池州市近10 a主要暴雨灾害及致灾性分析

统计2007-2016年池州市暴雨引发的主要灾害及次生灾害,运用冯利华_^[1]提出的灾级概念模型对其进行分级,结果表明：2007年7月10日和2016年7月3日的暴雨灾害指数均超过了6.00,灾害等级为重灾。前者的短历时强降水特征非常明显,且由于降水发生时段主要在夜间,发生地位于山区,结果导致出现山洪、山体滑坡、泥石流等灾害;后者则是由于持续性的降水造成了城市内涝、多条河流超警戒水位甚至发生溃堤。文章还基于上述原因从致灾因子和承灾体即短时强降水和地形因素两方面重点分析其致灾性,结果表明：凌晨5时前后是池州市暴雨灾害的最强致灾时段,这主要是因为此时段为短时强降水高发时段,一旦发生持续性短时强降水将会造成严重的暴雨灾害;而在空间上池州市东至县、贵池南部山区及九华山区域为暴雨灾害高发区域,其原因是东至县为喇叭口特殊地形,而其他地区多为山区,同时由于池州市位于副高西北侧,汛期西南气流输送比较强盛,通过山区地形的强迫抬升和动力抬升作用容易触发对流,产生强降水过程,造成暴雨灾害。     

四川省8·13特大泥石流灾害特点、成因与启示

2010年8月12～14日,四川省部分地区普降大到暴雨,在5.12汶川地震极重灾区的绵竹市清平乡、汶川县映秀镇和都江堰龙池镇诱发了极为严重的泥石流灾害。本次泥石流灾害表明:地震区和非地震区、震前和震后的泥石流在发育分布规律、启动条件、暴发规模、活动形式及其成灾方式和危害性等方面都具有显著的差别。通过对8.13清平乡泥石流、映秀红椿沟泥石流以及龙池泥石流的基本分析,表明8.13泥石流具有群发性、突发性、破坏性、灾害链效应等特点,同时还具有沿发震断裂呈带状分布、物源主要来自于汶川地震触发的崩滑堆积物、活动形式主要表现为"拉槽"侵蚀等显著特征。震区异常丰富的松散固体物源和极端气候所造成的局地短时强降雨是泥石流暴发的根本原因。针对汶川地震区泥石流暴发的新特点,应进一步加强对震区泥石流的防治,尤其是针对具有重大泥石流隐患的沟谷,一方面应提高设防标准,强化工程治理和专业监测预警,另一方面更应引入风险管理和控制的理念,注重"防""治"结合;"软""硬"结合;工程措施与非工程措施结合;"治理"与"管理"结合,调动全社会力量,共同防范地质灾害。     

Possible stellar asterisms carved on a protohistoric stone

Chisel marks on a stone uncovered in Rupinpiccolo protohistoric hill fort from north-eastern Italy were suggested to be a representation of the night sky (Bernardini et al. 2022 Documenta Praehistorica XLIX). The patterns of the 29 marks are analyzed here to establish if they reproduce popular stellar asterisms. Nine marks are found to match the Tail of Scorpius and five the Orion's Belt, together with Rigel and Betelgeuse. Nine marks are found in the approximate position of the Pleiades showing some match with the cluster members. On the back side, 5 marks possibly reproduce Cassiopeia. One mark slightly North of Orion cannot be identified. The 28 marks show a Pearson correlation coefficient $$(28) with stellar positions higher than 0.99 with a probability $$ of a wrong correlation lower than 0.001. Departures are about one degree, or about 7 mm, as the mean diameter of the marks, which suggests a manufacturing limitation in the charting. The fort dates $$1800–400 BCE when Scorpius and Orion showed about the same orientation at the heliacal rising. The unidentified mark challenges the whole picture. We suggest it could have been the progenitor of a failed supernova, thus offering also the possibility of a verification.