Live Blog – 13 May 2008 (6:22pm)

Dan. M. would like a “preview” button to see his warning before issuing it. Also has decided to junk previous two warnings and issuing one larger warning with higher uncertainties in storm motion to account for back-building updrafts along the line.

TOA and TOD should have actual times (UTC) in legend instead of 15/30/45 min.

Fast scanning rates from PAR giving rapid updates of individual updrafts, can cause ‘threat’ area to be too small and end up having to move it around too much. New larger warning accounts for this.

Kristin Kuhlman (PAR Cognizant Scientist)

Tags: None

Live Blog – 13 May 2008 (6:00pm)

Dan M. and Ron. P. have decided to combine examining PAR data with ProbWarn operations. The PAR cut-out along I44 is causing some difficulty. Estimating storm motion in WG is also problematic as storms are moving NE and pulsing in strength and the front is slowly moving SE.

Currently they have 2 warnings going. The storm closest to PAR is decreasing in strength and instead of cancelling the warning they have decided to go with lower probs and shorter duration. The storm in SE Licoln Co continues to look strong and they have gone with higher probabilities for that warning

Kristin Kuhlman (PAR Cognizant Scientist)

Tags: None

Outlook – 13 May 2008

Alrighty – this is our best chance for CASA this week (likely for PAR too), for severe weather. We will probably have convection in the CASA domain tomorrow, but I’d be surprised to have much in the severe category.

We have a front that has sagged into central OK and has recently initiated in Lincoln CO (~2145z). The line looks like it is trying to continue to initiate toward the SW in the CASA network. The boundary appears to be visible in the Ern part of the network.

CAPE values have been progged to be rather extreme (~4000 J/Kg), but the shear is not terribly favorable for significant tornado threat. However, with a boundary colocated with high CAPE, we might have some opportunity for tornadic storms. Nevertheless, shear is sufficient for supercells with large hail.

Kevin Manross (EWP Weekly Coordinator, 12-16 May)

Tags: None

Summary – 12 May 2008

Given the dearth of severe weather today, we went ahead and had all the participants (Dan M. Dan P. Dave H., Eve G. and Ron P.) sit through the briefings for each project (CASA, PAR and PROBWARN) after the orientation.

This evening, Dan P. and Dave H. are running though a CASA case with Brenda and Ellen. Dan M. and Ron P. are working a PAR case with Greg S. and Arthur.

Greg has offered a few comments regarding the PAR playback case(s), in general. He notes that the incoming data may be arriving too quickly, effectively bogging down the display when viewing cross sections. [Note: this is something that I encountered trying to run/view the PAR in realtime over the past year or two.] We can certainly take care of this in the w2simulator, but Greg ponders whether this should be done for realtime viewing.

EDIT (by Greg): Since the PAR already updates so rapidly, we could consider updating a volume scan at a time. This would provide ~60s updates of all tilts at once, and only “lock up” the display one time per minutes, rather than every 5s which is the current wg polling interval.

Comments by Ron and Dan (as well as Greg and Arthur) suggest that getting 88D data (KTLX, KFDR, etc.) for the PAR playback cases would be very helpful.

Kevin Manross (EWP Weekly Coordinator, 12-16 May)

Tags: None

Outlook – 12 May 2008

Nothing much to get excited about today. SPC has a slight risk issued for the DRT area based mainly for downstream of “old faithful”. Otherwise, the CONUS is dominated by a mid-continent ridge with an exiting upper-level low off the east coast and a trough digging through nrn NV. This west coast upper trough will be the weather-maker for the week. In fact, this trough is progged to become very positively tilted and progress only slowly eastward.

That being said, it appears that our best bet for *severe* convection in our CASA domain may be late tomorrow afternoon/early evening as a cold front drapes across OK. Therefore, we have performed all the intro seminars this afternoon and this evening, Dave and Dan P. are working through a CASA case. Ron P. and dan M. are working through a PAR training case.

Kevin Manross (EWP Weekly Coordinator, 12-16 May)

Tags: None

Week 2 Summary: 5-9 May 2008

Overview: Monday – Thursday

Week 2 of the EWP was relatively active with probabilistic warning activities occurring on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday while both CASA and PAR evaluations occurred on Wednesday. This week featured visiting forecasters Bill Rasch (NWS Billings), and Craig Shoemaker (NWS Tucson). A visiting meteorologist from Environment Canada, Bryan Tugwood also spent the entire week with the EWP team. Other meteorologists from Environment Canada watched EWP experiments including Ria Alsen and David Schmidt. Cynthia Whittier, from WDTB, also participated in the EWP. Greg Stumpf and Kristen Kuhlman served as ProbWarn scientists, Jim LaDue served as EWP coordinator. CASA scientists included Don Rude and Jerry Brotzge.

Monday evening featured a supercell with large hail near GCK that merged with a line to the east and became an outflow dominated multicell event. The hail threat decreased as largescale wind threat increased. This team consisting of Bill, Craig, Cynthia and Brian focused on hail threats given their unfamiliarity with the probwarn software. The challenge of the day was getting used to new software and then dealing with threat areas as isolated multi- and supercells coalesced into a larger complex. Due to the visitor’s unfamiliarity with the software, Greg and Jim decided that all visitors group together as a team with one of the probwarn scientists operated WDSS-II. An instance of D2D proved very helpful for storm interpretation.

Tuesday evening featured a probwarn exercise in west Texas. Monday’s big team was split in two with Bill and Kristen taking Midland’s CWA while Craig and Bryan tackled the Lubbock CWA.

The southern team concentrated on hail and tornado threat areas for mainly isolated convective modes including one supercell southeast of MAF and a splitting storm in southeast NM. The splitting storm provided some challenge to the team as to how to handle the threat areas as the split occurred. They decided to keep the original threat area with the right mover and issue a new one for the left moving component. But the sequence in which they decided to do the edits resulted in a period when the left mover was not covered by a threat area.

The northern team focused on hail and tornado threat areas for a relatively complicated cluster of small multicells in which of them merged together. Bryan decided to issue much larger threat areas than the southern team to group three areas of relatively higher storm density. His reasoning for such grouping was that the cells appeared to pulse in ways that could not be anticipated.

Wednesday evening’s severe storm threat included central Oklahoma and so PAR and CASA activities were scheduled. An upper-level low with an accompanying surface low tracked across Oklahoma City. The CASA network featured numerous outflow dominated small multicell line segments featuring strong downbursts. Bryan and Craig worked with the CASA scientists while Kristen worked with Bill on the PAR. The CASA team enjoyed observing two radars, Lawton and Rush Springs, get direct hits from 60kt and greater downbursts. To the north of these outflow dominated multicells, a boundary with strong vertical vorticity was tracked by the PAR sector. Kristen routinely updated the PAR sector in order to keep up with these storms as they rapidly crossed azimuths toward OKC. At least two TVS circulations were monitored by the PAR as they produced tornadoes near Lake Overholser and then up in Edmund. Meanwhile, the north edge of the outflow dominant multicells in the CASA network also generated significant vertical vorticity from which a TVS and a tornado subsequently formed just south of the National Weather Center. The tornado was visible from the center but only the TDWR could adequately track the TVS.

Thursday evening’s threat did not include the PAR and CASA domains and so the probabilistic warning activity was the sole experiment. The question was whether to set up the experiment in VA or NC where line and isolated supercell convection was forecast to occur or whether to focus on the supercell threat in western Kansas? This time, the SHAVE experiment was active and the probabilistic warning team wanted to coincide with them in order to get enhanced report density. Since the SHAVE team already picked a supercell west of Garden City, KS by the time the probabilistic warning activity ensued, we chose the same supercell. Now instead of two teams tracking multiple threats in two geographic areas, the two teams picked the same area and split up operations by threat type. Cynthia and Craig covered the hail threat while Bill and Bryan grappled with the tornado threat.

There was a leading, HP supercell that had an almost certain large hail probability and an uncertain tornado threat. This supercell spawned numerous, shortlived mesocyclones that became embedded in rain during their maximum intensities. This behavior provided a challenge to the tornado warning team in designing their threat areas. Many chasers were providing live streaming video coverage through severe studios website but despite this plethora of visual ground truth data, there was always the possibility of a rain obscured tornado. Therefore, the tornado warning team issued probabilities that just exceeded their legacy warning threshold of 50%. A later squall line started to exhibit strong vertical vorticity and so the team decided a large, low probability threat area was the best solution unless a specific vortex intensified.

The following is a highlight of observations regarding each of the three experiments over the week:

PAR discussion:

  • The PAR allowed circulation features to be more easily tracked through the motion of reflectivity patterns. The velocity static images did not appear as clean as the 88D but the quick updates allowed for easier tracking of vorticies.
  • Bill appreciated the opportunity to react more quickly as a function of more rapidly updating data, especially with the vortices in OKC.
  • Bill was thrown off by the interlaced 0.5 deg scan. A recent fix puts this interlaced scan into a different product.
  • Both Bill and Craig appreciated the rapid scanning for midlevel downburst precursor signatures. They thought there could be an addition 3-4 minutes lead time.
  • They thought an additional interlaced mid-level user selectable scan would provide more benefit for downburst precusor signatures.
  • Bill thought he didn’t have enough time to do a full volumetric analysis. Would there need to be some automated products to assist?

CASA discussion:

  • Bill believes the adaptive scanning appeared very intelligent during archive and playback cases.
  • Bill thinks the CASA network is very good for fire weather issues when quickly changing winds were occurring.
  • Craig found potential value for the Tucson CWA such as dust storms, non mesocyclonic tornadoes, even dust devils. He thinks a CASA network would be a valuable compliment to 88Ds in the west to monitor boundary layer action.
  • Bill wanted to see high elevation tops in CASA and he wondered if the 88D data could be overlaid.
  • Jerry wondered if a 3-D grid of CASA and 88D data would solve Bill’s wish using w2merger? However such a merger would be a challenge given the vastly different resolutions of the two datasets.
  • The RHIs were a hit when they were in the right place. Many times they weren’t in the right place according to Bill and Craig.
  • CASA volumes were easier to keep up with according to Bill. However he thought he lost track of the big picture owing to rapid paced data.
  • 3dVAR 2-D wind analysis was useful to forecasters though it was a bit smoothed. They want this display in WDSS-II and plans are for that to occur.

Probwarn discussion:

  • Bill thought he had a better handle of location of threat area than he did for assigning probabilities. However he thought he also had a good handle assigning probabilities.
  • Assigning hail probabilities was easier than that of tornado.
  • The team appreciated high resolution reports from CASA, especially live chaser video. However they also realized that unreported events could occur inside of this dense observation network.
  • They felt that if the same storm as the Thursday supercell approached a city, their legacy warning probability threshold would go down. But on the other hand, they felt that the denser reporting network would raise confidence, partially negating the first consideration.
  • The size of threat areas increased as the workload increased in order to group multiple cells in close proximity. It also increased if the uncertainty of where the threat materialized increased (reported from GFK scenario).
  • The expiration timing of swaths is uncertain. They tended to stick with traditional validation times.

General issues with both PAR/CASA:

Basic Logistics

  • Craig appreciated the day 1 arrangement of a large team then easing to smaller teams the next day as his experience with software and probwarn decision making improved.
  • Bill appreciated the WDSS-II training on day 1 though the ambient noise level was distracting. Do we shut the garage door or move training to the Dev Lab? Bill also liked the one group training.
  • Bryan and Craig like the 1-9 pm shift. They were fatigued at the end of the shift, especially on Wednesday.
  • Bryan thought surveys were redundant in that his conclusions were the same.

Jim LaDue (EWP Weekly Coordinator, 5-9 May)

Tags: None

Forecaster Thoughts – Bill Rasch (2008 Week 2)

Coming into this experiment, I truly did not know what to expect. I did my homework best I could but was still concerned I didn’t learn all the acronyms correctly and would in the long run not be able to add much to the experiment. By the end of the first day, however, any worries I had were put to rest by the great crew at the EWP as they made me feel comfortable and sure I was prepared for the battle of the coming week.

Where to start…let me start with the CASA. Being from a Western Region office that has noticeable radar data gaps, these were the folks I drifted to immediately as I wanted to learn more about their system. After simulations and a presentation of the CASA data I was blown away quickly. I felt as if I was watching some type of different radar data world when viewing the data. To me it made the returns appear as it they were living things. The high resolution and rapid refreshing of the data made it appear as if you were watching weather in High Definition. All I could think of was to fill our radar gaps with this type of data. There is no doubt in my mind that additional lives and property would be saved if this system was added to the NWS’s operational forecasters suite of tools. I was very impressed what the CASA team had developed with their adaptive scanning strategies as well. I could see no flaw in this technique during the time I was involved with the CASA.

From an operational aspect the most challenging thing that I could think of regarding the CASA was how this data would be presented to the NWS forecasters. In my opinion, the less software sources a forecast has the more efficient they will be in the long run. Since the CASA data is data from the lowest levels of the atmosphere, would this data be “appended” to 88D data? Or would it actually be a different source they would view during an event. I guess I would have to see how this is done, but to me if it can some how be morphed together with the 88D it would be better. But, of course, I sure would like to just have this problem. We’ll see what time will brings!

On to the PAR. I found it incredible what the PAR folks had accomplished taking a military radar and converting it into something that closely resembled 88D data (better of course). Like the CASA, I was very impressed but at the same time, disappointed, knowing that this technology was out there and NWS forecasters could not use right now. With the rapid refreshing of the data again, viewing of the data had a HD type of effect.

I was lucky enough to be in front of the PAR during a cold pool weak tornado event in the Norman area. Probably most notable during this event and viewing archived data was what I would call “brain overload”. This was a common feeling with the other forecasters at the experiment when I was there. The rapid scanning of data was so much more data than we were compared from the 88D, one tended to tire quicker. I think operational forecasters may get used to this, but maybe not, and it may add to more fatigue when compared to current data set viewing in the 88D. A possible simple solution is for software to dynamically adjust to each users preference for this effect. Of course, the more data we have the better, but viewing in real time of this data will probably differ from forecaster to forecaster. Or, as they become more familiar with the data they could probably become more adapted to it.

On to probabilistic warnings. Now this was something I had to prepare for but really had no idea what to expect. After getting used to the warning software, I was very surprised that this technique of warning was not as challenging for me as I thought it would be. As a matter of fact, it was really fun and I enjoyed the challenge. I don’t know why, maybe it was the fact that it was a different type of challenge for me. I do suspect that the skills to produce these types of warnings will vary from forecaster to forecaster, but that will always be present for operational forecasters. There area still a numerous unanswered questions regarding this technique, but I think the EWP group is on the right track of solving them and the questions that have not popped up yet.

As far as the unanswered questions, there are numerous, but just a few I can remember. Exactly how does verification occur. At what threat value do probabilistic warnings begin being issued. It would likely be useful for users to know when storms have “no threat” at all. Does this mean we need to provide probabilistic forecasts for nearly all thunderstorms? How much automation can be provided to the process with the help of climatology, near storm conditions, algorithm output…etc.

In summary, my experience at the EWP was totally fulfilling. It was a privilege for me to partake in the experiment and interact with the friendly, intelligent and very professional folks at the NWC. In my opinion, getting NWS operational forecasters involved in this process (not just MIC’s/WCM’s and SOO’s) is a great way to go. I really felt that my input was appreciated and would be taken seriously to possibly improve everything that we were involved with. I have high confidence these experiments will result in something beneficial to the NWS and their users. Thanks to everyone that I met. I only wish I could come back again, but at the same time, realize how important it would be for others to be involved in this process.

Bill Rasch (NWS Billings MT – Week 2 Participant)

Tags: None

Summary – 8 May 2008

Cynthia and Craig’s warnings have two high probability hail swaths for the lead supercell and the trailing storm that continued to advect downstream and decrease slightly in probabilities until they updated the threat areas. At one point the NWS issued one SVR polygon to cover both the storms but then broke it up. Upon review, it’s apparent the advecting threat area allows for more continuous aging off of the swath on the back sides than the NWS severe wx statements. They kept updating everytime the storm moved out of the threat area. There is still some difficulty of comparing hail-only swaths with NWS polygons which cover hail and wind.

There some difficulties handling multi-vertex polygons, such as moving them. Cynthia struggled with moving the polygons. Sometimes she’d inadvertently create multiple vertices.

Brian and Bill were grappling with rapid cycling process of the lead supercell. Their probabilities were more marginal than that of the hail. There was no confirmation despite the number of chasers out there. But they kept the probabilities as high as they were given the mesocylone strengths and the potential for hidden tornadoes. Each meso quickly became wrapped in precip. Later on a line developed south of KDDC with intense horizontal shear across the gust front.

Several vortices wrapped up along the interface and as a response a long, low probability (20%) tornado threat area was added.

The NWS did not issue any tornado warning for the supercell.

There’s some discussion about what TOR probability constitutes a standard warning? Craig would go 40% and Bill would go 50%. Both Bill and Craig don’t relate their warning decision making to a number though Bill didn’t have a problem associating a warning threshold probability here.

Software ran well, even with the big TOR threat area that Brian put out on the squall line.

Jim LaDue (EWP Weekly Coordinator, 5-9 May)

Tags: None

Live Blog – 8 May 2008 (8:25pm)

Bill and Brian have been encouraged by Greg to check out the small azimuthal velocity couplet south of KDDC. There are several waves rolling up along the gust front. They’re considering a low probability tornado swath all along the line and including the bow. Wait, they’re actually dong it! This could be the biggest swath created in this experiment to date. They’ll consider a 20% probability. Brian entered 270deg at 35 kts and a high uncertainty since the line is just forming up.

Jim LaDue (EWP Weekly Coordinator, 5-9 May)

Tags: None

Live Blog – 8 May 2008 (8:15pm)

Cynthia and Craig are still following the lead supercell and the trailing storm which is bowing. Craig’s thinking they’ll have to extend the trailing threat area down the growing line. They’ll keep the hail probabilities at 100% for both storms. Their storm motions between the two teams vary by as much as 20deg.

Jim LaDue (EWP Weekly Coordinator, 5-9 May)

Tags: None