Evaluation of forecast performance for Super Typhoon Lekima in 2019

doi:10.1007/s11707-021-0900-2

Front. Earth Sci.

2022, Vol. 16

Issue (1) : 17-33 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11707-021-0900-2

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Evaluation of forecast performance for Super Typhoon Lekima in 2019

Guomin CHEN^1,^2,³(

), Xiping ZHANG^2,³, Qing CAO⁴, Zhihua ZENG^2,³

¹. Key Laboratory of Meteorological Disaster (Ministry of Education)/Joint International Research Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Change/Collaborative Innovation Center on Forecast and Evaluation of Meteorological Disasters, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing 210044, China
². Shanghai Typhoon Institute of China Meteorological Administration, Shanghai 200030, China
³. Shanghai Typhoon Institute, and Key Laboratory of Numerical Modeling for Tropical Cyclone of China Meteorological Administration, Shanghai 200030, China
⁴. Shanghai Marine Center Meteorological Observatory, Shanghai 200030, China

Download: PDF(3039 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

The predictions for Super Typhoon Lekima (2019) have been evaluated from official forecasts, global models, regional models and ensemble prediction systems (EPSs) at lead times of 1–5 days. Track errors from most deterministic forecasts are smaller than their annual mean errors in 2019. Compared to the propagation speed, the propagation direction of Lekima (2019) was much easier to determine for the official agency and numerical weather prediction (NWP) models. The National Centers for Environmental Prediction Global Ensemble Forecast System (NCEP-GEFS), Japan Meteorological Agency Global Ensemble Prediction System (JMA-GEPS) and Meteorological Service of Canada Ensemble System (MSC-CENS) are underdispersed, and the Shanghai Typhoon Institute Typhoon Ensemble Data Assimilation and Prediction System (STI-TEDAPS) is overdispersed, while the ensemble prediction system from European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) shows adequate dispersion at all lead times. Most deterministic forecasting methods underestimated the intensity of Lekima (2019), especially for the rapid intensification period after Lekima (2019) entered the East China Sea. All of the deterministic forecasts performed well at predicting the first landfall point at Wenling, Zhejiang Province with a lead time of 24 and 48 h.

Keywords Typhoon Lekima (2019) track intensity landfall point forecast verification

Corresponding Author(s): Guomin CHEN

Online First Date: 17 August 2021 Issue Date: 04 March 2022

Cite this article:

Guomin CHEN,Xiping ZHANG,Qing CAO, et al. Evaluation of forecast performance for Super Typhoon Lekima in 2019[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2022, 16(1): 17-33.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fesci/EN/10.1007/s11707-021-0900-2
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fesci/EN/Y2022/V16/I1/17

1	R Buizza (1997). Potential forecast skill of ensemble prediction and spread and skill distributions of the ECMWF ensemble prediction system. Mon Wea Rev, 125: 99–119 https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1997)125<0099:PFSOEP>2.0.CO;2.
2	L E III Carr, R L Elsberry (2000). Dynamical tropical cyclone track forecast errors. Part II: midlatitude circulation influences. Weather Forecast, 15(6): 662–681 https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2000)015<0662:DTCTFE>2.0.CO;2
3	G Chen, X Lei, X Zhang, P Chen, H Yu, R Wan (2016b). Performance of tropical cyclone forecast in western North Pacific in 2015. Trop Cyclone Res Rev, 5(3–4): 47–57
4	G Chen, M Yang, X Zhang, R Wan (2020). Verification of tropical cyclone operational forecast in 2019. Annual report for ESCAP/WMO Typhoon Committee
5	P Chen, Yu H, B Brown, G Chen, R Wan (2016a). A probabilistic climatology-based analogue intensity forecast scheme for tropical cyclones. Q Roy Meteor Soc, 142: 2386–2397 https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2831
6	T DelSole, M K Tippett (2016). Forecast comparison based on random walks. Mon Weather Rev, 144(2): 615–626 https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-15-0218.1
7	M DeMaria, C R Sampson, J A Knaff, K D Musgrave (2014). Is tropical cyclone intensity guidance improving? Bull Am Meteorol Soc, 95(3): 387–398 https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00240.1
8	K Emanuel, F Zhang (2016). On the predictability and error sources of tropical cyclone intensity forecasts. J Atmos Sci, 73(9): 3739–3747 https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-16-0100.1
9	L S R Froude, L Bengtsson, K I Hodges (2007). The predictability of extratropical storm tracks and the sensitivity of their prediction to the observing system. Mon Weather Rev, 135(2): 315–333 https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR3274.1
10	R Gall, J Franklin, F Marks, E N Rappaport, F Toepfer (2013). The hurricane forecast improvement project. Bull Am Meteorol Soc, 94(3): 329–343 https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00071.1
11	B A Harper, J D Kepert, J D Ginger. 2010, Guidelines for converting between various wind averaging periods in tropical cyclone conditions. Wold Meteorological Organization, TCP Sub-Project Report, WMO/TD-No.1555
12	K I Hodges, N P Klingaman (2019). Prediction errors of tropical cyclones in the Western North Pacific in the Met Office Global Forecast Model. Weather Forecast, 34(5): 1189–1209 https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-19-0005.1
13	J Kaplan, M DeMaria, J A Knaff (2010). A revised tropical cyclone rapid intensification index for the Atlantic and eastern North Pacific basins. Weather Forecast, 25(1): 220–241 https://doi.org/10.1175/2009WAF2222280.1
14	N M Leonardo, B A Colle (2017). Verification of multimodel ensemble forecasts of North Atlantic tropical cyclones. Weather Forecast, 32(6): 2083–2101 https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-17-0058.1
15	X Q Lu, B K Zhao (2013). Analysis of the climatic characteristics of landing tropical cyclones in 373 east China. J Trop Meteorol, 19(2): 145–153
16	A H Murphy (1992). Climatology, persistence, and their linear combination as standards of reference in skill scores. Weather Forecast, 7(4): 692–698 https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(1992)007<0692:CPATLC>2.0.CO;2
17	K A Payne, R L Elsberry, M A Boothe (2007). Assessment of western North Pacific 96- and 120-h track guidance and present forecastability. Weather Forecast, 22(5): 1003–1015 https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF1030.1
18	R Swinbank, M Kyouda, P Buchanan, L Froude, T M Hamill, T D Hewson, J H Keller, M Matsueda, J Methven, F Pappenberger, M Scheuerer, H A Titley, L Wilson, M Yamaguchi (2016). The TIGGE project and its achievements. Bull Am Meteorol Soc, 97(1): 49–67 https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00191.1
19	K E Taylor (2001). Summarizing multiple aspects of model performance in a single diagram. J Geophys Res Atmos, 106(D7): 7183–7192 https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JD900719
20	J S Whitaker, A F Loughe (1998). The relationship between ensemble spread and ensemble mean skill. Mon Weather Rev, 126(12): 3292–3302 https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1998)126<3292:TRBESA>2.0.CO;2
21	M Yamaguchi, J Ishida, H Sato, M Nakagawa (2017). WGNE intercomparison of tropical cyclone forecasts by operational NWP models: a quarter century and beyond. Bull Am Meteorol Soc, 98(11): 2337–2349 https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0133.1
22	M Ying, E J Cha, H J Kwon (2011). Comparison of three western north pacific tropical cyclone best track datasets in a seasonal context. J Meteorol Soc Jpn, 89(3): 211–224 https://doi.org/10.2151/jmsj.2011-303
23	M Ying, W Zhang, H Yu, X Lu, J Feng, Y Fan, Y Zhu, D Chen (2014). An overview of the China Meteorological Administration tropical cyclone database. J Atmos Ocean Technol, 31(2): 287–301 https://doi.org/10.1175/JTECH-D-12-00119.1
24	H Yu, C Hu, L Jiang (2007). Comparison of three tropical cyclone intensity datasets. Acta Meteorol Sin, 28: 121–128

[1]	Mengting XU, Hong LI, Jingyao LUO, Hairong BEN, Yijie ZHU. Predictability and dynamics of the rapid intensification of Super Typhoon Lekima (2019)[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2022, 16(1): 132-143.
[2]	Cong ZHOU, Peiyan CHEN, Shifang YANG, Feng ZHENG, Hui YU, Jie TANG, Yi LU, Guoming CHEN, Xiaoqing LU, Xiping ZHANG, Jing SUN. The impact of Typhoon Lekima (2019) on East China: a postevent survey in Wenzhou City and Taizhou City[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2022, 16(1): 109-120.
[3]	Bin HE, Zifeng YU, Yan TAN, Yan SHEN, Yingjun CHEN. Rainfall forecast errors in different landfall stages of Super Typhoon Lekima (2019)[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2022, 16(1): 34-51.
[4]	Fangyan ZHU, Heng WANG, Mingshi LI, Jiaojiao DIAO, Wenjuan SHEN, Yali ZHANG, Hongji WU. Characterizing the effects of climate change on short-term post-disturbance forest recovery in southern China from Landsat time-series observations (1988–2016)[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2020, 14(4): 816-827.
[5]	Qianqian JI, Feng XU, Jianjun XU, Mei LIANG, Shifei, TU, Siqi, CHEN. Large-scale characteristics of landfalling tropical cyclones with abrupt intensity change[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2019, 13(4): 808-816.
[6]	Ying XIONG, Fen PENG, Bin ZOU. Spatiotemporal influences of land use/cover changes on the heat island effect in rapid urbanization area[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2019, 13(3): 614-627.
[7]	Siyuan LIU, Mengyao HAN, Xudong WU, Xiaofang WU, Zhi LI, Xiaohua XIA, Xi JI. Embodied water analysis for Hebei Province, China by input-output modelling[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2018, 12(1): 72-85.
[8]	Ştefan BILAŞCO, Corina GOVOR, Sanda ROŞCA, Iuliu VESCAN, Sorin FILIP, Ioan FODOREAN. GIS model for identifying urban areas vulnerable to noise pollution: case study[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2017, 11(2): 214-228.
[9]	Renmao YUAN,Qinghai DENG,Dickson CUNNINGHAM,Zhujun HAN,Dongli ZHANG,Bingliang ZHANG. Newmark displacement model for landslides induced by the 2013 Ms 7.0 Lushan earthquake, China[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2016, 10(4): 740-750.
[10]	Haiguang HAO,Xiubin LI,Minghong TAN,Jiping ZHANG,Huiyuan ZHANG. Agricultural land use intensity and its determinants: A case study in Taibus Banner, Inner Mongolia, China[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2015, 9(2): 308-318.
[11]	Mengyao HAN,Shan GUO,Hui CHEN,Xi JI,Jiashuo LI. Local-scale systems input-output analysis of embodied water for the Beijing economy in 2007[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2014, 8(3): 414-426.
[12]	Yan ZHANG,Hong LIU,Bin CHEN,Hongmei ZHENG,Yating LI. Analysis of urban metabolic processes based on input–output method: model development and a case study for Beijing[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2014, 8(2): 190-201.
[13]	Jia JIA, Haitao WEI, Bo WANG, Xianbin LIU, Dunsheng XIA, . A magnetic investigation of a loess/paleosol sequences record in Ili area[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2010, 4(3): 259-268.
[14]	GE Shulan, WU Yonghua, SHI Xuefa, YANG Gang. Rock magnetic response to climatic changes in west Philippine Sea for the last 780 ka: Discussion based on relative paleointensity assisted chronology[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2008, 2(3): 314-326.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed