Responses to Reviewer 1:
MWR-D-15-0304
Reviewer 1
Doppler-radar observations of anticylonic tornadoes in cyclonically rotation, right-moving
supercells
Recommendation: Minor revisions
General comments: The authors have certainly improved the flow and readability of the article.
Some work remains to further help the reader along in the results and discussion sections, though
not a significant amount, thus I am recommending minor revisions.
Major comments:
1. I disagree with the authors’ choice to present more detailed background and hypotheses
concerning the formation mechanisms of cyclonic/anticyclonic couplets in the summary
and discussion section, rather than in the introduction, namely because it would provide
appropriate context for what sorts of signals the reader should look for when examining the
results. As it currently stands, the results section is largely reporting, which I can
understand given the need to document some basics about anticyclonic tornadoes; even so,
given how speculative some portions are, I think it would be helpful to the reader to connect
the presented radar data with a potential physical process in each case.
We moved the discussion of the hypotheses concerning vorticity production to the introduction as
requested by the reviewer. We realize that Reviewer 2 also suggested that some of our discussion
could be moved back into the introduction. While this decision we believe is somewhat a matter of
preference of style, we respect that two reviewers have the same alternative opinion, so we have
acceded and now agree that the the presentation has in fact been improved by the recommended
reorganization.
2. I appreciate that the authors have provided more context for the environmental data, but I
still think this section does not contribute much to the paper (i.e., the findings could be
summarized in a sentence or two, stating that more cases and more research is needed). If
the authors insist that this section remain, then I would ask that they at least provide
comparative ranges for cyclonic supercells for the discussed parameters, so it is clear how
much overlap exists.
We have decided to retain this section, for reasons already expressed, but have added, as
requested by the reviewer, a comparison between what we found with what Thompson et al.
(2003) found in their climatology.
Additionally, further context in terms of what the authors think this information will
provide in terms of their central scientific question (“What is the source of vorticity for
anticyclonic tornadoes in cyclonically rotating supercells and how does anticyclonic
tornadogenesis proceed?” lines 85—86) should be included.
Minor Comments:
3. Lines 80—81: Since these satellite tornadoes are mentioned elsewhere, it would be helpful
for the reader if the authors would briefly identify how they different from the anticyclonic
tornadoes that are the focus of this study.
Done. These satellite tornadoes are transient and rotate about a central, cyclonic tornado.
4. Lines 215—217: It is clear from the results presented later that this claim about the tornado
being located near the leading edge of the RFGF is based on radar data, but it should be
stated as such here.
Done.
5. Line 291: The right parenthesis is missing at the end of this sentence.
Done. Thanks for finding this typo.
6. Line 302: “Two anticyclonic-cyclonic couplets of low-level vorticity” is a strange phrasing.
Are the authors missing a word? Are they referring to the presence of strong low-level
vorticity? Either way, this should be rephrased so it is clearer.
Done. Changed to “Two anticyclonic – cyclonic couplets of vorticity at low levels”
7. Lines 442—443: Include the date of the Iowa case.
Done.
8. Line 470: The year of the Brown and Knupp citation should be included.
Done.
9. Lines 541—545: Is the most-unstable parcel also the surface parcel, since the authors
mention using the surface temperature and dew point? If so, I would clarify and mention
that the most-unstable parcel is also the surface-based parcel. If not, then state where the
most-unstable parcel came from.
Done. It is indeed also the surface parcel.
10. Figure 7: Would it be possible for the authors to “zoom-in” a bit on the image so as to see
the couplets more easily? Additionally, for consistency it would be helpful to also include
labels for the ∆V’s of the cyclonic signatures.
Done.
11. Figure 8: The TVS motion labels are inconsistent with the color legend at the top (as well as
the figure caption).
Done. Thanks for pointing this out, which we repeatedly missed.