of all systems is weaker,the accuracy of situation prediction can be qualitatively evaluated by the standard deviation field of EC-ENS; （4） the medium-range wave situation and short-term element forecast ofNMWW3 （NOAA Multi-grid WAVEWATCH Ⅲ） can be improved significantly through using subjective synthesis prediction of the numerical rprediction products mentioned above.

关 键 词：ECMWF GFS 集合预报 温带气旋 西南太平洋 

分 类 号：P443[天文地球—大气科学及气象学]