跳到内容
现在

灾害 · 盐河洪水

奇里索特尔附近盐河水位超过洪水警戒线；预报中的下降并不意味着警报解除

周日晚间观测到水位达18.7英尺，触发了轻度洪水警报。预报人员预计水位会短暂降至警戒线以下，随后再次达到洪水警戒水位。

文字 阅读需 5 分钟 · 17 个来源

HeyDex

原语言视频

译自英文原文。

据预报，奇里索特尔附近的盐河将在周日傍晚降至洪水警戒水位以下，随后在夜间结束前再次达到警戒水位。因此，预报中的水位下降并不意味着警报解除：河水已超过轻度洪水水位，促使国家气象局菲尼克斯分局以洪水警报取代了洪水提示。⁠1⁠2

这次警报所依据的观测数据为2026年11月1日山地标准时间下午6:30，水位18.7英尺。这比亚利桑那州吉拉县这段河流标注的18英尺洪水警戒水位高出0.7英尺。气象局在10分钟后，即下午6:40发布了警报。⁠1

18.7英尺周日下午6:30观测到的水位 1
18英尺所列洪水警戒线 1
0.7英尺该次观测高于警戒线 1

这是实际观测到的河流洪水进展，并非仅仅是预测降雨可能引发洪水。但这项测量也有局限：它只能确认下午6:30报告的河流水位，不能确定当晚其余时间的确切水位。目前尚未独立确认之后的观测数据。

联邦监测站为美国地质调查局测站09497500，即亚利桑那州奇里索特尔附近的盐河测站。河流水位是通过水尺测量的高度；18.7英尺的水位不表示附近道路或房产上的水深为18.7英尺。目前没有经过核实、针对特定水位的记录指出哪些道路、建筑或通行路线在18至19英尺水位时受到影响。⁠13

警报将洪水程度定为轻度。这是有依据的严重程度判断，并不表示奇里索特尔发生了重大洪灾、广泛破坏或疏散命令。Forth发布的警报转载也将洪水定为轻度，并明确说明该警报取代了河流洪水提示。⁠1⁠2

水位下降不等于警报取消

预报人员预计河流水位将在当晚降至17.1英尺，低于洪水警戒线，随后在当晚晚些时候回升至18英尺的警戒线。预报还称，此后该时段内水位将下降。这些都是预测，并非一系列已确认的测量结果。河流是否确实按这一走势变化，仍未得到核实。⁠1

floodriskhere.com此前的一个页面显示，周日下午4:35山地标准时间的水位为17.16英尺。这一读数早于警报中下午6:30的观测值；它既不是之后的更正，也不能证明河流水位已经回落。该显示数据与警报尚未被整合为连续的测站数据序列，因此若用两者相减来公布水位上升速率，就会表现出超出证据支持程度的确定性。⁠4⁠1

警报中的时间安排也需要作类似区分。标题注明预定于11月2日周一上午10点山地标准时间结束，与世界协调时17:00的事件结束字段相符。另一个产品到期字段则列为世界协调时13:45，即山地标准时间上午6:45；这也是预计发布下一份声明的时间。⁠1

这些字段并不意味着有两个相互矛盾的警报解除时间。较早的产品到期时间并不能证明警报于上午6:45取消；所列的上午10点事件结束时间也不能证明警报不会延长。要确定警报后续状态，需要后续声明或取消通知。

因此，下一次预定评估时间——周一上午6:45——至关重要：评估可能会给出新的河流水位观测，并决定是否需要继续发布警报。目前尚未核实奇里索特尔后续的更新，因此不应把预报中的水位下降或预定结束时间说成是已经观测到的险情解除。⁠1

纪录水位的说法站不住脚

历史对比中还有一处不一致。警报报道提到1993年1月8日出现的18.3英尺峰值，同时称当前水位正接近该纪录。但18.7英尺比18.3英尺高0.4英尺，而不是更低。Forth转载的警报摘录也保留了“接近历史最高洪水水位”的描述。⁠1⁠2

算术结果暴露了一个问题，但不能据此认定创下新纪录。历史水位、纪录排名以及测站基准是否可比，均未经过独立核实。未经这些核查，无论是宣布发生纪录性洪水，还是重复称18.7英尺的观测值仅仅接近18.3英尺水位，都不妥当。现有的美国地质调查局（USGS）资料无法解决这一历史对比问题。⁠13

可以确定的结论范围较窄，但仍然足够有用：奇里索特尔附近的盐河水位已超过所列洪水警戒线，洪水提示已升级为警报；由于预计水位仍会再次达到洪水警戒线，预报中的短暂下降并未消除危险。要了解之后的情况，需要新的观测和更新后的警报状态，而不能假定河流走势符合预报。

来源

国家气象局菲尼克斯分局，11月1日奇里索特尔洪水警报。⁠1 Forth，奇里索特尔警报转载。⁠2 Weather Alert Watch，吉拉县洪水提示。⁠3 floodriskhere.com，奇里索特尔河流水位显示。⁠4

国家气象局按地点提供的警报摘要。⁠5 国家气象局吉拉县洪水警报文本。⁠6 Weather Alert Watch，吉拉县和马里科帕县洪水提示。⁠7 iAlert，吉拉县洪水提示。⁠8 国家气象局吉拉县/皮纳尔县洪水警报文本。⁠9 国家气象局山洪警戒文本。⁠10

国家水情预报服务，奇里索特尔测站页面。⁠11⁠12 美国地质调查局，奇里索特尔附近盐河测站。⁠13 美国地质调查局 WaterWatch。⁠14 Atmostorm，奇里索特尔河流页面。⁠15 美国地质调查局，奇里索特尔当前状况图表。⁠16 Drought.gov，国家水情预报服务概览。⁠17

来源9

在此处引用的来源中，iAlert Weather最先发布，比本报道播出早13小时。 随后还有2家媒体发布。
  1. iAlert Weather
  2. National Weather Service
  3. Weather Alert Watch
  4. HeyDay News

1篇早期文章作为背景资料参阅。5家媒体未注明日期：NOAAAtmostormDrought.govfloodriskhere.comforth.news

按媒体查看所有来源

来自 9 家媒体的 17 个来源· 引用最多的优先

播出原貌
  1. The river near Chrysotile stood seven-tenths of a foot above flood stage.
  2. Minor flooding prompted a warning for this stretch of the Salt River, replacing an earlier advisory. A temporary dip is forecast, but will the river stay below flood stage?
  3. The warned stretch runs near Chrysotile in Arizona's Gila County. The National Weather Service in Phoenix issued the warning Sunday evening, November first, after the river crossed its listed flood threshold.
  4. The measurement was taken at six-thirty that evening, ten minutes before the warning was issued. It captures the river's height at that moment. The warning classified the flooding as minor.
  5. The river measured 18.7 feet against a flood stage of 18 feet. That's seven-tenths of a foot above the threshold, and it's the observation behind the change from an advisory to a warning.
  6. River stage measures height at a gauge. It doesn't tell you how deep water is on a nearby road or property. The federal monitoring station here is called Salt River Near Chrysotile.
  7. An earlier river-level display showed 17.16 feet at four-thirty-five Sunday afternoon. That earlier snapshot came before the warning's above-threshold observation. The two readings haven't been reconciled into a continuous series that would support a reliable rate of rise.
  8. Forecasters expected the river to cross the threshold again after falling below it. That makes the predicted dip only part of the outlook. A lower reading for a time wouldn't, by itself, mean the warning had ended.
  9. The forecast called for a fall to 17.1 feet that evening, then a return to the 18-foot flood threshold late that evening. After that, forecasters expected a decline. Those changes were predictions; they still needed later measurements.
  10. The historical comparison contains a separate problem. An alert account described the river as approaching a record crest of 18.3 feet from January eighth, 1993. But the new observation was already numerically higher.
  11. 18.7 feet is four-tenths of a foot above 18.3. Calling this a record would require checking the historical height and whether both measurements use the same gauge reference. The figures alone can't settle that.
  12. The warning's timing also needs care. Its headline and event-end field both gave ten Monday morning as the scheduled end. Another field listed six-forty-five that morning, matching the time expected for the next statement.
  13. The six-forty-five timestamp belonged to the product-expiration field. It didn't cancel the warning. Ten a.m. was the stated event end, and an extension could follow if conditions required one. All those times are Mountain Standard Time.
  14. Forecasters expected a return to flood stage after the dip. We don't yet know whether the river followed that path or whether the warning was continued. The next statement was scheduled for six-forty-five Monday morning to reassess the river and warning status.

译文更新于

近期播出