2018年国家级空气质量主客观预报TS评分对比检验

张天航; 迟茜元; 饶晓琴; 王继康; 张碧辉; 徐冉; 江琪; 栾天

doi:10.12153/j.issn.1674-991X.2019.03.080

2018年国家级空气质量主客观预报TS评分对比检验

doi: 10.12153/j.issn.1674-991X.2019.03.080

^1. 国家气象中心,北京 100081
^2. 中国气象科学研究院,北京 100081

详细信息

作者简介:
张天航(1987—),男,工程师,博士,主要从事空气质量预报和检验研究, sharp@mail.iap.ac.cn

通讯作者:
饶晓琴 E-mail: raoxq@cma.gov.cn

中图分类号: X513
计量
- 文章访问数: 876
- HTML全文浏览量: 89
- PDF下载量: 216
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2019-01-31
- 刊出日期: 2019-05-20

Verification of national subjective and objective air quality forecast in 2018 by TS score

^1. National Meteorological Center, Beijing 100081, China
^2. Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences, Beijing 100081, China

More Information

Corresponding author: Xiaoqin RAO E-mail: raoxq@cma.gov.cn

摘要

摘要: 目前对空气质量主客观预报效果的对比检验较少,为了解国家级空气质量主客观预报性能,利用预兆评分(threat score,TS)检验了2018年中央气象台主客观预报效果。结果表明:2018年,主(客)观预报对全国轻度及以上污染TS评分、空报率和漏报率分别为0.23~0.34(0.24~0.26)、0.37~0.43(0.39~0.41)和0.58~0.72(0.68~0.71)。说明主观预报整体上优于客观预报,但客观预报能力已接近主观预报。主客观预报的评分均在污染较重地区(京津冀及周边、汾渭平原、华中和长江三角洲地区)高于污染较轻地区(西北、西南、珠江三角洲和东北地区),在污染较重的冬季高于清洁的夏季。随着预报时效的延长,主观预报TS评分呈下降趋势,但客观预报TS评分变化不大。在污染较重的冬季,48和72 h时效客观预报TS评分高于主观预报。此外,在2018年5次重污染天气过程中,主(客)观预报对轻度、中度和重度污染的TS评分分别为0.39~0.57(0.43~0.46)、0.22~0.46(0.25~0.30)和0.10~0.34(0.10~0.18),主观预报TS评分高于客观预报的情况占了3次。随着预报时效的延长,客观预报表现更加稳定,说明客观预报能在污染过程中为预报员提供稳定参考,但对污染高值的预报能力仍需提高。
- 空气质量 /
- 主客观预报 /
- TS评分
Abstract: Until now, few works have reported comparison results between subjective and objective air quality forecast. To understand the performances of national subjective and objective air quality forecast, operational results in 2018 from National Meteorological Center were verified by threat score (TS) method. The results showed that TS score, false alarm ratio and missed alarm ratio of subjective (objective) forecast for mild and above pollution all over China in 2018 were 0.23-0.34 (0.24-0.26), 0.37-0.43 (0.39-0.41) and 0.58-0.72 (0.68-0.71), respectively. This illustrated that subjective forecast was better than objective one, but the ability of objective forecast was close to subjective forecast. Performances of subjective and objective forecast were both better in regions with heavier pollution (Jing-Jin-Ji, Fenwei Plain, Central China and Yangtze River Delta) than in lower pollution ones (Northwestern China, Southwestern China, Pearl River Delta and Northeastern China), and so did it in the heavily polluted winter than in the clean summer. With the extension of forecast time, TS scores of subjective forecast showed a downward trend, but scores of objective forecast did not change too much. In winter with heavy pollution, TS scores of 48 and 72 hours' objective forecast were higher than those of subjective forecast. Additionally, in 5 haze processes in 2018, TS scores of subjective (objective) forecast for mild, moderate and severer pollution all over China were 0.39-0.57 (0.43-0.46), 0.22-0.46 (0.25-0.30) and 0.10-0.34 (0.10-0.18), respectively. The situation of TS scores of subjective forecast higher than objective forecast accounted for 3 times in 5 processes. But performance of objective forecast was more stable with extension of forecast time, which illustrated that objective forecast could provide stable reference to forecasters in pollution process, but its ability in dealing with high pollution needs to be improved.
- air quality /
- subjective and objective forecast /
- TS score

HTML全文

参考文献(16)

[1]	吕梦瑶, 程兴宏, 张恒德 , 等. 基于自适应偏最小二乘回归法的CUACE模式污染物预报偏差订正改进方法研究[J]. 环境科学学报, 2018,38(7):2735-2745. LÜ M Y, CHENG X H, ZHANG H D , et al. Improving the correction method of air pollutant forecasts from the CUACE model based on the adapting partial least square regression technique[J]. Acta Scientiae Circumstantiae, 2018,38(7):2735-2745.
[2]	ZHANG T H, ZHANG H D, ZHANG B H, et al. Multi-model ensemble forecast system for surface-layer PM_2.5 concentration in China [C]//Signal and information processing,networking and computers:ICSINC 2018.Singapore:Springer, 2019: 462-470.
[3]	GORLINE J L, LEE P . Performance evaluation of NOAA-EPA developmental aerosol forecasts[J]. Environmental Fluid Mechanics, 2009,9:102-120. doi: 10.1007/s10652-008-9090-7
[4]	杨关盈, 邓学良, 吴必文 , 等. 基于CUACE模式的合肥地区空气质量预报效果检验[J]. 气象与环境学报, 2017,33(1):51-57. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-503X.2017.01.007 YANG G Y, DENG X L, WU B W , et al. Verification of CUACE model in Hefei,Anhui Province[J]. Journal of Meteorology and Environment, 2017,33(1):51-57. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-503X.2017.01.007
[5]	麦健华, 于玲玲, 邓涛 , 等. 基于GRAPES-CMAQ的中山市空气质量预报系统预报效果评估[J]. 热带气象学报, 2018,34(1):78-86. doi: 10.16032/j.issn.1004-4965.2018.01.008 MAI J H, YU L L, DENG T , et al. Assessments of forecast products of air quality forecasting system based on GRAPES-CMAQ in Zhongshan City[J]. Journal of Tropical Meteorology, 2018,34(1):78-86. doi: 10.16032/j.issn.1004-4965.2018.01.008
[6]	ZHOU G Q, XU J M, XIE Y , et al. Numerical air quality forecasting over eastern China:an operational application of WRF-Chem[J]. Atmospheric Environment, 2017,153:94-108. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.01.020
[7]	张恒德, 张庭玉, 李涛 , 等. 基于BP神经网络的污染物浓度多模式集成预报[J]. 中国环境科学, 2018,38(4):1242-1256. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6923.2018.04.004 ZHANG H D, ZHANG T Y, LI T , et al. Forecast of air quality pollutants’concentrations based on BP neural network multi-model ensemble method[J]. China Environmental Science, 2018,38(4):1242-1256. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6923.2018.04.004
[8]	瞿元昊, 许建明, BRASSEUR G , 等. 利用多模式最优集成方法预报上海PM_2.5[J]. 环境科学学报, 2018,38(9):3449-3456. QU Y H, XU J M, BRASSEUR G , et al. Application of OCF on PM2.5 forecast in Shanghai[J]. Acta Scientiae Circumstantiae, 2018,38(9):3449-3456.
[9]	王占山, 李云婷, 孙峰 , 等. 北京市空气质量预报体系介绍及红色预警支撑[J]. 环境科技, 2016,29(2):38-46. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-4829.2016.02.009 WANG Z S, LI Y T, SUN F , et al. Introduction of air quality of Beijing forecast system and the support for the red alert[J]. Environmental Science and Technology, 2016,29(2):38-46. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-4829.2016.02.009
[10]	邓雪娇, 胡胜, 闫敬华 . 主客观天气预报质量对比分析[J]. 应用气象学报, 2003,14(6):729-738. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-7313.2003.06.012 DENG X J, HU S, YAN J H . A comparing analysis on subjective and objective weather forecast[J]. Journal of Applied Meteorological Science, 2003,14(6):729-738. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-7313.2003.06.012
[11]	GIAIOTTI D, STEL F . A comparison between subjective and objective thunderstorm forecasts[J]. Atmospheric Research, 2001,56:111-126. doi: 10.1016/S0169-8095(00)00093-4
[12]	王雨 . 2002年主汛期国家气象中心主客观降水预报对比检验[J]. 气象, 2003,29(5):21-25. doi: 10.7519/j.issn.1000-0526.2003.5.005 WNAG Y . Verification of NMC subjective and objective precipitation prediction during the main flood season in 2002[J]. Meteorological Monthly, 2003,29(5):21-25. doi: 10.7519/j.issn.1000-0526.2003.5.005
[13]	许映龙, 刘振坤, 董林 , 等. 2002年西北太平洋和南海热带气旋路径主客观预报评价[J]. 气象, 2005,31(6):43-46. doi: 10.7519/j.issn.1000-0526.2005.6.009 XU Y L, LIU Z K, DONG L , et al. Verification of subjective and objective track forecast of tropical cyclones over northwest pacific and south China sea in 2002[J]. Meteorological Monthly, 2005,31(6):43-46. doi: 10.7519/j.issn.1000-0526.2005.6.009
[14]	吴乃庚, 曾沁, 刘段灵 , 等. 日极端气温的主客观预报能力评估及多模式集成网格释用[J]. 气象, 2017,43(5):581-590. doi: 10.7519/j.issn.1000-0526.2017.05.007 WU N G, ZENG Q, LIU D L , et al. Evaluation on subjective and objective diurnal extreme temperature forecasts and multi-model consensus gridded forecast application[J]. Meteorological Monthly, 2017,43(5):581-590. doi: 10.7519/j.issn.1000-0526.2017.05.007
[15]	曹勇, 刘凑华, 宗志平 , 等. 国家级格点化定量降水预报系统[J]. 气象, 2016,42(12):1476-1482. doi: 10.7519/j.issn.1000-0526.2016.12.005 CAO Y, LIU C H, ZONG Z P , et al. State level gridded quantitative precipitation forecasting system[J]. Meteorological Monthly, 2016,42(12):1476-1482. doi: 10.7519/j.issn.1000-0526.2016.12.005
[16]	张碧辉, 桂海林, 王继康 , 等. 2018年大气环境气象公报[M]. 北京: 气象出版社, 2019: 4-6.