Hook Echoes and Rear-Flank Downdrafts: A Review

852 MONTHLY WEATHER REVIEW VOLUME 130
Hook Echoes and Rear-Flank Downdrafts: A Review

PAUL M. MARKOWSKI
Department of Meteorology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania
(Manuscript received 19 March 2001, in final form 24 September 2001)
ABSTRACT
Nearly 50 years of observations of hook echoes and their associated rear-flank downdrafts (RFDs) are reviewed.
Relevant theoretical and numerical simulation results also are discussed. For over 20 years, the hook echo and
RFD have been hypothesized to be critical in the tornadogenesis process. Yet direct observations within hook
echoes and RFDs have been relatively scarce. Furthermore, the role of the hook echo and RFD in tornadogenesis
remains poorly understood. Despite many strong similarities between simulated and observed storms, some
possibly important observations within hook echoes and RFDs have not been reproduced in three-dimensional
numerical models.
1. Introduction 9 April 1953, although van Tassell (1955) is given credit

Perhaps the best-recognized radar feature in a horizontal for coining the term. The reflectivity appendage usually
depiction associated with supercells is the extension of is oriented roughly perpendicular to storm motion. Hook
low-level echo on the right-rear flank of these storms, echoes are typically downward extensions of the rear
called the ‘‘hook echo.’’ Hook echoes are known to be side of an elevated reflectivity region (Forbes 1981)
associated with a commonly observed region of subsiding called the echo overhang (Browning 1964; Marwitz
air in supercells, called the ‘‘rear-flank downdraft.’’ Rear- 1972a; Lemon 1982), with the region beneath the echo
flank downdrafts have been long surmised to be critical overhang termed a weak echo region (Chisholm 1973;
in the genesis of significant tornadoes within supercell Lemon 1977) or vault (Browning and Donaldson 1963;
thunderstorms. In this paper, observations of hook echoes Browning 1964, 1965a). Browning and Donaldson
are reviewed first, beginning with the first documentations (1963) and Browning (1965b) noted that the southern
of the 1950s and 1960s. Rear-flank downdrafts are re- edge of the hook formed a wall of echo ‘‘which was
viewed next, including discussion of pertinent Doppler often very sharp and sometimes rather upright.’’ Hook
radar observations and theoretical and numerical simula- echoes are typically several kilometers in length and
tion studies. Finally, relatively recent observations made several hundred meters in width, at least as viewed by
during the Verification of the Origins of Rotation in Tor- operational radars (e.g., Garrett and Rockney 1962). A
nadoes Experiment (VORTEX; Rasmussen et al. 1994) variety of shapes that the hook echo may take were
and smaller subsequent field operations are reviewed. De- presented by Fujita (1973; Fig. 2).
spite the well-known association among hook echoes, rear- Fujita (1958a) documented hook echoes associated
flank downdrafts, and tornadogenesis, their dynamical re- with other supercells on the same day Stout and Huff
lationship remains poorly understood. Our current con- made their observations. He inferred the concept of
fusion serves as a motivation for the collection of new, in thunderstorm rotation from viewing the evolution of the
situ observations having unprecedented spatial and tem- hook echoes, which he studied in unprecedented (and
poral detail within hook echoes and rear-flank downdrafts. since unparalleled) detail (Fig. 3). Brooks (1949) earlier
These data are the foundation of a companion paper (Mar- had referred to these circulations, having radii of ap-
kowski et al. 2002). proximately 8–16 km, as tornado cyclones.1 Wind ve-
locity data obtained following the installation of Dopp-
2. Hook echoes ler radars in central Oklahoma in the late 1960s con-
a. Characteristics firmed an association between hook echoes and strong
The hook echo first was documented by Stout and horizontal shear zones associated with storm rotation
Huff (1953; Fig. 1) in an Illinois tornado outbreak on and tornadoes (e.g., Donaldson 1970; Brown et al. 1973;
Corresponding author address: Dr. Paul Markowski, 503 Walker 1

The tornado cyclone terminology now typically refers to distinct
Building, University Park, PA 16802. circulations having a scale larger than a tornado but smaller than a
E-mail: [email protected] mesocyclone (e.g., Agee 1976).
APRIL 2002 MARKOWSKI 853
Fujita (1981) proclaimed ‘‘Mesoscale modelers should

be attracted by such a pair of cyclonic and anticyclonic
torandoes which were evidenced in the Grand Island
storm on 3 June 1980 and in the central Iowa storm on
13 June 1977.’’ However, it was unclear why such at-
tention should be given to the vortex couplet, and the
origin of the couplet was not well understood.
b. Formation
Fujita (1958a) originally attributed hook echo for-
mation to the advection of precipitation from the rear
of the main echo around the region of rotation associated
with the tornado cyclone and updraft. Browning (1964,
1965b) also documented hook echoes and attributed
their evolution (Fig. 6) to essentially the same process
described by Fujita (1958a). Fujita (1965) later attri-
FIG. 1. Radar image from the first documentation of a hook echo. buted hook echo formation to the Magnus force. He
The hook echo was associated with a tornadic supercell near Cham-
paign, IL, on 9 Apr 1953. [From Stout and Huff (1953).] explained that this force pulled the spiraling updraft out
of the main echo, resulting in the hook-shaped reflec-
tivity appendage commonly observed on radar displays
Lemon et al. 1975; Ray et al. 1975; Ray 1976; Brandes (Fig. 7).
1977a; Burgess et al. 1977; Lemon 1977; Barnes Fulks (1962) hypothesized that hook echo formation
1978a,b). was due to a large convective tower extending into the
Garrett and Rockney (1962) were the first to relate a levels of strong vertical wind shear, which produced
circular echo on the tip of a hook echo to the tornado cyclonic and anticyclonic flows at opposite ends of the
or tornado cyclone. They called this ball-shaped echo tower—the cyclonic flow to the southwest gave rise to
an ‘‘asc’’ (annular section of the cylinder of the vortex), hook echo development. No mention was made of the
but the authors did not offer an explanation for the exact possibility of an anticyclonic hook echo forming on the
cause of the appearance of the asc. Stout and Huff north side of the tower from the same mechanism.
(1953) also observed a similar feature, but little was Probably no one presented as many detailed Doppler
discussed of it. Donaldson (1970) noted an echo hole radar analyses of supercells as Brandes [1977a,b, 1978,
in the tornado he studied, and found that it was collo- 1981, 1984a,b; Brandes et al. (1988)]. Brandes (1977a)
cated with a tornado vortex. Forbes (1981) also ob- looked at a nontornadic supercell on 6 June 1974. Hook
served similar reflectivity features during the tornado echo formation was attributed to the ‘‘horizontal ac-
outbreak of 3–4 April 1974, as did Fujita and Wakimoto celeration of (low-level) droplet-laden air’’ as the down-
(1982) in their study of the Grand Island, Nebraska, drafts intensified and the outflow interacted with the
tornadoes of 3 June 1980. inward-spiraling updraft air. Apparently this hypothesis
Van Tassell’s (1955) images of a hook echo near was essentially that precipitation advection was respon-
Scottsbluff, Nebraska, on 27 June 1955 (it moved di- sible for hook echo formation, similar to the Fujita
rectly over the radar) suggested the presence of a faint (1958a) and Browning (1964, 1965b) hypotheses. A
anticyclonic protrusion from the tip of the hook, ex- three-dimensional numerical simulation by Klemp et al.
tending outward in a direction opposite that of the cy- (1981) of the Del City, Oklahoma (20 May 1977) su-
clonic protrusion. An anticyclonic reflectivity flare also percell also suggested that the horizontal advection of
has been documented by Brandes (1981), Fujita (1981), precipitation was important for hook echo development.
and Fujita and Wakimoto (1982). Multiple Doppler ra- In some observations of hook echoes associated with
dar wind syntheses almost invariably have revealed a tornadoes in nonsupercell storms, the hook echoes also
region of anticyclonic vorticity on the opposite side of have appeared to result largely from the horizontal ad-
the hook echo as the more prominent (cyclonic) vorticity vection of hydrometeors (e.g., Carbone 1983; Roberts
region (Brandes 1977b, 1978, 1981, 1984a; Ray 1976; and Wilson 1995).
Ray et al. 1975, 1981; Heymsfield 1978; Klemp et al. Other reliable radar observations have been made that
1981; Fig. 4). It is perhaps surprising that the ubiquity suggest that hook echo formation, in at least some cases,
of the vorticity couplet straddling the hook echo largely appears to result from the descent of a rain curtain in
has been ignored, with the exception of Fujita and his the rear-flank downdraft (e.g., Forbes 1981; E. N. Ras-
collaborators. Fujita and Wakimoto (1982) documented mussen 2000, personal communication;2 L. Lemon
an anticyclonic tornado within the region of anticyclonic
vertical vorticity (Fig. 5). The cyclonic member of the 2
This was an oral presentation at the VORTEX Symposium in
vorticity couplet also was associated with a tornado. Long Beach, California.
TABLE 1. Summary of findings pertaining to hook echoes and RFDs.
Observation/Conclusion References
RFD originated at or above 7 km Nelson (1977), Lemon et al. (1978), Barnes (1978a), Lemon and
Doswell (1979)
RFD originated below 7 km Klemp et al. (1981)
Low uw at surface in RFD van Tassell (1955), Beebe (1959), Ward (1961), Browning and
Ludlam (1962), Browning and Donaldson (1963), Charba and
Sasaki (1971), Lemon (1976a), Nelson (1977), Brandes (1977a),
Barnes (1978a,b), Klemp et al. (1981), Klemp and Rotunno
(1983), Rotunno and Klemp (1985), Wicker and Wilhelmson
(1995), Dowell and Bluestein (1997), Adlerman et al. (1999)
Warm air (but not necessarily high uw) at surface in RFD Tepper and Eggert (1956), Garrett and Rockney (1962), Williams
(1963), Fujita et al. (1977), Brown and Knupp (1980), Bluestein
(1983), Brandes (1984a), Johnson et al. (1987), Rasmussen and
Straka (1996)
Hypothesized that the occlusion downdraft is driven by a down- Klemp and Rotunno (1983), Brandes (1984a,b), Hane and Ray
ward-directed, nonhydrostatic pressure gradient arising from the (1985), Rotunno (1986), Brandes et al. (1988), Trapp and Fied-
intensification of low-level vertical vorticity ler (1995), Wicker and Wilhelmson (1995), Wakimoto et al.
(1998), Adlerman et al. (1999), Wakimoto and Cai (2000)
Hypothesized the RFD is forced mainly thermodynamically from Browning and Ludlam (1962), Browning and Donaldson (1963),
aloft (which may result from stagnation) Browning (1964), Nelson (1977), Barnes (1978a), Brandes
(1981), Klemp et al. (1981)
Hypothesized the RFD is initiated by dynamic pressure excess Bonesteele and Lin (1978), Lemon and Doswell (1979)
aloft but maintained thermodynamically
Reflectivity gradients found on the upshear side of storms Nelson (1977), Bonesteele and Lin (1978), Barnes (1978a), Forbes
(1981)
Tornadogenesis observed before hook formation Garrett and Rockney (1962), Sadowski (1969), Forbes (1975)
Tornadogenesis observed at the time of overshooting top collapse Fujita (1973), Lemon and Burgess (1976), Burgess et al. (1977)
Visual observations of clear slots accompanying tornadoes Beebe (1959), Garrett and Rockney (1962), Moller et al. (1974),
Peterson (1976), Stanford (1977), Burgess et al. (1977), Lemon
and Doswell (1979), Marshall and Rasmussen (1982), Rasmus-
sen et al. (1982), Jensen et al. (1983), Wakimoto and Liu (1998)
Vertical vorticity couplets associated with hook echoes Ray (1976), Ray et al. (1975, 1981), Brandes (1977b, 1978, 1981,
1984a), Heymsfield (1978), Klemp et al. (1981), Fujita (1981),
Fujita and Wakimoto (1982), Klemp and Rotunno (1983), Bran-
des et al. (1988), Wicker and Wilhelmson (1995), Wurman et al.
(1996), Straka et al. (1996), Bluestein et al. (1997), Dowell and
Bluestein (1997), Blanchard and Straka (1998), Gaddy and Blue-
stein (1998), Wakimoto and Liu (1998), Wakimoto et al. (1998),
Wakimoto and Cai (2000), Wurman and Gill (2000), Ziegler et
al. (2001), Bluestein and Gaddy (2001)
Anticyclonic reflectivity flares on hook echoes van Tassell (1955), Brandes (1981), Fujita (1981), Fujita and Wak-
imoto (1982), Wurman et al. (1996), Blanchard and Straka
(1998), Wurman and Gill (2000), Ziegler et al. (2001)
Hook echo formation attributed to rotation (but not necessarily the Fujita (1958a, 1965), Fulks (1962), Browning (1964, 1965b), Bran-
same mechanisms) des (1977a)
Hook echoes associated with strong horizontal shears or tornadoes Stout and Huff (1953), van Tassell (1955), Fujita (1958a, 1965),
(prior to 1980, in the interest of brevity) Garrett and Rockney (1962), Browning (1964, 1965b), Freund
(1966), Sadowski (1958, 1969), Donaldson (1970), Forbes
(1975), Ray et al. (1975), Lemon et al. (1975), Ray (1976),
Brown et al. (1978), Lemon (1977), Burgess et al. (1977), Bran-
des (1977a), Barnes (1978a,b)
Hook echoes associated with downdrafts (prior to 1980, in the in- Browning and Donaldson (1963), Haglund (1969), Fujita (1973,
terest of brevity) 1975b, 1979), Lemon et al. (1975), Lemon (1977), Brandes
(1977a), Burgess et al. (1977)
Hook echoes located in strong vertical velocity and temperature Marwitz (1972a,b), Burgess et al. (1977), Lemon and Doswell
gradients, somewhat behind the surface windshift associated (1979), Brandes (1981)
with the RFD
Air parcels that enter the tornado pass through the RFD Brandes (1978), Davies-Jones and Brooks (1993), Wicker and Wil-
helmson (1995), Dowell and Bluestein (1997), Adlerman et al.
(1999) [and implied by visual observations of Lemon and Do-
swell (1979), Rasmussen et al. (1982), Jensen et al. (1983)]
Hypothesized that the RFD is important for tornadogenesis Ludlam (1963), Fujita (1975b), Burgess et al. (1977), Barnes
(1978a), Lemon and Doswell (1979), Brandes (1981), Davies-
Jones (1982a,b)
FIG. 2. Fujita introduced five variations on the shapes of hook

echoes. [From Fujita (1973).]
FIG. 3. Development of the hook echo associated with the Cham-

2000, personal communication). It may be worth the paign, IL, tornado from 1724–1738 CST 9 Apr 1953, as analyzed by
effort in future field experiments to use temporally and Fujita. [From Fujita (1958a).]
spatially high-resolution mobile radar data to system-
atically investigate the extent to which the hook echo
forms from the above process, versus being due to a developed before or after tornadogenesis. The tornado
streamer of precipitation that is extruded from the main studied by Garrett and Rockney (1962) apparently
echo core by horizontal advection. The relative contri- formed before the hook echo became prominent, unless
bution to hook echo formation from these two processes a narrow hook echo went undetected by the Weather
is not yet known. It is entirely possible that one might Surveillance Radar-3 (WSR-3) (48 beamwidth) prior to
dominate in one case, while the other dominates in a tornadogenesis. The tornado dissipated when the hook
different case. Or perhaps the relative contribution from ‘‘closed off’’ or merged with the forward-flank echo.
the two processes could be a function of time within a Sadowski (1969) later documented a large amount of
single case. success using hook echoes to detect tornadoes within
For completeness, it is noted that at least one docu- thunderstorms. In a 1953–66 study, he computed an
mentation has been made of hook echoes not associated average time of 15 min between hook echo appearance
with updraft rotation. Houze et al. (1993) showed ex- and tornadogenesis in a sample of 13 cases in which
amples of hook-shaped (in a cyclonic sense, with the hook echoes appeared before tornadoes were reported.
hooks pointing toward the right with respect to storm Sadowski reported a false alarm rate of only 12%. On
motion) reflectivity structures in left-moving severe the other hand, Freund (1966) found that only 6 of 13
storms in Switzerland. These features, termed false tornadic storms near the National Severe Storms Lab-
hooks by the authors, apparently were associated with oratory in 1964 were associated with hook echoes, and
the cyclonic downdraft regions on the right (southern) Golden (1974) found that only 10% of waterspouts were
flanks of the anticyclonically rotating storms, in which associated with hook echoes.
the updrafts would have been on the left (northern) The so-called Super Outbreak of tornadoes on 3–4
flanks (Klemp and Wilhelmson 1978a; Wilhelmson and April 1974 (Fujita 1975a,b) provided a large sample of
Klemp 1978; Rotunno and Klemp 1982). a variety of ‘‘distinctive echoes’’ that were studied by
Forbes (1975, 1981). Forbes (1975) found that 1) a ma-
jority of hook echoes were associated with tornadoes,
c. Tornado forecasting based on hook echo detection 2) hook echoes often were associated with tornado fam-
The forecasting potential of hook echo detection be- ilies, and 3) tornadoes associated with hook echoes tend-
gan to be explored in the mid-1960s. Sadowski (1958) ed to be stronger than those from other echoes. Forbes
documented a tornado that occurred after the hook echo (1975) also found that, on average, hook echoes ap-
became visible (in fact, the hook echo was becoming peared 25 min prior to tornadogenesis; however, much
less discernible on radar at the time of the reported variance was present in his sample—10 of 27 (37%) of
tornado formation). Sadowski might have been the first the hook echoes associated with the first tornado pro-
to speculate that if hook echoes generally preceded tor- duced by a supercell were detected after the reported3
nadogenesis, then it might be possible to issue tornado tornado formation times. Forbes (1981) found a false
warnings in advance. alarm rate of just 16% when using hook echoes to detect
In Stout and Huff’s (1953) report, the evidence had tornadoes. But because hook echoes were relatively rare
been inconclusive as to whether the hook echo preceded
tornadogenesis, or vice versa. In van Tassell’s (1955) 3
The accuracy of the reported tornado times may be questionable
summary, it was not mentioned whether the hook echo for some of the tornadoes studied.
FIG. 4. Three-dimensional wind field relative to the Del City, OK, supercell 1845 CST 20 May 1977 at 400 m. Left panel shows horizontal
wind vectors with radar reflectivity superposed. The right panel depicts vertical velocity (m s 21 ), with the 30-dBZ contour accentuated on
both panels. The tornado path is stippled. [From Brandes (1981).]
(as he defined them), a less restrictive shape (a ‘‘dis- (1975), Burgess et al. (1977), Brandes (1977a), Lemon
tinctive echo’’, e.g., appendages, line-echo wave pat- (1977), and Forbes (1981) also documented an associ-
terns, etc.) also was considered. Distinctive echoes were ation between hook echoes and downdrafts. According
associated with a probability of detection of tornadoes to Forbes (1981), ‘‘the hook represents a band of pre-
of 65%. Forbes (1975, 1981) did raise concern about cipitation accompanied by downdraft and outflow, sur-
the generality of his findings, since his statistics were rounding a weak echo region (a region of inflow and
based on the events of a single day. Also, the statististics updraft).’’ Brandes (1977a) tentatively concluded that
were based on Weather Surveillance Radar-1957 (WSR- the hook echo reflected downdraft intensification. Hag-
57) data, which may not have adequately resolved fi- lund (1969) concluded that the hook echo slightly trails
nescale echo structures. the surface wind shift associated with the outflow of the
RFD, and that the hook echo is located near the bound-
ary between updraft and downdraft. Surface analyses
3. Rear-flank downdrafts
and aircraft penetrations have revealed that the hook
a. Association with hook echoes echo is located in a region of large vertical velocity and
temperature gradients (Burgess et al. 1977; Marwitz
Rear-flank downdrafts (RFDs) are regions of subsid- 1972a,b).
ing air that develop on the rear side of the main updraft
of supercell storms, and these regions of descent have
a well-established association with hook echoes. The b. Visual characteristics
first documentation of an RFD, although not recognized
as such, probably was by van Tassell (1955). In that The number of visual and surface observations of
case study and in another by Beebe (1959) on the same supercells increased during the 1970s, largely because
storm complex, three ‘‘reliable’’ reports of severe down- of organized storm intercept programs at the National
drafts on the south side of the Scottsbluff tornado (27 Severe Storms Laboratory (Golden and Morgan 1972;
June 1955) were made. Davies-Jones 1986; Bluestein and Golden 1993). Many
Browning and Ludlam (1962) and Browning and of these observations have advanced our understanding
Donaldson (1963) also were among the first to mention of the basic structures associated with tornadoes and
the presence of a downdraft in the vicinity of the stron- their parent storms.
gest low-level rotation, behind the main storm updraft. Golden and Purcell (1978) photogrammetrically
Browning and Donaldson (1963) noted that the hook documented subsiding air on the south side of the
echo itself may be associated with this downdraft region. Union City, Oklahoma, tornado (24 May 1973), ap-
Haglund (1969), Fujita (1973, 1979), Lemon et al. parently a visual manifestation of the RFD and also
FIG. 5. Radar image and analysis from Grand Island, NE, 0208 UTC 4 Jun 1980 showing a vortex couplet straddling
a hook echo, with tornadic circulations associated with both members of the vortex couplet. [From Fujita (1981) and
Fujita and Wakimoto (1982).]
evidence that the tornado occurred in a strong vertical to systematically analyze traces of thermodynamic data
velocity gradient. Moreover, a clear slot was seen to near tornadoes, and consequently, within some RFDs.
wrap itself at least two-thirds of the way around the Data were obtained within 25 km of tornadoes in more
tornado. Other observations of clear slots, which are than 50 cases. Many of the thermograph traces measured
probably always visual manifestations of subsiding air only minor fluctuations during the passage of the tor-
in an RFD,4 have been presented by Beebe (1959; this nadoes and associated RFDs, and other traces revealed
was probably the first documentation), Moller et al. cooling and moistening near the tornadoes. Only a few
(1974), Peterson (1976), Stanford (1977), Burgess et observations were available within 5 km of the torna-
al. (1977), Lemon and Doswell (1979), Marshall and does, however.
Rasmussen (1982), Rasmussen et al. (1982), and Jen- Fujita (1958b) inferred the presence of a surface high
sen et al. (1983) (Fig. 8). pressure annulus encircling the Fargo, North Dakota,
Burgess et al. (1977) found that the clear slot could tornado cyclone (20 June 1957) from pressure traces in
be associated with a hook echo: ‘‘Perhaps large droplets the vicinity of the tornadoes (Fig. 9). Although Fujita
are present in the downdraft and are brought down from speculated that the high pressure was associated with a
the echo overhang, even though the air contains only ring of subsiding air around the tornado, he was unable
ragged clouds or is visibly cloudless at low levels. If to verify this speculation. [Ward (1964, 1972) and Snow
so, since radar reflectivity is more strongly dependent et al. (1980) found high pressure rings surrounding lab-
on the size rather than on the number of droplets, radar oratory and numerically simulated vortices, but it is not
may show substantial echo in the ‘clear’ slot.’’ Analysis clear whether these are the same phenomena inferred
of the 2 June 1995 Dimmitt, Texas, tornadic supercell by Fujita, which appeared to be of a slightly larger
also indicated an association between the hook echo and scale.] Surface pressure excesses within RFDs of up to
clear slot, based on photogrammetrically determined a few millibars also have been documented by subse-
cloud positions (E. N. Rasmussen 2000, personal com- quent investigators (e.g., Charba and Sasaki 1971; Lem-
munication).5 on 1976a; Bluestein 1983), although no one else has
documented a high pressure ring as Fujita did.
c. Surface characteristics The studies of the Scottsbluff tornado by van Tassell
Direct observations within RFDs have been scarce. (1955) and Beebe (1959) contain some of the first de-
Tepper and Eggert (1956) appear to have been the first scriptions, albeit qualitative, of surface temperature
within an RFD at close range from a tornado. At least
a couple of observers, located a few hundred meters
4
The absence of a clear slot does not necessarily indicate an ab-
sence of subsiding air.
south of the tornado, reported that the downdrafts felt
5
This was an oral presentation at the VORTEX Symposium in ‘‘cold.’’ Browning and Ludlam (1962) and Browning
Long Beach, California. and Donaldson (1963) also reported cold temperature
FIG. 6. Evolution of the hook echo in an Oklahoma supercell on FIG. 8. Photograph of a typical clear slot associated with an RFD
26 May 1963 studied by Browning. [From Browning (1965b).] (2 Jun 1995 at Dimmitt, TX; photograph by the author).
and equivalent potential temperature (u e ) measurements

gust front and $5 K farther behind the gust front), Lem-
(with respect to the inflow) in the wakes of the Wok-
on (1976a; supercell on 25 June 1969; ;6 K u w de-
ingham, England (9 July 1959) and Geary, Oklahoma
crease), and Charba and Sasaki (1971; supercell on 3
(4 May 1961) supercells, presumably within the RFDs.
April 1964; ;7 K u e decrease). The relatively low u e
Ward (1961) observed ‘‘cooler northwest winds a couple
and u w values have been shown to be compatible with
miles southwest of the (Geary) tornado.’’
environmental air anywhere from 1–5 km above the
In a supercell (25 May 1974) investigated by Nelson
ground (e.g., Lemon 1976a; Charba and Sasaki 1971).
(1977), the lowest wet-bulb potential temperature (u w)
In contrast to the findings summarized above, Garrett
values observed at the surface were within the RFD,
and Rockney (1962) reported that a warm downdraft
where they were ;6 K lower than the ambient u w values.
was observed about 12–15 km south of a tornado near
Complete separation of the forward-flank downdraft
Topeka, Kansas, on 19 May 1960. The observer de-
(FFD) and RFD was evidenced by separate temperature
scribed the air as ‘‘suddenly becoming noticeably hot,
minima, as Lemon (1974) earlier had found in another
similar to a blast of heat from a stove.’’ Williams (1963)
case. Additional observations of relatively low-u e and
showed that RFD air can arrive at the surface warmer
low-u w air at the surface within RFDs have been pre-
than the surrounding air. He noted that when such an
sented by Brandes (1977a; supercell on 6 June 1974;
event occurs, it may be south of the hook echo or wher-
.3 K u w decrease), Barnes (1978a,b; supercell on 29
ever forced descent is less likely to encounter sufficient
April 1970; 2–3 K u w decrease directly behind the RFD
liquid water to maintain negative buoyancy.
Fujita et al. (1977) documented a warm RFD (only
temperature data were available) near an F4 tornado in
the Chicago, Illinois, area on 13 June 1976. On the same
day, Brown and Knupp (1980) found nearly constant u w
3 km east of the Jordan, Iowa, F3 and F5 tornado pair,
and those observations probably were in the RFD air
mass, based on the pressure trace, which measured a
pressure excess of a few millibars.
In his summary of Totable Tornado Observatory
(TOTO) observations, Bluestein (1983) documented a
relatively warm RFD and pressure rise of .2 mb in a
nontornadic supercell on 17 May 1981. Bluestein also
presented evidence of a 1.5-K temperature rise in an
RFD approximately 1.3 km south of the Cordell,
Oklahoma, tornado on 22 May 1981.6 Similar to what
Fujita (1958b) first inferred, Bluestein also showed data
that suggested high pressure at least partly encircling a
tornado (his Fig. 7). In the violent Binger, Oklahoma,
tornado on 22 May 1981, only small temperature fluc-
FIG. 7. Fujita once hypothesized that the Magnus force led to the 6
The reported pressure and temperature fluctuations were with re-
formation of hook echoes. [From Fujita (1965).] spect to the storm inflow environment.
FIG. 9. Pressure field near the center of the Fargo tornado cyclone (20 Jun 1957); A and B represent barograph
stations. [Adapted from Fujita (1958b).]
tuations (,1 K) were observed as the tornado passed hydrometeors are distributed over a larger horizontal
within a few hundred meters north of TOTO (Fig. 10). region, and the intensity of outflow in close proximity
Klemp et al. (1981) referred to ‘‘cold downdraft to the updraft is reduced (Gilmore and Wicker 1998;
(RFD) outflow’’ in the Del City supercell, but no evi- Rasmussen and Straka 1998). In some recent, unpub-
dence was presented demonstrating that this air actually lished simulations, relatively warm downdrafts have
was cold—retrieved temperatures by Brandes (1984a) been produced at the surface when ice physics and a
and observations by Johnson et al. (1987) suggested that relatively fine spatial resolution (,250 m in the hori-
at least parts of the Del City storm’s rear-flank outflow zontal directions) were used (M. Gilmore 2000, personal
were warm, although u w values may not have been as communication).
large as in the inflow.
Although there have been surface observations of
d. Characteristics above the surface
warm, high-u e air within RFDs, three-dimensional nu-
merical simulations of supercells almost invariably have Johnson et al. (1987) presented observations of the
produced cold, low-u e RFDs at the surface (e.g., Klemp RFD and FFD of the Del City storm collected by a 444-
et al. 1981; Rotunno and Klemp 1985; Fig. 11). The m tower as the storm passed overhead. The RFD was
pioneering numerical modeling studies of supercells associated with u e values approximately 4 K lower than
conducted in the 1970s (e.g., Schlesinger 1975; Klemp the ambient conditions; however, the temperature in-
and Wilhelmson 1978a,b; Wilhelmson and Klemp 1978) creased 1.5 K and the dewpoint temperature decreased
and the parameter space studies of the 1980s (e.g., Weis- 2.5 K—if u e was nearly conserved, then air had subsided
man and Klemp 1982, 1984), with no known exceptions, from approximately 1 km (all heights are above ground
used warm rain microphysics. The relatively simple pa- level). Although the RFD was not sampled well by the
rameterization was not computationally demanding; tower, the data that were available suggested the pres-
thus, experiments requiring large numbers of simula- ence of a downward-directed perturbation pressure gra-
tions were feasible. However, the exclusion of ice may dient within the lowest half kilometer.
have promoted unrealistically excessive amounts of la- Dowell and Bluestein (1997) documented the passage
tent cooling near updrafts. When ice physics is included, of another tornadic supercell over the same instrumented
peratures were retrieved within the RFD—radar reflec-

tivity was a minimum here, possibly implying that evap-
oration was occurring. Behind the rear-flank gust front
in the eastern mesocyclone quadrants,7 evidence was
found of warm temperatures at low levels during the
tornadic stage. The relatively warm conditions were at-
tributed to subsidence within the RFD. In the Harrah
storm, Brandes (1984a) also retrieved negative buoy-
ancy in the RFD aloft, but no mention was made of the
low-level buoyancy immediately behind the gust front
in the eastern quadrants of the mesocyclone.
Hane and Ray (1985) also completed a thermody-
namic retrieval for the Del City storm. In the pretornadic
stage, the pressure distribution included at each level a
high–low couplet across the updraft with the maximum
horizontal pressure gradient generally oriented along the
environmental shear vector at that altitude, in agreement
with linear theory predictions (Rotunno and Klemp
1982). Although the orientation of the horizontal pres-
sure gradient agreed relatively well with linear theory,
its magnitude did not agree as well. The authors stated
that possibly the orientation and magnitude of the en-
vironmental shear vector were not known exactly (also,
calculations of the horizontal vertical velocity gradient
may have had significant errors). In the tornadic stage,
the pressure field contained a pronounced minimum at
low levels coincident with the mesocyclone, probably
due to strong low-level vertical vorticity. Hane and Ray
found weak high perturbation pressure (;1 mb) in the
FIG. 10. Pressure, wind speed, wind direction, and temperature RFD at low levels behind the gust front during the time
traces from TOTO near the Binger, OK, tornado on 22 May 1981 of the tornado. Vertical gradients of nonhydrostatic pres-
from approximately 1922–1931 CST. Only relative wind direction is sure perturbations may be relevant to the formation and
known; veering (backing) is indicated by a downward (upward) evolution of the RFD, as will be discussed in the next
change. The tornado passed approximately 600 m north of TOTO.
Note the small (less than ;1 K) temperature fluctuations recorded.
subsection. The RFD contained significant negative
It is inferred that the hook echo and RFD associated with this violent buoyancy at low levels in Hane and Ray’s analysis (tem-
tornado were relatively warm. [From Bluestein (1983).] perature deficits as low as 24.5 K; Fig. 12).
The retrieval results of Brandes (1984a) and Hane
and Ray (1985) in the Del City storm were in relatively
tower on 17 May 1981. They found large u e and u y close agreement with the direct measurements within
(virtual potential temperature) deficits in the portion of the inflow and FFD regions reported by Johnson et al.
the RFD sampled by the tower (.12 and .5 K, re- (1987). But Johnson et al. cautioned that ‘‘noticeable
spectively), which was within a region of fairly high differences in the RFD region suggested that there was
(.40 dBZ) radar reflectivity west of the circulation cen- room for improvement in the retrieval methods.’’ Bran-
ter. The deficits were prominent over the entire height des and Hane and Ray had used considerable smoothing
of the tower. on the buoyancy field to eliminate noise; the details in
With the exception of the direct observations pre- the retrieved low-level buoyancy fields may have been
sented by Johnson et al. (1987) and Dowell and Blue- suspect.
stein (1997), thermodynamic quantities above the
ground within RFDs have been obtained only by indirect
means. Brandes (1984a) and Hane and Ray (1985) were e. Origins and formation
among the first to use the methods proposed by Gal- In reviewing previous studies and hypotheses per-
Chen (1978) and Hane et al. (1981) to retrieve ther- taining to RFD formation, it may be helpful to begin
modynamic fields in supercells from three-dimensional
wind fields synthesized from multiple Doppler radars.
Brandes (1984a) retrieved the pressure and buoyancy 7
The RFD had wrapped cyclonically around the updraft, so that
fields in the Del City and Harrah, Oklahoma (8 June downdraft air also was found in the eastern (forward) quadrants of
1974) tornadic storms. At 3.3 km on the rear side of the mesocyclone. This ‘‘occlusion process’’ will be discussed in sec-
the updraft of the Del City storm, relatively cold tem- tion 4.
FIG. 11. Contours at z 5 250 m of (a) potential temperature fluctuation (u 5 303 K), in intervals of 1 K; and (b)
equivalent potential temperature fluctuation (u e 5 340 K), in intervals of 2 K, in the simulation conducted by Rotunno
and Klemp (1985). The updraft is represented by the shaded region. The thick circular line encloses the region where
the cloud water is greater than 0.1 g kg 21 (wall cloud). The thick dashed line encloses the region where the cloud
water is greater than 0.1 g kg 21 at z 5 500 m. [Adapted from Rotunno and Klemp (1985).]
with an inspection of the inviscid vertical momentum

equation written as
dw ]w ]p
5 1 v · =w 5 2c p u 1 B, (1)
dt ]t ]z
where dw/dt is the vertical acceleration following a par-

cel, ]w/]t is the local vertical acceleration, v 5 (u, y , w)
is the three-dimensional velocity vector, 2v · =w is the
advection of vertical velocity, c p is the heat capacity,
u is the mean potential temperature, p is the perturbation
Exner function, and B is the buoyancy which can be
written as
1 u 1 0.61q9 2 q 2 q 2 ,
u9
B5g y l i (2)
where u9 and q9y are potential temperature and water

vapor mixing ratio fluctuations from the base state, re-
spectively, and q l and q i are liquid water (includes cloud
FIG. 12. Horizontal distribution of buoyancy and vector horizontal water and rain water) and ice mixing ratios, respectively.
wind at 1 km at 1847 CST 20 May 1977 in the Del City, OK, storm. By taking the divergence of (1) and assuming that
Buoyancy (potential temperature fluctuation) has been filtered to re-
move noise, and is contoured at 1.58C intervals (negative values =p ; 2p (a reasonable assumption for ‘‘well-be-
dashed). Updraft maxima are denoted by J and vorticity maxima haved’’ fields away from the boundaries), it can be
are denoted by !. [From Hane and Ray (1985).] shown (Rotunno and Klemp 1982) that
p}
[1 2
]u
]x
]B
2
1 1 2 1 2
]y
]y
2
1
]w
]z
2
] 1
1 [|D| 2 2 |h| 2 ]
2
]w
]t 1
]p ]p
1 v · =w 5 2c p u nl 2 c p u l
]z ]z 2
1 2
1 , (3) ]p b
]z 1 2c p u 1B (10)
]z
1 2
where | D | and | h | are the magnitudes of the total de- ]p dn ]p
5 2c p u 1 2c p u b 1 B , (11)
formation and vorticity, respectively. The [(]u/]x) 2 1 (]y / ]z ]z
]y) 2 1 (]w/]z) 2 ] terms are referred to as the fluid exten- where 2c pu ]p dn /]z sometimes is referred to as the dy-
sion terms. If (3) is linearized about a base state con- namic forcing and (2c pu ]p b /]z 1 B) sometimes is re-
taining vertical wind shear (primed velocity components ferred to as the buoyancy forcing. If the vertical gra-
represent fluctuations from the base state, which is given dients of the fluid extension terms are neglected, along
by v (z) 5 [u (z), y (z), 0]), it may be rewritten as with the vertical gradients of the deformation and hor-
izontal vorticity, then it can be shown that
]p nl ]z 2
p}
[1
]u9
]x 2 1 2 1 2
2
1
]y 9
]y
2
1
]w9
]z ]
2
]z
}2
]z
(12)
1 2
]p l ] ]v
1 21
]y ]z 2
]y 9 ]u9 ]w9 ]u9 ]w9 ]y 9 } · =w (13)
1 1 ]z ]z ]z
]x ]y ]x ]z
]v ]B ]p b ]2B
12 · =w9 2 } 2 2, (14)
]z ]z
(4) ]z ]z
where z is the vertical vorticity.
5 p nl 1 p l 1 p b (5)
From (11) it is evident that descent can arise owing
5 p dn 1 p b , (6) to negative buoyancy, which can be generated according
to (2) by cold anomalies produced by evaporative cool-
ing or hail melting, or by precipitation loading, and by
where p nl , p l , and p b are the contributions to p from vertical perturbation pressure gradients that can arise
nonlinear, linear, and buoyancy effects, respectively, from, according to (12)–(14), vertical gradients of ver-
tical vorticity, ‘‘stagnation’’ of environmental flow at
an updraft,8 and pressure perturbations due to vertical
p nl }
[1 2 1 2 1 2
]u9
]x
2
1
]y 9
]y
2
1
]w9
]z ]
2
buoyancy variations (which are partially due to hydro-
static effects), respectively.9 Research presented in the
past 40 years has found that all of the terms in (11) can
1 21
]y ]z 2
]y 9 ]u9 ]w9 ]u9 ]w9 ]y 9 be significant.
1 1 (7)
]x ]y ]x ]z Browning and Ludlam (1962) and Browning and
Donaldson (1963) suggested that the RFDs in the Wok-
]v ingham and Geary supercells might have been driven
pl } 2 · =w9 (8)
]z by negative buoyancy (i.e., ‘‘thermodynamically’’
]B forced) due to evaporation. Browning (1964) surmised
pb } 2 , (9) that the rightward propagation of supercells increased
]z
8
Note that the use of the term stagnation here does not imply that
and p dn collectively refers to the nonlinear and linear supercell updraft are solid obstacles, as as been suggested by several
effects as ‘‘dynamic’’ effects on p. Equation (7) indi- investigators in the past (e.g., Newton and Newton 1959; Fujita 1965;
Fujita and Grandoso 1968; Alberty 1969; Fankhauser 1971; Charba
cates that nonlinear dynamic high (low) pressure per- and Sasaki 1971; Brown 1992). Theoretical studies have exposed
turbations are associated with convergence and diver- serious weaknesses in the obstacle analogy (e.g., Rotunno 1981; Ro-
gence and deformation (rotation). Equation (8) indicates tunno and Klemp 1982; Davies-Jones et al. 1994), and these studies
also have shown that the pressure distribution around an updraft is
that linear dynamic high (low) pressure perturbations not what would be expected if the updraft was behaving as an ob-
are located upshear (downshear) of an updraft. Equation stacle, except at the storm top (Davies-Jones 1985). Some studies
(9) indicates that high (low) pressure perturbations due have shown that updrafts occasionally can display behavior that ap-
to buoyancy are located above (below) the level of max- pears similar to how a solid obstacle might be expected to behave
(e.g., Lemon 1976b; Klemp et al. 1981).
imum buoyancy. 9
For additional discussion of downdraft forcings in terms of the
Using (5) and (6), the vertical momentum equation vertical momentum equation, the reader is referred to the review by
can be written as Knupp and Cotton (1985).
their midlevel storm-relative flow so as to increase evap- (upshear) of the mesocyclone that they believed was
orative cooling, and ultimately aid in the genesis of associated with a downdraft. Barnes’ conclusion that
downdrafts (both on the rear and forward storm flanks). the RFD formed between 6.0–7.5 km was based on his
These hypotheses were proposed at least partly because study of tornadic storms in Oklahoma on 29–30 April
of findings by Browning and Ludlam (1962) and Brown- 1970. He surmised that the storm-relative midlevel flow
ing and Donaldson (1963) of low u w air in the wakes (20–25 m s 21 ) approaching the cyclonically rotating
of the Wokingham and Geary storms, which apparently updraft was decelerated and deflected on the upwind
had midlevel origins. (south) side while the relative upwind stagnation point
Brandes (1981) also concluded that RFDs are initiated shifted to the left of the intercepting wind vector; that
by the production of negative buoyancy aloft: ‘‘presum- is, toward the southwest flank. Here ‘‘stagnating’’ air
ably the initiating downdraft (associated with the rear- experienced the longest contact with the adjacent up-
flank gust front) is formed by precipitation falling from draft while mixing only slightly with it—both cloud and
the sloping updraft . . . we suppose the intruding flow small precipitation drops chilled this air by evaporation
has low u w , and when chilled by evaporation, becomes and began its downward acceleration before saturation
negatively buoyant . . . because the entrained air pen- could occur. Barnes added ‘‘We emphasize that the high
etrates well into the storm, evaporative cooling rather horizontal momentum and proximity to the updraft
than perturbation pressure forces may initiate the down- make the RFD a potentially important interactant with
draft.’’ Brandes (1984a) made a similar claim, based on the gust front and updraft’s surface roots . . . We also
retrieved buoyancy: ‘‘at 3.3 km, cool temperatures on note that the location and extent of such a downdraft
the southern fringe of the storm were suggestive of evap- probably depends upon the ambient flow relative to the
orative cooling as environmental air mixed with storm storm, which very likely requires a specific vertical
air.’’ shear profile to place it on the rear flank of a storm
Klemp et al. (1981) attributed the RFD in the Del where it attains an influential position.’’ Barnes inter-
City storm to water loading and evaporation based on preted the large reflectivity gradient on the midlevel
precipitation trajectories crudely approximated using es- upwind (southwest) flank as indicating dry ambient air
timated terminal fall speeds. Moreover, midlevel flow adjacent to a precipitation-laden updraft. Bonesteele and
approaching the storm from the east flowed through the Lin (1978) made a similar inference.
FFD—not through the RFD as Browning (1964) had Lemon and Doswell (1979) developed a conceptual
conceptualized. RFD air at the surface appeared to have model of a supercell from an extensive compilation of
come from 1–2 km above the ground, directly behind surface, visual, and radar observations (Fig. 13). This
the gust front, based on trajectory analyses in their nu- model included an FFD and RFD, a surface gust front
merical simulation and observations of the storm. Air structure resembling a midlatitude cyclone, a hook-
from higher levels reached the surface further behind shaped reflectivity region surrounding a cyclonically ro-
the storm. tating updraft, and a tornado, if present, that resided
Nelson (1977) found an erosion of the hydrometeor within the vertical velocity gradient between the updraft
field at and below 7 km, as well as a sharp reflectivity and RFD. This model has undergone little modification
gradient on the west flank of an Oklahoma multicell since its presentation over 20 years ago. Based largely
storm that evolved into a supercell on 25 May 1974— on the work by Barnes (1978a,b), Lemon and Doswell
these radar observations were believed to have been a inferred that the RFD typically originated between 7–
manifestation of RFD formation that apparently oc- 10 km on the relative upwind side of the updraft [note
curred at the start of the transition from multicell to that they did not say upshear side; refer to (8); Rotunno
supercell. Nelson noted two mechanisms suggestive of and Klemp (1982) showed that the linear forcing for
RFD formation—evaporative cooling and/or dynamic pressure fluctuations depends on the vertical shear, and
pressure perturbations (presumably he was referring to numerical results confirmed this theoretical prediction,
those related to linear effects, i.e., stagnation). Nelson as did some later dual-Doppler radar findings (e.g., Hane
believed that the evaporation-driven effect was more and Ray 1985)]. The authors cited the observation of
likely because of the echo erosion aloft; he also cited an echo-free hole at 7.5 km, directly above a notch
strong storm-relative winds (;16 m s 21 in the 7–9 km behind the low-level hook echo—they believed this to
layer) and a large dewpoint depression (;21 K) at the be the signature of the RFD. Lemon and Doswell pro-
level of apparent RFD formation. Forbes (1981) found posed that storm-relative inflow impingement was the
similar radar signatures suggesting echo erosion and RFD source, because Darkow and McCann (1977)
RFD formation during the 3–4 April 1974 tornado out- showed that the relative flow at these levels is much
break. stronger than the storm-relative flow minimum they
Lemon et al. (1978) and Barnes (1978a) also con- found at 4 km, and because of the Barnes (1978a,b) and
cluded that the RFD forms at middle to upper levels. Nelson (1977) observations. Lemon and Doswell also
Lemon et al. based their findings on an analysis of the hypothesized that the RFD initially is dynamically
Union City tornadic supercell. They analyzed a persis- forced, and then enhanced and maintained by precipi-
tent difluent flow region in the 7–10 km layer northwest tation drag and evaporative cooling.
behind the gust front, air from higher levels reached the
surface.
For the sake of completeness, it might be worth men-
tioning that Shapiro and Markowski (1999) recently in-
vestigated the formation of downdrafts in simple two-
layer vortices using an analytic model.10 The applica-
bility of the idealized model to real atmospheric vor-
tices, in which buoyancy, buoyancy gradients,
precipitation, and asymmetries probably are important,
is questionable. Their results demonstrated how the
‘‘vortex valve’’ effect (Lemon et al. 1975; Davies-Jones
1986) can transport vorticity from the top of a homo-
geneous, axisymmetric, rotating fluid to low levels via
an annular downdraft and secondary circulation, when
the top layer of fluid rotates with an angular velocity
larger than that of the bottom layer of fluid.
Prior to 1983, investigators sought forcing for the
RFD from middle and upper levels, as has been re-
viewed in this section. But downdraft forcing also can
arise at low levels. This is the subject of the next section.
FIG. 13. Conceptual model of a tornadic supercell at the surface

4. Occlusion downdrafts
based on observations and radar studies. Thick line encompasses a. Evolution as simulated in numerical models
radar echo. The thunderstorm gust front structure and occluded wave
also are depicted using a solid line and frontal symbols. Surface Klemp and Rotunno (1983) investigated the transition
positions of the updraft (UD) are finely stippled, forward-flank down-
draft (FFD) and rear-flank downdraft (RFD) are coarsely stippled. of a supercell into its tornadic phase through use of a
Associated streamlines are also shown. Tornado location is shown by high-resolution (250-m horizontal grid spacing) model
an encircled T. [From Lemon and Doswell (1979).] initiated within the interior of the domain of the Del
City supercell simulation performed by Klemp et al.
Brandes (1984a) retrieved excess pressure aloft on (1981). With the enhanced resolution, Klemp and Ro-
the rear of the Del City storm, which may have sug- tunno found that the low-level cyclonic vorticity in-
gested that the RFD was partly forced by a downward- creased dramatically and the gust front rapidly occluded
directed dynamic pressure gradient, as Lemon and Do- as small-scale downdrafts developed in the vicinity of
swell had proposed, but the vertical pressure gradients the low-level circulation center. They concluded that the
in the stagnation region could not be examined due to intensification of the RFD during the occlusion process
a paucity of scatterers and corresponding lack of radar was dynamically driven by the strong low-level circu-
velocity data. (A lack of data due to the pristine air lation, that is, by way of a dynamic perturbation pressure
common in RFD regions probably still is one of the gradient such as that given by (12). This was the first
biggest obstacles in understanding the formation mech- study to propose such a mechanism for downdraft gen-
anisms and the role of the RFD today.) esis and intensification. Later, Brandes (1984a,b), Hane
Klemp et al. (1981) simulated a supercell with a com- and Ray (1985), and Brandes et al. (1988; see section
posite sounding derived from three ‘‘proximity’’ sound- 3) made the same conclusion based on Doppler radar
ings on 20 May 1977, and compared the simulated storm analyses of tornadic storms, as did Trapp and Fiedler
characteristics to those observed in the Del City storm. (1995), Wicker and Wilhelmson (1995), and Adlerman
‘‘Trajectory’’ analysis (these were not true trajectories, et al. (1999) based on numerical simulations.
but rather streamlines—if the storm was assumed to be Klemp and Rotunno (1983) defined the RFD as the
quasi-steady, then the streamlines would be similar to downdraft ‘‘which supports the storm outflow behind
trajectories) in the simulated supercell showed obstacle- the convergence line on the right flank.’’ They stated
like flow at 7–10 km. Parcels at 7 km that impinged that since nontornadic storms often were observed to
upon the upshear side of the updraft did not appear to persist for long periods of time with a well-defined gust
sink [in contrast to observations made in different cases front, these storm-scale downdrafts were not uniquely
by Barnes (1978a), Nelson (1977), and Lemon and Do- linked to tornadogenesis within a storm. On the other
swell (1979)], but those at 4 km did; that is, the RFD hand, noted Klemp and Rotunno, if a storm progressed
apparently was 4–7 km deep (parcels from 4–7 km did into a tornadic phase, the gust front became occluded
not reach the surface, but negative vertical velocities
extended to 4–7 km). Directly behind the gust front, 10
Idealized three-layer vortices also were investigated using a nu-
RFD air appeared to come from 1–2 km aloft; farther merical model.
The finding of Klemp and Rotunno that the occlusion

downdraft is driven by low-level rotation sometimes has
been implied as being in conflict (e.g., Carbone 1983;
Brandes 1984a; Klemp 1987) with their predecessors’
early hypotheses that the RFD is driven from aloft ther-
modynamically or dynamically and is responsible for
increasing low-level rotation (e.g., Fujita 1975b; Bur-
gess et al. 1977; Barnes 1978a; Lemon and Doswell
1979). However, it is the author’s opinion that the ap-
parent conflict may be one of semantics. If the occlusion
downdraft and RFD are to be viewed as two distinct
entities, as proposed by Klemp and Rotunno, then the
formation mechanisms and roles of the occlusion down-
draft and RFD should not be anticipated to be neces-
sarily identical. Observations of RFD formation pre-
ceding the increase of vorticity near the ground are plen-
tiful (e.g., Barnes 1978a; Lemon and Doswell 1979;
Brandes 1984a,b). Once a downdraft forms, the distri-
bution of vortex lines invariably must be affected ac-
cording to Helmholtz’s theorem, and feedbacks on the
FIG. 14. Low-level flow field (z 5 1 km) in Klemp and Rotunno’s downdraft by the new vorticity distribution would be
(1983) nested, 250-m horizontal resolution simulation of the Del City, probable (e.g., when rotation near the ground becomes
OK, supercell (20 May 1977) at the time that an occlusion downdraft substantial, a downward-directed vertical pressure gra-
was observed. The region in which the cloud water exceeds 0.4 g kg 21 dient could become established, accelerating air toward
is shaded. The heavy black line encloses the region where the rain
water mixing ratio exceeds 0.5 g kg 21 . The circulation center is the ground). Early hypotheses that the RFD is respon-
indicated with the black dot. Vertical velocity is contoured at 5 m s 21 sible for bringing rotation to low levels never asserted
intervals. What has been referred to as the occlusion downdraft is that once low-level rotation began to intensify that dy-
located within a broader region of negative vertical velocities, which namic effects could not feed back on the downdraft.
has been referred to as the rear-flank downdraft. [Adapted from Klemp
and Rotunno (1983).]
Therefore, it is believed that the occlusion downdraft
can be viewed as a rapid, small-scale intensification of
the RFD that occurs after the RFD transports larger
and a strong downdraft formed directly behind the gust angular momentum air toward the ground. Stated an-
front at low levels and also might divide the updraft at other way, the occlusion downdraft may be viewed as
midlevels. Klemp and Rotunno referred to this smaller- a by-product of the near-ground vorticity increase, and
scale downdraft as the occlusion downdraft. The occlu- vorticity cannot become large next to the ground without
sion downdraft, which was associated with a local ver- the RFD (Davies-Jones 1982a,b; Davies-Jones and
tical velocity minimum, was situated within a broader Brooks 1993; Brooks et al. 1993, 1994; Wicker and
region of negative vertical velocity, which was referred Wilhelmson 1995); that is, the RFD is ultimately nec-
to as the RFD; that is, the downdraft region on the rear essary for occlusion downdraft formation. Perhaps not
side of the storm, which partially wrapped around the surprisingly, observations have not been made in su-
circulation center at the time when low-level vertical percell storms of an occlusion downdraft preceding or
vorticity reached its peak, was a single, contiguous en- occurring in the absence of an RFD, or even at a location
tity (Fig. 14). The occlusion downdraft also was located not within an RFD.11
within a larger, contiguous downdraft region in the high- It might be tempting to argue that the RFD and oc-
resolution simulations of Wicker and Wilhelmson clusion downdraft should be considered separate down-
(1995; their Figs. 5–9).
Klemp and Rotunno proposed that the occlusion pro- 11
In some nonsupercell tornadoes in which preexisting vertical
cess and its associated occlusion downdraft were dy- vorticity is present at the surface, an RFD is not needed to transport
namically induced by the strong near-ground rotation circulation to low levels in order for tornadogenesis to occur. It might
that evolved along the convergence line. The rotation be possible for the low-level vorticity amplification associated with
this tornadogenesis process to dynamically induce a downdraft similar
induced low pressure coincident with the center of cir- to that which Klemp and Rotunno (1983) called an occlusion down-
culation and dynamically forced air down from above— draft in a supercell storm; thus, it might be possible for an occlusion
the downdraft formed first at low levels and then ex- downdraft to occur in the absence of an RFD in such a case. Carbone
tended upward as the flow adjusted to the nonhydrostatic (1983) compared a downdraft he observed in a nonsupercell tornado
vertical pressure gradient force. Rotunno (1986) also event to the occlusion downdraft defined by Klemp and Rotunno.
However, the dominant forcing for the downdraft was uncertain; thus,
hypothesized that the occlusion downdraft was initiated it is not known whether the downdraft documented by Carbone (1983)
by the explosive growth of vertical vorticity at low lev- should be regarded as an occlusion downdraft, at least as defined by
els. Klemp and Rotunno.
drafts because the dominant forcings are different. It is to be ‘‘driven’’ by low-level rotation even if the occlu-
the author’s opinion that a contiguity criterion should sion downdraft is not collocated with the low-level ro-
be considered when debating whether two phenomena tation.12
having different forcings are regarded as ‘‘separate.’’
Otherwise, the updraft of a supercell should be viewed
b. Observations
as two separate updrafts, with one updraft being driven
by nonhydrostatic pressure gradient forces below the Brandes (1978; the Harrah storm) appears to have
level of free convection, and another updraft being driv- made observations prior to the Klemp and Rotunno
en largely by buoyancy forces above the level of free (1983) simulation of a downdraft not becoming prom-
convection. The evolution put forth in the paragraph inent until after low-level rotation became substantial.
above is not at odds with early proposals that the RFD Brandes (1981) also stated, following his analysis of the
is initiated at middle to upper levels and is responsible Del City storm, that ‘‘the sudden appearance of strong
for initiating rotation near the ground, nor is it in conflict rear downdrafts in storms persisting for hours may also
with contentions that strong subsidence develops near relate to the intensity and distribution of updrafts and
the tornado during or after its formation. vorticity.’’ Brandes (1984a) attributed sudden occlusion
It is speculated that the clear slot may be a visual downdraft formation in the Del City and Harrah storms
manifestation of an intensifying RFD or occlusion to the vertical pressure gradient owing to the explosive
downdraft. Updrafts also have been shown to weaken growth of low-level vorticity as Klemp and Rotunno
during the stage when low-level rotation rapidly in- (1983) found. Furthermore, Brandes’s data also showed
creases, probably also due to the formation of a down- that the occlusion downdraft did not descend along the
ward-directed dynamic pressure gradient induced by the axis of the strong low-level vorticity. Brandes (1984b)
rotation (e.g., Brandes 1984a,b). Fujita (1973), Lemon claimed that the occlusion downdraft formed after the
and Burgess (1976), and Burgess et al. (1977) have incipient tornado had been detected, and roughly co-
documented the collapse of overshooting storm tops incided with tornado formation. Hane and Ray (1985)
near the time of tornadogenesis, which presumably is a also documented occlusion downdraft formation in the
manifestation of updraft weakening. Del City storm.
It also should be noted that although the occlusion Based on their analyses of the Lahoma and Orienta,
downdraft in the Klemp and Rotunno (1983) simulation Oklahoma, supercells (2 May 1979), Brandes et al.
was found to be driven by low-level vertical vorticity (1988) hypothesized that because RFDs possess weak
amplification, the occlusion downdraft did not descend positive or negative helicity (because couplets of ver-
along the axis of low-level rotation. An explanation was tical vorticity straddle RFDs), the decline of storm cir-
not offered. One might expect that the vertical pressure culation might be hastened by turbulent dissipation
gradient associated with the vertical gradient of vertical when the downdraft air eventually mixes into supercell
vorticity would lead to a maximum acceleration along updrafts. As did Brandes (1984a,b) and Klemp and Ro-
the rotation axis. Two reasons might account for the tunno (1983), Brandes et al. claimed that ‘‘the updraft
asymmetry: 1) the dynamic vertical perturbation pres- minimum in the Lahoma storm and RFD in the Orienta
sure gradient associated with the vertical gradient of storm apparently owed their existence to the build-up
vertical vorticity squared (]z 2 /]z) does not contribute to of low-level vorticity and related downward vertical
vertical velocity directly, but rather to vertical accel- pressure gradients.’’ Large downward pressure forces
erations—thus, dw/dt might be a minimum in the vor- existed within the RFD and left-hand portions of the
ticity maximum center, but if this occurs within the up- persistent updraft region in the Orienta storm, and to
draft (where w k 0), then a downdraft (w , 0) may the rear of the persistent updraft in the Lahoma storm.
first appear on the periphery of the updraft, away from Brandes et al. (1988) probably presented the most com-
the center of rotation, where w is less positive; and 2) prehensive analyses, discussion, and insight into the
other terms in the vertical momentum equation, when pressure distribution in supercells to date.
combined with the dynamic vertical perturbation pres-
sure gradient force, may force the strongest downward
acceleration away from the axis of largest vertical vor- 5. Role of RFDs in tornadogenesis
ticity—for example, the buoyancy forcing may favor a. Observations-based hypotheses
ascent in the updraft center, so that the net effect of the
buoyancy forcing and dynamic vertical perturbation Ludlam (1963) was one of the first to write that down-
pressure gradient may lead to the strongest downward drafts, especially those located on the rear flank of su-
acceleration on the updraft periphery. Superposition of percells, actually may be important to tornadogenesis:
the fields of the vertical momentum equation forcing ‘‘It is tempting to look for the spin of the tornado in
terms in Klemp and Rotunno’s (1983) simulation leads
to the strongest downward acceleration being to the 12
Wakimoto and Cai (2000) proposed that it also may be possible
southeast of the maximum low-level rotation (Fig. 15). for an occlusion downdraft to reach the surface away from the center
Thus, it is entirely possible for an occlusion downdraft of strongest near-ground vorticity if a mesocyclone is vertically tilted.
FIG. 15. (a)–(c) Cross sections of the forcing terms in the vertical momentum equation at t 5 2 min and
z 5 250 m in the nested, 250-m horizontal resolution simulation by Klemp and Rotunno (1983). Contours
are drawn at 10 22 m s 22 intervals: (a) dynamically induced pressure gradient, (b) advection terms, and (c)
buoyancy forcing. The black dot indicates the location of the circulation center. [From Klemp and Rotunno
(1983).] (d) A composite of the forcing terms in the vertical momentum equation. The hook echo and regions
where w exceeds 0 and 3 m s 21 are shaded according to the legend. The region where downward local
vertical velocity accelerations (]w/]t) are largest also is shaded. This region is located where the superposition
of the buoyancy forcing, advection, and dynamic pressure forcing leads to the strongest downward local
vertical velocity changes (]w/]t K 0). The regions where the buoyancy forcing and advection of vertical
velocity are positive, and where the dynamic vertical pressure gradient is most negative (directed downward),
also are indicated in the legend. Note that the largest downward acceleration occurs southeast of the low-
level circulation center; a downdraft driven by increasing low-level rotation need not be collocated with the
axis of strongest rotation. [Adapted from Klemp and Rotunno (1983).]
the vorticity present in the general air stream as shear nado, 2) this process results in an appreciable conver-
and tilted appropriately in the vicinity of the interface gence on the back side of the (developing) tornado, and
between the up- and down-motions.’’ Fujita (1975b) 3) the downward transport of the angular momentum
also proposed that the downdrafts associated with hook by precipitation and the recycling of air into the tornado
echoes may be fundamentally critical to tornado for- will create a tangential acceleration required for the in-
mation, in terms of his ‘‘recycling hypothesis’’: 1) tensification of the tornado. Research conducted with
downdraft air is recirculated into the (developing) tor- the aid of coherent radars in the ensuing years led others
(e.g., Burgess et al. 1977; Barnes 1978a; Lemon and

Doswell 1979; Brandes 1981) to make the same general
speculation. Burgess et al. (1977) believed that the RFD,
hook echo, and tornadogenesis were intimately con-
nected: ‘‘The formation and evolution of the RFD is
judged extremely important to tornado formation. . .the
severe tornado [the Oklahoma City tornado of 8 June
1974] appears related to the increased vorticity source
provided by presumed downdraft intensification and
gust front acceleration along the right flank.’’ Forbes
(1981) also discovered signatures (e.g., a sharp reflec-
tivity gradient along the upshear side of the updraft, and
occasionally a small echo mass several kilometers to
the right of the right-rear edge of the main echo) sug-
gesting RFD formation (1–10 min) prior to tornado-
genesis.
Lemon and Doswell (1979) noted that just before
tornadogenesis, the mesocyclone center shifted from FIG. 16. Brandes’s (1978) conceptual model of low-level meso-
near the updraft center to the zone of high vertical ve- cyclone characteristics during the tornadic phase included an oc-
locity gradient. The early mesocyclone apparently was cluded mesocyclone with air parcels from the RFD feeding the tor-
a rotating updraft, whereas the transformed mesocy- nado. [Adapted from Brandes (1978).]
clone had a divided structure, with strong cyclonically
curved updrafts to the east in the ‘‘warm inflow sector’’
and strong cyclonically curved downdrafts to the west clones being nearly totally occluded by the RFD, as
in the ‘‘cold outflow sector.’’ And while the tornado was evidenced by observations of the clear slot during and
apparently found in a strong vertical velocity gradient, just prior to the tornadic stage, such as those made by
Lemon and Doswell noted that it probably was located Lemon and Doswell (1979), Rasmussen et al. (1982),
on the updraft side of that gradient. and Jensen et al. (1983), also may imply that the air
Lemon and Doswell explained the evolution of the entering the tornado comes from the RFD. The possible
RFD and tornadogenesis as follows: 1) air decelerates importance of the clear slot also did not escape the
at the upwind stagnation point, is forced downward, and attention of Ludlam (1963): ‘‘. . . often the funnel is
mixes with air below, which then reaches the surface photographed spectacularly against a segment of bright
through evaporative cooling and precipitation drag; 2) and practically cloud-free sky beyond the edge of the
the initially rotating updraft is then transformed into a arch cloud.’’14 In addition to the observational evidence,
new mesocyclone with a divided structure, in which the simulations also have indicated that air parcel trajec-
circulation center lies along the zone separating the RFD tories pass through the RFD en route to intensifying
from the updraft (this process appears to result, in part, near-ground circulations (Davies-Jones and Brooks
from tilting of horizontal vorticity); and 3) ‘‘descent of 1993; Wicker and Wilhelmson 1995; Adlerman et al.
the mesocyclone circulation occurs simultaneously 1999).
(within the limits of temporal resolution) with the de- Davies-Jones (1998) recently has questioned whether
scent of the RFD.’’ the hook echo is really a passive indicator of a tornado,
Observations of low-level vorticity couplets within since close-range airborne and mobile radar observa-
RFDs that seem to straddle the hook echoes (introduced tions during recent field experiments have revealed hook
in section 2a) may be indications that tilting of vorticity echo formation prior to tornadogenesis in every case.15
by the RFD is important in the formation of tornadoes Davies-Jones hypothesized that the hook echo may ac-
within supercell storms, as hypothesized by Davies- tually instigate tornadogenesis, either baroclinically, by
Jones (1982a,b) and Davies-Jones and Brooks (1993). way of buoyancy gradients within the hook echo (Da-
Furthermore, it may be worth noting that during the vies-Jones 2000a), or barotropically, by redistributing
tornadogenesis phase in supercells, the parcels of air angular momentum (Davies-Jones 2000b).
that enter the tornado or incipient tornado regularly
seem to pass through the hook echo and RFD (Brandes 14
The ‘‘arch cloud’’ Ludlam refers to was that ‘‘on the forward
1978; Klemp et al. 1981; Dowell and Bluestein 1997; right flank of severe storms, outside of the precipitation region;’’ that
J. Wurman et al. 2000, personal communication;13 Fig. is, that which is on the leading edge of the trailing gust front.
16), which may have been the basis for Fujita’s (1975b) 15
Previous studies documenting cases in which tornadoes were
recycling hypothesis. Visual observations of mesocy- reported prior to hook echo detection (e.g., Garrett and Rockney 1962;
Forbes 1975) relied on temporally and spatially coarser radar data
compared to what was available in field experiments such as VOR-
13
This was a poster presented at the 20th Severe Local Storms TEX, and reported tornado times may not always have been accurate
Conference in Orlando, Florida. to within a few minutes.
b. Theoretical considerations
Most of the theoretical and numerical modeling stud-
ies pertaining to supercell storms have investigated the
development of midlevel and low-level rotation by way
of tilting of horizontal vorticity (either associated with
the large-scale mean vertical wind shear or generated
solenoidally by a baroclinic zone) by an updraft (e.g.,
Rotunno 1981; Rotunno and Klemp 1982, 1985; Lilly
1982, 1986a,b; Davies-Jones 1984). However, Davies-
Jones (1982a,b) noted that in order to obtain large ver-
tical vorticity at the ground in an environment in which
vortex lines are initially quasi-horizontal, a downdraft
would be necessary. Tornadoes may arise in the absence
of a downdraft in environments containing preexisting
vertical vorticity at the surface, such as in some cases FIG. 17. Schematic diagram showing how cyclonic vorticity may
of ‘‘nonsupercell tornadogenesis’’ (e.g., Wilson 1986; be generated from tilting of baroclinic horizontal vorticity in a down-
Wakimoto and Wilson 1989; Roberts and Wilson 1995; draft. In the case of streamwise vorticity with flow to the right of the
horizontal buoyancy gradient and a southerly shear component, a
Lee and Wilhelmson 1997a,b, 2000). combination of tilting and baroclinic generation causes the vorticity
Davies-Jones (1982a,b) concluded that in a sheared of parcels to change from anticyclonic (denoted by a) to cyclonic
environment with negligible background vertical vor- (denoted by c) while still descending. [Adapted from Davies-Jones
ticity, an ‘‘in, up, and out’’ circulation driven by forces and Brooks (1993).]
primarily aloft would fail to produce vertical vorticity
close to the ground [this conclusion depends on eddies with less inclination than the trajectories because hor-
being too weak to transport vertical vorticity downward izontal southward vorticity was being generated contin-
against the flow; this was verified by Rotunno and uously by baroclinity within the hook echo. Because of
Klemp (1985) and Walko (1993)]. If a Beltrami model the geometry, vortex lines crossed the streamlines from
is crudely assumed to represent the flow in a supercell lower to higher ones (with respect to the ground), and
(Davies-Jones and Brooks 1993), then vortex lines are the barotropic effect served to turn the vortex lines up-
coincident with streamlines and parcels flowing into the ward even during descent. The baroclinic effect acted
updraft at very low levels do not have significant vertical to increase horizontal vorticity further but did not con-
vorticity until they have ascended a few kilometers. Oth- trol the sign of the vertical vorticity; thus, air with cy-
erwise, argued Davies-Jones, abrupt upward turning of clonic vertical vorticity appeared close to the ground.
streamlines, strong pressure gradients, and large vertical As this air passed from the downdraft into the updraft,
velocities would be required next to the ground. its cyclonic spin was amplified substantially by vertical
Davies-Jones (1982a,b) neglected baroclinic vorticity stretching (Fig. 17).
and suggested that the downdraft had the following roles Brooks et al. (1993, 1994) found that the formation
in near-ground mesocyclogenesis: 1) tilting of horizon- of persistent near-ground rotation was sensitive to the
tal vorticity by a downdraft produces vertical vorticity, strength of the storm-relative midlevel winds. When
2) subsidence transports air containing vertical vorticity storm-relative midlevel flow was weak, RFD outflow
closer to the surface, 3) this air flows out from the undercut the updrafts and associated mesocyclones.
downdraft and enters the updraft where it is stretched When storm-relative midlevel flow was too strong, the
vertically, and 4) convergence beneath the updraft is cold pool was not oriented suitably for vorticity gen-
enhanced by the outflow. Davies-Jones also showed ki- eration within the baroclinic zone immediately behind
nematically that the flow responsible for tilting and con- the updraft, which was found to be needed for the de-
centrating vortex lines also tilts and packs isentropic velopment of near-ground rotation in their simulations.
surfaces, thus explaining observations of strong entropy Wicker and Wilhelmson (1995) used a two-way in-
gradients across mesocyclones near the ground. teractive grid to study tornadogenesis. During a 40-min
period, two tornadoes grew and decayed within the me-
c. Potentially relevant simulation results socyclone. Wicker and Wilhelmson’s Fig. 9 depicted a
spiraling, asymmetric RFD associated with tornadoge-
Davies-Jones and Brooks (1993) showed that the ver- nesis. Their figure also indicated anticyclonic vertical
tical vorticity of air parcels descending in an RFD can vorticity on the opposite side of the RFD as the cyclonic
be reversed during descent, from anticyclonic initially, vertical vorticity. Furthermore, the RFD contained low
to less anticyclonic, then to cyclonic in the lowest 50– u e values (u9e was as small as 215 K; u9e was approxi-
125 m of their descent. As air subsided in the downdraft, mately 25 to 28 K in the hook echo).
vortex lines turned downward due to the barotropic Wicker and Wilhelmson found that parcels entered
‘‘frozen fluid lines’’ effect (Helmholtz’s theorem), but the mesocyclone from the RFD (Fig. 18) and descended
they did not specify whether the downdraft also could

be cold, nor what the advantages of a warm downdraft
over a cold downdraft were. Davies-Jones (2000b) re-
cently has shown that an annular rain curtain can trans-
port sufficient angular momentum from aloft to the
ground to result in tornadogenesis in an idealized axi-
symmetric numerical model.16 No evaporation was per-
mitted in the model; thus, no cold downdraft air was
present. Furthermore, Leslie and Smith (1978) found
that some vortices could not establish contact with the
ground when low-level stable air was present, even if
very shallow. Remarkably, Ludlam (1963) many years
earlier had argued that ‘‘at least a proportion of the air
that ascends in the tornado must be derived from the
cold outflow; if this contains the potentially cold air
from middle levels its ascent might be expected soon
to impede if not destroy the tornado . . . it may be par-
ticularly important for the intensification and persistence
of a tornado that some of the downdraft air may be
derived from potentially warm air which enters the left
flank of the storm at low-levels.’’
FIG. 18. Vertical velocity and trajectories at 100 min (tornadolike Significant advances in our understanding of super-
vortex present in simulated storm at this time) for z 5 100 m in the cells no doubt have been made by numerical models. It
120-m resolution simulation by Wicker and Wilhelmson (1995). The
trajectories entering the vortex have come from the hook echo and is probable that some conclusions drawn from simula-
RFD region. [Adapted from Wicker and Wilhelmson (1995).] tion results never could have been made from obser-
vations or theory alone. However, the author shares the
view expressed by Doswell (1985): ‘‘The RFD’s role
from ;500 m, as Davies-Jones and Brooks (1993) had remains confusing with respect to tornadogenesis. Truly
found. Furthermore, these parcels initially contained confirming evidence about the various aspects of nu-
negative vertical vorticity; however, vertical vorticity merical simulations awaits better observations, despite
increased to only weakly negative values, not to large the compelling similarities between simulations and real
positive values as in the simulations of Davies-Jones storms.’’
and Brooks. Trajectories into the tornado from the RFD
revealed that positive vertical vorticity was acquired
only after parcels began to ascend, not while they were 6. Recent observations from VORTEX
still descending (Davies-Jones and Brooks 1993; Trapp New radar and surface observations having unprec-
and Fiedler 1995; Adlerman et al. 1999). It is believed edented spatial and temporal resolution have been ac-
that these differences should be regarded as minor, for quired by VORTEX and smaller, post-VORTEX field
there is a time tendency for increasing positive vertical experiments. The findings of these recent operations that
vorticity in the parcels passing through the downdraft are pertinent to this review are highlighted below, with
in all of the studies. the exception of analyses of new surface data within
Though numerical models have been instrumental in hook echoes and RFDs, which will be presented by
advancing our understanding of supercell dynamics, Markowski et al. (2002).
models may have limited utility in exploring the ther- Recent radar observations, which include data ob-
modynamic characteristics of RFDs, and the potential tained from both airborne and ground-based mobile
sensitivity of low-level vorticity intensification to these Doppler radars (Jorgensen et al. 1983; Ray et al. 1985;
characteristics, owing to the unavoidable parameteri- Bluestein and Unruh 1989; Bluestein et al. 1995; Daugh-
zation of microphysical processes. For example, three- erty et al. 1996; Wurman et al. 1997), have resolved
dimensional simulations have not been able to produce structures within hook echoes that were barely resolv-
the warm and moist RFDs that often have been observed able or unresolvable in the early radar studies of su-
near some strong tornadoes—the RFDs of simulated percell storms. For example, in high-resolution (,100
supercells almost invariably have large potential tem- m spatially) data of tornadoes presented by Wurman et
perature and equivalent potential temperature deficits,
as discussed in section 3c. However, some idealized
simulations have suggested that tornadogenesis may be
16
This simulation had some similarities with those conducted by
Das (1983, unpublished manuscript), in which a precipitation-driven
favorable if downdrafts are not too cold. Eskridge and downdraft was imposed upon a wind field in which angular momen-
Das (1976) proposed that a warm, unsaturated down- tum increased with height. The downdraft was found to be able to
draft could be important for tornadogenesis; however, transport sufficient vorticity from aloft to result in tornadogenesis.
FIG. 19. Radar (left) reflectivity (dBZ ) and (right) velocity fields associated with a hook echo and tornado on 2 Jun 1995 near Dimmitt,
TX. In the left image, the arrow labeled N points toward the north. In the right image, the arrow labeled R points toward the radar position.
[From Wurman and Gill (2000).]
al. (1996), Wurman and Gill (2000), and Bluestein and to the surface during tornadogenesis, as many previous
Pazmany (2000), the echo-free holes that were only mar- investigators (e.g., Ludlam, Fujita) have conjectured.
ginally resolved by Garrett and Rockney (1962) were Using surface observations obtained from automo-
well resolved (Figs. 19 and 20). The images presented bile-borne sensors (Straka et al. 1996), Rasmussen and
by Bluestein and Pazmany (2000) even begin to mar- Straka (1996) documented a relatively warm RFD south
ginally resolve structures, possibly subvortices, within of the Dimmitt, Texas, tornado. In the same case, which
the echo-free hole itself. Moreover, the radar reflectivity was during VORTEX, the hook echo was collocated
depictions ‘‘looked like a tropical cyclone, with con- with the surface divergence maximum, implying an as-
centric inner bands and outer spiral bands’’ (Bluestein sociation between the hook echo and (at least) a low-
and Pazmany 2000). Hook echoes as narrow as 100 m level downdraft, as also had been suggested by numer-
or less have been detected (Wurman et al. 1996; Blue- ous predecessors.
stein and Pazmany 2000), perhaps implying that pre- In two other VORTEX storms, Wakimoto et al. (1998)
cipitation loading and evaporative cooling within the and Wakimoto and Cai (2000) concluded that the oc-
hook echoes of some storms may not be the most sig- clusion downdraft was driven largely by the reversal of
nificant effects in driving the associated RFDs, at least the vertical gradient of dynamic pressure, owing to in-
at low levels. creasing vorticity at low levels. In the supercell docu-
Just as the early multiple-Doppler radar analyses of mented by Wakimoto et al. (1998; the 16 May 1995
the 1970s and 1980s revealed, radar observations ob- VORTEX storm), it was found that the precipitation-
tained in the last decade also have detected vorticity loading forcing of the occlusion downdraft was an order
couplets straddling the hook echoes of tornadic storms of magnitude less than the forcing provided by the non-
(Rasmussen and Straka 1996; Wurman et al. 1996; hydrostatic vertical pressure gradient. [In a different
Straka et al. 1996; Bluestein et al. 1997; Dowell and case, Carbone (1983) previously had suggested that pre-
Bluestein 1997; Dowell et al. 1997; Wakimoto and Liu cipitation loading may contribute to occlusion down-
1998; Wakimoto et al. 1998; Wurman and Gill 2000; draft genesis.] In the 12 May 1995 VORTEX storm
Ziegler et al. 2001) and nontornadic storms (Gaddy and studied by Wakimoto and Cai (2000), a thermodynamic
Bluestein 1998; Blanchard and Straka 1998; Wakimoto retrieval indicated that the occlusion downdraft was as-
and Cai 2000; Bluestein and Gaddy 2001). These vor- sociated with a warm core.
ticity doublets could be evidence that RFDs are involved Perhaps the most remarkable observational finding
in a downward displacement of initially quasi-horizontal during the last 10 years is that the differences between
vortex lines, perhaps necessarily transporting rotation tornadic and nontornadic supercells may be subtle, if
FIG. 20. Radar reflectivity fields (dBZ) associated with a hook echo on 15 May 1999 (left) early in the life of a tornado, (center) during
the mature stage, and (right) during the dissipation stage. [From Bluestein and Pazmany (2000).]
even distinguishable, even in dual-Doppler radar anal- years; however, the precise dynamical relationship still
yses of the wind fields just prior to tornadogenesis. Blan- is not known today. The analysis of the three-dimen-
chard and Straka (1998) documented a mobile radar sional wind structure of supercells afforded by Doppler
signature of a spiraling hook echo in a nontornadic su- radar, along with speedy increases in the feasibility of
percell having an appearance similar to those that have numerical cloud modeling, led to relatively rapid gains
been associated with tornadic supercells (e.g., similar in knowledge of the recurrent storm structures and evo-
to the radar image in Fig. 20). Perhaps such near-ground lution associated with supercells. Within 30 years of the
circulations are more common in nontornadic supercells first radar image of a hook echo, we knew that the most
than previously believed. Trapp (1999) and Wakimoto damaging tornadoes were associated with supercells, we
and Cai (2000) also documented circulations in non- knew about the existence of the parent circulations of
tornadic supercells at levels close to the ground. Trapp tornadoes (mesocyclones), we developed an understand-
found that the low-level mesocyclones associated with ing of the dynamics of midlevel storm rotation and storm
tornadogenesis had smaller core radii and were asso- propagation, radar and visual features common to su-
ciated with more substantial vorticity stretching than percells were well documented, and downdrafts were
those associated with tornadogenesis ‘‘failure.’’ Based recognized as being important in tornadogenesis. Yet in
on a comparison of pseudo-dual-Doppler analyses, Wak- the decades that followed the period of rapid advances,
imoto and Cai concluded that the ‘‘only difference be- no breakthroughs emerged with respect to the role of
tween the Garden City storm and Hays storm (the 16 the RFD in tornadogenesis. In fact, it is debatable wheth-
May 1995 and 12 May 1995 VORTEX storms) was the er we can better anticipate tornadogenesis within su-
more extensive precipitation echoes behind the rear- percell storms today than we could 20 years ago.
flank gust front for the Hays storm.’’ If the hook echo and its associated RFD truly are
critical to tornadogenesis, as hypothesized for many
years, then perhaps significant gains in understanding
7. Concluding remarks
will not be possible until more spatially and temporally
The association between hook echoes, RFDs, and tor- detailed observations of this region can be made, in
nadogenesis has been well documented for nearly 50 addition to numerical simulations with more realistic
representations of entrainment and microphysical pro- Blanchard, D. O., and J. M. Straka, 1998: Some possible mechanisms
cesses. It is believed that some of the important out- for tornadogenesis failure in a supercell. Preprints, 19th Conf.
on Severe Local Storms, Minneapolis, MN, Amer. Meteor. Soc.,
standing questions include 116–119.
R What are the dominant forcings for RFDs, as a func- Bluestein, H. B., 1983: Surface meteorological observations in severe
thunderstorms. Part II: Field experiments with TOTO. J. Climate
tion of location within the RFD and stage in storm Appl. Meteor., 22, 919–930.
evolution? ——, and W. P. Unruh, 1989: Observations of the wind field in tor-
R How do the dominant RFD forcings vary across the nadoes, funnel clouds, and wall clouds with a portable Doppler
spectrum of supercell types (e.g., nontornadic vs tor- radar. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 70, 1514–1525.
nadic, low-precipation vs heavy-precipitation ——, and J. H. Golden, 1993: A review of tornado observations. The
Tornado: Its Structure, Dynamics, Prediction, and Hazards,
storms)? Geophys. Monogr., No. 79, Amer. Geophys. Union, 319–352.
R How do the thermodynamic and microphysical char- ——, and A. L. Pazmany, 2000: Observations of tornadoes and other
acteristics of hook echoes and RFDs vary across the convective phenomena with a mobile, 3-mm wavelength, Dopp-
supercell spectrum, and why? ler radar. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 81, 2939–2952.
R How does the large-scale environment affect RFD ——, and S. G. Gaddy, 2001: Airborne pseudo-dual-Doppler analysis
of a rear-inflow jet and deep convergence zone within a supercell.
characteristics? Mon. Wea. Rev., 129, 2270–2289.
R Is the tornadogenesis process sensitive to the ther- ——, A. L. Pazmany, J. C. Galloway, and R. E. McIntosh, 1995:
modynamic and microphysical properties of RFDs? Studies of the substructure of severe convective storms using a
R What is the role of the RFD in tornadogenesis, and mobile 3-mm wavelength Doppler radar. Bull. Amer. Meteor.
does the hook echo have an active role? Soc., 76, 2155–2169.
——, S. G. Gaddy, D. C. Dowell, A. L. Pazmany, J. C. Galloway,
A number of direct observations have been reviewed R. E. McIntosh, and H. Stein, 1997: Doppler radar observations
herein; however, these observations have been relatively of substorm-scale vortices in a supercell. Mon. Wea. Rev., 125,
1046–1059.
scarce and often have been simply fortuitous. A new Bonesteele, R. G., and Y. J. Lin, 1978: A study of updraft–downdraft
mobile surface observing system (Straka et al. 1996), interaction based on perturbation pressure and single-Doppler
introduced in 1994 for VORTEX, recently has collected radar data. Mon. Wea. Rev., 106, 113–120.
the largest number of in situ measurements within su- Brandes, E. A., 1977a: Flow in a severe thunderstorm observed by
percell storms to date. Analyses of these spatially and dual-Doppler radar. Mon. Wea. Rev., 105, 113–120.
——, 1977b: Gust front evolution and tornado genesis as viewed by
temporally dense ‘‘mobile mesonet’’ observations with- Doppler radar. J. Appl. Meteor., 16, 333–338.
in hook echoes and RFDs will be presented in a com- ——, 1978: Mesocyclone evolution and tornadogenesis: Some ob-
panion paper (Markowski et al. 2002), and these data servations. Mon. Wea. Rev., 106, 995–1011.
may begin to shed some light on at least a couple of ——, 1981: Finestructure of the Del City–Edmond tornadic meso-
the questions posed above. circulation. Mon. Wea. Rev., 109, 635–647.
——, 1984a: Relationships between radar-derived thermodynamic
variables and tornadogenesis. Mon. Wea. Rev., 112, 1033–1052.
Acknowledgments. I am indebted to Drs. Jerry Straka ——, 1984b: Vertical vorticity generation and mesocyclone suste-
and Erik Rasmussen for their encouragement and per- nance in tornadic thunderstorms: The observational evidence.
spectives during the course of this work. I also extend Mon. Wea. Rev., 112, 2253–2269.
thanks to Dr. Chuck Doswell and two anonymous re- ——, R. P. Davies-Jones, and B. C. Johnson, 1988: Streamwise vor-
viewers, who noticeably improved the clarity and or- ticity effects on supercell morphology and persistence. J. Atmos.
Sci., 45, 947–963.
ganization of the paper. Finally, I also am grateful to
Brooks, E. M., 1949: The tornado cyclone. Weatherwise, 2, 32–33.
Drs. Robert Davies-Jones, Fred Carr, and Brian Fiedler, Brooks, H. E., C. A. Doswell III, and R. P. Davies-Jones, 1993:
who reviewed earlier versions of the presentation. Environmental helicity and the maintenance and evolution of
low-level mesocyclones. The Tornado: Its Structure, Dynamics,
Prediction, and Hazards, Geophys. Monogr., No. 79, Amer. Geo-
REFERENCES phys. Union, 97–104.
——, C. A. Doswell, and R. B. Wilhelmson, 1994: The role of mid-
Adlerman, E. J., K. K. Droegemeier, and R. P. Davies-Jones, 1999:
tropospheric winds in the evolution and maintenance of low-
A numerical simulation of cyclic mesocyclogenesis. J. Atmos.
level mesocyclones. Mon. Wea. Rev., 122, 126–136.
Sci., 56, 2045–2069.
Agee, E. M., 1976: Multiple vortex features in the tornado cyclone Brown, J. M., and K. R. Knupp, 1980: The Iowa cyclonic–anticy-
and the occurrence of tornado families. Mon. Wea. Rev., 104, clonic tornado pair and its parent thunderstorm. Mon. Wea. Rev.,
552–563. 108, 1626–1646.
Alberty, R. L., 1969: A proposed mechanism for cumulonimbus per- Brown, R. A., 1992: Initiation and evolution of updraft rotation within
sistence in the presence of strong vertical shear. Mon. Wea. Rev., an incipient supercell thunderstorm. J. Atmos. Sci., 49, 1997–
97, 590–596. 2014.
Barnes, S. L., 1978a: Oklahoma thunderstorms on 29–30 April 1970. ——, D. W. Burgess, and K. C. Crawford, 1973: Twin tornado cy-
Part I: Morphology of a tornadic storm. Mon. Wea. Rev., 106, clones within a severe thunderstorm: Single-Doppler radar ob-
673–684. servations. Weatherwise, 26, 63–71.
——, 1978b: Oklahoma thunderstorms on 29–30 April 1970. Part II: ——, L. R. Lemon, and D. W. Burgess, 1978: Tornado detection with
Radar-observed merger of twin hook echoes. Mon. Wea. Rev., pulsed Doppler radar. Mon. Wea. Rev., 106, 29–38.
106, 685–696. Browning, K. A., 1964: Airflow and precipitation trajectories within
Beebe, R. G., 1959: Notes on the Scottsbluff, Nebraska tornado, 27 severe local storms which travel to the right of the winds. J.
June 1955. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 40, 109–116. Atmos. Sci., 21, 634–639.
——, 1965a: Some inferences about the updraft within a severe local ysis of supercells during COPS-91. Mon. Wea. Rev., 125, 365–
storm. J. Atmos. Sci., 22, 669–678. 383.
——, 1965b: The evolution of tornadic storms. J. Atmos. Sci., 22, Eskridge, R. E., and P. Das, 1976: Effect of a precipitation-driven
664–668. downdraft on a rotating wind field: A possible trigger mechanism
——, and F. H. Ludlam, 1962: Airflow in convective storms. Quart. for tornadoes? J. Atmos. Sci., 33, 70–84.
J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 88, 117–135. Fankhauser, J. C., 1971: Thunderstorm environment interactions de-
——, and R. J. Donaldson, 1963: Airflow and structure of a tornadic termined from aircraft and radar observations. Mon. Wea. Rev.,
storm. J. Atmos. Sci., 20, 533–545. 99, 171–192.
Burgess, D. W., R. A. Brown, L. R. Lemon, and C. R. Safford, 1977: Forbes, G. S., 1975: Relationship between tornadoes and hook echoes
Evolution of a tornadic thunderstorm. Preprints, 10th Conf. on on April 3, 1974. Preprints, Ninth Conf. on Severe Local Storms,
Severe Local Storms, Omaha, NE, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84–89. Norman, OK, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 280–285.
Carbone, R. E., 1983: A severe frontal rainband. Part II: Tornado ——, 1981: On the reliability of hook echoes as tornado indicators.
parent vortex circulation. Mon. Wea. Rev., 111, 2639–2654. Mon. Wea. Rev., 109, 1457–1466.
Charba, J., and Y. Sasaki, 1971: Structure and movement of the severe Freund, R. F., 1966: Radar echo signature of tornadoes. Preprints,
thunderstorms of 3 April 1964 as revealed from radar and surface 12th Conf. on Radar Meteorology, Norman, OK, Amer. Meteor.
mesonetwork data analysis. J. Meteor. Soc. Japan, 49, 191–214. Soc., 362–365.
Chisholm, A. J., 1973: Alberta hailstorms. Part I: Radar case studies Fujita, T. T., 1958a: Mesoanalysis of the Illinois tornadoes of 9 April
and airflow models. Alberta Hailstorms, Meteor. Monogr., No. 1953. J. Meteor., 15, 288–296.
36, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 1–36. ——, 1958b: Tornado cyclone: Bearing system of tornadoes. Proc.
Darkow, G. L., and D. W. McCann, 1977: Relative environmental Seventh Conf. on Radar Meteorology, Miami Beach, FL, Amer.
winds for 121 tornado bearing storms. Preprints, 10th Conf. on Meteor. Soc., K31–K38.
Severe Local Storms, Omaha, NE, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 413–417. ——, 1965: Formation and steering mechanisms of tornado cyclones
Das, P., 1983: Vorticity concentration in the subcloud layers of a and associated hook echoes. Mon. Wea. Rev., 93, 67–78.
rotating cloud. National Science Foundation Final Rep. ATM- ——, 1973: Proposed mechanism of tornado formation from rotating
8023825, 78 pp. thunderstorms. Preprints, Eighth Conf. on Severe Local Storms,
Daugherty, J. R., A. I. Watson, T. R. Shepherd, and C. L. Ziegler, Denver, CO, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 191–196.
1996: The evolution of tornadic supercells during VORTEX-95 ——, 1975a: Color map of super outbreak tornadoes of 3–4 April
as observed by the NOAA P-3 lower-fuselage C-band radar. 1974. Weatherwise, 28, 55.
Preprints, 18th Conf. on Severe Local Storms, San Francisco, ——, 1975b: New evidence from the April 3–4, 1974 tornadoes.
CA, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 128–132. Preprints, Ninth Conf. on Severe Local Storms, Norman, OK,
Davies-Jones, R. P., 1982a: A new look at the vorticity equation with Amer. Meteor. Soc., 248–255.
application to tornadogenesis. Preprints, 12th Conf. on Severe ——, 1979: Objectives, operation, and results of Project NIMROD.
Local Storms, San Antonio, TX, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 249–252. Preprints, 11th Conf. on Severe Local Storms, Kansas City, MO,
——, 1982b: Observational and theoretical aspects of tornadogenesis. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 259–266.
Intense Atmospheric Vortices, L. Bengtsson and J. Lighthill, Eds. ——, 1981: Tornadoes and downbursts in the context of generalized
Springer-Verlag, 175–189. planetary scales. J. Atmos. Sci., 38, 1511–1534.
——, 1984: Streamwise vorticity: The origin of updraft rotation in ——, and H. Grandoso, 1968: Split of a thunderstorm into anticy-
clonic and cyclonic storms and their motion as determined by
supercell storms. J. Atmos. Sci., 41, 2991–3006.
numerical model experiments. J. Atmos. Sci., 25, 416–439.
——, 1985: Dynamical interaction between an isolated convective
——, and R. M. Wakimoto, 1982: Anticyclonic tornadoes in 1980
cell and a veering environmental wind. Preprints, 17th Conf. on
and 1981. Preprints, 12th Conf. on Severe Local Storms, San
Severe Local Storms, St. Louis, MO, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 216–
Antonio, TX, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 213–216.
219.
——, M. R. Hjelmfelt, and S. A. Changnon, 1977: Mesoanalysis of
——, 1986: Tornado dynamics. Thunderstorm Morphology and Dy-
record Chicago rainstorm using radar, satellite, and raingauge
namics. 2d ed., E. Kessler, Ed., University of Oklahoma Press, data. Preprints, 10th Conf. on Severe Local Storms, Omaha, NE,
197–236. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 65–72.
——, 1998: Tornadoes and tornadic storms. Preprints, 19th Conf. on Fulks, J. R., 1962: On the Mechanics of the Tornado. National Severe
Severe Local Storms, Minneapolis, MN, Amer. Meteor. Soc., Storms Project Rep. No. 4, U. S. Weather Bureau.
185. Gaddy, S. G., and H. B. Bluestein, 1998: Airborne dual-Doppler
——, 2000a: A Lagrangian model for baroclinic genesis of mesoscale analysis of a supercell hailstorm. Preprints, 19th Conf. on Severe
vortices. Part I: Theory. J. Atmos. Sci., 57, 715–736. Local Storms, Minneapolis, MN, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 60–63.
——, 2000b: Can the hook echo instigate tornadogenesis barotrop- Gal-Chen, T., 1978: A method for the initialization of the anelastic
ically? Preprints, 20th Conf. on Severe Local Storms, Orlando, equations: Implications for matching models with observations.
FL, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 269–272. Mon. Wea. Rev., 106, 587–606.
——, and H. E. Brooks, 1993: Mesocyclogenesis from a theoretical Garrett, R. A., and V. D. Rockney, 1962: Tornadoes in northeastern
perspective. The Tornado: Its Structure, Dynamics, Prediction, Kansas, May 19, 1960. Mon. Wea. Rev., 90, 231–240.
and Hazards, Geophys. Monogr., No. 79, Amer. Geophys. Gilmore, M. S., and L. J. Wicker, 1998: The influence of midtro-
Union, 105–114. pospheric dryness on supercell morphology and evolution. Mon.
——, C. A. Doswell, and H. E. Brooks, 1994: Comments on ‘‘Ini- Wea. Rev., 126, 943–958.
tiation and evolution of updraft rotation within an incipient su- Golden, J. H., 1974: Scale interaction implications for the waterspout
percell thunderstorm.’’ J. Atmos. Sci., 51, 326–331. life cycle. Part II. J. Appl. Meteor., 13, 693–709.
Donaldson, R. J., 1970: Vortex signature recognition by a Doppler ——, and B. J. Morgan, 1972: The NSSL/Notre Dame tornado in-
radar. J. Appl. Meteor., 9, 661–670. tercept program, spring 1972. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 53,
Doswell, C. A., 1985: The operational meteorology of convective 1178–1179.
weather. Vol. 2: Storm scale analysis. NOAA Tech. Memo. ERL ——, and D. Purcell, 1978: Airflow characteristics around the Union
ESG-15, 240 pp. City tornado. Mon. Wea. Rev., 106, 22–28.
Dowell, D. C., and H. B. Bluestein, 1997: The Arcadia, Oklahoma, Haglund, G. T., 1969: A study of the severe local storm of 16 April
storm of 17 May 1981: Analysis of a supercell during torna- 1967. ESSA Tech. Memo. ERLTM-NSSL 44, 54 pp. [NTIS
dogenesis. Mon. Wea. Rev., 125, 2562–2582. PB188315.]
——, ——, and D. P. Jorgensen, 1997: Airborne Doppler radar anal- Hane, C. E., and P. S. Ray, 1985: Pressure and buoyancy fields derived
from Doppler radar data in a tornadic thunderstorm. J. Atmos. phology derived from single Doppler radar measurements. Mon.
Sci., 42, 18–35. Wea. Rev., 106, 48–61.
——, R. B. Wilhelmson, and T. Gal-Chen, 1981: Retrieval of ther- Leslie, L. M., and R. K. Smith, 1978: The effect of vertical stability
modynamic variables within deep convective clouds: Experi- on tornadogenesis. J. Atmos. Sci., 35, 1281–1288.
ments in three dimensions. Mon. Wea. Rev., 109, 564–576. Lilly, D. K., 1982: The development and maintenance of rotation in
Heymsfield, G. M., 1978: Kinematic and dynamic aspects of the convective storms. Intense Atmospheric Vortices, L. Bengtsson
Harrah tornadic storm analyzed from dual-Doppler radar data. and J. Lighthill, Eds. Springer-Verlag, 149–160.
Mon. Wea. Rev., 106, 233–254. ——, 1986a: The structure, energetics, and propagation of rotating
Houze, R. A., W. Schmid, R. G. Fovell, and H.-H. Schiesser, 1993: convective storms. Part I: Energy exchange with the mean flow.
Hailstorms in Switzerland: Left movers, right movers, and false J. Atmos. Sci., 43, 113–125.
hooks. Mon. Wea. Rev., 121, 3345–3370. ——, 1986b: The structure, energetics, and propagation of rotating
Jensen, B., T. P. Marshall, M. A. Mabey, and E. N. Rasmussen, 1983: convective storms. Part II: Helicity and storm stabilization. J.
Storm scale structure of the Pampa storm. Preprints, 13th Conf. Atmos. Sci., 43, 126–140.
on Severe Local Storms, Tulsa, OK, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 85–88. Ludlam, F. H., 1963: Severe Local Storms: A review. Severe Local
Johnson, K. W., P. S. Ray, B. C. Johnson, and R. P. Davies-Jones, Storms, Meteor. Monogr., No. 27, 1–30.
1987: Observations related to the rotational dynamics of the 20 Markowski, P. M., J. M. Straka, and E. N. Rasmussen, 2002: Direct
May 1977 tornadic storms. Mon. Wea. Rev., 115, 2463–2478. surface thermodynamic observations within the rear-flank down-
Jorgensen, D. P., P. H. Hildebrand, and C. L. Frush, 1983: Feasibility drafts of nontornadic and tornadic supercells. Mon. Wea. Rev.,
test of an airborne pulse-Doppler meteorological radar. J. Cli- in press.
mate Appl. Meteor., 22, 744–757. Marshall, T. P., and E. N. Rasmussen, 1982: The mesocyclone evo-
Klemp, J. B., 1987: Dynamics of tornadic thunderstorms. Annu. Rev. lution of the Warren, Oklahoma tornadoes. Preprints, 12th Conf.
Fluid Mech., 19, 369–402. on Severe Local Storms, San Antonio, TX, Amer. Meteor. Soc.,
——, and R. B. Wilhelmson, 1978a: Simulations of right- and left- 375–378.
moving storms produced through storm splitting. J. Atmos. Sci., Marwitz, J. D., 1972a: The structure and motion of severe hailstorms.
35, 1097–1110. Part I: Supercell storms. J. Appl. Meteor., 11, 166–179.
——, and ——, 1978b: The simulation of three-dimensional con- ——, 1972b: The structure and motion of severe hailstorms. Part III:
vective storm dynamics. J. Atmos. Sci., 35, 1070–1096. Severely sheared storms. J. Appl. Meteor., 11, 189–201.
——, and R. Rotunno, 1983: A study of the tornadic region within Moller, A., C. A. Doswell, J. McGinley, S. Tegtmeier, and R. Zipser,
a supercell thunderstorm. J. Atmos. Sci., 40, 359–377. 1974: Field observations of the Union City tornado in Oklahoma.
——, ——, and P. S. Ray, 1981: Observed and numerically simulated Weatherwise, 27, 68–77.
structure of a mature supercell thunderstorm. J. Atmos. Sci., 38, Nelson, S. P., 1977: Rear flank downdraft: A hailstorm intensification
1558–1580. mechanism. Preprints, 10th Conf. on Severe Local Storms, Oma-
Knupp, K. R., and W. R. Cotton, 1985: Convective cloud downdraft ha, NE, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 521–525.
structure: An interpretive study. Rev. of Geophys., 23, 183–215. Newton, C. W., and H. R. Newton, 1959: Dynamical interactions
Lee, B. D., and R. B. Wilhelmson, 1997a: The numerical simulation between large convective clouds and environmental vertical
of non-supercell tornadogenesis: Part I: Initiation and evolution shear. J. Meteor., 16, 483–496.
of pretornadic misocyclone circulations along a dry outflow Peterson, R. E., 1976: The Sunray tornado. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,
boundary. J. Atmos. Sci., 54, 32–60. 57, 805–807.
——, and ——, 1997b: The numerical simulation of non-supercell Rasmussen, E. N., and J. M. Straka, 1996: Mobile mesonet obser-
tornadogenesis: Part II: Tornado evolution along a weak outflow vations of tornadoes during VORTEX-95. Preprints, 18th Conf.
boundary. J. Atmos. Sci., 54, 2387–2415. on Severe Local Storms, San Francisco, CA, Amer. Meteor. Soc.,
——, and ——, 2000: The numerical simulation of non-supercell 1–5.
tornadogenesis. Part III: Parameter tests investigating the role ——, and ——, 1998: Variations in supercell morphology. Part I:
of CAPE, vortex sheet strength and boundary layer vertical shear. Observations of the role of upper-level storm-relative flow. Mon.
J. Atmos. Sci., 57, 2246–2261. Wea. Rev., 126, 2406–2421.
Lemon, L. R., 1974: Interaction of two convective scales within a ——, R. E. Peterson, J. E. Minor, and B. D. Campbell, 1982: Evo-
severe thunderstorm: A case study. NOAA Tech. Memo. ERL- lutionary characteristics and photogrammetric determination of
NSSL, 71, 43 pp. [NTIS COM-74-11642/AS.] windspeeds within the Tulia outbreak tornadoes 28 May 1980.
——, 1976a: The flanking line, a severe thunderstorm intensification Preprints, 12th Conf. on Severe Local Storms, San Antonio, TX,
source. J. Atmos. Sci., 33, 686–694. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 301–304.
——, 1976b: Wake vortex structure and aerodynamic origin in severe ——, J. M. Straka, R. P. Davies-Jones, C. A. Doswell, F. H. Carr,
thunderstorms. J. Atmos. Sci., 33, 678–685. M. D. Eilts, and D. R. MacGorman, 1994: Verification of the
——, 1977: Severe thunderstorm evolution: Its use in a new technique Origins of Rotation in Tornadoes Experiment: VORTEX. Bull.
for radar warnings. Preprints, 10th Conf. on Severe Local Storms, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 75, 995–1006.
Omaha, NE, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 77–83. Ray, P. S., 1976: Vorticity and divergence fields within tornadic
——, 1982: New severe thunderstorm radar identification techniques storms from dual-Doppler observations. J. Appl. Meteor., 15,
and warning criteria: A preliminary report. NOAA Tech. Memo. 879–890.
NWS NSSFC-1, 60 pp. [NTIS PB-273049.] ——, R. J. Doviak, G. B. Walker, D. Sirmans, J. Carter, and B.
——, and D. W. Burgess, 1976: Tornadic storm airflow and mor- Bumgarner, 1975: Dual-Doppler observation of a tornadic storm.
phology derived from single Doppler radar measurements. The J. Appl. Meteor., 14, 1521–1530.
Union City, Oklahoma Tornado of 24 May 1973, R. A. Brown, ——, B. C. Johnson, K. W. Johnson, J. S. Bradberry, J. J. Stephens,
Ed. NOAA Tech. Memo. ERL-80, National Severe Storms Lab- K. K. Wagner, R. B. Wilhelmson, and J. B. Klemp, 1981: The
oratory, 85–106. morphology of several tornadic storms on 20 May 1977. J. At-
——, and C. A. Doswell, 1979: Severe thunderstorm evolution and mos. Sci., 38, 1643–1663.
mesocyclone structure as related to tornadogenesis. Mon. Wea. ——, D. P. Jorgensen, and S.-L. Wang, 1985: Airborne Doppler radar
Rev., 107, 1184–1197. observations of a convective storm. J. Climate Appl. Meteor.,
——, D. W. Burgess, and R. A. Brown, 1975: Tornado production 24, 687–698.
and storm sustenance. Preprints, Ninth Conf. on Severe Local Roberts, R. D., and J. W. Wilson, 1995: The genesis of three non-
Storms, Norman, OK, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 100–104. supercell tornadoes observed with dual-Doppler radar. Mon.
——, ——, and ——, 1978: Tornadic thunderstorm airflow and mor- Wea. Rev., 123, 3408–3436.
Rotunno, R., 1981: On the evolution of thunderstorm rotation. Mon. ——, and H. Cai, 2000: Analysis of a nontornadic storm during
Wea. Rev., 109, 577–586. VORTEX 95. Mon. Wea. Rev., 128, 565–592.
——, 1986: Tornadoes and tornadogenesis. Mesoscale Meteorology ——, C. Liu, and H. Cai, 1998: The Garden City, Kansas, storm
and Forecasting, P. S. Ray, Ed., 414–436. during VORTEX 95. Part I: Overview of the storm life cycle
——, and J. B. Klemp, 1982: The influence of the shear-induced and mesocyclogenesis. Mon. Wea. Rev., 126, 372–392.
pressure gradient on thunderstorm motion. Mon. Wea. Rev., 110, Walko, R. L., 1993: Tornado spin-up beneath a convective cell: Re-
136–151. quired basic structure of the near-field boundary layer winds.
The Tornado: Its Structure, Dynamics, Prediction, and Hazards,
——, and ——, 1985: On the rotation and propagation of simulated
Geophys. Monogr., No. 79, Amer. Geophys. Union, 89–95.
supercell thunderstorms. J. Atmos. Sci., 42, 271–292. Ward, N. B., 1961: Radar and surface observations of tornadoes of
Sadowski, A., 1958: Radar observations of the El Dorado, Kansas 4 May 1961. Proc. Ninth Weather Radar Conf., Boston, MA,
tornado, June 10, 1958. Mon. Wea. Rev., 86, 405–408. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 175–180.
——, 1969: Size of tornado warning area when issued on basis of ——, 1964: The Newton, Kansas, tornado cyclone of May 24, 1962.
radar hook echo. ESSA Tech. Memo. WBTM Fcst. 10, 26 pp. Proc. 11th Weather Radar Conf., Boston, MA, Amer. Meteor.
[NTIS PB 184613.] Soc., 410–415.
Schlesinger, R. E., 1975: A three-dimensional numerical model of an ——, 1972: The exploration of certain features of tornado dynamics
isolated deep convective cloud: Preliminary results. J. Atmos. using a laboratory model. J. Atmos. Sci., 29, 1194–1204.
Sci., 32, 934–964. Weisman, M. L., and J. B. Klemp, 1982: The dependence of nu-
Shapiro, A., and P. M. Markowski, 1999: Dynamics of elevated vor- merically simulated convective storms on vertical wind shear
tices. J. Atmos. Sci., 56, 1101–1122. and buoyancy. Mon. Wea. Rev., 110, 504–520.
Snow, J. T., C. R. Church, and B. J. Barnhart, 1980: An investigation ——, and J. B. Klemp, 1984: The structure and classification of
of the surface pressure fields beneath simulated tornado cy- numerically simulated convective storms in directionally varying
clones. J. Atmos. Sci., 37, 1013–1026. wind shears. Mon. Wea. Rev., 112, 2479–2498.
Wicker, L. J., and R. B. Wilhelmson, 1995: Simulation and analysis
Stanford, J. L., 1977: Tornado: Accounts of Tornadoes in Iowa. Iowa
of tornado development and decay within a three-dimensional
State University Press, 120 pp. supercell thunderstorm. J. Atmos. Sci., 52, 2675–2703.
Stout, G. E., and F. A. Huff, 1953: Radar records Illinois tornado- Wilhelmson, R. B., and J. B. Klemp, 1978: A numerical study of
genesis. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 34, 281–284. storm splitting that leads to long-lived storms. J. Atmos. Sci.,
Straka, J. M., E. N. Rasmussen, and S. E. Fredrickson, 1996: A mobile 35, 1974–1986.
mesonet for fine-scale meteorological observations. J. Atmos. Williams, D. T., 1963: The thunderstorm wake of May 4, 1961. Na-
Oceanic Technol., 13, 921–936. tional Severe Storms Project Rep. 18, 23 pp. [NTIS No. PB
Tepper, M., and W. E. Eggert, 1956: Tornado proximity traces. Bull. 168223.]
Amer. Meteor. Soc., 37, 152–159. Wilson, J. W., 1986: Tornadogenesis by nonprecipitation induced
Trapp, R. J., 1999: Observations of nontornadic low-level mesocy- wind shear lines. Mon. Wea. Rev., 114, 270–284.
clones and attendant tornadogenesis failure during VORTEX. Wurman, J., and S. Gill, 2000: Finescale radar observations of the
Mon. Wea. Rev., 127, 1693–1705. Dimmitt, Texas (2 June 1995), tornado. Mon. Wea. Rev., 128,
——, and B. H. Fiedler, 1995: Tornado-like vortexgenesis in a sim- 2135–2164.
plified numerical model. J. Atmos. Sci., 52, 3757–3778. ——, J. M. Straka, and E. N. Rasmussen, 1996: Fine-scale Doppler
radar observations of tornadic storms. Science, 272, 1774–1777.
van Tassel, E. L., 1955: The North Platte Valley tornado outbreak of
——, ——, E. N. Rasmussen, M. Randall, and A. Zahrai, 1997:
June 27, 1955. Mon. Wea. Rev., 83, 255–264. Design and deployment of a portable, pencil-beam, pulsed, 3-
Wakimoto, R. M., and J. W. Wilson, 1989: Non-supercell tornadoes. cm Doppler radar. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 14, 1502–1512.
Mon. Wea. Rev., 117, 1113–1140. Ziegler, C. L., E. N. Rasmussen, T. R. Shepherd, A. I. Watson, and
——, and C. Liu, 1998: The Garden City, Kansas, storm during J. M. Straka, 2001: The evolution of low-level rotation in the
VORTEX 95. Part II: The wall cloud and tornado. Mon. Wea. 29 May 1994 Newcastle–Graham, Texas, storm complex during
Rev., 126, 393–408. VORTEX. Mon. Wea. Rev., 129, 1339–1368.

Hook Echoes and Rear-Flank Downdrafts: A Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hook Echoes and Rear-Flank Downdrafts: A Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hook Echoes and Rear-Flank Downdrafts: A Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

852 MONTHLY WEATHER REVIEW VOLUME 130

Hook Echoes and Rear-Flank Downdrafts: A Review

(Manuscript received 19 March 2001, in final form 24 September 2001)

1. Introduction 9 April 1953, although van Tassell (1955) is given credit

Corresponding author address: Dr. Paul Markowski, 503 Walker 1

Fujita (1981) proclaimed ‘‘Mesoscale modelers should

TABLE 1. Summary of findings pertaining to hook echoes and RFDs.

FIG. 2. Fujita introduced five variations on the shapes of hook

FIG. 3. Development of the hook echo associated with the Cham-

and equivalent potential temperature (u e ) measurements

peratures were retrieved within the RFD—radar reflec-

with an inspection of the inviscid vertical momentum

where dw/dt is the vertical acceleration following a par-

where u9 and q9y are potential temperature and water

FIG. 13. Conceptual model of a tornadic supercell at the surface

The finding of Klemp and Rotunno that the occlusion

(e.g., Burgess et al. 1977; Barnes 1978a; Lemon and

they did not specify whether the downdraft also could

You might also like