Recent high-resolution numerical simulations of supercells have identified a feature referred to as the streamwise vorticity current (SVC). Some have presumed the SVC to play a role in tornado genesis and maintenance, though observations of such a feature have been limited. To this end, 125-m dual-Doppler wind syntheses and mobile mesonet observations are used to examine three observed supercells for evidence of an SVC. Two of the three supercells are found to contain a feature similar to an SVC, while the other supercell contains an antistreamwise vorticity ribbon on the southern fringe of the forward flank. A closer examination of the two supercells with SVCs reveals that the SVCs are located on the cool side of boundaries within the forward flank that separate colder, more turbulent flow from warmer, more laminar flow, similar to numerical simulations. Furthermore, the observed SVCs are similar to those in simulations in that they appear to be associated with baroclinic vorticity generation and have similar appearances in vertical cross sections. Aside from some apparent differences in the location of the maximum streamwise vorticity between simulated and observed SVCs, the SVCs seen in numerical simulations are indeed similar to reality. The SVC, however, may not be essential for tornadogenesis, at least for weak tornadoes, because the supercell that did not have a well-defined SVC produced at least one brief, weak tornado during the analysis period.

A supercell produced a nearly tornadic vortex during an intercept by the Second Verification of the Origins of Rotation in Tornadoes Experiment on 26 May 2010. Using observations from two mobile radars performing dual-Doppler scans, a five-probe mobile mesonet, and a proximity sounding, factors that prevented this vortex from strengthening into a significant tornado are examined. Mobile mesonet observations indicate that portions of the supercell outflow possessed excessive negative buoyancy, likely owing in part to low boundary layer relative humidity, as indicated by a high environmental lifted condensation level. Comparisons to a tornadic supercell suggest that the Prospect Valley storm had enough far-field circulation to produce a significant tornado, but was unable to converge this circulation to a sufficiently small radius. Trajectories suggest that the weak convergence might be due to the low-level mesocyclone ingesting parcels with considerable crosswise vorticity from the near-storm environment, which has been found to contribute to less steady and weaker low-level updrafts in supercell simulations. Yet another factor that likely contributed to the weak low-level circulation was the inability of parcels rich in streamwise vorticity from the forward-flank precipitation region to reach the low-level mesocyclone, likely owing to an unfavorable pressure gradient force field. In light of these results, we suggest that future research should continue focusing on the role of internal, storm-scale processes in tornadogenesis, especially in marginal environments.

Several studies have documented the sensitivity of convective storm simulations to the microphysics parameterization, but there is less research documenting how these sensitivities change with environmental conditions. In this study, the influence of the lifting condensation level (LCL) on the sensitivity of simulated ordinary convective storm cold pools to the microphysics parameterization is examined. To do this, seven perturbed-microphysics ensembles with nine members each are used, where each ensemble uses a different base state with a surface-based LCL between 500 and 2000 m. Comparing ensemble standard deviations of cold pool properties shows a clear trend of increasing sensitivity to the microphysics as the LCL is raised. Physically, this trend is the result of lower relative humidities in high-LCL environments that increase low-level rain evaporational cooling rates, which magnifies differences in evaporation already present among the members of a given ensemble owing to the microphysics variations. Omitting supersaturation from the calculation of rain evaporation so that only the raindrop size distribution influences evaporation leads to more evaporation in the low-LCL simulations (owing to more drops), as well as a slightly larger spread in evaporational cooling amounts between members in the low-LCL ensembles. Cold pools in the low-LCL environments are also found to develop earlier and are initially more sensitive to raindrop breakup owing to a larger warm-cloud depth. Altogether, these results suggest that convective storms may be more predictable in low-LCL environments, and forecasts of convection in high-LCL environments may benefit the most from microphysics perturbations within an ensemble forecasting system.

Convective inhibition (CIN) is one of the parameters used by forecasters to determine the inflow layer of a convective storm, but little work has examined the best way to compute CIN. One decision that must be made is whether to lift parcels following a pseudoadiabat (removing hydrometeors as the parcel ascends) or reversible moist adiabat (retaining hydrometeors). To determine which option is best, idealized simulations of ordinary convection are examined using a variety of base states with different reversible CIN values for parcels originating in the lowest 500 m. Parcel trajectories suggest that ascent over the lowest few kilometers, where CIN is typically accumulated, is best conceptualized as a reversible moist adiabatic process instead of a pseudoadiabatic process. Most inflow layers do not contain parcels with substantial reversible CIN, despite these parcels possessing ample convective available potential energy and minimal pseudoadiabatic CIN. If a stronger initiation method is used, or hydrometeor loading is ignored, simulations can ingest more parcels with large amounts of reversible CIN. These results suggest that reversible CIN, not pseudoadiabatic CIN, is the physically relevant way to compute CIN and that forecasters may benefit from examining reversible CIN instead of pseudoadiabatic CIN when determining the inflow layer.

No abstract