Our focus for Day 1 of operations was primarily training.  Forecasters were asked to examine each of the experimental products and produce blog posts as they saw interesting features.  The goal of this time period was to familiarize the forecasters not only with the products themselves, but also with AWIPS2 and the menu locations plus the process of screenshots and blogging.

Weather was relatively quiet throughout the CONUS, but we chose to operate in the Sterling, VA (LWX) and Cheyenne, WY (CYS) county warning areas.  Though no severe warnings were issued, the forecasters were able to examine almost all the products they would see this week.

In future weeks, it was suggested by the forecasters that a bit more time is spent in hands-on led training.  More specifically, the SAD screens should be utilized bringing up each experimental product with a corresponding PI-led discussion.

-K. Calhoun, Week 1 Coordinator

Yesterday was the busiest day of the week 2, if not our entire experiment.  We localized to the OUN and FWD county warning areas.  Mazur/Ostuno handled to the OUN domain, taking time to examine pGLM lightning data from the OKLMA and work with the NASA-SPoRT moving trace tool.  Along the way they issued a number of severe warnings and a few tornado warnings on radar circulations.  Scotten/Helge managed the mesoscale desk across the region, providing some detailed updates on the LAPS/OUN-WRF and GOESR CI products.  Picca/Leonardi managed the warnings over the FWD CWA.  Though activity across this region began slowly, the evening finished with multiple tornadoes still on the ground.  They

A bit of the feedback from the debrief:

–The HSDA performed better than previous days this week, however, it may be nice to add an area or volume criteria (compared to individual pixels) to increase forecaster confidence.

–The MESH and lightning flash rates had comparable trends in the OK region, with the flash rates typically preceding MESH by ~1-2 min and reports on the ground by ~15 min.

–The forecasters found manually adjusting the moving trace for every frame to be a bit tedious and would prefer an “apply to all” option.  As it stands now, the tool is difficult to use in realtime, but still could be useful for post-analysis and shows great promise for future operations.  Forecasters are particularly interested in the capability of displaying trends from multiple fields on the same graph (e.g., flash rates and hail size).

–The LAPS instability field was quite useful when combined with a radar mosaic.  Particularly early on in the FWD domain, this field provided clues to when storms would decrease or increase in intensity with time.

–The LAPS 22 UTC 1-km forecast was incredibly accurate 2 hrs out.  The updraft helicity product was useful in visualizing the location/strength of the activity.

–MRMS rotation tracks were commonly utilized by the warning forecasters.  They found that they helped draw polygon size / shape and reduced FAR area.  The rotation tracks / AzShear product was a time saver particularly for situational awareness (calling attention to storms /locations).

-Kristin Calhoun, Week 2 Coordinator

Our second day of operations was a little more interesting. We started off the day with two mesoscale desks:  one over the western great lakes and another over south texas.  A nowcast and warning desk also set up over the Midland, TX CWA to begin the day.  As the day progressed we moved one of the forecasters off the great lakes mesoscale coverage to the san angelo CWA to monitor storms as the progressed into the CWA.  The MAF team was able to issue some warnings on storms for severe hail with verification of few reports coming in a bit later via spotter network.

-Kristin Calhoun, Week 2 Coordinator

The first day of operations worked primarily as a get to know AWIPS2, the products and the PIs. Forecasters were primarily located in the Missoula, MT CWA, with a late shift for a couple over to the Great Falls, MT domain.  Storms remained marginally severe through the  operational period, with only one experimental warning issued the entire evening. The majority of severe reports occurred post operations as an MCS moved across N.Dakota.

Even though severe weather was a bit lacking, forecasters were able to explore the GOESR CI /CTC and nearcast products as well as the NSSL MRMS and HSDA algorithms.  The simulated satellite (from NSSL WRF) and CONUS LAPS products were also analyzed during operations.  Forecasters did not have a chance to review the PGLM / SPORT Lightning Tracking Tool, but it still remains a possibility Wed and/or Thurs of this week.

K. Calhoun, Week 3 Coordinator.

On Thursday, operations began at noon in the Development Lab, with storms ongoing in the Southern Plains.  After the daily debriefing and forecast discussion, we moved to the Hazardous Weather Testbed.  Around 1 p.m., the Experimental Forecast Program provided an in-depth weather briefing.  This discussion confirmed our decision to operate in the Fort Worth and San Angelo County Warning Areas.

The San Angelo desk consisted of Andrew Hatzos and Jonathan Buseman; the Fort Worth office of Hayden Frank and Marc Austin; and the Mesoscale Desk of Jon Kurtz and Nick Hampshire.  Multiple clusters of thunderstorms were already present, including supercellls.    With time, it became apparent that the storms in the Norman CWA would allow for an examination of the PGLM data.  Thus, the Fort Worth office was shifted to become the Norman office.  Not long after this, storms began to develop in the Lubbock CWA, which gave us another opportunity to examine PGLM data.  Thus, we decided to send the Mesoscale Desk to Lubbock to cover this activity.

After operations concluded, the forecasters completed the daily surveys.  Clark Payne (WDTB) arrived around 7 p.m. to help the forecasters complete the Friday webinar.

 -G. Garfield, Week 1 Coordinator

On Wednesday, we began operations in the Development Lab.  After a short debrief of the previous day’s events, we discussed the Day 1 forecast.  We agreed that the Norman and Dodge City County Warning Areas were most likely to receive severe weather.   Before we decided where to operate, though, we asked Jimmy Correia (SPC) to give a forecast briefing for the Experimental Forecasting Program.  From his briefing, it became apparent that convection was most likely to develop in the Norman CWA first.  So, it was decided to operate there initially.

Our forecasters were divided into three teams: two warning teams and one mesoscale team.  The North warning team consisted of Hayden Frank and Jonathan Buseman; they covered the warnings in north of I-40 in Norman’s CWA.   The South warning team consisted of Marc Austin and Nick Hampshire; they covered the warnings in Lubbock’s CWA, then the southern half of Norman’s CWA.  Andrew Hatzos and Jonathan Kurtz filled the Mesoscale Desk.  We kept these teams throughout the afternoon and into the early evening.  Around 5 p.m., though, it became apparent that Dodge City’s CWA was likely to see severe weather.  For this reason, Jonathan Kurtz was moved to the DDC Warning Desk.

A squall line developed just west of the National Weather Center toward late evening, which gave us an opportunity to observe the weather for which we were forecasting.  The Norman mesonet registered a 40 mile wind gust, and we observed blowing dust from the observation deck of the National Weather Service.  After issuing almost 40 warnings, the EWP crew finished operations.

-G. Garfield, Week 1 Coordinator

On Tuesday, our day began at 1 p.m. in the Development Lab.  We spent 20 minutes debriefing on Monday’s operations, after which we examined the Day 1 forecast.   At the conclusion of the EWP forecast discussion, we joined the EFP in the HWT to discuss their forecast.   Upon further review, we concluded that the Goodland and Dodge City, Kansas County Warning Areas would provide the best opportunities for initial storm development.

We waited for convection to form until 4 p.m., when robust development began in Kansas.  The Goodland crew – consisting of Jonathan Kurtz and Jonathan Guseman – issued 12 severe thunderstorm warnings over the course of the evening.  The Dodge City crew – consisting of Andrew Hatzos and Nick Hampshire – issued 10 severe thunderstorm warnings.  The mesoscale desk – consisting of Hayden Frank and Marc Austin – monitored the mesoscale through late afternoon.   At that time, it became apparent that storms were likely to develop in the West Texas Lightning Network, so Hayden Frank monitored the Lubbock storms.  Geoff Stano (NASA/SPORT) noted that the storms produced less robust PGLM signatures than expected (compared to the Southeast networks).  These assignments were carried through until 8:15, when the forecasters filled out daily surveys to end the day.

-G. Garfield, Week 1 Coordinator

On Monday, the first week of the 2013 Experimental Warning Program began.  The visiting forecasters this week are Marc Austin (OUN), Hayden Frank (BOX), Jonathan Guseman (LUB), Nick Hampshire (FWD), Andrew Hatzos (ILN), and Jonathan Kurtz (OUN).  After giving our guests a brief tour of the National Weather Center, Greg Stumpf (NSSL/MDL) gave an overview of the Experimental Warning Program.  This was followed by a tutorial by Clark Payne (WDTB) for the Friday webinar.

After a brief break, we began work in the Hazardous Weather Testbed.  The forecasters took a survey to test their existing knowledge of the Multi-Radar Multi-Sensor (MRMS) system.  Shortly after, Jimmy Correia (CIMMS/SPC) of the Experimental Forecast Program delivered a forecast for the day.  After a brief discussion, we began operations.

Severe parameters were limited, but a marginal severe threat existed in North Carolina, Virginia, and Kentucky.  We asked the forecasters to use available products to hone down an operations area and to prepare a briefing.  The consensus was that the Blacksburg, Virginia County Warning Area had the greatest threat of severe weather, so we began operations there.

While in Blacksburg, forecasters issued several severe thunderstorm warnings for marginally-severe hail.  We received several verification reports, including reports of hail up to the size of nickels.  After a couple hours of operations, Geoff Stano (NASA/SPORT) delivered a group tutorial on how to use a lightning trend product (developed by the University of Alabama-Huntsville group).   After the conclusion of this tutorial, we took a break for dinner.

Upon our return, we split the forecasters between the Blacksburg , Viriginia and the Raleigh, North Carolina Weather Forecast Offices in order to avoid “warning collisions”.  Unfortunately, the severe threat had diminished somewhat.  Geoff Stano noticed that lightning was picking up close to the Lubbock CWA, so it was quickly decided that we localize to that WFO in order to take advantage.  Unfortunately, though, storms began to dissipate as they approached the LUB CWA.  After the conclusion of operations, the forecasters completed the daily survey and we finished for the day.

-Gabe Garfield, Week 1 Coordinator

Today, we started operations in the Minneapolis (MN), Sioux Falls (SD), and Hastings (NE) county warning areas.  An early morning mesoscale convective system persisted in the Minneapolis CWA, which limited destabilization.  Nevertheless, the Minneapolis forecasters (Ty Judd and Mike Dutter) issued several severe thunderstorm warnings, with half-dollar size hail the most significant report among those received.  These forecasters primarily evaluated the 3DVAR products.

The Sioux Falls forecasters (Steve Nelson and Tim Tinsley) saw no organized convection, which prompted a move to Omaha (NE).  There, they issued several severe thunderstorm warnings and one tornado warning.  Again, the forecasters primarily evaluated the 3DVAR products.

The Hastings forecasters (Jeff Garmon and Randy Skov) issued several severe thunderstorm warnings in their CWA for severe multicellular storms.  Hail up to the size of tennis balls was reported.  The Hastings forecasters were able to evaluate the OUN WRF, in addition to the 3DVAR products.

Finally, after the severe weather event in Minnesota transitioned to a heavy rain event, forecasters Ty Judd and Mike Dutter transferred to the Amarillo CWA.  They issued a few severe thunderstorm warnings; hail up to the size of quarters was reported.  They evaluated both the 3DVAR and OUN WRF experimental products.

-G. Garfield, Week 5 Coordinator

Today, we started operations in the Albuquerque (NM) and Midland (TX) county warning areas.  Another early-morning mesoscale convective system left an outflow boundary over west Texas.  While the atmosphere recovered in its wake during the afternoon, storms developed in the less-capped/higher-terrain to the north.  Forecasters Tim Tinsley and Jeff Garmon monitored the experimental products in Midland, while Mike Dutter, Randy Skov, Steve Nelson, and Ty Judd split duties in the Albuquerque (ABQ) CWA.  The forecasters evaluated the CI, cloud-top-cooling, OUN WRF, and 3DVAR products.

This time, however, storms in the ABQ CWA struggled to maintain strength as they moved off the mountains.  This prompted a domain switch of the southern ABQ forecasters (Dutter and Skov) to the Sioux Falls (FSD), South Dakota CWA and the northern ABQ forecasters (Nelson and Judd) to the Fort Worth, Texas CWA (storms were ongoing in both CWAs).

Upon arrival, the FSD crew immediately issued severe warnings.  These warnings verified well, as hail up to the size of golfballs and a funnel cloud were observed in the CWA.  The FWD crew also began issuing warnings as soon as they arrived in their CWA.  By that time, two supercell thunderstorms were ongoing in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metro Area, producing hail up to the size of baseballs and one report of a funnel cloud.  Substantial hail damage occurred over the densely populated suburbs of Irving and Grand Prairie.  The 3DVAR products — as well as the OUN WRF in FWD — were interrogated during the event.

The Midland crew issued several warnings, using the OUN WRF, CI, and 3DVAR products.  No reports were received, owing the sparse population of west Texas.  The MESH in one storm, however, was up to 2.5 inches in diameter.

-G. Garfield, Week 5 Coordinator