4.2 Article

The Deadliest Tornado (EF4) in the Past 40 Years in China

Journal

WEATHER AND FORECASTING
Volume 33, Issue 3, Pages 693-713

Publisher

AMER METEOROLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1175/WAF-D-17-0085.1

Keywords

Supercells; Tornadoes; Radars; Radar observations; Radiosonde observations; Surface observations; Operational forecasting

Funding

  1. Funing Meteorological Bureau
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41425018, 41375048, 41461164006]
  3. Ministry of Science and Technology of China [2013CB430104]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

An EF4 supercellular tornado hit Funing County, Yancheng, Jiangsu Province, China, from about 1410 to 1500 local standard time 23 June 2016, causing 98 fatalities and 846 injuries. It was the deadliest tornado in the past 40 years in China. This paper documents the storm environment, evolution of the radar signatures, real-time operational tornado warning services, and the damage distribution during this event. The tornado was spawned from a supercell that developed ahead of an upper-level trough extending southwestward from a low pressure vortex in northeast China and dissipated following the occlusion of the tornado vortex. The radar-based rotational velocity of the mesocyclone peaked at 42.2 m s(-1). The strength of the tornado vortex signature (gate-to-gate azimuthal radial velocity difference) peaked at 84.5 m s(-1). Surface observations at 1-min intervals from a mesoscale network of in situ surface weather stations revealed the surface wind pattern associated with the mesocyclone, such as convergent and rotational flows. The tornado formed after the peak updraft strength of the supercell, producing a damage swath that was 34.5 km long and with a maximum width of 4.1 km. The review of the tornado warning process for this event reveals that there is much work to be done to develop operational tornado forecast and warning services for China.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available