Verification of precipitation from regional climate simulations and remote-sensing observations with respect to ground-based observations in the upper Danube catchment

被引:29
作者
Frueh, Barbara
Bendix, Joerg
Nauss, Thomas
Paulat, Marcus
Pfeiffer, Andreas
Schipper, Janus W.
Thies, Boris
Wernli, Heini
机构
[1] Johannes Gutenberg Univ Mainz, Inst Atmospher Phys, D-6500 Mainz, Germany
[2] Univ Munich, Inst Meteorol, D-80539 Munich, Germany
[3] Univ Marburg, Lab Climatol & Remote Sensing, D-35032 Marburg, Germany
关键词
NORTHWESTERN UNITED-STATES; OBJECT-BASED VERIFICATION; DATA ASSIMILATION; MESOSCALE MODEL; CONVECTION; RAINFALL; REANALYSIS; FORECASTS; TERRAIN; SYSTEMS;
D O I
10.1127/0941-2948/2007/0210
中图分类号
P4 [大气科学(气象学)];
学科分类号
0706 ; 070601 ;
摘要
An evaluation of precipitation fields for four selected months simulated by the regional climate model AtmoMM5 and provided by the satellite retrieval method AtmoSat is presented. As reference, observations at 5 km resolution on a daily and monthly basis are used. We applied conventional verification tools (root mean square error, grid-point based categorical error scores, etc.) as well as the new error score SAL, which separately considers aspects of the structure, amplitude and location of the precipitation field in a predefined area. We also discussed the advantages and disadvantages of each of the scores. The aim of our evaluation was to unfold the strengths and weaknesses of AtmoMM5 and AtmoSat to calculate daily and monthly high resolution precipitation. As a result we found that the catchment averaged monthly mean precipitation is simulated with an acceptable accuracy by both methods. The spatial pattern of the monthly precipitation (typically with a precipitation maximum in the alpine foreland) can only be reproduced by AtmoMM5. Regarding the daily precipitation, our evaluation revealed that both methods still need improvement. The deviations to the observations increase with decreasing precipitation amount resulting in large uncertainties in case of very dry conditions. Overall, we can conclude that AtmoMM5 is better suited to simulate precipitation at 5 km resolution on a daily basis than AtmoSat.
引用
收藏
页码:275 / 293
页数:19
相关论文
共 44 条
[1]  
ADLER RF, 1988, J APPL METEOROL, V27, P30, DOI 10.1175/1520-0450(1988)027<0030:ASITTE>2.0.CO
[2]  
2
[3]  
[Anonymous], 1994, DESCRIPTION 5 GENERA
[4]   Adjustment of the Convective-Stratiform Technique (CST) to estimate 1991/93 El Nino rainfall distribution in Ecuador and Peru by means of Meteosat-3 IR data [J].
Bendix, J .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REMOTE SENSING, 1997, 18 (06) :1387-1394
[5]  
BETTS AK, 1993, METEOR MON, V24, P107
[6]   Observed and model-simulated diurnal cycles of precipitation over the contiguous United States [J].
Dai, A ;
Giorgi, F ;
Trenberth, KE .
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES, 1999, 104 (D6) :6377-6402
[7]  
DALY C, 1994, J APPL METEOROL, V33, P140, DOI 10.1175/1520-0450(1994)033<0140:ASTMFM>2.0.CO
[8]  
2
[9]  
DAVIES JM, 1993, P 17 C SEV LOC STORM, P51
[10]   Object-based verification of precipitation forecasts. Part I: Methodology and application to mesoscale rain areas [J].
Davis, Christopher ;
Brown, Barbara ;
Bullock, Randy .
MONTHLY WEATHER REVIEW, 2006, 134 (07) :1772-1784