• <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).

    激情 狠狠 欧美| 久久久欧美国产精品| 99久久人妻综合| av黄色大香蕉| 国产综合懂色| 99久久人妻综合| 国产成人a区在线观看| 赤兔流量卡办理| av专区在线播放| 久久精品国产亚洲av涩爱| 国产精品.久久久| 精品人妻视频免费看| 国产av不卡久久| 国语对白做爰xxxⅹ性视频网站| 亚洲一区高清亚洲精品| 搞女人的毛片| 看非洲黑人一级黄片| or卡值多少钱| 麻豆av噜噜一区二区三区| 秋霞伦理黄片| 亚洲av中文av极速乱| 九色成人免费人妻av| 男插女下体视频免费在线播放| 亚洲美女搞黄在线观看| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看| 草草在线视频免费看| 日本爱情动作片www.在线观看| a级毛色黄片| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看| 亚洲乱码一区二区免费版| 久久久久久久午夜电影| 超碰97精品在线观看| 日韩成人伦理影院| 人人妻人人澡欧美一区二区| 99九九线精品视频在线观看视频| 啦啦啦啦在线视频资源| 国产毛片a区久久久久| 日本色播在线视频| 搡老妇女老女人老熟妇| 丝瓜视频免费看黄片| 日韩国内少妇激情av| 亚洲精品,欧美精品| 亚州av有码| 日韩欧美精品免费久久| 成人综合一区亚洲| 亚洲精品aⅴ在线观看| 亚洲精品色激情综合| 18禁裸乳无遮挡免费网站照片| 亚洲国产精品国产精品| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 我的女老师完整版在线观看| 精品一区二区三区视频在线| 免费观看精品视频网站| 国产乱人视频| 欧美日韩视频高清一区二区三区二| 人妻系列 视频| 欧美潮喷喷水| 久久久久久九九精品二区国产| 久久人人爽人人爽人人片va| 免费黄色在线免费观看| 国产伦精品一区二区三区四那| 边亲边吃奶的免费视频| 亚洲最大成人av| 乱系列少妇在线播放| 99久久精品一区二区三区| 成年女人看的毛片在线观看| xxx大片免费视频| 亚洲四区av| 亚洲在线观看片| 精品一区二区三区人妻视频| 有码 亚洲区| 亚洲成人久久爱视频| 午夜免费观看性视频| 亚洲精品aⅴ在线观看| 夫妻午夜视频| 欧美成人精品欧美一级黄| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看 | 日韩视频在线欧美| 2022亚洲国产成人精品| 两个人视频免费观看高清| 亚洲美女搞黄在线观看| 全区人妻精品视频| 久久久精品94久久精品| 久久久久久久大尺度免费视频| 亚洲最大成人中文| 国产一区二区在线观看日韩| 国产亚洲av嫩草精品影院| 国产一区有黄有色的免费视频 | 日日干狠狠操夜夜爽| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影 | 亚洲欧美精品自产自拍| 舔av片在线| 国产精品一二三区在线看| 久久久久久久久久成人| 国产一区二区在线观看日韩| 最近手机中文字幕大全| 久久久久久久久中文| 亚洲av在线观看美女高潮| av天堂中文字幕网| 97超视频在线观看视频| 青春草国产在线视频| 久久久久久久久久成人| 午夜福利高清视频| 亚洲自拍偷在线| 三级经典国产精品| 免费高清在线观看视频在线观看| 免费播放大片免费观看视频在线观看| 中文精品一卡2卡3卡4更新| 一级毛片久久久久久久久女| 国模一区二区三区四区视频| 韩国av在线不卡| 中文字幕免费在线视频6| 国产欧美日韩精品一区二区| 国产免费福利视频在线观看| 97超视频在线观看视频| 国产免费视频播放在线视频 | 国产久久久一区二区三区| 精品久久久噜噜| 内射极品少妇av片p| 最近中文字幕2019免费版| 亚洲精品久久久久久婷婷小说| 色综合亚洲欧美另类图片| 色综合站精品国产| 日日干狠狠操夜夜爽| 国产精品熟女久久久久浪| 免费黄网站久久成人精品| 看黄色毛片网站| 三级经典国产精品| 日本色播在线视频| 高清av免费在线| 国产精品久久久久久av不卡| 国产淫片久久久久久久久| 中文字幕免费在线视频6| 国产探花极品一区二区| 久久久午夜欧美精品| 视频中文字幕在线观看| 亚洲av成人精品一区久久| 22中文网久久字幕| 免费观看无遮挡的男女| 老师上课跳d突然被开到最大视频| 永久网站在线| 欧美性猛交╳xxx乱大交人| 久久久久久久大尺度免费视频| 在线a可以看的网站| 色吧在线观看| 99热这里只有是精品在线观看| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看 | 亚洲成人精品中文字幕电影| 18禁裸乳无遮挡免费网站照片| av专区在线播放| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 久久久久网色| 国产伦在线观看视频一区| 亚洲精品成人久久久久久| 久久午夜福利片| 久久久久久久久久久丰满| 高清午夜精品一区二区三区| 国产精品精品国产色婷婷| 亚洲精品乱码久久久v下载方式| 成年女人看的毛片在线观看| 91在线精品国自产拍蜜月| 日韩欧美国产在线观看| 欧美日韩在线观看h| 亚洲高清免费不卡视频| 日韩欧美一区视频在线观看 | 老女人水多毛片| 亚洲精品视频女| 色播亚洲综合网| 十八禁国产超污无遮挡网站| 3wmmmm亚洲av在线观看| 国产精品美女特级片免费视频播放器| 人妻制服诱惑在线中文字幕| 国产精品人妻久久久影院| 午夜激情福利司机影院| 免费av不卡在线播放| 又粗又硬又长又爽又黄的视频| 三级国产精品片| 三级经典国产精品| 欧美性猛交╳xxx乱大交人| 亚洲av不卡在线观看| 久久久久久久久中文| 自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇| 乱人视频在线观看| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| 国产有黄有色有爽视频| 国产黄色小视频在线观看| 天堂影院成人在线观看| 久久国产乱子免费精品| 婷婷色综合www| 免费黄频网站在线观看国产| 伦精品一区二区三区| 色视频www国产| 国产大屁股一区二区在线视频| 网址你懂的国产日韩在线| 日产精品乱码卡一卡2卡三| 色哟哟·www| 中文乱码字字幕精品一区二区三区 | 18禁在线播放成人免费| 国产69精品久久久久777片| 亚洲精品一二三| 亚洲精品久久久久久婷婷小说| 观看美女的网站| 亚洲精品456在线播放app| 久久精品熟女亚洲av麻豆精品 | 免费播放大片免费观看视频在线观看| 搡老乐熟女国产| 午夜爱爱视频在线播放| 伦精品一区二区三区| 日韩不卡一区二区三区视频在线| 亚洲高清免费不卡视频| 国产亚洲av片在线观看秒播厂 | 亚洲一级一片aⅴ在线观看| 最后的刺客免费高清国语| 成人综合一区亚洲| 国产亚洲5aaaaa淫片| 亚洲aⅴ乱码一区二区在线播放| 超碰97精品在线观看| 一个人看视频在线观看www免费| 亚洲精品自拍成人| 国产精品三级大全| 国产淫片久久久久久久久| 最新中文字幕久久久久| 日韩av免费高清视频| 在现免费观看毛片| 国产一区有黄有色的免费视频 | 国产成人免费观看mmmm| 国国产精品蜜臀av免费| 国产精品嫩草影院av在线观看| 十八禁国产超污无遮挡网站| 肉色欧美久久久久久久蜜桃 | 日本猛色少妇xxxxx猛交久久| 水蜜桃什么品种好| 午夜精品一区二区三区免费看| 99视频精品全部免费 在线| 精品人妻偷拍中文字幕| 色综合站精品国产| 熟女人妻精品中文字幕| 99热这里只有精品一区| 在线a可以看的网站| 午夜激情久久久久久久| 国产成人aa在线观看| 人妻制服诱惑在线中文字幕| 边亲边吃奶的免费视频| 一级a做视频免费观看| 丰满少妇做爰视频| 欧美 日韩 精品 国产| 麻豆成人av视频| 黄色日韩在线| 99久久中文字幕三级久久日本| 久久久久网色| 国产精品人妻久久久久久| 少妇人妻一区二区三区视频| 亚洲精品影视一区二区三区av| 最近最新中文字幕大全电影3| 国产有黄有色有爽视频| 国产亚洲91精品色在线| 成人性生交大片免费视频hd| 亚洲,欧美,日韩| 亚洲自拍偷在线| 97热精品久久久久久| 99热这里只有是精品50| 两个人的视频大全免费| 国产黄a三级三级三级人| 国产亚洲一区二区精品| 成人高潮视频无遮挡免费网站| 亚洲av免费在线观看| 五月天丁香电影| 伦精品一区二区三区| 亚洲av成人精品一二三区| 亚洲最大成人手机在线| 欧美日本视频| 黄片wwwwww| 国模一区二区三区四区视频| 久久精品熟女亚洲av麻豆精品 | 日韩制服骚丝袜av| 18禁在线无遮挡免费观看视频| 大又大粗又爽又黄少妇毛片口| av在线蜜桃| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清| 日韩一区二区三区影片| 久久久久久久久久成人| 亚洲av男天堂| 51国产日韩欧美| 亚洲丝袜综合中文字幕| 美女大奶头视频| 精品久久久精品久久久| 亚洲精品一区蜜桃| 久久久亚洲精品成人影院| 日本爱情动作片www.在线观看| 亚洲美女搞黄在线观看| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看| 亚洲欧美日韩卡通动漫| 中文字幕制服av| 亚洲性久久影院| 国产精品国产三级国产av玫瑰| 男插女下体视频免费在线播放| 我要看日韩黄色一级片| 老司机影院成人| 国产精品99久久久久久久久| 日本黄大片高清| 国产一区亚洲一区在线观看| 国产乱来视频区| 成人美女网站在线观看视频| 九九在线视频观看精品| 国产精品无大码| 嫩草影院新地址| 青春草国产在线视频| 国产成人精品福利久久| 国产av不卡久久| 免费观看性生交大片5| 亚洲不卡免费看| 自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇| 卡戴珊不雅视频在线播放| 久久精品久久久久久久性| 我的老师免费观看完整版| 国产精品爽爽va在线观看网站| 老女人水多毛片| 亚洲精品日韩av片在线观看| 午夜免费激情av| 免费看不卡的av| 蜜臀久久99精品久久宅男| 午夜亚洲福利在线播放| 99热全是精品| 亚洲av成人精品一区久久| 精品人妻视频免费看| 免费不卡的大黄色大毛片视频在线观看 | 免费观看无遮挡的男女| 狠狠精品人妻久久久久久综合| av天堂中文字幕网| 中国国产av一级| 亚洲人成网站高清观看| 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| 欧美激情在线99| 国产成人精品一,二区| 97人妻精品一区二区三区麻豆| 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站| 真实男女啪啪啪动态图| 国产 一区精品| 欧美激情在线99| 国产中年淑女户外野战色| 成人国产麻豆网| 国产精品一区www在线观看| 久久久久久久久久人人人人人人| 国产成人免费观看mmmm| 中文字幕制服av| 国产精品国产三级专区第一集| 日本一二三区视频观看| 成人亚洲精品一区在线观看 | 乱人视频在线观看| 久久久久久久久久久丰满| 久久热精品热| 国模一区二区三区四区视频| av卡一久久| 尤物成人国产欧美一区二区三区| 中文欧美无线码| 国产在视频线精品| 人人妻人人看人人澡| 国产一区二区三区av在线| 91在线精品国自产拍蜜月| 国产色爽女视频免费观看| 黄片wwwwww| 国产单亲对白刺激| 亚洲精品乱码久久久久久按摩| 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| 欧美一级a爱片免费观看看| 哪个播放器可以免费观看大片| 大香蕉97超碰在线| 三级经典国产精品| 免费观看性生交大片5| 尾随美女入室| 欧美另类一区| 免费黄网站久久成人精品| av在线蜜桃| videossex国产| 国产探花在线观看一区二区| 久久99蜜桃精品久久| 欧美成人a在线观看| 国产精品国产三级国产专区5o| 亚洲国产色片| 一个人看的www免费观看视频| 综合色av麻豆| 午夜精品一区二区三区免费看| 99久久精品热视频| 婷婷色av中文字幕| 国内精品美女久久久久久| 午夜福利视频精品| 国产淫语在线视频| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 噜噜噜噜噜久久久久久91| 亚洲美女搞黄在线观看| 国产亚洲5aaaaa淫片| 在现免费观看毛片| 欧美变态另类bdsm刘玥| 亚洲精品成人久久久久久| 一本久久精品| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添av毛片| 亚洲综合色惰| 国产淫片久久久久久久久| 高清视频免费观看一区二区 | 色综合站精品国产| 特大巨黑吊av在线直播| 精品不卡国产一区二区三区| 久久久久久久午夜电影| 韩国高清视频一区二区三区| 亚洲色图av天堂| 有码 亚洲区| 高清毛片免费看| 久久久久精品久久久久真实原创| 亚洲av免费高清在线观看| 国产午夜精品一二区理论片| 亚洲国产精品sss在线观看| 国产精品av视频在线免费观看| 国产精品熟女久久久久浪| 国产成人一区二区在线| 精品久久久久久电影网| 久久精品国产亚洲网站| 三级国产精品欧美在线观看| 国产精品久久久久久av不卡| 国产伦在线观看视频一区| 2018国产大陆天天弄谢| 亚洲不卡免费看| 美女大奶头视频| 好男人在线观看高清免费视频| 色网站视频免费| 国产高清有码在线观看视频| 国产亚洲精品av在线| 一边亲一边摸免费视频| 亚洲图色成人| 少妇人妻一区二区三区视频| 午夜激情福利司机影院| 永久网站在线| 插阴视频在线观看视频| 人妻制服诱惑在线中文字幕| 丰满人妻一区二区三区视频av| 久久久久久久国产电影| 国产精品福利在线免费观看| 日韩亚洲欧美综合| 欧美不卡视频在线免费观看| 亚洲精品影视一区二区三区av| 欧美三级亚洲精品| 一区二区三区乱码不卡18| 免费大片黄手机在线观看| 又粗又硬又长又爽又黄的视频| 国产乱来视频区| 免费av不卡在线播放| 久久午夜福利片| 国产精品1区2区在线观看.| 久久99热这里只频精品6学生| 国产亚洲精品av在线| 精品久久国产蜜桃| 日本三级黄在线观看| 国产亚洲5aaaaa淫片| 国模一区二区三区四区视频| 三级经典国产精品| 少妇猛男粗大的猛烈进出视频 | 亚洲av日韩在线播放| 午夜福利视频1000在线观看| 免费大片黄手机在线观看| 日本爱情动作片www.在线观看| 小蜜桃在线观看免费完整版高清| 少妇丰满av| 少妇熟女欧美另类| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人 | 草草在线视频免费看| 美女高潮的动态| 91aial.com中文字幕在线观看| 建设人人有责人人尽责人人享有的 | 国产精品1区2区在线观看.| 国产精品国产三级国产av玫瑰| 97在线视频观看| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| 免费不卡的大黄色大毛片视频在线观看 | 超碰97精品在线观看| 精品人妻偷拍中文字幕| 亚洲精品国产av成人精品| 久久鲁丝午夜福利片| 国产精品精品国产色婷婷| 亚洲精华国产精华液的使用体验| 有码 亚洲区| 午夜免费观看性视频| 国产乱人视频| 又爽又黄无遮挡网站| 亚洲伊人久久精品综合| 久久久精品免费免费高清| 亚洲精品久久午夜乱码| 亚洲第一区二区三区不卡| 精品欧美国产一区二区三| 日韩av在线免费看完整版不卡| 免费看av在线观看网站| 国产 亚洲一区二区三区 | 丝瓜视频免费看黄片| 久久人人爽人人爽人人片va| 国产成人一区二区在线| 亚洲综合精品二区| 蜜臀久久99精品久久宅男| 久久精品国产亚洲av天美| 亚洲av免费在线观看| 欧美日本视频| 能在线免费看毛片的网站| 久久精品人妻少妇| 久久草成人影院| 久久久久久久久久黄片| 一级毛片aaaaaa免费看小| 一级毛片电影观看| 网址你懂的国产日韩在线| 久久久色成人| 日本午夜av视频| 国产亚洲av片在线观看秒播厂 | 国产91av在线免费观看| 成人国产麻豆网| 久久久久久久国产电影| 国产午夜精品久久久久久一区二区三区| 国产麻豆成人av免费视频| 寂寞人妻少妇视频99o| 一本一本综合久久| 在线天堂最新版资源| 亚洲最大成人手机在线| 中文天堂在线官网| 免费在线观看成人毛片| 国产免费福利视频在线观看| 精品久久久精品久久久| 人体艺术视频欧美日本| 男女视频在线观看网站免费| av天堂中文字幕网| 最后的刺客免费高清国语| 插逼视频在线观看| 在线观看免费高清a一片| h日本视频在线播放| 亚洲婷婷狠狠爱综合网| 三级男女做爰猛烈吃奶摸视频| 性插视频无遮挡在线免费观看| 亚洲成人av在线免费| videossex国产| 亚洲国产高清在线一区二区三| 国产在视频线精品| 精品一区二区三区人妻视频| 水蜜桃什么品种好| 2022亚洲国产成人精品| 成人鲁丝片一二三区免费| 欧美日韩精品成人综合77777| 亚洲av电影不卡..在线观看| 精品国产三级普通话版| 国产在视频线在精品| 免费电影在线观看免费观看| 成人美女网站在线观看视频| 国产亚洲午夜精品一区二区久久 | 大话2 男鬼变身卡| 久久久久久久大尺度免费视频| 九色成人免费人妻av| 久久精品国产亚洲av涩爱| 久久久色成人| 少妇丰满av| 80岁老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 美女内射精品一级片tv| 国产精品国产三级专区第一集| videos熟女内射| 激情 狠狠 欧美| 欧美日韩综合久久久久久| 三级毛片av免费| 亚洲av男天堂| 久久久久久久久久成人| 成年人午夜在线观看视频 | 青春草国产在线视频| 丰满人妻一区二区三区视频av| 搞女人的毛片| 成人性生交大片免费视频hd| 草草在线视频免费看| 亚洲精品一二三| 国产亚洲av嫩草精品影院| 亚洲成人中文字幕在线播放| 久久这里有精品视频免费| 久久午夜福利片| av在线观看视频网站免费| 99热这里只有是精品50| 欧美zozozo另类| 22中文网久久字幕| 日日啪夜夜爽| 国产黄色小视频在线观看| 成人毛片a级毛片在线播放| 亚洲图色成人| 美女xxoo啪啪120秒动态图| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 如何舔出高潮| 色哟哟·www| 欧美日韩综合久久久久久| 成人二区视频| 色哟哟·www| 最近中文字幕2019免费版| 美女高潮的动态| 高清av免费在线| 老司机影院毛片| 干丝袜人妻中文字幕| 国产黄a三级三级三级人| 老司机影院毛片| 成人二区视频| 97在线视频观看| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 亚洲国产成人一精品久久久| 91久久精品国产一区二区三区| 亚洲国产高清在线一区二区三| 久久久久久久大尺度免费视频| 国产亚洲最大av| 国产一级毛片七仙女欲春2| 亚洲精品国产av蜜桃| 舔av片在线| 午夜福利在线观看免费完整高清在| 中文字幕免费在线视频6| 我要看日韩黄色一级片| 麻豆久久精品国产亚洲av| 久久久久久久久久久丰满| 亚洲av一区综合| 男的添女的下面高潮视频| 精品久久久久久久久久久久久| 一个人免费在线观看电影| 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪|