• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Skill Assessment of Copernicus Climate Change Service Seasonal Ensemble Precipitation Forecasts over Iran

    2021-04-20 04:02:18MasoudNOBAKHTBahramSAGHAFIANandSalehAMINYAVARI
    Advances in Atmospheric Sciences 2021年3期

    Masoud NOBAKHT, Bahram SAGHAFIAN*, and Saleh AMINYAVARI

    1Department of Civil Engineering, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran 1477893855, Iran

    2Department of Civil Engineering, Chalous Branch, Islamic Azad University, Chalous 46615/397, Iran

    (Received 2 February 2020; revised 15 October 2020; accepted 19 October 2020)

    ABSTRACT Medium to long-term precipitation forecasting plays a pivotal role in water resource management and development of warning systems. Recently, the Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) database has been releasing monthly forecasts for lead times of up to three months for public use. This study evaluated the ensemble forecasts of three C3S models over the period 1993-2017 in Iran’s eight classified precipitation clusters for one- to three-month lead times. Probabilistic and non-probabilistic criteria were used for evaluation. Furthermore, the skill of selected models was analyzed in dry and wet periods in different precipitation clusters. The results indicated that the models performed best in western precipitation clusters, while in the northern humid cluster the models had negative skill scores. All models were better at forecasting upper-tercile events in dry seasons and lower-tercile events in wet seasons. Moreover, with increasing lead time, the forecast skill of the models worsened. In terms of forecasting in dry and wet years, the forecasts of the models were generally close to observations, albeit they underestimated several severe dry periods and overestimated a few wet periods.Moreover, the multi-model forecasts generated via multivariate regression of the forecasts of the three models yielded better results compared with those of individual models. In general, the ECMWF and UKMO models were found to be appropriate for one-month-ahead precipitation forecasting in most clusters of Iran. For the clusters considered in Iran and for the long-range system versions considered, the Météo France model had lower skill than the other models.

    Key words: ensemble forecasts, Copernicus Climate Change Service, long-term forecasting, model evaluation, Iran

    1. Introduction

    Accurate precipitation forecasting is a key component in water resources decision making. In particular, accurate and timely forecasting of monthly and seasonal precipitation and streamflow improves the performance of meteorological and hydrological drought early warning systems.Moreover, meteorological forecasts increasingly rely on precipitation numerical models.

    Seasonal forecasts were initially based on estimates of signal-to-noise ratios that assumed full knowledge of ocean and/or land conditions, such that the variance of climate variables related to lower boundary forcing represented the signal. However, it has been shown that the interaction between the atmosphere, sea ice, land and ocean are also important (Doblas-Reyes et al., 2013). Seasonal climate forecasting centers around the world now routinely run coupled ocean-atmosphere general circulation models (GCMs).GCMs parameterize physics on coarse grids but involve coupling of ocean and atmosphere modules. The main aim of GCMs is to produce intra- to interseasonal forecasts driven by the slowly evolving boundary conditions, such as sea surface temperature (SST) (Duan et al., 2019).

    Ensemble forecasting is a technique used in numerical forecasts such that, instead of a single forecast, a series of forecasts depicting a wide range of future possible conditions in the atmosphere are produced. Nowadays, various centers produce ensemble forecasts of meteorological variables,such as precipitation and temperature, at different lead times from hourly to yearly, on a global scale, using numerical solutions of atmospheric hydrodynamic equations based on different initial conditions. Such forecasts have offered new opportunities in the water management sector. The Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) database has recently released the products of several significant European centers.

    The C3S database combines weather system observations and provides comprehensive information on the past,present and future weather conditions. The service, run by ECMWF on behalf of the European Union, provides seasonal forecasting protocols on its website. The C3S Seasonal Service is publicly available through the Climate Data Store. Since the C3S database has been only recently launched, not much research on its evaluation has been reported. Forecast skill assessment can provide valuable information for forecasters and developers such that decision makers may adopt appropriate strategies to mitigate climate-related risks.

    Manzanas et al. (2019) bias-corrected and calibrated C3S ensemble seasonal forecasts for Europe and Southeast Asia. The study adopted the ECMWF-SEAS5, UKMOGloSea5 and Meteo France System5 models with a onemonth lead time. For post-processing, simple bias adjustment (BA) and more sophisticated ensemble recalibration(RC) methods were employed, with the RC methods improving the reliability and outperforming the BA methods. The seasonal precipitation forecasts at the global scale were evaluated by Manzanas et al. (2014), who concluded that the best predictive skills were obtained in September-October and the poorest in March-May. MacLachlan et al. (2015) found that UKMO-GloSea5 had great forecast skill and reliability in predicting the North Atlantic Oscillation and Arctic Oscillation. Li and Robertson (2015) evaluated the ensemble forecast skill of the ECMWF, Japan Meteorological Agency(JMA) and CFSv2 models (seasonal center model of the NCEP) for summer and up to a four-week lead time. All three models provided good results for the first-week lead time. The forecast skill significantly declined in most clusters (except in some tropical clusters) during the second to fourth weeks. The precipitation forecast skill of the ECMWF model was significantly better than those of the other two models, especially for the third and fourth weeks.Shirvani and Landman (2016) studied the seasonal precipitation forecast skills of the North American Multi-Model Ensemble (NMME), two coupled ocean-atmosphere models and one two-tiered model, over Iran. They found low forecast skill for most models at all lead times, except in the October-December period at lead times of up to three months.

    Crochemore et al. (2017) evaluated the seasonal forecast skill of precipitation and river flow in 16 watersheds in France. The hindcasts of the ECMWF seasonal precipitation model (System 4) with a 90-day lead time were evaluated and post-processed using SAFRAN data (Météo France reanalysis product). They employed linear scaling (LS) and monthly and annual distribution mapping to post-process the raw precipitation data. The results indicated an increase in precipitation forecast skill after applying post-processing methods. Bett et al. (2017) assessed the skill and reliability of wind speed in GloSea5 seasonal forecasts corresponding to winter and summer seasons over China. The results showed that the winter mean wind speed was skillfully forecasted along the coast of the South China Sea. Lucatero et al. (2018) examined the skill of raw and post-processed ensemble seasonal meteorological forecasts in Denmark.They took advantage of the LS and quantile mapping (QM)techniques to bias-correct ECMWF precipitation, temperature and evapotranspiration ensemble forecasts on a daily basis. The focus was on clusters where seasonal forecasting was difficult. They concluded that the LS and QM techniques were able to remove the mean bias. Regarding the estimation of dry days and low precipitation amounts, the efficiency of QM was better than that of LS. Mishra et al.(2019) provided one of the most comprehensive assessments of seasonal temperature and precipitation ensemble forecasts of the EUROSIP multi-model forecasting system.One equally and two unequally weighted multi-models were also constructed from individual models, for both climate variables, and their respective forecasts were also assessed.They found that the simple equally weighted multi-model system performed better than both unequally weighted multimodel combination systems. Zhang et al. (2019) evaluated the ability of the seasonal temperature forecasts of the NMME over west coast areas of the United States. In general, the skill of the one-month lead time NMME forecasts was superior or similar to persistence forecasts over many continental clusters, while the skill was generally stronger over the ocean than over the continent. However, the forecast skill along most west coast clusters was markedly lower than in the adjacent ocean and interior, especially during the warm seasons.

    To the best of our knowledge, no research has yet been reported in which the precipitation forecasts of the C3S database have been comprehensively evaluated. In this study,the ECMWF, MF (Météo France) and UKMO ensemble precipitation forecasts were extracted from the C3S database in Iran’s geographical area for a period of approximately 24 years (1993-2017). The forecasts were compared with station data in different precipitation clusters. Evaluation of raw forecasts was performed in two stages: deterministic and probabilistic assessment.

    2. Methods and study area

    The C3S project was introduced in early 2017 and has since been routinely releasing forecast products. These products, which are taken from several European centers,are updated monthly (13th day of the lunar month at 1200 UTC) for up to a six-month lead time. Lead time refers to the period of time between the issue time of the forecast and the beginning of the forecast validity period. Long-range forecasts based on all data up to the beginning of the forecast validity period are said to be of lead zero. The period of time between the issue time and the beginning of the validity period will categorize the lead. For example, a March monthly forecast issued at the end of the preceding January is said to be of one-month lead time. The C3S climate data store is currently supported by the ECMWF, UKMO, MF,Centro Euro-Mediterraneo sui Cambiamenti Climatic, and Deutscher Wetterdienst centers. The NCEP, JMA and Bureau of Meteorology centers will be added in the near future.In the data store, a global-scale meteorological observed dataset has been used to obtain hindcasts since 1993 and may be used to improve forecast quality. The characteristics of the forecasting systems and their production methods in the C3S are presented in Table 1.

    In this study, the ECMWF, MF and UKMO monthly ensemble precipitation hindcasts of the C3S database in Iran’s geographical area (25°-40°N, 44°-64°E) at an approximate 25-km spatial resolution (0.25° × 0.25°) were extracted for a period of 24 years (1993-2017) at a three-month lead time with a monthly time step. Observed point data were extracted for 100 synoptic stations, operated by the Iranian Meteorological Organization, spread over eight different precipitation clusters as classified by Modarres (2006)based on the geography and climate using the Ward method. Figure 1 shows a map of Iran’s precipitation clusters, over which the locations of 100 stations used in this study are overlaid. Cluster G1 involves arid and semiarid clusters of central and eastern Iran, subject to high coefficient of variation and low precipitation. Cluster G2, spread in three distinct clusters (as shown in Fig. 1), mostly encompasses highland margins of G1. Cluster G3 involves cold clusters in northwestern Iran, while cluster G4 represents warm and temperate clusters along the Persian Gulf northern coast. Cluster G5 involves areas over the western border along the Zagros Mountains. Cluster G6, enjoying high precipitation, represents areas along the coast of the Caspian Sea in northern Iran. Cluster G7 is similar to G5 but receives more precipitation and encompasses two distinct clusters. In addition, cluster G8 is similar to G6, but receives more precipitation. Table 2 lists the number of stations and characteristics of the precipitation clusters.

    Using the inverse distance weighting method (Ozelkan et al., 2015), the forecast data were interpolated to the selected stations, and then monthly precipitation forecasts were compared with observed data. Evaluation criteria were employed in two stages, including deterministic and probabilistic assessment. It should be noted that the averages of the evaluation criteria in each precipitation cluster are reported in this study. All the evaluation criteria formulae used in this study are presented in Table 3.

    2.1. Evaluation criteria

    For deterministic evaluation, the Pearson correlation coefficients were used to compare the forecast values with those of the observed. The root-mean-square error skill score(RMSE) was also adopted, to calculate the error intensity of the forecasted monthly precipitation. Since each cluster has different mean precipitation, the skill score of this criterion was used for a fair assessment. The RMSEis 1 for a perfect forecast, and 0 when the forecast equals the climatology. It should be noted that in order to prevent dispersion,anomaly forecasts and observations were used for calculating the RMSE. A monthly anomaly is the actual monthly value minus the climatology of the same month (i.e., the average over 1993-2017).

    Table 1. Details of the selected numerical forecast models.

    For the probabilistic evaluation, the continuously ranked probability score (CRPS) and the relative operating characteristic (ROC) were used. To calculate the ROC, for each category (low/middle/upper tercile) a binary observation (0: the category occurred, 1: the category was not observed) and a probabilistic (between 0 and 1) forecast were created. The latter is derived based on the number of members predicting the category, out of the total number of available members. Then, for each tercile category, based on the values of hit and false alarm rates that were obtained based on a probability threshold varying from 0 to 1, the ROC curve was drawn and the area under the curve was calculated. Finally, the ROC skill score (ROC) was computed as 2

    A

    - 1, where

    A

    is the area under the ROC curve. The ROCrange is -1 to 1, where zero indicates no skill when compared to the climatological forecasts and 1 represents the perfect score (Manzanas et al., 2014). Moreover, using the CRPS, the agreement of the cumulative distribution function (CDF) forecasts with the observed CDF was studied.The perfect score for the CRPS criterion is 0. The CRPS criterion was calculated based on Ferro et al. (2008). As with the reason for using the RMSEss, the CRPS skill score(CRPSss) was used for a fair assessment between clusters.The CRPSss was determined based on the relationship presented in Table 3.

    The evaluation results were interpreted on a monthly,three-month average, and annual basis. On the monthly basis, the performance of each model was individually investigated in all 12 months; whereas for the 3-month average,the average precipitation in all four seasons was determined.Then, forecasts were evaluated in three (lower, middle and upper) tercile categories.

    Fig. 1. Layout of the observation stations and G1-G8 precipitation clusters [the boundaries of the eight groups are based on the research of Modarres (2006)].

    2.2. Multi-model forecasts

    Three selected models were combined to generate multi-model forecasts using the simple arithmetic mean(MMM), multivariate regression (MRMM), and biasremoved (BRMM) techniques. In the MMM, simply the mean of the three model forecasts was calculated in each time step.

    In the MRMM combination, a multivariate regression was developed to combine the forecasts of the three models based on the following relationship (Zhi et al., 2012):

    In the BRMM approach, a multi-model was generated based on the following relationship (Zhi et al., 2012):

    Table 2. Details of the precipitation clusters and the number of selected stations in each cluster (Kolachian and Saghafian, 2019).

    The correlation coefficient and relative root-meansquare error (RRMSE) were used to evaluate and compare the skills of individual forecast models with the constructed multi-models. These criteria were selected based on a similar study by Zhi et al. (2012). Since precipitation varies greatly among clusters, the RMSEs of each cluster were divided by the mean observed value of the same cluster to make a fair assessment. It should be noted that the evaluations in this part of the study were carried out separately for the four seasons.

    Table 3. Evaluation criteria used in this study (Tao et al., 2014; Aminyavari et al., 2018).

    2.3. Evaluation based on drought indices

    The Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI) was also adopted, to evaluate the skill of the models to forecast dry/wet years. The SPI represents the number of standard deviations (SDs) that observed cumulative precipitation deviates from the climatological average (Guttman, 1999). To calculate the SPI, the gamma distribution was fitted to 30 years(1987-2017) of monthly precipitation series and then converted into the standard normal distribution. The mean SPI of the stations in each of the eight precipitation clusters were determined and intercompared. The SPEI package(Beguería and Vicente-Serrano, 2017) was employed to calculate the SPI in R software.

    Further, to study the effect of climatic signals on precipitation changes in the study period, the Oceanic Ni?o Index(ONI) was extracted (https://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm)and then El Ni?o, La Ni?a and neutral years (phases) were identified over the study period. Furthermore, the relationship between the ENSO phases and the SPI was examined and interpreted. It should be noted that events were defined as five consecutive overlapping three-month periods at or above the +0.5°C anomaly for El Ni?o events and at or below the -0.5°C anomaly for La Ni?a events. The threshold was further divided into weak for 0.5°C to 0.9°C SST anomalies, moderate (1.0°C to 1.4°C), strong (1.5°C to 1.9°C), and very strong (≥ 2.0°C) events (Rojas, 2020).

    Also, regarding the effect that ENSO may impose on the skill of different models, tercile plots (Nikulin et al.,2018) were used to examine the sensitivity of the skill to El Ni?o, La Ni?a, and neutral years. The tercile plots were drawn using the visualizeR package in R software (Frías et al., 2018).

    3. Results

    The average monthly forecasted precipitation over the 24 years of the study period with a one-month lead time is compared in Fig. 2 with the average monthly recorded precipitation at synoptic stations. One may note that the MF model yielded poor performance in most clusters and seasons. However, the ECMWF and UKMO models had acceptable performance, particularly in low-precipitation and dry months, as well as in low-precipitation clusters (such as G1). For G4 and G1, which together cover the greatest area of Iran, ECMWF and UKMO underestimated precipitation in high-precipitation months, but overestimated precipitation in G2, G3 and G5, although the UKMO performed somewhat better than the ECMWF in highland snow-covered areas. For G6 and G8, the models underestimated precipitation considerably in fall, but provided better estimates than the reference forecasts in other seasons. All in all, in G5 and G7, the UKMO and ECMWF models forecasted the precipitation closer to observations.

    In the following, first, the total precipitation forecasted during the study period will be evaluated. Then, the seasonal precipitation is examined in different clusters and terciles, and the performance of the models in different months is also interpreted. Then, the skills of multiple models are compared with individual models, and finally, based on the drought index, the quality of forecasts is evaluated.

    Fig. 2. Average monthly forecasted precipitation values of ECMWF, UKMO and MF, along with observed data, in precipitation clusters with a one-month lead time.

    3.1. Evaluation of total forecasts

    The Pearson correlation coefficient results in Fig. 3 show that ECMWF and UKMO performed best in the G5 and G7 clusters, with over 70% significant correlation with observations. But, the correlation coefficients of MF were below 0.5 in most precipitation clusters. In the G6 and G8 precipitation clusters, encompassing the north of Iran, all models had correlation coefficients of less than 0.5, which were lower than in other clusters. Moreover, the skill of the models decreased with an increase in lead time. Overall, based on this criterion, the ECMWF model was in better agreement with the observations compared with the other two models, although UKMO was slightly better than ECMWF for a three-month lead time. Moreover, the SD of the correlation coefficients of the stations in each cluster is shown to understand the degree of dispersion in the evaluation result. As seen in the figure, in most clusters the SD is low and models perform the same at most stations. Only in clusters 6 and 8 is the SD slightly higher, which also affects the evaluation results of these two clusters.

    Pearson’s product-moment correlation statistical significance test was also performed, to determine whether the degree of correlation between models and observations was reliable. The

    P

    -values of the significance test, as shown in the table within Fig. 3a, indicates that the

    P

    -value in all models and clusters is less than 0.05, implying statistical significance of the correlation between the forecast models and observations. Only for the MF model in G6 cluster is the

    P

    -value slightly greater than 0.05.

    The evaluation results of the RMSE skill score in Fig. 4 indicate that the models were more skillful in western Iran.However, in G3, encompassing northwestern Iran, the ECMWF model had a negative skill score and performed poorly in comparison with the reference forecasts. Similarly, UKMO provided poor forecasts in G3. The model also produced poor forecasts for the high-precipitation G8 cluster.

    The CRPSss results in Fig. 5 demonstrate that, in G4,G5 and G7, the models had closer CDFs to those of the observations and performed quite well in the clusters located in western Iran.

    In general, the annual evaluation results indicated that the models provided better forecasts in western and southwestern Iran. In contrast, the models performed quite poorly in precipitation clusters in northern Iran. The ECMWF model outperformed the UKMO model in most evaluation criteria.The MF forecasts were poor. The gray cells in Figs. 4 and 5 are differentiated because their values are far from the other scores.

    In Figs. 4, 5 and 7, the numbers in the squares correspond to the average score for the entire cluster (i.e., averaged over all stations within the cluster), while the small sized numbers indicate the SDs of the scores across all the stations in the cluster.

    Also, to understand why the forecasts were better in G1, G2, G4, G5 and G7, as compared with those in G3, G6 and G8, the time series of total annual precipitation is shown in Fig. 6. The results of the evaluation are fully consistent with Fig. 6, showing why the models have varying evaluation scores in different clusters.

    Fig. 3. Evaluation using the (a) mean and (b) SD of the Pearson correlation coefficient in each cluster. The table in panel (a) shows the P-values of the three models in the eight clusters (perfect score for the Pearson correlation coefficient is 1).

    3.2. Evaluation of three-month average precipitation

    In this section, the evaluation scores are reported based on three-month average observations and hindcasts at a onemonth lead time. Based on Fig. 7, both the UKMO and ECMWF models yielded positive skill scores in most clusters (with the exception of northern climates in the G3,G6 and G8 clusters), indicating that the models forecasted the probability of occurrence better than the climatology.All three models had better proficiency scores in higher and lower terciles than in the middle tercile. In the summer,according to Fig. 7, the performance of all models declined compared to those in other seasons, whereas only the UKMO model scored higher in the G7 cluster.

    For the fall season, the ECMWF model forecasted light precipitation better than heavy precipitation. In this season,the MF model yielded a more accurate detection and lower false alarm rate than in other seasons. Overall, similar to the findings of Manzanas et al. (2014), all models produced better forecasts in this season than in the other seasons. In the G5 and G7 precipitation clusters, all three models performed better compared to the other seasons and precipitation clusters. In a similar study by Shirvani and Landman(2016), the best performance was found in the fall season.In winter, the performance of models was similar to that in the spring season, but with lower skill scores.

    Fig. 4. Evaluation using the RMSESS in eight precipitation clusters (RMSESS is 1 for “perfect” forecast and 0 for“forecast equals climatology”).

    3.3. Evaluation of monthly precipitation

    In this section, the performance of the models was investigated on a monthly basis in eight precipitation clusters.According to the Pearson correlation coefficients shown in Fig. 8, it is clear that the correlation coefficient decreased with increasing lead time. There was also no specific dependence between the lead time and the month of the year. The models produced good forecasts in spring months in dry climates, and in December in wet climates at two- and threemonth lead times.

    The ECMWF model performed best in November,while it had its poorest performance in August in most clusters. For western clusters in Iran, such as G7, which receive greater precipitation compared to central clusters,the model performed better in summer months than in other seasons; however, poorer forecasts were achieved in February. As mentioned in section 3.1, ECMWF did not provide acceptable performance in northern clusters. The UKMO model was to a certain extent similar in its performance to the ECMWF model, except that it performed best in dry central clusters in the winter. The UKMO model performed quite poorly in northern clusters in May. The MF forecasts did not correlate well with the observations in all months.For most clusters, this model provided better forecasts in March and April.

    Also, to better assess the forecasts in different months,scatterplots of monthly forecasts over the study period are provided in Fig. 9. Based on the results of this study, the models had their best forecasts in G7 but their weakest ones in the G8 precipitation cluster. For the sake of brevity, scatterplots of only these two clusters are presented. According to Fig. 9a, in G7, observed precipitation was zero in the summer months, while the highest correlation occurred in January between the observations and ECMWF forecasts. From June to September, observed precipitation in this cluster was close to zero, so the highest ROCin section 3.2 was obtained in this period. This highlights that the ROCis conditioned on the observation such that the models accurately forecast dry conditions over that cluster. Also, in rainy months, the ECMWF and UKMO models performed well,and the scores shown in Fig. 9 may be attributable to the forecast skill.

    In the G8 precipitation cluster, most models underestimated the observations, with only the ECMWF model overestimating precipitation in the summer months. Although more precipitation occurred in winter than in spring, all models forecasted similar precipitation in these two seasons. All three models underestimated the fall and winter precipitation. The ECMWF model was a better performer than the other models.

    Fig. 5. Evaluation using CRPSSS in eight precipitation clusters (perfect score for CRPSSS is 1).

    3.4. Evaluation of multi-models

    According to Fig. 10a, multi-models, especially MRMM, were better correlated with observations in most seasons and clusters than individual models, although MRMM had weaker forecasts in summer. The MF model in winter,especially in rainier clusters, showed no correlation with observations. Overall, the best forecasts for the multi- and individual models occurred in fall.

    Figure 10b shows the evaluation results of multi- and individual models using the RRMSE criterion. Of note is a large error in the MF forecasts. Despite the poor performance of the MF model, the three multi-models tended to provide similar results to those of the ECWMF and UKMO models, which represent the two best-performing individual models. Note that among the three multi-models, the MRMM provided the best overall results. The MRMM results showed that the model combination based on regression had a positive effect on reducing the forecast error of individual models. In accordance with previous studies(Doblas-Reyes et al., 2009; Bundel et al., 2011; Ma et al.,2012; Manzanas et al., 2014), the overall results in this section indicate that multi-models are effective in improving the predictive skill of individual models.

    3.5. Evaluation of forecasted SPI

    Figure 11 shows the time series of observed SPI and those corresponding to the ECMWF and UKMO model forecasts in eight precipitation clusters. The MF-derived SPI values are not shown here because of its poor performance. El Ni?o, neutral and La Ni?a years were extracted during the study period and added to Fig. 11. To better understand the performance of models in forecasting dry and wet years, the correlation coefficient between the SPI of the models and that of the observation is shown in Fig. 11. In G1, both models forecasted the wet years during 1995-2002 well, albeit with a slight overestimation by the UKMO model. Furthermore, both models forecasted the observed 2000-2002 dry period, although they extended the drought until 2004. In this cluster, the models forecasted a severe wet year in 1996, but the year was neutral based on the ONI. This was also the case for the 2001 severe drought, which was a La Ni?a year based on the ONI. Overall, the two models performed quite well in this cluster. In G2, the results were similar but weaker to those of the G1 cluster, whereas the UKMO model had poorer forecasts than the ECMWF model.

    Fig. 6. Total annaul precipitation values of the ECMWF, UKMO and MF models, along with observed data, in precipitation clusters with a one-month lead time.

    In G3, the UKMO model forecasted the severity of the SPI in wet and dry periods better than the ECMWF model.It should be noted that, while 1994 and 2008 were severe wet and drought years in the G3 precipitation cluster, respectively, El Ni?o and La Ni?a prevailed in 1994 and 2008.Thus, climate indices are not a good sign of wet/dry conditions in G3 in such years. In G4, ECMWF forecasted the drought/wetness index better than the UKMO model,although both models underestimated the dry periods in 2008-2012. Considering G5, ECMWF overestimated the drought from 2000 to 2003, while both models failed to forecast the wet year in 2016. In G6, the UKMO model slightly overestimated the dry periods. Both models forecasted the wet years from 1993 to 2000. However, the forecasted duration and intensity of wet years were shorter and weaker,respectively, than those observed.

    Regarding G7, both models performed well and ECMWF forecasted the wet and dry periods quite close to the observations. Finally, in G8, both models had average performances and failed to forecast dry and wet periods. Overall, the models performed well in forecasting dry/wet periods in most clusters and, nearly in all clusters, they were able to detect the reduction in precipitation over the 2000-2001 period.

    Fig. 7. Seasonal evaluation using ROCSS in eight precipitation clusters for three (L=lower, M=middle and U=upper) tercile categories (ROCss is 1 for “perfect” forecast and 0 for “forecast equals climatology”): (a) spring (MAM, March-April); (b)summer (JJA, June-August); (c) fall (SON, September-November); (d) winter (DJF, December-February).

    Fig. 8. Monthly evaluation using the Pearson correlation coefficients in eight precipitation clusters (perfect score for Pearson correlation is 1).

    Fig. 9. Scatterplots of monthly precipitation in two precipitation clusters: (a) G7; (b) G8.

    In examining the effects of ENSO in the study period,only heavy precipitation in 1995 could be marginally attributed to this phenomenon. Based on the work of Shirvani and Landman (2016), although ENSO is the main factor in seasonal forecast skill (Manzanas et al., 2014), no clearly strong predictive capability was found in this study for Iran.This may be partly attributable to the complicated precipitation variability in relation to SST patterns.

    Finally, tercile plots were used to evaluate the impact of ENSO on the performance of models. For the sake of brevity, only the results of the G5 cluster, which had the best forecast results based on Fig. 7, are shown. According to Fig. 12a,although no clear relationship could be found between model performance and ENSO conditions, the ECMWF members of the ensemble forecast in El Ni?o years were slightly better than those in La Ni?a and neutral years. Moreover,according to Fig. 12b, the UKMO model did slightly better in the La Ni?a years. All in all, there is no clear connection between ENSO phenomena and precipitation predictability at seasonal time scales in Iran.

    Fig. 10. Individual and multi-model seasonal evaluation using the Pearson correlation coefficient and RRMSE in eight precipitation clusters (perfect score for Pearson correlation is 1, and for RRMSE it is 1). MAM, March-May(spring); JJA, June-August (summer); SON, September-November (fall); DJF, December-February (winter).

    Fig. 11. Observed and forecasted SPI time series in G1 to G8 (the small 2 × 2 tables shown in the top-right corner of each panel indicate the correlation between the model-forecasted SPI and those of observations. N,neutral; W, weak; M, medium; S, strong; VS, very strong; E, El Ni?o; L, La Ni?a.

    Fig. 12. Tercile plots for the (a) ECMWF and (b) UKMO models in the G5 cluster. The red color spectrum of each square represents the probability for each category (below, normal, above). Dots show the corresponding observed category for each year of the hindcast period. Numbers on the right show the ROCSS for each model and each tercile.(ROCSS is 1 for “perfect” forecast and 0 for “forecast equals climatology”).

    4. Conclusions

    In this study, ECMWF (SEAS5), UKMO (GloSea5)and Météo-France (System5) monthly precipitation forecasts within the C3S database over the period 1993-2017 were evaluated in eight precipitation clusters in Iran. The evaluations were performed on an annual, seasonal and monthly basis. The following conclusions may be drawn:

    (1) Based on the deterministic evaluation of the forecasts, the best correlation coefficients were achieved in the G5 and G7 clusters in western Iran, while the poorest performance was associated with G6 and G8 in northern Iran.Moreover, in forecasting the precipitation amount, all three models had their greatest error in G3 in northwestern Iran.The models performed well in the dry central and eastern clusters. The MF model had the greatest error among the models based on deterministic evaluation (Figs. 3 and 4).

    (2) All models better forecasted upper-tercile events in dry seasons and lower-tercile events in wet seasons, but gained their lowest skill score in the middle category (Fig. 7)(similar to Manzanas et al., 2014, 2018).

    (3) Based on probabilistic evaluation, all three models scored higher in the G5 and G7 precipitation clusters compared to those of other clusters (Fig. 5)

    (4) In all evaluations, the skill of the models decreased with increasing lead time.

    (5) In the monthly evaluation, the ECMWF model performed better in low-precipitation clusters in fall and in high-precipitation clusters in summer. On the contrary, the model performed poorly in northern clusters. The UKMO model yielded somewhat similar results, except the model performed better in low-precipitation clusters in the winter. In general, all three models overestimated precipitation in the summer (Fig. 8).

    (6) The MRMM multi-model had better skill than individual models (Fig. 10).

    (7) The forecast models had relatively good skill in forecasting dry and wet years, although they underestimated some dry years and overestimated some wet years (Fig. 11).

    (8) No specific relationship was found regarding the influence of the ENSO climatic signal on model performance.The models did not yield acceptable forecasts in northern clusters where higher precipitation and relatively lower temperature prevail.

    (9) In assessing the impact of climatic global signals on severe precipitation, the year 1995 may be considered to be significantly influenced by ONI phenomena, while no major effect was detected in other periods.

    All in all, the evaluation results demonstrated that both the UKMO and ECMWF models perform well in forecasting monthly precipitation in Iran, especially in western precipitation clusters. However, it is not possible to clearly indicate which of the two models performs better. In most precipitation clusters at short lead times, the ECMWF model was better correlated with the observations and its forecasts gained higher skill scores. On the contrary, at a three-month lead time, the UKMO model had higher correlation coefficients with the observations in most precipitation clusters. The MF model is not an appropriate precipitation forecast model for Iran. Furthermore, the models are generally able to forecast dry/wet occurrences in Iran.

    精品亚洲乱码少妇综合久久| 人妻夜夜爽99麻豆av| 日韩欧美 国产精品| 日本午夜av视频| 亚洲精品色激情综合| 丰满迷人的少妇在线观看| 18禁裸乳无遮挡免费网站照片| 亚洲精品456在线播放app| 日韩欧美一区视频在线观看 | .国产精品久久| 男女边摸边吃奶| 日韩大片免费观看网站| 精品少妇久久久久久888优播| 国产 精品1| 最近最新中文字幕大全电影3| 看免费成人av毛片| 亚洲欧美精品专区久久| 久久人人爽av亚洲精品天堂 | 哪个播放器可以免费观看大片| 国产男人的电影天堂91| 麻豆成人午夜福利视频| 免费少妇av软件| 精品国产露脸久久av麻豆| 国产精品福利在线免费观看| 偷拍熟女少妇极品色| 人妻少妇偷人精品九色| 久久这里有精品视频免费| av在线播放精品| 乱系列少妇在线播放| 免费黄频网站在线观看国产| 三级经典国产精品| 亚洲怡红院男人天堂| 日本av手机在线免费观看| 亚洲精品第二区| 夜夜爽夜夜爽视频| 国产高潮美女av| 最近最新中文字幕免费大全7| 久久 成人 亚洲| 欧美丝袜亚洲另类| 人妻一区二区av| 在线观看av片永久免费下载| a级毛片免费高清观看在线播放| 美女cb高潮喷水在线观看| 国产久久久一区二区三区| 十八禁网站网址无遮挡 | 亚洲欧美日韩卡通动漫| 一本久久精品| 亚洲av成人精品一区久久| 老司机影院毛片| 久久精品国产自在天天线| 一级毛片久久久久久久久女| 妹子高潮喷水视频| 另类亚洲欧美激情| 日韩av在线免费看完整版不卡| 亚洲av.av天堂| 天天躁日日操中文字幕| 亚洲国产精品国产精品| 亚洲色图av天堂| 日本色播在线视频| 嫩草影院新地址| 麻豆精品久久久久久蜜桃| a级一级毛片免费在线观看| 日本-黄色视频高清免费观看| 成人国产av品久久久| 男女边吃奶边做爰视频| 一本一本综合久久| 在线观看一区二区三区激情| 91久久精品电影网| 免费久久久久久久精品成人欧美视频 | 狂野欧美激情性xxxx在线观看| 国产人妻一区二区三区在| 日本欧美视频一区| 欧美精品一区二区大全| 高清av免费在线| 免费观看的影片在线观看| 尤物成人国产欧美一区二区三区| 全区人妻精品视频| 亚洲国产欧美在线一区| 国产精品嫩草影院av在线观看| 一个人免费看片子| 九九在线视频观看精品| www.色视频.com| av卡一久久| 精品99又大又爽又粗少妇毛片| 内射极品少妇av片p| av播播在线观看一区| 91久久精品国产一区二区三区| 熟女人妻精品中文字幕| 尾随美女入室| 在线观看免费日韩欧美大片 | 国产男人的电影天堂91| 亚洲欧美日韩另类电影网站 | av免费在线看不卡| 久久久久精品性色| 国产精品国产av在线观看| 日韩一本色道免费dvd| 麻豆国产97在线/欧美| 亚洲国产精品成人久久小说| 人妻 亚洲 视频| 亚洲精品视频女| av一本久久久久| 51国产日韩欧美| 亚洲av中文字字幕乱码综合| 91aial.com中文字幕在线观看| 欧美性感艳星| 热re99久久精品国产66热6| 十八禁网站网址无遮挡 | av卡一久久| 亚洲av在线观看美女高潮| 亚洲成色77777| 亚洲国产av新网站| 亚洲综合精品二区| 一级爰片在线观看| 日韩av在线免费看完整版不卡| 国产视频首页在线观看| 香蕉精品网在线| www.av在线官网国产| 看非洲黑人一级黄片| 久久韩国三级中文字幕| 久久久久久久亚洲中文字幕| 久久精品人妻少妇| 久久99热这里只频精品6学生| 亚洲精品国产av蜜桃| 网址你懂的国产日韩在线| 亚洲av男天堂| 熟女人妻精品中文字幕| 国产在线免费精品| 日本vs欧美在线观看视频 | 大又大粗又爽又黄少妇毛片口| 国产高潮美女av| 亚洲精品国产成人久久av| 久久久久性生活片| 国产白丝娇喘喷水9色精品| 99久久精品热视频| 精品一区二区三区视频在线| 国产成人freesex在线| 日韩伦理黄色片| 欧美xxxx黑人xx丫x性爽| 国产亚洲av片在线观看秒播厂| 精品熟女少妇av免费看| 精品一区在线观看国产| 欧美极品一区二区三区四区| 身体一侧抽搐| 国产精品女同一区二区软件| 国产在线一区二区三区精| 亚洲国产高清在线一区二区三| 精品午夜福利在线看| 国产精品一区www在线观看| 欧美老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 国产亚洲午夜精品一区二区久久| 久久久久网色| 亚洲国产精品999| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 欧美成人a在线观看| 中文字幕人妻熟人妻熟丝袜美| 久久久久久久久久久免费av| 亚洲欧洲日产国产| 久热久热在线精品观看| 精品国产露脸久久av麻豆| 久久久久视频综合| 一级黄片播放器| 不卡视频在线观看欧美| xxx大片免费视频| 99热6这里只有精品| 精品酒店卫生间| 黑人高潮一二区| 狂野欧美激情性bbbbbb| 99精国产麻豆久久婷婷| 国产综合精华液| 国产久久久一区二区三区| 国产免费一级a男人的天堂| 国产精品爽爽va在线观看网站| 亚洲精品中文字幕在线视频 | 男的添女的下面高潮视频| 色视频在线一区二区三区| 九九爱精品视频在线观看| 肉色欧美久久久久久久蜜桃| 欧美性感艳星| 中文字幕久久专区| 99久久精品热视频| 美女高潮的动态| 网址你懂的国产日韩在线| 亚洲自偷自拍三级| 免费看av在线观看网站| 亚洲av欧美aⅴ国产| 亚洲综合色惰| 最近手机中文字幕大全| 久久亚洲国产成人精品v| 永久免费av网站大全| 多毛熟女@视频| 国产爽快片一区二区三区| 欧美三级亚洲精品| 青春草亚洲视频在线观看| 成年av动漫网址| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人 | 超碰97精品在线观看| 久久国产精品大桥未久av | 在线免费十八禁| 免费看不卡的av| 视频区图区小说| 欧美精品亚洲一区二区| 亚洲国产日韩一区二区| 国产高清国产精品国产三级 | 精品久久久久久久久av| 如何舔出高潮| 男的添女的下面高潮视频| 久久 成人 亚洲| 男人添女人高潮全过程视频| 久久久久久久久大av| 男人爽女人下面视频在线观看| 欧美+日韩+精品| 日本vs欧美在线观看视频 | 欧美人与善性xxx| 久久99热这里只有精品18| 2021少妇久久久久久久久久久| 久久久久久久久久成人| 国产成人精品婷婷| 国产精品久久久久久精品古装| 色综合色国产| 免费高清在线观看视频在线观看| 午夜老司机福利剧场| 另类亚洲欧美激情| 国产伦精品一区二区三区视频9| 简卡轻食公司| 97超碰精品成人国产| 国产精品秋霞免费鲁丝片| 日本欧美国产在线视频| 97超碰精品成人国产| 只有这里有精品99| 看非洲黑人一级黄片| 日日啪夜夜爽| 亚洲在久久综合| 3wmmmm亚洲av在线观看| 最近中文字幕高清免费大全6| 色视频www国产| 久久这里有精品视频免费| 中文欧美无线码| 久久久久人妻精品一区果冻| 蜜桃亚洲精品一区二区三区| av视频免费观看在线观看| 日韩欧美 国产精品| 久久人人爽人人爽人人片va| 热99国产精品久久久久久7| h视频一区二区三区| 高清午夜精品一区二区三区| 少妇丰满av| 男男h啪啪无遮挡| 久久久久久久国产电影| 成人亚洲精品一区在线观看 | 婷婷色综合大香蕉| 七月丁香在线播放| 欧美另类一区| 老司机影院成人| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆| 99精国产麻豆久久婷婷| 在线观看一区二区三区| 亚洲av电影在线观看一区二区三区| 国产精品一二三区在线看| 国产精品国产av在线观看| 自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇| 亚洲欧洲日产国产| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区国产| 人体艺术视频欧美日本| 99九九线精品视频在线观看视频| 赤兔流量卡办理| 精华霜和精华液先用哪个| 51国产日韩欧美| 黄色配什么色好看| 天美传媒精品一区二区| 干丝袜人妻中文字幕| av在线蜜桃| 偷拍熟女少妇极品色| 免费人成在线观看视频色| 国产精品偷伦视频观看了| 大香蕉97超碰在线| 内射极品少妇av片p| 黑人猛操日本美女一级片| 晚上一个人看的免费电影| 男女啪啪激烈高潮av片| 久久午夜福利片| 色5月婷婷丁香| 国产精品秋霞免费鲁丝片| 人妻系列 视频| 熟女电影av网| 亚洲欧美日韩卡通动漫| 18+在线观看网站| 国产欧美另类精品又又久久亚洲欧美| 久久精品久久久久久久性| 欧美精品一区二区大全| 夫妻性生交免费视频一级片| 久久韩国三级中文字幕| 18+在线观看网站| 欧美精品国产亚洲| 丝袜喷水一区| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜| 韩国高清视频一区二区三区| 精品国产一区二区三区久久久樱花 | 久久久久人妻精品一区果冻| 日韩一区二区视频免费看| av免费观看日本| 狂野欧美激情性bbbbbb| 亚洲国产高清在线一区二区三| 美女福利国产在线 | 九九久久精品国产亚洲av麻豆| 狂野欧美激情性bbbbbb| 男女啪啪激烈高潮av片| 国产亚洲精品久久久com| .国产精品久久| 七月丁香在线播放| 国产亚洲av片在线观看秒播厂| 少妇被粗大猛烈的视频| 99热6这里只有精品| 1000部很黄的大片| 王馨瑶露胸无遮挡在线观看| 亚洲色图av天堂| 激情五月婷婷亚洲| 成人一区二区视频在线观看| 亚洲av成人精品一二三区| 干丝袜人妻中文字幕| 天堂中文最新版在线下载| 亚洲高清免费不卡视频| 97超碰精品成人国产| 色哟哟·www| 国产91av在线免费观看| 亚洲欧洲国产日韩| 内地一区二区视频在线| 2022亚洲国产成人精品| 老司机影院成人| 色综合色国产| 卡戴珊不雅视频在线播放| 99久久精品一区二区三区| 又粗又硬又长又爽又黄的视频| 中文字幕免费在线视频6| 亚洲美女黄色视频免费看| 午夜老司机福利剧场| 成人亚洲精品一区在线观看 | 久久精品国产a三级三级三级| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠久久av| 国内精品宾馆在线| 岛国毛片在线播放| 嫩草影院新地址| 小蜜桃在线观看免费完整版高清| 观看av在线不卡| 国产老妇伦熟女老妇高清| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看| 国产黄频视频在线观看| 99九九线精品视频在线观看视频| 成年av动漫网址| 夫妻性生交免费视频一级片| 我的女老师完整版在线观看| 亚洲va在线va天堂va国产| 纯流量卡能插随身wifi吗| 99国产精品免费福利视频| 亚洲精品,欧美精品| 亚洲国产欧美在线一区| 精品久久久精品久久久| 欧美 日韩 精品 国产| 内射极品少妇av片p| 日产精品乱码卡一卡2卡三| 久久国产亚洲av麻豆专区| 国产v大片淫在线免费观看| 看十八女毛片水多多多| 国国产精品蜜臀av免费| 国产69精品久久久久777片| 亚洲最大成人中文| 一级毛片 在线播放| 97精品久久久久久久久久精品| 女性生殖器流出的白浆| 国产亚洲最大av| 久久久精品免费免费高清| 亚洲av男天堂| 又黄又爽又刺激的免费视频.| 哪个播放器可以免费观看大片| 蜜桃亚洲精品一区二区三区| 国产精品偷伦视频观看了| 青春草国产在线视频| 永久网站在线| 亚洲国产色片| 十八禁网站网址无遮挡 | 毛片女人毛片| 日本黄大片高清| 高清不卡的av网站| 色网站视频免费| 精品少妇久久久久久888优播| 伊人久久精品亚洲午夜| 激情五月婷婷亚洲| 熟女av电影| 激情 狠狠 欧美| av线在线观看网站| 黄片wwwwww| 久久精品夜色国产| 在线观看免费日韩欧美大片 | 久久 成人 亚洲| 欧美 日韩 精品 国产| 少妇丰满av| 插阴视频在线观看视频| 国产精品久久久久久久电影| 国内精品宾馆在线| 麻豆成人av视频| 日本av手机在线免费观看| 国产免费又黄又爽又色| 精品一区在线观看国产| 亚洲人成网站高清观看| 欧美另类一区| 亚洲性久久影院| 黑人猛操日本美女一级片| 蜜桃在线观看..| 欧美精品国产亚洲| 在线播放无遮挡| 九色成人免费人妻av| 久久精品熟女亚洲av麻豆精品| 国产精品国产三级专区第一集| 亚洲欧美日韩另类电影网站 | 国产精品久久久久久av不卡| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看| 日本爱情动作片www.在线观看| 国产精品.久久久| 天堂8中文在线网| 国产成人freesex在线| 我要看日韩黄色一级片| 国产探花极品一区二区| 国产av国产精品国产| 91精品一卡2卡3卡4卡| 国产综合精华液| 中国美白少妇内射xxxbb| 免费观看性生交大片5| 欧美老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 国产免费视频播放在线视频| 国产熟女欧美一区二区| 国产在视频线精品| 日韩av不卡免费在线播放| 亚洲精品日本国产第一区| 亚洲精品自拍成人| 亚洲欧美日韩另类电影网站 | 国产精品嫩草影院av在线观看| 最近中文字幕2019免费版| 国产精品久久久久成人av| 在线天堂最新版资源| 日韩亚洲欧美综合| 欧美xxⅹ黑人| 人妻系列 视频| 黄片wwwwww| 欧美成人精品欧美一级黄| www.色视频.com| 尤物成人国产欧美一区二区三区| 有码 亚洲区| 色5月婷婷丁香| 丰满迷人的少妇在线观看| 九草在线视频观看| 久久韩国三级中文字幕| av在线蜜桃| 99热全是精品| 街头女战士在线观看网站| 免费黄网站久久成人精品| 又大又黄又爽视频免费| av在线app专区| 久久久久久伊人网av| 大话2 男鬼变身卡| 人妻少妇偷人精品九色| 只有这里有精品99| 久久久久久久国产电影| 亚洲真实伦在线观看| 狂野欧美白嫩少妇大欣赏| 亚洲一区二区三区欧美精品| 嘟嘟电影网在线观看| 搡女人真爽免费视频火全软件| 欧美成人午夜免费资源| 纵有疾风起免费观看全集完整版| 亚洲中文av在线| 男女国产视频网站| 在线观看免费视频网站a站| 久久综合国产亚洲精品| 久久久久久久久久成人| 亚洲,一卡二卡三卡| 亚洲成人av在线免费| av国产久精品久网站免费入址| 午夜福利网站1000一区二区三区| 色视频www国产| 免费人妻精品一区二区三区视频| 直男gayav资源| 国产精品秋霞免费鲁丝片| videos熟女内射| 欧美少妇被猛烈插入视频| 国产又色又爽无遮挡免| 久久人人爽av亚洲精品天堂 | 日日啪夜夜撸| 极品教师在线视频| 3wmmmm亚洲av在线观看| 国产日韩欧美亚洲二区| 精品一区在线观看国产| 少妇高潮的动态图| 欧美日韩国产mv在线观看视频 | 日本黄色片子视频| 深夜a级毛片| 亚洲av不卡在线观看| 少妇被粗大猛烈的视频| 青春草视频在线免费观看| 国产高清国产精品国产三级 | 欧美成人一区二区免费高清观看| 国产永久视频网站| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产| 在线观看一区二区三区| h视频一区二区三区| 免费观看性生交大片5| 亚洲第一区二区三区不卡| av不卡在线播放| 午夜福利在线在线| 国产久久久一区二区三区| 18禁裸乳无遮挡动漫免费视频| 日韩在线高清观看一区二区三区| 久久久久人妻精品一区果冻| 亚洲成人av在线免费| 美女内射精品一级片tv| 高清黄色对白视频在线免费看 | 少妇的逼水好多| 综合色丁香网| 国产成人精品福利久久| 国产精品一区www在线观看| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 高清在线视频一区二区三区| 国产高清国产精品国产三级 | 能在线免费看毛片的网站| 久久久久久九九精品二区国产| 免费黄色在线免费观看| www.色视频.com| av专区在线播放| 一级毛片久久久久久久久女| 欧美三级亚洲精品| 狂野欧美白嫩少妇大欣赏| 亚洲av成人精品一二三区| 人妻 亚洲 视频| 免费大片18禁| 制服丝袜香蕉在线| 亚洲av综合色区一区| 日韩不卡一区二区三区视频在线| 日韩欧美一区视频在线观看 | 最近的中文字幕免费完整| 免费人妻精品一区二区三区视频| 国产 一区 欧美 日韩| 最近最新中文字幕免费大全7| 尾随美女入室| 毛片女人毛片| 亚洲av中文av极速乱| 97在线人人人人妻| 伦理电影免费视频| 亚洲国产日韩一区二区| 五月天丁香电影| 国产精品福利在线免费观看| 亚洲精品一区蜜桃| 99九九线精品视频在线观看视频| 久久亚洲国产成人精品v| 天天躁日日操中文字幕| 国产黄色免费在线视频| 我要看黄色一级片免费的| 这个男人来自地球电影免费观看 | 最近最新中文字幕大全电影3| 日本欧美视频一区| 亚洲国产av新网站| 国产乱人偷精品视频| av国产免费在线观看| 直男gayav资源| 国产一区亚洲一区在线观看| 亚洲av成人精品一区久久| av又黄又爽大尺度在线免费看| 国产一级毛片在线| 视频区图区小说| 久久精品国产亚洲av天美| 少妇人妻久久综合中文| 99热这里只有精品一区| 99久久精品热视频| av线在线观看网站| av又黄又爽大尺度在线免费看| 成年女人在线观看亚洲视频| 各种免费的搞黄视频| 大又大粗又爽又黄少妇毛片口| 少妇的逼好多水| 中文资源天堂在线| 成人影院久久| 中文字幕人妻熟人妻熟丝袜美| 国产一区二区三区av在线| 亚洲人与动物交配视频| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜| 天美传媒精品一区二区| 插逼视频在线观看| 国产在视频线精品| 高清午夜精品一区二区三区| 国内精品宾馆在线| 男女免费视频国产| 在线免费十八禁| 国产熟女欧美一区二区| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx在线观看| 亚洲在久久综合| 激情五月婷婷亚洲| 日韩电影二区| 国产亚洲欧美精品永久| videos熟女内射| 亚洲精品乱久久久久久| 性色av一级| 久久精品国产自在天天线| 国产在线一区二区三区精| 国产精品三级大全| 赤兔流量卡办理| 美女内射精品一级片tv| 午夜福利高清视频| 青春草国产在线视频| 最新中文字幕久久久久| 国内精品宾馆在线| 精品熟女少妇av免费看| 国产免费一区二区三区四区乱码| 亚洲电影在线观看av| 久久国内精品自在自线图片| 两个人的视频大全免费| 日韩免费高清中文字幕av| 男的添女的下面高潮视频| 天堂俺去俺来也www色官网|