At the recent CSTAR meeting, there was some discussion of what general format an event review should follow and what should be included. We have completed several informal reviews and posted them to our ‘Local Research” section of our web page, which can be found at…
I have included links to recent reviews of high shear-low CAPE events near the top. While the reviews attempt to follow the AMS author’s guide in a conference paper format, the intended audience is the interested public, so some technical aspects are left out.
Reviews do not necessarily have to follow the format that we use, which might be considered as having too much detail. Other offices may choose to follow a different format, such as the excellent one used by NWS Raleigh. However, in my opinion, at a minimum each review should contain some discussion of the pre-storm or near-storm environment (CAPE, CIN, shear, SRH), some examples of radar imagery, any notable or unusual radar signatures, and some reference to verification (local storm reports, Storm Data, or public information statements) so we know what happened (unless it was a null event). Of course, this may change if Dr. Parker has specific needs. I can help with data sources and I know that Jonathan Blaes also has a list of data sources.
Until Dr. Parker begins to mine the SPC datasets, a good starting point for identifying events would be to go through local Storm Data to pick out tornado or wind damage reports in the cool season.
I look forward to more discussion on this topic. -Pat Moore