Advanced tropical cyclone prediction using the experimental global ECMWF and operational regional COAMPS-TC systems

IF 2.8 3区 地球科学 Q3 METEOROLOGY & ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES
S. Majumdar, L. Magnusson, P. Bechtold, J. Bidlot, J. Doyle
{"title":"Advanced tropical cyclone prediction using the experimental global ECMWF and operational regional COAMPS-TC systems","authors":"S. Majumdar, L. Magnusson, P. Bechtold, J. Bidlot, J. Doyle","doi":"10.1175/mwr-d-22-0236.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nStructure and intensity forecasts of 19 tropical cyclones (TCs) during the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season are investigated using two NWP systems. An experimental 4-km global ECMWF model (“EC4”) with upgraded moist physics is compared against a 9-km version (“EC9”) to evaluate the influence of resolution. EC4 is then benchmarked against the 4-km regional COAMPS-TC system (“CO4”) to compare systems with similar resolutions.\nEC4 produced stronger TCs than EC9, with a >30% reduction of the maximum wind speed bias in EC4 resulting in lower forecast errors. However, both ECMWF predictions struggled to intensify initially weak TCs, and the radius of maximum wind (RMW) was often too large. In contrast, CO4 had lower biases in central pressure, maximum wind speed, and RMW. Regardless, minimal statistical differences between CO4 and EC4 intensity errors were found for ≥36 h forecasts. Rapid intensification cases yielded especially large intensity errors. CO4 produced superior forecasts of RMW, together with an excellent pressure-wind relationship. Differences in the results are due to contrasting physics and initialization schemes. ECMWF uses a global data assimilation with no special treatment of TCs, whereas COAMPS-TC constructs a vortex (for TCs with initial intensity ≥55 kt) based on data provided by forecasters.\nTwo additional ECMWF experiments were conducted. The first yielded improvements when the drag coefficient was reduced at high wind speeds, thereby weakening the coupling between the low-level winds and the surface. The second produced overly intense TCs when explicit deep convection was used, due to unrealistic mid-upper-tropospheric heating.","PeriodicalId":18824,"journal":{"name":"Monthly Weather Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Monthly Weather Review","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1175/mwr-d-22-0236.1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"METEOROLOGY & ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Structure and intensity forecasts of 19 tropical cyclones (TCs) during the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season are investigated using two NWP systems. An experimental 4-km global ECMWF model (“EC4”) with upgraded moist physics is compared against a 9-km version (“EC9”) to evaluate the influence of resolution. EC4 is then benchmarked against the 4-km regional COAMPS-TC system (“CO4”) to compare systems with similar resolutions. EC4 produced stronger TCs than EC9, with a >30% reduction of the maximum wind speed bias in EC4 resulting in lower forecast errors. However, both ECMWF predictions struggled to intensify initially weak TCs, and the radius of maximum wind (RMW) was often too large. In contrast, CO4 had lower biases in central pressure, maximum wind speed, and RMW. Regardless, minimal statistical differences between CO4 and EC4 intensity errors were found for ≥36 h forecasts. Rapid intensification cases yielded especially large intensity errors. CO4 produced superior forecasts of RMW, together with an excellent pressure-wind relationship. Differences in the results are due to contrasting physics and initialization schemes. ECMWF uses a global data assimilation with no special treatment of TCs, whereas COAMPS-TC constructs a vortex (for TCs with initial intensity ≥55 kt) based on data provided by forecasters. Two additional ECMWF experiments were conducted. The first yielded improvements when the drag coefficient was reduced at high wind speeds, thereby weakening the coupling between the low-level winds and the surface. The second produced overly intense TCs when explicit deep convection was used, due to unrealistic mid-upper-tropospheric heating.
利用试验性全球ECMWF和操作性区域comps - tc系统进行高级热带气旋预报
利用两个NWP系统对2020年大西洋飓风季19个热带气旋的结构和强度进行了预测。将具有升级湿物理的4公里全球ECMWF实验模式(“EC4”)与9公里模式(“EC9”)进行比较,以评估分辨率的影响。然后将EC4与4公里区域comps - tc系统(“CO4”)进行基准比较,以比较具有相似分辨率的系统。EC4产生的tc比EC9更强,EC4的最大风速偏差减少了约30%,导致预报误差更小。然而,ECMWF的两种预测都难以增强最初的弱tc,而且最大风半径(RMW)往往太大。相比之下,CO4在中心气压、最大风速和RMW上的偏差较小。无论如何,对于≥36 h的预测,CO4和EC4强度误差之间的统计学差异很小。快速强化病例产生了特别大的强度误差。CO4对RMW的预报效果较好,同时还具有良好的压力-风关系。结果的差异是由于不同的物理和初始化方案。ECMWF使用全球数据同化,没有对tc进行特殊处理,而comps - tc则根据预报员提供的数据构建一个涡(对于初始强度≥55 kt的tc)。另外进行了两次ECMWF实验。第一个改进是在高风速下降低阻力系数,从而减弱低空风与地面之间的耦合。当使用明显的深对流时,由于不现实的对流层中上层加热,第二次产生了过于强烈的tc。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Monthly Weather Review
Monthly Weather Review 地学-气象与大气科学
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
12.50%
发文量
186
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Monthly Weather Review (MWR) (ISSN: 0027-0644; eISSN: 1520-0493) publishes research relevant to the analysis and prediction of observed atmospheric circulations and physics, including technique development, data assimilation, model validation, and relevant case studies. This research includes numerical and data assimilation techniques that apply to the atmosphere and/or ocean environments. MWR also addresses phenomena having seasonal and subseasonal time scales.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信