{"id":16760,"date":"2019-05-13T17:23:08","date_gmt":"2019-05-13T22:23:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/ewp\/?p=16760"},"modified":"2019-05-14T15:04:15","modified_gmt":"2019-05-14T20:04:15","slug":"az-shear-tornado","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/ewp\/2019\/05\/13\/az-shear-tornado\/","title":{"rendered":"Az Shear Tornado"},"content":{"rendered":"

Just before tornado development, AZ shear showed increasing values and non-linearity of positive AzShear values along the line, indicative of a tightening\/developing circulation that was not\u00a0 as subjectively\/visually evident on Velocity\/SRM. Feel this could have helped increase warning lead time due to better warning forecaster situational awareness.\"\"<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Once the tornado developed, the Az Shear product made the life cycle of the tornado more visually evident. In the image below, late in the tornado life cycle, it became\u00a0 clear that tornado circulation was becoming cut off from the storm inflow, behind a line of advancing outflow. If a warning forecaster were considering reissuing a TOR, this could help provide information that the current tornado may be ending soon. In the second image below, spectrum width could be used to try and visualize this process as well, but note that AzShear is much less noisy.\"\"\"\"<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Comparison to MRMS AzShear: Overall found the MRMS AzShear products were useful for\u00a0 situational awareness. However, artifacts in the data, like double maxes (seen below, upper left panel) due to old radar data lingering too long, limits the usefulness for in depth interrogation. It also washes out the details in storm\/tornado evolution noted above. Would much rather have single radar site AzShear for warning decisions. How soon can we get this operational??\"\"<\/p>\n

— warmbias —<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Just before tornado development, AZ shear showed increasing values and non-linearity of positive AzShear values along the line, indicative of a tightening\/developing circulation that was not\u00a0 as subjectively\/visually evident on… <\/p>\n

Read more \u00bb<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":137,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[44],"tags":[54],"class_list":["post-16760","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-azshear","tag-azshear"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/ewp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16760","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/ewp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/ewp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/ewp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/137"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/ewp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=16760"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/ewp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16760\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":16773,"href":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/ewp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16760\/revisions\/16773"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/ewp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16760"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/ewp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16760"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/ewp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16760"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}