HU Haonan,LIU Yinge.Simulation of Summer Precipitation and Temperature in the Upper Reaches of the Weihe River Based on the WRF Model[J].Research of Soil and Water Conservation,2023,30(04):256-264,274.[doi:10.13869/j.cnki.rswc.2023.04.024.]
基于WRF模式的渭河上游夏季降水及气温模拟
- Title:
- Simulation of Summer Precipitation and Temperature in the Upper Reaches of the Weihe River Based on the WRF Model
- 文章编号:
- 1005-3409(2023)04-0256-09
- Keywords:
- WRF model; precipitation and temperature; cumulus convection parameterization; upper reaches of the Weihe River
- 分类号:
- P413
- 文献标志码:
- A
- 摘要:
- [目的]探索WRF模式不同方案在渭河上游的适用性,探讨其降水格局形成的物理机制,进而对该流域的水资源及环境管理预测提供依据。[方法]采用最新的WRF V4.1.2模式,选用Kain-Fritsch(K-F)和Grell-3两种积云对流参数化方案及其微物理过程,进行了不同分辨率的渭河流域上游夏季降水及温度试验模拟及评估。[结果] 5 km分辨率下夏季6月、7月、8月两种方案模拟的气温略低于实际值,K-F方案和Grell-3方案误差分别为5.8%～10%及7%～12%。两种方案对降水模拟表现为偏高,降水随海拔高度和纬度变化不规律,误差分别为13%～39%和10%～25%。2 km分辨率下,K-F方案模拟的西南东南及西风气流较强,表现出垂直速度波动变化大,积云对流不稳定强烈,对流性降水偏多。Grell-3方案模拟的偏南暖湿气流较强,垂直速度较大,随高度增加较快,有利于大尺度强降水产生。5 km分辨率下夏季6月、7月、8月的气温及降水模拟对两种积云对流参数化方案具有较强的敏感性和适应性。K-F方案对气温模拟效果好于Grell-3方案,Grell-3方案对降水模拟效果优于K-F方案,尤其是强降水区域模拟效果更好。分辨率提高到2 km时两种方案更能细致地模拟出降水及气温的空间分布格局,高温及强降水区域更精细地展现出来。[结论]两种方案对水汽输送及垂直速度的模拟均很敏感,误差在可接受范围内。WRF模式中的K-F及Grell-3两种积云对流参数化方案适合于渭河上游的降水及气温模拟。
- Abstract:
- [Objective] The aims of this study to explore the applicability of different schemes of the WRF model in the upper reaches of the Weihe River, discuss the physical mechanism of its precipitation pattern formation, and then provide a basis for the prediction of water resources and environmental management in the basin. [Methods] The latest WRF V4.1.2 model, Kain-Fritsch(K-F)and Grell-3 two cumulus convective parameterization schemes and microphysics schemes were used to conduct experiments with different resolutions on simulation and evaluation of the summer precipitation and temperature in the upper reaches of the Weihe River Basin. [Results] When the resolution is 5 km, the temperature simulated by the two schemes in June, July, and August in summer is slightly lower than the actual value, and the errors of the K-F scheme and the Grell-3 scheme are 5.8%～10% and 7%～12%, respectively. The simulation performance of the two schemes for precipitation is relatively high, and the precipitation varies irregularly with altitude and latitude, and the error tolerance rates are 13%～39% and 10%～25%. When the resolution is 2 km, the southwest, southeast and westerly winds simulated by the K-F scheme are strong, showing large fluctuations in vertical velocity, strong cumulus convective instability, and more convective precipitation. The southerly warm and humid airflow simulated by the Grell-3 scheme is stronger, the vertical velocity is larger, and it increases faster with height, which is conducive to the generation of large-scale heavy precipitation. The temperature and precipitation simulations in June, July, and August in summer at a resolution of 5 km have strong sensitivity and adaptability to the two cumulus convective parameterization schemes. The K-F scheme is better than the Grell-3 scheme in air temperature simulation, and the Grell-3 scheme is better in precipitation simulation than the K-F scheme, especially in heavy precipitation areas. When the resolution is increased to 2 km, the two schemes can simulate the spatial distribution pattern of precipitation and temperature in more detail, and the areas with high temperature and heavy precipitation can be displayed more precisely. [Conclusion] Both schemes are sensitive to the simulation of water vapor transport and vertical velocity, and the error is within an acceptable range. The K-F and Grell-3 cumulus convective parameterization schemes in the WRF model are suitable for the precipitation and temperature simulation in the upper reaches of the Weihe River.
参考文献/References:
[1] 翟颖佳,李耀辉,徐影.RCPs情景下中国北方地区干旱气候变化特征[J].高原气象,2016,35(1):94-106.
[2] 张冬峰,韩振宇,石英.CSIRO-Mk3.6.0模式及其驱动下Reg CM4.4模式对中国气候变化的预估[J].气候变化研究进展,2017,13(6):557-568.
[3] 王晓君,马浩.新一代中尺度预报模式(WRF)国内应用进展[J].地球科学进展,2011,26(11):1191-1199.
[4] 张磊,王春燕,潘小多.基于区域气候模式未来气候变化研究综述[J].高原气象,2018,37(5):1440-1448.
[5] 刘引鸽,周欢欢,胡浩楠,等.西安地区土壤浅层温度变化特征[J].干旱区资源与环境,2019,33(8):153-159.
[6] Liu Y, Wang N, Wang L, et al. Variation of cloud amount over China and the relationship with ENSO from 1951 to 2014[J]. International Journal of Climatology, 2016,36(8):2931-2941.
[7] Liu Y, Guo Z, Zhou Q, et al. The climate characteristics of the first date of ≤0℃ temperature in East China[J]. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research, 2015,47(2):243-253.
[8] Efstathiou G A, Zoumakis N M, Melas D, et al. Sensitivity of WRF to boundary layer parameterizations in simulating a heavy rainfall event using different microphysical schemes: Effect on large-scale processes[J]. Atmospheric Research, 2013,132:125-143.
[9] 屠妮妮,何光碧,张利红.WRF模式中不同积云对流参数化方案对比试验[J].高原山地气象研究,2011,31(2):18-25.
[10] 廖镜彪,王雪梅,夏北成,等.WRF模式中微物理和积云参数化方案的对比试验[J].热带气象学报,2012,28(4):461-470.
[11] Chen F, Dudhia J. Coupling an advanced land surface-hydrology model with the Penn State-NCAR MM5 modeling system. Part Ⅰ: Model implementation and sensitivity[J]. Monthly Weather Review, 2001,129(4):569-585.
[12] Lin Y L, Farley R D, Orville H D. Bulk parameterization of the snow field in a cloud model[J]. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 1983,22(6):1065-1092.
[13] Hamill T M. Performance of operational model precipitation forecast guidance during the 2013 Colorado Front-Range floods[J]. Monthly Weather Review, 2014,142(8):2609-2618.
[14] Evans J P, Ekström M, Ji F. Evaluating the performance of a WRF physics ensemble over South-East Australia[J]. Climate Dynamics, 2012,39:1241-1258.
[15] Kryza M, Werner M, Waszek K, et al. Application and evaluation of the WRF model for high-resolution forecasting of rainfall: a case study of SW Poland[J]. Meteorologische Zeitschrift, 2013,22(5):595-601.
[16] Pour M K, Irannejad P, Hajjam S. The evaluation of simulated discharge of coupled surface scheme and river routing in numerical weather prediction WRF:Case study Karoon river[J]. Journal of Earth Space Physics, 2010,37(1):199-214.
[17] Shih D S, Chen C H, Yeh G T. Improving our understanding of flood forecasting using earlier hydro-meteorological intelligence[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 2014,512:470-481.
[18] 刘伟光,陈海山,俞淼.积云对流参数化方案对东亚夏季环流和降水模拟的影响[J].大气科学,2019,43(1):64-74.
[19] 陈茂钦,徐海明,刘蕾,等.WRF3.1微物理参数化方案对两例暴雨的集合预报试验及可预报性分析[J].气象科学,2012,32(3):237-245.
[20] 智协飞,孙晶,周文友.2009年夏季西太平洋台风的集合预报和多模式集成预报试验[J].大气科学学报,2015,38(5):633-640.
[21] 李响.WRF模式中积云对流参数化方案对西北太平洋台风路径与强度模拟的影响[J].中国科学:地球科学,2012,42(12):1966-1978.
[22] 吴海涛,解宏伟,赵运天.不同物理参数化方案对黄河源区降雨模拟的适用性研究[J].水电能源科学,2019,37(7):9-13.
[23] 王佳,梅钦,陈钰文.WRF模式不同微物理方案水凝物的预报能力检验与集成试验[J].气象,2017,43(5):552-559.
[24] 梅钦,智协飞,王佳.WRF模式不同云参数化方案的暴雨预报能力检验及集成试验[J].大气科学学报,2018,41(6):731-742.
[25] 胡浩楠,刘引鸽,马凯.渭河流域百年尺度水旱特征及其影响因素[J].水土保持通报,2020,40(2):255-262.
[26] 雷江群,刘登峰,黄强.渭河流域气候变化及干湿状况时空分布分析[J].西北农林科技大学学报:自然科学版,2015,43(3):175-181.
[27] 郭爱军,畅建霞,黄强,等.渭河流域气候变化与人类活动对径流影响的定量分析[J].西北农林科技大学学报:自然科学版,2014,42(8):212-220.
[28] 任立良,沈鸿仁,袁飞,等.变化环境下渭河流域水文干旱演变特征剖析[J].水科学进展,2016,27(4):492-500.
[39] 贾杰,姜丽红.气候变化与人类活动对渭河源区近30年径流量影响研究[J].地下水,2017,39(4):130-133.
[30] 王丽洁,孛永明,陈瑾,等.1980—2012年渭河源区气候因子演变特征及趋势分析[J].中国水土保持,2017(7):46-48.
[31] Kain J S. The Kain-Fritsch convective parameterization: an update[J]. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 2004,43(1):170-181.
[32] Kain J S, Fritsch J M. The role of the convective “trigger function” in numerical forecasts of mesoscale convective systems[J]. Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, 1992,49(1):93-106.
[33] Crétat J, Pohl B. How physical parameterizations can modulate internal variability in a regional climate model[J]. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 2012,69(2):714-724.
备注/Memo
收稿日期:2022-06-07 修回日期:2022-06-19
资助项目:陕西省重点研发计划项目(2022SF-364); 国家自然科学基金(41771048)
第一作者:胡浩楠(1993—),男,陕西商洛人,博士研究生,研究方向为气象模拟、历史灾害。E-mail:kuangbiao_2009@163.com
通信作者:刘引鸽(1965—),女,陕西兴平人,博士,教授,主要从事气候变化与适应、资源环境管理及生态研究。E-mail:Yingeliu@163.com