| 不同背景场近地层风速的预报效果检验 |
| |
| 引用本文： | 孙逸涵,何晓凤,周荣卫.不同背景场近地层风速的预报效果检验[J].资源科学,2013,35(12):2481-2490. |
| |
| 作者姓名： | 孙逸涵 何晓凤 周荣卫 |
| |
| 作者单位： | 中国气象局公共气象服务中心, 北京 100081;中国气象局公共气象服务中心, 北京 100081;中国气象局公共气象服务中心, 北京 100081 |
| |
| 基金项目： | 中国气象局气象关键技术集成与应用项目（编号：CAMGJ2012M76）；公益性行业（气象）科研专项（编号：GYHY201006035）；国家高技术研究发展计划（编号：2011AA05A302）。 |
| |
| 摘 要： | 模式初始场的优劣对风预报结果影响较大，中国常用的全球环流背景场为美国NCEP发布的GFS资料、欧洲中心的ECMWF资料以及中国气象局的T639资料。本文收集、整理了2010年6月~2011年5月的上述3套资料，将其分别与中国境内677个基本站、基准站和400座专业测风塔同期测风数据进行对比检验，综合分析GFS、EC、T639在中国区域内的近地层风速预报效果，并给出3套数据预报性能的平面分布图，结合气象站和测风塔处的地形特征和测风数据的代表性，初步判断3套背景场的近地层风速在不同区域、不同季节的可预报性，为中尺度模式选择初始场开展风速预报服务时提供一定依据。结果表明：①风速介于（0~3）m/s时，气象站和测风塔观测资料检验结果一致，T639资料预报效果最好，GFS资料第二，EC资料第三。风速介于（3~15）m/s时，气象站和测风塔观测资料检验结果有差异，测风塔数据检验，EC资料预报效果最好，GFS资料第二，T639资料第三；气象站资料检验，GFS资料预报效果最好，EC资料第二，T639资料第三。风速介于（15~25）m/s时，气象站和测风塔观测资料检验结果一致，EC资料预报效果最好，GFS资料第二，T639资料第三；②基于（3~15）m/s风速段，中国东北、华北、西北、西南地区，全年EC资料预报效果最好，GFS第二，T639第三，但秋冬季在西南地区三套资料的预报效果均较差。华东地区，春秋季时，EC和GFS资料预报效果一致，优于T639；夏季时，EC资料预报效果最好，GFS第二，T639第三；冬季时，3套资料预报效果一致。中南地区，春、秋、冬季时，EC资料预报效果最好，GFS和T639资料预报效果一致；夏季时，3套资料预报效果一致。
|
| 关 键 词： | 风能预报 全球环流背景场 GFS预报场 EC预报场 T639预报场 风速检验 气象站 测风塔 |
| 收稿时间： | 1/4/2013 12:00:00 AM |
Evaluation of Forecasting Results of Wind Speed Based on Different Background Fields in the Surface Layer |
| |
| SUN Yihan,HE Xiaofeng and ZHOU Rongwei.Evaluation of Forecasting Results of Wind Speed Based on Different Background Fields in the Surface Layer[J].Resources Science,2013,35(12):2481-2490. |
| |
| Authors: | SUN Yihan HE Xiaofeng and ZHOU Rongwei |
| |
| Institution: | Public Meteorological Service Center of CMA, Beijing 100081, China;Public Meteorological Service Center of CMA, Beijing 100081, China;Public Meteorological Service Center of CMA, Beijing 100081, China |
| |
| Abstract: | Wind speed forecasting mostly adopts global circulation background as the initial fields of meso-scale model to downscaling, in order to obtain surface layer wind speed at a fine resolution. In China, ECMWF(EC in brief), GFS and T639 data are common circulation field data released by European centers and CMA. This study collected and collated the three sets of data from June 2010 to May 2011. To ensure data comparability, we adopted EC with a resolution of 0.25° grid(lat., Ion.), GFS with 0.5° grid(lat., Ion.)and T639 data with 0.28125° grid(lat., Ion.). We contrasted 677 weather stations and 400 wind masts over the same time period in China. We found that when the wind speed is between(0~3)m/s, the performance of the data sets is T639 > GFS > EC. When the wind speed is between(3~15)m/s the performance is EC > GFS > T639 when verified by masts and GFS > EC > T639 when verified by weather stations. When the wind speed is between(15~25)m/s, the performance is EC > GFS > T639. Based on the(3~15)m/s wind speed segment in northeast China, north China, northwest China and southwest China the performance is EC > GFS > T639, but the three sets of data for southwestern China are poor in Autumn and Winter. In east China during spring and autumn, EC and GFS are almost the same and both better than T639. In summer the performance is EC > GFS > T639 and in winter the three sets are almost the same. In south China during spring, autumn and winter, EC is the best and GFS and T639 are identical. In summer, the three sets of data are nearly identical. |
| |
| Keywords: | Wind speed forecasting Model initial field GFS ECMWF T639 Wind speed verification Weather stations Wind masts |
|
| 点击此处可从《资源科学》浏览原始摘要信息 |
| 点击此处可从《资源科学》下载免费的PDF全文 |
|
