两次副高边缘型特大暴雨事件的降水极端性对比分析 

展开
  • 1.甘肃省敦煌市气象局,甘肃 酒泉 735000;

    2.兰州中心气象台,甘肃 兰州730020;

    3.酒泉市气象局,甘肃 酒泉735000

网络出版日期: 2025-10-20

基金资助

甘肃省重点人才项目(2025RCXM037);“飞天风云”青年拔尖人才项目(2425rczx);甘肃省自然科学基金项目(25JRRA32224JRRA117724JRRA71724JRRA118223JRRA1331);中国气象局复盘总结专项(FPZJ2025-139);国家自然科学基金项目(42205083);中国气象局青年创新团队项目(CMA2024QN04);甘肃省气象局创新团队项目(GSQXCXTD-2024-01

Comparative Analysis of Precipitation Extremes in Two Major Rainstorm Events at the Edge of the Subtropical High 

Expand
  • 1. Meteorological Bureau of Dunhuang CityGansu ProvinceyJiuquan 735000GansuChina
    2. Lanzhou Central Meteorological ObservatoryLanzhou 730020GansuChina
    3. Jiuquan Meteorological BureauJiuquan 735000GansuChina

Online published: 2025-10-20

摘要

针对2022年(“7·15”)和2024年(“7·22”)甘肃两次特大暴雨过程,利用多源实况观测数据和再分析资料,结合多种分析方法,对两次特大暴雨事件进行了较为系统的对比分析,结果显示:(1)两次过程24 h总降水量、小时雨强、短时强降水频次不同,“7·15”累积降水更大,雨势更强,但暴雨以上量级降水范围及短时强降水频次远低于“7·22”。(2)两次过程具有明显极端性,“7·15”短时强降水突破建站以来历史极值的站数多于“7·22”,而过程雨量和短时强降水频次与之相反。(3)两次过程短历时降水事件的各指标差异明显,“7·15”中等强度和强降水占比显著高于“7·22”“7·15”短历时弱降水和中等强度占比最大(44. 55%),短历时强降水事件占比为10. 68%5 min1 h时最大滑动降水量分别高达30. 9 mm 93. 6 mm,而“7·22”短历时弱降水事件占比最大(60. 70%),短历时强降水事件占比为 8. 68%5 min 1 h最大滑动降水量分别为15. 3 mm 83. 6 mm“7·15”降水极端性更为显著且致灾性更强。(4)两次过程主导天气系统、水汽、热力和动力抬升条件有明显的异同,两次过程均是发生在副热带高压、中低层低涡切变和地面辐合线等高低空系统耦合作用下的暖区对流性强降水,“7·15”过程水汽辐合强度和垂直方向上的辐合厚度、湿层厚度、锋生作用、垂直上升运动强度、CAPE等物理量明显低于“7·22”过程,但暴雨中心整层大气可降水量、强降水期间对流不稳定度及最强降水时段垂直运动上升高度更强。

本文引用格式

黄武斌, 马 莉, 郭润霞, 段伯隆, 谭 丹, 李 健, 景治坤, 范琦玮, 崔 宇 . 两次副高边缘型特大暴雨事件的降水极端性对比分析 [J]. 高原气象, 0 : 1 . DOI: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-0534.2025.00097

Abstract

This study conducts a systematic comparative analysis of two extreme heavy rainfall events in Gansu Provinceoccurring in July 2022‘7·15’and July 2024‘7·22’),using multi-source observational data and reanalysis datasets combined with various diagnostic methods. The key findings are as follows:(1The two events differed in 24-h cumulative precipitationhourly rainfall intensityand frequency of short-duration heavy rainfall. The‘7·15’event had greater cumulative rainfall and stronger instantaneous intensitybut its spatial ex‐ tent of extreme rainfall≥50 mmand frequency of short-duration heavy precipitation were significantly lower than those of‘7·22’.2Both events exhibited extreme characteristics. The‘7·15’event broke historical re‐ cords for short-duration rainfall intensity at more stations than‘7·22’whereas the latter showed higher cumulative precipitation totals and more frequent short-duration heavy rainfall events.3Significant differences existed in short-duration precipitation metrics. The‘7·15’event had substantially higher proportions of moderate and heavy rainfall44. 55% and 10. 68%respectively),with maximum 5-min and 1-h sliding precipitation reaching 30. 9 mm and 93. 6 mm. In contrast‘7·22’was dominated by light rainfall60. 70%),with only 8. 68% heavy precipitation events and maximum 5-min/1-h accumulations of 15. 3 mm and 83. 6 mm. The‘7·15’event demonstrated more extreme precipitation characteristics and greater disaster potential.4The two events exhibited both similarities and differences in their dominant weather systemsmoisture convergenceand thermodynamic/ dynamic lifting conditions. Both were warm-sector convective heavy precipitation events triggered by the coupling of upper- and lower-level systems including the subtropical highmid-to-low-level vortex shearand sur‐ face convergence lines. While the‘7·15’event showed significantly weaker values than‘7·22’in moisture con‐ vergence intensityvertical convergence depthmoist layer thicknessfrontogenesisvertical updraft intensityand CAPEit demonstrated greater precipitable water throughout the atmospheric column at the rainfall corestronger convective instability during intense precipitationand higher vertical ascent heights during peak rainfall periods.

文章导航

/