Summary – 20 May 2008

Wrapped up operations at 0030 UTC.

Ryan/SteveR started off with hail threats — looks like one “threat area” equals 4 NWS warnings art one point. A lot of the NWS warnings are county-shaped. Had a couple of tornado threat areas with low probabilities that matched a NWS tornado warning.

SteveH/Dave/Jonathan — started drawing big polygons and then got more comfortable with the software and began narrowing down their threat area. They ended up with six threat areas. SteveH thinks the display needs some color changes — threat areas overlay the data. Needs to be a contour instead of a solid block of color. Could have had better continuity. Jonathan believes the workload was too heavy to keep up with radar analysis.

SteveR wonders about data management with PAR and CASA data rates.

SteveH – current NWS warnings at his office are separated by threat type (sectorized).

Jonathan – combining threat types into a single warning (Tornado and Severe Thunderstorm) is easier to manage.

Ryan – liked the display of current hazards separated by type. Had to be more precise with updates to keep the storm in the current threat area polygon.

SteveR – felt more like a grid manager than a meteorologist making scientific decisions.

Ryan – would like storm motion first guess in the polygon.

SteveR – feels as fatigued now as in a real warning situation, even though it is just an experiment. SteveH nods in agreement.

Greg says what if you could just add a couple of features to WarnGen to include the probability and motion uncertainty? SteveR likes the idea.

SteveH would like to be forced to re-issue a warning every 20 minutes.

Ryan / SteveR believe that the limitations in the threat areas are primarily caused by the software and not in the science.

Mike M. would be comfortable with algorithm guidance providing a first guess for tornadoes (based on meso location) and hail. Greg would not automate the tornado threat.

Ryan thinks it might be good to combine the threats into a general “probability of severe weather” as a first step instead of Tornado/Wind/Hail.

The discussion wandered into the realm of forecaster workload across their entire spectrum of duties and wrapped up.

Travis Smith (EWP Weekly Coordinator, 19-23 May)

Tags: None

Live Blog – 20 May 2008 (6:59pm)

Steve H., Dave, and Jonathan had a lost hail contour around this time. It’s a known bug with the software.

Also, they are working six threats at the current time, and think that the management of the threat areas needs more automation (see previous entry).

Travis Smith (EWP Weekly Coordinator, 19-23 May)

Tags: None

Live Blog – 20 May 2008 (6:46pm)

Comment from Steve H., Dave, and Jonathan (via Mike M.):

If the threat area seems to be advecting downstream with an acceptable motion, they would like to be able to just update the probabilities without worrying about moving the polygon (that is, the polygon moves by itself).

Travis Smith (EWP Weekly Coordinator, 19-23 May)

Tags: None

Live Blog – 20 May 2008 (6:35pm)

The team of Steve H., Dave, and Jonathan have been working the South Carolina storms in the Charleston area, along with Mike M. (probwarn coordinator). So far, they’ve been exclusively issuing hail and tornado threat areas. The cancelled the threat areas for the first storm as it moved offshore in the last 20 minutes. They may begin issueing wind threat areas as well as they begin focusing on a new storm.

We’ve had live streaming video from Charleston channel 5 for the duration of the event, although it hasn’t resulted in too much addition information about ongoing storms.

Travis Smith (EWP Weekly Coordinator, 19-23 May)

Tags: None

Live Blog – 20 May 2008 (6:24pm)

New storm developing ahead (SE) of our current storm developing on converging surface boundaries. Steve has been resistant to issuing a new warning on this because it is covered by the swath from the upstream storm.

Discussion ensued regarding how this best should be handled. Steve recalls a storm-based warning where two adjacent areas were warned on several minutes apart and received complaints that the users in the broad area were already warned, why are they getting it again?

Ryan suggests that these are different storms, with different probs and different times of arrival. Steve agrees to issue a low-prob broad area for the new storm.

Kevin Manross (Gridded Warning Cognizant Scientist)

Tags: None

Live Blog – 20 May 2008 (6:18pm)

There are several issues preventing SHAVE from keeping up with the storms of interest in order to provide real-time reports. Becaues the LSR’s are pretty timely today, we’ve decided to go ahead and collect high-density reports on the storms that the forecasters are focussing on although it will be delayed. This will let us do a nice comparison in post-analysis although it’s not really helpful for real-time decision-making.

Travis Smith (EWP Weekly Coordinator, 19-23 May)

Tags: None

Live Blog – 20 May 2008 (5:54pm)

Steve comments on workload again – this time mentioning that even without the PROBWARN type of exercise, offices are even now going to a “warning manager” and an “analyst”. This exercise would certainly extend that trend.

Steve also asks “what happens if/when swaths from differing storms overlap? Each gridpoint would have attribute info from any swath that affect that point.

Steve also suggest that a “preview window” would be nice since he didn’t want his swath to go as far as it did.

Kevin Manross (Gridded Warning Cognizant Scientist)

Tags: None