the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Analysis of the Campinas tornado (Brazil) in June 2016: damage track, radar characteristics and lightning observations of the supercell
Abstract. Shortly after midnight on 05 June 2016, in the city of Campinas with > 1.2 million inhabitants, located in the State of São Paulo, intense precipitation, including hail, a large number of electric discharges and very strong wind gusts, causing significant damage, were recorded. No fatalities were documented, probably due to the day and time (Sunday around 00:20 Local Time). The affected areas are middle and even upper-middle class neighborhoods, with solid buildings, confirming the potency of the phenomenon. The destruction pattern indicates an intense perturbation resulting in the twisting of structures and tree branches, as well as large objects having been airborne over a distance of about 50 m, and large trees ripped from the ground, all suggesting that it was a tornado of category EF2-3. Severe damage was also reported from other towns in the region. About three hours before the tornado occurred in Campinas, an even stronger event devastated part of the small town of Jarinu, 40 km southeast of Campinas, possibly an EF3 tornado, which caused one fatality and overturned two semi-trailer trucks. No alerts that a disturbance of this magnitude would impact the region were raised, demonstrating that Campinas, and probably most other Brazilian cities and towns, are not prepared for such an event.
During the beginning of June 2016, the synoptic situation over Brazil was characterized by a strong anticyclone centered over the northern half of South America at the 250 hPa level and bounded by a strong zonal Subtropical Jet (STJ) in the south, resulting in moist air being advected from the Amazon and Pacific region, creating favorable conditions for strong convection in the State of São Paulo, even during the night.
Images from a Doppler S-band radar, located in Bauru, recorded a supercell storm lasting 8.5 hours, which traversed the eastern half of the State of São Paulo during the night of 04/05 June 2016 and spawned a tornado in the city of Campinas during the early hours of the morning (Local Time). Despite the distance of > 200 km, these radar observations confirmed typical tornado signatures, such as a rotational damage pattern, a hook echo and a mesocyclone with a rotational velocity of 12.5 m s−1. The supercell was accompanied by intense lightning activity throughout its life cycle with a “lightning jump” from 0 to 55 ground strokes per minute within 12 min just prior to the tornado touch-down, culminating in a frequency of 238 strokes per minute of Total Lightning. Although some of the Severe Storm Parameters calculated by the TITAN (Thunderstorm Identification, Tracking, Analysis and Nowcasting) Software were slightly lower than found in previous tornado cases in the State of São Paulo, this is most likely due to the fact that this was the first occurrence of a tornado observed by radar during the dry austral winter season in this region of Brazil, as well as a nocturnal event.
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Withdrawal notice
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Preprint
(1962 KB)
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on wcd-2021-35', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Jul 2021
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://wcd.copernicus.org/preprints/wcd-2021-35/wcd-2021-35-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Luci Hidalgo Nunes, 28 Aug 2021
Dear RC1,
Thank you so much for your careful reading of our manuscript, and for the points raised. Your suggestions certainly contribute to a more complete and robust manuscript. We appreciate that.
However, the opinion of the second referee was essentially negative, which made the editor not believe in our ability to absorb the suggestions and offer a version that meets the standards of WCD.
With that, we decided to withdraw the submission. However, we did not give up, and this experience was relevant for us: an opportunity to rethink the manuscript and offer a better final product.
Sincerely,
Prof. Lucí hidalgo Nunes
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2021-35-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Luci Hidalgo Nunes, 28 Aug 2021
-
RC2: 'Comment on wcd-2021-35', James LaDue, 03 Aug 2021
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://wcd.copernicus.org/preprints/wcd-2021-35/wcd-2021-35-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Luci Hidalgo Nunes, 28 Aug 2021
Dear RC2,
Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript, and for the points raised. Your suggestions certainly contribute to a more complete and robust manuscript.
We believe in our ability to absorb the suggestions and/or justify some of the points raised, although some may be difficult to solve due to lack of data that allows further analysis. But it became clear for us that some more information must be provided and better explained to clarify the text: we agree and appreciate that.
However, based on your arguments, the editor expressed his hesitation in inviting us to submit a revised version of our paper. With that, we decided to withdraw the submission.
Thanks again for your time.
Prof. Lucí Hidalgo Nunes
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2021-35-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Luci Hidalgo Nunes, 28 Aug 2021
-
EC1: 'Comment on wcd-2021-35', Johannes Dahl, 05 Aug 2021
The study presents a few synoptic obervations as well as radar, lightning, and damage analyses pertaining to a nocturnal tornado in Brazil. While one of the reviewers supports publication after that reviewer's major comments have been addressed, the other reviewer highlights a large number of spots that warrant further analysis (e.g., the thermodynamic/kinematic environment of the storm is not addressed) or where statements are confusing/misleading; that reviewer also noted that no clear goal of the study has been stated. I agree with these observations, and I am not convinced that the scientific content of the present manuscript meets the standards of publication in a peer-reviewed journal focused on the dynamics of weather (and climate) phenomena. While readers generally benefit from case studies, the analysis ought to go beyond the mere presentation of observations (see here for some thoughts about how to write effective case studies: https://www.ejssm.org/ojs/index.php/ejssm/article/view/66/72). I am therefore hesitant to invite you to submit a revised version of your paper. Clearly, a major rewrite and further analyses would be required. But before reaching a final decision, I am awaiting your final author comments, where you are invited to address the reviewers’ comments, without already preparing a revised version.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2021-35-EC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on EC1', Luci Hidalgo Nunes, 28 Aug 2021
Prof. Johannes Dahl
Editor of Weather and Climate Dynamics
Dear professor,
My fellow co-authors and I received with interest the two referee comments (RC1 and RC2) and we think that both brought important contributions. We are grateful for the careful reading done by both, agree with most of the points raised and consider that many of them could be easily incorporated into the manuscript, while some others are recognized by us as important, but could not be fully met due to lack of information that would allow a more comprehensive analysis, which also frustrates our own expectations. As for the last point, not much could be done, given that some requested information simply does not exist, but the lack of some information could be explained.
However, the arguments raised by you, as the editor, seem to indicate that there would be no interest and/or confidence in our ability to present a revised version that meets the journal's expectations.
Having said that, we are immensely grateful for the opportunity and the relevant suggestions offered, but we decided to withdraw the submission.
Sincerely,
Prof. Lucí Hidalgo Nunes
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2021-35-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on EC1', Luci Hidalgo Nunes, 28 Aug 2021
-
EC2: 'Comment on wcd-2021-35', Johannes Dahl, 30 Aug 2021
Dear Dr. Nunes,
Your withdrawal has been recorded -- thank you for the opportunity to consider your manuscript.
Best wishes,
Johannes Dahl
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2021-35-EC2
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on wcd-2021-35', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Jul 2021
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://wcd.copernicus.org/preprints/wcd-2021-35/wcd-2021-35-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Luci Hidalgo Nunes, 28 Aug 2021
Dear RC1,
Thank you so much for your careful reading of our manuscript, and for the points raised. Your suggestions certainly contribute to a more complete and robust manuscript. We appreciate that.
However, the opinion of the second referee was essentially negative, which made the editor not believe in our ability to absorb the suggestions and offer a version that meets the standards of WCD.
With that, we decided to withdraw the submission. However, we did not give up, and this experience was relevant for us: an opportunity to rethink the manuscript and offer a better final product.
Sincerely,
Prof. Lucí hidalgo Nunes
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2021-35-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Luci Hidalgo Nunes, 28 Aug 2021
-
RC2: 'Comment on wcd-2021-35', James LaDue, 03 Aug 2021
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://wcd.copernicus.org/preprints/wcd-2021-35/wcd-2021-35-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Luci Hidalgo Nunes, 28 Aug 2021
Dear RC2,
Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript, and for the points raised. Your suggestions certainly contribute to a more complete and robust manuscript.
We believe in our ability to absorb the suggestions and/or justify some of the points raised, although some may be difficult to solve due to lack of data that allows further analysis. But it became clear for us that some more information must be provided and better explained to clarify the text: we agree and appreciate that.
However, based on your arguments, the editor expressed his hesitation in inviting us to submit a revised version of our paper. With that, we decided to withdraw the submission.
Thanks again for your time.
Prof. Lucí Hidalgo Nunes
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2021-35-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Luci Hidalgo Nunes, 28 Aug 2021
-
EC1: 'Comment on wcd-2021-35', Johannes Dahl, 05 Aug 2021
The study presents a few synoptic obervations as well as radar, lightning, and damage analyses pertaining to a nocturnal tornado in Brazil. While one of the reviewers supports publication after that reviewer's major comments have been addressed, the other reviewer highlights a large number of spots that warrant further analysis (e.g., the thermodynamic/kinematic environment of the storm is not addressed) or where statements are confusing/misleading; that reviewer also noted that no clear goal of the study has been stated. I agree with these observations, and I am not convinced that the scientific content of the present manuscript meets the standards of publication in a peer-reviewed journal focused on the dynamics of weather (and climate) phenomena. While readers generally benefit from case studies, the analysis ought to go beyond the mere presentation of observations (see here for some thoughts about how to write effective case studies: https://www.ejssm.org/ojs/index.php/ejssm/article/view/66/72). I am therefore hesitant to invite you to submit a revised version of your paper. Clearly, a major rewrite and further analyses would be required. But before reaching a final decision, I am awaiting your final author comments, where you are invited to address the reviewers’ comments, without already preparing a revised version.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2021-35-EC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on EC1', Luci Hidalgo Nunes, 28 Aug 2021
Prof. Johannes Dahl
Editor of Weather and Climate Dynamics
Dear professor,
My fellow co-authors and I received with interest the two referee comments (RC1 and RC2) and we think that both brought important contributions. We are grateful for the careful reading done by both, agree with most of the points raised and consider that many of them could be easily incorporated into the manuscript, while some others are recognized by us as important, but could not be fully met due to lack of information that would allow a more comprehensive analysis, which also frustrates our own expectations. As for the last point, not much could be done, given that some requested information simply does not exist, but the lack of some information could be explained.
However, the arguments raised by you, as the editor, seem to indicate that there would be no interest and/or confidence in our ability to present a revised version that meets the journal's expectations.
Having said that, we are immensely grateful for the opportunity and the relevant suggestions offered, but we decided to withdraw the submission.
Sincerely,
Prof. Lucí Hidalgo Nunes
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2021-35-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on EC1', Luci Hidalgo Nunes, 28 Aug 2021
-
EC2: 'Comment on wcd-2021-35', Johannes Dahl, 30 Aug 2021
Dear Dr. Nunes,
Your withdrawal has been recorded -- thank you for the opportunity to consider your manuscript.
Best wishes,
Johannes Dahl
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2021-35-EC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
786 | 470 | 70 | 1,326 | 30 | 31 |
- HTML: 786
- PDF: 470
- XML: 70
- Total: 1,326
- BibTeX: 30
- EndNote: 31
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1