加权模拟强度预报(WAIP)在菲律宾热带气旋事件中的应用

IF 0.8 4区 地球科学 Q4 GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Terrestrial, Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI:10.3319/tao.2021.03.03.01
Robb P. Gile, John Carlo S. Sugui, Juanito S. Galang, E. Cayanan, Hsiao-Chung Tsai, Yung-Lan Lin, Ai-Mei Chia, Ping-Yu Lin, Kuo-Chen Lu, B. Jou
{"title":"加权模拟强度预报(WAIP)在菲律宾热带气旋事件中的应用","authors":"Robb P. Gile, John Carlo S. Sugui, Juanito S. Galang, E. Cayanan, Hsiao-Chung Tsai, Yung-Lan Lin, Ai-Mei Chia, Ping-Yu Lin, Kuo-Chen Lu, B. Jou","doi":"10.3319/tao.2021.03.03.01","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The tropical cyclone (TC) intensity forecast from the Weighted Analog Intensity Prediction (WAIP) was evaluated using 63 Philippine TC cases from 2014 to 2017 to determine its applicability as baseline intensity forecast guidance of the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA). The method generates a rank-weighted average of intensity evolutions of 10 historical analogs from the 1945 to 2014 Joint Typhoon Warning Center best tracks that closely resemble the PAGASA official forecast track and initial intensity at the time the forecast is generated. WAIP proved to be more skillful in providing intensity forecast at 12 to 96 h and less skillful at 120 h relative to persistence. Verification revealed that WAIP had significantly smaller mean absolute error and consistently smaller intensity biases up to 96 h. However, the small sample size at 96 h due to the limitations in the extent of the observed track and reference track forecast from PAGASA suggests that the result may not fully represent the model performance within the Philippine Area of Responsibility at 96 h. The probability distribution of intensities at 36, 72, and 96 h predicted by the model showed that the statistical model may not fully capture the full range of the observed intensities or the extreme values, with the model struggling to predict lower range of intensity values with increasing forecast intervals. Three TC cases are presented to emphasize the model dependence on the accuracy of the reference track forecast and the number and representativeness of available historical analogs for a particular forecast scenario.","PeriodicalId":22259,"journal":{"name":"Terrestrial, Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Application of Weighted Analog Intensity Prediction (WAIP) guidance on Philippine tropical cyclone events\",\"authors\":\"Robb P. Gile, John Carlo S. Sugui, Juanito S. Galang, E. Cayanan, Hsiao-Chung Tsai, Yung-Lan Lin, Ai-Mei Chia, Ping-Yu Lin, Kuo-Chen Lu, B. Jou\",\"doi\":\"10.3319/tao.2021.03.03.01\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The tropical cyclone (TC) intensity forecast from the Weighted Analog Intensity Prediction (WAIP) was evaluated using 63 Philippine TC cases from 2014 to 2017 to determine its applicability as baseline intensity forecast guidance of the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA). The method generates a rank-weighted average of intensity evolutions of 10 historical analogs from the 1945 to 2014 Joint Typhoon Warning Center best tracks that closely resemble the PAGASA official forecast track and initial intensity at the time the forecast is generated. WAIP proved to be more skillful in providing intensity forecast at 12 to 96 h and less skillful at 120 h relative to persistence. Verification revealed that WAIP had significantly smaller mean absolute error and consistently smaller intensity biases up to 96 h. However, the small sample size at 96 h due to the limitations in the extent of the observed track and reference track forecast from PAGASA suggests that the result may not fully represent the model performance within the Philippine Area of Responsibility at 96 h. The probability distribution of intensities at 36, 72, and 96 h predicted by the model showed that the statistical model may not fully capture the full range of the observed intensities or the extreme values, with the model struggling to predict lower range of intensity values with increasing forecast intervals. Three TC cases are presented to emphasize the model dependence on the accuracy of the reference track forecast and the number and representativeness of available historical analogs for a particular forecast scenario.\",\"PeriodicalId\":22259,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Terrestrial, Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Terrestrial, Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3319/tao.2021.03.03.01\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Terrestrial, Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3319/tao.2021.03.03.01","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

利用2014 - 2017年菲律宾的63个热带气旋案例,对加权模拟强度预测(wap)的热带气旋强度预测进行了评估,以确定其作为菲律宾大气、地球物理和天文服务管理局(PAGASA)基线强度预测指南的适用性。该方法生成1945年至2014年联合台风预警中心最佳路径与PAGASA官方预报路径和预报生成时初始强度相似的10个历史类似物的强度演变排序加权平均值。相对于持续性而言,wap在12 ~ 96 h提供强度预报的能力更强,而在120 h提供强度预报的能力较差。验证表明,在96 h之前,WAIP的平均绝对误差明显较小,强度偏差也始终较小。然而,由于PAGASA观测轨迹和参考轨迹预测范围的限制,96 h时的样本量较小,这表明结果可能无法完全代表96 h时菲律宾责任区内的模型性能。模型预测的96 h表明,统计模型可能不能完全捕捉到观测强度的全部范围或极值,随着预测间隔的增加,模型难以预测较低范围的强度值。提出了三个TC案例,以强调模型对参考轨迹预测准确性的依赖,以及对特定预测情景的可用历史类似物的数量和代表性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Application of Weighted Analog Intensity Prediction (WAIP) guidance on Philippine tropical cyclone events
The tropical cyclone (TC) intensity forecast from the Weighted Analog Intensity Prediction (WAIP) was evaluated using 63 Philippine TC cases from 2014 to 2017 to determine its applicability as baseline intensity forecast guidance of the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA). The method generates a rank-weighted average of intensity evolutions of 10 historical analogs from the 1945 to 2014 Joint Typhoon Warning Center best tracks that closely resemble the PAGASA official forecast track and initial intensity at the time the forecast is generated. WAIP proved to be more skillful in providing intensity forecast at 12 to 96 h and less skillful at 120 h relative to persistence. Verification revealed that WAIP had significantly smaller mean absolute error and consistently smaller intensity biases up to 96 h. However, the small sample size at 96 h due to the limitations in the extent of the observed track and reference track forecast from PAGASA suggests that the result may not fully represent the model performance within the Philippine Area of Responsibility at 96 h. The probability distribution of intensities at 36, 72, and 96 h predicted by the model showed that the statistical model may not fully capture the full range of the observed intensities or the extreme values, with the model struggling to predict lower range of intensity values with increasing forecast intervals. Three TC cases are presented to emphasize the model dependence on the accuracy of the reference track forecast and the number and representativeness of available historical analogs for a particular forecast scenario.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
审稿时长
4.5 months
期刊介绍: The major publication of the Chinese Geoscience Union (located in Taipei) since 1990, the journal of Terrestrial, Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences (TAO) publishes bi-monthly scientific research articles, notes, correspondences and reviews in all disciplines of the Earth sciences. It is the amalgamation of the following journals: Papers in Meteorological Research (published by the Meteorological Society of the ROC) since Vol. 12, No. 2 Bulletin of Geophysics (published by the Institute of Geophysics, National Central University) since No. 27 Acta Oceanographica Taiwanica (published by the Institute of Oceanography, National Taiwan University) since Vol. 42.
期刊最新文献
The first 30 min hidden aftershocks of the 2022 September 17, ML 6.4, Guanshan, Taiwan earthquake and its seismological implications Assessing the Yuli surface deformation from the 20220918 Chishang earthquake: an integrated RTK GNSS network approach P-Alert earthquake early warning system: case study of the 2022 Chishang earthquake at Taitung, Taiwan Development of quantitative precipitation estimation (QPE) relations for dual-polarization radars based on raindrop size distribution measurements in Metro Manila, Philippines Developing innovative and cost-effective UAS-PPK module for generating high-accuracy digital surface model
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1