黄初龙, 王将, 耿琼, 胡卫芬, 邓祥. 昆明不同季节两次局地大暴雨过程对比分析[J]. 云南大学学报(自然科学版), 2021, 43(2): 315-325. doi: 10.7540/j.ynu.20200182
引用本文: 黄初龙, 王将, 耿琼, 胡卫芬, 邓祥. 昆明不同季节两次局地大暴雨过程对比分析[J]. 云南大学学报(自然科学版), 2021, 43(2): 315-325. doi: 10.7540/j.ynu.20200182
HUANG Chu-long, WANG Jiang, GENG Qiong, HU Wei-fen, DENG Xiang. Comparative analysis of two local heavy rainstorm processes in different seasons in Kunming[J]. Journal of Yunnan University: Natural Sciences Edition, 2021, 43(2): 315-325. DOI: 10.7540/j.ynu.20200182
Citation: HUANG Chu-long, WANG Jiang, GENG Qiong, HU Wei-fen, DENG Xiang. Comparative analysis of two local heavy rainstorm processes in different seasons in Kunming[J]. Journal of Yunnan University: Natural Sciences Edition, 2021, 43(2): 315-325. DOI: 10.7540/j.ynu.20200182

昆明不同季节两次局地大暴雨过程对比分析

Comparative analysis of two local heavy rainstorm processes in different seasons in Kunming

  • 摘要: 利用NCEP(1°×1°)FNL资料和多种加密观测资料,对发生在2017年夏季(6月29日)和2018年秋季(9月7日)的昆明2次局地大暴雨过程进行对比分析,尝试为今后昆明不同季节的局地性大暴雨天气的预报、预警提供参考依据. 结果表明:①“06.29”过程暴雨带呈NW—SE向,“09.07”过程暴雨带呈准南北向. “06.29”过程在降水强度、降水持续时间、降水量和强降水范围方面均明显大于“09.07”过程;②“06.29”过程暴雨主要影响系统是低槽切变线,水汽主要来源于孟加拉湾,而“09.07”过程暴雨的主要影响系统是南海东部热带低压和近地层冷锋,水汽主要来源于南海;“06.29”过程系统明显较“09.07”过程系统深厚,移动较慢;③2个过程的对流环境均有利于短时强降水强对流天气的产生,“06.29”过程的对流环境条件明显强于“09.07”过程;④最大小时雨量出现站点的平均径向速度显示,“06.29”过程全部体扫(10个)同时出现了速度辐合和逆风区,“09.07”过程8个体扫同时出现了速度辐合和逆风区;⑤“06.29”过程雷达回波演变为片状混合性回波在昆明北部地区长时间维持,回波移动非常缓慢,后向传播特征明显. “09.07”过程雷达回波演变为呈NW—SE向冷锋附近不断有对流单体风暴生成,形成NW—SE向带状分布的混合性回波向西南方向移动,回波移动快,列车效应特征明显.

     

    Abstract: Based on NCEP (1°×1°) FNL data and various dense observation data, two local heavy rainstorm processes that occurred in summer 2017 (June 29) and autumn 2018 (September 7) were compared and analyzed, intended to provide a reference for the forecast and warning of local heavy rainstorms in different seasons in Kunming in the future. The conclusions are drawn as follows: ① The rain belt of the “06.29” rainstorm process demonstrated a NW—SE direction, while the “09.07” process showed a quasi-north-south direction. The “06.29” rainstorm process was significantly greater than the “09.07” process in terms of intensity, duration and quantity of precipitation, as well as heavy precipitation range. ② The main impact system of the “06.29” process was the low trough shear line, and the water vapor mainly came from the Bay of Bengal, while the main impact system of the “09.07” process was the tropical low pressure in the eastern South China Sea and the near-surface cold front, and the water vapor mainly came from the South China Sea. The system of the “06.29” process was significantly deeper and thicker than that of the “09.07” process and moved slower. ③ The convective environments of the two processes were conducive to the occurrence of short-term heavy precipitation and strong convective weather. The convective environmental conditions of the “06.29” process were obviously stronger than those of the “09.07” process. ④ The average radial velocity of the station with the largest hourly rainfall showed that volume scannings of all the 10 stations simultaneously exhibited velocity convergence and reverse wind region in the “06.29” process, and that volume scannings of 8 stations simultaneously exhibited velocity convergence and reverse wind region in the “09.07” process. ⑤ The radar echo of the “06.29” process evolved into a sheet-like mixed echo and remained for a long time in the northern part of Kunming, the echo moved very slowly, and the backward propagation characteristics were obvious. The radar echo of the “09.07” process evolved into a continuous convective single storm near the cold front, showing a NW—SE direction, forming a mixed echo with a band-like distribution in the NW-SE direction and moving southwestwards. The echo moved fast and the train effect was obvious.

     

/

返回文章
返回