高原气象

高原气象 >

2020 , Vol. 39 >Issue 2: 266 - 279

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7522/j.issn.1000-0534.2019.00104

论文

基于分位数映射法的黑河上游气候模式降水误差订正

  • 雷华锦 ,
  • 马佳培 ,
  • 李弘毅 ,
  • 王建 ,
  • 邵东航 ,
  • 赵宏宇
展开
  • <sup>1.</sup>中国科学院西北生态环境资源研究院, 甘肃 兰州 730000;<sup>2.</sup>中国科学院大学, 北京 100049;<sup>3.</sup>江苏省地理信息资源开发与利用协同创新中心, 江苏 南京 210023;<sup>4.</sup>电子科技大学, 四川 成都 611731

收稿日期: 2019-08-15

  网络出版日期: 2020-04-28

基金资助

科技基础资源调查专项(2017FY100503);国家自然科学基金项目(41971399);青海省基础研究项目(2020-ZJ-731)

收起

Bias Correction of Climate Model Precipitation in the Upper Heihe River Basin based on Quantile Mapping Method

  • Huajin LEI ,
  • Jiapei MA ,
  • Hongyi LI ,
  • Jian WANG ,
  • Donghang SHAO ,
  • Hongyu ZHAO
Expand
  • <sup>1.</sup>Northwest Institute of Eco-Environmental Resources, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou 730000, Gansu, China;<sup>2.</sup>University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China;<sup>3.</sup>Geography of Jiangsu Province Collaborative Innovation Center for Information Resources Development and Utilization, Nanjing 210023, Jiangsu, China;<sup>4.</sup>University of Electronic Science and Technology, Chengdu 611731, Sichuan, China

Received date: 2019-08-15

  Online published: 2020-04-28

Fold

摘要

区域气候模式降水弥补了高寒山区气象站点稀少的缺陷, 是水文模拟的重要驱动变量。然而, 高寒山区模式输出降水的总量和频率都存在较大不确定性。因此, 改进了用于降水频率纠正的分位数映射法(Quantile Mapping, QM), 对中尺度数值预报模式(Weather Research and Forecasting model, WRF)模拟的黑河上游日降水输出数据进行误差订正。选取第95分位和第98分位降水量为阈值, 选择2004 -2009年为建模时段, 2010 -2013年为验证时段, 使用分段拟合的方法建立传递函数, 侧重于对极端降水进行单独订正。研究结果表明: 该方法不仅对降水空间分布有明显的改善, 对极端降水也有很好的订正效果。订正前模式模拟日降水与台站之间的均方根误差为3.41 mm·d-1, 绝对偏差为115.67 mm·y-1, 订正后均方根误差减少为3.11 mm·d-1, 绝对偏差有明显改善, 为60.3 mm·y-1。订正后流域内年降水空间分布更加合理, 年降水量也更接近于观测降水插值结果, 其空间相关系数由0.74改善为0.94。春、 夏季订正效果优于秋、 冬季, 其中夏季订正效果较为明显, 订正前降水偏差百分比在-0.1~0.1以内的区域面积仅占流域总面积的28%, 而订正后占比增加至66%。同时, 该方法对极端降水有较好的订正效果, 减小了日降水强度(SDII)和极强降水量(R99p)的模拟偏差, 订正后的第95分位模拟降水与观测降水插值的相关系数由0.15提高到0.48。本研究为站点稀少的黑河上游提供了一种更有效的误差订正方案, 有利于为寒区水文研究获取更精确的降水数据。

关键词： 黑河上游; 气候模式降水; 分位数映射法; 误差订正

本文引用格式

雷华锦 , 马佳培 , 李弘毅 , 王建 , 邵东航 , 赵宏宇 . 基于分位数映射法的黑河上游气候模式降水误差订正[J]. 高原气象, 2020 , 39(2) : 266 -279 . DOI: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-0534.2019.00104

Abstract

Regional climate model precipitation makes up for the deficiency of scarce meteorological stations in the alpine and cold mountains, which is an important variable of hydrological simulation.However, there is great uncertainty of model outputs in alpine region, both in the total amount and frequency.In view of this, we have improved the existing quantile mapping method (QM) for precipitation frequency correction, and corrected the daily precipitation simulated by WRF model of the upper reaches of Heihe river.Precipitation at the 95th and 98th percentiles were selected as the threshold, and 2004 -2009 as the modeling period and 2010 -2013 as the validation period.The transfer function was established by piecewise fitting method, focusing on correct the simulated extreme precipitation separately.The results show that the method not only has a significant improvement on the spatial distribution of precipitation, but also has a great correction effect on extreme precipitation.Before the correction, the RMSE between the sinulated and the stations precipitation was 3.41 mm·d-1, and the absolute deviation was 115.67 mm·y-1.After correction, the RMSE was reduced to 3.11 mm·d-1, and the absolute deviation was significantly improved to 60.3 mm·y-1.The spatial distribution of annual precipitation in the basin improved obviously, and the annual precipitation amount is closer to the precipitation interpolated, the spation correlation coefficient increased from 0.74 to 0.94.The correction effect in spring and summer is better than that in autumn and winter, among which the correction effect in summer is the most obvious.Before the correction, precipitation deviation during -0.1~0.1 only accounts for 28% of the total area of the basin, while after the correction the proportion increased to 66%.At the same time, this method performs well in extreme precipitation correction, reduces the simulation deviation of simple daily intensity index (SDII) and very extremely precipitation(R99p), the correlation coefficient of simulated and interpolated precipitation at the 95th percentiles was improved from 0.15 to 0.48.This study provides a more effective bias correction method for the upper Heihe river with scarce stations, which is conducive to obtaining more accurate precipitation data for the hydrological research of the cold regions.

Key words： The upper Heihe Rive; climate model precip; quantile mapping met; bias correction

参考文献

[1]Ba W, Du P, Liu T, al et, 2018.Simulating hydrological responses to climate change using dynamic and statistical downscaling methods: A case study in the Kaidu River Basin, Xinjiang, China[J].Journal of Arid Land, 10(6): 905-920.
[2]Cannon A J, Sobie S R, Murdock T Q, 2015.Bias correction of GCM precipitation by quantile mapping: How well do methods preserve changes in quantiles and extremes?[J].Journal of Climate, 28(17): 6938-6959.
[3]Chen J, Brissette F P, Chaumont D, al et, 2013.Performance and uncertainty evaluation of empirical downscaling methods in quantifying the climate change impacts on hydrology over two North American river basins[J].Journal of Hydrology, 479: 200-214.
[4]Chen J, Brissette F P, Leconte R, 2011.Uncertainty of downscaling method in quantifying the impact of climate change on hydrology[J].Journal of Hydrology (Amsterdam), 401(3/4): 190-202.
[5]Chen R, Liu J, Kang E, al et, 2015.Precipitation measurement intercomparison in the Qilian Mountains, north-eastern Tibetan Plateau[J].The Cryosphere, 9(5): 1995-2008.
[6]Dickinson R E, Errico R M, Giorgi F, al et, 1989.A regional climate model for the western United States[J].Climatic Change, 15(3): 383-422.
[7]Eutschbein C, Seibert J, 2012.Bias correction of regional climate model simulations for hydrological climate-change impact studies: Review and evaluation of different methods[J].Journal of Hydrology (Amsterdam), 456-457: 12-29.
[8]Feddersen H, Andersen U, 2005.A method for statistical downscaling of seasonal ensemble predictions[J].Tellus, Series A (Dynamic Meteorology and Oceanography), 57(3): 398-408.
[9]Fekete, Balázs M, V?r?smarty, al et, 2004.Uncertainties in precipitation and their impacts on runoff estimates[J].Journal of Climate, 17(2): 294-304.
[10]Fowler H J, Blenkinsop S, Tebaldi C, 2007.Linking climate change modelling to impacts studies: recent advances in downscaling techniques for hydrological modelling[J].International Journal of Climatology, 27(12): 1547-1578.
[11]Giorgi, Filippo, 1990.Simulation of regional climate using a limited area model nested in a general circulation model[J].Journal of Climate, 3(9): 941-964.
[12]Graham L P, Hagemann S, Jaun S, al et, 2007.On interpreting hydrological change from regional climate models[J].Climatic Change, 81(Suppl 1): 97-122.
[13]Groisman P Y, Koknaeva V V, Belokrylova T A, al et, 1975. Overcoming biases of precipitation measurement: A history of the USSR experience[J].Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 72(1991): 1725-1834.
[14]Gudmundsson L, Bremnes J B, Haugen J E, al et, 2012.Technical Note: Downscaling RCM precipitation to the station scale using statistical transformations &ndash; a comparison of methods[J].Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 16(9): 3383-3390.
[15]Gudmundsson L, Bremnes J B, Haugen J E, al et, 2012.Technical Note: Downscaling RCM precipitation to the station scale using quantile mapping-a comparison of methods[J].Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions, 9(5), 6185–6201.
[16]Gutjahr O, Günther H, 2013.Comparing precipitation bias correction methods for high-resolution regional climate simulations using COSMO-CLM[J].Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 114(3/4): 511-529.
[17]Hagemann S, Chen C, Haerter J O, al et, 1920.Impact of a statistical bias correction on the projected hydrological changes obtained from three GCMs and two hydrology models[J].Journal of Hydrometeorology, 12(4): 556-578.
[18]Hay L E, Wilby R L, Leavesley G H, 2000.A comparison of delta change and downscaled GCM scenarios for three mountainous basins in the United States.[J].Jawra Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 36(2): 387-397.
[19]Justine R, Frederique S, Laurent L, 2017.A quantile mapping bias correction method based on hydroclimatic classification of the Guiana Shield[J].Sensors, 17(6): 1413-1429.
[20]Lafon T, Dadson S, Buys G, al et, 2013.Bias correction of daily precipitation simulated by a regional climate model: A comparison of methods[J].International Journal of Climatology, 33(6): 1367-1381.
[21]Lenderink G, Buishand A, Van D W, 2007.Estimates of future discharges of the river Rhine using two scenario methodologies: Direct versus delta approach[J].Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 11(3): 1145-1159.
[22]Li C, Tang G, Hong Y, 2018.Cross-evaluation of ground-based, multi-satellite and reanalysis precipitation products: Applicability of the triple collocation method across mainland China[J].Journal of Hydrology, 562: 71-83.
[23]Pan X, Li X, Shi X, al et, 2012.Dynamic downscaling of near-surface air temperature at the basin scale using WRF-a case study in the Heihe River Basin, China[J].Frontiers of Earth Science, 6(3): 314-323.
[24]Pelt S C V, Kabat, Maat H W T, al et, 2009.Discharge simulations performed with a hydrological model using bias corrected regional climate model input[J].Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 12(12): 2387-2397.
[25]Piani C, Haerter J O, Coppola E, 2010.Statistical bias correction for daily precipitation in regional climate models over Europe[J].Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 99(1/2): 187-192.
[26]Reiter P, Gutjahr O, Schefczyk L, al et, 2018.Does applying quantile mapping to subsamples improve the bias correction of daily precipitation?[J].International Journal of Climatology, 8(4): 1623-1633.
[27]Roosmalen L V, Sonnenborg T O, Jensen K H, al et, 2011.Comparison of hydrological simulations of climate change using perturbation of observations and distribution-based scaling[J].Vadose Zone Journal, 10(10): 136-150.
[28]Tang X, Zhang J, Wang G, al et, 2019.Evaluating suitability of multiple precipitation products for the Lancang River Basin[J].Chinese Geographical Science, 29(1): 37-57.
[29]Teng J, Potter N J, Chiew F H S, al et, 2015.How does bias correction of regional climate model precipitation affect modelled runoff?[J].Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 19(2): 711-728.
[30]Theme?l M J, Gobiet A, Leuprecht A, 2011.Empirical-statistical downscaling and error correction of daily precipitation from regional climate models[J].International Journal of Climatology, 31(10): 1530-1544.
[31]Wang Y, Yang H, Yang D, al et, 2017.Spatial interpolation of daily precipitation in a high mountainous watershed based on gauge observations and a regional climate model simulation[J].Journal of Hydrometeorology, 18(3): 845-862
[32]Wood, Andrew W, 2002.Long-range experimental hydrologic forecasting for the eastern United States[J].Journal of Geophysical Research, 107D20): 4429.
[33]Yang D, 1988.Research on analysis and correction of systematic errors in precipitation measurement in Urumqi River basin, Tianshan[D].Lanzhou: Lanzhou Institute of Glaciology and Geocryology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 169.
[34]Yang D, Goodison B E, Metcalfe J R, al et, 1995.Accuracy of Tretyakov precipitation gauge: Result of WMO intercomparison[J].Hydrological Processes, 9(8): 877-895.
[35]Yang D, Goodison B, Metcalfe J, al et, 2001.Compatibility evaluation of national precipitation gage measurements[J].Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres, 106(D2): 1481-1491.
[36]Ye B, Yang D, Ding Y, al et, 2004.A bias-corrected precipitation climatology for China[J].Journal of Hydrometeorology, 5(6): 1147-1160.
[37]陈仁升, 韩春坛, 宋耀选, 等, 2014a.葫芦沟流域2012年10m气象梯度数据集[Z].黑河计划数据管理中心, DOI: 10.3972/heihe.078.2014.db.
[38]陈仁升, 韩春坛, 宋耀选, 等, 2014b.葫芦沟流域2013年10m气象梯度数据集[DB].黑河计划数据管理中心.DOI: 10.3972/heihe.078.2014.db.
[39]程国栋, 肖洪浪, 徐中民, 等, 2006.中国西北内陆河水问题及其应对策略—以黑河流域为例[J].冰川冻土, 28(3): 406-413.
[40]何晓波, 叶柏生, 丁永建, 2009.青藏高原唐古拉山区降水观测误差修正分析[J].水科学进展, 20(3): 403-408.
[41]贾洋, 崔鹏, 2018.高山区多时间尺度Anusplin气温插值精度对比分析[J].高原气象, 37(3): 757-766.DOI: 10.7522/j.issn. 1000-0534.2017.00072.
[42]李弘毅, 王建, 白云洁, 等, 2009.黑河上游冰沟流域典型积雪期水文情势[J].冰川冻土, 31( 2) : 293-300.
[43]李弘毅, 王建, 郝晓华, 2012.祁连山区风吹雪对积雪质能过程的影响[J].冰川冻土, 34(5): 1084-1090.
[44]刘绿柳, 任国玉, 2012.百分位统计降尺度方法及在GCMs日降水订正中的应用[J].高原气象, 31(3): 715-722.
[45]潘小多, 李新, 2011.水平分辨率对WRF模式的影响研究——以黑河流域WRF模拟为例[J].科研信息化技术与应用, 2(6): 126-137.
[46]潘小多, 李新, 2013.黑河流域2000-2015年大气驱动数据集[DB].黑河计划数据管理中心.DOI: 10.3972/heihe.019.2013.db.
[47]潘小多, 李新, 冉有华, 等, 2012.下垫面对WRF模式模拟黑河流域区域气候精度影响研究[J].高原气象, 31(3): 657-667.
[48]童尧, 高学杰, 韩振宇, 等, 2017.基于RegCM4模式的中国区域日尺度降水模拟误差订正[J].大气科学, 41(6): 1156-1166.
[49]王磊, 陈仁升, 宋耀选, 2017.高寒山区面降水量获取方法及影响因素研究进展[J].高原气象, 36(6): 1546-1556.DOI: 10. 7522/j.issn.1000-0534.2017.00007.
[50]吴蔚, 梁卓然, 刘校辰, 2018.CDF-T方法在站点尺度日降水预估中的应用[J].高原气象, 37(3): 796-805.DOI: 10.7522/j.issn. 1000-0534.2017.00064.
[51]杨大庆, 姜彤, 张寅生, 等, 1988.天山乌鲁木齐河源降水观测误差分析及其改正[J].冰川冻土, 10(4): 384-400.
[52]杨大庆, 施雅风, 康尔泗, 等, 1990.乌鲁木齐河源高山区固态降水对比测量的主要结果[J].科学通报, 36(13): 1105-1109.
[53]叶柏生, 杨大庆, 丁永建, 等, 2007.中国降水观测误差分析及其修正[J].地理学报, 62(1): 3-13.
[54]赵求东, 叶柏生, 何晓波, 等, 2014.唐古拉山区Geonor T-200B雨雪量计日降水观测误差修正[J].高原气象, 33(2): 452-459.DOI: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-0534.2013.00013.
[55]郑勤, 陈仁升, 韩春坛, 等, 2018.祁连山TRwS204与中国标准雨量筒降水观测对比研究[J].高原气象, 37(3): 747-756.DOI: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-0534.2018.00039.
[56]周林, 潘婕, 张镭, 等, 2014.气候模拟日降水量的统计误差订正分析——以上海为例[J].热带气象学报, 30(1) : 137-144.
[57]周林, 潘婕, 张镭, 等, 2014.概率调整法在气候模式模拟降水量订正中的应用[J].应用气象学报, 25(3): 302-311.
Options
文章导航

/

〈 〉

本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发 技术支持：support@magtech.com.cn