This archive contains answers to questions sent to Unidata support through mid-2025. Note that the archive is no longer being updated. We provide the archive for reference; many of the answers presented here remain technically correct, even if somewhat outdated. For the most up-to-date information on the use of NSF Unidata software and data services, please consult the Software Documentation first.
Hi Pete, I do not know if this event occurred in 2000, but if so it is probably related to the COMET Case Study CCS033, (Missouri Isolated Severe Weather 20-22 May, 2000 ). Nice insight to the storm and its conditions, it sounds like the same event. If so, please feel free to access any of the data at: http://www.joss.ucar.edu/cgi-bin/codiac/projs?COMET_CASE_033 and if any work is being done on this event, any contributions or added insights to the case study would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, -Jeff ____________________________ _____________________ Jeff Weber address@hidden Unidata Support PH:303-497-8676 NWS-COMET Case Study Library FX:303-497-8690 University Corp for Atmospheric Research 3300 Mitchell Ln http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/staff/jweber Boulder,Co 80307-3000 ________________________________________ ______________________ > > Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 18:47:02 +0000 > From: "Peter Wolf" <address@hidden> > Subject: anticipating landspouts > > SOOs.... > > Had an interesting meeting with researcher Jon Davies last week about a > tornado event on May 20th in central KS (at least 5 or 6 touchdowns and > additional funnel reports...in environment with 2500 J/Kg CAPE, but > helicities less than 80 m2/s2). I believe he has come upon some > interesting clues for anticipating these events. Based on what we have > found in several multiple-landspout events, the following should be > looked for: > > 1) Large CAPE (at least 2500 J/Kg, preferrably greater than 3000 > J/Kg)... including substantial positive area in the lowest 3km (e.g. > 700mb LI's of -3 or lower...I've come up with a volume browser field > that approximates 700mb LIs). This seems to be critical w/ regard to > the "stretching term" that appears to be important for landspouts. > > 2) Storm-relative flow aloft of 15 kts or greater...to redistribute > precipitation away > from updraft core. In weak flow environments, this condition can be met > through deviant storm motion. > > 3) A well-defined boundary, with surface windfields across the boundary > producing fairly large values of vorticity (e.g. N or NW wind north of > boundary, SW wind south of boundary). This can be plotted from LAPS or > RUC analysis using Volume Browser (higher resolution plot of vorticity > of surface wind). > > 4) Deviant storm motion that keeps the storm over the boundary (keeping > continuous feed of air parcels experiencing vorticity within boundary > into updraft), Storm motion must also be such as to prevent updraft from > being cut-off by downdraft. For May 20th event, storm motion was almost > due south at a speed that kept storm above southward-moving cold front > and apparently ahead of its cool outflow. > > Conditions #2-#3 are often observed, but less so in combination with > condition #1, and much less so to have all conditions met. For the > multiple-landspout events we've observed, all conditions were met (also > met in Jarrell TX event, though the extreme instability yielded more > than simply a landspout). > > It appears shear is not a relevant factor for landspouts. In fact, the > several events > reviewed were all low-shear events. What appears to be important is a > boundary with airflow across it producing positive vorticity, and for a > storm to somehow to remain over the boundary. An isolated landspout can > occur when a storm briefly encounters a boundary with such a "vorticity" > condition met (have seen this occur, with landspout occurrence ending > when storm leaves the boundary...this setup > usually leads to 1 brief landspout/funnel, not multiple), but > multiple-landspout events appear to require storm to have continuous > access to parcels acquiring vorticity in boundary (making condition #4 > quite important). > > I've instructed our forecasters (especially this time of year) to focus > on the above > conditions, and be in contact with spotters in the locations where the > conditions are > met. In the past, we've had very little skill anticipating such events > (clueless why they occurred in weak-flow environment). The above gives > us a chance to better anticipate such events, and use our spotters to > help in the warning process (especially given lack of signatures on > radar). > > Hope the above is helpful... > > Pete Wolf, SOO > NWS Wichita KS