Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract This study explores reasons for differences in discriminations of nontornadic and tornadic supercell environments between a recent study of field project (FP) radiosonde observations and RUC/RAP-based studies. Two differences are explored: 1) differences in the relative skill between near-ground and deeper-layer storm-relative helicity (SRH) and 2) differences in skill for storm-relative winds (SRWs) seen in observed soundings that are not seen in RUC/RAP-based analyses. Results show that RUC/RAP-derived near-ground SRH continues to show larger skill than deeper-layer SRH for springtime, afternoon/evening cases over the plains (the “FP” domain), although 0–1-km SRH becomes more skillful than 0–500-m SRH. The skill of kinematic variables decreases over the FP domain, as the skill of mixed-layer convective available potential energy (MLCAPE) and the percent of the low-level horizontal vorticity that is streamwise increase for significant tornadoes. Large skill is found for mean ground-relative winds (GRWs) over all layers tested, but the skill of SRWs using Bunkers motion is relatively small. The field project dataset is shown to be biased toward particularly high-end nontornadic supercells, with more tornado-favorable mixed-layer lifted condensation levels (MLLCLs), lapse rates, and low-level shear/SRH compared to the nontornadic cases in the RUC/RAP dataset over the FP domain. The skill of deeper-layer SRH, GRWs, SRWs, and MLCAPE is unusually large in the field project sample, which highlights variables that may increase the likelihood of tornadoes when other variables that relate to the supercell tornado production (low-level shear/SRH and MLLCLs) are already in a tornado-favorable range. The skill of deeper-layer kinematic variables is particularly evident when observed storm motions are used instead of Bunkers motion. Significance Statement Researchers continue to explore reasons why some storms produce tornadoes and others do not. Some recent studies show conflicting results, including the best layers to analyze the environmental wind shear and the ability of wind speeds relative to the storm to distinguish nontornadic from tornadic storms. One study is rooted in observations taken for field projects that targeted tornadic storms and the others in model analyses. Restricting model analyses to a spatiotemporal region that emulates field projects does not explain the disagreement but reveals how the skill of some other variables changes. The tendency for field projects to target particularly strong storms and the use of actual storm motions versus estimates of storm motions both contribute to the conflicting results.
Coniglio et al. (Fri,) studied this question.