预报孟加拉湾热带气旋 "阿萨尼"(2022 年)和 "莫查"(2023 年)--预报员面临的实时挑战

IF 2.4 4区 地球科学 Q3 METEOROLOGY & ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES
S.D. Kotal, T. Arulalan, M. Mohapatra
{"title":"预报孟加拉湾热带气旋 \"阿萨尼\"(2022 年)和 \"莫查\"(2023 年)--预报员面临的实时挑战","authors":"S.D. Kotal,&nbsp;T. Arulalan,&nbsp;M. Mohapatra","doi":"10.1016/j.tcrr.2024.06.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This study examines the track and intensity forecasts of two typical Bay of Bengal tropical cyclones (TC) ASANI and MOCHA. The analysis of various Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP) model forecasts [ECMWF (European Centre for Medium range Weather Forecast), NCEP (National Centers for Environmental Prediction), NCUM (National Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecast-Unified Model), IMD (India Meteorological Department), HWRF (Hurricane Weather Research and Forecasting)], MME (Multi-model Ensemble), SCIP (Statistical Cyclone Intensity Prediction) model, and OFCL (Official) forecasts shows that intensity forecasts of ASANI and track forecasts of MOCHA were reasonably good, but there were large errors and wide variation in track forecasts of ASANI and in intensity forecasts of MOCHA. Among all model forecasts, the track forecast errors of IMD model and MME were least in general for ASANI and MOCHA respectively. Also, the landfall point forecast errors of IMD were least for ASANI, and the MME and OFCL forecast errors were least for MOCHA. No model is found to be consistently better for landfall time forecast for ASANI, and the errors of ECMWF, IMD and HWRF were least and of same order for MOCHA. The intensity forecast errors of OFCL and SCIP were least for ASANI, and the forecast errors of HWRF, IMD, NCEP, SCIP and OFCL were comparable and least for MOCHA up to 48 h forecast and HWRF errors were least thereafter in general. The ECMWF model forecast errors for intensity were found to be highest for both the TCs. The results also show that although there is significant improvement of track forecasts and limited or no improvement of intensity forecast in previous decades but challenges still persists in real time forecasting of both track and intensity due to wide variation and inconsistency of model forecasts for different TC cases.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":44442,"journal":{"name":"Tropical Cyclone Research and Review","volume":"13 2","pages":"Pages 88-112"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2225603224000286/pdfft?md5=cf62cdb235d90184fc7d52c4c7588dc3&pid=1-s2.0-S2225603224000286-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Forecasting of tropical cyclones ASANI (2022) and MOCHA (2023) over the Bay of Bengal - real time challenges to forecasters\",\"authors\":\"S.D. Kotal,&nbsp;T. Arulalan,&nbsp;M. Mohapatra\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.tcrr.2024.06.002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>This study examines the track and intensity forecasts of two typical Bay of Bengal tropical cyclones (TC) ASANI and MOCHA. The analysis of various Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP) model forecasts [ECMWF (European Centre for Medium range Weather Forecast), NCEP (National Centers for Environmental Prediction), NCUM (National Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecast-Unified Model), IMD (India Meteorological Department), HWRF (Hurricane Weather Research and Forecasting)], MME (Multi-model Ensemble), SCIP (Statistical Cyclone Intensity Prediction) model, and OFCL (Official) forecasts shows that intensity forecasts of ASANI and track forecasts of MOCHA were reasonably good, but there were large errors and wide variation in track forecasts of ASANI and in intensity forecasts of MOCHA. Among all model forecasts, the track forecast errors of IMD model and MME were least in general for ASANI and MOCHA respectively. Also, the landfall point forecast errors of IMD were least for ASANI, and the MME and OFCL forecast errors were least for MOCHA. No model is found to be consistently better for landfall time forecast for ASANI, and the errors of ECMWF, IMD and HWRF were least and of same order for MOCHA. The intensity forecast errors of OFCL and SCIP were least for ASANI, and the forecast errors of HWRF, IMD, NCEP, SCIP and OFCL were comparable and least for MOCHA up to 48 h forecast and HWRF errors were least thereafter in general. The ECMWF model forecast errors for intensity were found to be highest for both the TCs. The results also show that although there is significant improvement of track forecasts and limited or no improvement of intensity forecast in previous decades but challenges still persists in real time forecasting of both track and intensity due to wide variation and inconsistency of model forecasts for different TC cases.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44442,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Tropical Cyclone Research and Review\",\"volume\":\"13 2\",\"pages\":\"Pages 88-112\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2225603224000286/pdfft?md5=cf62cdb235d90184fc7d52c4c7588dc3&pid=1-s2.0-S2225603224000286-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Tropical Cyclone Research and Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2225603224000286\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"METEOROLOGY & ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tropical Cyclone Research and Review","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2225603224000286","RegionNum":4,"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: 0

摘要

本研究探讨了孟加拉湾两个典型热带气旋(TC)"阿萨尼 "和 "莫查 "的路径和强度预报。分析了各种数值天气预报(NWP)模式的预报[ECMWF(欧洲中程天气预报中心)、NCEP(国家环境预报中心)、NCUM(国家中程天气预报中心-统一模式)、IMD(印度气象局)、HWRF(飓风天气研究和预报)]、根据 MME(多模式集合)、SCIP(统计气旋强度预报)模式和 OFCL(官方)的预报,ASANI 的强度预报和 MOCHA 的路径预报都相当不错,但 ASANI 的路径预报和 MOCHA 的强度预报误差较大,差异也很大。在所有模式预报中,IMD 模式和 MME 模式对 ASANI 和 MOCHA 的路径预报误差一般最小。此外,IMD 对 ASANI 的着陆点预报误差最小,MME 和 OFCL 对 MOCHA 的预报误差最小。在对 ASANI 的着陆时间预报方面,没有发现任何一个模式始终较好,而对 MOCHA 而言,ECMWF、IMD 和 HWRF 的误差最小,且误差大小相同。OFCL 和 SCIP 对 ASANI 的强度预报误差最小,HWRF、IMD、NCEP、SCIP 和 OFCL 的预报误差相当,对 MOCHA 的预报误差在 48 h 之前最小,HWRF 此后的误差总体上最小。ECMWF模式的强度预报误差在两个热带气旋中都是最大的。研究结果还表明,虽然过去几十年来路径预报有了显著改善,而强度预报的改善有限或没有改善,但由于不同热带气旋情况下模式预报的差异很大且不一致,因此在路径和强度的实时预报方面仍然存在挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Forecasting of tropical cyclones ASANI (2022) and MOCHA (2023) over the Bay of Bengal - real time challenges to forecasters

This study examines the track and intensity forecasts of two typical Bay of Bengal tropical cyclones (TC) ASANI and MOCHA. The analysis of various Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP) model forecasts [ECMWF (European Centre for Medium range Weather Forecast), NCEP (National Centers for Environmental Prediction), NCUM (National Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecast-Unified Model), IMD (India Meteorological Department), HWRF (Hurricane Weather Research and Forecasting)], MME (Multi-model Ensemble), SCIP (Statistical Cyclone Intensity Prediction) model, and OFCL (Official) forecasts shows that intensity forecasts of ASANI and track forecasts of MOCHA were reasonably good, but there were large errors and wide variation in track forecasts of ASANI and in intensity forecasts of MOCHA. Among all model forecasts, the track forecast errors of IMD model and MME were least in general for ASANI and MOCHA respectively. Also, the landfall point forecast errors of IMD were least for ASANI, and the MME and OFCL forecast errors were least for MOCHA. No model is found to be consistently better for landfall time forecast for ASANI, and the errors of ECMWF, IMD and HWRF were least and of same order for MOCHA. The intensity forecast errors of OFCL and SCIP were least for ASANI, and the forecast errors of HWRF, IMD, NCEP, SCIP and OFCL were comparable and least for MOCHA up to 48 h forecast and HWRF errors were least thereafter in general. The ECMWF model forecast errors for intensity were found to be highest for both the TCs. The results also show that although there is significant improvement of track forecasts and limited or no improvement of intensity forecast in previous decades but challenges still persists in real time forecasting of both track and intensity due to wide variation and inconsistency of model forecasts for different TC cases.

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
Tropical Cyclone Research and Review
Tropical Cyclone Research and Review METEOROLOGY & ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
3.40%
发文量
184
审稿时长
30 weeks
期刊介绍: Tropical Cyclone Research and Review is an international journal focusing on tropical cyclone monitoring, forecasting, and research as well as associated hydrological effects and disaster risk reduction. This journal is edited and published by the ESCAP/WMO Typhoon Committee (TC) and the Shanghai Typhoon Institute of the China Meteorology Administration (STI/CMA). Contributions from all tropical cyclone basins are welcome. Scope of the journal includes: • Reviews of tropical cyclones exhibiting unusual characteristics or behavior or resulting in disastrous impacts on Typhoon Committee Members and other regional WMO bodies • Advances in applied and basic tropical cyclone research or technology to improve tropical cyclone forecasts and warnings • Basic theoretical studies of tropical cyclones • Event reports, compelling images, and topic review reports of tropical cyclones • Impacts, risk assessments, and risk management techniques related to tropical cyclones
×
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