the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Brief Communication: towards a universal formula for the probability of tornadoes
Roberto Ingrosso
Piero Lionello
Mario Marcello Miglietta
Gianfausto Salvadori
Abstract. A methodological approach is proposed to provide an analytical (exponential-like) expression for the probability of occurrence of tornadoes as a function of the convective available potential energy and the wind shear (or, alternatively, the storm relative helicity). The resulting expression allows to compute the probability of tornado occurrence using variables that are computed by weather prediction and climate models, thus compensating for the lack of resolution needed to resolve these phenomena in numerical simulations.
- Preprint
(560 KB) -
Supplement
(8278 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Roberto Ingrosso et al.
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2023-19', Anonymous Referee #1, 24 Feb 2023
Review of manuscript “Brief Communication: towards a universal formula for the probability of tornadoes” by Ingrosso et al, submitted to NHESS
General Comments
This manuscript proposes a methodology to derive the probability of tornado occurrence based on ERA5 reanalysis data and tornado records from the USA and Europe. Four different parameters are studied statistically to explore their relationship with tornado occurrence, considering both univariate and bivariate models. The topic is clearly well suited to the journal scope and, overall, I think the manuscript deserves to be considered for publication as it provides a valuable contribution to the field. However, I do not think it should be accepted in the present form as some clarifications, and, mostly minor, corrections are needed.
First of all, the text does not mention the difference between tornadoes associated with mesocyclones (.i.e. supercells) and those that are not (the so-called non-supercell tornadoes [1], or more precisely non-mesocyclonic tornadoes). Parameters used in the study to characterize the environmental conditions may differ substantially in both cases, and the choice of discarding weak (E/F0 and E/F1) tornadoes may not be useful to select only supercell tornadoes as non-supercell tornadoes may also be strong, as reported in the past [2]. This aspect should be at least mentioned. The text should also clarify if waterspouts are discarded in the datasets considered.
Secondly, did the authors consider the possibility of using records of non-tornadic events to assess the potential false alarms associated with the use of the results obtained? For example [3] calculated first climatologies of the parameters and then compared them with tornadic cases or [4] considered a sample of dry days and non-tornadic thunderstorm days to see if thresholds of the selected parameters associated with tornado occurrence differed substantially. I’m not asking that authors recalculate their computations but at least mention or discuss briefly these alternative approaches.
Finally, the manuscript is submitted as a “Brief Communication”, which according to the NHESS guidelines for authors means that it should have 2 to 4 pages, shorter than research articles (6 to 24 pages). Moreover, Brief Communications should have maximum 20 references, a number already exceeded. On the other hand, a description in the body of the text of the manuscript of the formulas of the parameters used and more details of the methodology are missing, which authors present in the “Supplementary Materials”. I sincerely feel that readers would appreciate to find that information in the text. Thus, I strongly recommend that authors consider the possibility of expanding the current body of the text by moving there part of the “Supplementary Materials” and transform the “Brief Communication” into a research article.
Specific Comments
- Page 1, line 11. Suggest: The very fine spatial -> Numerical simulation of the very fine spatial [or similar]
- Page 2, line 31. Please specify the tornado intensity scale considered (i.e., F or EF?).
- Page 3, line 56. Please check: over all the whole range : do you mean over the whole range?
- Page 4, Figure 1 (also in page 5, Figure 2, and in the Supplementary Materials). To avoid confusions, I suggest you change the label of the first panel (currently ‘WM’) to ‘WMAX’.
- Also, in Figure 1 (and elsewhere). Authors identify USA and European tornados with the letters USA (three letters) and EU (two letters), respectively. This is a minor detail but, for the sake of consistency, you may consider using USA and EUR (both with three letters) or US and EU (both with two letters).
- Page 6, line 104. Typo: this limitations -> these limitations
- Page 8, Reference Dotzek et al : please check the use of capital letters where needed: european … eswd -> European … ESWD
- Page 8, Reference Kunkel et al. Typo in : knowledge :. -> knowledge :
- Page S1, section 1.1. Please indicate the units of the main variables used (WMAX, etc.)
- Page S1, Equation S5: the text indicates that T and Td are at 2m but the subindex indicates 10m (as in Equation S3). Please check.
References
[1] Wakimoto, R. M., & Wilson, J. W. (1989). Non-supercell tornadoes. Monthly Weather Review, 117(6), 1113-1140.
[2] Roberts, R. D., & Wilson, J. W. (1995). The genesis of three nonsupercell tornadoes observed with dual-Doppler radar. Monthly Weather Review, 123(12), 3408-3436.
[3] Romero, R., Gayà, M., & Doswell III, C. A. (2007). European climatology of severe convective storm environmental parameters: A test for significant tornado events. Atmospheric Research, 83(2-4), 389-404.
[4] Rodríguez, O., & Bech, J. (2018). Sounding‐derived parameters associated with tornadic storms in Catalonia. International Journal of Climatology, 38(5), 2400-2414.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-19-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on nhess-2023-19', Anonymous Referee #2, 20 Mar 2023
Comments to “Brief Communication: towards a universal formula for the probability of tornadoes”
General comments:
The present study proposed a new approach for the probability of tornado occurrences as a function of the CAPE and vertical shear of the horizontal wind. The results of the present study are interesting and suitable to be published in NHESS. However, I believe that some additional explanations are needed and I recommend major or minor revisions at this round.
Specific comments:
- Why the authors didn’t use combination parameters such as energy helicity index (EHI) and Significant tornado parameter (STP)? These parameters would provide a more appropriate probability of tornado occurrences.
- What are the advantages of the method in the present study compared to the methods in the previous studies? More clearly explanation would be useful for readers.
- Since a lot of information is included in Supplementary Material, readers would struggle to understand the study. I recommend more information is included in the body text as possible the authors can.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-19-RC2
Roberto Ingrosso et al.
Roberto Ingrosso et al.
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 257 | 55 | 11 | 323 | 24 | 3 | 2 |
- HTML: 257
- PDF: 55
- XML: 11
- Total: 323
- Supplement: 24
- BibTeX: 3
- EndNote: 2
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1