ECMWF对不同天气形势下影响浙江台风的路径预报评估-海洋预报

ECMWF对不同天气形势下影响浙江台风的路径预报评估

单位：1. 台州市气象局, 浙江台州 318000;
2. 台州市路桥区气象局, 浙江台州 318000

分类号：P457.8

出版年·卷·期（页码）：2019·36·第二期（68-76）

摘要：

对2012-2016年影响浙江台风进行天气形势场基本分型，依次是：（Ⅰ）东侧副高+浅槽型、（Ⅱ）副高+深槽\低涡型、（Ⅲ）带状副高型、（Ⅳ）副高西伸脊型、（Ⅴ）近海块状副高型、（Ⅵ）其他型。基于此对ECMWF台风路径预报进行评估，包括路径预报距离误差、移向误差和二者的分布特性。结果表明：（1）不同天气型的台风预报：24 h、48 h、72 h的平均距离误差为：57 km，105 km，183 km，其随时效增长增大，以Ⅰ类、Ⅱ类预报效果最差，Ⅲ类和Ⅳ类效果较好，与此对应路径多为登陆浙闽交界或者登陆浙江后西行和登陆台湾二次登陆闽中或登陆闽中转向北上；移向误差绝对值看：24 h、48 h、72 h绝对移向误差分别为5.41°，4.85°，6.46°，从移向偏差看，24 h预报移向总体偏右概率大，而对Ⅰ类预报偏左概率大，Ⅲ类、Ⅳ类预报偏右概率大；Ⅳ、Ⅴ型偏离程度小，Ⅱ型偏离程度大，Ⅰ型、Ⅳ型、Ⅴ型偏离程度随时效增长变化较小，较为稳定，Ⅱ型和Ⅲ型较不稳定；（2）从两种误差的分布可知：影响浙江的台风24 h距离误差主要在100 km内，移向误差范围是-10°~10°；随预报时效增长，离散程度增强，说明移向误差随着距离误差的增大而增大。

Based on ECMWF typhoon data from 2012 to 2016, the synoptic situation that affects Zhejiang province could be categorized into six types:(I) Subtropical High + shallow upper trough, (Ⅱ) Subtropical high + deep upper trough, (Ⅲ) Banded subtropical high, (IV) Subtropical high western ridge, (V) Blocky subtropical high, (VI) Others. This article evaluates the ECMWF typhoon track prediction, including the distance error, moving direction error as well as their distribution characteristics. It is found that the average distance error of the forecast periods 24 h, 48 h, 72 h are 57 km, 105 km and 183 km, respective. The forecast accuracy is lowest for type I and Ⅱ, while it is relatively higher for type Ⅲ and IV, which mostly makes landfall at the junction of Zhejiang and Fujian provinces, in Zhejiang province and moves westward, and in central Fujian and moves northward. The moving direction error of the forecast periods 24 h, 48 h, 72 h are 5.41°, 4.85° and 6.46°, respectively. The probability of moving direction errors to the right is large in the 24h forecast. The moving direction error shows high probability in type I, type Ⅲ and IV to the left and right, respectively. The degree of deviation is smaller in type IV and V, while it is larger in type Ⅱ. Furthermore, the degree of deviation in type I, IV, and V change slightly along with the increase of forecast period, while type Ⅱ, and Ⅲ are more unstable. We further find that the distance error of forecast period 24 h is mainly within 100 km, and the moving direction error is between -10° and 10°. The degree of dispersion increases along with the increase of forecast period, indicating the moving direction error increases with the increase of distance error.

参考文献：

[1] 王镇铭, 杜惠良, 杨诗芳. 浙江省天气预报手册[M]. 北京:气象出版社, 2013:51-100.
[2] 陈国民, 白莉娜, 万日金. 2015年西北太平洋热带气旋预报精度评定[J]. 气象, 2017, 43(4):501-507.
[3] 陈国民, 汤杰, 曾智华. 2011年西北太平洋热带气旋预报精度评定[J]. 气象, 2012, 38(10):1238-1246.
[4] 汤杰, 陈国民, 余晖. 2010年西北太平洋台风预报精度评定及分析[J]. 气象, 2011, 37(10):1320-1328.
[5] 涂小萍, 姚日升, 张春花, 等. 西北太平洋(含南海)热带气旋路径集成预报分析[J]. 热带气象学报, 2012, 28(2):204-210.
[6] 钟元, 余晖, 王东法. 环境场对东海登陆热带气旋陆地路径的影响[J]. 热带气象学报, 2006, 22(4):313-320.
[7] 马雷鸣, 李佳, 黄伟, 等. 2007年国内台风模式路径预报效果评估[J]. 气象, 2008, 34(10):74-80.
[8] 杨国杰, 沙天阳, 程正泉, 等. 2013年欧洲中心台风集合预报的检验[J]. 广东气象, 2014, 36(2):1-5, 12.
[9] 安成, 王云峰, 袁金南, 等. 一种分析台风路径预报误差的新方法[J]. 海洋学报, 2014, 36(5):46-53.
[10] 倪钟萍, 吴立广, 张玲. 2005-2010年台风突变路径的预报误差及其环流背景[J]. 气象, 2013, 39(6):719-727.
[11] 余锦华, 唐家翔, 戴雨涵, 等. 我国台风路径业务预报误差及成因分析[J]. 气象, 2012, 38(6):695-700.
[12] Lam C C. Performance of the ECMWF model in forecasting the tracks of tropical cyclones in the South China Sea and parts of the western North Pacific[J]. Meteorological Applications, 2001, 8(3):339-344.
[13] 中国气象局. 台风业务和服务规定[M]. 北京:气象出版社, 2001:112.

服务与反馈：

【文章下载】【发表评论】【查看评论】【加入收藏】