• <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 ?

    Satellite Observations of Reflectivity Maxima above the Freezing Level Induced by Terrain

    2021-04-07 10:21:12AoqiZHANGWeibiaoLIShuminCHENYilunCHENandYunfeiFU
    Advances in Atmospheric Sciences 2021年4期

    Aoqi ZHANG,Weibiao LI,Shumin CHEN,Yilun CHEN*,and Yunfei FU

    1Guangdong Province Key Laboratory for Climate Change and Natural Disaster Studies, School of Atmospheric Sciences,Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China

    2Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Zhuhai), Zhuhai 519082, China

    3School of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, China

    ABSTRACT Previous studies have recognized reflectivity maxima above the freezing level (RMAF) within stratiform precipitation over mountain slopes,however,quantitative studies are limited due to the lack of adequate identification criteria.Here,we establish an identification method for RMAF precipitation and apply it to the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission(TRMM) Precipitation Radar (PR) observations.Using the TRMM 2A25 product from 1998 to 2013,we show that the RMAF structure in reflectivity profiles can be effectively identified.RMAF exists not only in stratiform precipitation but also in convective precipitation.RMAF frequency is positively correlated with elevation,which is thought to be caused by enhanced updrafts in the middle layers of stratiform precipitation,or in the low to middle layers of convective precipitation over mountains.The average RMAF heights in stratiform and convective precipitation were 1.35 and 2.01 km above the freezing level,respectively,which is lower than previous results.In addition,our results indicate that the RMAF structure increased the echo top height and enhanced precipitation processes above the RMAF height,but it suppressed the downward propagation of ice particles and the near-surface rain rate.Future studies of orographic precipitation should take into account the impact of the RMAF structure and its relevant dynamic triggers.

    Key words:orographic precipitation,reflectivity maxima above the freezing level,precipitation structure,TRMM PR

    1.Introduction

    Reflectivity profiles detected by ground-based or spaceborne radar are widely used to study precipitation (Houze,1997;Kummerow et al.,2000;Fu et al.,2003;Chen and Fu,2017).Due to the strong correlation between rain rate (

    R

    )and echo reflectivity (

    Z

    ) measured by precipitation radar,a simple

    Z–R

    relationship (

    R

    =

    aZ

    ,where

    a

    and

    b

    are coefficients to be determined) is widely used to estimate the precipitation rate (Cocks et al.,2017).The variations of the vertical reflectivity gradient suggest various microphysical processes of precipitation droplets,which include ice processes (e.g deposition,riming,and aggregation),mixedphase processes (e.g.melting),and liquid processes (e.g condensation,collision,and evaporation) (Houze,2014).It is commonly observed that backscattering from droplets usually reaches its peak during the melting process (Mason,1972).This is attributed to the optical features of partiallymelted droplets exhibiting similarities to water droplets that have a larger volume.The melting layer is quite uniform in stratiform precipitation,resulting in a clear bright band near the freezing height (FzH) in the reflectivity profile.In contrast,there is no bright band for convective precipitation.This feature is therefore a key criterion for identifying rain type (Byers and Braham,1949;Houze,1997).

    Terrain affects atmospheric circulations through both its thermal and dynamic influences,and significantly impacts the formation and development of precipitation systems (Wu et al.,2007;Boos and Kuang,2010;Zhang et al.,2018).Precipitation enhancement often occurs on the windward slope of mountains;correspondingly,the precipitation on the leeward slope is significantly reduced (Miltenberger et al.,2016;Fu et al.,2018).A“seeder—feeder”mechanism is widely used to explain the phenomenon of increased precipitation over mountains,especially upon the windward slopes (Bergeron,1935,1965).The pre-existing,upperlevel precipitating cloud (seeder) produces numerous small droplets,while the low-level cloud or fog (feeder) is formed due to orographic lift of moist flow.When small droplets fall to the feeder cloud,they quickly grow via collision,coalescence or accretion (Browning,1980;Viale et al.,2013).Thus,the near-surface droplet number density depends on the seeder cloud,whereas its mass mainly comes from the feeder cloud.Another important microphysical mechanism related to orographic precipitation is the warm rain process.This process occurs when precipitation droplets form below the FzH,and quickly grow and fall to ground when the upslope flow is very humid (White et al.,2003;Neiman et al.,2005;Kingsmill et al.,2006).Compared to the“seeder—feeder”mechanism,the warm rain process produces smaller droplets.Using S-band radar to investigate the droplet size distribution of precipitation in the coastal mountains of California in 2003 and 2004,Martner et al.(2008) found that the warm rain process is mainly associated with convective precipitation (with no bright band in the profile),while the“seeder—feeder”mechanism mainly corresponds to stratiform precipitation (with a bright band).

    Compared with either the“seeder—feeder”mechanism or the warm rain process,other microphysical mechanisms within orographic precipitation,including reflectivity maxima above the freezing level (RMAF),have received less attention.The existence of RMAF was first noted by Houze and Medina (2005) on the windward slopes of the Cascade Mountains of Oregon.Kingsmill et al.(2006) suggested that RMAF is only an inherent feature of baroclinic systems since they observed it in both hillsides and valleys in northern California.However,the occurrence of RMAF in valleys could be explained by their location downstream of the hillsides (Medina,2007).In response to this debate,McMurdie et al.(2018) compared reflectivity properties between precipitation over the ocean surface and precipitation over the windward slopes near the Olympic Mountains.The authors found that RMAF was clearly evident over land whereas it was absent over the ocean,confirming the importance of orographic lifting for RMAF.They also suggested that RMAF is favored when deep,moist,neutrally-stratified,air flow is lifted by a mountain range.These previous studies also showed that the RMAF height usually appears at 1.5 to 2.5 km above FzH in stratiform precipitation (Medina et al.,2007;Zagrodnik et al.,2019).The existence of RMAF was suggested to inhibit near-surface rain rate over slopes,which counters the effect of the“seeder—feeder”and warm rain mechanisms (Medina et al.,2007;McMurdie et al.,2018).Therefore,detailed studies of RMAF can improve our physical knowledge of orographic precipitation as well as our ability to accurately simulate and predict this phenomenon.

    So far,the underlying physics of RMAF is not entirely clear.Garvert et al.(2007) found that the RMAF coincided with the enhanced updraft associated with gravity wave activity.It was suggested that the terrain enhanced the middlelevel updraft within stratiform precipitation and therefore affected RMAF.However,these previous studies have generally been based on several ground-based observation experiments,which were focused on the west coast of North America.Also,RMAF was previously thought to be related to the activities of baroclinic systems,due to the lack of observations at lower latitudes.Although McMurdie et al.(2018)pointed out that spaceborne radar can be used to study RMAF precipitation,there is currently no quantitative criteria for identifying RMAF.In this manuscript,using fifteen years of orbital precipitation data from the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) Precipitation Radar (PR),we first establish a quantitative identification method for the RMAF structure within radar echoes.We then reveal the global distribution of RMAF frequency and its relation to terrain elevation,and finally further investigate the differences in the vertical structure and microphysical processes between precipitation systems with and without RMAF.

    2.Data and Methods

    2.1.TRMM 2A25 product

    TRMM PR is the first space-borne Ku-band (13.8 GHz) meteorological radar,with a geographic coverage of 38°S to 38°N and 15 orbits per day.PR has a swath width of 220 km and a sensitivity of~17 dB

    Z

    ,which corresponds to a rain rate of 0.4?0.5 mm h(Nuijens et al.,2009).We used the TRMM PR orbital product 2A25 Version 7 (V7)from 1998 to 2013,which provides three-dimensional precipitation information from 20 km down to the surface with a horizontal resolution of 4.3 km (5 km after an orbit boost in August 2001) and a vertical resolution of 250 m.We also used corrected reflectivity profiles,rain-rate profiles,rain type,and FzH from the 2A25 V7 product (Awaka et al.,1997).Specifically,the FzH was estimated from a climatological data set of sea level temperatures in TRMM PR Level-2 products (Awaka et al.,2009);noting that the actual FzH within convective clouds would be higher due to strong updrafts.Consistent with previous studies (e.g.,Chen and Fu,2018),the echo top height in TRMM PR pixels was defined as the highest height with three consecutive layers greater than 17 dB

    Z

    .Precipitating pixels were identified as those with a near-surface rain rate greater than 0.4 mm h.

    The environmental information used in case studies was from the fifth-generation European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) atmospheric reanalysis data set (ERA5).ERA5 data was provided on a horizontal resolution of 0.25×0.25 degrees and a vertical resolution of 37 pressure levels.

    In addition,we also used Digital Elevation Model(DEM) data provided by the National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC),with a horizontal resolution of 1/30th of a degree in longitude/latitude (~3 km).The NGDC DEM data is available from the US Geological Survey (www.ngdc.noaa.gov).

    2.2.RMAF identification

    RMAF was previously known as the secondary reflectivity maximum aloft in the reflectivity profiles of stratiform precipitation,which usually occurs 1.5—2.5 km above FzH(Houze and Medina,2005;McMurdie et al.,2018).However,the details of RMAF within convective precipitation are still unknown.Despite several reports confirming the existence of RMAF (Kingsmill et al.,2006;Zagrodnik et al.,2019),there is currently no quantitative identification criteria for RMAF.Therefore,the first step in this study was to develop an identification procedure based on radar echoes,as follows:

    1.This method is applied on reflectivity profiles of near-surface liquid precipitation with non-warm rain process.

    2.RMAF occurs at a certain height between echo top height and FzH.

    3.The echoes near the RMAF are all greater than 17 dB

    Z

    .4.There are three consecutive layers with reflectivity(

    Z

    ) at least 1 dB

    Z

    larger than the lower layer starting from the RMAF layer.Supposing RMAF layer is the

    i

    -th layer,then

    Z

    (

    i

    ) >

    Z

    (

    i

    +1)+1 dB

    Z

    ;

    Z

    (

    i

    ?1) >

    Z

    (

    i

    )+1 dB

    Z

    ;

    Z

    (

    i

    ?2) >

    Z

    (

    i

    ?1)+1 dB

    Z

    ,where i increases with decreasing height.5.If there were consecutive multiple layers that meet the four criteria above,the lowest layer would be identified as RMAF.That means

    Z

    (

    i

    +1) ≤

    Z

    (

    i

    +2)+1 dB

    Z

    .We applied this identification method to all precipitation profiles in the TRMM 2A25 dataset for 1998—2013.Those meeting the above criteria were recorded as RMAF precipitation events;other liquid,non-warm-rain precipitation events were recorded as NRMAF (non-RMAF) precipitation.In total,there were 2,736,225 RMAF events and 854,622,978 NRMAF events,respectively.Specifically,the 1 dB

    Z

    threshold in the fifth criteria did not significantly affect our results (see Fig.S1 and S2 in the supplementary file).A contoured frequency by altitude diagram (CFAD) analysis of radar reflectivity provides a good representation of the structural properties of precipitation,and has been used in numerous studies (e.g.,Yuter and Houze,1995;Zhang et al.,2020).Figure 1 shows the CFAD distributions of Kuband reflectivity for RMAF and NRMAF precipitation with an FzH between 4 ± 0.125 km independent of their locations.There were a total of~ 47 million NRMAF pixels and 163 thousand RMAF pixels used in Fig.1.Each CFAD was normalized by its overall maximum at a horizontal interval of 1 dB

    Z

    and a vertical interval of 0.25 km.Specifically these maximums are 3,330,827 and 19,994 for NRMAF and RMAF precipitation types,respectively.An outward protrusion at~6 km can be clearly seen in the CFAD for RMAF precipitation,whereas it is absent for NRMAF precipitation,which helps validate our identification criteria.The different characteristics of RMAF and NRMAF precipitation are discussed further in the next section.

    Fig.1.Contoured frequency by altitude diagrams of Ku-band reflectivity for (a) RMAF and (b) NRMAF precipitation with FzH between 3.875 and 4.125 km,based on TRMM PR data for 1998—2013.

    3.Results

    3.1.Case studies

    The case studies can serve as a good foundation for further statistical studies.Since previous studies of RMAF precipitation focused on the stratiform variety,we also showed two differing demonstrations of stratiform events.For purposes of contrast and comparison,these include a NRMAF event and a RMAF event,both of which occurred in East China.

    For stratiform precipitation without RMAF structure,the vertical air motions in the lower and upper layers are downdrafts,while those that occur in the middle layers are updrafts;the peak of the updraft appears around the FzH(Houze et al.,1997).A typical NRMAF stratiform event was selected to characterize the above theory.It occurred on the North China Plain at 0105 UTC (0905 LST) 7 September 2000 and the underlying surface height was below 200 m(Fig.2a).The precipitation pixels detected by TRMM PR were almost all classified as stratiform pixels without RMAF structure (Fig.2b).Since the near-surface echo of TRMM PR is vulnerable to surface clutter,we present the vertical cross-section of Ku-band reflectivity from 2?10 km along the AB line in Fig.2a.In this event,the FzH (0°C layer) was about 4 km high and there existed a significant echo peak near the FzH,which indicates the bright band;the reflectivity decreased significantly with increasing height above the bright band (Fig.2c).Using ERA5 reanalysis data and data merging method (nearest point),we calculated the average vertical velocity profile of stratiform pixels within this event (Fig.2d).The updraft existed between 3.5?7.5 km with a peak updraft velocity of 0.15 Pa sat a height of 4?6 km,which was consistent with the stratiform precipitation structure proposed by Houze et al.(1997).

    Fig.2.Horizontal distributions of near-surface rain rate (a) and rain type (b),vertical cross section of Ku-band reflectivity along the AB line (c),and average vertical velocity of stratiform pixels (d) for a NRMAF case occurred at 0105 UTC (0905 LST) 7 September 2000.The dashed lines in Fig.2c indicate the 0°C and ?15°C isotherms.The precipitation information was derived from TRMM PR,while the environmental information was derived from ERA5.The grayscale contours in Fig.2a indicates the elevation.The dashed line in Fig.2c indicates the FzH from TRMM 2A25.

    The RMAF precipitation event occurred at 2204 UTC 7 June (0604 LST 8 June) 2000 near the junction of North China Plain and the Qinling Mountains where the underlying surface height was 0.2 to 1 km (Fig.3a).The precipitation pixels detected by TRMM PR were almost all stratiform pixels,in which 37 pixels were associated with a significant RMAF structure (Fig.3b).The vertical cross-section along the CD line showed that the FzH of this case also appeared around 4 km (Fig.3c).There existed yet another reflectivity peak at 1.5?3 km above the bright band around FzH,indicating the existence of RMAF structure.The atmospheric temperature at the top of the RMAF layer was around ?15°C,corresponding to an area highly prone to aggregation processes (Houze and Medina,2005).Compared with the NRMAF event,the low-level downdraft was weaker and the middle-level updraft was higher and stronger within this event (Fig.3d).The peak of updraft was around 0.4 Pa sat the height of 5.5 to 7.5 km,significantly higher than at the FzH level,which suggests that it was caused by the uplift of the underlying surface.The stronger and more elevated middle-level updraft holds a large number of aggregating ice particles around ?15°C,thus forming the RMAF structure.

    3.2.Orographic impact on RMAF frequency

    Previous studies have pointed out the close relationship between RMAF and orographic lifting (McMurdie et al.,2018).However,quantitative statistics on this correlation are still lacking.Figure 4b?d shows the global distributions of RMAF frequency over the middle and lower latitudes on a 1° × 1° grid,based on the TRMM PR dataset for 1998—2013.The total number of samples for all precipitation cases,stratiform-only precipitation,and convectiveonly precipitation are around 855 million,688 million,and 166 million,respectively.The total number of RMAF samples for all precipitation cases,stratiform-only,and convective-only precipitation are around 2.72 million,2.10 million,and 605 thousand,respectively (the same in the following figures).The RMAF frequency is calculated as the percentage of RMAF samples compared to the total samples at each 1° × 1° grid.

    Fig.3.The same as Fig.2,but for a RMAF case occurred at 2204 UTC 7 June (0604 LST 8 June) 2000.The blue line in Fig.3d indicates the average vertical velocity of the RMAF pixels in Fig.3c.

    Fig.4.Spatial distributions of elevation (a) and the RMAF frequency (%) for (b) all,(c) stratiform and (d)convective precipitation events in the TRMM PR dataset for 1998?2013.

    The distribution characteristics of the RMAF frequency for all precipitation cases,stratiform-only,and convective-only precipitation are consistent,but do reveal two distinct features.The first and most prominent feature is that the RMAF frequency over land was higher than that over the ocean,and further more exhibited a direct relationship between altitude and RMAF frequency.In the Tibetan Plateau,Iranian Plateau and Andes region,RMAF precipitation can account for more than 2% of all precipitation cases,while the proportion of RMAF precipitation over the ocean generally accounts for less than 0.6%.This result supports the aforementioned relationship between RMAF and terrain elevation.

    The second distinct feature is that the proportion of RMAF precipitation at high latitudes was found to be higher than that at lower latitudes.For example,in oceanic regions the RMAF frequency near the equator was around 0.2%,while at latitudes around 30°N or 30°S,RMAF occurred nearly twice as often at almost 0.4%.We suggest that this feature is linked to lower FzH in higher latitudes.Future r studies concerning the relationship between FzH and RMAF frequency are warranted.

    In addition,the RMAF frequency of stratiform precipitation reaches 0.4% over the Central African region near the equator (Fig.4b),indicating the RMAF is not necessarily related to baroclinic activity.

    The causes of RMAF within stratiform and convective precipitation are dissimilar due to differences regarding their internal structure.As described by Houze (1997),the air motions in stratiform precipitation can be divided into three layers;the upper and lower layers,which are divergent,and the middle layer,which is convergent.This tends to explain the presence of weak updrafts in the middle layers of stratiform precipitation (above FzH),which was thought to be the trigger of RMAF in many studies (e.g.,Medina et al.,2007).Therefore,RMAF usually appears above the middle-layer updraft where numerous ice-phase particles aggregate.

    When ice particles fall to within about 2.5 km of the FzH,aggregation processes can occur and alter the precipitation particle spectrum towards fewer numbers of larger hydrometeors,which significantly increases the radar echo(Houze,2014).However,the original updraft within stratiform precipitation is usually too weak to support enough aggregation and justify the existence of RMAF.Orographic lifting can enhance the middle-layer updraft,which is conducive to the aggregation process and therefore RMAF.The RMAF frequency of stratiform precipitation shows a clear increasing trend with increasing elevation (Fig.5a).On the other hand,the increase in FzH inhibits the propagation of surface disturbances to the middle layer,so the RMAF frequency is reduced with increasing FzH (Fig.5b).

    The vertical air motions in convective precipitation are divided into two layers:convergence in the lower-middle layers and divergence in the upper layer (Houze,1997).Thus,there is a strong updraft in the lower-middle layers of convective precipitation.The ice particles within convective precipitation may also aggregate at a certain height and form RMAF under the influence of the updraft.For the same reason as stratiform precipitation,the RMAF frequency of convective precipitation increases with elevation but at a smaller rate (Fig.5a).

    In addition,the impact of FzH on the RMAF frequency within convective precipitation is different from that within a stratiform precipitation regime (Fig.5b).The relationship between RMAF frequency and FzH for convective precipitation shows a bimodal structure.The RMAF frequency within convective precipitation reaches a local maximum when FzH is around 4.2 km.The reason for this phenomenon is still unknown,although it may be that insufficient surface heating under low-FzH conditions limits the strength of the updraft within convective precipitation.

    3.3.RMAF height

    Previous studies have shown that RMAF usually occurs 1.5—2.5 km above FzH in stratiform precipitation (Houze and Medina,2005;Medina et al.,2007;Zagrodnik et al.,2019).In light of the strong dependence of RMAF height on FzH,we analyzed the probability distribution function(PDF) of FzH (Fig.6a—c).The PDFs of FzH are unimodal,with a peak at about 4.9 km,and are characterized by negative skewness;less than 5% of precipitation cases correspond to an FzH higher than 5.4 km.The FzH of convective precipitation was higher than that of stratiform precipitation (Fig.6b?c),which is related to the higher proportion of convective precipitation occurring at low latitudes than at mid—high latitudes.The FzH of stratiform precipitation with RMAF was slightly lower than that without RMAF (Fig.6b),consistent with a decrease in RMAF frequency with increasing FzH (Fig.5b).

    Fig.5.Relationship between (a) RMAF frequency and terrain elevation,and (b) RMAF frequency and FzH for all(black line),stratiform (dashed blue line),and convective (dashed red line) precipitation events.The spacing of the xaxis is 0.25 km for both panels.

    Fig.6.PDFs of (a—c) FzH and (d—f) RMAF height ? FzH for RMAF precipitation in all cases (left panels),for stratiform precipitation (middle panels),and for convective precipitation (right panels) derived from the TRMM PR dataset for 1998—2013.The black dots in (a—c) indicate the FzH PDFs for NRMAF precipitation.The dashed lines in (d—f) indicate the distribution mean.The spacings of the x-axis are 0.25 km and 0.1 km for panels a?c and d?f,respectively.

    The PDFs of RMAF height -FzH are shown in Fig.6df.The RMAF height is mostly distributed in the range 0.25 to 3 km above FzH (Fig.6d).The average RMAF height was 1.52,1.35,and 2.01 km above FzH for all,stratiform,and convective precipitation,respectively (Fig.6d—f).These values,based on multi-year satellite observations,are lower than the RMAF height suggested by Houze and Medina(2005).Empirical evidence indicates that aggregation occurs at ambient temperatures of 0°C to~ ?15°C (Hobbs,1974),which corresponds to the height of 0 km to~ 3.5 km above FzH.Thus,it is suggested that the main microphysical process of RMAF should be the aggregation process.

    We also analyzed the relationships between RMAF height and ice layer depth (echo top height -FzH),and between RMAF height and elevation (Fig.7).There was a clear positive correlation between RMAF height and ice layer depth which was independent of the precipitation type(Fig.7a?c).With an increase of ice layer depth from 1 km to 9 km,the median RMAF height increases significantly from 0.5 km to 3.5 km above FzH (Fig.7a?c),which corresponds to the main distribution interval of RMAF height(Fig.6d).The small fluctuations in Figure 7a?c may be a consequence of the small ice layer depth intervals that were used.

    In contrast,upon increasing the elevation from 0 to 2.5 km,the median RMAF height gradually decreases from 1.25 km to 1.0 km above FzH (Fig.7d).This may be related to the tendency for terrain to“squeeze”the moisture out and reduce the precipitation depth,as precipitation which occurs over the plains tends to be deeper than over the adjacent slope regions (Fu et al.,2018).Such orographic squeezing is more profound in convective precipitation (Fig.7f) than in stratiform precipitation (Fig.7e).

    3.4.Precipitation structures

    The vertical structure of precipitation reflects both the dynamic and microphysical processes of precipitation droplets (Zipser and Lutz,1994;Li et al.,2019).The existence of RMAF is a newly discovered and less conventional characteristic describing the vertical structure of precipitation.In this section,we focus on its impact upon several common precipitation parameters in order to better understand RMAF precipitation.

    Fig.7.Relationships between (a—c) RMAF height ? FzH and ice layer depth,and (d—f) RMAF height ? FzH and elevation within all,stratiform and convective precipitations.In each panel,the red line indicates the median and the blue lines indicate the 25th and 75th percentiles,respectively.

    The PDFs of near-surface rain rate for RMAF and NRMAF precipitation are shown in Fig.8a?c.Considering the sensitivity of TRMM PR (0.4?0.5 mm h;Nuijens et al.,2009),only precipitation events having a near-surface rain rate exceeding 0.4 mm hwere included in our analysis.For all precipitation events (Fig.8a),the PDF of RMAF decreases with increasing near-surface rain rate;the peak value at 0.4 mm his~5.3%.In contrast,the PDF of NRMAF has a unimodal distribution peaking at 1.05 mm hwith a value of~3.6%.This evidence suggests that the mean near-surface rain rate for RMAF precipitation is less than that for NRMAF precipitation.

    The PDFs of the near-surface rain rate for stratiform precipitation (Fig.8b) are similar to those for all precipitation cases in both their distribution modes and peak rain rates.The peak values are~6.1% and~4.3% for RMAF and NRMAF precipitation,respectively.For convective precipitation (Fig.8c),the PDFs are unimodal for both RMAF and NRMAF precipitation.The PDF of RMAF precipitation peaks at 3.2 mm hwith a value of 3.2%,whereas that of NRMAF precipitation peaks at 7 mm hwith a value of 3.9%.

    The PDFs of echo top height are similarly presented in Fig.8d?f.The PDFs for both RMAF and NRMAF precipitation show a quasi-normal distribution.For all RMAF precipitation cases,the peaks are at 7.5 km having a value of around 4.5%,whereas that peaks at 5.5 km have a value of 7% for all NRMAF precipitation (Fig.8d).It follows that the echo top height of convective precipitation is on average higher than that of stratiform precipitation (Fig.8e,f),while the differences between the PDFs of RMAF and NRMAF precipitation seems to be less affected by rain type.

    In conclusion,the results shown in Fig.8 indicate that the near-surface rain rate was suppressed by the existence of RMAF whereas the echo top height was promoted.

    For detailed knowledge of the impact of the RMAF structure on precipitation microphysical processes,we carried out CFAD analysis on the Ku-band reflectivity profiles of RMAF and NRMAF precipitation.Each CFAD was normalized by its overall maximum at a horizontal interval of 1 dB

    Z

    and a vertical interval of 0.25 km.Specifically,the maximums are around 277 thousand,53.8 million,46.6 thousand,and 8.57 million for Fig.9a?d,respectively.As RMAF height is directly related to FzH,the zero point on the

    y

    -axis indicates the FzH.Precipitation droplets above FzH are mainly ice,whereas they are mainly liquid below FzH.

    The characteristics of near-surface droplets in stratiform precipitation mainly depend on the ice processes,therefore the reflectivity remains constant or slightly decreases(due to evaporation) with decreasing height below FzH(Fig.9a,b).There is a distinct outward protrusion above FzH in the CFAD for stratiform precipitation with RMAF,which indicates the average RMAF height (Fig.9a).Compared with NRMAF precipitation (Fig.9b),the CFAD for stratiform precipitation with RMAF is more concentrated in the area above FzH,and the reflectivity is weaker below FzH (Fig.9a),indicating the RMAF structure is not conducive to the downward propagation of ice particles.

    Fig.8.PDFs of (a—c) near-surface rain rate and (d—f) echo top height in RMAF (blue curves) and NRMAF (red curves)precipitation,derived fromTRMM PR for 1998—2013.The dashed lines indicate the mean values of rain rate and echo top height.The spacing of the x-axis for panels a?c is constant in Log coordinate [?lg?=0.1],while the spacing for panels d?f is 0.25 km.

    For convective precipitation (Fig.9c,d),the reflectivity increases significantly with decreasing height due to the collision—coalescence process below FzH.This makes sense since there is usually a strong updraft and plentiful water vapor in the lower layers.By no means does this imply that ice processes are not important in convective precipitation.On the contrary,RMAF within the ice layer can also limit the downward propagation of particles in convective precipitation,resulting in weaker reflectivity below FzH than in NRMAF precipitation.Due to the accumulation of ice droplets above the RMAF height,the reflectivity is large and the echo top is high.

    A notable phenomenon is that the outward protrusion in the outer regions of the convective RMAF precipitation is clearly lower than the average RMAF height (Fig.9c).We think the protrusion here is more likely to be the result of the melting process,which is likely attributed to the lifting of FzH by intense updrafts within the convective cloud,rather than the aggregation of ice droplets,and therefore should not be identified as RMAF.Taking this into consideration,the actual RMAF frequency of convective precipitation would be lower than our results.

    Figure 10 shows the two-dimensional probability distributions of near-surface rain rate for precipitation with and without RMAF.To better analyze the impact of echo top height on rain rate,these distributions were normalized by the column maximums.With an increased echo top height,the mode of rain rate for RMAF precipitation is maintained at around 0.4 mm h,equivalent to the minimum effective value of rain rate (Fig.10a).In contrast,the mode of NRMAF precipitation increases from 1 mm hto 10 mm hwith an increase in echo top height from 3 km to 12 km (Fig.10d).Compared with stratiform precipitation (Fig.10b,e),the rate of increase of rain rate with echo top height was greater for convective precipitation (Fig.10c,f).In addition,the rate of increase was significantly smaller for convective precipitation with RMAF (Fig.10c) than that without RMAF(Fig.8f).As Hamada et al.(2015) pointed out,the tallest storms do not necessarily produce the largest rainfall rates;the existence of the RMAF structure is one important reason why this may be the case.

    4.Conclusion and Discussion

    Fig.9.CFADs of Ku-band reflectivity normalized by FzH for (a—b) stratiform and (c—d) convective precipitation,derived from TRMM PR for 1998—2013.FzH is indicated by the zero point on y-axis.The dashed lines indicate the average RMAF height.

    To better understand the impacts of RMAF structure on precipitation,we established a quantitative identification method for RMAF based on TRMM PR reflectivity profiles.Then,using TRMM 2A25 data from 1998 to 2013 and NGDC topology data,we investigated the relationships between RMAF frequency and terrain elevation,RMAF height,and the structure of RMAF precipitation.The main conclusions of this study are as follows.

    The RMAF structure in reflectivity profiles can be effectively identified using our method.RMAF exists in both stratiform precipitation and convective precipitation regimes.Global distribution patterns show that RMAF frequency is not strongly affected by rain type.For the period of study,the RMAF frequency over land was higher than it was over the ocean.It is further noted that over land,the higher the elevation the higher the RMAF frequency.RMAF is not necessarily related to the activities of baroclinic systems since RMAF precipitation can occur in equatorial regions.Further analysis suggests that orographic lifting can enhance the middle-layer updraft in stratiform precipitation or the mid—lower layer updraft in convective precipitation,which is conducive to aggregation process and the occurrence of RMAF.RMAF frequency was lower in the lower latitudes than in the mid-latitudes due to the higher FzH,which inhibits the propagation of surface disturbances to the middle layer.

    Fig.10.Two-dimensional probability distributions of near-surface rain rate and echo top height for RMAF (a?c) and NRMAF(d?f) precipitation,derivedfromTRMMPRfor 1998—2013.The spacing of the x-axis is 0.25 km,while the spacing of the y-axis is constantinLogcoordinate[?(lgR)=0.1].

    RMAF height was found to bein the range of 0.25?3 km above FzH.The average RMAF height within stratiform precipitation was around 1.35 km above FzH and lower than the previous observations of 1.5?2.5 km (Houze and Medina,2005),which may be due to the fact that previous observations were carried out over the western Mountains of North America.The average RMAF height within convective precipitation was around 2.01 km above FzH.In addition,RMAF height and ice layer depth exhibited a strong positive correlation.The RMAF height decreased with increasing elevation,which is consistent with the notion that elevated terrain tends to“squeeze”out the moisture and reduce the precipitation depth.

    We found that the existence of RMAF increases echo top height,whereas it suppresses the near-surface rain rate regardless of the precipitation type.The PDFs of near-surface rain rate for precipitation with and without RMAF peaked at 0.4 mm hand 1.05 mm hrespectively,while that of echo top height peaked at 7.5 km and 5.5 km.Further CFAD analysis showed that the RMAF structure enhanced the storm top height and precipitation processes above RMAF height,whereas it suppressed the downward propagation of ice particles and the near-surface rain rate.The existence of the RMAF structure could,at least,partially explain the weak linkage between the heaviest rainfall and tallest storms (Hamada et al.,2015).

    The uncertainties and limitations of this study are as follows.Since the analyses performed in this study are mainly based on pixel-level values,the RMAF structure was shownto suppress the local near-surface rain rate.However,it may actually serve to increase the surrounding precipitation when analyzed from the perspective of precipitating systems,This possibility needs to be addressed in future research..The RMAF structure in intense convective precipitation could be induced by the melting process rather than aggregation of ice particles..This phenomenon would lead to an overestimation of RMAF frequency and an underestimation of RMAF height for convective precipitation.Future studies should optimize the identification criteria for RMAF in convective precipitation.Lastly,most of our results were based on the analysis of multi-year satellite observations.In future work,we will further investigate the triggering mechanism of the RMAF structure over mountainous regions like the Himalayas,by combining radar observations and reanalysis data.

    Acknowledgements

    .This work was supported by the Special Program for Key Research and Development of Guangdong Province (Grant Number 2019B111101002),the Fundamental Research Funds for the Guangzhou Science and Technology Plan project (Grant Number 201903010036),National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Numbers 41675043,41775094,and 42005062),and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant Number 20lgpy27).

    色精品久久人妻99蜜桃| 精品午夜福利视频在线观看一区| 久久久久久久久免费视频了| 黑人巨大精品欧美一区二区mp4| av天堂在线播放| 国产精品国产av在线观看| 午夜福利在线免费观看网站| 中文字幕人妻熟女乱码| 日韩欧美在线二视频| 午夜日韩欧美国产| 乱人伦中国视频| 日本黄色日本黄色录像| 久9热在线精品视频| 久久久久精品国产欧美久久久| 热99国产精品久久久久久7| 韩国精品一区二区三区| 国产精品日韩av在线免费观看 | 亚洲aⅴ乱码一区二区在线播放 | 国产欧美日韩一区二区三| 狠狠狠狠99中文字幕| 很黄的视频免费| 国产精品电影一区二区三区| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三区在线| 亚洲精品美女久久av网站| 大香蕉久久成人网| 精品久久久久久久久久免费视频 | 中文字幕人妻丝袜制服| 国产成人欧美在线观看| 美国免费a级毛片| 自线自在国产av| 亚洲精品美女久久av网站| 欧美成狂野欧美在线观看| 免费av中文字幕在线| 欧美日韩瑟瑟在线播放| 在线观看免费视频网站a站| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人| 人妻久久中文字幕网| 好看av亚洲va欧美ⅴa在| 亚洲 国产 在线| 国产欧美日韩精品亚洲av| 青草久久国产| av国产精品久久久久影院| 精品国产超薄肉色丝袜足j| 国产蜜桃级精品一区二区三区| 亚洲一码二码三码区别大吗| www.熟女人妻精品国产| 黑人巨大精品欧美一区二区mp4| 午夜福利一区二区在线看| 69av精品久久久久久| 精品午夜福利视频在线观看一区| 成人精品一区二区免费| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| av超薄肉色丝袜交足视频| 人妻久久中文字幕网| 亚洲一区中文字幕在线| 久热这里只有精品99| 狠狠狠狠99中文字幕| 亚洲第一欧美日韩一区二区三区| 老司机深夜福利视频在线观看| 丁香欧美五月| 欧美在线一区亚洲| 国产高清国产精品国产三级| 999精品在线视频| 午夜福利,免费看| 日韩大码丰满熟妇| 日韩视频一区二区在线观看| av片东京热男人的天堂| 老司机亚洲免费影院| 在线视频色国产色| 交换朋友夫妻互换小说| 大码成人一级视频| 侵犯人妻中文字幕一二三四区| 精品久久久久久,| 国产精品爽爽va在线观看网站 | av在线天堂中文字幕 | 亚洲专区中文字幕在线| 久久人妻熟女aⅴ| 久久精品国产99精品国产亚洲性色 | 精品久久久久久成人av| 亚洲人成网站在线播放欧美日韩| 精品乱码久久久久久99久播| 如日韩欧美国产精品一区二区三区| 一级毛片女人18水好多| 免费看a级黄色片| 天天添夜夜摸| 多毛熟女@视频| 国产精品98久久久久久宅男小说| 国产av一区二区精品久久| 中亚洲国语对白在线视频| 黑人猛操日本美女一级片| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看 | 在线观看午夜福利视频| xxxhd国产人妻xxx| 午夜免费成人在线视频| 高清黄色对白视频在线免费看| 久久久久国产一级毛片高清牌| 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点 | cao死你这个sao货| 9色porny在线观看| 午夜免费成人在线视频| 一级,二级,三级黄色视频| 在线播放国产精品三级| 亚洲欧美精品综合一区二区三区| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看| 久久精品国产99精品国产亚洲性色 | 麻豆一二三区av精品| 韩国精品一区二区三区| 国产亚洲精品久久久久5区| 中出人妻视频一区二区| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸 | 免费av中文字幕在线| 久久香蕉精品热| 88av欧美| 99在线视频只有这里精品首页| 国产精品野战在线观看 | 成人18禁在线播放| 好男人电影高清在线观看| 黄色视频,在线免费观看| e午夜精品久久久久久久| 老司机深夜福利视频在线观看| 日本 av在线| 午夜福利在线观看吧| 亚洲精品国产色婷婷电影| 欧美成人午夜精品| 久久久国产精品麻豆| 国产单亲对白刺激| 国产无遮挡羞羞视频在线观看| 欧美日本中文国产一区发布| 亚洲成a人片在线一区二区| 757午夜福利合集在线观看| 精品人妻在线不人妻| 亚洲人成电影观看| 亚洲国产欧美网| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 亚洲五月天丁香| 丰满迷人的少妇在线观看| 日本免费一区二区三区高清不卡 | 精品久久久久久电影网| 9热在线视频观看99| 欧美午夜高清在线| 午夜老司机福利片| 水蜜桃什么品种好| 91精品三级在线观看| 日韩一卡2卡3卡4卡2021年| 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影 | av超薄肉色丝袜交足视频| 亚洲在线自拍视频| 18禁观看日本| 久久久久久久久久久久大奶| 丁香六月欧美| 午夜a级毛片| 18禁裸乳无遮挡免费网站照片 | 免费在线观看黄色视频的| 99国产精品99久久久久| avwww免费| 制服诱惑二区| 国产熟女xx| 午夜福利欧美成人| 久9热在线精品视频| 真人做人爱边吃奶动态| 欧美一区二区精品小视频在线| 久久精品国产亚洲av香蕉五月| 欧美精品亚洲一区二区| 国产一区二区三区视频了| 91精品三级在线观看| 久久久久九九精品影院| 午夜久久久在线观看| 黑人操中国人逼视频| 黄网站色视频无遮挡免费观看| 国产成人欧美| 免费高清视频大片| 国产精品偷伦视频观看了| 欧美大码av| 欧美成人午夜精品| 欧美激情 高清一区二区三区| 最近最新中文字幕大全免费视频| aaaaa片日本免费| 亚洲欧美日韩高清在线视频| 日韩精品中文字幕看吧| 男人舔女人的私密视频| 日本精品一区二区三区蜜桃| 这个男人来自地球电影免费观看| 国产激情久久老熟女| 日韩国内少妇激情av| 亚洲少妇的诱惑av| 国产三级黄色录像| 黄片大片在线免费观看| 日本三级黄在线观看| 亚洲精品中文字幕在线视频| 国产av一区二区精品久久| 久久久久久久久久久久大奶| 亚洲欧美精品综合久久99| 亚洲色图综合在线观看| 女同久久另类99精品国产91| 女生性感内裤真人,穿戴方法视频| 欧美丝袜亚洲另类 | 女人被躁到高潮嗷嗷叫费观| 久久久久久久久久久久大奶| 精品久久久精品久久久| 男女床上黄色一级片免费看| 午夜成年电影在线免费观看| 麻豆久久精品国产亚洲av | 国产精品亚洲一级av第二区| 丝袜美腿诱惑在线| 日韩大尺度精品在线看网址 | 亚洲国产精品一区二区三区在线| 亚洲色图综合在线观看| 国产91精品成人一区二区三区| 免费在线观看黄色视频的| 亚洲午夜精品一区,二区,三区| 国产午夜精品久久久久久| 久久精品国产99精品国产亚洲性色 | 国产伦一二天堂av在线观看| 人人妻人人爽人人添夜夜欢视频| 成人三级做爰电影| 精品人妻1区二区| 亚洲人成电影观看| 老司机在亚洲福利影院| 大陆偷拍与自拍| 久久国产精品人妻蜜桃| 在线视频色国产色| 国产精品秋霞免费鲁丝片| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一出视频| 国产精品九九99| av网站在线播放免费| 麻豆久久精品国产亚洲av | 国产成人欧美| 18禁裸乳无遮挡免费网站照片 | av网站在线播放免费| ponron亚洲| 久久99一区二区三区| 日韩大尺度精品在线看网址 | 久久精品91无色码中文字幕| 一本大道久久a久久精品| 亚洲熟妇中文字幕五十中出 | 亚洲男人天堂网一区| 亚洲成国产人片在线观看| 亚洲成人免费电影在线观看| 69av精品久久久久久| 91精品国产国语对白视频| 亚洲国产毛片av蜜桃av| 别揉我奶头~嗯~啊~动态视频| 757午夜福利合集在线观看| 19禁男女啪啪无遮挡网站| 多毛熟女@视频| 男女午夜视频在线观看| 日本一区二区免费在线视频| 亚洲成人免费电影在线观看| 日韩人妻精品一区2区三区| 精品高清国产在线一区| 男女床上黄色一级片免费看| 国产精品一区二区在线不卡| 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频| 日本vs欧美在线观看视频| 亚洲三区欧美一区| 啪啪无遮挡十八禁网站| 国产成+人综合+亚洲专区| 88av欧美| 午夜成年电影在线免费观看| 99re在线观看精品视频| 首页视频小说图片口味搜索| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看 | 久久国产乱子伦精品免费另类| 真人一进一出gif抽搐免费| 国产乱人伦免费视频| 成人亚洲精品一区在线观看| 可以在线观看毛片的网站| av在线播放免费不卡| 日本一区二区免费在线视频| 丝袜在线中文字幕| 国产色视频综合| 欧美精品啪啪一区二区三区| 琪琪午夜伦伦电影理论片6080| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 桃色一区二区三区在线观看| 婷婷精品国产亚洲av在线| 欧美日韩视频精品一区| 久久香蕉精品热| 亚洲一码二码三码区别大吗| 不卡av一区二区三区| 亚洲精品国产精品久久久不卡| 搡老乐熟女国产| 亚洲国产看品久久| 亚洲成国产人片在线观看| 男人舔女人的私密视频| 亚洲人成电影免费在线| 少妇粗大呻吟视频| 久9热在线精品视频| 麻豆成人av在线观看| 免费观看人在逋| 成人精品一区二区免费| av有码第一页| 人妻丰满熟妇av一区二区三区| 日韩欧美一区二区三区在线观看| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看| 巨乳人妻的诱惑在线观看| 免费在线观看亚洲国产| 久久欧美精品欧美久久欧美| 女警被强在线播放| 999久久久国产精品视频| 十八禁人妻一区二区| 日韩免费高清中文字幕av| 欧美日韩中文字幕国产精品一区二区三区 | e午夜精品久久久久久久| 国产精品综合久久久久久久免费 | 亚洲免费av在线视频| 国产高清视频在线播放一区| 国产精品偷伦视频观看了| 国产精品免费视频内射| av超薄肉色丝袜交足视频| 亚洲va日本ⅴa欧美va伊人久久| 国产午夜精品久久久久久| 国产在线精品亚洲第一网站| 国产免费av片在线观看野外av| 精品日产1卡2卡| 久久人人97超碰香蕉20202| 波多野结衣一区麻豆| 亚洲五月色婷婷综合| 99国产精品一区二区蜜桃av| 久久精品亚洲熟妇少妇任你| 中文字幕人妻丝袜制服| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看 | 精品一区二区三区av网在线观看| 亚洲视频免费观看视频| 91大片在线观看| av欧美777| www国产在线视频色| 国产av在哪里看| 欧美日韩福利视频一区二区| 黄色 视频免费看| 嫁个100分男人电影在线观看| 国产精品一区二区精品视频观看| 亚洲黑人精品在线| 亚洲专区国产一区二区| 最近最新免费中文字幕在线| 女性被躁到高潮视频| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 99久久99久久久精品蜜桃| 五月开心婷婷网| 亚洲中文日韩欧美视频| 欧美日本中文国产一区发布| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频 | 国产极品粉嫩免费观看在线| 少妇粗大呻吟视频| 人人妻人人澡人人看| 身体一侧抽搐| 在线观看免费午夜福利视频| 国产精品综合久久久久久久免费 | 久久久久国产一级毛片高清牌| 久久人人精品亚洲av| 亚洲成a人片在线一区二区| 久久久久亚洲av毛片大全| 99香蕉大伊视频| 亚洲精品在线美女| 亚洲一卡2卡3卡4卡5卡精品中文| 每晚都被弄得嗷嗷叫到高潮| 一级作爱视频免费观看| ponron亚洲| 久99久视频精品免费| 午夜视频精品福利| 久久久精品国产亚洲av高清涩受| 国产亚洲精品第一综合不卡| 国产亚洲欧美98| 乱人伦中国视频| 日韩一卡2卡3卡4卡2021年| 久久久久亚洲av毛片大全| 国产麻豆69| 国产高清视频在线播放一区| 午夜老司机福利片| 亚洲美女黄片视频| 久久精品国产99精品国产亚洲性色 | 老司机靠b影院| 真人一进一出gif抽搐免费| 老汉色∧v一级毛片| 久久性视频一级片| 色哟哟哟哟哟哟| 成年人黄色毛片网站| 国产无遮挡羞羞视频在线观看| 成年人黄色毛片网站| 亚洲精品中文字幕在线视频| 日本一区二区免费在线视频| 免费看a级黄色片| 首页视频小说图片口味搜索| 国产不卡一卡二| 精品午夜福利视频在线观看一区| 婷婷六月久久综合丁香| 国产在线精品亚洲第一网站| 女生性感内裤真人,穿戴方法视频| 可以在线观看毛片的网站| 国产亚洲欧美在线一区二区| 精品卡一卡二卡四卡免费| 大陆偷拍与自拍| 又黄又粗又硬又大视频| 久久久久久久精品吃奶| 在线观看66精品国产| 日韩大码丰满熟妇| 99久久久亚洲精品蜜臀av| 国产极品粉嫩免费观看在线| 午夜影院日韩av| 老司机午夜福利在线观看视频| 国产又色又爽无遮挡免费看| 成人影院久久| 午夜福利,免费看| 免费观看精品视频网站| 国产亚洲欧美在线一区二区| 精品国产国语对白av| 国产一区二区三区在线臀色熟女 | 嫁个100分男人电影在线观看| 亚洲 欧美 日韩 在线 免费| 免费在线观看黄色视频的| 欧美亚洲日本最大视频资源| 免费看十八禁软件| 一本大道久久a久久精品| 欧美日韩国产mv在线观看视频| 色哟哟哟哟哟哟| 久久人妻熟女aⅴ| 国产成人啪精品午夜网站| 久久精品国产亚洲av高清一级| 成人18禁在线播放| 久久人人精品亚洲av| 99香蕉大伊视频| 又紧又爽又黄一区二区| 国产伦人伦偷精品视频| 欧美最黄视频在线播放免费 | 久久久水蜜桃国产精品网| 黑人猛操日本美女一级片| 男女午夜视频在线观看| 成人黄色视频免费在线看| 国产精品1区2区在线观看.| 午夜亚洲福利在线播放| 热re99久久国产66热| 亚洲视频免费观看视频| 老司机福利观看| 午夜影院日韩av| 中文字幕人妻熟女乱码| 黄网站色视频无遮挡免费观看| 久久精品亚洲av国产电影网| 97碰自拍视频| 国产精品秋霞免费鲁丝片| 波多野结衣高清无吗| 亚洲人成电影免费在线| 999久久久精品免费观看国产| 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频| 国产在线观看jvid| 老司机午夜福利在线观看视频| 日韩欧美国产一区二区入口| 热99re8久久精品国产| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三区在线| 嫁个100分男人电影在线观看| 亚洲五月色婷婷综合| 久久久久久久久久久久大奶| 不卡av一区二区三区| 黑丝袜美女国产一区| 国产熟女xx| 欧美激情高清一区二区三区| 精品国产国语对白av| 99精国产麻豆久久婷婷| 9191精品国产免费久久| 亚洲第一青青草原| 成人三级做爰电影| 精品国产一区二区三区四区第35| 亚洲成a人片在线一区二区| 亚洲三区欧美一区| 精品福利永久在线观看| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看 | av中文乱码字幕在线| 人人妻人人澡人人看| 每晚都被弄得嗷嗷叫到高潮| 欧美精品一区二区免费开放| 国产亚洲精品久久久久久毛片| 人成视频在线观看免费观看| 亚洲国产精品合色在线| 欧美激情高清一区二区三区| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区久久| av有码第一页| 丁香六月欧美| 亚洲精品国产精品久久久不卡| 国产99久久九九免费精品| 亚洲精品美女久久久久99蜜臀| 丰满迷人的少妇在线观看| 国产精品日韩av在线免费观看 | avwww免费| 淫妇啪啪啪对白视频| 大陆偷拍与自拍| 国产精品1区2区在线观看.| 久9热在线精品视频| 亚洲自拍偷在线| 级片在线观看| 美女高潮到喷水免费观看| 欧美性长视频在线观看| 午夜精品在线福利| 久久国产乱子伦精品免费另类| 正在播放国产对白刺激| 视频区欧美日本亚洲| 欧美 亚洲 国产 日韩一| 久久久久九九精品影院| 国产男靠女视频免费网站| 欧洲精品卡2卡3卡4卡5卡区| 日本黄色日本黄色录像| 老司机亚洲免费影院| 香蕉国产在线看| 久久久国产欧美日韩av| 国产人伦9x9x在线观看| 亚洲狠狠婷婷综合久久图片| 成年版毛片免费区| 在线观看免费午夜福利视频| av在线播放免费不卡| 看免费av毛片| 啦啦啦在线免费观看视频4| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人| 亚洲一区二区三区色噜噜 | 超碰97精品在线观看| 成人国语在线视频| 亚洲男人天堂网一区| 美女福利国产在线| 亚洲aⅴ乱码一区二区在线播放 | 桃色一区二区三区在线观看| 久久精品国产清高在天天线| 在线观看舔阴道视频| 国产精品 国内视频| 18禁观看日本| 黑人猛操日本美女一级片| 久久久久久久午夜电影 | 在线观看免费午夜福利视频| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜 | 国产欧美日韩综合在线一区二区| 国产不卡一卡二| av国产精品久久久久影院| 亚洲一码二码三码区别大吗| 一进一出抽搐gif免费好疼 | 成年人免费黄色播放视频| 中文字幕精品免费在线观看视频| 欧美成狂野欧美在线观看| 在线视频色国产色| 黄色怎么调成土黄色| 久久中文字幕人妻熟女| 精品国产亚洲在线| 精品久久蜜臀av无| 99在线人妻在线中文字幕| 日韩国内少妇激情av| 欧美色视频一区免费| 精品一区二区三卡| 国产1区2区3区精品| 夜夜爽天天搞| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看 | 免费高清在线观看日韩| 亚洲人成网站在线播放欧美日韩| 十分钟在线观看高清视频www| 亚洲男人天堂网一区| 不卡av一区二区三区| 久9热在线精品视频| av在线播放免费不卡| 久久国产亚洲av麻豆专区| 亚洲精华国产精华精| 大型黄色视频在线免费观看| 久久久久精品国产欧美久久久| 黄色视频,在线免费观看| 亚洲三区欧美一区| www国产在线视频色| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看| 曰老女人黄片| 久久香蕉激情| 婷婷六月久久综合丁香| 欧美日韩国产mv在线观看视频| 一区二区三区精品91| 涩涩av久久男人的天堂| 亚洲男人的天堂狠狠| av有码第一页| 国产精品亚洲一级av第二区| 欧美中文日本在线观看视频| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线| 精品久久久精品久久久| 制服诱惑二区| 久久精品aⅴ一区二区三区四区| 色播在线永久视频| 一区二区三区精品91| 国产又爽黄色视频| 99精品在免费线老司机午夜| 亚洲五月天丁香| 最好的美女福利视频网| 50天的宝宝边吃奶边哭怎么回事| 99国产精品一区二区蜜桃av| 日韩欧美国产一区二区入口| 亚洲情色 制服丝袜| 大型av网站在线播放| 波多野结衣高清无吗| 黑人欧美特级aaaaaa片| 国产av精品麻豆| 亚洲欧美日韩另类电影网站| 免费不卡黄色视频| 国产精品香港三级国产av潘金莲| 国产精品野战在线观看 | 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠躁躁| 在线播放国产精品三级| 91av网站免费观看| 亚洲专区字幕在线| 欧美日韩视频精品一区| 两个人免费观看高清视频| 91九色精品人成在线观看| 如日韩欧美国产精品一区二区三区| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜 | 亚洲人成伊人成综合网2020| 午夜福利,免费看| 手机成人av网站| 两人在一起打扑克的视频| 日本精品一区二区三区蜜桃| 午夜激情av网站| 成人国语在线视频| 欧美日本中文国产一区发布| 亚洲精品成人av观看孕妇| 欧美丝袜亚洲另类 | 99香蕉大伊视频| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三| 欧美国产精品va在线观看不卡|