4.0 Article

Development and Assessment of ADAM3 Ensemble Prediction System

期刊

SOLA
卷 19, 期 -, 页码 26-32

出版社

METEOROLOGICAL SOC JAPAN
DOI: 10.2151/sola.2023-004

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study introduces and evaluates an ensemble prediction system for Asian dust aerosol model, which generates probability forecasts of Asian dust. The system's performance was assessed using contingency tables, Brier skill score, and reliability diagrams. The results showed variations in skill scores among different sites, indicating the need for further investigation on regional characteristics.
Forecasts of discrete events, such as precipitation, dust storms, and typhoons, can be deterministic, categorical, or probabilistic. Ensemble-based probabilistic predictions generate more consistent forecasts than individual deterministic models. We introduce and evaluate the Ensemble Prediction System of Asian Dust Aerosol Model 3, which generates probability forecasts of Asian dust. Probability forecasts were produced for 300 mu gm(-3) PM10 mass concentrations, according to the air-quality standards of the Ministry of Environment of South Korea and Korea Meteorological Administration. Crisis-level information was produced to categorize the dust risk level for Asia, using a risk matrix. The model's performance was evaluated using a 2 x 2 contingency table, the Brier skill score, and a reliability diagram. For skill score evaluation via the contingency table, the average hit rate and threat score were 0.46 and 0.34 for the best three sites, Jurihe, Erenhot, and Wulatezhongqi. The Brier skill score was positive for approximately 60% of stations, with the highest (0.410) and lowest (-2.038) values in Erenhot and Yanan, respectively. The reliability diagram revealed overestimated Asian dust frequencies for all stations. Although the stations were located within the same regions, their skill scores differed. Regional characteristics of skill scores should be further investigated in the future.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据