English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Weaver et al. (2002, hereinafter W02) presented a case study in which Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-11 (GOES-11) rapid-scan imagery and sounder data were examined for their effectiveness in providing short-range forecasts of the development and evolution of a tornadic supercell over South Dakota and Nebraska on 24 July 2000. We agree with W02 that the GOES-11 imagery data were useful in highlighting a decaying mesoscale convective system (MCS) and its resultant low-level thunderstorm outflow (LTO). Furthermore, the GOES-11 sounder data provided insight into the spatial extent of an instability axis and the corresponding convective inhibition and also served as a cross-reference check to numerical model instability forecasts. We appreciate the efforts of W02 to bring attention to these valuable forecasting data. Even though the focus of W02’s paper is on satellite observations, they did discuss aspects of supercell evolution, and we would like to comment on and clarify some of these statements. In particular, the importance of the relationship between vertical wind shear and supercell formation and motion was not addressed, and, furthermore, none of the readily available supercell motion forecast techniques were considered. Rather, satellite data were emphasized in their discussion of supercell processes in lieu of other relevant data sources. Conclusions were drawn about both the rightand leftmoving supercells based mostly on satellite data, when radar data and severe-storm reports showed a much different picture of their evolutions. Therefore, we comment here on W02’s paper to describe (i) how the 24 July 2000 supercell evolution (formation and motion) can be readily explained through a vertical wind shear perspective and existing techniques to forecast supercell

Comments on “Satellite Observations of a Severe Supercell Thunderstorm on 24 July 2000 Made during theGOES-11Science Test”