八大低云多发机场的云诊断算法应用初探
Preliminary Study on the Application of Cloud Diagnosis Algorithm in Eight Airports with Multiple Low Clouds

使用FNL (0.25？*0.25？ NCEP GFS)的6小时数值预报资料，基于C云量诊断法(C方法)、WR95及优化的WR95方法(WR95opt)分别计算我国八大低云多发机场的450米以下最低层云，使用机场天气报告检验诊断效果，对比分析表明：不分时次和季节时，以及在大部分时次和季节，WR95和WR95opt在大部分机场的准确率、漏报率和TS评分高于C方法；对于WR95和WR95opt，WR95opt的准确率和漏报率相对较高，WR95在TS评分方面整体上优于WR95opt。三种方法在不同季节、不同时次准确率、漏报率和TS评分有所不同，但不同季节变化幅度远小于不同时次。在选取的八个机场中，三种方法在华东地区中南部的4个机场表现普遍好于其他地区的机场。
Using the 6-hour numerical weather prediction data of FNL (0.25？*0.25？ NCEP GFS), based on C cloud amount diagnosis method (C method), WR95 and optimized WR95 method (WR95opt), the lowest layer clouds below 450 meters in the top eight low cloud-prone airports in China are cal-culated respectively. The diagnostic results were tested by aerodrome routine weather reports (METAR). The comparative analysis showed that the accuracy rate, missing report rate and TS score of WR95 and WR95opt in most airports were higher than those of C method regardless of time and season, and in most time and season. For WR95 and WR95opt, the accuracy rate and missing report rate of WR95opt are higher than those of WR95, but the TS score of WR95 is overall higher than that of WR95opt. The accuracy rate, missing report rate and TS score of the three methods are different in different seasons and different times, but the variation range in different seasons is far smaller than that in different times. Among the selected eight airports, the performance of the three methods in four airports in the central-south part of East China is generally better than that in other regions.