Rob and Mike note that the PAR data is giving them more lead time on severe weather signatures compared to the 88D (KTLX, which they are viewing side by side with PAR). Mike says, “We’re ahead of the game.” And when asked if the PAR data is bombarding them perhaps too quickly, they say, “No!” They wouldn’t mind if it came in even faster.
Patrick Burke (EWP Weekly Coordinator, 18-22 May 2009)
The CASA team first familiarized themselves on visualizing and navigating the data with one brief case study. Matthew noted that in the CASA data he is seeing familiar storm-scale processes happening at sub-storm scales of time and space. They are now moving on to a displaced real-time archive case in which they will issue mock warnings. The team read over the available environmental data to great length. They appreciate this type of data in lieu of a traditional shift briefing. They suggest that in addition to seeing a central Oklahoma upper air sounding, they would also like to see soundings from the surrounding area, numerical measures of severe weather parameters on those soundings, and an analyzed surface map.
Patrick Burke (EWP Weekly Coordinator, 18-22 May 2009)
We have split into two teams; Matthew and Les are working with the CASA facilitators, and Mike and Rob are working with the PAR facilitators. Since the training ran a little past schedule today, we will run through one archive case per team, and finish on schedule by 9 pm CDT.
Patrick Burke (EWP Weekly Coordinator, 18-22 May 2009)
There has been much discussion of the lightning data. Forecasters are interested in lightning, but are uncertain how it will help them in warning operations. They have yet to get in and work with the data. Matthew suggests that more training on typical LMA data signatures – related to storm morphology, would help get him/others ready to view this data in the HWT operational environment.
The group will break for dinner and then reconvene at 7:30pm CDT. Groups of 2 will attack archive cases using PAR and CASA data, respectively.
Patrick Burke (EWP Weekly Coordinator, 18-22 May 2009)
During MRMS training, Les Lemon recommended, based on some published research and his personal experience, that a useful MRMS product would be 60+ dbZ reflectivity mapped to the -20 deg C level. Les uses this to predict when a storm will begin producing not severe hail, but significant severe hail (2 inch plus diameter). So we haven’t looked at any data yet, archived or otherwise, but we already have a suggestion for improvement!
Patrick Burke (EWP Weekly Coordinator, 18-22 May 2009)
With each training session taking the form of an interactive seminar, the forecasters have absorbed a lot of information covering a wide variety of meteorology and technology. Greg Stumpf elaborated on the multitude of radar-and-environment-derived products available with the NSSL’s Multi-Radar/Multi-Sensor approach. Now Dr. Kristin Kuhlman, seen below, is discussing the Lightning Mapping Array, beginning with the physics behind LMA. Soon the forecasters will take to their workstations and experience LMA data first hand.
Patrick Burke (EWP Weekly Coordinator, 18-22 May 2009)
Forecasters are going in depth on the design of the PAR and CASA network. There have been several questions, especially from Mike and Les, as to where we stand during 2009, with respect to the cycle of Research and Development. The answer seems to be that both technologies have a strong footing with funding out for the next several years, and both have developed some intriguing datasets, but both are perhaps a decade or more from any eventual implementation in an operational network. Below, Brenda Phillips of the University of Massachusetts discusses the CASA radars with our forecasters:
Patrick Burke (EWP Weekly Coordinator, 18-22 May 2009)
Forecasters are currently training on the use of the WDSS-II system for interrogation of radar data. This year in the EWP, WDSS-II is used in tandem with AWIPS D2D. From 2:30-3:15pm CDT, forecasters will train on interpreting PAR data, followed by training for CASA from 3:30 to at least 4:30pm. After a short break, forecasters will train on MRMS and LMA, break for dinner, and then perform 2 displaced real-time warning simulations this evening – one using PAR data, and one using CASA.
Patrick Burke (EWP Weekly Coordinator, 18-22 May 2009)
Our visiting forecasters/scientists arrived at the National Weather Center just before 1 pm. This week we have Rob Handel from the Peachtree City, Georgia, NWS Forecast Office, Matthew Kramar from the Sterling, Virginia, Office, Mike Vescio from the Pendelton, Oregon, Office, and Les Lemon from the NWS Warning Decision Training Branch.
The group was met today with dry and sunny air, clear blue skies, and little prospect for thunderstorms this week in a 200 mile radius from Norman, OK. Live operations are unlikely in the CASA and PAR networks, but the group will participate in a variety of warning simulations using archived data from these networks. The outlook is similar for the LMA testbeds. An elongated upper ridge will build from Oklahoma toward the Washington D.C. area testbed, keeping the weather dry there. A broad upper level circulation developing in the eastern Gulf will remain stationary or retrograde slightly, but the chance of significant thunderstorms in the Huntsville, Alabama, LMA testbed is low. LMA research will likely be based in archived data this week.
Multi-Radar, Multi-Sensor (MRMS) warning operations, however, may be supported in real time from any WSR-88D in the continental U.S. Currently, the most likely opportunities for real-time MRMS operations appear to be Tuesday evening in Montana, and either Wednesday or Thursday evening in the central High Plains, just east of the Colorado and Wyoming front range. Below is the probabilistic outlook for severe thunderstorms on Tuesday, forecast by the Storm Prediction Center:
Patrick Burke (EWP Weekly Coordinator, 18-22 May 2009)
Luckily, we were able see real-time data with the LMA, CASA, and PAR systems, along with the WDSS-II multi-radar algorithms. When compared to the archived cases, real-time operations provided a much better picture of the challenges operational forecasters will have in base data interpretation, primarily due to the more realistic warning environment. Below are some of the main points that I would like to make about each system:
LMA: With its quick updates, the 1km data aided in locating areas of updraft intensification and deviant motion trends. The ability to see the trend data was also a good indicator of storm strength/trend, especially in radar-sparse areas. Future research will hopefully lead to additional tools for storm/warning forecasting and warnings.
CASA: Although rapid updates from multiple radars can be overwhelming at times, the increased temporal and spatial resolution are well worth it. To alleviate the rapid-fire of new radar scans from 4 separate radars, the multi-radar composite was utilized with success. Especially in areas with sparse/distant radar coverage, this system should easily increase probabilities of detection and lead-times of severe weather events. However, due to the detection of features not previously seen on the 88D, an increase in false alarm rate is also expected. I also found that the sector scanning strategies took away from base data interpretation. Perhaps being able to manually control what sector is scanned would help in these situations.
PAR: The rapid scans, along with higher resolutions above the traditional “spit-cuts”, were outstanding. This helped increase the confidence of meso-cyclone and core strengths. The ADAPTS strategy appeared to work quite well without compromising the base data moments. Hopefully in the not-so-distant future, additional panels will be added to alleviate the beam broadening on the edges of our current panel, and allow a greater radar coverage area.
Multi-radar/Multi-sensor algorithms: In my experience, the use of MESH and reflectivities at 0C and -20C increase warning confidence tremendously. Other diagnostic products, such as MESH Swath, Rotation Tracks, etc… are also great tools to help with warning confidence and warning polygon construction. Especially in areas where radar coverage is sparse/distant with respect to your targets, these algorithms are needed. After using the multi-radar data in this workshop, and also in real-time operations at my office, I feel the products greatly enhance warning and non-warning decisions.
Kevin Brown (NWS Norman OK – 2009 Week 3 Evaluator)