Publication Date:
2019-07-13
Description:
We show here that none of the concerns of Yuter et al. [2013, hereinafter Y2013] have any validity. We use this opportunity to clarify issues that may have been misunderstood by some readers (Y2013 among them) of Rosenfeld and Bell [2011, hereinafter RB2011], elaborate on our explanations there and further substantiate the evidence showing the impacts of aerosols on severe convective storms and the ways by which they are manifested in the weekly cycle. [2] Y2013 raise two general questions concerning the evidence for a weekly cycle of tornadoes given by RB2011: (1) whether the statistical analysis is valid, and (2) whether the discussion of physical mechanisms that explain the weekly cycle is correct. [3] In section 2, we show that there is no basis for the criticisms of Y2013 concerning the physical mechanisms proposed in RB2011 behind the observed changes in tornado activity and show further the mechanism by which aerosols can modulate tornadoes. Most of the comments by Y2013 appear to result from a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of RB2011. In section 3, we show that the comments by Y2013 concerning the statistical analysis are either incorrect or irrelevant. Some of the questions they raised were already answered previously by RB2011, and references therein. We also show that the complaint of Y2013, that the spatial averaging used in RB2011 inappropriately blends tornado behavior of different kinds in different regions, is unfounded.
Keywords:
Meteorology and Climatology
Type:
GSFC-E-DAA-TN9641
,
Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (ISSN 2169-897X) (e-ISSN 2169-8996); 118; 13; 7339-7343
Format:
text
