Premium
Severe Deep Moist Convective Storms: Forecasting and Mitigation
Author(s) -
Arnold David L.
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
geography compass
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.587
H-Index - 65
ISSN - 1749-8198
DOI - 10.1111/j.1749-8198.2007.00069.x
Subject(s) - tornado , convective storm detection , storm , thunderstorm , meteorology , severe weather , climatology , preparedness , environmental science , geography , convection , geology , political science , law
Small‐scale (2–20 km) circulations, termed ‘severe deep moist convective storms’, account for a disproportionate share of the world's insured weather‐related losses. Spatial frequency maximums of severe convective events occur in South Africa, India, Mexico, the Caucasus, and Great Plains/Prairies region of North America, where the maximum tornado frequency occurs east of the Rocky Mountains. Interest in forecasting severe deep moist convective systems, especially those that produce tornadoes, dates to 1884 when tornado alerts were first provided in the central United States. Modern thunderstorm and tornado forecasting relies on technology and theory, but in the post‐World War II era interest in forecasting has also been driven by public pressure. The forecasting process begins with a diagnostic analysis, in which the forecaster considers the potential of the atmospheric environment to produce severe convective storms (which requires knowledge of the evolving kinematic and thermodynamic fields, and the character of the land surface over which the storms will pass), and the likely character of the storms that may develop. Improvements in forecasting will likely depend on technological advancements, such as the development of phased‐array radar systems and finer resolution numerical weather prediction models. Once initiated, the evolution of deep convective storms is monitored by satellite and radar. Mitigation of the hazards posed by severe deep moist convective storms is a three‐step process, involving preparedness, response, and recovery. Preparedness implies that risks have been identified and organizations and individuals are familiar with a response plan. Response necessitates that potential events are identified before they occur and the developing threat is communicated to the public. Recovery is a function of the awareness of local, regional, and even national governments to the character and magnitude of potential events in specific locations, and whether or not long‐term operational plans are in place at the time of disasters.