Show Summary Details

Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE ( © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 24 June 2021

Tornadoes and Their Parent Convective Storms

Abstract and Keywords

In the past four decades much has been discovered about tornado formation and structure from observations, laboratory models, and numerical-simulation experiments. Observations include nearby movies and photographs of tornadoes, fixed-site, airborne, and ground-based mobile Doppler radar remote measurements, and in situ measurements using instrumented probes. Laboratory models are vortex chambers and numerical-simulations are based on the governing fluid dynamical equations. However, questions remain: How and why do tornadoes form? and How does the wind field associated with them vary in space and time? Recent studies of tornadoes based on observations, particularly by radar, are detailed. The major aspects of numerically simulating a tornado and its formation are reviewed, and the dynamics of tornado formation and structure based on both observations and laboratory and numerical-simulation experiments are described. Finally, future avenues of research and suggested instrument development for furthering our knowledge are discussed.

Keywords: tornado, tornadogenesis, supercell, mesocyclone, tornadic vortex signature, tornadic debris signature, endwall vortex, swirl ratio, corner flow collapse, cyclic tornadogenesis


Tornadoes are intense columns of rotating air, ~100 m to 1 km in diameter, pendant from convective clouds (Bluestein, 2013). They occur in many locations around the globe and sometimes in land-falling tropical cyclones (Novlan & Gray, 1974) but are most common in the central United States during the spring (Davies-Jones, Trapp, & Bluestein, 2001). Tornadoes over water are called waterspouts (Bluestein, 1999b). The minimum wind speed in tornadoes is generally that considered high enough to sustain damage. In the absence of direct measurements, tornado wind speeds are estimated from damage using the enhanced Fujita scale (Marshall, 2004) (Table 1) and supplemented when possible by data from mobile Doppler radars (Snyder & Bluestein, 2014). Tornadoes are of great interest to society because they are capable of inflicting intense damage, injuries, and loss of life. The most important scientific questions about tornadoes are as follows:

  1. 1. How and why do they form?

  2. 2. How does the wind field associated with them vary in space and time?

Table 1. The Fujita and Enhanced Fujita Scales for Estimating Wind Speeds in Tornadoes Based on Damage

Fujita Scale

Enhanced Fujita Scale

Fujita Scale

Fastest 1/4-mile wind speed, mph

3-Second gust speed, mph

Enhanced Fujita Scale

3-Second gust speed, mph































Answers to the first question will help us forecast them more accurately and add to our general scientific knowledge. The most important problems to be solved are determining the source(s) of vorticity (twice the angular velocity of a fluid parcel about its center of rotation) in tornadoes and how vorticity, which may have a significant horizontal component, is transformed into a vertical column of rapidly rotating air. The source(s) of vorticity may exist prior to storm formation, independent of the parent storm, or be produced by the storm itself. Answers to the second are of interest to structural engineers who want to design buildings capable of sustaining minimal damage when tornadoes strike.

In the next section, recent studies of tornadoes based on observations, particularly by radar, are detailed. In the third section we review the major aspects of numerically simulating a tornado and its formation. The dynamics of tornado formation and structure based on both observations and laboratory and numerical-simulation experiments are then described in the fourth section. There is a fifth and final section on future avenues of research and suggested instrument development for furthering our knowledge.

Observations of Tornadoes and Their Parent Storms and Observation Technology

Photogrammetric Analyses, Radar Observations, and Visual Observations

Quantitative estimates of wind speeds normal to the line of sight in tornadoes have been obtained from photogrammetric analyses of pieces of flying debris that can be tracked from frame to frame in movies (Hoecker, 1960). Doppler radar is used to estimate the component of the wind in the line-of-sight direction (the “Doppler wind component”). Photographs and other visual observations of tornadoes in storms are used to relate cloud structure in the parent storm to the location of tornadoes, without any correlating radar observations (Fujita, 1960). Condensation funnels are frequently found in tornadoes but may not be visible if the boundary layer, that part of the atmosphere that is affected by the Earth’s surface, is too dry and/or the pressure drop in them is not large enough. Or tornadoes may be hidden behind an opaque curtain of precipitation (Bluestein, 2013). Since flying debris is not always visible, because airborne debris either are simply not present or are hidden by a condensation funnel or precipitation, photogrammetric estimates of wind speeds in tornadoes have been of only limited usefulness. In addition, one must make the assumption that debris motion follows air motion, which, owing to the drag induced by debris, is not completely valid (Dowell, Alexander, Wurman, & Wicker, 2005).

Supercells, long-lived convective storms, which are most commonly found in midlatitudes, are characterized by a rotating updraft which has a large component of propagation normal to the pressure-weighted mean wind in the troposphere (Browning, 1964, 1965a, 1965b; Browning & Donaldson, 1963; Browning & Ludlam, 1962) and are the most prolific producers of strong tornadoes. Ordinary cells, on the other hand, persist only for about the time it takes an air parcel to ascend from the cloud base to the top of the storm and then fall back to the ground (~40–50 minutes) and do not generally have rotating updrafts (Browning, 1986; Weisman & Klemp, 1986). Supercells are also sometimes found in the outer rainbands of tropical cyclones (Eastin & Link, 2009) and in land-falling tropical cyclones (McCaul, 1991; Novlan & Gray, 1974; Suzuki, Hiroshi, Hisao, & Hiroshi, 2000).

Tornadoes and Their Parent Convective Storms

Figure 1. (a) Mobile, 3-cm wavelength, Doppler radar data (University of Massachusetts X-Pol) for a tornadic supercell near Greensburg, Kansas, on May 4, 2007 (Tanamachi et al., 2012). (top) Radar reflectivity factor (dBZ). A hook echo and weak-echo hole are evident. (bottom) Dealiased Doppler velocity (m s–1). The black circular ring marks the cyclonic shear vortex signature. Range rings are shown every 5 km. (b) Zoomed-in view of a tornado at low levels from the University of Oklahoma mobile Doppler radar RaXPol (Rapid-scan X-band Polarimetric) (Pazmany, Mead, Bluestein, Snyder, & Houser, 2013) near Shawnee, Oklahoma, on May 19, 2013. (top left) Radar reflectivity factor Z (dBZ) showing a “debris ball”; (top right) differential reflectivity (ZDR) showing low values indicative of debris; (bottom left) undealiased Doppler velocity (m s–1) showing a cyclonic vortex shear signature; (bottom right) copolar cross-correlation coefficient ρhv showing low values, indicative of debris. Range rings are shown every 1 km.

Tornadoes and Their Parent Convective Storms

Figure 2. Vertical cross section through the weak-echo hole and bounded weak-echo region (BWER; or “vault”) of the tornadic supercell shown in Figure 1.

From Tanamachi et al. (2012).

The intensity of radar echoes in convective storms is typically measured logarithmically, owing to the high dynamic range of the intensity of backscattered radiation from distant precipitation. The radar reflectivity factor (Z) for Rayleigh scatterers (when the diameter of the scatterers is small compared to the wavelength of the radiation) is proportional to the sum of the sixth power of the diameter of all the scatterers in the radar volume, so a relatively high Z could be caused by relatively few large hydrometeors or by many small hydrometeors. Information about the drop-size spectrum is therefore not known from Z alone. The reflectivity factor is also affected by the wetness of the surface and other “microphysical” properties of the scatterers. The supercell radar echo often has a hook-shaped appendage on its right rear flank (with respect to the direction of storm motion), which is indicative of rotation (Figure 1a). The strong updraft in a supercell is marked at low levels by a weak-echo region and aloft by a bounded weak-echo region, created because the residence time of small cloud particles in the updraft is too short for larger, precipitation-size scatterers to form (Browning, 1965a) (Figure 2).

Doppler Radar Observations

Tornadoes and Their Parent Convective Storms

Figure 3. (a) Idealized visual model (top, based on Moller [1978]) and actual photograph (bottom) of a tornadic supercell as viewed from its right flank. The photograph (© Howard B. Bluestein) was taken in Goshen County, Wyoming, on June 5, 2009, during VORTEX2. (b) Idealized model of a tornadic supercell (from Lemon & Doswell, 1979). The thick solid line is the outline of the radar echo. The locations of the rear-flank downdraft (RFD), forward-flank downdraft (FFD), and main updraft (UD) are stippled and outlined by dashed lines. The arrows indicate the direction of the low-level winds. The cold front symbol denotes the rear-flank gust front.

From a network of Doppler radars the two-dimensional wind field on the storm scale can be synthesized on tilted planes from line-of-sight measurements made from different viewing angles; from these two-dimensional wind fields, the three-dimensional wind is estimated using as a constraint the conservation of mass and estimates of terminal fall velocity of hydrometeors based on measurements of the intensity of backscattered signal (Armijo, 1969; Brandes, 1977a, 1977b, 1978, 1981; Heymsfield, 1978; Ray et al., 1975). A radar and visual (“storm chasers” [Bluestein, 1999a] provided the photographs) idealized model of supercells with tornadoes (Moller, 1978; Moller, Doswell, Foster, & Woodall, 1994) is seen in Figure 3. Tornadoes in supercells tend to be found near the wall cloud, a lowered cloud base underneath the main, rotating, cumulonimbus cloud, which is characterized by an updraft. Downdrafts are found in two locations: The forward-flank downdraft (FFD), where precipitation falls downstream at upper levels from the anvil, and the rear-flank downdraft (RFD), upstream with respect to storm-relative flow at midlevels. The RFD bulges outward as a gust front, a line along which the wind shifts from storm-relative inflow to sometimes cooler storm-relative outflow. Tornadoes tend to be found in and near the mesocyclone at the tip of the RFD gust front and are flanked by a downdraft and an updraft (Lemon & Doswell, 1979). The FFD is not typically marked by a well-defined wind shift on its right flank, as depicted in the Lemon and Doswell model. The storm-scale (mesocyclones ~O [2.5–10 km]) features associated with tornadoes (tornadoes are ~O [100 m–1 km]) appear to be a small-scale analog of the synoptic-scale cyclone that forms at the intersection of a cold front and a warm front.

From early observations of the Doppler radar vortex signature (Figure 1) indicative of a mesocyclone (strong lateral shear in the Doppler velocity, having temporal and vertical continuity) (Brown, Lemon, & Burgess, 1978; Brown & Wood, 2012; Donaldson, 1970), it was found that mesocyclones aloft preceded tornadoes and could be used as a basis for warning the public of possible tornadoes. However, it has become apparent that the mesocyclone signature is not a sufficient condition for tornado formation (tornadogenesis), and it has been found that fewer than ~15% of all mesocyclones aloft (~25% overall) actually go on to produce tornadoes (Trapp, Stumpf, & Manross, 2005a); it is not entirely understood why only some mesocyclones produce tornadoes, while others do not. When Doppler radars are close enough to resolve, at least partially, the vortex associated with the tornado itself, not just the larger-scale mesocyclone, the strong gate-to-gate (adjacent points in space at the same range but at different azimuths) Doppler velocity shear detected is called a tornadic vortex signature (TVS). It was also found that with the 4–5 minutes needed to scan much of the volume of a supercell with Doppler radar, TVSs tended to form at midlevels in the storm and then descend to the surface.

Tornadoes also occur in ordinary-cell convective storms (Bluestein, 1985; Wakimoto & Wilson, 1989). These tornadoes form from vorticity in the boundary layer along wind-shift lines that preceded the formation and development of the parent convective storms, unlike the tornadoes that form in supercells from vorticity that is produced by the storm itself. These types of tornadoes are overall not as intense as those that form in supercells. They are challenging to detect because they sometimes appear before any radar echoes from precipitation have formed.

Tornadoes and Their Parent Convective Storms

Figure 4. Depiction of a tornado within a line of convective storms just southwest of Norman, Oklahoma, during the early morning of April 2, 2010. (top panel) Radar reflectivity factor (dBZ) showing a hook echo; (bottom panel) Doppler velocity (m s–1) showing a cyclonic vortex shear signature (circled). Data from a 3-cm wavelength mesoscale network radar (from Mahale et al., 2012). Range rings shown every 5 km.

Tornadoes are also found in quasi-linear mesoscale convective systems or rainbands along local bulges in lines of deep convection (Figure 4) (Bluestein, 2013; Mahale, Brotzge, & Bluestein, 2012; Trapp, Tessendorf, Godfrey, & Brooks, 2005b). These tornadoes are also overall not as intense as supercell tornadoes and account for roughly 20% of all tornadoes reported in the United States; they present a challenge to observe because they are frequently not visible owing to intervening precipitation.

Estimates of the wind field in tornadoes and their parent storms computed from just several fixed-site research Doppler radars during various field programs have been our best source of data documenting tornadogenesis and tornado structure. However, capturing storms undergoing tornadogenesis within a multiple-Doppler network does not occur often. Furthermore, it is also rare that a tornado gets within 20 km of any radar. After the mid-1990s, a network of widely spaced, 10-cm wavelength Doppler radars (Weather Surveillance Radar-88 Doppler [WSR-88D]) has also provided single-Doppler coverage for many areas of the United States (Crum & Alberty, 1993). Because high spatial resolution is needed to resolve the wind field in tornadoes, ground-based mobile radars (Bluestein & Unruh, 1989; Wurman & Gill, 2000) and airborne radars (Dowell, Bluestein, & Jorgensen, 1997; Wakimoto, Lee, Bluestein, Liu, & Hildebrand, 1996) were developed at shorter wavelengths (to keep the antenna small enough to transport). Since the radar beam diverges with distance from the radar, it is necessary to get as close to a storm as safely possible. Carrying radar to a storm rather than waiting for a storm to pass near radar is a good strategy for increasing the number of cases to be studied. Getting close to the storm is necessary also because, owing to the curvature of the Earth, air motions near the ground are below the radar horizon at long range, even after accounting for refraction of the beam as a result of changes in temperature and humidity with height. Airborne platforms allow one to travel to distant storms quickly; but data near the ground are contaminated by ground clutter, and there are relatively long gaps in time in volumetric analyses of the wind field because it typically takes an aircraft ~5 minutes to fly by the storm at the minimum speed necessary to keep the platform airborne and to turn around and approach the storm again. Ground-based, mobile Doppler radars have proven to be extremely valuable because the wind field down to ~100 m of the surface can be resolved at higher spatial resolution and with much better temporal resolution than airborne radars. Ground-based radars, however, are sometimes difficult to maneuver into position when the road network is too sparse and topographic features block the radar beam. Multiple-Doppler studies of tornadogenesis in supercells are still relatively rare but more common than fixed-site studies.

In Situ Measurements

No radars, however, offer any direct information about the distribution of thermodynamic variables in and near tornadoes. While it is possible to make use of the governing dynamic and thermodynamic equations to retrieve thermodynamic information in convective storms (Hane & Ray, 1985; Hane, Wilhelmson, & Gal-Chen, 1981), the accuracy of such retrievals is much less than that from in situ sensors. Attempts have been made to obtain in situ measurements safely of wind, pressure, temperature, and humidity in and near tornadoes by placing hardened sensors in the path of tornadoes and in various sectors of supercells (Bluestein, 1983). Other attempts have been made using a flotilla of instrumented ground-based vehicles called a mobile mesonet (Markowski, 2002; Markowski, Straka, & Rasmussen, 2002; Shabbott & Markowski, 2006; Straka, Rasmussen, & Fredrickson, 1996). During VORTEX (Verification of the Origin of Rotation in Tornadoes Experiment) in 1994 and 1995 (Rasmussen et al., 1994) evidence was found from a mobile mesonet that the air flowing into the parent storm when tornadoes are produced is not as cool as the air flowing into nontornadic storms. More recently, before, during, and after VORTEX2 (Wurman et al., 2012), which was conducted in 2009 and 2010, similar observations were made using other mesonets and other probes (Lee, Finley, & Karstens, 2012). Direct measurements in tornadoes were made during VORTEX and other smaller field programs, in which pressure drops as large as 100 hPa were measured (Karstens, Samaras, Lee, Gallus, & Finley, 2010; Winn, Hunyady, & Aulich, 1999). A hardened vehicle, the tornado intercept vehicle, also made a few in situ measurements in tornadoes, particularly during VORTEX2 (Wurman, Kosiba, & Robinson, 2013).

Rapid-Scan Radars

Mechanically scanning radars typically take at least several minutes or more to scan the lower half of a storm or tornado. This update time is sufficient to document changes in storm features, whose advective time scale (the time it takes an air parcel to pass into and out of a feature in a storm) is ~O (10 km/10 m s–1 ~ 1000 s ~ tens of minutes). A scanning radar’s update time is constrained by the necessity for the radar beam to dwell on volumes for a sufficiently long time to acquire enough samples to estimate the Doppler wind field with high accuracy. In addition, the beam is smeared considerably if the mechanical scanning rate is high.

The advective or orbit timescale of a tornado, however, is only ~O ([100 m–1 km]/[50–100 m s–1] ~ 1–10 s) so that typical mechanically scanning radars are usually not able to provide data at rapid enough intervals to document tornadogenesis adequately. The electronic scanning technology of phased-array radars (Zrnic et al., 2007) has been applied to speed up the volumetric update time to ~7–15 seconds. However, the faster, phased-array radars either lack the spatial resolution of mechanically scanning radars or are not able to provide as many nearly simultaneous beams in the vertical (Bluestein, French, PopStefanija, Bluth, & Knorr 2010; Wurman & Randall, 2001). Measurements in developing tornadoes made recently with a mobile, phased-array radar indicate that the TVS formed either near the ground first and then propagated upward or simultaneously in a vertical column (French, Bluestein, PopStefanija, Baldi, & Bluth, 2013, 2014a; Houser, Bluestein, & Snyder, 2015). The older paradigm of TVS formation at midlevels first and then building down to the ground (Trapp and Davies-Jones, 1997; Trapp et al., 1999) seems to be erroneous owing to temporal sampling error (French et al., 2013).

Polarimetric Radars

Many research radars and the WSR-88D network radars in the United States now have dual-polarization capability (Doviak, Bringi, Ryzhkov, Zahrai, & Zrnic, 2000). From dual-polarization radar data, one can deduce information about the nature of the scatterers in a storm (Romine, Burgess, & Wilhelmson, 2008; Straka, Zrnic, & Ryzhkov, 2000; Van Den Broeke, Straka, & Rasmussen, 2008; Zrnic & Ryzhkov, 1999). The quantities differential reflectivity (ZDR) and copolar cross-correlation coefficient are often used,

ZDR=10 log ZH/ZV,

where ZH and ZV are the radar reflectivity factors for the horizontally and vertically polarized beams, respectively. Large raindrops, which become oblate as they fall, are characterized by high ZDR, while small raindrops are characterized by low ZDR. When short-wavelength radars are used and/or when scatterer sizes are large, scattering is in the Mie range, where resonance effects complicate the relationship between scatter size and reflectivity such that there is not a monotonic relationship between Z and the sizes and density of the scatterers. The copolar cross correlation coefficient is determined by

ρηϖ= [SvvShh*]/([Shh2]1/2[Svv2]1/2)

where Sxy is the transmitted (x) and backscattered (y) complex signal strength. There are a number of scientific justifications for using polarimetric radar data.

Cold-Pool Potential

The evaporation and sublimation rates of water vapor into the air and the resultant cooling rates are functions of the types of hydrometeors present and the humidity of the air into which the hydrometeors are falling or suspended. Therefore, knowledge of the three-dimensional distribution of the types of hydrometeors is significant in determining the intensity of surface cold pools underneath convective storms (French, Burgess, Mansell, & Wicker, 2014b), which plays a role in the formation of low-level mesocyclones in supercells (Markowski & Richardson, 2014).

Tornado Debris Signature Identification

Tumbling debris in tornadoes is not characterized by any preferred orientation, so debris is characterized by low ZDR and ρηv (Bluestein et al., 2007a; Bluestein, Snyder, & Houser, 2015; Ryzhkov, Schuur, Burgess, & Zrnić, 2005; Snyder, Bluestein, Zhang, & Frasier, 2010; Wurman et al., 2013). A region of low ZDR and ρηv when a TVS is present is called a tornado debris signature (TDS) (Figure 1b); ρηv is usually a better indicator of tornado debris than ZDR. The TDS is an additional useful product for locating tornadoes. Since surveillance radars (such as the WSR-88D) are often far enough away from tornadoes that a TVS cannot be detected near the ground, the TDS provides independent evidence that there is a tornado because damage is being inflicted.

Identification of Strong Updrafts

Tornadoes and Their Parent Convective Storms

Figure 5. A ZDR (db) tower in a supercell as detected by a 10-cm Doppler radar

(from Kumjian & Ryzhkov, 2008).

When a strong updraft lofts raindrops above the freezing level, there is a column of relatively high ZDR (Kumjian & Ryzhkov, 2008; Snyder, Bluestein, Venkatesh, & Frasier, 2013) (Figure 5). Since Doppler radars typically scan at relatively low elevation angles (constrained by the range to the radar and the height of the radar echoes), most of the velocity component detected is horizontal so that vertical velocity must be inferred (from mass continuity constraints when there is multiple-Doppler synthesis of the two-dimensional wind). Independent confirmation of a strong updraft is therefore useful, especially when only single-Doppler data are available and it is not possible to estimate vertical velocity (Snyder, Ryzhkov, Kumjian, & Picca, 2014).

Identification of Storm Rotation

Tornadoes and Their Parent Convective Storms

Figure 6. A ZDR (db) arc along the right forward flank at low levels in a supercell as detected by a 10-cm Doppler radar

(from Kumjian & Ryzhkov, 2008).

A narrow band of relatively high ZDR as a result of size sorting of precipitation particles is often found along the forward flank of supercells (Kumjian & Ryzhkov, 2008). The ZDR arc (Figure 6) can be thought of as an indicator of the magnitude of the storm-relative mean wind, which typically is large for supercells that rotate and propagate off the environmental hodograph (Dawson, Mansell, & Kumjian, 2015).

Simulations of Tornadoes and Their Parent Storms

Modeling of Convective Storms

In order to understand tornadogenesis, it is necessary to perform controlled experiments. Since it is not possible to do a controlled experiment in nature, simulation experiments are needed in which one can vary the state of the atmosphere prior to tornadogenesis. Since many of the processes responsible for the formation and evolution of convective storms and tornadoes are highly nonlinear, understanding of tornadogenesis can come only through numerical simulations. Understanding is enhanced, however, by analytical solutions for highly idealized processes. Finally, numerical models may be used to predict storm formation and evolution. Observations are needed as a guide for what is to be expected as outcomes. The overall method for predicting meteorological variables, that is, extrapolating them into the future, is now outlined (Klemp & Wilhelmson, 1978; Schlesinger, 1975).

The governing equations in Cartesian coordinates for convective storms include the three-dimensional equation of motion:

Dv/Dt=1/ ρ¯ p'+B k+F

where Dv/Dt=v/t+(v) v vt+(1/2 vv)+( X v) X v, ρ¯ is the density of the “basic state” (average value over the domain, which extends far beyond the convective storm); p¢ is the deviation of the pressure from the basic state pressure; the buoyancy B=gθ'/θ¯ + terms involving water vapor and condensate suspended in the air, g is the acceleration of gravity and θ is the potential temperature, with primed and averaged quantities representing the deviation from the basic state and the basic state itself, respectively; and F represents sub-grid-scale mixing/turbulence. Various techniques have been used to parameterize sub-grid-scale turbulence based on grid-scale measurements, most of which make use of the assumption that the grid scale of the model is within the inertial subrange (Klemp & Wilhelmson, 1978), where kinetic energy is produced at larger scales and cascaded down through eddies to the smaller scales of molecules, where it is dissipated as heat at the same rate as it is transported downscale from the eddies. Potential temperature is determined by θ=T(p/po)R/Cp, where T is the temperature; po is the pressure at the reference level, usually 1000 hPa; R is the gas constant; and Cp is the specific heat at constant pressure. When simulations are carried on for time periods in excess of just a few hours, it is necessary to include the effects of the rotation of the Earth about its axis via the Coriolis force (not shown in Equation 3). Electrical forces could also be included but for simplicity are not included here. Most observational evidence does not support the inclusion of electrical forces (Davies-Jones, 1986) for simulating tornadoes.

The conservation of mass may be expressed in flux form by the following fully compressible continuity equation:

ρ/t=ρ¯ v

Equations for conservation of water substance are used separately for water vapor, cloud particles, and precipitation particles of a number of different kinds (e.g., raindrops, ice crystals, hail).

The prognostic equations for v are given in terms of the right-hand side of Equation 3, which is a function of the three-dimensional wind field, temperature, and density. Each component of the wind is extrapolated into the future using finite-difference schemes. The relation between the grid spacing and the duration of the time step is chosen so that the numerical integration is computationally stable. Pressure, which appears as a horizontal gradient on the right-hand side of Equation 3, is found by forming a diagnostic, Poisson, pressure equation by computing a divergence equation from the individual components of Equation 3 and using the incompressible form of the equation of continuity (4) (Ogura & Phillips, 1962) (the time derivative term involving density is neglected) to eliminate the time derivative terms, to arrive at the following (Rotunno & Klemp, 1982, 1985):

2p'= ρ¯{[(u/x)2+(v/y)2+(w/z)2] 2[u/yv/x+w/xu/z+w/yv/z]+B/z +F}

The terms on the right-hand side of Equation 5 are computed from the three-dimensional distribution of the wind, temperature, and density. Sound waves are allowed by the fully compressible continuity equation, and these must be accounted for when necessary.

The thermodynamic equation is given by


where Ql, Qr, and QF are the diabatic heating rates due to changes in the phase of water substance (Kessler, 1969; evaporation, condensation, sublimation, melting, etc.), radiation, and sub-grid-scale diffusion of heat.

Boundary conditions are chosen so that vertical velocity is zero at the ground (the kinematic boundary condition: there is no exchange of air across the surface) and at high levels well above cloud top. At the surface (z = 0), the free-slip boundary condition is usually imposed (i.e., u/ and  v/z=0). Using the free-slip lower boundary condition, there is no surface friction. If the more realistic no-slip lower boundary condition (u = 0 and v = 0 at z = 0) were applied, then the vertical grid spacing would have to approach zero near the surface. So all models that use the free-slip boundary condition, while appropriate for studying tornadogenesis, are not appropriate for studying the structural engineering impacts of tornadoes. A compromise, the semi-slip lower boundary condition (Kuo, 1971; Taylor, 1915), is sometimes used, for which v=Kv/z and K > 0. Lateral boundary conditions are also applied so that disturbances propagating into the domain are reflected minimally.

For fundamental studies, the environment is usually assumed to be horizontally homogeneous, for simplicity, and a single sounding is used to define the environment. However, it is recognized that convective storms frequently form along surface boundaries, where the environment is not homogeneous, so changes in the environment must be taken into account (Richardson, Droegemeier, & Davies-Jones, 2007), especially when a storm crosses or moves away from a boundary (Atkins, Weisman, & Wicker, 1999; Markowski, Rasmussen, & Straka, 1998). For actual numerical weather prediction, the environment is allowed to be inhomogeneous. Initializing the model for idealized experiments requires artificially triggering a storm by releasing a buoyant bubble (or a spatial distribution of buoyant bubbles) at low levels or imposing a region of negatively buoyant air near the surface, which then forces air upward at its periphery. Initializing the model for numerical weather prediction is complex, involving the use of many types of data as initial conditions (data from rawinsondes, radars, satellites, surface-observing instruments, etc.) and, in the case of four-dimensional “data assimilation,” the blending of both the observational data and model data as a function of time (Talagrand, 1997). Techniques have also been developed for combining real data and model data to obtain analyses of meteorological variables for the diagnosis of physical processes (Marquis, Richardson, Markowski, Dowell, & Wurman, 2012).

Numerical-simulation experiments for studying the behavior of convective storms usually involves grid spacings of ~100 m to 1 km. The smaller grid spacing is required for the most accurate representation of storms. Tornadoes, which are smaller in horizontal scale, are not represented explicitly in the models. Simulations with grid spacing as low as ~50 m show remarkable detail and can reproduce tornado-like vortices (Orf, Wilhelmson, Wicker, Lee, & Finley, 2014).

Modeling of Tornadoes

To model tornadoes, laboratory models have been used to study tornado behavior (Ward, 1972), with the model tornado completely divorced from its parent storm. In particular, laboratory models, vortex chambers, have been used to model what happens when a rapidly rotating vortex interacts with the ground (Church, Snow, & Agee, 1977). Numerical-model analogs of laboratory models have been used to study idealized vortices interacting with the ground (Rotunno, 1977, 1979), without the need to make measurements with instruments, which can disrupt the airflow, of all the variables at each point in the vortex chamber. There are two main types of models: the Ward chamber (Ward, 1972) and the Fiedler chamber (Fiedler, 1995; Trapp & Fiedler, 1995). In the former, air is sucked out of the chamber at the top by an exhaust fan and in at the bottom; the relative amount of air that flows around the vortex compared to that which flows radially inward is controlled by vanes. A measure of the relative amount of “swirl” (azimuthal flow) to radial inflow is called the swirl ratio (Church, Snow, Baker, & Agee, 1979). In the latter model, which is virtual (not physical), a fixed source of buoyancy is imposed in the chamber and air is circulated within the chamber. In the Ward chamber, the exhaust fan plays the role of the updraft in the parent storm; in the Fiedler chamber, the buoyant bubble plays the role of the updraft. The effects of the parent storm are modeled through the boundary conditions. Recently, a physical simulator has been constructed that more closely simulates tornado-like flow by scaling the physical dimensions/properties of the simulator to the flow in tornadoes as measured by Doppler radar (Refan, 2014).

The equation of motion for the radial wind component in cylindrical coordinates for axisymmetric flow is

Du/Dt=u/t+uu/r+wu/zv2/r=1/ ρ¯ p/r+v(2u/2r+1/ru/ru/r2+2u/z2)

where u, v, and w are the radial, azimuthal, and vertical components of the wind, respectively, and ν is the eddy coefficient of viscosity. When –v2/r is brought to the right-hand side of the equation and the sign reversed, it is the (outward) acceleration due to the centrifugal force;  1/ρ¯  p/r is the radial acceleration due to the radial pressure-gradient force; and the last term is the radial acceleration due to sub-grid-scale mixing and turbulence. The thermodynamic equation is not considered when, for simplicity, the atmosphere is incompressible.

To model tornado behavior more accurately, large-eddy simulation (LES) models are used (Lewellen, Lewellen, & Sykes, 1997), for which the spatial resolution is high enough to reproduce the largest eddies in the inertial subrange. For tornadoes, the spatial resolution is ~O (1 m).

Dynamics of Tornadoes and Their Parent Storms

The dynamics of supercells (Klemp, 1987) may be explained through the three-dimensional vorticity (X v =ϖ) equation (Rotunno, 1981):

D/Dt(X v)=/(X v)+ u/(X v)+v/(X v)+w/(X v)=[(X v)]v+X(B k)+X F

Vorticity may be advected from one place to another, tilted from one axis to another, and amplified or suppressed by the stretching or shrinking of a fluid segment (first term on the right-hand side); generated or dissipated baroclinically (second term on the right-hand side); and generated or dissipated by sub-grid-scale mixing (third term on the right-hand side).

To find out how vorticity is generated in a supercell, backward trajectories are computed from the mesocylone/tornado and then the terms in the vorticity equation are calculated (Rotunno & Klemp, 1985). This procedure can be difficult because the trajectories are sensitive to the origination points when the wind field is strong and there are sharp gradients, as are found in strong vortices (Dahl, Parker, & Wicker, 2012). Also, near the ground, trajectories are sensitive to the choice of lower boundary condition and parameterization of sub-grid-scale mixing/turbulence, along with the vertical increment used near the ground. Finally, air converging into a mesocylone or tornado can originate from different air masses (Rotunno & Klemp, 1985).

Circulation analysis is a macroscale alternative to vorticity analysis, which involves finite material surfaces, while vorticity analysis involves infinitesimal air parcels (Rotunno & Klemp, 1985). Circulation


where l is a unit vector tangent to the material curve about which the line integral is computed and pointing in the counterclockwise direction, where for vertical vortices, the vorticity

ζ= C/A

where A is the area enclosed by the closed circuit. For a circular circuit about a vertical vortex such as a mesocyclone or a tornado exhibiting axisymmetry,


where Γ is angular momentum (per unit mass) at the radius of the circular circuit. In a barotropic atmosphere that is inviscid (no sub-grid-scale mixing/turbulence), circulation is conserved following air motion (DC/Dt = 0). In a baroclinic atmosphere, circulation may be generated or dissipated (V. Bjerknes’s first circulation theorem). The mechanisms for the formation of a tornado are therefore sometimes categorized as being purely barotropic or purely baroclinic.

The Origin of the Midlevel Mesocyclone in a Supercell

From observations (Brandes, 1984) and numerical simulations (Klemp & Wilhelmson, 1978; Schlesinger, 1975) we have learned that counterrotating vortices are produced at midlevels in a supercell by the tilting, along the flanks of the main updraft in a buoyant updraft, of horizontal vorticity associated with vertical shear of the environmental wind onto the vertical axis (Figure 7, top). This environmental vertical shear is largely a consequence of the pole-to-equator temperature gradient in the troposphere, though, on the synoptic-scale, by the thermal-wind relation (Bluestein, 1992):

vg/zg/fT k X zT

Tornadoes and Their Parent Convective Storms

Figure 7. (top) Illustration of the production of a cyclonic–anticyclonic couplet at midlevels by the tilting of the horizontal vortex line (line along which the three-dimensional vorticity vector points) associated with vertical shear in the environment (vertical variation of the winds indicated by wind vectors at the rear left) by a storm’s buoyant updraft. Upward-directed arrows depict upward accelerations induced by the vertical perturbation pressure gradient forces below each midlevel vortex. (bottom) As in the top panel but at a later time as the updraft splits.

From Klemp (1987).

where vg is the geostrophic wind. In the boundary layer, vertical shear may have a significant contribution from sub-grid-scale mixing (surface friction).

The diagnostic pressure equation (5) may be expressed as (Klemp & Rotunno, 1983; Rotunno & Klemp, 1982, 1985)

2p=ρ¯{[2 v¯/w] [(u/x)2+(v/y)2+(w/z)2]1/2[|D|2[|ϖ|2]+B/z+ F}

in which the wind field has been decomposed into a mean (ˉ) part, representative of a horizontally homogeneous environment and a perturbation (¢) part, representative of the storm, and

u = u¯(z) + u(x,y,z,t)

v = v¯(z) + v(x,y,z,t)

w = w(x,y,z,t)

where′ and ω′ represent the three-dimensional perturbation deformation and perturbation vorticity, respectively, such that



and where

w/yv/z=ξ,  the x component of vorticity,

u/z w/x=η, the y component of vorticity and

v/x u/y=ζ,. the z component of vorticity

The first term on the right-hand side of Equation 13 is the linear, dynamic term (p¢L); the second term is the nonlinear, dynamic term (p¢NL); the third term is the buoyancy term (p¢B); and the fourth term is the sub-grid-scale mixing term (p¢F), where

p= pdyn+pB+ pF


pdyn= pL+ pNL

Tornadoes and Their Parent Convective Storms

Figure 8. Idealized, semicircular hodograph plotted from the surface (0) to some level above height h. Wind vector at a level below h is shown in red, along with the vorticity vector (dashed) and vertical shear vector (solid). “u” and “v” are the components of wind in the x (zonal) and y (meridional) direstions, respectively.

Adapted from Bluestein (2013).

In the first, linear, dynamic term, the vertical shear vector of the mean wind may be plotted as a hodograph, the locus of points marked by the wind in the environment at each level (Figure 8).

The two counterrotating vortices that are produced at midlevels are each associated with a relative minimum in p¢ according the vorticity part of the nonlinear, dynamic term. Below each vortex, then, there is an upward-directed perturbation pressure-gradient force that lifts air upward and splits the updraft into a cyclonically rotating, right-“moving” (with respect to the mean shear) part and an anticyclonically rotating, left-“moving” part, as is observed in nature (Charba & Sasaki, 1971; Fujita & Grandoso, 1968) (Figure 7, bottom): Each updraft propagates away from the original updraft. Precipitation can fall in between the updrafts but not into the updrafts themselves; consequently, the updrafts are not suppressed as they can be in ordinary-cell convection, when the vertical shear is relatively weak. Since simulated storms split even when no precipitation is allowed, evaporatively cooled pools of air near the ground are not necessary for off-shear propagation.

There is a relative minimum (maximum) in p¢ on the downshear (upshear) side of the updraft according to the linear part of the dynamic term. The linear term is responsible for favoring a right-moving (left-moving) updraft when the environmental hodograph (the vertical shear vector is tangent to the hodograph) turns in clockwise (counterclockwise) manner with height. In nature, owing to the boundary layer, in which the wind veers with height and increases in speed with height, most hodographs favor right-moving, cyclonically rotating supercells (Figure 9). On very rare occasions, mirror- image, left-moving, anticyclonically rotating supercells (Hammond, 1967) produce anticyclonic tornadoes (Bluestein, 2013; Bunkers & Stoppkotte, 2007).

Tornadoes and Their Parent Convective Storms

Figure 9. Illustration of how an upward (downward)–directed perturbation pressure gradient force (dashed vectors) on the right (left) flanks of an updraft (cylinder marked as w > 0) occurs when the vertical shear vector (solid) turns in a clockwise manner with height.

From Bluestein (2013).

The dynamic perturbation pressure-gradient forces typically contribute approximately half of the updraft strength, and buoyancy contributes the other half (Weisman & Rotunno, 2000). In the lower several kilometers of the atmosphere, the dynamic perturbation pressure-gradient force may contribute more to vertical acceleration than buoyancy, which is especially true in supercells in landfalling tropical cyclones, where convective available potential energy (CAPE) is relatively low (McCaul & Weisman, 1996). (We ignore, for simplicity, the contribution from sub-grid-scale mixing/turbulence.)

As noted earlier, the generation of rotation in a convective storm allows the updraft to survive much longer than an updraft in a nonrotating convective storm because, owing to updraft propagation, precipitation does not fall into it and destroy the updraft by negating the buoyancy. Supercell formation can occur in an environment of moderate to strong deep-layer shear and modest to strong CAPE, where


and where LFC is the level of free convection (height at which an upward forced air parcel first becomes positively buoyant) and EL is the equilibrium level (height at which the buoyancy returns to zero, i.e., the height at which the temperature of the air parcel in the cloud is no longer warmer than its environment). High lapse rates (large vertical derivatives of temperature) associated with relatively warm air below and cool air aloft and high moisture content in the boundary layer contribute to high CAPE.

From the inviscid form of the vertical equation of motion (3) expressed as,

Dw/Dt = -1/ρ¯ pd/z+ [(1/ρ¯) pb/z+B]

where p′ = pd′ + pb′ and pd′ and pb′ are the perturbation pressures associated with the wind field (dynamic) and buoyancy, respectively. If both the dynamic and buoyancy parts of the perturbation pressure are ignored, then

wmax(2 CAPE)1/2

This equation is valid when a thermal bubble is at rest (as it is before being “released”) and when the bubble is much wider than it is deep and mixing can be ignored. In general, however, Equation 23 yields an upper bound to vertical velocity because downward-directed buoyancy perturbation pressure-gradient forces (thermals bubbles cannot be too flattened), precipitation loading, and entrainment of nonbuoyant air into the bubble act to decrease w: CAPE is a crude measure of the potential for updraft intensity.

The tendency of an updraft to rotate therefore depends on the strength of the midlevel updraft caused by buoyancy and the magnitude of deep shear (also noted observationally by Rasmussen [2003] and Rasmussen & Blanchard [1998]). Supercell behavior depends on the propagation of updrafts in the direction normal to the vertical shear through upward-directed perturbation pressure-gradient forces underneath the vortices generated by tilting. A necessary condition for supercell formation is that the bulk Richardson number

R = CAPE/(1/2 U2)

is relatively low, where U is the magnitude of the storm-relative inflow and is related to the vertical wind shear. R cannot be too low though, for example, when CAPE is very low, because the updraft strength is too weak; R cannot be too high, for example, when U is small, because the dynamic, upward-directed perturbation pressure gradients underneath midlevel vortices are too weak (Weisman & Klemp, 1982, 1984).

Other conditions that affect whether a supercell rather than an ordinary cell form include the geometry of the boundary along which convective storms may form, the orientation of the tropospheric-mean vertical wind shear with respect to the boundary (Bluestein & Weisman, 2000), and the humidity. Neighboring storm interactions (e.g., collisions) and interactions with boundaries can also affect storm behavior (Bluestein & Weisman, 2000). Also, mesoscale variability can affect storm evolution (Richardson et al., 2007).

There are two paradigms of supercell behavior, the vertical shear perspective and the helicity (H =v •ω) perspective (Weisman & Rotunno, 2000). In the former, it is the vertical shear that is responsible for producing midlevel rotation along the flanks of the updraft, which leads to propagation of updrafts away from the direction of the vertical shear vector. In the latter, it is the propagation that leads to rotation.

The helicity paradigm is motivated by the finding that when there is streamwise vorticity(vc)ω>0;c is the storm motion vector so that v – c is the storm-relative wind vector—vertical vorticity and vertical velocity are correlated in a dry, inviscid atmosphere for small displacements from the mean state (Davies-Jones, 1984). For example, the linearized vertical vorticity equation for steady flow with an updraft propagating in the –y direction (at c = –cy) and mean vertical shear in the +x direction (u¯/z) is


The integral of Equation 25 with respect to y leads to

ζ=u¯/z w/ cy

So, u¯/z>0 and  cy>0 when w>0,ζ>0 and when w<0,ζ<0.

When vertical vorticity is correlated with vertical motion, convergence underneath an updraft acts to increase vorticity through stretching, which is a nonlinear process; thus, propagation leads to rotation (the mesocyclone). This analysis, however, does not explain how c is maintained. The storm-relative environmental helicity (SREH) is determined as

SREH = 0h(vc)( X v) dz

in which forecasters often use h = 3 km. High SREH is thought to be indicative of a high probability of storm rotation and tornadoes. A problem with the helicity paradigm is that it depends on the reference frame, that is, it is not Galilean invariant. The storm-relative motion must be known. SREH may be computed from an environmental hodograph and the storm-motion vector as twice the area swept out by the storm-relative wind vector between the surface and height (h). High SREH is favored by long hodographs having strong clockwise curvature. For no storm motion, SREH increases with synoptic-scale horizontal temperature advection—SREH(c=0)H~vhT—the latter tending to be greatest where the temperature gradient is highest, that is, near surface boundaries.

The inviscid form of the vertical equation of motion (22) may be expressed as

w/t+/[(u2+v2+w2)/2](u ηv ξ)=α0pd/z+ [Bα0pd/z]

where /z [(u2+v2+w2)/2] is the Bernoulli term and – (u η - v ξ) is the Lamb term (Weisman & Rotunno, 2000). The Lamb term is small for highly curved hodographs (i.e., when [ X v] X v is small, e.g., when the wind is approximately normal to the vertical shear vector, approximately along the horizontal vorticity vector). From numerical-simulation experiments evidence has been found, however, that the Lamb term is at least as large as the Bernoulli term. Thus, nonlinear processes are responsible mainly for propagation away from the shear vector for both straight and curved hodographs. The nonlinear perturbation-pressure term, which does not depend on hodograph curvature, is of the greatest fundamental importance in supercell behavior. The linear analysis demonstrating the correlation between vertical velocity and vorticity neglects nonlinear processes, which can be significant.

Originally, the helicity paradigm was developed because it had been found that helical flows (rotating updrafts) are longer-lasting, owing to a reduced cascade of turbulent kinetic energy down to smaller scales (Lilly, 1986). This aspect of helicity as applied to supercells remains incompletely explored.

The Origin of the Low-Level Mesocyclone

Tornadoes and Their Parent Convective Storms

Figure 10. Idealized depiction of how cyclonic vorticity may be generated as a combination of tilting and baroclinic generation and causes the vorticity of parcels to change from anticyclonic to cyclonic while descending in a downdraft. (top) Consider a vertical plane indicated by the dashed line. The red streamline represents streamwise vorticity in the forward flank, not as it approaches the downdraft but where it represents the trajectory. (bottom) Suppose that just inside the cold side of a rear-flank downdraft that is wrapping around a mesocyclone, the temperature gradient vector points into the page, to the left of the flow, so that the baroclinic generation of vorticity is in the direction of the arrow at the right. As the parcel sinks, baroclinic vorticity continues to be generated, while the vorticity vector, which was tilted downward by downdraft (accompanied by anticyclonic vorticity), becomes tilted upward (accompanied by a cyclonic vorticity) as it is advected faster southward below than it is aloft, as at the “foot” of a density current (where the flow of the density current is toward the ambient air to the south but much weaker above the density current) or in the presence of strong low-level environmental vertical shear in the southerly direction, and finally enters the base of updraft where it is stretched. Trajectories (TRAJ) in the vertical plane are denoted by solid curved lines with arrows; the three-dimensional vorticity vector is indicated by the vectors. This figure effectively shows how an air parcel coming from the forward flank may wrap around the mesocyclone and then enter the downdraft but become tilted upward by vertical shear and then pass underneath the updraft.

Adapted from Davies-Jones and Brooks (1993).

The mechanism by which a low-level mesocyclone is produced in a supercell is different from that which produces a midlevel mesocyclone. In the former case, horizontal vorticity is produced baroclinically along the edge of and within the forward flank of the supercell (Figure 10). This vorticity is approximately streamwise; that is, its vector is approximately along the storm-relative wind flow. Thus, the baroclinically generated vorticity at low levels is tilted upward by the updraft and cyclonic vorticity is produced (Markowski et al., 2012; Rotunno & Klemp, 1985). Efforts to find cases in which there is a significant contribution from the low-level horizontal vorticity associated with vertical shear in the environment (a barotropic source) have not been successful, even though highly streamwise vorticity can often be found entering the updraft. Why this is so is not entirely understood. The midlevel and low-level mesocyclones may coexist separately or be connected in the vertical.

It is thought that convergence under an updraft acting to increase vertical vorticity that was generated baroclinically is not sufficient for tornadogenesis because the vortex that is formed is rapidly advected upward away from the ground (Davies-Jones & Brooks, 1993). This thinking has led to hypotheses for how a downdraft might act to bring vorticity aloft down to the ground. One such paradigm, supported by idealized numerical simulations (Markowski & Richardson, 2014), has air with streamwise vorticity generated in the FFD flowing upward and wrapping around the mesocyclone and then downward in the RFD, where horizontal vorticity is generated baroclinically such that the three-dimensional vorticity vector does not point downward, in the same direction as air motion, but is maintained more in the horizontal direction (Figure 10). The air parcel then enters the updraft and is tilted, and vorticity is enhanced through stretching closer to the ground. The RFD is driven in part by a downward-directed perturbation pressure gradient above the region of maximum low-level vorticity and in part thermodynamically by evaporation of water substance. In ordinary cells, however, tornadoes are observed even before precipitation has been observed, that is, in the absence of any significant downdraft. This observation suggests that frictional convergence must be an important contributor to tornado formation (Rotunno, 2013) at least in some cases, though numerical simulations of supercells without friction can produce realistic-looking intense vortices near the surface (Orf et al., 2014).

Cool air must be present at low levels in order that horizontal vorticity be generated baroclinically: If the air is too cool, then the rear-flank gust front, driven horizontally like a density current (Benjamin, 1968), will outrun its parent storm. If the air is not cool enough, then vorticity is not generated rapidly enough (Markowski & Richardson, 2014). The current thinking is that to produce the strongest possible low-level mesocyclone, the rate of generation of baroclinic vorticity must be rapid enough and air parcels must reside long enough in the zone where it is being generated. Strong low-level shear normal to the shear aloft (Grams et al., 2012; Wicker, 1996) and low lifting condensation levels (Grams et al. 2012) are thought to encourage low-level mesocyclogenesis (and tornadogenesis) in ways that are not entirely understood yet.

Tornadogenesis and Tornado Structure

It is thought that tornadogenesis occurs when a low-level vortex becomes very strong near the ground. Underneath the low-level mesocyclone or parent vortex there is an upward-directed perturbation pressure-gradient force, which sustains an updraft and convergence underneath it (Wicker & Wilhelmson, 1995), which acts to increase the vorticity below, thus propagating the vortex to the ground. This process has been referred to as the dynamic pipe effect (Smith & Leslie, 1978). Numerical models even with no explicit boundary layer are able to simulate very strong vortices near the ground (Orf et al., 2014). The dynamic pipe effect, however, has not been observed with rapid-scan radars for midlevel mesocyclones (French et al., 2013; Houser et al., 2015).

Tornadoes and Their Parent Convective Storms

Figure 11. The four characteristic regions of a tornado and their properties. (a) Idealized model. (b) Contours of constant angular momentum (solid lines) based on a large-eddy simulation of a low–swirl ratio tornado.

Adapted from Lewellen et al. (2000) and Bluestein (2013).

Tornadoes and Their Parent Convective Storms

Figure 12. Photograph from a helicopter of the southern portion of damage from a large, violent tornado in Newcastle and Moore, Oklahoma, on May 20, 2013. Note how the trees are all knocked down to the north, while the tornado traveled from west or west southwest to east or east northeast.

(© Howard B. Bluestein)

When the vortex gets near enough to the ground so that surface friction acts on it (Lewellen, 1976; Rotunno, 1980, 2013; Wilson & Rotunno, 1986) to reduce the speed of the wind, the approximate balance between the inward direction pressure-gradient force and the centrifugal force that exists above, where the effects of the surface are not felt, is disrupted because the latter is decreased. The result is that an inertial layer (Figure 11) is produced in which air accelerates inward toward the center, creating convergence and a further increase in vorticity. The inertial layer is characterized by both swirl (having an azimuthal wind component) and radial wind. In the inertial layer, the actual friction force is negligible. Near the surface, however, in the (surface) friction layer (Figure 11), the friction force and the pressure-gradient force act approximately to negate each other, and most of the airflow is radially inward with little, if any, swirl. There is recent evidence from the direction of fallen trees in tornadoes that the radial wind component near the ground is in fact greater than the azimuthal component (Karstens, Gallus, Lee, & Finley, 2013) (Figure 12).

Tornadoes and Their Parent Convective Storms

Figure 13. Vertical cross section of equivalent radar reflectivity factor through a tornado in Attica, Kansas, on May 12, 2004, from a mobile, 3-mm wavelength, Doppler radar. Range markers are shown every 0.5 km.

From Bluestein et al. (2007b).

Precipitation particles and debris caught in the vortex are centrifuged radially outward, leaving what appears on radar as a weak-echo hole (Bluestein et al., 2007a; Bluestein, Weiss, French, Holthaus, & Tanamachi, 2007b; Bluestein, Weiss, & Pazmany, 2003; Fujita, 1981; Snow, 1984; Wakimoto, Atkins, & Wurman, 2011; Wakimoto & Martner, 1992; Wurman & Gill, 2000) (Figure 1). The weak-echo hole closes up near the ground (Figure 13), probably as a result of the strong radial convergence in the friction layer. When a tornado creates airborne debris, a debris ball is detected at low radar elevation angles (Bluestein, 2013; Houser et al., 2015). Sometimes the weak-echo hole extends all the way up to the top of the parent storm as a weak-echo column (Tanamachi, Bluestein, Houser, Frasier, & Hardwick, 2012), where vorticity is much weaker than it is at the surface. It is therefore likely that vertical advection sustains the weak-echo column where centrifuging is not significant. The relative contributions of centrifuging and vertical advection (through updrafts or downdrafts) remain to be explained.

The depth of the friction layer for a vortex that is characterized by constant circulation increases with distance from the center (Burrgraf, Stewartson, & Belcher, 1971; Wilson & Rotunno, 1986). The depth of the inertial layer is much greater than that of the friction layer and does not vary much with distance from the center (Lewellen et al., 1997) (Figure 11). In real tornadoes, the depths of the friction layer and inertial layer have not been accurately measured.

For a vortex characterized by solid-body rotation, the analytical solutions (Bödewadt, 1940) are similar to those based on Ekman theory for synoptic-scale motions (Bluestein, 1992); the depth of the friction layer is ~ (v/Ω)1/2, where 2Ω is the vorticity and ν is the kinematic coefficient of viscosity. In this case, there is a vertical circulation, inward flow below, upward flow at the center, and outward flow above, and there is “overshooting” of momentum surfaces radially inward (Figure 11b) (Rotunno, 2014).

Tornadoes and Their Parent Convective Storms

Figure 14. Vertical cross section through a large-eddy simulation of a low–swirl ratio tornado. Vectors denote the wind. The vertical (z) and horizontal (x) axes are scaled by the core radius rc; x = 0 is at the origin (r = 0). The shaded gray scale is the magnitude of the wind scaled by the Doppler velocity at the core radius Vc.

From Lewellen et al. (2000).

Tornadoes and Their Parent Convective Storms

Figure 15. Idealized vertical cross sections of flow in a tornado as a function of swirl ratio. The advectives “low,” moderate,” “high,” etc. are relative descriptors, not absolute. Based on Bluestein (2013), Davies-Jones (1986), Davies-Jones et al. (2001), and Wakimoto and Liu (1998).

As the radially inward flowing air accelerates toward the center of the axis of rotation, it must decelerate before reaching the center so that there is an adverse (opposite to the flow) dynamic radial pressure-gradient force near the axis of rotation. Air parcels must then turn upward in the corner flow region (Figures 11, 14, 15,). Such vortices are called one-cell vortices, describing the radial inward flow at low levels, upward flow at the center, radial outward flow aloft, and sinking motion at some distance from the center. For very low swirl ratios, boundary layer separation occurs (Figure 15) so that the air near the surface flows up and over the boundary layer (Davies-Jones, 1986).

As the swirl ratio is increased, an upward jet just above the ground is produced (Figure 14). A vortex column making contact with the ground induces an upward-directed, rotating jet called an endwall vortex (Rotunno, 2013). In a vortex for which there is cyclostrophic balance (a balance between the inward-directed pressure-gradient force and the outward-directed centrifugal force) and solid-body rotation, any axisymmetric contraction/expansion of the vortex through convergence/divergence excites vertically propagating centrifugal waves because, according to the Rayleigh criterion for azimuthal, inviscid flow

2/r2(v r)2>0,

the vortex is stable with respect to radial displacements.

When the speed of the upward jet exceeds that of vertically propagating centrifugal waves, the speed of the air in the jet is supercritical. As the swirl ratio is increased some more, eventually a dynamic, downward-directed pressure-gradient force develops, which acts to decelerate the upward-flowing jet aloft. There is then a transition from supercritical flow to subcritical flow aloft and vortex breakdown (Benjamin, 1962) occurs, in which the laminar rising jet widens and becomes turbulent (Figure 14). Downward-propagating centrifugal waves cannot enter the region of supercritical flow below, so wave energy must be reflected upward, which results in standing waves (Rotunno, 1979). When the transition from supercritical to subcritical flow is very sharp, the waves break. As the swirl ratio is increased even more, the downward-directed pressure-gradient force dominates so that a downdraft reaches the surface. Axisymmetric oscillations are possible (Nolan & Farrell, 1999). In addition, the outward-directed, centrifugal force increases and inward-flowing air is diverted upward at a larger radius. In this case, the vortex widens and a zone of strong radial shear forms (Davies-Jones, 1986). This zone of strong radial shear is accompanied by strong cyclonic-shear vorticity, which can lead to barotropic instability (Gall, 1983; Rotunno, 1984; Ward, 1972). The flow becomes highly nonaxisymmetric and secondary, satellite, sub-tornado-scale vortices form (Wurman, 2002) (Figures 15 and 16), which, like Rossby waves for synoptic-scale motions, propagate against the flow (i.e., rotate relative to a cyclonic vortex in a clockwise manner); the small vortices rotate cyclonically around the center of the axis of rotation more slowly than the ambient flow. The centrifugal force in the tornado plays the same dynamic role as the latitudinal variation of the Coriolis force in synoptic-scale cyclones and anticyclones. These short-lived subvortices can inflict very strong damage locally. Because they are so small, their wind field is very difficult to resolve with Doppler radars. The flow in a high-swirl ratio case is downward at the center, upward near the zone of strong lateral shear, and downward farther from the center; such vortices are called two-celled vortices. The necessary condition for the stability of radial displacements when vertical motions are included (Howard & Gupta, 1962) is

Ri (r)= (v2r2)/r/[r3(w/r)2]>¼,

Tornadoes and Their Parent Convective Storms

Figure 16. Photograph of a multivortex tornado near Verden, Oklahoma, during a tornado outbreak on May 3, 1999.

(© Howard B. Bluestein)

which is typically satisfied for both one- and two-celled vortices.

While the swirl ratio can be rigorously defined in a vortex chamber or the numerical model of a vortex chamber, in the real atmosphere it is more difficult to define. It probably depends on the buoyancy in the cloud above, the dynamic vertical perturbation pressure-gradient force, the depth and width of the boundary layer, and the surface roughness. The swirl ratio, however, is not the only parameter on which the flow pattern in a tornado depends (Lewellen, Lewellen, & Xia, 2000), which presents additional difficulty in understanding tornadoes based simply on the variation of parameters in controlled experiments.

Maximum Possible Wind Speeds

Tornadoes and Their Parent Convective Storms

Figure 17. Radial profiles of azimuthally averaged azimuthal velocity (m s–1), radial velocity (m s–1), vertical vorticity (× 10 s–1), divergence (× 100 s–1), circulation (× 10–3 m2 s-1), and radar reflectivity factor (dBZe), from analyses of data collected at a low elevation angle in a tornado in northern Kansas on May 15, 1999, by a mobile, 3-mm wavelength Doppler radar. The circulation (proportional to angular momentum) increases radially outward until a bit beyond 100 m, after which it levels off at about 35,000 m2 s–1.

From Bluestein (2013) and Tanamachi et al. (2007).

The maximum wind speeds possible in a single-cell, axisymmetric tornado occur when a material circuit containing circulation is contracted as far as possible. The circulation, as estimated from mobile Doppler radars, is approximately constant beyond some radius, the core radius (Tanamachi, Bluestein, Lee, Bell, & Pazmany, 2007) (Figure 17). For constant circulation, the azimuthal wind drops off as 1/r since v(r)r=Γ/r, where Γ is the circulation of the “background” at r=. Outside the core, there is no vorticity since curvature vorticity cancels out the shear vorticity.

Since at the center of the tornado there must be no azimuthal wind and r = 0, the circulation/angular momentum must vanish. The azimuthal wind then increases from zero to Γ/rc, where rc is the core radius. The simplest solution is for the azimuthal wind in a steady state, axisymmetric vortex, is to vary linearly from 0 to vc, the azimuthal wind component at the core radius. A vortex in which the azimuthal wind varies linearly from zero to its core value and then drops off as 1/r beyond the core radius is known as a Rankine combined vortex (Rankine, 1882): Within the core, v=Ω r, where Ω is the solid-body rotation rate; outside of the core, v=Ω rc2/r. Observations from mobile Doppler radars indeed show that the azimuthal wind profile in tornadoes looks like that of a Rankine combined vortex (Figure 17). However, the peak in azimuthal wind is not as sharp, probably owing to radial diffusion (by sub-grid-scale eddies) of momentum. The Burgers-Rott vortex analytical solution (Burgers, 1948; Rott, 1958), which allows for diffusion of azimuthal momentum, is similar to what is observed; but vertical motion is upward and unbounded. The more complicated Sullivan vortex allows for both upward and downward motions (Sullivan, 1959).

Since the Rayleigh criterion for stability is satisfied in a Rankine combined vortex, it takes work to contract a ring of material radial inward. The work it takes to contract a ring at the core radius inward to radius r¢ (Bluestein, 2013) is

½ u2r½ u2rc= (Ω2/2)(r2r2c)+(v2c/2)[1(rc/r)2]

As r¢ → 0, the work required →∞. The work that drives the inward displacement of fluid is the work realized by buoyancy above in the parent cloud. A crude measure of how high the winds can be in a tornado is given by the thermodynamic speed limit. While tornadoes are not hydrostatic, a rough estimate of the lowest wind speeds possible is obtained by assuming that atmosphere is hydrostatic, the tornado vortex is in cyclostrophic balance, and the vortex is in solid-body rotation (Lilly, 1969; Snow & Pauley, 1984). It is found that the highest wind speed is


In such a tornado vortex, the pressure drop at the center (with respect to the pressure “outside” the tornado), at the surface, is

Δp=ρ¯ v2max

For vmax ~ 100 m s–1, the pressure drop is ~100 hPa, which has been measured using portable instruments placed in the path of tornadoes (Karstens et al., 2010; Winn et al., 1999).

From mobile Doppler radar measurements of wind speeds in tornadoes and nearby soundings, it has been found that the thermodynamic speed limit is usually exceeded (Bluestein, Unruh, LaDue, Stein, & Speheger, 1993). The simple reason it is exceeded is that a tornado is far from being hydrostatic and for a low-swirl ratio vortex air is drawn radially inward to a smaller radius than would otherwise happen owing to the upward jet, which is driven by an upward-directed dynamic perturbation pressure-gradient force. It has been demonstrated by numerical experiments that the highest possible azimuthal wind speeds occur in an endwall vortex when there is vortex breakdown just above the ground (Fiedler, 1994; Fiedler & Rotunno, 1986). In this case the depth of the tornado boundary layer is “matched” dynamically to the core radius of the vortex aloft, and maximum azimuthal wind speeds of approximately twice the thermodynamic speed limit can be realized.

It therefore appears as if the characteristics of the boundary layer flow affect whether or not a parent storm–produced mesocyclone (or preexisting vortex) can be intensified to tornado strength. When the inflow of angular momentum at large radius is impeded, the inward acceleration of air is increased so that air penetrates to a smaller radius and the vortex intensifies through a process called corner flow collapse (Lewellen & Lewellen, 2007a, 2007b). It has been hypothesized that this process may be triggered when the RFD wraps completely around a low-level mesocyclone or when the surface roughness changes. The tornado’s ultimate maximum intensity is limited because as the surface vorticity becomes substantially greater than that aloft, a downward-directed perturbation pressure-gradient force (exceeding the upward force of buoyancy aloft) shuts off the upward jet (Wicker & Wilhelmson, 1995). It is noteworthy that as the RFD wraps around the low-level mesocyclone, corner flow collapse may occur, while at the same time the vortex is cut off from warm, moist environmental air, needed for buoyancy aloft. It is not known to what extent the end of development (or dissipation) is from dynamic rather than thermodynamic factors.

Tornado Evolution

Tornadoes and Their Parent Convective Storms

Figure 18. (a) Photograph of the beginning of a tornado near Cordell, Oklahoma, on May 22, 1981. (b) Mature stage of the Cordell tornado. (c) Decaying stage of the Cordell tornado.

(All photographs © Howard B. Bluestein)

Tornadoes in supercells often progress through an evolution with well-defined stages (Figure 18). The first evidence of a tornado may be a rotating debris cloud at the ground (Figure 18a), followed by a funnel aloft that eventually becomes continuous down to the ground (Figure 18b). The funnel cloud widens as the tornado reaches maturity. As the tornado begins to decay, the funnel cloud narrows and leans with height (Figure 18c), owing to its movement near the ground as it is pushed outward from the parent storm by a rear-flank gust front, which wraps completely around the tornado.

Tornadoes and Their Parent Convective Storms

Figure 19. Multiple surges behind the rear-flank gust front in a tornadic supercell, as documented by two mobile Doppler radars in northwest Texas on April 30, 2000. The storm-relative wind field is depicted by vectors. Convergence is coded by gray shading. Solid lines represent the primary forward-flank and rear-flank gust fronts, though only a gradual wind shift is evident in the forward flank. The secondary, rear-flank gust front is shown as a dashed line. Equivalent radar reflectivity factor is contoured every 5 dBZe, beginning at 20 dBZe.

From Bluestein (2013) and Marquis, Richardson, Wurman, and Markowski (2008).

The rear-flank gust front is sometimes accompanied by a descending reflectivity core (Byko, Markowski, & Richardson, 2009; Kosiba et al., 2013; Markowski et al., 2012; Rasmussen, Straka, Gilmore, & Davies-Jones, 2006), which may act to intensify convergence along the rear-flank gust front; the intensification may be a result of an enhancement of negative buoyancy associated with precipitation loading and evaporative cooling as the precipitation falls into unsaturated air below. The “straight-line” flow of air that wraps around the edge of the tornado and low-level mesocyclone may be very strong and inflict damage, making it difficult to ascertain from damage surveys conducted after a tornado has struck whether the damage had been done by the tornado or straight-line winds (Karstens et al., 2013; Mahale et al., 2012). Sometimes there are multiple internal momemtum surges behind the leading edge of the rear-flank gust front (Houser et al., 2015; Kosiba et al., 2013; Skinner et al., 2014) (Figure 19), which may play a role in tornadogenesis, which is not well understood.

A series of vortices often appears along the rear-flank gust front (Bluestein et al., 2003), which sometimes has the character of a vortex sheet (Markowski, Richardson, & Bryan, 2014) and may play some role in tornadogenesis by providing the “seed” vorticity that is amplified to tornado intensity or may just simply accompany the rear-flank gust front independently of whether or not tornadoes form. These vortices are thought to occur as a result of barotropic instability associated with the shear across the gust front or a combination of shear and lobe and clefts created at the leading edge of the cooler air (Lee & Wilhelmson, 1997). The mechanism for the formation of these vortices may be the same as that for the formation of tornadoes in ordinary cell convective storms. Short-lived, relatively weak vortices along the gust front that do not have any connection to the clouds above are called gustnadoes (Bluestein, 1999b).

Tornadoes and Their Parent Convective Storms

Figure 20. Idealized models of cyclic mesocyclogenesis (top and middle panels) and effects of hodograph shapes and lengths (bottom panel). The cold pool boundary is indicated by a cold front symbol. Red area indicates vorticity maxima. Light blue indicates updraft areas; dark blue indicates downdraft areas. Yellow contour marks the rain boundary. (top) Occluding cyclic mesocyclogenesis. (middle) Nonoccluding cyclic mesocyclogenesis.

From Adlerman and Droegemeier (2005) and Bluestein (2013).

While in many instances a supercell produces one tornado that progresses through its life cycle, in other instances a series of tornadoes, one after another, form, each one progressing through its own life cycle (Dowell & Bluestein, 2002a, 2002b). Cyclic tornadogenesis (and mesocyclogenesis) can result in very long damage paths, which are actually caused by a succession of tornadoes rather than one long-track tornado. There are two main types of cyclic tornadogenesis associated with cyclic mesocyclogenesis (Figure 20) (Adlerman & Droegemeier, 2005; Adlerman, Droegemeier, & Davies-Jones, 1999; French et al., 2008): (1) occluding cyclic mesocyclogenesis (OCM) and (2) nonoccluding mesocyclogenesis (NOCM). Each is affected by the behavior of the rear-flank gust front.

In the case of commonly observed OCM, a new mesocyclone forms along the tip of the surge of the gust front and a new updraft forms, leading to a new tornado, as the previous tornado migrates rearward with respect to new mesocyclone and dissipates. In the case of NOCM, the mesocyclone propagates forward along the forward flank of the supercell and weakens, while a new mesocyclone forms to the rear. There is numerical evidence that OCM tends to occur in environments in which the hodograph is highly curved, while NOCM tends to occur in environments for which the hodograph is relatively straight or is curved only at low levels. As overall vertical shear increases, OCM becomes less likely, NOCM occurs for the less curved hodographs, and more steady mesocyclones occur for the more curved hodographs.

Counterrotating Tornado Pairs

Tornadoes and Their Parent Convective Storms

Figure 21. Idealized illustration of vortex lines in a supercell, showing the arched vortex line along the leading edge of the rear-flank gust front with the production of an anticyclonic vortex at the far end of the gust front and a cyclonic vortex at the other end, near the wall cloud. Initially, a circular vortex ring is produced around the rear-flank downdraft (RFD), which drops downward and spreads out (the numbers refer to a sequence in time), but the leading edge is tilted upward by the updrafts associated with the flanking line. FFD, forward-flank downdraft.

From Markowski et al. (2008).

In supercells, horizontal vorticity is generated baroclinically along the leading edge of the rear-flank gust front when the air from the RFD is relatively cool (Markowski et al., 2008; Straka, Rasmussen, Davies-Jones, & Markowski, 2007) (Figure 21). Anticyclonic vorticity is generated through tilting at the farthest (from the supercell main updraft) end of the flanking line (Moller, 1978) of cumulus towers. Where the flanking line merges with the main updraft, at the other end, cyclonic vorticity is generated through tilting. It is also possible that anticyclonic vorticity is generated through tilting at the farthest end of the flanking line at the edge of a downdraft acting on environmental vorticity that is of the opposite sign to that generated baroclinically. An anticyclonic-vortex couplet is frequently observed at low levels, and a jet associated with the RFD separates the two vortices. On some rare occasions, for reasons not well understood, the anticyclonic vortex attains tornado intensity after a cyclonic tornado has been observed near the main updraft (Bluestein, 2013; Bluestein et al., 2015; Brown & Knupp, 1980; Fujita, 1981; Wurman, Kosiba, Robinson, & Marshall, 2014). The motion of each of the two tornadoes is usually different as the anticyclonic tornado propagates to the right of the motion of the cyclonic tornado. The differential motion presents a difficulty when weather forecasters issue tornado warnings for the parent storm: the cyclonic tornado tends to move along with the parent storm, while the anticyclonic tornado does not. How to forecast anticyclonic tornadoes is not known.

Avenues of Future Research and Instrument Development

There are a number of emerging areas of research and opportunities for new instrumentation development to further our understanding of severe convective storms and tornadoes. The following are some topics for future consideration:

Expanded Use of Polarimetric Data from Radars: Identification of Hydrometeors and Assimilation into Storm-Scale Numerical Models

Fuzzy logic identification of hydrometeor type (Snyder et al., 2010) and the subsequent correlation between hydrometeor type around the hook echo region (Kumjian, 2011) and tornado occurrence would provide evidence as to whether or not tornadogenesis is more likely when there are larger raindrops, which are not as prone to evaporative cooling as smaller raindrops (French et al., 2014b).

In addition to assimilating radar reflectivity and Doppler velocity into numerical cloud models, the assimilation of polarimetric variables could have an effect on the three-dimensional distribution of meteorological variables (Jung, Xue, Zhang, & Straka, 2008). Thus, the use of independent polarimetric data as an additional constraint might prove to be helpful in studies using Doppler radar data.

Finer-Scale Numerical Simulations of Supercells and Tornadoes: Examination of Boundary-Layer Processes and Coupling between the Tornado and Its Parent Storm

Currently, numerical models simulate supercells and barely have fine enough resolution to produce tornadoes. LES models of tornadoes, which do resolve tornadoes, are not coupled to their parent supercell, so there is no feedback allowed between the tornado and its parent storm. As computer storage capacity and speed increase, it will be possible to simulate an entire storm and its smaller-scale tornado on a fine enough spatial scale to resolve both. It may also be possible to simulate the effects of surface friction more realistically (Nowotarski, Markowski, Richardson, & Bryan, 2014, 2015) and see how the structure of the boundary layer and surface friction affect tornadogenesis (Schenkman, Xue, & Hu, 2014) and tornado structure (Fiedler & Garfield, 2010), while the tornado is coupled to the parent storm. Future studies of storm-scale vortices in supercells and tornadoes must also account for asymmetries in the flow, something for which little has been done, even though most tornadoes appear to be embedded in inhomogeneous environments.

Improved Representation of Cloud and Precipitation Microphysics in Numerical Models: Spectral Bin Models

Most simulations of supercells use parameterizations of microphysics (Kessler, 1969) that suffer from various inaccuracies resulting from an assumed (limited) drop-size distribution (Milbrandt & Yau, 2005). While microphysics models that incorporate separate “bins” for a wide range of particle sizes (and types) exist (Kumjian et al., 2014; Li, Tao, Khain, Simpson, & Johnson, 2009), coupling the microphysical models with three-dimensional dynamic models is not currently done very much, owing to the large amount of computer storage capacity and storage needed. As computers become larger and faster, it will become possible to simulate supercells with much more realistic microphysics and therefore more accurately reproduce the variety of precipitation distributions found in supercells (Rasmussen & Straka, 1998).

Use of Airborne Platforms to Make In Situ Measurements and Radar Measurements in Severe Storms

Making thermodynamic measurements at low level in the cold pool in the forward and rear flanks of supercells is important for verifying the role of the intensity of the cold pools in supercells in fostering or inhibiting tornadogenesis. Ground-based mobile mesonets sometimes have difficulty making measurements in the needed locations because the road network is inadequate. Low-flying unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) should be able to make in situ measurements without having any road network problems. However, getting permission to fly UAVs in advance is a challenge in some areas (Houston et al., 2012), and avoiding areas where large hail and very strong winds will be necessary to avoid crashes.

Helicopters have been used to fly near tornadoes and provide stunning video while maintaining a nearly stationary position. It might be possible to develop small, low-power, pulse compression radars to probe tornadoes at low levels from relatively close range without having to contend with difficult road networks and storm-chaser traffic. The biggest challenges will be to keep the system small and lightweight and to be immune to contamination from the rotor blades.

Although airborne radars must fly by storms, rapid-scan radars should be mounted on aircraft to allow for as many looks at the storm flow as possible while near a storm.

Expanded Use of Ground-Based Mobile Platforms to Make In Situ Measurements in Severe Storm Environments

Since supercells change their characteristics when their environment changes, it is necessary to probe the thermodynamic and wind shear profiles near and around them. Mobile, ground-based wind and thermodynamic profiling systems are needed to make these measurements. In addition, they can provide data on the presence of and possible role of gravity waves in supercell behavior (Coleman & Knupp, 2008; Lehmiller, Bluestein, Neiman, Ralph, & Feltz, 2001).

Instrumented kites have been around for a century or more, but now they can be made out of modern materials and equipped with modern instrumentation. Balsley, Jensen, and Frehlich (1998) have described the use of kites for fine-scale measurements in the atmospheric boundary layer. It would be a challenge to develop deployable kites that can withstand high winds and that do not pose a hazard from utility lines, trees, and lightning.

Extremely small, instrumented, airborne probes each equipped with accurate Global Positioning System–determined locations could be used to swarm areas of severe storms to make in situ thermodynamic measurements. It would again be a challenge to release the sensors and integrate all the data, if it becomes possible to implement the devices.

Warn-on-Forecast Improvements: Expanded Use of Ensemble Storm-Scale Numerical Modeling

Numerical models are not capable of predicting the exact location of the formation of storms or their evolution (Bluestein 2009; Brooks, Doswell, & Maddox, 1992). Forecasts of the possibility of supercell tornadoes in the Plains of the United States are made if the large-scale conditions for supercell formation (high shear, at least moderate CAPE, adequate boundary layer moisture, and a means of initiating storms) are present or forecast by models. Watches are issued for broad areas by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Storm Prediction Center if the possibility is considered high enough. Warnings are issued for localized areas when tornadoes are reported or likely if a TVS (and TDS) is observed on surveillance radar.

Simulating the uncertainty of numerical forecasts that result from uncertainty in initial conditions and microphysical and boundary layer parameterizations will aid us in assigning probabilities to the occurrence of tornadoes and other severe weather phenomena as forecast by cloud-allowing numerical forecast models. With an increase in computer storage capacity and speed, we will be able to increase the number of members of the ensemble to get more accurate estimates of probabilities and reduce the grid spacing to 100 m so that the supercells are more accurately represented and warnings may be issued further in advance based on model forecasts rather than with shorter lead times based on actual observations (Stensrud et al., 2009).

Experiments with Infrasound Detection and Signatures in Severe Convective Storms and Tornadoes

There is some evidence that supercells and tornadoes emit infrasound and that infrasound signatures may harbor information about the presence of or likelihood of severe weather (Bedard, 2005). The theoretical basis for signatures and experimental procedures could be developed further to test hypotheses that the signatures have predictive value.

Cloud Electrification Measurements and Modeling

There is no evidence that electrical effects are directly important for tornadogenesis (Davies-Jones, 1986). However, measurements have been made in supercells using electrical field meters carried aloft by balloons (MacGorman et al., 2005). More work should be done to add to our knowledge on how lightning activity is related to storm processes. In addition, lightning data have been assimilated into cloud models in attempts to improve numerical forecasts (Kuhlman, Ziegler, Mansell, MacGorman, & Straka, 2006; Mansell, Ziegler, & MacGorman, 2007). It is possible that changes in lightning characteristics may be related to tornadogenesis as a byproduct.

The Relationship between Updrafts, Downdrafts, and Tornadogenesis as Detected from Above by Satellites

Geostationary satellites that can sense the infrared cloud-top temperature with high temporal resolution can provide information on storm updrafts and downdrafts near storm top and how they are related to tornadogenesis. While tornadogenesis is inherently a low-level process, there is some evidence that downdrafts and collapsing updrafts play a role (Fujita, Forbes, & Umenhofer, 1976). Such satellites may become available in the coming years. Aircraft, both manned and UAVs, could fly over storms with downward-looking radars to provide information on updrafts and downdrafts.

Use of a Pulsed Doppler Lidar to Probe Tornadoes Near the Ground

It is difficult to measure the vertical variation of the wind in the surface friction layer and in the lower portion of the inertial layer in tornadoes using radars, owing to ground-clutter contamination from sidelobes. In some instances in situ measurements at the surface have complemented Doppler radar observations higher up (Kosiba & Wurman, 2013), but the natures of in situ and radar measurements are different (Snyder & Bluestein, 2014). It would be advantageous to use lidars, whose beams are narrow (~20 cm) and collimated so that data can be collected with ultrahigh vertical resolution in the boundary layer (Bluestein et al., 2014). While lidars are not subject to ground-clutter contamination, they cannot penetrate far into regions of precipitation, cloud particles, and probably debris.

The above list is not exhaustive but does contain projects that are most likely possible in the next decade.


The author’s research on severe convective storms and tornadoes has been supported, for over three decades, by the National Science Foundation and by the University of Oklahoma in Norman. The author is indebted to his current and former graduate students and to his colleagues at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, and the National Severe Storms Laboratory in Norman, Oklahoma, for their collaboration and support for many years.


Adlerman, E. J., & Droegemeier, K. K. (2005). The dependence of numerically simulated cyclic mesocyclogenesis upon environmental vertical wind shear. Monthly Weather Review, 133, 3595–3623.Find this resource:

Adlerman, E. J., Droegemeier, K. K., & Davies-Jones, R. P. (1999). A numerical simulation of cyclic mesocyclogenesis. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 56, 2045–2069.Find this resource:

Armijo, L. (1969). A theory for the determination of wind and precipitation velocities with Doppler radars. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 26, 570–573.Find this resource:

Atkins, N. T., Weisman, M. L., & Wicker, L. J. (1999). The influence of preexisting boundaries on supercell evolution. Monthly Weather Review, 127, 2910–2927.Find this resource:

Balsley, B. B., Jensen, M. L., & Frehlich, R. G. (1998). The use of state-of-the-art kites for profiling the lower atmosphere. Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 87, 1–25.Find this resource:

Bedard, A. J., Jr. (2005). Low-frequency atmospheric acoustic energy associated with vortices produced by thunderstorms. Monthly Weather Review, 133, 241–263.Find this resource:

Benjamin, T. B. (1962). Theory of the vortex breakdown phenomenon. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 14, 593–629.Find this resource:

Benjamin, T. B. (1968). Gravity currents and related phenomena. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 31(Pt. 2), 209–248.Find this resource:

Bluestein, H. (1983). Surface meteorological observations in severe thunderstorms. Part II: Field experiments with TOTO. Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology, 22, 919–930.Find this resource:

Bluestein, H. B. (1985). The formation of a “landspout” in a “broken-line” squall line in Oklahoma. Preprints, 14th Conference on Severe Local Storms, Indianapolis, Indiana, October 29–November 1 (pp. 267–270). Boston: American Meteorological Society.Find this resource:

Bluestein, H. B. (1992). Principles of kinematics and dynamics: Vol. 1. Synoptic-Dynamic meteorology in midlatitudes. New York: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Bluestein, H. B. (1999a). A history of storm-intercept field programs. Weather and Forecasting, 14, 558–577.Find this resource:

Bluestein, H. B. (1999b). Tornado alley: Monster storms of the Great Plains. New York: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Bluestein, H. B. (2009). The formation and early evolution of the Greensburg, Kansas, tornadic supercell on 4 May 2007. Weather and Forecasting, 24, 899–920.Find this resource:

Bluestein, H. B. (2013). Severe convective storms and tornadoes: Observations and dynamics. New York: Springer Praxis.Find this resource:

Bluestein, H. B., French, M. M., Frasier, S., Hardwick, K., Junyent, F., & Pazmany, A. L. (2007a). Close-range observations of tornadoes in supercells made a dual-polarization, X-band, mobile Doppler radar. Monthly Weather Review, 135, 1522–1543.Find this resource:

Bluestein, H. B., French, M. M., PopStefanija, I., Bluth, R. T., & Knorr, J. B. (2010). A mobile, phased-array Doppler radar for the study of severe convective storms: The MWR-05XP. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 91, 579–600.Find this resource:

Bluestein, H. B., Houser, J. B., French, M. M., Snyder, J., Emmitt, G. D., PopStefanija, I., et al. (2014). Observations of the boundary layer near tornadoes and in supercells using a mobile, co-located, pulsed Doppler lidar and radar. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, 31, 302–325.Find this resource:

Bluestein, H. B., Snyder, J. C., & Houser, J. B. (2015). A multi-scale overview of the El Reno, Oklahoma tornadic supercell of 31 May 2013. Weather and Forecasting, 30, 525–552.Find this resource:

Bluestein, H. B., & Unruh, W. P. (1989). Observations of the wind field in tornadoes, funnel clouds, and wall clouds with a portable Doppler radar. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 70, 1514–1525.Find this resource:

Bluestein, H. B., Unruh, W. P., LaDue, J., Stein, H., & Speheger, D. (1993). Doppler radar wind spectra of supercell tornadoes. Monthly Weather Review, 121, 2200–2221.Find this resource:

Bluestein, H. B., & Weisman, M. L. (2000). The interaction of numerically simulated supercells initiated along lines. Monthly Weather Review, 128, 3128–3149.Find this resource:

Bluestein, H. B., Weiss, C. C., French, M. M., Holthaus, E. M., & Tanamachi, R. L. (2007b). The structure of tornadoes near Attica, Kansas, on 12 May 2004: High-resolution, mobile, Doppler radar observations. Monthly Weather Review, 135, 475–506.Find this resource:

Bluestein, H. B., Weiss, C. C., & Pazmany, A. L. (2003). Mobile-Doppler-radar observations of a tornado in a supercell near Bassett, Nebraska on 5 June 1999. Part I: Tornadogenesis. Monthly Weather Review, 131, 2954–2967.Find this resource:

Bödewadt, V. T. (1940). Die Drehstromung uber festem Grunde. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik, 20, 241–253.Find this resource:

Brandes, E. A. (1977a). Flow in severe thunderstorms observed by dual-Doppler radar. Monthly Weather Review, 105, 113–120.Find this resource:

Brandes, E. A. (1977b). Gust front evolution and tornado genesis as viewed by Doppler radar. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 16, 333–338.Find this resource:

Brandes, E. A. (1978). Mesocylone evolution and tornadogenesis: Some observations. Monthly Weather Review, 106, 995–1011.Find this resource:

Brandes, E. A. (1981). Finestructure of the Del City–Edmond tornadic mesovortices. Monthly Weather Review, 109, 635–647.Find this resource:

Brandes, E. A. (1984). Vertical vorticity generation and mesocyclone sustenance in a tornadic thunderstorms: The observational evidence. Monthly Weather Review, 112, 2253–2269.Find this resource:

Brooks, H. E., Doswell, C. A., III, & Maddox, R. A. (1992). On the use of mesoscale and cloud-scale models in operational forecasting. Weather and Forecasting, 7, 120–132.Find this resource:

Brown, R. A., Lemon, L. R., & Burgess, D. W. (1978). Tornado detection by pulsed Doppler radar. Monthly Weather Review, 106, 29–38.Find this resource:

Brown, R. A., & Wood, V. T. (2012). The tornadic vortex signature: An update. Weather and Forecasting, 27, 525–530.Find this resource:

Brown, J. M., & Knupp, K. R. (1980). The Iowa cyclonic–anticyclonic tornado pair and its parent thunderstorm. Monthly Weather Review, 108, 1626–1646.Find this resource:

Browning, K. A. (1964). Airflow and precipitation trajectories within severe local storms which travel to the right of the winds. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 21, 634–639.Find this resource:

Browning, K. A. (1965a). The evolution of tornadic storms. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 22, 664–668.Find this resource:

Browning, K. A. (1965b). Some inferences about the updraft within a severe local storm. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 22, 669–677.Find this resource:

Browning, K. A. (1986). Morphology and classification of middle-latitude thunderstorms. In E. Kessler (Ed.), Thunderstorm morphology and dynamics (pp. 133–152). Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Find this resource:

Browning, K. A., & Donaldson, R. J., Jr. (1963). Airflow and structure of a tornadic storm. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 20, 533–545.Find this resource:

Browning, K. A., & Ludlam, F. H. (1962). Airflow in convective storms. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 88, 117–135.Find this resource:

Bunkers, M. J., & Stoppkotte, J. W. (2007). Documentation of a rare tornadic left-moving supercell. Electronic Journal of Severe Storms Meteorology, 2, 1–22.Find this resource:

Burgers, J. M. (1948). A mathematical model illustrating the theory of turbulence. Advances in Applied Mechanics, 1, 197–199.Find this resource:

Burrgraf, O., Stewartson, K., & Belcher, R. (1971). Boundary layer induced by a potential vortex. Physics of Fluids, 14, 1821–1833.Find this resource:

Byko, Z., Markowski, P., & Richardson, Y. (2009). Descending reflectivity cores in supercell thunderstorms observed by mobile radars and in a high-resolution numerical simulation. Weather and Forecasting, 24, 155–186.Find this resource:

Charba, J., & Sasaki, Y. (1971). Structure and movement of the severe thunderstorm of 3 April 1964 as revealed from radar and surface mesonetwork data analysis. Journal of the Meteorological Society of Japan, 49, 191–214.Find this resource:

Church, C. R., Snow, J. T., & Agee, E. M. (1977). Tornado vortex simulation at Purdue University. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 58, 900–908.Find this resource:

Church, C. R., Snow, J. T., Baker, G. L., & Agee, E. M. (1979). Characteristics of tornado-like vortices as function of swirl ratio: A laboratory investigation. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 36, 1755–1776.Find this resource:

Coleman, T. A., & Knupp, K. R. (2008). The interactions of gravity waves with mesocyclones: Preliminary observations and theory. Monthly Weather Review, 136, 4206–4219.Find this resource:

Crum, T. D., & Alberty, R. L. (1993). The WSR-88D and the WSR-88D operational support facility. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 74, 1669–1687.Find this resource:

Dahl, J. M. L., Parker, M. D., & Wicker, L. J. (2012). Uncertainties in trajectory calculations within near-surface mesocyclones of simulated supercells. Monthly Weather Review, 140, 2959–2966.Find this resource:

Davies-Jones, R. P. (1984). Streamwise vorticity: The origin of updraft rotation in supercell storms. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 41, 2991–3006.Find this resource:

Davies-Jones, R. P. (1986). Tornado dynamics. In E. Kessler (Ed.), Thunderstorm morphology and dynamics (pp. 197–236). Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Find this resource:

Davies-Jones, R. P., & Brooks, H. E. (1993). Mesocyclogenesis from a theoretical perspective. In C. R. Church, D. Burgess, C. Doswell, & R. Davies-Jones (Eds.), The tornado: Its structure, dynamics, prediction, and hazards (pp. 105–114). Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union.Find this resource:

Davies-Jones, R. P., Trapp, R. J., & Bluestein, H. B. (2001). Tornadoes. In C. Doswell III (Ed.), Severe convective storms (pp. 167–221). Meteorological Monographs 28. Boston: American Meteorological Society.Find this resource:

Dawson, D. T., II, Mansell, E. R., & Kumjian, M. R. (2015). Does wind shear cause hydrometeor size sorting? Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 72, 340–348.Find this resource:

Donaldson, R. J., Jr. (1970). Vortex signature recognition by a Doppler radar. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 9, 661–670.Find this resource:

Doviak, R. J., Bringi, V., Ryzhkov, A., Zahrai, A., & Zrnic, D. (2000). Considerations for polarimetric upgrades to operational WSR-88D radars. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, 17, 257–278.Find this resource:

Dowell, D. C., Alexander, C. R., Wurman, J. M., & Wicker, L. J. (2005). Centrifuging of hydrometeors and debris in tornadoes: Radar-reflectivity patterns and wind-measurement errors. Monthly Weather Review, 133, 1501–1524.Find this resource:

Dowell, D. C., & Bluestein, H. B. (2002a). The 8 June 1995 McLean, Texas, storm. Part I: Observations of cyclic tornadogenesis. Monthly Weather Review, 130, 2626–2648.Find this resource:

Dowell, D. C., & Bluestein, H. B. (2002b) The 8 June 1995 McLean, Texas, storm. Part II: Cyclic tornado formation, maintenance, and dissipation. Monthly Weather Review, 130, 2649–2670.Find this resource:

Dowell, D. C., Bluestein, H. B., & Jorgensen, D. P. (1997). Airborne Doppler radar analysis of supercells during COPS-91. Monthly Weather Review, 125, 365–383.Find this resource:

Eastin, M. D., & Link, M. C. (2009). Miniature supercells in an offshore outer rainband of Hurricane Ivan (2004). Monthly Weather Review, 137, 2081–2104.Find this resource:

Fiedler, B. H. (1994). The thermodynamic speed limit and its violation in axisymmetric numerical simulations of tornado-like vortices. Atmosphere-Ocean, 32, 335–359.Find this resource:

Fiedler, B. B. (1995). On modeling tornadoes in isolation from the parent storm. Atmosphere-Ocean, 33, 501–512.Find this resource:

Fiedler, B. H., & Garfield, G. S. (2010) Axisymmetric vortex simulations with various turbulence models. CFD Letters, 2, 112–121.Find this resource:

Fiedler, B. H., & Rotunno, R. (1986). A theory for the maximum windspeeds in tornado-like vortices. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 43, 2328–2340.Find this resource:

French, M. M., Bluestein, H. B., Dowell, D. C., Wicker, L. J., Kramar, M. R., & Pazmany, A. L. (2008). High-resolution, mobile Doppler radar observations of cyclic mesocyclogenesis in a supercell. Monthly Weather Review, 136, 4997–5016.Find this resource:

French, M. M., Bluestein, H., PopStefanija, I., Baldi, C., & Bluth, R. T. (2014a). Mobile, phased-array, Doppler radar observations of tornadoes at X band. Monthly Weather Review, 142, 1010–1036.Find this resource:

French, M. M., Bluestein, H. B., PopStefanija, I., Baldi, C. A., & Bluth, R. T. (2013). Reexamining the vertical development of descending tornadic vortex signatures in supercells. Monthly Weather Review, 136, 4576–4601.Find this resource:

French, M. M., Burgess, D. W., Mansell, E. R., & Wicker, L. J. (2014b). Hook echo raindrop sizes retrieved using mobile, polarimetric Doppler radar observations. Presented at the 27th Conference on Severe Local Storms, 16A.4, Madison, WI, November 3–7, 2014. Washington, DC: American Meteorological Society.Find this resource:

Fujita, T. (1960). A detailed analysis of the Fargo tornadoes of June 20, 1957. Research paper to the U.S. Weather Bureau, No. 42. Chicago: University of Chicago.Find this resource:

Fujita, T., & Grandoso, H. (1968). Split of a thunderstorm into anticyclonic and cyclonic storms and their motion as determined from numerical model experiments. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 25, 416–439.Find this resource:

Fujita, T. T. (1981). Tornadoes and downbursts in the context of generalized planetary scales. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 38, 1511–1534.Find this resource:

Fujita, T. T., Forbes, G. S., & Umenhofer, T. A. (1976). Close-up view of 20 March 1976 tornadoes: Sinking cloud tops to suction vortices. Weatherwise, 29, 116–143, 145.Find this resource:

Gall, R. L. (1983). A linear analysis of multiple vortex phenomena in simulated tornadoes. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 40, 2010–2024.Find this resource:

Grams, J. S., Thompson, R. L., Snively, D. V., Prentice, J. A., Hodges, G. M., & Reames, L. J. (2012). A climatology and comparison of parameters for significant tornado events in the United States. Weather and Forecasting, 27, 106–123.Find this resource:

Hammond, G. R. (1967). Study of a left-moving thunderstorm of 23 April 1964. ESSA Technical Memo. IERTM-NSSL 31.Find this resource:

Hane, C. E., & Ray, P. S. (1985). Pressure and buoyancy fields derived from Doppler radar data in a tornadic thunderstorm. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 42, 18–35.Find this resource:

Hane, C. E., Wilhelmson, R. B., & Gal-Chen, T. (1981). Retrieval of thermodynamic variables within deep convective clouds: Experiments in three dimensions. Monthly Weather Review, 109, 564–576.Find this resource:

Heymsfield, G. M. (1978). Kinematic and dynamic aspects of the Harrah Tornadic storm analyzed from dual-Doppler radar data. Monthly Weather Review, 106, 233–254.Find this resource:

Hoecker, W. H., Jr. (1960). Wind speed and air flow patterns in the Dallas tornado of April 2, 1957. Monthly Weather Review, 88, 167–180.Find this resource:

Houser, J. B., Bluestein, H. B., & Snyder, J. C. (2015). Rapid-scan, polarimetric, Doppler-radar observations of tornadogenesis and tornado dissipation in a tornadic supercell: The “El Reno, Oklahoma” storm of 24 May 2011. Monthly Weather Review, 143, 2685–2710.Find this resource:

Houston, A. L., Argrow, B., Elston, J., Lahowetz, J., Frew, E. W., & Kennedy, P. C. (2012). The Collaborative Colorado-Nebraska Unmanned Aircraft System Experiment. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 93, 39–54.Find this resource:

Howard, L. N., & Gupta, A. S. (1962). On the hydrodynamic and hydromagnetic stability of swirling flows. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 14, 463–476.Find this resource:

Jung, Y., Xue, M., Zhang, G., & Straka, J. M. (2008). Assimilation of simulated polarimetric radar data for a convective storm using the ensemble Kalman filter: Part II: Impact of polarimetric data on storm analysis. Monthly Weather Review, 136, 2246–2260.Find this resource:

Karstens, C. D., Gallus, W. A., Jr., Lee, B. D., & Finley, C. A. (2013). Analysis of tornado-induced tree fall using aerial photography from the Joplin, Missouri, and Tuscaloosa-Birmingham, Alabama, tornadoes of 2011. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 52, 1049–1068.Find this resource:

Karstens, C. D., Samaras, T. M., Lee, B. D., Gallus, W. A., Jr., & Finley, C. A. (2010). Near-ground pressure and wind measurements in tornadoes. Monthly Weather Review, 138, 2570–2588.Find this resource:

Kessler, E. (1969). On the distribution and continuity of water substance in atmospheric circulations. Meteorological Monographs 32. Washington, DC: American Meteorological Society.Find this resource:

Klemp, J. B. (1987). Dynamics of tornadic thunderstorms. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 19, 369–402.Find this resource:

Klemp, J. B., & Rotunno, R. (1983). A study of the tornadic region within a supercell thunderstorm. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 40, 359–377.Find this resource:

Klemp, J. B., & Wilhelmson, R. B. (1978). The simulation of three-dimensional convective storm dynamics. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 35, 1070–1096.Find this resource:

Kosiba, K. A., & Wurman, J. (2013). The three-dimensional structure and evolution of a tornado boundary layer. Weather and Forecasting, 28, 15512–1561.Find this resource:

Kosiba, K. A., Wurman, J., Richardson, Y., Markowski, P., Robinson, P., & Marquis, J. (2013). Genesis of the Goshen County, Wyoming, tornado on 5 June 2009 during VORTEX2. Monthly Weather Review, 141, 1157–1181.Find this resource:

Kuhlman, K. M., Ziegler, C. L., Mansell, E. R., MacGorman, D. R., & Straka, J. (2006). Numerically simulated electrification and lightning of the 29 June 2000 STEPS supercell storm. Monthly Weather Review, 134, 2734–2757.Find this resource:

Kumjian, M. R. (2011). Precipitation properties of supercell hook echoes. Electronic Journal of Severe Storms Meteorology, 6, 1–21.Find this resource:

Kumjian, M. R., Khain, A. P., Benmoshe, N., Ilotoviz, E., Ryzhkov, A. V., & Phillips, V. T. J. (2014). The anatomy and physics of ZDR columns: Investigating a polarimetric radar signature with a spectral bin microphysical model. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 53, 1820–1843.Find this resource:

Kumjian, M. R., & Ryzhkov, A. V. (2008). Polarimetric signatures in supercell thunderstorms. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 47, 1940–1961.Find this resource:

Kuo, H. L. (1971). Axisymmetric flows in the boundary layer of a maintained vortex. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 28, 20–41.Find this resource:

Lee, B. D., Finley, C. A., & Karstens, C. D. (2012). The Bowdle, South Dakota, cyclic tornadic supercell of 22 May 2010: Surface analysis of rear-flank downdraft evolution and multiple internal surges. Monthly Weather Review, 140, 3419–3441.Find this resource:

Lee, B. D., & Wilhelmson, R. B. (1997). The numerical simulation of non-supercell tornadogenesis. Part I: Initiation and evolution of pretornadic misocyclone circulations along a dry outflow boundary. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 54, 32–60.Find this resource:

Lehmiller, G. S., Bluestein, H. B., Neiman, P. J., Ralph, F. M., & Feltz, W. F. (2001). Wind structure in a supercell thunderstorm as measured by a UHF wind profiler. Monthly Weather Review, 129, 1968–1986.Find this resource:

Lemon, L. R., & Doswell, C. A., III (1979). Thunderstorm evolution and mesocyclone structure as related to tornadogenesis. Monthly Weather Review, 107, 1184–1197.Find this resource:

Lewellen, D. C., & Lewellen, W. S. (2007a). Near-surface intensification of tornado vortices. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 64, 2176–2194.Find this resource:

Lewellen, D. C., & Lewellen, W. S. (2007b). Near-surface vortex intensification through corner flow collapse. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 64, 2195–2209.Find this resource:

Lewellen, D. C., Lewellen, W. S., & Xia, J. (2000). The influence of a local swirl ratio on tornado intensification near the surface. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 57, 527–544.Find this resource:

Lewellen, W. S. (1976). Theoretical models of the tornado vortex. In R. E. Peterson (Ed.), Proceedings of the Symposium on Tornadoes: Assessment of Knowledge and Implications for Man (pp. 107–143). Lubbock: Institute for Disaster Research, Texas Tech. University.Find this resource:

Lewellen, W. S., Lewellen, D. C., & Sykes, R. I. (1997). Large-eddy simulation of a tornado’s interaction with the surface. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 54, 581–605.Find this resource:

Li, X., Tao, W.-K., Khain, A. P., Simpson, J., & Johnson, D. E. (2009). Sensitivity of a cloud-resolving model to bulk and explicit bin microphysical schemes. Part I: Comparisons. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 66, 3–21.Find this resource:

Lilly, D. K. (1969). Tornado dynamics. NCAR Manuscript 69–117. Boulder, CO: National Center for Atmospheric Research.Find this resource:

Lilly, D. K. (1986). The structure, energetics and propagation of rotating convective storms. Part II: Helicity and storm stabilization. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 43, 126–140.Find this resource:

MacGorman, D. R., Rust, W. D., Krehbiel, P., Rison, W., Bruning, E., & Wiens, K. (2005). The electrical structure of two supercell storms during STEPS. Monthly Weather Review, 133, 2583–2607.Find this resource:

Mahale, V. N., Brotzge, J., & Bluestein, H. B. (2012). An analysis of vortices embedded within a quasi-linear convective system using X-band polarimetric radar. Weather Forecasting, 27, 1520–1537.Find this resource:

Mansell, E. R., Ziegler, C. L., & MacGorman, D. R. (2007). A lightning data assimilation technique for mesoscale forecast models. Monthly Weather Review, 135, 1732–1748.Find this resource:

Markowski, P., Richardson, Y., & Bryan, G. (2014). The origins of vortex sheets in a simulated supercell thunderstorm. Monthly Weather Review, 142, 3944–3954.Find this resource:

Markowski, P. M. (2002). Mobile mesonet observations on 3 May 1999. Weather and Forecasting, 17, 430–444.Find this resource:

Markowski, P. M., Rasmussen, E. N., & Straka, J. M. (1998). The occurrence of tornadoes in supercells interacting with boundaries during VORTEX-95. Weather and Forecasting, 13, 852–859.Find this resource:

Markowski, P. M., Rasmussen, E., Straka, J., Davies-Jones, R., Richardson, Y., & Trapp, R. J. (2008). Vortex lines within low-level mesocyclones obtained from pseudo-dual Doppler radar observations. Monthly Weather Review, 136, 3513–3535.Find this resource:

Markowski, P. M., & Richardson, Y. P. (2014). The influence of environmental low-level shear and cold pools on tornadogenesis: Insights from idealized simulations. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 71, 243–275.Find this resource:

Markowski, P. M., Richardson, Y., Marquis, J., Davies-Jones, R., Wurman, J., Kosiba, K., et al. (2012). The pretornadic phase of the Goshen County, Wyoming, supercell of 5 June 2009 intercepted by VORTEX2. Part II: Intensification of low-level rotation. Monthly Weather Review, 140, 2887–2915.Find this resource:

Markowski, P. M., Straka, J. M., & Rasmussen, E. N. (2002). Direct surface thermodynamic observations within the rear-flank downdrafts of nontornadic and tornadic supercells. Monthly Weather Review, 130, 1692–1721.Find this resource:

Marquis, J., Richardson, Y., Wurman, J., & Markowski, P. (2008). Single- and dual-Doppler analysis of a tornadic vortex and surrounding storm-scale flow in the Crowell, Texas, supercell of 30 April 2000. Monthly Weather Review, 136, 5017–5043.Find this resource:

Marquis, J., Richardson, Y., Markowski, P., Dowell, D., & Wurman, J. (2012). Tornado maintenance investigated with high-resolution dual-Doppler and EnKF analysis. Monthly Weather Review, 140, 3–27.Find this resource:

Marshall, T. P. (2004). The enhanced Fujita (EF) scale. In Preprints, 22nd Conference on Severe Local Storms (CD-ROM, 3B.2). Hyannis, MA: American Meteorological Society.Find this resource:

McCaul, E. W., Jr. (1991). Buoyancy and shear characteristics of hurricane-tornado environments. Monthly Weather Review, 119, 1954–1978.Find this resource:

McCaul, E. W., Jr., & Weisman, M. L. (1996). Simulation of shallow supercell storms in landfalling hurricane environments. Monthly Weather Review, 124, 408–429.Find this resource:

Milbrandt, J. A., & Yau, M. K. (2005). A multimoment bulk microphysics parameterization. Part II: A proposed three-moment closure and scheme description. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 62, 3065–3081.Find this resource:

Moller, A. R. (1978). The improved NWS storm spotters’ training program at Ft. Worth, Tex. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 39, 1574–1582.Find this resource:

Moller, A. R., Doswell, C. A., III, Foster, M. P., & Woodall, G. R. (1994). The operational recognition of supercell thunderstorm environments and storm structure. Weather and Forecasting, 9, 327–347.Find this resource:

Nolan, D. S., & Farrell, B. F. (1999). The structure and dynamics of tornado-like vortices. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 56, 2908–2936.Find this resource:

Novlan, D. J., & Gray, W. M. (1974). Hurricane-spawned tornadoes. Monthly Weather Review, 102, 476–488.Find this resource:

Nowotarski, C. J., Markowski, P. M., Richardson, Y. P., & Bryan, G. H. (2014). Properties of a simulated convective boundary layer in an idealized supercell thunderstorm environment. Monthly Weather Review, 142, 3955–3976.Find this resource:

Nowotarski, C. J., Markowski, P. M., Richardson, Y. P., & Bryan, G. H. (2015). Supercell low-level mesocyclones in simulations with a sheared convective boundary layer. Monthly Weather Review, 143, 272–297.Find this resource:

Ogura, Y., & Phillips, N. A. (1962). Scale analysis of deep and shallow convection in the atmosphere. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 19, 173–179.Find this resource:

Orf, L., Wilhelmson, R. B., Wicker, L. J., Lee, B. D., & Finley, C. A. (2014). Genesis and maintenance of a long-track EF5 tornado embedded within a simulated supercell. Presented at the 27th Conference on Severe Local Storms, 3B.3, Madison, WI, November 3, 2014. this resource:

Pazmany, A. L., Mead, J. B., Bluestein, H. B., Snyder, J. C., & Houser, J. B. (2013). A mobile, rapid-scanning, X-band, polarimetric (RaXPol) Doppler radar system. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, 30, 1398–1413.Find this resource:

Rankine, W. J. M. (1882). A manual of applied physics (10th ed.). London: Charles Griffin.Find this resource:

Rasmussen, E. N. (2003). Refined supercell and tornado forecast parameters. Weather and Forecasting, 18, 530–535.Find this resource:

Rasmussen, E. N., & Blanchard, D. O. (1998). A baseline climatology of sounding-derived supercell and tornado forecast parameters. Weather and Forecasting, 13, 1148–1164.Find this resource:

Rasmussen, E. N., & Straka, J. M. (1998). Variations in supercell morphology. Part I: Observations of the role of upper-level storm-relative flow. Monthly Weather Review, 126, 2406–2421.Find this resource:

Rasmussen, E. N., Straka, J. M., Davies-Jones, R., Doswell, C. A., III, Carr, F. H., Eilts, M. D., et al. (1994). Verification of the Origins of Rotation in Tornadoes Experiment: VORTEX. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 75, 995–1006.Find this resource:

Rasmussen, E. N., Straka, J. M., Gilmore, M. S., & Davies-Jones, R. (2006). A preliminary survey of rear-flank descending reflectivity cores in supercell storms. Weather and Forecasting, 21, 923–938.Find this resource:

Ray, P. S., Doviak, R. J., Walker, G. B., Sirmans, D., Carter, J., & Bumgarner, B. (1975). Dual-Doppler observation of a tornadic storm. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 14, 1521–1530.Find this resource:

Refan, M. (2014). Physical simulation of tornado-like vortices. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada. Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Depository, paper 1923.Find this resource:

Richardson, Y. P., Droegemeier, K. K., & Davies-Jones, R. P. (2007). The influence of horizontal environmental variability on numerically simulated convective storms. Part I: Variations in vertical shear. Monthly Weather Review, 135, 3429–3455.Find this resource:

Romine, G. S., Burgess, D. W., & Wilhelmson, R. B. (2008). A dual-polarization-radar-based assessment of the 8 May 2003 Oklahoma City area tornadic supercell. Monthly Weather Review, 136, 2849–2870.Find this resource:

Rott, N. (1958). On the viscous core of a line vortex. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Mathematik und Physik, 9, 543–553.Find this resource:

Rotunno, R. (1977). Numerical simulation of a laboratory vortex. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 34, 1942–1956.Find this resource:

Rotunno, R. (1979). A study in tornado-like vortex dynamics. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 36, 140–155.Find this resource:

Rotunno, R. (1980). Vorticity dynamics of a convective swirling boundary layer. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 97, 623–640.Find this resource:

Rotunno, R. (1981). On the evolution of thunderstorm rotation. Monthly Weather Review, 109, 577–586.Find this resource:

Rotunno, R. (1984). An investigation of a three-dimensional asymmetric vortex. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 41, 283–298.Find this resource:

Rotunno, R. (2013). The fluid dynamics of tornadoes. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 45, 59–84.Find this resource:

Rotunno, R. (2014). Secondary circulations in rotating-flow boundary layers. Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Journal, 64, 27–35.Find this resource:

Rotunno, R., & Klemp, J. B. (1982). The influence of the shear-induced pressure gradient on thunderstorm motion. Monthly Weather Review, 110, 136–151.Find this resource:

Rotunno, R., & Klemp, J. B. (1985). On the rotation and propagation of simulated supercell thunderstorms. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 42, 271–292.Find this resource:

Ryzhkov, A. V., Schuur, T. J., Burgess, D. W., & Zrnić, D. S. (2005). Polarimetric tornado detection. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 44, 557–570.Find this resource:

Schenkman, A. D., Xue, M., & Hu, M. (2014). Tornadogenesis in a high-resolution simulation of the 8 May 2003 Oklahoma City supercell. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 71, 130–154.Find this resource:

Schlesinger, R. E. (1975). A three-dimensional numerical model of an isolated convective cloud: Preliminary results. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 32, 934–957.Find this resource:

Shabbott, C. J., & Markowski, P. M. (2006). Surface in situ observations within the outflow of forward-flank downdrafts of supercell thunderstorms. Monthly Weather Review, 134, 1422–1441.Find this resource:

Skinner, P. S., Weiss, C. C., French, M. M., Bluestein, H. B., Markowski, P. M., & Richardson, Y. P. (2014). VORTEX2 observations of a low-level mesocyclone with multiple internal rear-flank downdraft momentum surges in the 18 May 2010 Dumas, Texas, supercell. Monthly Weather Review, 142, 2935–2960.Find this resource:

Smith, R. K., & Leslie, L. M. (1978). Tornadogenesis. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 105, 107–127.Find this resource:

Snow, J. T. (1984). On the formation of particle sheaths in columnar vortices. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 41, 2477–2491.Find this resource:

Snow, J. T., & Pauley, R. L. (1984). On the thermodynamic method for estimating maximum tornado windspeeds. Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology, 23, 1465–1468.Find this resource:

Snyder, J. C., & Bluestein, H. B. (2014). Some considerations for the use of high-resolution mobile radar data in tornado intensity determination. Weather and Forecasting, 29, 799–827.Find this resource:

Snyder, J. C., Bluestein, H. B., Venkatesh, V., & Frasier, S. J. (2013). Observations of polarimetric signatures in supercells by an X-band mobile Doppler radar. Monthly Weather Review, 141, 3–29.Find this resource:

Snyder, J., Bluestein, H. B., Zhang, G., & Frasier, S. (2010). Attenuation correction and hydrometeor classification of high-resolution, X-band, dual-polarized mobile radar measurements in severe convective storms. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, 27, 1979–2001.Find this resource:

Snyder, J. C., Ryzhkov, A. V., Kumjian, M. R., & Picca, J. C. (2014). Using the ZDR column product to detect updraft development and track updraft evolution. Presented at the 27th Conference on Severe Local Storms, 16A.5, Madison, WI, November 3–7, 2014. Washington, DC: American Meteorological Society.Find this resource:

Stensrud, D. J., Xue, M., Wicker, L. J., Kelleher, K. E., Foster, M. P., Schaefer, J. T., et al. (2009). Convective-scale warn on forecast: A vision for 2020. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 90, 1487–1499.Find this resource:

Straka, J. M., Rasmussen, E. N., Davies-Jones, R. P., & Markowski, P. M. (2007). An observational and idealized numerical examination of low-level counter-rotating vortices in the rear flank of supercells. Electronic Journal of Severe Storms Meteorology, 2, 1–22.Find this resource:

Straka, J. M., Rasmussen, E. N., & Fredrickson, S. E. (1996). A mobile mesonet for finescale meteorological observations. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, 13, 921–936.Find this resource:

Straka, J. M., Zrnic, D. S., & Ryzhkov, A. V. (2000). Bulk hydrometeor classification and quantification using polarimetric radar data: Synthesis of relations. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 39, 1341–1372.Find this resource:

Sullivan, R. D. (1959). A two-cell vortex solution of the Navier-Stokes equations. Journal of the Aerospace Sciences, 26, 767–768.Find this resource:

Suzuki, O., Hiroshi, N., Hisao, O., & Hiroshi, N. (2000). Tornado-producing mini supercells associated with Typhoon 9019. Monthly Weather Review, 128, 1868–1882.Find this resource:

Talagrand, O. (1997). Assimilation of observations, an introduction. Journal of the Meteorological Society of Japan, 75, 191–209.Find this resource:

Tanamachi, R. L., Bluestein, H. B., Houser, J. B., Frasier, S. J., & Hardwick, K. M. (2012). Mobile, X-band polarimetric Doppler radar observations of the 4 May 2007 Greensburg, Kansas tornadic supercell. Monthly Weather Review, 140, 2103–2125.Find this resource:

Tanamachi, R. L., Bluestein, H. B., Lee, W.-C., Bell, M., & Pazmany, A. (2007). Ground-based velocity track display (GBVTD) analysis of W-band Doppler radar data in a tornado near Stockton, Kansas on 15 May 1999. Monthly Weather Review, 135, 783–800.Find this resource:

Taylor, G. I. (1915). Eddy motion in the atmosphere. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, A215, 1–26.Find this resource:

Trapp, R. J., & Davies-Jones, R. (1997). Tornadogenesis with and without a dynamic pipe effect. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 54, 113–133.Find this resource:

Trapp, R. J., & Fiedler, B. H. (1995). Tornado-like vortexgenesis in a simplified numerical model. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 52, 3757–3778.Find this resource:

Trapp, R. J., Mitchell, E. D., Tipton, G. A., Effertz, D. W., Watson, A. I., Andra, D. L., Jr., et al. (1999). Descending and nondescending tornadic vortex signatures detected by WSR-88Ds. Weather and Forecasting, 14, 625–639.Find this resource:

Trapp, R. J., Stumpf, G. J., & Manross, K. L. (2005a). A reassessment of the percentage of tornadic mesocyclones. Weather and Forecasting, 20, 680–687.Find this resource:

Trapp, R. J., Tessendorf, S. A., Godfrey, E. S., & Brooks, H. E. (2005b). Tornadoes from squall lines and bow echoes. Part I: Climatological distribution. Weather and Forecasting, 20, 23–34.Find this resource:

Van Den Broeke, M. S., Straka, J. M., & Rasmussen, E. N. (2008). Polarimetric radar observations at low levels during tornado life cycles in a small sample of classic southern Plains supercells. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 47, 1232–1247.Find this resource:

Wakimoto, R. M., Atkins, N. T., & Wurman, J (2011). The LaGrange tornado during VORTEX2. Part I: Photogrammetric analysis of the tornado combined with single-Doppler radar data. Monthly Weather Review, 139, 2233–2258.Find this resource:

Wakimoto, R. M., Lee, W.-C., Bluestein, H. B., Liu, C.-H., & Hildebrand, P. H. (1996). ELDORA observations during VORTEX 95. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 77, 1465–1481.Find this resource:

Wakimoto, R. M., & Liu, C. (1998). The Garden City, Kansas, storm during VORTEX 95. Part II: The wall cloud and tornado. Monthly Weather Review, 126, 393–408.Find this resource:

Wakimoto, R. M., & Martner, B. E. (1992). Observations of a Colorado tornado. Part II: Combined photogrammetric and Doppler radar analysis. Monthly Weather Review, 120, 522–543.Find this resource:

Wakimoto, R. M., & Wilson, J. W. (1989). Non-supercell tornadoes. Monthly Weather Review, 117, 1113–1140.Find this resource:

Ward, N. B. (1972). The exploration of certain features of tornado dynamics using a laboratory model. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 29, 1194–1204.Find this resource:

Weisman, M. L., & Klemp, J. B. (1982). The dependence of numerically simulated convective storms on vertical wind shear and buoyancy. Monthly Weather Review, 110, 504–520.Find this resource:

Weisman, M. L., & Klemp, J. B. (1984). The structure and classification of numerically simulated convective storms in directionally varying wind shears. Monthly Weather Review, 112, 2479–2498.Find this resource:

Weisman, M. L., & Klemp, J. B. (1986). Characteristics of isolated convective storms. In P. S. Ray (Ed.), Mesoscale meteorology and forecasting (pp. 331–358). Washington, DC: American Meteorological Society.Find this resource:

Weisman, M. L., & Rotunno, R. (2000). The use of vertical wind shear versus helicity in interpreting supercell dynamics. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 57, 1452–1472.Find this resource:

Wicker, L. J. (1996). The role of near surface wind shear on low-level mesocyclone generation and tornadoes. Preprints, 18th Conference on Severe Local Storms, San Francisco, CA, February 19–23, 1996 (pp. 115–119). Washington, DC: American Meteorological Society.Find this resource:

Wicker, L. J., & Wilhelmson, R. B. (1995). Simulation and analysis of tornado development and decay within a three-dimensional supercell thunderstorm. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 52, 2675–2703.Find this resource:

Wilson, T., & Rotunno, R. (1986). Numerical simulation of a laminar end-wall vortex and boundary layer. Physics of Fluids, 29, 3993–4005.Find this resource:

Winn, W. P., Hunyady, S. J., & Aulich, G. D. (1999). Pressure at the ground within and near a large tornado. Journal of Geophysical Research, 104(D18), 22,067–22,082.Find this resource:

Wurman, J. (2002). The multiple-vortex structure of a tornado. Weather and Forecasting, 17, 473–505.Find this resource:

Wurman, J., Dowell, D., Richardson, Y., Markowski, P., Burgess, D., Wicker, L., et al. (2012). The Second Verification of the Origins of Rotation in Tornadoes Experiment: VORTEX2. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 93, 1147–1170.Find this resource:

Wurman, J., & Gill, S. (2000). Finescale radar observations of the Dimmitt, Texas (2 June 1995), tornado. Monthly Weather Review, 128, 2135–2164.Find this resource:

Wurman, J., Kosiba, K., & Robinson, P. (2013). In situ, Doppler radar, and video observations of the interior structure of a tornado and the wind–damage relationship. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 94, 835–846.Find this resource:

Wurman, J., Kosiba, K., Robinson, P., & Marshall, T. (2014). The role of multiple-vortex tornado structure in causing storm researcher fatalities. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 95, 31–45.Find this resource:

Wurman, J., & Randall, M. (2001). An inexpensive, mobile rapid scan radar. Preprints, 30th Conference on Radar Meteorology, Munich, Germany (P3.4). Washington, DC: American Meteorological Society. this resource:

Zrnic, D. S., Kimpel, J. F., Forsyth, D. E., Shapiro, A., Crain, G., Ferek, R., et al. (2007). Agile-beam phased array radar for weather observations. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 88, 1753–1766.Find this resource:

Zrnic, D. S., & Ryzhkov, A. V. (1999). Polarimetry for weather surveillance radars. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 80, 389–406.Find this resource:

Suggested Further Reading

Bluestein, H. B. (1993). Synoptic-dynamic meteorology in midlatitudes: Vol. 2. Observations and theory of weather systems. New York: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Bluestein, H. B. (1999). Tornado alley: Monster storms of the Great Plains. New York: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Bluestein, H. B. (2013). Severe convective storms and tornadoes: Observations and dynamics. New York: Springer Praxis.Find this resource:

Bluestein, H. B., & Golden, J. H. (1993). A review of tornado observations. In C. Church, D. Burgess, C. Doswell, & R. Davies-Jones (Eds.), The tornado: Its structure, dynamics, prediction, and hazards (pp. 319–352). Geophysical Monograph Series 79. Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union.Find this resource:

Davies-Jones, R. P., Trapp, R. J., & Bluestein, H. B. (2001). Tornadoes and tornadic storms. In C. A. Doswell III (Ed.), Severe convective storms (pp. 167–221). Meteorological Monograph 28. Boston: American Meteorological Society.Find this resource: