I’ve noticed a few instances where the PHI tool seems to outline an area before TORP. I could totally be interpreting this wrong, but I find that to be interesting.
-FujitaReno
AzShear catches eye better than a velocity feature early on in tornado life
First thing I realized when analyzing AzShear side bye side with Velocity is that the AzShear feature catches the eye much better than a weaker rotation signature in Velocity. Here is an example:
If a forecaster was looking at a lot of activity going on around the CWA, a weaker velocity signature can be missed, but AzShear jumps out with the high (white) values. This circulation went on to strengthen quickly and to me the AzShear did a better job at showing that earlier in the tornadoes life.
Another example, also involving TORP: Focusing on the weaker circulation in the following images, which is outlined by the TORP circle that is farther southwest. 0.5 Velocity again shows a weaker rotation that could be overlooked. That same scan though, AzShear is lit up along with TORP of 48%. This allowed me to look closer at that feature and I found a weak echo region and a higher reflectivity core aloft. Once again showing AzShear and TORP are good for situational awareness.
-Gary
AZ Shear imagery
So far, I am finding this tool very helpful. However, I am wondering where I will put this on my typical setup. Add it to my 9 panel? Or make a whole new procedure? I think it may be repetitive to flip across procedures when I have SRM, ZDR, etc suggesting a TOR. Not sure it would be helpful enough to make a whole new procedure for.
Interested to see how it handles weaker tornadoes as well.
Testing AWIPS Radar Data Layout – Monday Test Day
Just giving an initial test of a potential optimal layout. Using All-Tilts Z, SRM, AzShear/DvShear toggle, and CC for debris detection. Will refine later, but I like this as an initial start.
-dryadiabat
BL_Couplet_Sample
Green next to red = bad. Tornado warning issued.
-Lumbergh
First Impressions of TORP, AzShear, and DivShear
Right off the bat, I notice that the icons for TORP, even when loaded with maximum line thickness, can easily get lost if the brightness of your loaded radar reflectivity is too high (top image below). By reducing the brightness to 75%, the TORP icons became more noticeable (bottom image below).
It was reassuring to see TORP perform well with the knockout cases. I would have been concerned if it missed a tornado signature this prominent. This increased my confidence in using it at the very least as a situational awareness tool. An example below:
It’s evident that TORP maintained very high probabilities the entire track of this confirmed violent tornado (>99%).
However, the limitations were still glaringly apparent at times, with a >20% probability for a tornado being shown in an area of noise (below)
– Mr. Peanut
PHI detected before TORP
Using PHS to analyze an area of surface based convective potential
The potential for surface based convection will be important for the severe weather coverage in the CYS CWA this afternoon/evening. The 19Z PHS model is forecasting a northwesterly push of instability which is depicted above in the left panel moving into the far southwest counties of the CWA. To the north of that instability axis the PHS is depicting still elevated convection that is going on this afternoon. Additionally it is depicting surface based convection in northern Colorado, which may impact the moisture feed further north into the CYS CWA. I would highlight the far southeastern portion of the CYS CWA for a severe thunderstorm potential in my DSS/public messaging, with more uncertainty further north.
-Joaq
Findings from a Real-Time Product Evaluation over GLD CWA
Here are some interesting examples from the perspective of northwest KS on April 25, 2024. This first example shows two boundaries southwest of the radar. The east-west oriented boundary shows up in DivShear, while the SW-NE oriented boundary does not really show up in DivShear. Radar velocity (not pictured) was showing 50-70 knots north of the northern boundary, while the velocity was not as strong on either side of the SW-NE oriented boundary.
This circulation spun up quickly, but the TORP probs seemed to respond in kind, showing a sharp increase to near 70%. The circulation weakened briefly in subsequent scans (not pictured) before tightening again. A storm chaser reported there was “almost a tornado touchdown” north of Colby, KS around 0015z. Mesoanalysis (not pictured) seemed to suggest that this storm may have been north of a boundary, and perhaps lacked sufficient low-level instability for tornadogenesis.
At 0017z, there appeared to be two circulations – shown below in both velocity products and AzShear:
Here is an example that caught my eye where beam blockage was significantly impacting the velocity field (not pictured) and resulting in sharp columns of alternating AzShear minima/maxima. However, TORP was NOT creating detections along these areas, even after turning off all of the auto filters.
Here is a look at how the DivShear field appeared along a line of storms which had a tightening reflectivity gradient. Images were from 0057z on Apr 26 2024:
-Orange Lightning
0118Z Variable TORP Probabilities
Observed a drastic change in TORP probabilities from one scan to the next. AzShear is quite blocky, which seems to be due to velocity sidelobing. -Sidney Crosby