• Bluestein, H. B., 1984: Further examples of low-precipitation severe thunderstorms. Mon. Wea. Rev.,112, 1885–1888.

  • ——, and C. R. Parks, 1983: A synoptic and photographic climatology of low-precipitation severe thunderstorms in the Southern Plains. Mon. Wea. Rev.,111, 2034–2046.

  • ——, and G. R. Woodall, 1990: Doppler-radar analysis of a low-precipitation severe storm. Mon. Wea. Rev.,118, 1640–1664.

  • Branick, M. L., and C. A. Doswell III, 1992: An observation of the relationship between supercell structure and lightning ground-strike polarity. Wea. Forecasting,7, 143–149.

  • Brooks, H. B., and R. B. Wilhelmson, 1992: Numerical simulation of a low-precipitation supercell thunderstorm. Meteor. Atmos. Phys.,49, 3–17.

  • ——, C. A. Doswell III, and J. Cooper, 1994a: On the environments of tornadic and nontornadic mesocyclones. Wea. Forecasting,9, 606–618.

  • ——, ——, and R. B. Wilhelmson, 1994b: The role of midtropospheric winds in the evolution and maintenance of low-level mesocyclones. Mon. Wea. Rev.,122, 126–136.

  • Browning, K. A., 1964: Airflow and precipitation trajectories within severe local storms which travel to the right of the winds. J. Atmos. Sci.,21, 634–639.

  • ——, 1977: The structure and mechanism of hailstorms. Hail: A Review of Hail Science and Hail Suppression, Meteor. Monogr., No. 38, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 1–43.

  • ——, and R. J. Donaldson, 1963: Airflow and structure of a tornadic storm. J. Atmos. Sci.,20, 533–545.

  • ——, and G. B. Foote, 1976: Airflow and hail growth in supercell storms, and some implications for hail suppression. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,102, 499–533.

  • Burgess, D. B., and R. P. Davies-Jones, 1979: Unusual tornadic storms in eastern Oklahoma on 5 December 1975. Mon. Wea. Rev.,107, 451–457.

  • ——, and E. B. Curran, 1985: The relationship of storm type to environment in Oklahoma on 26 April 1984. Preprints, 14th Conf. on Severe Local Storms, Indianapolis, IN, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 208–211.

  • Davies-Jones, R. P., 1984: Streamwise vorticity: The origin of updraft rotation in supercell storms. J. Atmos. Sci.,41, 2991–3006.

  • ——, 1993: Helicity trends in tornado outbreaks. Preprints, 17th Conf. on Severe Local Storms, St. Louis, MO, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 56–60.

  • ——, and H. E. Brooks, 1993: Mesocyclogenesis from a theoretical perspective. The Tornado: Its Structure, Dynamics, Prediction, and Hazards, Geophys. Monogr., Amer. Geophys. Union, 105–114.

  • ——, D. W. Burgess, and L. R. Lemon, 1976: An atypical tornado-producing cumulonimbus. Weather,31, 336–347.

  • Donaldson, R., A. Spatola, and K. Browning, 1965: Visual observations of severe weather phenomena. A family outbreak of severe local storms—A comprehensive study of the storms in Oklahoma on 26 May 1963. Part I. Air Force Cambridge Research Lab., Spec. Rep. No. 32, 73–97. [Available from AFGL, Hanscomb AFB, MA 01731.].

  • Doswell, C. A., and D. W. Burgess, 1993: Tornadoes and tornadic storms: A review of conceptual models. The Tornado: Its Structure, Dynamics, Prediction, and Hazards, Geophys. Monogr., Amer. Geophys. Union, 161–172.

  • ——, A. R. Moller, and R. Przybylinski, 1990: A unified set of conceptual models for variations on the supercell theme. Preprints, 16th Conf. Severe Local Storms, Kananaskis Park, AB, Canada, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 40–45.

  • Foote, G. B., 1984: Study of hail growth utilizing observed storm conditions. J. Climate Appl. Meteor.,23, 84–101.

  • Forbes, G. S., 1981: On the reliability of hook echoes as tornado indicators. Mon. Wea. Rev.,109, 1457–1466.

  • Johns, R. H., J. M. Davies, and P. W. Leftwich, 1993: Some wind and instability parameters associated with strong and violent tornadoes. Part II: Variations in the combinations of wind and instability parameters. The Tornado: Its Structure, Dynamics, Prediction, and Hazards, Geophys. Monogr., Amer. Geophys. Union, 583–590.

  • Klemp, J. B., 1987: Dynamics of tornadic thunderstorms. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech.,19, 369–402.

  • ——, and R. Rotunno, 1983: A study of the tornadic region within a supercell thunderstorm. J. Atmos. Sci.,40, 359–377.

  • ——, R. B. Wilhelmson, and P. S. Ray, 1981: Observed and numerically simulated structure of a mature supercell thunderstorm. J. Atmos. Sci.,38, 1558–1580.

  • Knight, C. A., and K. R. Knupp, 1986: Precipitation growth trajectories in a CCOPE storm. J. Atmos. Sci.,43, 1057–1073.

  • Lemon, L. R., 1982: New severe thunderstorm radar identification techniques and warning criteria: A preliminary report. NOAA Tech. Memo. NWS NSSFC-1, 60 pp. [NTIS PB-273049.].

  • ——, and C. A. Doswell III, 1979: Severe thunderstorm evolution and mesocyclone structure as related to tornadogenesis. Mon. Wea. Rev.,107, 1184–1197.

  • Maddox, R. A., 1976: An evaluation of tornado proximity wind and stability data. Mon. Wea. Rev.,104, 133–142.

  • Marwitz, J. D., 1972: The structure and motion of severe hailstorms. Part III: Severely sheared storms. J. Appl. Meteor.,11, 189–201.

  • Miller, L. J., J. D. Tuttle, and C. A. Knight, 1988: Airflow and hail growth in a severe northern High Plains supercell. J. Atmos. Sci.,45, 736–762.

  • ——, ——, and G. B. Foote, 1990: Precipitation production in a large Montana hailstorm: Airflow and particle growth trajectories. J. Atmos. Sci.,47, 1619–1646.

  • Moller, A. R., C. A. Doswell III, and R. Przybylinski, 1990: High-precipitation supercells: A conceptual model and documentation. Preprints, 16th Conf. on Severe Local Storms, Kananaskis Park, AB, Canada, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 52–57.

  • ——, ——, M. P. Foster, and G. R. Woodall, 1994: The operational recognition of supercell thunderstorm environments and storm structures. Wea. Forecasting,9, 327–347.

  • Paluch, I. R., 1978: Size sorting of hail in a three-dimensional updraft and implications for hail suppression. J. Appl. Meteor.,17, 763–777.

  • Proctor, F. H., 1983: Numerical simulation of a bell-shaped cumulonimbus. Preprints, 13th Conf. on Severe Local Storms, Tulsa, OK, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 235–240.

  • Rasmussen, E. N., J. M. Straka, R. Davies-Jones, C. A. Doswell III, F. H. Carr, M. D. Eilts, and D.R. MacGorman, 1994: Verifications of the Origins of Rotation in Tornadoes Experiment: VORTEX. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,75, 995–1006.

  • Rotunno, R., and J. B. Klemp, 1982: The influence of the shear-induced pressure gradient on thunderstorm motion. Mon. Wea. Rev.,110, 136–151.

  • ——, and ——, 1985: On the rotation and propagation of numerically simulated supercell thunderstorms. J. Atmos. Sci.,42, 271–292.

  • Schaefer, J. T., 1973: The motion and morphology of the dryline. NOAA Tech. Memo ERL NSSL-66, 81 pp. [NTIS COM-74-10043.].

  • Vasiloff, S. V., 1986: Investigation of the transition from multicell to supercell storms. J. Climate Appl. Meteor.,25, 1022–1036.

  • 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.

  • ——, and ——, 1984: The structure and classification of numerically simulated convective storms in directionally varying wind shears. Mon. Wea. Rev.,112, 2479–2498.

  • ——, and H. B. Bluestein, 1985: Dynamics of numerically simulated LP storms. Preprints, 15th Conf. on Severe Local Storms, Indianapolis, IN, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 167–171.

  • ——, and ——, 1986: Characteristics of isolated convective storms. Mesoscale Meteorology and Forecasting, P. Ray, Ed., Amer. Meteor. Soc., 331–358.

  • Wilhelmson, R. B., and J. B. Klemp, 1978: A three-dimensional numerical simulation of splitting that leads to long-lived storms. J. Atmos. Sci.,35, 1037–1063.

  • Young, K. C., 1993: Microphysical Processes in Clouds. Oxford University Press, 427 pp.

  • Yuter, S. E., and R. A. Houze Jr., 1995: Three-dimensional kinematic and microphysical evolution of Florida cumulonimbus. Part I: Spatial distribution of updrafts, downdrafts, and precipitation. Mon. Wea. Rev.,123, 1921–1940.

  • Ziegler, C. L., and C. E. Hane, 1993: An observational study of the dryline. Mon. Wea. Rev.,121, 1134–1151.

  • ——, P. S. Ray, and N. C. Knight, 1983: Hail growth in an Oklahoma multicell storm. J. Atmos. Sci.,40, 1768–1791.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 229 229 12
PDF Downloads 146 146 7

Variations in Supercell Morphology. Part I: Observations of the Role of Upper-Level Storm-Relative Flow

View More View Less
  • 1 Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies, National Severe Storms Laboratory, NOAA, and University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma
  • | 2 School of Meteorology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma
© Get Permissions Rent on DeepDyve
Restricted access

Abstract

It is hypothesized that the precipitation intensity beneath a supercell updraft is strongly influenced by the amount of hydrometeors that are reingested into the updraft after being transported away in the divergent upper-level flow of the anvil. This paper presents the results of a climatological analysis of soundings associated with three types of isolated supercells having distinctive precipitation distributions, the so-called classic, low-precipitation (LP), and high-precipitation (HP) storms. It is shown that storm-relative flow at 9–10 km above the ground is strongest in the environments of LP storms, and relatively weak in the environments of HP storms, with classic storms occurring in environments with intermediate magnitudes of upper storm-relative flow. It is plausible that comparatively strong flow in the anvil-bearing levels of LP storms transports hydrometeors far enough from the updraft that they are relatively unlikely to be reingested into the updraft, leading to greatly diminished precipitation formation in the updraft itself. Conversely, the weak upper flow near HP storms apparently allows a relatively large number of hydrometeors to return to the updraft, leading to the generation of relatively large amounts of precipitation in the updraft. It also is apparent that thermodynamic factors such as convective available potential energy, low-level mixing ratio, and mean relative humidity are of lesser importance in determining storm type from a climatological perspective, although important variations in humidity may not be well sampled in this study. This climatological analysis does not directly evaluate the stated hypothesis; however, the findings do indicate that further modeling and microphysical observations are warranted.

Corresponding author address: Erik Rasmussen, NSSL/NOAA 3450 Mitchell Lane, Bldg. 3, Room 2034, Boulder, CO 80301.

Email: rasmussen@nssl.noaa.gov

Abstract

It is hypothesized that the precipitation intensity beneath a supercell updraft is strongly influenced by the amount of hydrometeors that are reingested into the updraft after being transported away in the divergent upper-level flow of the anvil. This paper presents the results of a climatological analysis of soundings associated with three types of isolated supercells having distinctive precipitation distributions, the so-called classic, low-precipitation (LP), and high-precipitation (HP) storms. It is shown that storm-relative flow at 9–10 km above the ground is strongest in the environments of LP storms, and relatively weak in the environments of HP storms, with classic storms occurring in environments with intermediate magnitudes of upper storm-relative flow. It is plausible that comparatively strong flow in the anvil-bearing levels of LP storms transports hydrometeors far enough from the updraft that they are relatively unlikely to be reingested into the updraft, leading to greatly diminished precipitation formation in the updraft itself. Conversely, the weak upper flow near HP storms apparently allows a relatively large number of hydrometeors to return to the updraft, leading to the generation of relatively large amounts of precipitation in the updraft. It also is apparent that thermodynamic factors such as convective available potential energy, low-level mixing ratio, and mean relative humidity are of lesser importance in determining storm type from a climatological perspective, although important variations in humidity may not be well sampled in this study. This climatological analysis does not directly evaluate the stated hypothesis; however, the findings do indicate that further modeling and microphysical observations are warranted.

Corresponding author address: Erik Rasmussen, NSSL/NOAA 3450 Mitchell Lane, Bldg. 3, Room 2034, Boulder, CO 80301.

Email: rasmussen@nssl.noaa.gov

Save