Show simple item record

contributor authorChien, Fang-Ching
contributor authorLiu, Yi-Chin
contributor authorJou, Ben Jong-Dao
date accessioned2017-06-09T17:35:16Z
date available2017-06-09T17:35:16Z
date copyright2006/12/01
date issued2006
identifier issn0882-8156
identifier otherams-87648.pdf
identifier urihttp://onlinelibrary.yabesh.ir/handle/yetl/4231340
description abstractThis paper presents an evaluation study of a real-time fifth-generation Pennsylvania State University?NCAR Mesoscale Model (MM5) mesoscale ensemble prediction system in the Taiwan area during the 2003 mei-yu season. The ensemble system consists of 16 members that used the same nested domains of 45- and 15-km resolutions, but different model settings of the initial conditions (ICs), the cumulus parameterization scheme (CPS), and the microphysics scheme (MS). Verification of geopotential height, temperature, relative humidity, and winds in the 15-km grid shows that the members using the Kain?Fritsch CPS performed better than those using the Grell CPS, and those using the Central Weather Bureau (CWB) Nonhydrostatic Forecast System (NFS) ICs fared better than those using the CWB Global Forecast System (GFS) ICs. The members applying the mixed-phase MS generally exhibited the smallest errors among the four MSs. Precipitation verification shows that the members using the Grell CPS, in general, had higher equitable threat scores (ETSs) than those using the Kain?Fritsch CPS, that the members with the GFS ICs performed better than with the NFS ICs, and that the mixed-phase and Goddard MSs gave relatively high ETSs in the rainfall simulation. The bias scores show that, overall, all 16 members underforecasted rainfall. Comparisons of the ensemble means show that, on average, an ensemble mean, no matter how many members it contains, can produce better forecasts than an individual member. Among the three possible elements (IC, CPS, and MS) that can be varied to compose an ensemble, the ensemble that contains members with all three elements varying performed the best, while that with two elements varying was second best, and that with only one varying was the worst. Furthermore, the first choice for composing an ensemble is to use perturbed ICs, followed by the perturbed CPS, and then the perturbed MS.
publisherAmerican Meteorological Society
titleMM5 Ensemble Mean Forecasts in the Taiwan Area for the 2003 Mei-Yu Season
typeJournal Paper
journal volume21
journal issue6
journal titleWeather and Forecasting
identifier doi10.1175/WAF960.1
journal fristpage1006
journal lastpage1023
treeWeather and Forecasting:;2006:;volume( 021 ):;issue: 006
contenttypeFulltext


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record