Atmospheric Science Letters (Oct 2023)
Multiscale feature analysis of forecast errors of 500 hPa geopotential height for the CMA‐GFS model
Abstract
Abstract Using ERA5 reanalysis data from March 2021 to February 2022 and the China Meteorological Administration Global Forecasting System (CMA‐GFS) operational forecast dataset of 500 hPa geopotential height in the Northern Hemisphere in the same period, the multiscale features of forecast errors are analyzed. The results indicate that the anomaly correlation coefficient (ACC) of 500 hPa geopotential height and its multiscale components in the Northern Hemisphere keep decreasing with the extension of forecast lead time, and there are no seasonal differences in the evolution of the ACC. The effective forecast skills by season for the CMA‐GFS model are above 6 days at multiscale, with the highest skills in winter and the planetary‐scale components. In space, significant seasonal differences are observed in the locations of the extreme values of multiscale forecast errors for 500 hPa geopotential height, and the spatial distribution of forecast errors reflects the inadequate prediction of the intensity of large‐scale trough and ridge systems at middle and high latitudes and the phase‐shift prediction of small troughs and ridges at middle latitudes. Generally, the forecast errors of the original field and planetary‐scale component show wavelike or banded distribution, and the synoptic‐scale forecast errors are always distributed in latitudinal wavelike patterns alternating between positive and negative, without significant differences in the distribution of land, sea, and terrain. The first empirical orthogonal function modes of multiscale forecast errors almost retain their respective feature. In temporal, the spring, summer, and autumn time series all have quasi‐biweekly positive and negative phase transitions within the monthly scale, and the significant phase transition in winter only occurs around January 1st. These results deepen the understanding of the distribution and possible causes of forecast errors of the CMA‐GFS model and provide ideas for the improvement and revision of the model.
Keywords
