删除或更新信息,请邮件至freekaoyan#163.com(#换成@)

Comparisons of Three-Dimensional Variational Data Assimilation and Model Output Statistics in Improv

本站小编 Free考研考试/2022-01-02

闂傚倸鍊烽懗鍓佸垝椤栫偛绀夋俊銈呮噹缁犵娀鏌熼幑鎰靛殭闁告俺顫夐妵鍕棘閸喒鎸冮梺鍛婎殕瀹€鎼佸箖濡ゅ懏鏅查幖瀛樼箘閻╁海绱撴担椋庤窗闁革綇缍佸濠氭偄閻撳海顦ч梺鍏肩ゴ閺呮繈鎮¢崒鐐粹拺缂佸娉曢悞鍧楁煙閸戙倖瀚�2濠电姷鏁搁崑鐐哄垂閸洖绠扮紒瀣紩濞差亜惟闁冲搫顑囩粙蹇涙⒑閸︻厼鍔嬫い銊ユ瀹曠敻鍩€椤掑嫭鈷戦柛娑橈工婵箑霉濠婂懎浠辩€规洘妞介弫鎾绘偐瀹曞洤骞楅梻渚€娼х换鍫ュ磹閺嵮€妲堢憸鏃堝蓟閿濆鐒洪柛鎰典簼閸d即姊虹拠鈥虫殭闁搞儜鍥ф暪闂備焦瀵х换鍌毭洪姀銈呯;闁圭儤顨嗛埛鎴︽煕濠靛棗顏╅柍褜鍓欑紞濠囧箖闁垮缍囬柍鍝勫亞濞肩喖姊虹捄銊ユ珢闁瑰嚖鎷�
濠电姷鏁告慨浼村垂瑜版帗鍋夐柕蹇嬪€曢悙濠勬喐瀹ュ棙鍙忛柕鍫濐槹閳锋垿鏌涘☉姗堝伐缂佹甯楁穱濠囶敃閿濆洦鍒涘銈冨灪濡啯鎱ㄩ埀顒勬煏閸繃锛嶆俊顐㈠閺岋絾鎯旈婊呅i梺鍝ュУ閻楃姴鐣烽姀銈呯妞ゆ梻鏅崢鎼佹⒑閸涘﹥绀嬫繛浣冲洦鍊堕柨婵嗘娴滄粓鏌熺€涙ḿ绠栧璺哄缁辨帞鈧綆浜跺Ο鈧梺绯曟杹閸嬫挸顪冮妶鍡楀潑闁稿鎹囬弻宥囨嫚閺屻儱寮板┑锟犵畺娴滃爼寮诲鍫闂佸憡鎸婚悷鈺佺暦椤栨稑顕遍悗娑櫭禍顖氣攽閻愬弶鈻曞ù婊勭箞瀵煡顢楅崟顒€鈧爼鏌i幇顔芥毄闁硅棄鍊块弻娑㈠Χ閸ヮ灝銏ゆ婢跺绡€濠电姴鍊搁弳锝嗐亜鎼淬埄娈曢柕鍥у閸╃偤顢橀悙宸痪婵犳鍨遍幐鎶藉蓟閿熺姴鐐婇柍杞扮劍閻忎線姊洪崨濠勬喛闁稿鎹囧缁樻媴閸濄儳楔濠电偘鍖犻崱鎰睏闂佺粯鍔楅弫鍝ョ不閺冨牊鐓欓柟顖嗗苯娈堕梺宕囩帛濮婂綊骞堥妸銉庣喓鎷犻幓鎺濇浇闂備焦鎮堕崐褏绮婚幘璇茶摕闁绘棁娅i惌娆撴煙缁嬪灝顒㈤柟顔界懇濮婄儤瀵煎▎鎴犘滅紓浣哄У閻楁洟顢氶敐澶樻晝闁冲灈鏅滈悗濠氭⒑瑜版帒浜伴柛妯哄⒔缁瑩宕熼娑掓嫼闂佸湱枪濞寸兘鍩ユ径鎰厸闁割偒鍋勬晶瀵糕偓瑙勬礀缂嶅﹥淇婂宀婃Ъ婵犳鍨伴妶鎼佸蓟濞戞ǚ妲堟慨妤€鐗婇弫鍓х磽娴e搫校閻㈩垳鍋ら崺鈧い鎺嗗亾闁诲繑鑹鹃…鍨潨閳ь剟骞冭瀹曞崬霉閺夋寧鍠樼€规洜枪铻栧ù锝夋櫜閻ヮ亪姊绘担渚敯闁规椿浜浠嬪礋椤栨稒娅栭梺鍝勭▉閸樹粙鎮¤箛娑欑厱闁斥晛鍟粈鈧銈忕岛閺嗘竼e濠电姷鏁告慨浼村垂閸︻厾绀婂┑鐘叉搐閻掑灚銇勯幒宥堝厡闁愁垱娲熼弻鏇㈠幢濡も偓閺嗭綁鏌$仦鍓ф创妤犵偞甯¢獮瀣倻閸℃﹩妫у┑锛勫亼閸婃牜鏁悙鍝勭獥闁归偊鍠氶惌娆忊攽閻樺弶澶勯柛瀣姍閺岋綁濮€閵忊剝姣勯柡浣哥墦濮婄粯鎷呯粙鎸庡€┑鐘灪閿曘垹鐣烽娑橆嚤閻庢稒锚娴滎垶姊洪崨濠勭畵濠殿垵椴搁幆鏃堝閿涘嫮肖婵$偑鍊栭崝妤呭窗鎼淬垻顩插Δ锝呭暞閻撴盯鏌涢妷锝呭闁汇劍鍨块弻锝夋偄閸欏鐝旈梺瀹犳椤︾敻鐛Ο鑲╃闁绘ê宕銏′繆閻愵亜鈧牕煤濠靛棌鏋嶉柡鍥╁亶缂傛岸鐓崶銊р槈鐎瑰憡绻冮妵鍕箻濡も偓閸燁垶顢欓敓锟�20婵犲痉鏉库偓妤佹叏閻戣棄纾婚柣妯款嚙缁犲灚銇勮箛鎾搭棡妞ゎ偅娲樼换婵嬫濞戝崬鍓扮紓浣哄У閸ㄥ潡寮婚妶鍡樺弿闁归偊鍏橀崑鎾澄旈埀顒勫煝閺冨牆顫呴柣妯烘閹虫捇銈导鏉戠闁冲搫锕ラ敍鍛磽閸屾瑧顦︽い锔诲灦椤㈡岸顢橀姀鐘靛姦濡炪倖宸婚崑鎾寸節閳ь剟鏌嗗鍛紱闂佺粯姊婚崢褔寮告笟鈧弻鏇㈠醇濠垫劖效闂佺ǹ楠哥粔褰掑蓟濞戙垹鍗抽柕濞垮劚椤晠姊烘导娆戠暠缂傚秴锕獮鍐ㄎ旈崘鈺佹瀭闂佸憡娲﹂崣搴ㄥ汲閿熺姵鈷戦柛婵嗗椤ユ垿鏌涚€n偅宕屾慨濠冩そ瀹曨偊宕熼崹顐嵮囨⒑閸涘﹥鈷愰柣妤冨█楠炲啴鏁撻悩铏珫闂佸憡娲﹂崜娆撴偟娴煎瓨鈷戦梻鍫熺〒缁犳岸鏌涢幘瀵哥疄闁诡喒鈧枼鏋庨柟閭﹀枤椤旀洘绻濋姀锝嗙【妞ゆ垵妫涚划鍫ュ焵椤掑嫭鍊垫繛鍫濈仢濞呭秹鏌¢埀顒勫础閻戝棗娈梺鍛婃处閸嬫帡宕ョ€n喗鐓曢柡鍥ュ妼楠炴ɑ淇婇崣澶婄伌婵﹥妞藉畷顐﹀礋椤愮喎浜惧ù鐘差儜缂嶆牕顭跨捄鐑樻拱闁稿繑绮撻弻娑㈩敃閿濆棛顦ㄩ梺鍝勬媼閸撶喖骞冨鈧幃娆撴濞戞顥氱紓鍌欒兌婵數鏁垾鎰佹綎濠电姵鑹鹃悙濠囨煥濠靛棙鍣稿瑙勬礋濮婃椽鎳¢妶鍛€惧┑鐐插级閸ㄥ潡骞婂Δ鍐╁磯閻炴稈鍓濋悘渚€姊虹涵鍛涧闂傚嫬瀚板畷鏇㈠箣閿旇棄鈧敻鏌ㄥ┑鍡涱€楁鐐瘁缚缁辨帡鎮╁畷鍥р拰闂佸搫澶囬崜婵嗩嚗閸曨偀妲堟繛鍡楁禋娴硷拷
Chaoqun MA1,2,3,
Tijian WANG1,2,3,
Zengliang ZANG4,
Zhijin LI5

1.School of Atmospheric Sciences, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210023, China
2.CMA-NJU Joint Laboratory for Climate Prediction Studies, Nanjing 210023, China
3.Jiangsu Collaborative Innovation Center for Climate Change, Nanjing 210023, China
4.Institute of Meteorology and Oceanography, PLA University of Science and Technology, Nanjing 210000, China
5.Joint Institute for Regional Earth System Science and Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles 90001, California, USA
Manuscript received: 2017-07-26
Manuscript revised: 2017-10-26
Manuscript accepted: 2017-11-29
Abstract:Atmospheric chemistry models usually perform badly in forecasting wintertime air pollution because of their uncertainties. Generally, such uncertainties can be decreased effectively by techniques such as data assimilation (DA) and model output statistics (MOS). However, the relative importance and combined effects of the two techniques have not been clarified. Here, a one-month air quality forecast with the Weather Research and Forecasting-Chemistry (WRF-Chem) model was carried out in a virtually operational setup focusing on Hebei Province, China. Meanwhile, three-dimensional variational (3DVar) DA and MOS based on one-dimensional Kalman filtering were implemented separately and simultaneously to investigate their performance in improving the model forecast. Comparison with observations shows that the chemistry forecast with MOS outperforms that with 3DVar DA, which could be seen in all the species tested over the whole 72 forecast hours. Combined use of both techniques does not guarantee a better forecast than MOS only, with the improvements and degradations being small and appearing rather randomly. Results indicate that the implementation of MOS is more suitable than 3DVar DA in improving the operational forecasting ability of WRF-Chem.
Keywords: data assimilation,
model output statistics,
WRF-Chem,
operational forecast
摘要:因为大气化学模式中存在各种不确定性, 所以其预报冬季污染的能力较差. 一般来说, 可以使用数据同化或者模式后处理技术来大幅减小这些不确定性. 然而, 对于这两项技术的相对重要性以及同时使用的效果, 目前还缺乏足够的研究. 因此, 本文尝试用Weather Research and Forecasting–Chemistry (WRF-Chem) 模型进行了为期一个月的预报实验. 预报集中关注了中国河北省地区且以近似业务预报的形式展开. 在预报期间, 我们在不同的实验中分别使用了基于三维变分的数据同化和基于一维卡尔曼滤波的模式后处理技术, 以比较它们在改善模式预报上的性能. 在另一个实验中, 我们还同时使用了这两种技术. 预报结果与观测的对比表明: 使用了模式后处理技术的化学预报比使用了三维变分同化的表现要好, 并且这种优势体现在所有被测物种和整个72小时预报上. 另外, 同时使用两种技术的预报结果并不一定比只使用模式后处理的要好, 不过前者和后者的差距很小而且没有特定的规律. 综上所述, 模式后处理技术比三维变分数据同化更适合被用于提升WRF-Chem模式的业务预报能力.
关键词:数据同化,
模式后处理,
WRF-Chem,
业务预报





--> --> -->
1. Introduction
In recent years an unexpected outbreak of severe air pollution events has engulfed China during the autumn and winter months of the year. These air pollution episodes have aroused deep concern and panic amongst the public and have subsequently become a top priority to address for the government. For example, the State Council released the Air Pollution Prevention and Control Action Plan in September 2013, aimed at reducing particulate pollution. In addition, targets to control sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides were listed in the 11th and 12th Five-Year Plan drawn up by the National Development and Reform Commission. However, to control atmospheric pollution efficiently, it is necessary to achieve more accurate forecasting of atmospheric chemical constituents.
Since the beginning of the 21st century, air quality forecast systems, such as the Weather Research and Forecasting-Chemistry (WRF-Chem) model, have been gradually put into operation in key cities across China by many organizations and institutions. However, without any additional measures, these numerical forecast systems are not accurate enough to be applied in operational air quality forecasts due to the uncertainties within their parameterization schemes and input data (van Loon et al., 2007; Zhang et al., 2016). Accordingly, scientists have developed multiple pre- or post-processing techniques for model improvement in the operational prediction of meteorological and chemical fields. For example, data assimilation (DA)——a measure applied before the model run——is an effective approach in improving the model forecast skill of air pollution via reducing the uncertainty of chemical initial conditions (CICs) or other parameters. For instance, (Barbu et al., 2009) achieved a better forecast by assimilating measurements of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and sulfate to adjust the emission and conversion rates of SO2 in the model; and the research of (Liu et al., 2011) and (Yin et al., 2016) showed improved aerosol analysis and forecasting by assimilating the MODIS total aerosol optical depth retrieval products. Different models and observational data have been tested and their results show similar conclusions (Wang et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2015; Mizzi et al., 2016; Tang et al., 2016)——readers who are interested should refer to (Bocquet et al., 2015) for more details. Alternatively, the forecast error can also be corrected effectively by another approach, called model output statistics (MOS) (Glahn and Lowry, 1972). MOS works through statistically relating the historical model output with corresponding observations, and then applying the relationship to the model forecast. This approach has been widely used in the post-processing of operational numerical weather prediction, and in doing so most forecast biases can be corrected (Wilson and Vallée, 2003), especially for temperature (Taylor and Leslie, 2005; Libonati et al., 2008) and humidity (Anadranistakis et al., 2004).
Figure1. The nested domains of the WRF-Chem model: D01 (blue frame) is the outer domain, which covers most of East Asia; D02 (black frame) is the inner domain, in which Hebei Province (red boundary) is located.


Although it has been proven that both DA and MOS are effective in improving the forecast performance, little attention has been paid to comparing or combining the two methods, especially with respect to atmospheric chemistry modeling. There are two obstacles that make it difficult to compare the two methods fairly using the same observational dataset. First, most early (and even recent) research concerning 3DVar in atmospheric chemistry models has focused on assimilating observations from satellite-derived products to generate analyses that are skillful in improving the forecasts of variables like carbon monoxide (Barret et al., 2008), carbon dioxide, ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) (Inness et al., 2015; Wargan et al., 2015), methane (Alexe et al., 2015), and aerosols (Benedetti et al., 2009; Yumimoto et al., 2016). However, MOS works only with in-situ observations from surface stations. Second, unlike numerical weather prediction, MOS still remains in its infancy in terms of the operational numerical forecasting of atmospheric chemistry variables. Such works, if any, are usually based on regression approaches (Denby et al., 2008; Honore et al., 2008; Struzewska et al., 2016), which are effective in improving the air quality forecast for all analyzed species. However, methods based on these approaches are usually too dependent on local pollution conditions, which makes them inconvenient to be applied as widely as DA approaches.
This study compares the potential of the two approaches in improving the atmospheric chemistry forecasts of the WRF-Chem modeling system in an operational context. To overcome the problems mentioned above, we firstly adapted a 3DVar DA system based on (Li et al., 2013) (L13 henceforth) and (Jiang et al., 2013) to the assimilation of observational data from surface stations. Then, we modified a MOS scheme from (Galanis and Anadranistakis, 2002) (hereafter G02) for use in adjusting the meteorological forecast, to enable it to correct the chemistry output from the atmospheric model. Following this introduction, the model, setup and experimental design are described in section 2. Section 3 evaluates the model improvement with the two methods. A summary and conclusion are given in section 4.

2. Method and data
2
2.1. Model setup
--> The WRF-Chem model is an online 3D, Eulerian chemical transport model that considers the complex physical and chemical processes in the troposphere (Grell et al., 2005). It has been applied in various research settings, especially those concerning feedbacks of air pollution to meteorological and chemical DA (Saide et al., 2012, 2015; Makar et al., 2015; Mizzi et al., 2016). In this study, version 3.7.1 of WRF-Chem was used to simulate the air quality in Hebei Province, China. Two nested domains were set, as shown in Fig. 1. The outer domain covered East Asia with a horizontal resolution of 75 km × 75 km and 106 (lon) × 81 (lat) grids, while the inner domain covered Hebei Province with a horizontal resolution of 15 km × 15 km and 76 (lon) × 81 (lat) grids. The vertical resolution of the model was 24 vertical levels (about 6 levels below 1 km and 20 levels below 10 km), with 100 hPa as the model top. The 0.5°× 0.5° data from the NCEP's Global Forecast System were used to provide the meteorological initial conditions and lateral boundary meteorological conditions every 12 hours. Atmospheric gaseous chemistry and aerosols were simulated using the Second Generation Regional Acid Deposition Model (RADM2) with the Modal Aerosol Dynamics Model for Europe (MADE) and the Secondary Organic Aerosol Model (SORGAM) (Stockwell et al., 1990; Ackermann et al., 1998; Schell et al., 2001) scheme. The anthropogenic emissions inventory was the Multi-resolution Emissions Inventory for China in 2012 (http://www.meicmodel.org). The configuration of WRF-Chem is detailed in Table 1.

2
2.2. MOS method
--> What MOS does is to find statistic relationships from training samples that can then be applied in model forecast outputs. By doing so, the expectation is that model errors will be corrected and a forecast generated that will better fit the observation. In this study, a one-dimensional Kalman filter was chosen as the algorithm to realize the MOS process. The algorithm was formulated in a way that generally resembled G02; the only modifications were as follows:
Firstly, in this work, the measurement y(t), as well as the real value x(t), could both be the difference and ratio between the forecast and observation, whereas in Eqs. (1) and (2) of G02 they only denoted the difference. Furthermore, hourly concentrations of five species from the three-day model output were split into 3× 5× 24 independent daily concentration series. Lastly, given Kalman filtering can only predict one time-step ahead (one day ahead, in this context), the correction could only work during forecast hours 0-24 (24-h forecast hereafter), while leaving forecast hours 24-48 and 48-72 (48-h and 72-h forecast hereafter) uncorrected. Therefore, to extend the algorithm further, the corrected results from the 24-h (48-h) forecast was used as a proxy or substitute observation at the corresponding time to correct the 48-h (72-h) model output. Appendix A describes the steps in more detail.

2
2.3. DA configuration
--> In this study, 3DVar DA was implemented to optimize the CICs for the inner model domain. The DA system and formulation used were based on L13 with the following modifications:
In addition to the fine particulate matter (PM2.5) assimilated in L13, particulate matter with diameters between 2.5 μm and 10 μm (PM2.5-PM10) was also assimilated and the analysis increment was added to the corresponding model variables following L13. Gaseous species, including SO2, NO2 and O3, were also assimilated to decrease the uncertainty of their concentrations in the model CICs.
Following L13, the National Meteorological Center (NMC) method (Parrish and Derber, 1992) was adopted to estimate the background root-mean-square error (RMSE) and the three Kronecker product members of the background error correlation matrix. The NMC method utilized the difference between the 12- and 24-h WRF-Chem forecasts valid at the same time of 1200 UTC for a whole month. No cross correlation between different species was assigned for background error. The domain-average RMSEs for five species are shown in Fig. 2. The vertical distributions of RMSE for all species display a relatively rapid decrease with height——except for O3, which peaks at around 4 km above the ground. The vertical correlation matrices are displayed in Fig. 3. The correlation between different height levels experiences a jump at the top of the boundary layer, which seems to be a common feature for all species. In addition, the band of high correlation along the diagonal seems wider in the middle troposphere than the upper or lower troposphere.
Considering that all the stations were built and maintained under the same standards, no difference in the measurement and representativeness error between different stations was assumed. In addition, cross correlation between different species and stations was set to zero because of the lack of information. Therefore, observation error consisted merely of five values——one for each species. The measurement error was assigned as 1.0 μg m-3, 1.0 μg m-3, 1.0 ppb, 1.0 ppb and 1.0 ppb for PM2.5, PM2.5-PM10, SO2, NO2 and O3, respectively. Representativeness error was estimated following (Elbern et al., 2007) and (Schwartz et al., 2012) using the formula \begin{equation} \varepsilon_{\rm r}=\gamma\varepsilon_0\sqrt{\dfrac{\Delta x}{L}} , \ \ (1)\end{equation} where ε0 and ε r are the measurement error and representativeness error, γ is an adjustable parameter that accounts for the lifetime of the species (0.5 for PM2.5, PM2.5-PM10 and O3; 1 for SO2 and 2 for NO2), ? x is the grid spacing (here, 15 km), and L is the radius of influence determined according to the location of stations (here, 4.0 km for suburban stations——assumed for all sites). If the total observation error is defined as the sum of measurement error and representativeness error, the standard deviation of observation error is 2.0 \(\mu\rm g\;m^{-3}\), 2.0 μg m-3, 3.0 ppb, 4.9 ppb and 2.0 ppb for PM2.5, PM2.5-PM10, SO2, NO2 and O3, respectively. Though the observation error was determined fairly arbitrarily and empirically here, the uncertainty relating to it should not have a significant influence on the conclusion. That is because the results are usually not very sensitive to the specification of error (Geer et al., 2006), and similar analysis fields were obtained from our experiments when the observation error was increased or reduced by a factor of two or three.
Figure2. Vertical distribution of the root-mean-square of the background errors, in mass concentration for particulate matter and ppb for gaseous species.


Figure3. Vertical correlations of the background errors for PM2.5, SO2, NO2, and O3. The plot for PM2.5-PM10 is very similar to that of PM2.5 and so is not shown here. Both the x- and y-axis are limited within 10 km, though the real model top is higher.



2
2.3. Experimental design
--> To compare the relative importance of MOS and DA, four parallel experiments were designed: Sim_base, Sim_DA, Sim_MOS and Sim_DM. Sim_base worked as the base simulation without applying DA or MOS; Sim_DA was an experiment with only DA employed to optimize the model CICs; Sim_MOS was the same as Sim_base but with the model output corrected by one-dimensional Kalman filtering; and Sim_DM used both the DA and MOS methods.
To simulate the operational forecast scenes, as Fig. 4 shows, all experiments initiated a new WRF-Chem forecast at 1200 UTC, every day, between 30 November 2014 and 31 December 2014. Each forecast was integrated for 84 h to generate 72-h forecasts for each day, with the earliest 12 h discarded as spin-up time. The CICs for each initiation came from the 24-h forecasts of the previous cycle, which would be the background fields to be assimilated with valid observations for experiments with DA before initializing WRF-Chem. The first CICs at 1200 UTC 30 November 2014 came from a two-days' spin-up of the climatological background chemistry profile. For all experiments, the chemical boundary conditions came from the default climatological chemistry profile for the outer domain and the interpolation of the outer domain for the inner domain.
Figure4. Time settings of the model in the four experiments. In each forecast cycle, the model was integrated 84 h in advance, with the first 12 h discarded (black dashed arrow) and the remaining 72 h divided into three parts: 24-h forecast (black solid arrow), 48-h forecast (blue solid arrow) and 72-h forecast (red solid arrow). The blue thick arrows mean using CICs directly for experiments without DA, while for others as the background fields of the 3DVar DA.



2
2.4. Observational data
--> Hourly concentrations of SO2, NO2, PM10, O3 and PM2.5 at surface level from 207 sites were provided by the Ministry of Environmental Protection of China. Data covered the whole month of December 2014 and had been subjected to routine quality control. As shown in Fig. 5, only 155 stations were selected (randomly) from the 207 stations to be assimilated, and the data of the remaining 52 were used to verify the assimilation process. Because all stations were located at surface level, the adjustment of the CICs from the 3DVar DA was limited within several layers near the surface according to the vertical background error covariance. Furthermore, it should be noted that only those 155 sites that provided their data for the 3DVar DA participated in the MOS process.
Figure5. The terrain height of the Hebei Province, with monitoring sites plotted as filled dots. Red dots are sites that participated in the 3DVar and MOS process, while the blue ones are those used only in the validation of the DA effect.



3. Results
2
3.1. Model evaluation
--> Table 2 presents the mean bias (MB), relative bias (RB), RMSE and correlation coefficient (Corr) for the 24-h, 48-h and 72-h forecast of Sim_base. In general, the base model simulation provides a fairly good result——especially for NO2, whose bias is small and correlation high. In terms of particulate matter and SO2, the model tends to systematically underestimate the concentration of SO2 as well as that of PM2.5 and PM10. Even so, the model reproduces the temporal variations of particulate matter well, with Corr values higher than 0.47 for PM10 and 0.54 for PM2.5. For O3, the model encounters a problem——the surface O3 simulated concentrations (5-45 μg m-3 from observation) are seriously overestimated by the model (20-80 μg m-3 from simulation), which leads to positive bias (~ 40 μg m-3) and lower Corr (0.44) than for other species. Fortunately, when viewing the RMSE of O3 from the aspect of MB, it is apparent that MB contributes the largest portion of RMSE, and therefore the model is still able to reproduce the variation of O3. The biases mentioned above can usually be attributed to the uncertainties from the emissions inventory, meteorological forecasting (Tang et al., 2011) and model schemes (Yerramilli et al., 2010). Although the 24-h forecast performs the best for all species, the 48-h and 72-h forecasts are also good enough to yield fairly reliable results, which is critical to the success of MOS in the whole 72 hours' forecast. In short, the model shows forecast skill that is sufficient to be competent for the success of the DA and MOS process.

2
3.2. Validation of MOS
--> Figure 6 depicts the site-averaged hourly concentration simulated by Sim_MOS, plotted against ground observations. Note that, although the hourly concentrations were averaged over 155 stations, the MB and RMSE values in Table 3 were generated by first calculating the individual errors of the 155 stations, before averaging.
From Fig. 6 it can be concluded that the forecast from Sim_MOS fits the observation fairly closely——especially for SO2, NO2 and O3. However, when it comes to PM2.5 and PM10, the points locate within a wider space, and those extremely high observations are hard for MOS to forecast. Even so, when comparing Table 3 with Table 2, PM2.5 and PM10, together with the other three species, demonstrate that a clear correction can be obtained for all forecast times. Excluding the 48-h forecast of NO2, MOS can reduce the MB to a large extent, meaning this method can remove the majority of the model systematic bias. Because of the reduction in MB, the RMSE also decreases for all cases except the 24-h forecast of SO2. In addition, the effect on reducing the error is unlikely to become poorer as the forecast time advances. For the 72-h and 48-h forecasts, the effect MOS has on the former may rival or even exceed that on the latter, e.g., the RMSE reduction of PM2.5 is even larger for the 72-h than 48-h forecast. For the 48-h and 24-h forecasts, the same effect can be found. Among all five species, O3 seems to benefit the most from the MOS process. This is because O3 usually follows a very regular daily variation, which makes the hourly-split but daily-linked concentration series almost perfect for the assumptions of one-dimensional Kalman filtering.
Admittedly, MOS degrades the forecast in a few cases (e.g., the 48-h forecast of NO2 and 24-h forecast of SO2, as mentioned above). Such increases in error, however, will usually not be of concern to users, and may well be accepted, as they are extremely small and only appear at times when the model outputs to be corrected are already fairly close to the observation. Nonetheless, when viewed from the correlation perspective, such degradation becomes more obvious. Except for NO2 and O3, the correlations all experience a reduction by 0.1-0.2. Thus, the MOS approach tends to reduce the bias and error at the expense of correlation.
Figure6. Hourly concentrations simulated by Sim_MOS, plotted against ground station observations (obs) averaged over 155 stations.



2
3.3. Validation of DA
--> Figures 7 and 8 show the change in RMSE and Corr over the integration time from -12 h (right after the DA) to 10 h (already integrated for 22 h), respectively, for experiments Sim_base and Sim_DA. To keep the verification independent from the observations assimilated, the RMSE and Corr were only averaged over the 52 stations that did not provide their observational data in the 3DVar DA process.
From the -12 h forecast of Fig. 7 and Fig. 8, DA leads to better initial conditions for the simulation——especially for NO2, PM10, PM2.5 and O3, whose RMSEs decrease substantially at almost all sites. For example, PM10 and PM2.5 shown an RMSE reduction of about 50-100 μg m-3, which is about half the RMSE of Sim_base. Such results are as good as those obtained by L13 and (Jiang et al., 2013), who also worked on assimilating ground observations using 3DVar. For SO2, the reduction in RMSE is less apparent (although the change in RMSE is still negative when 52 sites are averaged), but the correlation after DA is still obviously larger than before. The marginal RMSE reduction for SO2 may be acceptable considering the increase in correlation is rather obvious and the data representativeness of some stations is dubious (Zhang et al., 2016).
Figure7. RMSE change over the integration time from the -12 h forecast (right after the DA) to the 10 h forecast (already integrated for 22 h) for the five species. All RMSE values were averaged over the 52 stations that did not provide observations in the DA.


Figure8. Similar to Fig. 7 but for Corr.


However, as expected, the effect of DA slowly diminishes as the integration continues, which has also been observed in other works (Jiang et al., 2013; Li et al., 2013). After the model has been integrated for more than 14 h, the RMSE after DA minus that before DA (RMSE change henceforth) is still negative, but their absolute values are apparently smaller when compared to the earlier ones. The effect of DA remains for longer in the case of O3, PM10 and PM2.5 (RMSE change remains negative for the 14 h), benefiting mainly from their relatively long lifetimes. For example, PM2.5 and PM10 still maintain an RMSE reduction of about 10-20 μg m-3, which is even better than the results reported by L13 and (Jiang et al., 2013). However, for NO2, whose lifetime is short, the two experiments show almost no difference in RMSE after four hours' integration. Because the initial improvement from DA is relatively small, the forecast of SO2 soon loses its improvement from DA and shows little RMSE change almost immediately after the run of the model. For SO2 and NO2, the RMSE change is positive in some cases, but the increase in RMSE is usually very small compared with the original RMSE, and therefore unlikely to be a problem. Conclusions from the viewpoint of correlation are similar to those from the RMSE, except the effect of DA seems more obvious and long-lasting.
Overall, for most cases, DA successfully produces better CICs for the model and may help to improve the forecast skill in the following half to one day.

2
3.4. Effect of MOS and DA
--> From Fig. 9, which plots the RMSE of the four experiments and five species at different forecast hours from -12 h to 72 h, we can see that the forecast error varies with forecast hours. Considering the RMSE was calculated from the statistics of one month, Fig. 9 is a good representation of the general features of the four experiments.
By comparing the experiments using MOS (solid lines) with those without MOS (dotted lines), it is clear that all species show a large reduction in the 72 hours forecast span, and that this reduction is much larger than can be provided by DA (solid lines are below the dotted lines by a larger distance than the blue lines are below the red). For example, when compared to Sim_base, the average SO2 RMSE decreases by 4.34 μg m-3 for Sim_MOS (average taken over all stations throughout the whole 72-h forecast), while the decrease is only 0.48 μg m-3 for Sim_DA. Worse still, when the forecast runs to its second or third day, the effect of DA inevitably diminishes (as evidenced by the overlapping red and blue dotted lines after 24 h), while MOS can still work during this period (solid lines do not overlap the dotted lines, even after 24 h).
The blue dotted lines represent the simulation RMSE corrected only with MOS, while the red dotted lines are the results processed by both MOS and DA. Overlapping of the two lines can be seen at almost all times from all species, meaning the DA of the initial conditions provides little help to the effect of MOS, although does provide better initial conditions for the model to generate a better forecast. However, sometimes the two lines do not overlap, and show some differences, which is common for all species but most obvious for NO2 and most unobvious for PM10 and PM2.5. When DA can still improve the forecast, or the red dotted line is below the blue dotted line, the red solid line could be either above (1-h forecast for SO2) or below (10-h forecast for O3) the blue line, which means a better forecast from DA may either improve or degrade the MOS effect. Because in this work MOS corrects one day's forecast using the correction results and forecast from previous days, it is not a surprise that Sim_DM and Sim_MOS show discrepancies when Sim_DA and Sim_base coincide after 24 h. However, as mentioned, such a discrepancy could be either an improvement or degradation.
Figure9. RMSE of the four experiments and five species at different forecast hours from -12 h to 72 h.



2
3.5. Discussion
--> This section provides additional discussion around two facts. First, that MOS may improve forecasts far more than the 3DVar DA of CICs. This is reasonable because MOS can remain effective throughout the whole forecast period, whereas the effect of 3DVar via optimized initial conditions usually diminishes after 24 h of model integration. The loss of benefit from 3DVar DA is unavoidable because atmospheric chemistry is less sensitive to CICs than other driving factors like meteorological conditions and emissions (Henze et al., 2009; Semane et al., 2009; Tang et al., 2011). Worse still, the forecast during the earliest 12 h, which benefits the most from 3DVar DA, usually makes no sense in a real operational forecasting environment and is excluded from evaluation as spin-up. In fact, when compared with Sim_base, Sim_DA can account for 43.85% of the O3 RMSE reduction in the first 12 h after initialization (forecast hour -12 to -1), closely rivalling the contribution of Sim_MOS (55.94%) in its first 12 h (forecast hour 0 to 11). However, when discussed within the same forecast period, e.g., 12 h to 24 h, Sim_DA can produce only 3.93% of the O3 RMSE reduction, which is far less than Sim_MOS (61.26%), despite the following hours during which DA has no effect at all.
The second fact to be explained is that Sim_DM does not always outperform Sim_MOS. This result is somehow against the experience that, when corrected with the same MOS algorithm, better input should lead to better or at least not worse output. However, for example, assume the difference between the forecast and observation remains constant before 3DVar is applied. (This condition may never happen in reality, but this does not matter for the purposes of demonstration). Then, no matter how large the constant is, the MOS method might work perfectly to eliminate it. However, after DA is applied, it is possible that the difference may reduce though no longer remain constant. In this case, although the forecast becomes better before MOS, it is now more difficult for MOS to eliminate the error. So, it should be noted that the error's temporal consistency, rather than its magnitude, determines the effects of MOS on the model outputs. When reducing the magnitude of the error of model outputs, the 3DVar DA process may at the same time violate or increase its consistency to degrade or improve the effects of MOS from case to case. Therefore, such a phenomenon is uncorrelated with the inherent or necessary nature of the model, DA and MOS processes, and will be changed randomly whenever the three change their setup. The assumption is supported by the evidence that the results are very different when the whole experiment is replicated but with the spatial resolution of the original anthropogenic emissions changed from 0.1°× 0.1° to 0.25°× 0.25° [see Fig. 10 (PM2.5 and PM10 not plotted given the problem for them was not obvious in Fig. 9)]. For example, in Fig. 9, SO2 is predicted better by Sim_DA than Sim_base at the second forecast hour, but Sim_DM is beaten by Sim_MOS. However, in Fig. 10, the same comparison leads to an inverse result, which shows Sim_DM performs better than Sim_MOS. Given the fact that the experiments cover a period of only 1 month, it is possible that the forecast ability of Sim_MOS is slightly worse than, or almost the same as, Sim_DM, if the experiment is carried out over a longer time. However, results from short-term experiments, which contain random error just like everyday forecast, still demonstrate that using MOS and DA together does not guarantee a better output than MOS only, which should be carefully considered by researchers and forecasters working in this field.
Figure10. RMSE of three species at different forecast hours from -12 h to 72 h from the same four experiments with solely emissions perturbed.



4. Conclusion
A comparison between the effect of MOS and DA in improving the forecast skill of an atmospheric chemistry model was performed in a near real operational context. The evaluation based on observations showed that both 3DVar DA and MOS based on one-dimensional Kalman filtering are effective measures to reduce the errors in the model forecast.
The forecast solely with MOS (Sim_MOS) performed better than that solely with 3DVar DA of CICs (Sim_DA). Such superiority of MOS could also be seen in all five species. That is, the implementation of MOS rather than 3DVar DA on CICs is more suitable for the aim of improving the operational forecast ability.
Considering the randomness of the influence of DA on error consistency, it is not impossible that combined use of both techniques will sometimes yield a worse forecast than MOS only. The potential degradation, which is expected to be mitigated by long-term averaging, should be considered, but is unlikely to concern forecasters because of the relatively limited difference yielded. However, considering the complexity of the two approaches, the feature of MOS, rather than DA of CICs, is recommended first when planning to improve your model forecast.
Given that refinement of the model grid is promising for additional forecast skill (Elbern et al., 2007), future work will concentrate on testing finer model grids in the vertical and horizontal dimensions, as well as different 3DVar observation error setups, in order to improve the effect of DA on the forecast. Of particular interest are species like SO2 and NO2, which are unsatisfactorily forecasted by models with 3DVar. Also, to see if the conclusions will be different, we intend to try different DA methods, such as 4DVar and inverse modeling, which are able to adjust model parameters and emissions, which work as control parameters in a successful forecast (Schmidt and Martin, 2003; Dubovik et al., 2008). Finally, another line of research would be extending the experiment time to explore whether any long-term statistical properties exist when using the DA and MOS techniques together.

闂傚倸鍊风粈浣虹礊婵犲倴缂氱憸鏃堛€侀弽顓炲耿婵$偟绮弫鐘绘⒑闁偛鑻晶鎾煟閹垮啫浜扮€规洖澧庨幑鍕姜閺夋寧鐎抽梻鍌欑窔閳ь剛鍋涢懟顖涙櫠娴煎瓨鐓曢柣妯荤叀閸欏嫮鈧娲忛崹鑺ヤ繆閸洖鐐婇柕濞垮労娴兼洟姊洪懡銈呮瀾闁荤喆鍎抽埀顒佸嚬閸欏啫顕i幎钘夐唶闁靛濡囬崢閬嶆⒑瑜版帒浜伴柛鎾寸懇閵嗗啫鈻庨幋鐘碉紲闂佸憡鐟﹂敋鐎规挸妫涢埀顒冾潐濞插繘宕濋幋锕€鏋侀柟鍓х帛閺呮悂鏌ㄩ悤鍌涘闂傚倸鍊烽悞锔锯偓绗涘懐鐭欓柟杈鹃檮閸庢柨鈹戦崒姘暈闁稿鍠愮换娑㈠箣濞嗗繒浠肩紒缁㈠幐閸嬫捇姊虹拠鏌ヮ€楁繝鈧潏銊﹀弿閻庨潧鎽滄稉宥嗐亜閺嶎偄浠﹂柣鎾存礃缁绘盯宕卞Ο鍝勵潕婵犫拃灞藉缂佺粯绻堥崺鈧い鎺戝缁犮儲銇勯弮鈧崕鍐茬暦閵夈儮鏀介柣鎰级椤ョ偤鎮介婊冧槐濠碘€崇埣椤㈡洟鏁傞悾灞藉箰闂備胶枪閺堫剛绮欓幘璇茬疇闁糕剝鐟﹂崑鏍ㄧ箾閸℃ɑ灏伴柣鎾存礃娣囧﹪顢涘▎鎺濆妳闂佺ǹ瀛╅崹鍦閹捐纾兼慨妯哄悑妤旈梻渚€鈧偛鑻晶瀛樼箾娴e啿鍚樺☉妯锋闁靛繆鈧厖鍑芥繝鐢靛Т閿曘倝鎮ф繝鍥х柧妞ゆ帒瀚悡銉╂煟閺囩偛鈧湱鈧熬鎷�
相关话题/Comparisons ThreeDimensional Variational

濠电姷鏁搁崑鐐哄垂閸洖绠伴柟缁㈠枛绾惧鏌熼崜褏甯涢柣鎾寸☉椤潡鎳滃妤婁邯閹﹢鎮╃紒妯煎帾闂佸壊鍋呯换鍕春閿濆鐓欑€规洖娲ら埢鍫⑩偓瑙勬礃缁秹骞忛崨鏉戞嵍妞ゆ挾鍠愰蹇涙⒒閸屾艾鈧嘲霉閸ヮ灛娑㈠礋椤愩倖娈惧銈嗗坊閸嬫挻銇勯锝囩疄濠碘剝鎮傞崺鈩冩媴閾忕懓骞€濠碉紕鍋戦崐鏍偋濡ゅ懏鍋¢柕鍫濇穿婵娊鏌℃径濠勬皑婵℃彃鐗撻弻锟犲礃閿濆懍澹曟繝鐢靛О閸ㄦ椽鏁冮姀鐘垫殾闁告繂瀚弳鍡涙煕閺囥劌澧繛鍫濈焸濮婃椽宕ㄦ繝鍌毿曟繛瀛樼矌閸嬨倕鐣峰ú顏勭伋闁哄倶鍎查~宥夋⒑鐟欏嫬鍔ら柣掳鍔庢禍鎼侇敃閵堝洨锛滃┑掳鍊曢崯顐﹀几閺冨牊鐓欏瀣閳诲牊顨ラ悙鏉戠伌妤犵偛娲、娆撳传閸曨亣鍩呴梻鍌氬€风粈渚€骞栭锕€纾圭憸鐗堝笚閸嬶繝寮堕崼姘珕妞ゎ偅娲熼弻銊╂偆閸屾稑顏�
2濠电姷鏁搁崑鐐哄垂閸洖绠扮紒瀣紩濞差亜惟闁冲搫顑囩粙蹇涙⒑閸︻厼鍔嬫い銊ユ瀹曠敻鍩€椤掑嫭鈷戦柛娑橈工婵箑霉濠婂懎浠辩€规洘妞介弫鎾绘偐瀹曞洤骞楅梻渚€娼х换鍫ュ磹閺嵮€妲堢憸鏃堝蓟閿濆鐒洪柛鎰典簼閸n厾绱撴担鍓插剰闁挎洦浜顐﹀磼閻愭潙娈愰梺鍐叉惈閸犳艾危閸楃偐鏀介柍钘夋娴滅偛顭胯椤ㄥ﹪寮€n剛纾藉ù锝夋涧婵倸霉濠婂棗鐓愬ǎ鍥э功閳ь剚绋掕摫濠殿垰顕槐鎺戔槈濮楀棗鍓辩紓鍌氱Т閿曘儲绌辨繝鍥舵晝闁靛牆鎷嬮弳顓㈡⒑閸撹尙鍘涢柛銊ョ埣瀹曟椽鍩€椤掍降浜滈柟杈剧稻绾埖銇勯敂鑲╃暤闁哄本绋戦埢搴ょ疀閺囩媭鍞圭紓鍌欑窔缂傛艾螞閸曨喚浜欓梻浣告啞濞诧箓宕㈣ぐ鎺戠;闁圭儤顨嗛埛鎴︽煕濠靛棗顏╅柍褜鍓欑紞濠囧箖闁垮缍囬柍鍝勫亞濞肩喎鈹戦瑙掔懓鈻斿☉銏″剹婵°倐鍋撻柍瑙勫灴閹晠骞撻幒鍡椾壕闁归棿绀侀柨銈呪攽閻樻彃鏋ゆ繛鍫滅矙閺岋綁骞囬浣叉灆闂佹悶鍊楅崰鎰崲濠靛鐒垫い鎺戝閻掓椽鏌涢幇顖涚《闁活厽顨呴埞鎴︻敊缁涘鐣堕梺缁橆殔缁绘帞鍒掗崼鐔风窞閻庯綆鍓涢鏇㈡⒑閻熼偊鍤熷┑顔炬暬瀵娊鍩¢崒婊咁啎闁荤姴娉ч崟顐紦547闂傚倸鍊风粈浣革耿闁秲鈧倹绂掔€n亞锛涢梺鐟板⒔缁垶鍩涢幒妤佺厱闁哄洦顨嗗▍鍛存煟韫囷絼閭柡宀嬬到铻栭悗锝庡亜椤忥拷4濠电姷鏁搁崑鐐哄垂閸洖绠扮紒瀣紩濞差亝鏅查柛銉㈡櫇椤︻垶姊洪悷閭﹀殶闁稿鍠栭崺銏ゅ籍閳ь剟濡甸崟顔剧杸闁规儳顕ˇ閬嶆⒑缁嬫鍎愰柟鐟版搐閻e嘲顫滈埀顒勩€侀弮鍫濆耿婵°倕鍟獮鎰版⒒閸屾瑧顦﹂柛姘儏椤灝顫滈埀顒€鐣烽鐑嗘晝闁靛繈鍨哄▓楣冩⒑闂堟侗妾у┑鈥虫喘閸┿垽寮崼鐔哄幍闂佺顫夐崝鏇㈡儍濞差亝鐓熼柣鏃堟敱鐠愶紕绱掓潏銊ョ瑲鐎垫澘瀚埀顒婄秵娴滅偞绂掗悡搴樻斀闁绘劘娉涚槐锕傛煕濡ゅ嫭鐝ǎ鍥э功閳ь剚绋掕摫濠殿垱鎸抽幃宄扳枎濞嗘垵鍩屾繛瀛樼矒缁犳牠寮诲☉銏犵疀闁稿繐鎽滈弫鏍⒑缁洘娅旂紒缁樼箞瀵鈽夊⿰鍛澑闂佹寧绻傞幊搴綖閳哄懏鈷戦柛娑橈功閹虫洜绱掓潏銊︾妤犵偛绻橀幃鈺冩嫚閼碱剦鍟嬮梻浣告啞娓氭宕归幎鍓垮洭鍩¢崨顔规嫼闁荤偞绋堥埀顒€鍘栨竟鏇㈡⒒娴e憡璐¢弸顏嗙磼閵娿劌浜圭紒顕呭幗瀵板嫰骞囬鐘插箻闂備礁鎼€氼剛鎹㈤幒鏃囧С闁圭ǹ绨烘禍婊堟煛閸ヮ煁顏堟倶閼碱兘鍋撳▓鍨珮闁稿锕ら锝囨崉鐞涒剝鐎婚梺璇″瀻閸忎勘鍊濆缁樻媴閻熼偊鍤嬬紓浣割儐閸ㄨ儻妫熷銈嗘尪閸ㄥ綊鎮為崹顐犱簻闁圭儤鍩婇弨濠氭倵濮樼偓瀚�40缂傚倸鍊搁崐椋庣矆娓氣偓钘濇い鏍ㄧ矌閻挾鈧娲栧ú銊х不閺冨牊鐓欓柟顖嗗苯娈堕梺宕囩帛濮婂綊骞堥妸銉建闁逞屽墰濞戠敻骞栨担鍛婄€柣搴秵娴滃爼鎮㈤崱娑欏仯闁搞儻绲洪崑鎾诲礂閸涱収妫滅紓鍌氬€峰ù鍥ㄣ仈閹间焦鍋¢柍鍝勬噹閽冪喓鈧厜鍋撻柛鏇ㄥ亞椤撴椽姊洪幐搴g畵婵炶尙濞€瀹曟垿骞樼紒妯诲劒闁荤喐鐟ョ€氼剟宕㈣ぐ鎺撯拺闁告繂瀚婵嬫煕鎼淬垹鐏╂俊鍙夊姇楗即宕奸悢鍝勫妇闂備胶纭堕崜婵喢洪弽顐ュС缂侇偄瀵梻鍌氬€风欢姘缚瑜嶈灋闁哄啫鍊婚惌鍡椕归敐鍫殙闁荤喐瀚堥弮鍫濆窛妞ゆ棁顫夌€垫牠姊绘担鍛婂暈濞撴碍顨婂畷銏ゆ寠婢跺棙鐎洪悗鍏夊亾闁告洦鍓涢崢閬嶆⒑閸濆嫬鏆為柟绋垮⒔婢规洟骞愭惔娑楃盎闂侀潧楠忕槐鏇€€傞懠顒傜<闁哄啫鍊搁弸娑欍亜閵忊剝绀嬮柟顔规櫊椤㈡洟锝為鐑嗘婵犵數鍋犻幓顏嗙礊閳ь剚銇勯銏╂█闁诡噯绻濋崺鈧い鎺戝閳锋帡鏌涚仦鎹愬闁逞屽厸缁瑩銆佸▎鎰瘈闁告洦鍓﹀ḿ鐔兼⒑閸撴彃浜濇繛鍙夌墱缁崵绱掑Ο闀愮盎闂佽宕樺▔娑㈩敁瀹€鍕厸濞达絽澹婇崕蹇斻亜椤撯剝纭堕柟椋庡█閸ㄩ箖宕楅崨顖涘瘻闂傚倷绶氶埀顒傚仜閼活垶宕㈤幖浣圭厾闁告劘灏欓崺锝呪攽閿涘嫭鏆柟顔界懇瀵爼骞嬮鐐搭啌濠电姵顔栭崰妤呮晝閳哄懎绀傛繛鎴炵椤洟鏌ㄥ┑鍡樺仾鐟滅増甯楅弲鏌ユ煕閳╁啰鎳呴柣鎾冲€搁—鍐Χ閸愩劎浠剧紒鐐緲缁夊墎鍒掗埡鍛亜缁炬媽椴搁弲婵嬫⒑闂堟稓澧曟繛璇х畵楠炲棝鏁愭径瀣ф嫼闂佸湱枪濞寸兘鍩ユ径瀣ㄤ簻闁挎棁顕у顕€鏌涢埞鎯т壕婵$偑鍊栫敮鎺楁晝閵壯€鍋撳鐐28缂傚倸鍊搁崐椋庢閿熺姴纾诲鑸靛姦閺佸鎲搁弮鍫㈠祦闁告劦鍠栫粻濠氭煕閹捐尙绐旈柍鐟扮箲缁绘繈濮€閿濆棛銆愬Δ妤婁簼閹稿啿鐣峰┑瀣窛閻庢稒岣块崢閬嶆⒑閸濆嫬鏆婇柛瀣尵缁辨帞鈧綆鍋呭畷宀€鈧鍣崑濠囧箖娴犲鍨傛い鎰╁灩楠炴垿姊绘担鍛婃儓婵炶绠戦~婵嬪Ω閳哄倸浠梺瀹犳〃鐠佹彃危閸儲鐓欓柣鎰靛墯缂嶆垿鏌熼崗鍏煎€愰柡灞界Х椤т線鏌涢幘鍗炲妤犵偛绻橀弫鎾绘晸閿燂拷1130缂傚倸鍊搁崐椋庣矆娓氣偓钘濇い鏍ㄧ矌閻捇鏌涢幘鑼槮闁搞劍绻堥弻銊╂偄閸濆嫅銏㈢磼閳ь剟宕掗悙瀵稿幈濠电偞鍨堕敃顐﹀绩缂佹ḿ绠鹃柛顐g箘閻掓悂鏌$仦绋垮⒉鐎垫澘瀚埀顒婄秵娴滄粓锝為崶顒佲拺闂侇偆鍋涢懟顖涙櫠妤e啯鐓欓柛鎴欏€栫€氾拷