4.7 Article

Wuhan MST Radar Observations of a Tropopause Descent Event during Heavy Rain on 1-2 June 2015

期刊

REMOTE SENSING
卷 14, 期 24, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/rs14246272

关键词

tropopause height; heavy rain; MST radar; water vapor

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China
  2. [42274197]
  3. [41722404]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that during a heavy rain event in Wuhan, the MST radar detected a clear descent and subsequent recovery of the tropopause height, indicating atmospheric responses to the rain. Observations from radiosonde and radar were consistent in showing the tropopause descent. During the tropopause descent, strong convective activities were observed in the upper troposphere.
During heavy rain on 1-2 June 2015 in central China, the Wuhan mesosphere-stratosphere-troposphere (MST) radar was applied to record the atmospheric responses to the rain with a 30 min period. According to the vertical gradient of the echo power above 500 hPa, the tropopause height could be determined by MST radar detection. The tropopause descent was clearly observed by the Wuhan MST radar a few hours before the rain, and then the tropopause recovered to usual heights during the rain. The observation of the radiosonde in Wuhan was in line with that of the radar. Both the potential vorticity and the ozone mass mixing ratio variations at 100 hPa level implied the fall of the tropopause. During the tropopause decent, enhanced radar echoes appeared in the upper troposphere, the echo spectral widths became broader, and the large vertical wind velocities were recorded and indicated the occurrence of strong convective activities. The relative humidity was also found to increase at all tropospheric heights, including the region close to the tropopause. The convective flow may have transported water vapor to the tropopause heights, and a temperature decrease in this region was also recorded. It is very likely that water vapor cooling induced the tropopause descent.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据