Abstract
This article reports further theoretical development on the entropic balance theory applied to tornadogenesis (SasakiĀ 2009, 2010), and the first preliminary application of the theory to radar observations. The entropic balance is a newly found balance, different from the other balance conditions, such as hydrostatic, (quasi-)geostrophic, cyclostrophic, Boussinesq, and anelastic. The entropic balance condition is described as the sole diagnostic Euler-Lagrange equation derived from the Lagrangian of the variational formalism. The entropic balance is most general and involves no additional assumptions other than for the flow with high Reynolds and Rossby numbers estimated as appropriate for supercell storms and tornadoes. The entropic balance theory and the deduced wrap-around mechanism explain well the observations and simulations of tornado, RFD, hook-echo, upward tilting of horizontal vorticity, the vertical in-phase superimposition between upper and lower mesocyclones, and sudden transition from supercell, mesocyclones totornado. In the application, new variables DZ (temporal difference of radar reflectivity) and DZDR (temporal difference of differential reflectivity) are introduced to compute the entropy anomaly based on the entropic balance theory. The conditions necessary for the transition from supercell to tornado are clarified from the theory and verified from the DZ and DZDR analyses for a non-tornadic supercell case compared with VORTEX2 tornadic case.Since the entropic balance theory is found to fit well with all analyzed results of tornado and visual observations, it is suggested to use the entropic balance equation as a constraint for variational data assimilation in future development as a challenge.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
American Meteorological Society (2000) Glossary of meterorology, 2nd edn. American Meteorological Society, Boston, 855 pp
Atkins P, Paula J (2002) Atkinsā physical chemistry, 7th edn. Oxford University Press Inc., NewĀ York, 1150 pp
Bateman H (1932) Partial differential equations of mathematical physics. Cambridge Univrsity Press, Cambridge (reprint by Dover Publ., 1944), 522 pp
Bohren CF, Albrecht BA (1998) Atmospheric thermodynamics. Oxford University Press, NewĀ York, 402 pp
Burgess DW (1997) Tornado warning guidance. OSB/OTB, Norman, Oklahoma, 28 pp
Clebsch A (1859) Uber rein algemaine transformation der Hydrodynamischen Gleichungen. Crelle J fur Math 54:293ā312
Davies-Jones R (1984) Streamwise vorticity: the origin of updraft rotation in supercell storm. J Atmos Sci 41:2991ā3006
Davies-Jones R, Trapp J, Bluestein HB (2001) Tornadoes and tornadic storms. In: Doswell CA, III (eds) Severe convective storms, American meteorological society, Bostan, pp 167ā222.
Doviak RJ, Zrnic DS (1984) Doppler radar and weather observations. Academic, New York, 458Ā pp
Dutton JA (1976) The ceaseless wind, an introduction to the theory of atmospheric motion. McGrow-Hill, USA, 579 pp
Isom B, Palmer R, Kelley R, Meier J, Bodine D, Yeary M, Cheong B-L, Zhang Y, Yu T-Y, Biggerstaff M (2011) The atmospheric imaging radar (AIR) for high-resolution observations of severe weather. Radar conference (RADAR), 2011 IEEE pp 627ā632, 23ā27 May 2011
Klemp JB, Wilhelmson RB (1978) Simulations of right- and left-moving storms produced thunderstorm splitting. J Atmos Sci 35:1097ā1110
Klemp JB, Wilhelmson RB, Ray PS (1981) Observed and numerically simulated structure of a mature supercell thunderstorm. J Atmos Sci 20:1558ā1580
Kumjian MR, Ryzhkov AV (2010) The impact of evaporation on polatimetric characteristics of rain: theoretical model and practical implication. J Appl Meteor Climatol 49:1247ā1267
Kumjian MR, Ryzhkov AV, Melnikov VM, Schuur TJ (2010) Rapid-scan super-resolution observations of a cyclic supercell with a dual- polarization WSR-88D. Mon Wea Rev 138 :3762ā3785
Lamb H (1932) Hydrodynamics, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press/Dover Publication, NewĀ York, p 738
Lemon LR, Doswell III CA (1979) Severe thunderstorm evolution and meso-cyclone structure as related to tornadogenesis. Mon Wea Rev 107:1184ā1197
Leslie LM (1971) The development of concentrated vortices: a numerical study. J Fluid Mech 49:1ā21
Lewis JM, Lakshmivarahan S (2008) Sasakiās pivotal contribution: calculus of variations applied to weather map analysis. Mon Wea Rev 136:3553ā3567
Lewis JM, Lakshmivarahan S, Dhall SK (2006) Dynamic data assimilation: a least squares approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 654 pp
Li X, Srivastava RC (2001) An analytical solution for raindrop evaporation and its application to radar rainfall measurement. J Appl Meteor 40:1607ā1616
Lilly DK (1982) The development and maintenance of rotation in convective storms. In: BengtssonĀ L, Lighthill J (eds) Intense atmospheric vortices, Springer, New York, pp 149ā160
Lilly DK (1986) The structure, energetics and propergation of rotating convective storms. Part II: helicity and storm stabilization. J Amer Meteor Soc 43:126ā140
Markowski P, Richardson Y, Marquis J, Wurman J, Kosiba K, Robinson P, Dowell D, Rasmussen E, Davies-Jones R (2012a) The pretornadic phase of the Goshen County, Wyoming, Supercell of 5 June 2009 intercepted by VORTEX2. Part I: evolution of kinematic and surface thermodynamic fields. Mon Weather Rev 140:2887ā2915
Markowski P, Richardson Y, Marquis J, Davies-Jones R, Wurman J, Kosiba K, Robinson P, Rasmussen E, Dowell D (2012b) The pretornadic phase of the Goshen County, Wyoming, Supercell of 5 June 2009 intercepted by VORTEX2. Part II: intensification of low-level rotation. Mon Weather Rev 140:2916ā2938
Noda A (2002) Numerical simulation of supercell tornadogenesis and its structure. (Document of Science Dissertation in Japanese). Tokyo University, Tokyo, 93 pp
Noda A, Niino H (2005) Genesis and structure of a major tornado in numerically-simulated supercell storm: Importance of vertical velocity in a gust front. SOLA Meteor Soc Jpn 1: 5ā8
Noda A, Niino H (2010) A numerical investigation of a supercell tornado: genesis and vorticity budget. J Meteo Soc Jpn 88:135ā159
Pruppacher HR, Klett JD (1997) Microphysics of clouds and precipitation. Academic, The Netherlands, 954 pp
Sasaki Y (1955) A fundamental study of numerical prediction based on the variational principle. J Meteo Soc Jpn 33:262ā275
Sasaki Y (1958) An objective analysis based on the variational method. J Meteo Soc Jpn 36:77ā88
Sasaki Y (1970) Some basic formalisms in numerical variational analysis. Mon Wea Rev 98:875ā883
Sasaki YK (1999) Tornado and hurricane: needs of accurate prediction and effective dissemination of information (in Japanese). J Visualization Soc Jpn 19(74):187ā192 (Sasaki Y has been changed to Sasaki YK since 1974)
Sasaki YK (2009) Real challenge of data assimilation for tornadogenesis. In: Park SK, LiangĀ Xu (eds) Data assimilation for atmospheric, oceanic and hydrologic applications, Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 97ā126
Sasaki YK (2010) Entropic balance theory and tornadogenesis. NOVA Science Publishers, New York, 39 pp
Smith RM, Leslie LM (1978) Tornadogenesis. Q J R Met Soc 104:189ā199
Stensrud D (2007) Parameterization schemes: key to understanding numerical weather prediction models. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 459 pp
Trapp RJ, Davies-Jones R (1997) Tornadogenesis with and without a dynamical pipe effect. J Atmos Sci 54:113ā133
Watanabe H (2003) From entropy to chemical potential (in Japanese). Shokabo, Tokyo, 145 pp
Weisman ML, Klemp JB (1982) The dependence of numerically simulated convective storm on vertical wind shear and buoyancy. Mon Wea Rev 110:504ā520
Wilhelmson RB, Wicker LJ (2001) Numerical modeling of severe local storms. In: Doswell III CA (ed) Severe convective storms, American Meteorological Society, Boston, pp 123ā166
Xue M, Droegemeier KK, Wong W, Shapiro A, Brewster K (1995) ARPS version 4.0 userās guide. The Center for Analysis and Prediction of Storms, University of Oklahoma, p 380
Yoshida Z (2009) Clebsch parameterization-basic properties and remarks on its applications. personal communication, p 9
Yoshizawa A (2001) Fluid dynamics (in Japanese). Tokyo University Press, Tokyo, p 344
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their appreciation for Dr. Paul Markowski and his colleagues of VORTEX2 for allowing us to use their schematic diagram of summarizing their findings in this article (Fig.ā18.13). The first author would like to express his appreciation to the encouragement and support given to this research by The Office of Vice President for Research, and National Weather Center (NWC), The University of Oklahoma, USA, and Weathernews, Inc., Japan. Also, the first author would like to express his appreciation to faculty and scientists especially of NWC, The University of Tokyo, Kyoto University, Japan, and Ewha Womenās University, South Korea for their useful discussion, and to Vivek Mahale of the university of Oklahoma for his assistance of computer graphics.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
Appendix 1 Some Key Questions on Tornadogenesis
Accurate forecasting of tornadogenesis is one of the unsolved problems, in spite of a great number of observations and research made over many decades. In recent years, significant progress has been made to understand the mechanism of tornadogenesis. However, there still remain key questions and difficult problems in fully understanding tornadogenesis and tornado.
Some of the key questions that need to be answered by any proposed theory of tornadogenesis are:
-
1.
How does the mesocyclone develop? Note that mesocyclone and wall cloud are known as observed with tornadogenesis.
-
2.
Why are hydrometeors able to be overshot against the upper air westerlies of much stronger wind speed than that of low level south-easterly inflow to tornadic storm?
-
3.
Why are the locations of tornado and major precipitation regions spatially separate, not coincident?
-
4.
Why is dry air aloft important for tornadogenesis?
-
5.
Why do multiple vortices sometime develop before and during tornadogenesis?
-
6.
How does the tornado develop in a hook echo, at the south-west corner, not at the center, of a supercell, and why is it associated with wall cloud?
-
7.
Why does the tornado touch down in the perpendicular direction to the ground? Note that tornado should touch down to the ground in a parallel direction if the tornado is generated by the upward tilting theory of horizontal vortex.
-
8.
Why is the tornado a phenomenon of low altitudes (ā<ā2ā3ākm) of the atmosphere?
-
9.
What is the role of upward tilting of low level horizontal vorticity for tornadogenesis ?
-
10.
What are necessary and sufficient conditions to separate tornadogenesis from non-tornadogenesis, in spite of several favorable conditions (such as favorable environmental soundings, supercell, mesocyclones, and RFD)?
These questions seemed to be well answered by the entropic balance theory (SasakiĀ 2009, 2010).
Appendix 2 Answer to the Questions 1, 2, 3 and 4
Firstly we consider a simple case where the linear slope between the entropic source and sink as shown in Fig.ā18.5 and the flow velocity (rotational component) is horizontal and southerly. For this case, the direction of the vorticity \(\boldsymbol{\omega }\) is vertical as given by (18.5) that is expressed by the entropic right-hand rule (Fig.ā18.1), and is shown in Fig.ā18.5 where the rotational flow direction of the vorticity \(\boldsymbol{\omega }\) is shown by an arrow with double solid lines. The vorticity \(\boldsymbol{\omega }\) represents mesocyclone existed indeed in the linear entropy slope between the entropic source and sink. It may answer the question 1.
The entropic anomaly in the air above the top of convective supercell is negative due to evaporation of the hydrometeors in the dry westerlies and radiative cooling, while the having the positive entropic source below. Accordingly, the maximum spatial gradient of the entropy anomaly between the points just above the supercell (Sā²ā<ā0) and at the convective center of the supercell (Sā²ā>ā0) is directing straight downwards. With the upper air westerlies wind vector and the entropic spatial gradient vector, the vorticity \(\boldsymbol{\omega }\) is that of the horizontal vortex tube as shown at the top of the supercell in Fig.ā18.5. The upper vortex seems the key to overshoot the hydrometeors generated in the supercell updraft, westwards against the headwind westerly jet. This may answer the question 2. From the above answer to the questions 1, and 2, it is apparent that the question 3 is answered from the above answer to the questions 1 and 2. To answer the both questions 1, 2 and 3, it is noted that the dry air plays the key roles, and it may answer the question 4.
Appendix 3 Answer to the Questions 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10
The āwrap-around mechanismā is explained in a simple way by using the diagnostic E-L equation (18.5) and the entropic right-hand rule (Fig.ā18.1) of (18.6). Figureā18.6 is prepared which has opposite sign of spatial entropy gradient and the flow velocity direction (rotational component) and produces the same vorticity of Fig.ā18.1. It is called as conjugate vortex (or vorticity) in this article. Combination of the original vortex and its conjugate produces multi-vortexes as well as single vortex. It answers the question 5. The answer for the questions 6 and 8 may be easily found from Fig.ā18.4.
The answer for the questions 7 and 8 is discussed in Sect.ā18.7. The question 9 may be answered in Sect.ā18.5. The answer to the historically long-standing question 10 is a tough one, but may be hinted by the entropic balance theory discussed in this article and in an example shown in the following Appendix 4. It is challenging for continuing research to find a full answer for the question 10.
Appendix 4 Entropy Variation and Tornadogenesis
The entropy variation due to cloud-physical phase change is computed at the altitudes of 1ā3ākm where condensation and evaporation to provide thermodynamical effects for development of mesocyclones and tornado, and the atmospheric pressure of approximately 750āmb and temperature of 0āāāāCā(273āāāK) as an example. For simplicity for this preliminary investigation, we assume also that S0ā=ā0 and only consider the diabatic effects of water molecules on S of the surrounding air on a moving coordinates with tornado.
The entropy change Ī c S of the surrounding air due to water vapor condensation measured at 100āāāāC and 1,013Ā mb is estimated as 109.0 \({\mathrm{J}}^{\circ }{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}{\mathrm{mol}}^{-1}\), and that of evaporating of water droplet \(-109\,{\mathrm{J}}^{\circ }{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}\,{\mathrm{mol}}^{-1}\). Since moisture measurement is not considered in this preliminary investigation and insufficient measurement and knowledge on the cloud-physical phase changes of actual cloud, the estimates were made simply based on the measurements of heat in published chemical experiments. Their values are adjusted to the value of 0āāāāC and 750āmb for representing the altitude of 1ā3ākm, using the standard adjustment processes (Atkins and deĀ PaulaĀ 2002; WatanabeĀ 2003).
The adjustment amount due to the temperature change Ī T S (100āāāCāāā\(> {0}^{\,\circ }\mathrm{C})\,=\,-\,16.6\,{\mathrm{J}}^{\circ }{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}{\mathrm{mol}}^{-1}\) and that due to pressure change Ī p S (1,013āmb āā>ā750āmb)ā=ā2.1 \({\mathrm{J}}^{\circ }{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}{\mathrm{mol}}^{-1}\).
After the adjustments, the entropy change of the surrounding air due to condensation of water vapor is; \(\Delta _{\mathrm{c}}\,\mathrm{S} = (109.0 - 16.6 + 2.1)\ {\mathrm{J}}^{\circ }{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}{\mathrm{mol}}^{-1} = 94.5\,{\mathrm{J}}^{\circ }{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}{\mathrm{mol}}^{-1}\), and for that due to evaporation of water droplets is \(\Delta _{\mathrm{e}}\,\mathrm{S} = (-109.0 - 16.6 + 2.1)\ {\mathrm{J}}^{\circ }{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}{\mathrm{mol}}^{-1} = -123.5\,{\mathrm{J}}^{\circ }{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}{\mathrm{mol}}^{-1}\).
Thus we get the entropy difference between the entropic source and sink separated by the distance d; \(\Delta _{\mathrm{d}}\,\mathrm{S} = (94.5 - (-123.5)) = 218.0\,{\mathrm{J}}^{\circ }{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}{\mathrm{mol}}^{-1}\).
Similarly, the absolute entropy S is calculated by adding the entropy changes due to melting of ice, \(22.0\,{\mathrm{J}}^{\circ }{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}{\mathrm{mol}}^{-1}\) and the residual entropy, \(0.8\,{\mathrm{J}}^{\circ }{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}{\mathrm{mol}}^{-1}\) from the Boltzmannās third law of thermodynamics, resulting \(\mathrm{S} = (94.5 + 22.0 + 0.8)\ {\mathrm{J}}^{\circ }{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}{\mathrm{mol}}^{-1} = 117.3\ {\mathrm{J}}^{\circ }{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}{\mathrm{mol}}^{-1}\).
From (18.6), the vorticity Ļ is written as
where Vrot represents the rotational component of flow velocity.
Usin the estimated values of S and Ī S, (18.51) becomes
where d is distance between the entropic source and sink.
For an example of mesocyclone cases, v Ī² is taken 10ām/s and d as 5ākm, then (18.52) leads \(\omega = 0.0037\,{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}\). For tornado by wrap-around mechanism cases, (18.52) with 50ām/s of V Ī² and 100ām of d leads \(\omega = 0.93\,{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}\). The former and latter seem appropriate order of magnitudes for mesocyclones and tornado respectively.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
Ā© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sasaki, Y.K., Kumjian, M.R., Isom, B.M. (2013). Entropic Balance Theory and Radar Observation for Prospective Tornado Data Assimilation. In: Park, S., Xu, L. (eds) Data Assimilation for Atmospheric, Oceanic and Hydrologic Applications (Vol. II). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35088-7_18
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35088-7_18
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-35087-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-35088-7
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)