两种数值模式资料的平均海平面气压和地面风速在中国区域的评估  

Evaluating the mean sea level pressure and surface wind speed in China derived from two numerical model data

作　　者：龚伟伟[1] 师春香[2] 张涛[2] 孟现勇[3] 

机构地区：[1]南京信息工程大学,江苏南京210044 [2]国家气象信息中心,北京100081 [3]中国科学院新疆生态与地理研究所,新疆乌鲁木齐830011

出　　处：《冰川冻土》2015年第6期1497-1507,共11页Journal of Glaciology and Geocryology

基　　金：国家国际科技合作项目(2011DFG23150);公益性行业专项(GYHY201306045);国家自然科学基金项目(91437220)资助

摘　　要：利用中国气象局国家级自动站(2 421个)的观测资料,分别对2012年的ECMWF(欧洲中期数值预报中心)和JMA(日本气象厅)数值模式资料的平均海平面气压和地面风速在中国地区的适用性进行了对比研究.结果表明:两种数值模式资料均能在一定程度上反映观测资料所具有的时空分布特征,东部地区的适用性均要高于西部地区.对于平均海平面气压,在西南地区JMA比ECMWF资料更接近实际观测;而在其他地区,两种数值模式资料都较接近实际观测,冬季的结果比夏季好.对于地面风速,这两种数值模式资料各具优势.在中国东南部地区,JMA相对于ECMWF的地面风速资料更接近实际观测值,而在中国西部地区,则相反.就8个时次的年变化而言,ECMWF资料的年变化趋势与观测资料更为一致,而JMA资料的地面风速大小与观测资料更为接近.Applicability of mean sea level pressure and surface wind speed from ECMWF and JMA data is evalu-ated in China by comparison with 2 42 1 automatic station observations from Chinese Meteorological Administra-tion for the periods of 2012.The results indicate that the two numerical models （ECMWF and JMA）could display spatiotemporal consistence with observation basically.The performance of numerical models in east of China is more reliable than that in west of China.The mean sea level pressure from JMA is closer to the observa-tion than that from CMWF in the Southwest China.In other regions of China,results from both ECMWF and JMA are rather close to the observation.The quality of mean sea level pressure from both ECMWF and JMA is better in winter than that in summer.For surface wind speed,result from JMA is better than that from ECMWF in the Southeast China,but it is opposite in other areas.As regard to annual trend,result from ECMWF agrees with the observation very well.However,for surface wind speed,result from JMA is closer to the observation than that from ECMWF.

关 键 词：ECMWF JMA 平均海平面气压 地面风速 适用性评估 

分 类 号：P434[天文地球—大气科学及气象学]