| 长江三角洲地区霾判别方法的对比分析 |
| 摘要点击 2996 全文点击 1746 投稿时间：2014-01-18 修订日期：2014-04-28 |
| 查看HTML全文
查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 中文关键词 霾判别方法 对比 长江三角洲地区 能见度 PM2.5 |
| 英文关键词 haze discrimination methods comparison Yangtze River Delta Region visibility PM2.5 |
| 作者 | 单位 | E-mail | | 刘晓慧 | 南京信息工程大学, 中国气象局气溶胶与云降水重点开放实验室, 气象灾害预报预警与评估协同创新中心, 南京 210044
河北省气象服务中心, 石家庄 050021 | lxh7757@126.com | | 朱彬 | 南京信息工程大学, 中国气象局气溶胶与云降水重点开放实验室, 气象灾害预报预警与评估协同创新中心, 南京 210044 | binzhu@nuist.edu.cn | | 高晋徽 | 南京信息工程大学, 中国气象局气溶胶与云降水重点开放实验室, 气象灾害预报预警与评估协同创新中心, 南京 210044 | | | 张恩红 | 广东省气象信息中心, 广州 510080 | | | 王红磊 | 南京信息工程大学, 中国气象局气溶胶与云降水重点开放实验室, 气象灾害预报预警与评估协同创新中心, 南京 210044 | | | 陈烨鑫 | 南京信息工程大学, 中国气象局气溶胶与云降水重点开放实验室, 气象灾害预报预警与评估协同创新中心, 南京 210044 | | | 王姝 | 北京大学大气与海洋科学系, 北京 100871 | |
|
| 中文摘要 |
| 为对比霾判别方法的差异，探讨霾观测标准的再完善性，文中从空间分布与单点时间序列两方面分别分析研究了4种霾判别方法的特征与适用性. 选取中国长江三角洲地区1980~2009年38个地面观测站的气象资料，根据使用日均值的方法1、2和使用14：00观测值的方法3分别统计各站点的霾日，分析3种方法的异同. 发现这些方法都能够反映出霾的长期变化趋势，但存在差异，这种差异随着年代际变化逐渐减小. 由方法1得到的霾日数最多，方法3考虑了天气现象，比方法1和2更合理. 依据南京北郊2012年5月~2013年4月的逐时PM2.5浓度、相对湿度和能见度等资料，分析比较了方法4（霾的观测和等级预报，QX/T 113-2010）与方法1、2、3的不同. 结果表明，由方法3统计出的霾日少于其他方法，由方法4统计出的霾日数介于方法1与方法3的结果；方法3不能分辨出霾的严重程度，而其他方法能较好地分辨出霾的严重程度. |
| 英文摘要 |
| It is crucial to compare the difference and applicability of different haze discrimination methods and its criteria in haze study. Due to the requirement of methods and limitation of data, 4 common methods in two views of regional and temporal in one site are analyzed and studied. Based on the meteorological data from 38 observatories from 1980-2009, haze-day and haze-hour number are both counted for each station, employing Method 1 and 2 (with daily mean observation) and Method 3 (with 14:00 observation). The characteristics and applicability of these three methods are also compared and summarized. Statistical results via these methods are all capable to represent the long-term trend of haze, but haze-day numbers counted via these methods show differences, which become less remarkable with decadal changes. Haze days are the most by using Method 1.Method 3 considering the weather phenomenon is more reasonable than Method 1 and 2.According to the data of visibility, relative humidity and PM2.5concentration in northern Nanjing from May, 2012 to April, 2013, employing 4 haze discrimination methods including the additional one (QX/T 113-2010, i. e. Method 4), haze-day and haze-hour numbers are counted and compared. The result shows that: the haze-day number obtained employing Method 3 is less than others, while the haze-day number obtained employing Method 4 is between those with Method 1 and 3; using all Methods but Method 3 can distinguish the severity of haze significantly. |
|
|
|
