forecasting convective mode and severity mark f. britt national weather service st. louis, mo
Post on 29-Dec-2015
231 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Forecasting Convective Mode and Severity
Mark F. BrittNational Weather Service
St. Louis, MO
Why Am I Here?A Basic Review of Severe Thunderstorm Forecasting.
Examine moisture return,instability, and shear calculations.Examine how the amount and distribution of instability, vertical shear, and forcing interact to determine cell type, convective mode (linear or discrete), and coverage.Determine what type(s) of severe weather to expect for a given environment.
Using NumbersThere are NO “magic” numbers or thresholds. They are merely guidelines.Best to look where several key parameters overlap instead of depending on one index.You should look at skew-Ts and hodographs (observed and forecast) to better understand what the numbers mean.Increase your situation awareness by using near storm environment data, but do not use it solely to make warning decisions.
Objective Analysis
Available on AWIPS using MSAS, LAPS, or RUC40 analysis (Thompson et al. (2003) found RUC analysis is a reasonable proxy to observed soundings in supercell environments, except they are too cool and dry at the surface.)Or, the SPC Mesoanalysis Page:
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/exper/mesoanalysis/
1. Displays a national and seven movable regions that is usually available by 20 minutes past each hour
2. Displays a robust set of hourly objective analysis datasets using the latest surface observations and upper air analysis from the RUC. Depicted contours highlight important “thresholds”.
Ingredients for Deep, Moist Convection
Moisture: (Gulf of Mexico, evapotranspiration)
Instability: (Steep lapse rates either from the Elevated Mixed Layer off the Rockies, or large scale “dry” ascent ahead of a trough.)
Forcing: (Surface frontal boundary, convective outflow, 900-800mb moisture convergence at nose of nocturnal low level jet, orographic lift over the eastern Ozarks)
Moisture Return
Look for rapid moisture advection from the Gulf of Mexico in strong pressure gradients ahead of a strong storm system.
Ridging associated with surface highs in or near the Gulf can inhibit moisture return.
Lanicci and Warner (1991)
Assessing Instability
Which is best?SBCAPEMLCAPEMUCAPE
SBCAPE: Surface Based. Uses the surface temperature and dew point. Will show large diurnal swings. Can give significant overestimates (an order of magnitude) in cases of shallow moisture and underestimates in cases of elevated convection.
From Peter Banacos, SPC (2003)
MLCAPE: Mean Layer. Uses the mean temperature and mean mixing ratio in the lowest part of the atmosphere (SPC uses lowest 100 mb). Less variable in time and space, and more conservative than MUCAPE when lower atmosphere is not well mixed.
From Peter Banacos, SPC (2003)
MUCAPE: Most Unstable Parcel. Uses most unstable parcel in lower atmosphere (SPC uses lowest 300mb). Helps with nocturnal or other types of elevated convection.
From Peter Banacos, SPC (2003)
What Do I Do With This?
RUC MUCAPE -March 12, 2006 @ 17Z
?
What Do I Do With This?
NAM MUCAPE - March 12, 2006 @ 17Z
Surface Based Parcels
Strong tornado
outbreak over Missouri.
KSGF RAOB
March 12, 2006 @ 21Z
Surface Based Parcels
Violent tornado
outbreak over western Missouri.
KSGF RAOB
May 5th, 2003 @ 00Z
Elevated Based Parcels
Numerous Reports of Hailin Eastern NE/
Western IA
KOAX RAOB
May 4th, 2003@ 18Z
CAPE vs. Parcel SelectionApril 22, 2004
From Jon Davies Webpage
Surface Based CAPE
Mean Layer CAPE
April 22nd, 2004 @ 22Z
From Jon Davies Webpage (http://members.cox.net/jdavies1/)
How Tall is the CAPE?
How Tall is the CAPE?April 22nd, 2004
From Jon Davies Webpage
How Wide Is the CAPE?
Larger differences between parcel temperature and the environmental temperature means stronger updrafts that are less susceptible to entrainment.
Lapse Rates
Craven (2000) found in a study of 65 major tornado outbreaks that 6.7o C/km is a useful lower limit. He also found low shear environments that produce tornadoes have steeper lapse rates.Steep mid level lapse rates (850-500 mb) have more conditional instability and increased CAPE. Steep low level lapse rates (0-3km AGL) can give a better idea on how quickly convection will develop.
Mid Level Lapse Rates
Sat Morn – 12Z Sat Eve – 00Z
Sun Eve – 00ZSun Morn – 12Z
Mid
Lev
el L
apse
Rat
es
Assess Vertical Shear
Distribution of vertical shear will determine dominant thunderstorm type.
Can be determined using either:
Traditional fixed layers (0-6km bulk shear, 0-1km SRH)
“Effective” shear which accounts for sounding dependent inflow layer through CAPE and CIN constraints. (Large sample testing suggests that “effective layer” is best defined by CAPE >100 J kg-1 and CIN >-250 J kg-1 CIN. (Thompson 2007))
Low level curvature can determine if right-movers, left-movers, or both kinds of splits are favored.
Storm Type: Ordinary Cells
Dominant Type in Weak Shear Environments
Pulse Type Severe Storms.
Storm Type: Multicells
Moderate to strong shear is confined mainly to the lower levels (0 to 3 km AGL)
Organized Multicells
>40kt 0-6 km shear>30kt 700-500mb windDry (low theta-e) midlevel air (strong cold pool)Downshear SBCAPE maxSystem relative convergence acting downshear to enhance forward propagation
Storm Type: Supercells
A study of 440 supercells found that long lived supercells (those lasting >4 hrs) produce notably more F2–F5 tornadoes when compared with short-lived supercells, and a single long-lived supercell can also produce a substantial amount of nontornadic severe weather. (Bunkers, et al. 2006)
Deep Shear Magnitude0-6 km layer shear “thresholds”:• 40+ kts: if storms develop -- supercells are likely (provided
convective mode favors cellular activity)
• 30-40 kts: supercells also possible if environment is very or extremely unstable as storm can augment local shear (>5,000 J/kg (Burgess (2003))
• About 15-20 kts: shear needed for organized convection (multicell or supercell) with mid level winds at least 25 kt
Supercells become more probable as the effective bulk shear vector increases in magnitude through the range of > 25-40 kts. (SPC Mesoanalysis Page description)
Bunkers et al. 2006 found that long-lived supercells occur in environments with much stronger 0-8-km bulk wind shear ( > 50 kt) than that observedwith short-lived supercells.
While 0-6km shear is a good discriminator between cell types, it isn’t a good tornado forecast tool (Thompson et al, 2002).
0-6 km Shear Magnitude
0-6 km VECTOR SHEAR MAGNITUDE
20.218.8
13.9
5.1
31.8 31.1
20.4
14.3
24.522.1
15.1
7.8
18.315.6
12.0
3.6
29.227.3
17.7
11.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
sigtor (54) nontor (215) mrgl (15) nonsuper (75)
m s
-1Supercells
Non-Supercells
From Thompson et al (2002)
BRN Shear(Weisman and Klemp (1982), and Thompson (2000
&2002)BRN Shear is the vector difference between the density weighted mean winds in the lowest 6 km and the lowest 500 m above ground level. BRN shear can be a used as a good predictor of storm type and severity. BRN SHEAR
50
3120
3
111
94
46
19
70
47
31
7
42
2316
1
87
75
35
13
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
sigtor (54) nontor (215) mrgl (15) nonsuper (75)
m2 s
-2
Supercells
Non-Supercells
From Thompson et al (2002)
40 m2/s2
35 m2/s2
Supercell Composite Parameter (Thompson et al, 2003)
The Supercell Composite Parameter (SCP) is a multi-parameter index that includes 0-3 km SRH, CAPE, and BRN Shear. Each parameter is normalized to supercell “threshold” values.
SCP = (muCAPE/1000 J/kg) * (0-3km SRH/100 m^2/s^2) * (BRNShear/40m^2/s^2)
Computed every hour on the SPC Mesoanalysis Page.
March 12th, 2006 @ 03Z March 12th, 2006 @ 21Z
March 13th, 2006 @ 03Z
What Causes Supercell Type
Rasmussen and Straka (1998) found in an observational study of 43 isolated supercells that supercell type is much more dependent precipitation efficiency based on its ingestion of hydrometeors.
Classic Supercells
The real “value” of a CL supercell is that it appears to be the most efficient of the three types to produce significant tornadoes.
Can occur nearly anywhere in U.S. when NSE supports them.
High Precipitation (HP) Supercells
High Precipitation (HP) Supercells
Lower mid-level and anvil-relative flow.Interactions with other storms –
“seeding”, more storms can occur with weak caps.
Typically associated with weaker tornadoes, but can produce significant tornadoes (Plainfield IL).
More of a severe wind (Pakwash), hail, and flash flooding threat.
Are the more-common supercell type east of the Mississippi owing to NSE conditions there (weaker caps, etc.), and may be the most common type everywhere in the U.S.
Supercell DimensionsBurgess (2003)
Cone of Silence
Falcon CoFalcon Co Hurr. OpalHurr. Opal
“mini”“mini” “large”“large”“mini”“mini”
“high-topped”“high-topped” “low-topped”“low-topped”“low-topped”“low-topped”
Vert
ical
Dim
ensi
on
Vert
ical
Dim
ensi
on
Hori
zonta
lD
imensi
on
Hori
zonta
lD
imensi
on
Pond Bank PAPond Bank PA
Supercell MovementBunkers et al (2000)
A physically based, shear-relative, and Galilean invariant method based on 290 supercell hodographs.
Supercell MovementBunkers and Zeitler (2000)
There are some caveats to this method:
Stronger deep-layer vertical wind shear (0-6 km) leads to a stronger mesocyclone and thus to greater deviation from the mean wind.
Weaker mid-level storm-relative winds allow for a stronger cold pool, and thus a tendency for the supercell to move rapidly downshear.
Depth of thunderstorms need to be considered.
Supercell motion can be altered by wind shear from boundaries and orography.
It is surface based. (Thompson, et al., 2007)
Storm Coverage and ModeWhat’s the Problem?
Evans (2003) noted Strong Forcing Derechoes and discrete, significant tornadic supercells (F2-F5) can occur in similar environments.
Thompson and Mead (2006) found in a study of 223 storms over the southern Plains that the probability of significant tornadoes is four times greater with discrete convection over non-discrete.
Unfortunately, differences can be very subtle and difficult to diagnose operationally.
What Controls Storm Coverage?
(Thompson, 2004)Widespread coverage expected with:
Rich moisture influx and steep lapse ratesCombination of Q-G and mesoscale ascent
(Differential CVA and WAA with surface frontogenesis)
Little CIN (Everything goes up.)
Isolated (or no) storms with:Marginal moisture and lapse rates (weak CAPE)Neutral to subsident large-scale environment
(Rely on small-scale/shallow processes for initiation)
Large CIN (Confine storms to “strongly forced” or in areas of most persistent ascent)
Supercells or Squall Line?
Discrete Linearweaker Strength and Depth of
Forcingstronger and/or deeper
(or confined near boundary)
more Amount of CIN compared to Boundary Forcing
less
weaker Potential for Cold Pool greater
more perpendicular Shear Vector w.r.t. Boundary Orientation
more parallel
Bunkers et al. (2006) found in their study of 440 supercells that long lived variety (>4 hrs) tend to occur in medium forced* environments whereas strongly forced events caused more linear or mixed modes of convection.
*surface boundaries w/ horizontal temperature gradient of 2.5-5oC/100 km or 300mb jet max of 50-70kts
Initiating Boundary w.r.t. Deep Layer Flow
(Bluestein and Weisman, 2000; Dial and Racy, 2004; James et al., 2005)
Parallel: (lines dominate, with end supercells)45-60o: (discrete supercells, little storm interaction)90o: (colliding storm splits, but depends on storm
spacing and hodograph shape)
0-6 km shear across dryline, and storm motion faster than boundary motion
From Rich Thompson, SPC
Progressive TroughMay 4th 2003 Tornado Outbreak, Progressive Flow
Aloft
0-6 km shear across boundary, and storm motion faster than boundary motion
Progressive TroughMarch 12th 2006 Tornado Outbreak, Progressive
Flow Aloft
0-6 km shear largely parallel todryline, and storm motion slower than boundary motion
From Rich Thompson, SPC
High Amplitude Trough
April 6th 2001 Great Plains “High Risk” Squall Line
Sat Eve – 04Z
Sun Eve – 06ZSun Eve – 00Z
Dee
p S
hear
vs.
Bou
ndar
y O
rient
atio
n
Sun Aftn – 21Z
Derechoes or Tornadoes?Anvil SR Winds may show some discrimination (Evans
2003).
Surface Pressure Changes
1-2 hourly pressure changes help identify:
Mesolow /mesohigh couplets and boundaries
Concentrated fall/rise couplet enhance low- level convergence/shear by backing surface winds (enhancing tornado threat)
Clouds associated with surface pressure falls may be linked to a dynamical feature
Implications on thermal advection
Rise/Fall couplets may indicate severe wind threat in marginal CAPE environments
Tornado ParametersMesocyclonic Tornadoes
Low Level Shear Vector and Storm Relative Helicity
Low Level Thermodynamic Profile1. Height of LCL2. Height of LFC3. Low Level CAPE and CIN
Boundaries
Non-Mesocyclonic Tornadoes
0-1km Shear VectorBrooks and Craven (2002)
Supercells associated with significant tornadoes
Non-Tornadic
20 kts
15kts
Markowski et al (2002) states this is a measure of the amount of horizontal vorticity available near the earth’s surface.
The shear magnitude in the lowest 1 km discriminates well between tornadic and non-tornadic supercells, and is a good proxy for 0-1km helicity (Thompson et al, 2002).
Does not require knowledge of storm motion.
0-1km Shear Vector
March 13th, 2006 – 03Z
Monroe County F4
0-1km Storm Relative Helicity
0-1 km versus 0-3 km SRH (Observed motion)
106
51
172
91
317
264
396362
165
93
223
146
74
20
108
37
220
162
317
233
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
sigtor 0-1 km nontor 0-1 km sigtor 0-3 km nontor 0-3 km
m2 s
-2
Supercells associated with significant tornadoes
Non-Tornadic
Thompson et al (2002)
SRH can vary up to two orders of magnitude within 100km and 3 hrs.
No good threshold, but 100 m2/s2 is considered a good lower number with increasing threat as the numbers grow. Outbreaks 200-300 m2/s2. (Rasmussen and Blanchard, 1998 and Thompson et al, 2002).
Thompson (2007) found effective SRH discriminated sig-tor better than non-tor cases.
0-1km Storm Relative Helicity
From Banacos (2003)
May 4th, 2003 @ 22Z
April 22nd, 2004 @ 23Z
From Jon Davies Webpage
0-1km Storm Relative Helicity
March 13th, 2006 @ 03Z
Monroe County F4
Wind Shear
Conway, MO Profiler
Sun
day
Eve
ning
Base Reflectivity – 0040Z
Base Reflectivity - 0313Z
Base Reflectivity - 0142Z
Base Reflectivity – 0443Z
Hodograph KinksFour violent tornado events in central and northern Oklahoma have had hodograph kinks. Similar kinks have been observed in MO the fast few years. A pronounced kink with the 1.0-1.5 km AGL layer is where a transition from weak veering, strong speed shear with height to strong veering, weak speed shear.
SGF 3/13/2006-03Z
SGF 5/04/2003-20Z
Height of the LCL (Mean Layer)
Markowski (2000) speculates that lower LCL heights (< 1000m) mean high boundary layer RH and increased buoyancy in the RFD.
Davies (2006) studied 44 “high” (1,300-2,000m) LCL cases, but they had the other thermodynamic and kinematic factors (including sizeable total and 0-3km CAPE) that are very favorable for supercells.
MLLCL
848 870 979
13241322
18952036
3041
10041180
1339
1768
769 720 7721015
1149
15781732
2509
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
sigtor (54) weaktor (144) nontor (215) nonsuper (75)
m (A
GL)
Height of the MLLCL
From Brooks and Craven (2002)
From Thompson et al (2002)
Let’s Take a Look
ILX
5/11/2003 @ 00Z
Classic supercells which produced several strong
tornadoes.
Height of the LFCWhy is this important?
Lower LFC’s (below 2km or 750mb) have more instability above the LFC and less CIN above that higher LFC’s.Lower LFC’s require less lift for the parcel to reach convective initiation
In a study of over 300 soundings associated with supercells, most tornadoes are found with LFCs below ~6,600 ft, though may occur as high as ~7900 ft with large amounts of vertical shear. (Davies, 2002) Rasmussen and Blanchard (1998) found that 75% of tornadic classic supercell environments had CIN <25-50 J/kg) and 60% of non- tornadic supercell environments had values greater than this
Let’s Take a Look
ILX
6/2/1999 @ 00Z
Several supercells, one producing a F3
tornado.
Let’s Take a Look
SGF
6/2/1999 @ 00Z
Several classic supercells along I-44, including a F3.
What About Boundaries?
Boundaries serve two important functions:
Local forcing mechanisms for convective initiation.
As a source of vorticity augmentation in mesocyclones.
Significant tornadoes usually require higher quantities of SRH than is normally provided. They often require augmentation from boundaries. (Markowski et al (1998a))
Forward Flank
Downdraft
Streamwise vorticity occurs along the boundaries of the FFD.
Parcels generally only acquire 0.001 s–1 shear because of small residence times.
For FFD boundaries to be the primary source of streamwise vorticity, it is speculated that the environment must be highly helical (i.e. SRH > 500 m2 s–2 or 0-10 km shear of ~100 kts per Markowski et al (1998b).
Outflow From External ThunderstormsRasmussen (2000)
“Cool” side of outflow
boundaries: Look for modified
outflow (>6 hrs old) where there’s sunshine and
growing CAPE (a.k.a. “cooked” outflow),
and surface dewpoints are
greater than the warm sector.
BoundariesMarkowski et. al.
(1998b)
Tornadic development
most likely from 10 km on warm
side of boundary to 30 km on cool side
of boundary.
Local Example
May 6, 2003
Local Example
April 21, 2002From of Fred Glass
Anvil Boundaries
Requires limited cloud coverage around periphery of storm.
May be more important than the FFD because of much long parcel residence times in the boundary depending on the inflow vector.
Preferred direction for longer parcel
residence times.
Significant Tornado Parameter (Thompson et al, 2003)
The Significant Tornado Parameter is a multi-parameter index that includes 0-6-km shear magnitude, 0-1km storm-relative helicity, 100-mb mean parcel CAPE, and 100-mb mean parcel LCL height.
STP =(mlCAPE/1000 J/kg) * ((2000 -mlLCL)/1500 m) * (SRH1/100 m^2/s^2) * (SHR6/20 m/s)
Computed every hour on the SPC Mesoanalysis Page.
Significant Tornado Parameter (Thompson et al, 2003)
May 4th, 2003
Significant Tornado Parameter (Thompson et al, 2003)
March 12th, 2006 – 03Z
Significant Tornado Parameter (Thompson et al, 2003)
March 13th, 2006 – 03Z
Non-Supercell Tornadoes
Typically associated with ordinary cells
No CIN
Steep low level lapse rates
Sharp boundary with low level vertical vorticity.
Rapidly developing CBs
Non-Supercell Tornadoes
From Wakimoto and Wilson (1989)
May 25, 1997
500mb Closed Lows
From Davies and Guyer (2004)
Typically spawn weak tornadoes, but have been associated with F2 damage.
Can be overlooked because the environments are usually weakly shear with weak thermodynamics.
Tornadoes are often associated with mini–supercells, but can also be non- supercellular because of preexisting vertical vorticity associated with boundaries.
Wind ParametersMicrobursts
Bow Echoes and Derechoes
Microbursts
Atkins and Wakimoto (1991) found “wet” microbursts occurred on days when the delta theta-e between the surface and mid-levels is >20K. Null days occurred when this value is <13K.
Dry microburst tend to occur with high LCLs and steep low level lapse rates.
Bow Echoes and Derechoes
Bow echoes and derechoes are associated with moderate to strong shear in the low levels (Przybylinski, 2001):
<23 kts: Weak Shear (Bow echoes less likely)22-37 kts: Moderate Shear (Bow echoes likely with the greatest threat of damaging winds)>37 kts: Strong Shear (Bow echoes likely with strongest winds remaining above the surface.
Bow Echoes…Typical Morphologies
Bow Echo Squall Line Bow Echo(LEWP)
Cell Bow Echo Bow Echo Complex
Bow Echo
Supercell
Forward Propagating MCS
Forward Propagating MCS
Low Level
Boundary
July 19, 2006 @21Z
For
war
d P
rop.
Vec
tors
1000
-900
mb
CA
PE
850mb T
heta-e1000-900m
b CA
PE
July 21, 2006 @ 13Z
For
war
d P
rop.
Vec
tors
1000
-900
mb
CA
PE
850mb T
heta-e1000-900m
b CA
PE
Back-building and Quasi-Stationary MCSs
‘Classic’ Bow EchoWind Shear Profiles
(Hodographs)
Elevated Hail StormsSteep mid level lapse rates (850 –500 mb lapse rates 7 deg C/km or greater)
MUCAPE > 1000 J/kg
Large CAPE in the -10 to -30oC (-20 to -40oC) range on a sounding
Strong deep shear (through mean cloud layer wind)
Minimized melting effects (lower Freezing levels , WBZ < 10K ft)
Surface Based Storms
1. Mid level updraft rotation (need enough deep shear > 35 kts between 0-6 km AGL)
2. Need steep lapse rates , sufficient low-level moisture, sufficient lifting mechanism (related to CAPE in hail growth zone)
Note: in absence of 1., greater dependence on 2.)
Supercell Hail Forecasting
Large CAPE in the layer that favors rapid hail growth.
0-6-km shear in excess of 30-40 knots supports supercells with persistent updrafts that contribute to large hail production
Lower freezing level heights suggest a greater probability of hail reaching the surface prior to melting
Hail Forecasting Parameters
“Hail Parameters” depicts three forecasting parameters used to predict hail. They are CAPE in the layer from -10 to -30oC, 0-6-km shear vector, and the freezing level height.
The Sig. Hail Parameter (SHIP) was developed using a large database of surface-modified, observed severe hail proximity soundings to determine the potential of hail >2" diameter.
SHIP = [(MUCAPE j/kg) * (Mixing Ratio of MU PARCEL g/kg) * (700-500mb LAPSE RATE c/km)*(-500mb TEMP C) * (0-6km Shear m/s)] / 44,000,000
Both are computed every hour on the SPC Mesoanalysis Page.
Summary
Steps for severe weather forecasting:
Will I have TSRA? (Moisture, Instability, and Forcing)
What will be my primary convective mode and coverage? (Instability, Shear, and Forcing)
What kind of severe weather will I have? (Tornadoes, Hail, Winds)
Convective SeverityDmg winds Hail Tornado FF
Ordinary cell
(0-6km shear <30 kts)
Steep LL lapse ratesHigh LCL, dry midlevels, high DCAPEIntense elevated coreDescending core bottomElevated radial convergence
Cold temps aloftLarge buoyancy ~-20 CIntense elevated core ~ -20 C and colderHigh VIL density, TBSS
No CIN, steep LL lapse ratesSharp boundary with LL vertical vorticityRapidly growing and new CBs
High RH in deep layer; deep warm cloud; small mean wind Slow storm motion Large storm core
Super-cell
(0-6km shear > 30 – 40 kts)
Similar environ as above except for shear and high CAPE & DCAPE, strong 0-1 km shear can assistIn addition to above, LL mesocyclogenesis; developing hook, deep convergence zone
Large buoyancy @-20 C level, strong 0-6 km shear, stg mid- upper SR flow; WER BWER, intense elevated core,mesocyclone,TBSS, high VIL density
Strong 0-1km shear in addition to 0-6 km shear; low LCL; low CINLL TVS, meso, inflow notch; sign of a hook, strong LL convergence below mesocyclone; BWER
High RH in deep layer; deep warm cloud; small SR anvil flowLow supercell motionNot an LP storm
Multicell
(organized group of ordinary/
supercells)
>40kt 0-6km shearStrong >30kt 700-500 wind;Stg leading Gradient;Bookend vortex pair;MARC, deep convergence zone, rear inflow notch
Separated cores; cells exposed to favorable environment
Similar to supercells? Mostly left of rear inflow notches along leading edge of core, front inflow notch with WER and vert vorticity
Slow MBE motion; triple pt anchoring; upwind instability, LL jet, high PW, high mean RHIntrastorm seedingEcho training, slow motion
From DLOC “Hazards
Assessment”
ReferencesAtkins, N.T. and R.M. Wakimoto, 1991: Wet Microburst Activity over the Southeastern US: Implications for Forecasting. Wea. Forecasting, 6, 470-482.
COMET Forecaster’s Multimedia Library, 1996: Anticipating convective storm structure and evolution.
Banacos, P.C., 2003: Severe Weather Threat Assessment. Presentation at the, WDTB Severe Weather/Flash Flood Workshop Course 03-4, Boulder, CO.
Bluestein, H.B. and M.L. Weisman, 2000: The interaction of numerically simulated supercells initiated along lines. Mon. Wea. Rev., 128, 3128-3149.
Brooks, H. E., and J. P. Craven, 2002: A database of proximity soundings for significant severe thunderstorms, 1957-1993. Preprints, 21st Conference on Severe Local Storms, San Antonio, Texas, American Meteorological Society, 639-642.
ReferencesBunkers, M. J., et al. 2006: An Observational Examination of Long-Lived upercells. Part I: Characteristics, Evolution and Demise. Wea. Forecasting, 21, 673-688.
Bunkers, M. J., et al. 2006: An Observational Examination of Long-Lived upercells. Part II: Environmental Conditions and Forecasting. Wea. Forecasting, 21, 689-714.
Burgess, D.W., 2003: Supercells. Presentation at the COMAP Course, Boulder, CO.
Burgess, D.W. and L.R. Lemon, 1991: Characteristics of Mesocyclones Detected During a NEXRAD Test. Preprints, 25th Int. Conf. On Radar Meteorology, Paris, France, AMS, 39-42.
Craven, J. P., 2000: A Preliminary Look at Deep Layer Shear and Middle Level Lapse Rates Associated with Major Tornado Outbreaks. Preprints, 20th Conference on SLS, Orlando, FL, AMS, 547-550
ReferencesDavies, J. L., 2004: Tornadoes in a Deceptively Small CAPE Setting: The "Surprise" 4/20/04 Outbreak in Illinois and Indianahttp://members.cox.net/jondavies3/042004ilin/042004ilin.htm
Davies, J. L., 2002: A Primer on Low-level Buoyancy Parameters When Assessing Supercell Tornado Environments. http://home.kscable.com/davies1/LLbuoyprimer/LLbuoyprimer.htm
Davies, J. M., 2006: Total CAPE, Low-level CAPE, and LFC in significant tornado events with relatively high LCL heights. Preprints, 23rd Conference on SLS, St. Louis, MO, AMS, 59, #P1.3.
Davies, J. M., and J. L. Guyer, 2004: A preliminary climatology of tornado events with closed cold core 500-mb lows in the central and eastern United States. Preprints, 22d Conf. on SLS, Hyannis, MA, AMS, #7B.4.
ReferencesDial, G.L. and J.P. Racy, 2004: Forecasting Short Term Convective Mode and Evolution For Severe Storms Initiated Along Synoptic Boundaries. Preprints, 22nd Conference on SLS, Hyannis, MA, Amer. Meteor. Soc..
Evans, J. and C. Doswell, 2003: Presentation given to WFO Tulsa Staff.http://www.spc.noaa.gov/staff/evans/talk4/talk4_frame.htm
Edwards, R., 2000: Personal Communication.
Edwards, R. and R. L Thompson, 2000: RUC-2 Supercell Proximity Soundings, Part II: An Independent Assessment of Supercell Forecast Parameters. Preprints, 20th Conference on SLS, Orlando, FL, AMS, 236-239.
James, R. P., M. Fritsch and P. Markowski, 2005: Environmental Distinctions between Cellular and Slabular Convective Lines. Mon. Wea. Rev., 133, 2669-2689.
ReferencesKlimoski, Brian A. and R. W. Przybylinski, 2003: Observations of, and Forecasting the Formation and Early Evolution of Bow Echoes. Presentation at the COMAP Course, Boulder, CO.
Lanicci, J. and T. Warner, 1991: A synoptic climatology of the elevated mixed- layer inversion of the southern plains. Part I: Structure, dynamics, and seasonal evolution. Wea. Forecasting, 6, 181-197.
Markowski, P. M., C. Hannon, J. Frame, E. Lancaster, A. Pietrycha, R. Edwards, and R Thompson, 2002: Characteristics of RUC Vertical Wind Profiles Near Supercells. Preprints, 21st Conference on SLS, San Antonio, TX, AMS, 599-602.
Markowski, P. M., E. N. Rasmussen, and J. M. Straka, 1998a: The occurrence of tornadoes in supercells interacting with boundaries during VORTEX-95. Wea. Forecasting, 13, 852-859.
ReferencesMarkowski, Paul M., E. N. Rasmussen, J. M. Straka, D. C. Dowell, 1998b: Observations of Low-Level Baroclinity Generated by Anvil Shadows. Monthly Weather Review: Vol. 126, No. 11, pp. 2942–2958.
Markowski, P. M., E. N. Rasmussen, and J. M. Straka, 2000: Surface Thermodynamic Characteristics of RFDs as Measured by a Mobile Mesonet. Preprints, 20th Conference on SLS, Orlando, FL, AMS, 251-254.
Przybylinski, R.W., 2001: Personal Communication.
Rasmussen, E. N., and D. O. Blanchard, 1998: A Baseline Climatology of Sounding-Derived Supercell and Tornado Forecast Parameters. Wea. Forecasting, 13, 1148-1164.
Rasmussen, E.N., S. Richardson, J.M. Straka, P. M. Markowski, and D. O. Blanchard, 2000: The association of significant tornadoes with a baroclinic boundary on 2 June 1995. Mon. Wea. Rev., 128, 174-191.
ReferencesRasmussen, E.N, and J. M. Straka, 1998: Variations in supercell morphology. Part I: Observations of the role of upper-level storm relative flow. Mon. Wea. Rev., 126, 2406-2421.
SPC Mesoanalysis Page: http://www.spc.noaa.gov/exper/mesoanalysis/help/
Thompson, R. L., 1998: Eta model storm-relative winds associated with tornadic and nontornadic supercells. Wea. Forecasting, 13, 125-137.
Thompson, R.L., 2000: Personal Communication.
Thompson, R.L., R. Edwards, J.A. Hart, K. L. Elmore, and P.M. Markowski, 2003: Close proximity soundings within supercell environments obtained from the Rapid Update Cycle. Wea. Forecasting, 18, 1243-1261.
Thompson, R. L., 2004. Presentation: Forecasting Thunderstorm Coverage and Configuration
ReferencesThompson, R.L., C.M. Mead, and R. Edwards, 2007: Effective Storm Relative and Bulk Shear in Supercell Thunderstorm Environments. Wea. Forecasting, 22, 102-115.
Thompson, R. L., R. Edwards, J. A. Hart, K. L. Elmore, and P. Markowski, 2003: Close proximity soundings within supercell environments obtained from the Rapid Update Cycle. Wea. Forecasting, 18, 1234-1261.
Thompson, R. L. and C. M. Mead, 2006: Tornado failure modes in the central and southern Great Plains. Preprints, 23rd Conference on SLS, St. Louis, MO, AMS, 59, #3.2.
Trapp, R. J., G. J. Stumpf, and K. L. Manross, 2005: A Reassessment of the Percentage of Tornadic Mesocyclones. Wea. Forecasting, 20, 680-687.Wakimoto, R.M., and J.W. Wilson, 1989: Non-Supercell Tornadoes. Mon. Weather Rev., 117, 1113-1140.
Weisman, M. L., and J. B. Klemp, 1982: The Dependence of Numerically Simulated Convective Storms on Vertical Wind Shear and Buoyancy. Mon. Wea. Rev., 110, 504-520.
top related