[an error occurred while processing this directive]
暴雨灾害
       首页|  期刊介绍|  编 委 会|  征稿简则|  期刊订阅|  下载中心|  编辑部公告|  联系我们


暴雨灾害  2021, Vol. 40 Issue (2): 167-173    DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-9045.2021.02.008
论文 最新目录 | 下期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索  |   
两套新型高分辨率再分析降水资料在湖南年季尺度上的适用性评估
罗潇1,2, 廖春花1,2, 罗菁2,3, 朱明辉1,2, 谭诗琪1,2, 谢睿恒1,2, 黄泽群1,2
1. 湖南省气象服务中心, 长沙 410118;
2. 气象防灾减灾湖南省重点实验室, 长沙 410118;
3. 湖南省气候中心, 长沙 410118
Applicability evaluation of two sets of new high-resolution reanalysis precipitation data on annual and seasonal scale in Hunan
LUO Xiao1,2, LIAO Chunhua1,2, LUO Jing2,3, ZHU Minghui1,2, TAN Shiqi1,2, XIE Ruiheng1,2, HUANG Zequn1,2
1. Hunan Meteorological Service Centre, Changsha 410118;
2. Key Laboratory for Meteorological Prevention and Mitigation of Disasters in Hunan Province, Changsha 410118;
3. Hunan Climate Center, Changsha 410118
 全文: PDF (2109 KB)   HTML ( 输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      背景资料
摘要 利用1979—2018年实测降水资料对同期中国区域地面气象要素数据集(China Meteorological Forcing Dataset,CMFD)、中国全球陆面再分析40年产品(CRA-40/Land,CRA-40)再分析降水资料在湖南省内的均值、年际变化和相关性等进行比较评估。结果表明:(1)在年平均降水分布上,两套再分析资料对少雨区反映均较好,CMFD对湘西北、湘南地区降水分布反映较CRA-40好,而CRA-40对湘东地区降水分布反映好于CMFD。(2) CMFD资料和CRA-40资料的降水值绝对偏差均主要集中在0~50 mm和50.1~100 mm区间,CMFD资料分别占比56.8%和20%,CAR-40资料分别占比40%和35.8%。(3)在多年各季平均降水分布上,CMFD资料的四季平均降水均以大于实况值为主;CRA-40资料四季平均降水在湘北以负偏差为主,在湘南则以正偏差为主。(4)在年平均降水的年际变化上,两套资料各时段变化趋势均与实况一致,1979—1984年、1999—2010年年降水量呈减小趋势,1985—1998年、2011—2018年为增加趋势,对比各时段气候倾向率可知,CMFD降水资料较CRA-40更接近实况。(5)两套再分析资料的降水与实况降水的相关系数普遍在0.75以上,有90%以上的站点相关系数通过0.05显著性水平检验,再分析降水资料与实况降水资料的年际变率相关性在湘北和湘南地区最好、在湘中一带较差。
服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入我的书架
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
作者相关文章
罗潇
廖春花
罗菁
朱明辉
谭诗琪
谢睿恒
黄泽群
关键词降水   再分析资料   适用性评估   湖南     
Abstract: Based on actual measurement precipitation data in Hunan Province, we have made a comparative evaluation of means, interannual variations and correlations for reanalysis precipitation data from China meteorological forcing dataset (CMFD) and Global land surface reanalysis of China for 40 years (CRA-40) in the corresponding period. The results show that (1) the two sets of reanalysis data have better ability to characterize low-rainfall areas in terms of the annual average precipitation distribution. CMFD shows better precipitation distribution in the northwestern Hunan and southern Hunan than CRA-40,while CRA-40 has a better performance in the eastern Hunan than CMFD data. (2) The absolute deviation of precipitation values of CMFD data and CRA-40 data are mainly concentrated in the range of 0-50 mm and 50.1-100 mm. CMFD data in the two ranges accounts for 56.8% and 20%, respectively, and CRA-40 data in the two ranges accounts for 40% and 35.8%, respectively. (3) In terms of the distribution of averaged precipitation in various seasons for many years, most of the averaged precipitation from CMFD are greater than the observations in all seasons, while most of that from CRA-40 are negative deviation in all seasons in northern Hunan and positive deviation in southern Hunan. (4) In terms of the inter-annual variation of the annual mean precipitation, their variation trends for the two sets of data are consistent with the observations in all periods. The annual mean precipitation from 1979 to 1984 and 1999 to 2010 show a decreasing trend, and there is an increasing trend from 1985 to 1998 and 2011 to 2018. Comparing the climate tendency rate of different periods, we can see that the precipitation from CMFD is closer to the observations than that from CRA-40. (5) The correlation coefficients between precipitation from the two sets of reanalysis data and observations are mostly above 0.75, and correlation coefficients at more than 90% of the stations pass the 0.05 significance level test. And the correlation of inter-annual variation rate between precipitation from the reanalysis dataset and the observations is the best in the northern and southern Hunan, and the worse in central Hunan.
Key wordsprecipitation   reanalysis dataset   applicability evaluation   Hunan   
收稿日期: 2020-06-19;
基金资助:湖南省气象局第三期业务能力建设项目(NLJS09,NLJS14)
通讯作者: 廖春花,主要从事气象预报服务及相关科研工作。E-mail:66967769@qq.com   
作者简介: 罗潇,主要从事气象预报服务及相关科研工作。E-mail:879775984@qq.com
引用本文:   
罗潇, 廖春花, 罗菁,等 .2021. 两套新型高分辨率再分析降水资料在湖南年季尺度上的适用性评估[J]. 暴雨灾害, 40(2): 167-173.
LUO Xiao, LIAO Chunhua, LUO Jing, et al .2021. Applicability evaluation of two sets of new high-resolution reanalysis precipitation data on annual and seasonal scale in Hunan[J]. Torrential Rain and Disasters, 40(2): 167-173.
 
没有本文参考文献
[1] 胡燕平, 单铁良, 顾佳佳. 沙颍河流域一次短时极端强降水预报失误剖析[J]. 暴雨灾害, 2021, 40(5): 494-504.
[2] 徐姝, 熊明明, 陈法敬. 基于ECMWF集合预报的海河流域降水概率预报应用和检验[J]. 暴雨灾害, 2021, 40(5): 523-530.
[3] 高大伟, 吴利红, 马浩, 姚益平, 方贺, 朱占云, 魏爽. 基于CMPAS的临海市超强台风洪涝淹没个例模拟及检验[J]. 暴雨灾害, 2021, 40(5): 549-557.
[4] 吴慧, 胡德强, 邢彩盈, 朱晶晶. 海南岛夏季不同类型降水特征及其对旱涝的影响[J]. 暴雨灾害, 2021, 40(5): 558-563.
[5] 肖蕾, 杜小玲, 武正敏, 郭晓超, 田端, 刘红双. 贵州省短时强降水时空分布特征分析[J]. 暴雨灾害, 2021, 40(4): 383-392.
[6] 张娇, 王东勇, 郑淋淋, 姚晨, 胡玥琦, 朱红芳, 徐怡. ECMWF模式强降水预报偏差订正方法研究及应用[J]. 暴雨灾害, 2021, 40(4): 430-436.
[7] 段丽洁, 曾向红, 蒋元华, 贺卫宁, 陈世洋, 郭凌曜. 基于分钟降水数据的长沙市场次降水事件特征分析[J]. 暴雨灾害, 2021, 40(4): 437-443.
[8] 张超美, 吴珊珊, 黄彩婷. 江西春季降水异常的环流特征及其对ENSO事件的响应[J]. 暴雨灾害, 2021, 40(4): 410-418.
[9] 杨军勇, 苏爱芳. 河南省暖季小时极端降水时空分布特征[J]. 暴雨灾害, 2021, 40(2): 153-159.
[10] 李争辉, 罗亚丽. 1980—2017年南海季风爆发前后华南前汛期降水统计特征对比分析[J]. 暴雨灾害, 2021, 40(2): 101-110.
[11] 王孝慈, 李双君, 张家国. 湖北省夏季引发极端降水的MCS统计特征分析[J]. 暴雨灾害, 2021, 40(2): 147-152.
[12] 张铭明, 李建, 甘玉婷, 李妮娜. 基于GWR模型的中国中东部降水与海拔高度关系特征分析[J]. 暴雨灾害, 2021, 40(1): 1-11.
[13] 王莉萍, 王铸, 连治华, 刘璐. 基于小时分辨率的降水过程辨识方法研究[J]. 暴雨灾害, 2021, 40(1): 12-18.
[14] 田付友, 杨舒楠, 郑永光, 夏坤. 北京地区两次极端特大暴雨过程中短时强降水环境条件对比分析[J]. 暴雨灾害, 2021, 40(1): 27-36.
[15] 张超, 罗伯良, 彭莉莉, 谢傲, 李易芝. 湖南6月区域持续性暴雨的强信号及预报概念模型[J]. 暴雨灾害, 2021, 40(1): 37-43.
版权所有 © 2011《暴雨灾害》编辑部    鄂ICP备06018784号-3
地址: 湖北省武汉市东湖高新技术开发区金融港二路《暴雨灾害》编辑部
 邮编: 430205 Tel: 027-81804935   E-mail: byzh7939@163.com
技术支持: 北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司