<<

convection and Joseph J. Charney and Brian E. Potter

onvection and downbursts or gas.” The meteorological defini­ A modifies the air directly over are connected meteorological tion is more specific: “the vertical it by releasing and moisture phenomena with the potential transport of atmospheric proper­ into that air. A localized pocket of to affect fire behavior and thereby ties, especially upward.” air that is warmer and moister than alter the evolution of a wildland its surrounding environment at fire. Meteorological phenomena According to the meteorological the same is less dense and related to convection and down- definition, convection does not subject to an upward buoyant force. bursts are often discussed in the contribute directly to fire behavior: The effect of heating and moisten­ context of fire behavior and smoke. convective , as related ing the air directly over a fire is The physical mechanisms that to fire spread, falls under the first that the air begins to rise. contribute to these phenomena are definition. Meteorologically, con­ interrelated, but the phenomena vection affects fire behavior indi­ The height to which the air rises are often misinterpreted or misun­ rectly by altering the flow of air and the vertical velocity it attains derstood in the fire/smoke context. through the combustion zone or while rising are determined by a by contributing to changes in the host of atmospheric conditions and In this article, we discuss the physi­ speed and in processes that affect the buoyant cal mechanisms associated with the immediate vicinity of the fire force acting on the fire-modified air convection and downbursts, and we (that is, within about 3 to 300 feet as it rises. The amount of buoyant discuss terminology used in refer­ (1 to 100 m)). In this article, we force at a given depends on ence to fire-driven convection. We discuss meteorological convection the difference in between identify the role the phenomena and its role in fire behavior and the fire-modified air and the atmo­ could play in fire behavior and smoke movement. sphere at that altitude: larger smoke, according to the scientific differences in density increase literature. We also discuss some of Meteorological convection is a very the magnitude of the force. The the misinterpretations and misun­ common and extensively studied maximum vertical velocity of the derstandings that are common in feature of atmospheric . air can be determined by aggregat­ the fire community. Convection is the mechanism by ing the buoyant force throughout which many and all thun­ the lower levels of the , Convection derstorms form in the atmosphere. with a larger aggregated buoyant Even when no occurs force corresponding to a stronger Convection has two different but in a convective updraft, the updraft potential updraft. A common mea­ related definitions (N.a. 2016), contributes to mixing of the air surement that indicates the mag­ depending on whether the word between the ’s surface and nitude of the aggregated buoyant describes the general flow of heated higher levels of the atmosphere. force is static stability, calculated as material in a or whether it forecasts routinely include the vertical gradient of refers to a meteorological phenom­ assessments of the potential for over an atmospheric layer. Lower enon. The more general definition convective clouds and thunder­ static stability corresponds to a of convection is “the transfer of to affect weather conditions larger vertical temperature gradi­ heat by the circulation or move­ during a forecast period. ent and indicates a larger aggregate ment of the heated parts of a

Joseph Charney is a research meteo­ rologist for the Forest Service, Northern Meteorological convection is the mechanism Research Station, Lansing, MI; and Brian by which many clouds and all Potter is a research meteorologist for the Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research form in the atmosphere. Station, Seattle, WA.

Fire Management Today 16 buoyant force as air rises through Only under rare circumstances would the layer. a pyroCu or pyroCb generate a Changes in the speed and direction that could alter fire behavior. of horizontal as a function of height also play an important role in how high the buoyant force can PyroCu and pyroCb are important character of pyroconvection is driv­ lift air. Greater leads for smoke lofting and transport, en by earlier events that altered the to increased turbulence and mix­ but studies have not established energy released by the fire, such ing and typically reduces whether their formation signals a as a sudden change in fire size and (Moeng and Sullivan 1994). The substantial change in upcoming intensity due to changes in surface result is greater mixing but often fire behavior. In most cases, the winds, fuel load, or terrain. less lofting of air from the surface.

Pyroconvection, Pyrocumulus, and Pyrocumulonimbus Pyroconvection, pyrocumulus, and pyrocumulonimbus are three terms often used by the fire and fire weather communities. Although the terms are often treated as inter­ changeable, each term has a specif­ ic and distinct definition that paral­ lels its respective nonfire definition but with “related to fire” added (see, for example, AMS (2012a)). Thus, pyroconvection is the vertical transport of atmospheric proper­ ties driven by or enhanced by fire. Figure 1—A pyrocumulus forming over a wildland fire. Moist rising air from Every fire, no matter how small, pyroconvection reaches a condensation level, producing a . produces some degree of pyrocon­ Photo: Candace Krull, Forest Service. vection.

A pyrocumulus (or pyroCu, fig. 1) forms when moist rising air from pyroconvection reaches a conden­ sation level, producing a cumulus cloud. The formation of a pyroCu is not uncommon on prescribed and agricultural burns and is not necessarily cause for concern.

A pyrocumulonimbus (or pyroCb, fig. 2) is an extreme manifesta­ tion of a pyroCu. It develops when upward moving air over a wildland fire is reinforced by instability in the middle troposphere such that Figure 2—A pyrocumulonimbus forming over a wildland fire. Upward moving air, a very deep convective cloud forms reinforced by instability in the middle troposphere, results in the formation of a very deep (Fromm and others 2008, 2010). convective cloud. The photo is of the 2013 Carpenter 1 Fire in . Photo: Zachary Parmentier, Forest Service.

Volume 75 • No. 1 • 2017 17 Downbursts fore have a horizontal wind that convective column during a fire shifts the downburst to the other (the so-called “plume collapse” or A downburst is an area of strong, side of the updraft. “capping”). The ingredients for often damaging winds produced by downburst formation are the mag­ one or more convective downdrafts These requirements make it nitude of the convective updraft, in a localized area (AMS 2012b). unlikely (though still possible) that the amount of formed, Convective downdrafts are a com­ a downburst produced by pyrocon­ very low relative below mon occurrence during convective vection would reach the ground the cloud base, and a supportive precipitation events, and they often close to the fire. Only under rare wind profile. There is no scientific lead to the formation of an circumstances would a pyroCu or evidence for downbursts forming as boundary and a change in surface pyroCb cloud generate a downburst a result of visible features appear­ wind speed, wind direction, and that could alter fire behavior; it ing at the top of a convective cloud. humidity. It is important for fire would occur only under the influ­ Additional research is needed to managers to be aware of the poten­ ence of a very particular wind shear assess the credibility of cases in tial for outflow boundaries from configuration. which plume collapse has been any nearby convection to affect fire anecdotally associated with down- behavior and smoke. However, it burst formation and changes in fire is also important for fire managers behavior. to distinguish between convective A cautious downdrafts and downbursts. understanding of A Cautious science and close A downburst is substantially less Understanding common than a convective down­ collaboration between Fire activity clearly produces pyro­ draft, occurring when heavy pre­ fire managers and convection. However, what influ­ cipitation evaporates in dry air meteorologists can help ence pyroconvection may have on beneath the base of a convective protect firefighters. the behavior of a wildland fire is cloud (Wilson and Wakimoto 2001). not well understood, which makes Downbursts can contribute to very it difficult to assess and predict. sudden changes in surface winds, Clark and others (1996) found in moisture, and temperature (Byers On two historic , however, a numerical modeling study that and Braham 1949). The magnitudes fatalities are attributed, at least near-ground convection produced of these changes are greater for a in part, to downbursts: the 2013 by a fire plays a role in the develop­ downburst than for a convective Yarnell Hill Fire and the 1990 ment of characteristic fire behavior downdraft and are capable of affect­ Dude Fire. Both fires occurred with patterns. However, the role of con­ ing fire behavior (Fujita 1992). thunderstorms nearby. In the case vection through deeper layers of of Yarnell Hill, the official investi­ the atmosphere (such as a pyroCb) In most cases, downbursts occur gation report suggests that down- in fire behavior is less clear. As several miles away from the prima­ bursts only could have come from indicated in Potter (2012), wildland ry convective updraft (Wilson and the nearby thunderstorms (ADFFM fire studies that include an assess­ others 1988). Downbursts usually 2013). The documentation of the ment of convection have yet to require heavy precipitation, which Dude Fire is less clear; it suggests establish a clear quantifiable con­ can only occur when the updraft in that a nearby may nection between convective charac­ the convective cloud produces sig­ have been intensified by the fire teristics (such as updraft strength nificant condensation. For a down- and subsequently produced a down- and cloud depth) and fire behavior. burst to form, the precipitation burst (Goens and Andrews 1998). Observational and numerical mod­ must fall into dry air and evaporate There are no clearly documented eling studies of nonfire convec­ as it falls, which implies that it cases of pyroconvection alone pro­ tion suggest that elevated updrafts must fall somewhere other than ducing a downburst. are fed primarily by air entrained into the (relatively moist) updraft and mixed into the updraft well that produced it. A meteorological Firefighters often state that down- above the base of the cloud (Kain environment capable of producing bursts occur soon after a visible and Fritsch 1990; Kuang and these characteristics would there­ change occurs at the top of a

Fire Management Today 18 Bretherton 2006). The extent to References Goens, D.W.; Andrews, P.L. 1998. Weather which this applies to pyroconvec­ and fire behavior factors related to the AMS (American Meteorological Society). 1990 Dude Fire near Payson, AZ. NWCG tion is not yet known. 2012a. Glossary of . Boston, Wildland Fire Leadership Development MA. (last accessed September Kain, J.S.; Fritsch, J.M. 1990. A one- 2016). dimensional entraining/detraining plume nomena have been extensively stud­ AMS (American Meteorological Society). model and its application in convective ied in meteorological field studies, 2012b. : parameterization. Journal of Atmospheric in theoretical papers, and by using Downburst. Boston, MA. (last Kuang, Z.; Bretherton, C.S. 2006. A mass- numerical models, there is still accessed September 2016). flux scheme view of a high-resolution considerable uncertainty concern­ ADFFM (Arizona Department of Forestry simulation of a transition from shallow ing precisely how they interact with and Fire Management). 2013. Yarnell to deep cumulus convection. Journal of wildland fires. Some of the anec­ Hill Fire serious accident investigation . 63: 1895–1909. report. September 23. Phoenix, AZ. Moeng, C.-H.; Sullivan, P.P. 1994. A com­ dotal evidence for how these phe­ Byers, H.R.; Braham, R.R., Jr. 1949. The parison of shear- and buoyancy-driven nomena affect fire behavior does thunderstorm. Washington, DC: U.S. planetary flows. Journal not agree with the meteorological Government Printing Office. 287 pp. of Atmospheric Sciences. 51: 999–1022. Clark T.L.; Jenkins, M.A.; Coen, J.; N.a. (no author). 2016. Dictionary.com: understanding of the processes Packham, D. 1996. A coupled atmo­ Convection. Based on the Random House involved, and other possible con­ sphere–fire model: Convective feedback Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary. New nections have yet to be fully investi­ on fire-line dynamics. Journal of Applied York: Random House, Inc. gated and tested. A cautious under­ Fromm M.; Shettle, E.P.; Fricke, K.H.; (last accessed September 2016). standing of the state of this science [and others]. 2008. Stratospheric impact Potter, B.E. 2012. Atmospheric interactions and close collaboration between fire of the Chisholm pyrocumulonimbus with wildland fire behaviour—I. Basic managers and meteorologists can eruption: 2. Vertical profile perspective. surface interactions, vertical profiles Journal of Geophysical Research. 113: and synoptic structures. International help protect firefighters from pos­ D08203. Journal of Wildland Fire. 21: 779–801. sible convective influences on fire Fromm, M.; Lindsey, D.T.; Servranckx, R.; Wilson, J.W.; Wakimoto, R.M. 2001. The behavior while the research com­ [and others]. 2010. The untold story discovery of the downburst: T. T. Fujita’s of pyrocumulonimbus. Bulletin of the contribution. Bulletin of the American munity works to clarify the influ­ American Meteorological Society. 91: Meteorological Society. 82: 49–62. ences using improved modeling 1193–1209. Wilson, J.W.; Moore, J.A.; Foote, G.B.; [and and observational tools. Fujita, T. 1992. The mystery of severe others]. 1988. Convection Initiation storms. WRL Res. Pap. , IL: and Downburst Experiment (CINDE). University of Chicago. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 69: 1328–1348. 

Volume 75 • No. 1 • 2017 19