博文
[请教] ECMWF 风速预报误差的具体含义
||
[请教] ECMWF 风速预报误差的具体含义
在
里有图片
Verification of the high-resolution forecast of surface parameters
Verification of the high-resolution forecast of surface parameters against SYNOP observations.
不太明白什么意思？
敬请赐教的问题在《ECMWF（欧洲中期天气预报中心）的预报误差》。
目前又找到了 Thomas Haiden 先生的报告
《Progress in wind forecasting in the ECMWF model》
里面的6页为：
Point forecasterrorsin Europe, 10-m wind: verification against SYNOP
还是不太明白。请问该图细节里的误差含义：
感谢！
相关链接：
[1] Thomas Haiden, PRINCIPAL SCIENTIST
https://www.ecmwf.int/en/about/who-we-are/staff-profiles/thomas-haiden#undefined
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas_Haiden
[2] Thomas Haiden, Progress in wind forecasting in the ECMWF model
[3] Verification of the high-resolution forecast of surface parameters against SYNOP observations
[4] 2018-03-03，ECMWF（欧洲中期天气预报中心）的预报误差
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1102078.html
[5] 2017-07-13，[请教] 当前 NWP 风速预报的典型误差是多少？
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1066108.html
[6] 2016-02-29，[求助] 风力发电机的风速、风向、功率 3 个对应时间的时间序列
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-959494.html
感谢您的指教！
感谢您指正以上任何错误！
感谢您提供更多的相关资料！
https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1125592.html
上一篇：向日葵兄弟们：卡片机傻拍2018（101）
下一篇：今天计算机出毛病了
1 张忆文
该博文允许注册用户评论 请点击登录 评论 (11 个评论)
-
回复
|
赞
+1
[10]杨正瓴
- “远见者头脑中的梦想比现实主义者的常识判断更接近真实。” － 罗斯贝
"...the dreams of a visionary mind to be closer to reality than the common sense judgment of the realists." － Car-Gustaf Arvid Rossby
-
回复
|
赞
+1
[9]杨正瓴
- “远见者头脑中的梦想比现实主义者的常识判断更接近真实。” － 罗斯贝
"...the dreams of a visionary mind to be closer to reality than the common sense judgment of the realists." － Car-Gustaf Arvid Rossby
-
回复
|
赞
+1
[8]杨正瓴
- [1] 赵广立, 沈秋月. 本科毕业生一作发Nature，独立完成9成工作量. 科学网，2023-07-08
https://news.sciencenet.cn/htmlnews/2023/7/504367.shtm
[2] Kaifeng Bi, Lingxi Xie, Hengheng Zhang, Xin Chen, Xiaotao Gu & Qi Tian. Accurate medium-range global weather forecasting with 3D neural networks [J]. Nature, 2023-07-05
doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06185-3
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06185-3
[3] Kaifeng Bi, Lingxi Xie, Hengheng Zhang, Xin Chen, Xiaotao Gu, Qi Tian. Pangu-Weather: A 3D High-Resolution Model for Fast and Accurate Global Weather Forecast. 2022-11-03
doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2211.02556
https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.02556
[4] 谢凌曦，2023-07-06，登上Nature正刊、欧洲气象中心背书、轻量级方案发布：盘古气象大模型后续进展综述
https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/641851617
[5] 谢凌曦，2022-11-10，华为云提出盘古气象大模型：中长期气象预报精度首次超过传统数值方法，速度提升10000倍以上
https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/582285853
-
回复
|
赞
+1
[7]杨正瓴
- Home
Verification of the high-resolution (HRES) forecast of surface parameters
Overview
https://charts.ecmwf.int/products/plwww_m_hr_wp_ts/overview/parameter?parameter=2m%20temperature
https://charts.ecmwf.int/products/plwww_m_hr_wp_ts?parameter=10m%20wind%20speed&player_dimension=parameter
10m wind speed
Home
Charts catalogue
https://charts.ecmwf.int/?facets=%7B%22Range%22%3A%5B%5D%2C%22Type%22%3A%5B%22Verification%22%5D%7D
-
回复
|
赞
+1
[5]杨正瓴
- Verification of the high-resolution forecast of surface parameters
Verification of high-resolution forecasts
https://apps.ecmwf.int/webapps/opencharts/products/plwww_m_hr_wp_ts?parameter=10m%20wind%20direction
10 m wind direction
-
回复
|
赞
+1
[4]杨正瓴
- Verification of the high-resolution forecast of surface parameters
Verification of the high-resolution forecast of surface parameters
Verification of high-resolution forecasts
Verification of the high-resolution forecast of surface parameters against SYNOP observations.
© European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts
https://apps.ecmwf.int/webapps/opencharts/products/plwww_m_hr_wp_ts?parameter=10m%20wind%20speed
-
回复
|
赞
+1
[2]杨正瓴
- Next, both models differ in availability. GFS runs 4 times a day, ECMWF runs twice a day. This means GFS has the opportunity to recover from bad forecasts (say, due to bad input data) by producing more per day. ECMWF generally outperforms GFS, but if one of the forecast runs was bad, you've got to wait longer for new data. The reason for the difference in availability is due to the time it takes to compute the model. Nonhydrostatic models are more computationally expensive, which is why ECMWF is the only global nonhydrostatic model used for operation meteorology.
GFS is free, ECMWF is not. You can get the latest GFS runs for free from NCEP (http://www.ncep.noaa.gov/). You can even download the model and run it on your home super computer if you are so inclined (http://www.nco.ncep.noaa.gov/pmb...). To get ECMWF data, you typically need to be affiliated with some organization that pays for it.
Both models produce different products. You will probably be able to get the typic...
-
回复
|
赞
+1
[1]杨正瓴
- What is the difference between the ECMWF, GFS, and other weather forecasting models?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-the-ECMWF-GFS-and-other-weather-forecasting-models
here's a lot of differences between numerical models, so I'll just (briefly) mention the differences between GFS and ECMWF.
First both are global models, meaning they produce a forecast for the entire world. There are also regional models like MM5, NAM, and WRF that produce forecasts specific to a region at a high resolution (I'll talk about resolution later). Regional models tend to seed their forecasts from global models; GFS provides context for MM5. I'm not sure what regional models use ECMWF, but I'm sure there are quite a few.
GFS and ECMWF use different equations for predicting atmospheric conditions. GFS is a hydrostatic model and ECMWF is nonhydrostatic. Hydrostatic models use pressure as vertical coordinates in the forecast (e.g. make forecasts at specific isobars) and ess...
1/1 | 总计:10 | 首页 | 上一页 | 下一页 | 末页 | 跳转 |