LAPS系统中两种资料融合方法对台风“海葵”的预报对比分析  

Comparison of two LAPS data merging methods for typhoon "HaiKui" forecasting

作　　者：邱学兴 王东勇[1] 江杨[1] 

机构地区：[1]安徽省气象台,合肥230031

出　　处：《暴雨灾害》2014年第1期41-49,共9页Torrential Rain and Disasters

基　　金：公益性行业(气象)科研专项(GYHY201006004);中国气象局预报员专项(CMAYBY2013-029)

摘　　要：LAPS分析系统包含两种资料融合方法,一种是基于修正的Barnes插值方法(LAPS方法),另一种是基于连续变分的融合方法(STMAS方法)。本文以2012年11号台风"海葵"为例,对LAPS分析系统中这两种方法进行对比分析。结果表明:(1)两种分析方法均能较好分析出台风的环流结构和中心;其中,LAPS方法分析的台风强度略偏弱,但包含小尺度系统较多;相比较而言,STMAS方法分析的台风强度偏强,分析场更加连续、平滑。(2)对高度场、湿度场以及中低层风场和温度场,STMAS方法分析场更加接近探空观测。(3)以LAPS方法分析场为初始场,预报的台风路径误差较STMAS方法大,但对100 mm以上的强降水中心的预报TS评分较高,0—6 h降水预报TS评分也明显高于STMAS方法;而以STMAS方法分析场为初始场,预报的台风强度强于实况,但对大于25 mm和50 mm的雨区预报优于LAPS方法,12—24 h降水预报TS评分也较优。(4)在该台风个例中,对两种方法的降水预报进行平均,所得到的降水预报场具有相对较高的TS评分。There are two kinds of data immerging methods in the LAPS system. The early method is based on the Barnes interpolation meth-od, namely the ＆quot;LAPS method＆quot;. The latest method is based on the continuous variation method, namely the ＆quot;STMAS method＆quot;. These two methods have been applied in analyzing and forecasting a typhoon case （HaiKui, 201211） during 2012. The results are as follow. （1） The ty-phoon center and the circulation structure cloud be revealed accurately in the output fields of two analysis methods. For the analysis fields based on the＆quot;LAPS method＆quot;, the analyzed intensity of the typhoon is weaker than observed, but more small-scale systems could be found within it. For the results of the＆quot;STMAS method＆quot;, the analyzed intensity of the typhoon is stronger, and the analysis fields are more continuous and smooth than observations. （2） For geopotential height, humidity, low-level wind and temperature fields, the analyses based on the＆quot;ST-MAS method＆quot;are closer to soundings than those from the＆quot;LAPS method＆quot;. （3） When WRF model is initialed with the＆quot;LAPS method＆quot;analy-sis field, typhoon path forecasting error was bigger than when it is initialed with the＆quot;STMAS method＆quot;. But threat scores for 0-6 h lead time and heavy rainfall center （more 100 mm） 24 h forecasts based on the ＆quot;LAPS method＆quot;are both better than those based on the＆quot;STMAS meth-od＆quot;. When WRF model is initialed with the＆quot;STMAS method＆quot;analysis field, the typhoon strength forecasting was slightly stronger than obser-vation. Furthermore, the threat scores for 12-24 h lead time and middle rainfall （more than 25 mm and 50 mm） 24 h forecast are both better than traditional method. （4） The threat score of precipitation forecasting for the average of two methods is higher than any one of two methods.

关 键 词：台风 TS评分 

分 类 号：P458.124[天文地球—大气科学及气象学]