Today we had two IOPs.  The first cenetered on a few tornadic storms in the Fort Wroth (FWD) forecast area.  The second, evening IOP shifted over to the Northern AL/Southern TN Lightning Mapping Array (LMA) area where we could finally evaluate some of the pseudo-GLM data.  The second area ended up with only marginally severe storms, mostly in the southern part of the LMA domain.

The GOES-R activities focused on the PGLM data today, as we finally had an opportunity to look at those data.  There is an excellent write up of the PGLM evaluation on the GOES-R HWT Blog.  In summary, the forecasters liked being able to overlay the PGLM data on reflectivity products to determine where the most likley developing updrafts were embedded in the larger precip areas.  They also compared to the NLDN data, and noted differences between stratiform and convective parts of the precip areas.  We did note that the PGLM data was not being properly sampled in AWIPS to the 8 km grid squares, instead being smoothed.  This issue was fixed on the WDSSII end after today.

The MRMS producers were more heavily used for the FWD portion of today’s activities, and the forecasters continue to express their comfort level rising throughout the week.  Of particular note was that the rotation tracks were really starting to help with the polygon orientation for the tornado warnings.  For the Alabama IOP, the focus was mainly not on the MRMS products alone but in conjunction with the lightning products (see above).  Only one SVR warning was issued for this IOP.

Greg Stumpf (EWP2010 Operations Coordinator)

Activities cenetered on the central Oklahoma High Risk area today, with both teams using a Norman (OUN) localization.  Unfortunately, the OK-LMA network was down, and we were unable to do an analysis of the pseudo-LMA product.   The two teams first sectorized between two supercells north of I-40 ( the westernmost storm being the V2 storm).  Later, as convection developed south of I-40, the sectors were repositioned to be one for the north of I-40 storms, and one for the south of I-40 storms.  All told, our teams issued 71 experimental warnings or severe weather statements today.

For the GOES-R products, one of the main comments from this event is that they all felt the proxy products from the current GOES satellites isn’t doing justice to the expected capabilities of GOES-R with increase temporal and spatial resolution.  For example, there were fewer overshooting top detections that one forecaster would have expected.  The CI products worked a little better today owing to less cirrus obscuration.  There is a lot more information about this in the GOES-R HWT Blog daily summary.

The forecasters are gaining even more familiarity with the MRMS products.  One comments noted that it is nice to be able to look at just one multi-radar product (e.g., 50 dBZ Echo Top) rather than having to figure it out from the many single radars and all-tilts sampling.  Once again, they are discovering that the tracks products (hail and rotation) add a lot of value in determining at a glance both the storm motion (and very stable) and the storm intensity trends.   They also found that the MESH was doing a good job at matching the actual reports, but that the bias-corrected MESH as under-doing the estimates by 1/4-1/2″.

Greg Stumpf (EWP2010 Operations Coordinator)

Activities got started off with two teams working two separate WFOs, Pueblo CO, and Amarillo TX.  The Pueblo team had a number of widespread severe storms to deal with, and the Amarillo team primarily had one large tornadic supercell, which also happened to be the VORTEX2 storm.  The V2 storm ended up producing a number of short-lived tornadoes and a lot of damaging hail as it tracked mainly due east across Dumas TX and beyond.

The GOES-R conviction initiation (CI) products were of little use today, owing to cirrus obscuration which tends to inhibit detection of the CI signatures.  In addition, we had a technical AWIPS issue such that the sub-regional scale satellite imagery was localized to Norman (OUN) and not the chosen WFOs, so that only the CONUS scale images could be used, which only update every 30 minutes.  [Note:  This problem ends up getting solved later.] There is more information about this day’s GOES-R activities on the GOES-R HWT Blog daily summary.

The forecasters were also getting their first real taste of using the MRMS products for warnings.  However, we had another AWIPS technical issue that was causing the MRMS grids to load up very slowly (auto-updating was fine).  Because of this, it is possible that the warning results for this, especially those comparing lead time, might be compromised.  [Note:  This problem was partially the result of a faulty network card on the server, and we changed the location of MRMS product storage.  This offered some but not all of the relief.]

Since this was the first day of a real-time IOP for 2010, we’ve learned that not all the wrinkles are ironed out.  We also had some good discussion on warning policies, including whether to issue separate SVRs on the cores of Tornado Warned storms, or to use the TOR to cover both the tornado and severe threats.  In addition, there was some discussion on the varying policies for Severe Weather Statement (SVS) issuance per WFO and per region.  The differences were interesting, and there is not a single policy NWS-wide.

Greg Stumpf (EWP2010 Operations Coordinator)

Most of Monday 17 May 2010 was spent on training and familiarization of the new products.  A practice IOP was conducted for one hour for the Midland/Odessa, TX (MAF) forecast office, and one practice warning was issued.

Greg Stumpf (EWP2010 Operations Coordinator)

Teams are wrapping up their respective archive cases.  Dan N. and Steve worked the 10 February 2009 CASA case and Gail and Bill worked the 30 April 2009 PAR case.

We will wrap up the day with surveys and discussions.

Kevin Manross (EWP Weekly Coordinator, 8-12 June 2009)

Wrapping up ops for the night.  Steve and Bill switched from DDC to TSA.  Steve experienced considerable trouble with his AWIPS workstation, and it appears to be a problem overlaying the environmental data on the the elevation scan.

Dan and Gail stayed with ICT.

We missed the possible tornado east of DDC.  Comments will follow in tomorrow’s debried.

Kevin Manross (EWP Weekly Coordinator, 8-12 June 2009)

Greg is stepping through the replay of tonight’s event comparing the HWT warnings with the NWS warnings.

First impressions with MRMS from the forecasters:

Bill – took a while to get used to MRMS data

All- liked the trending info

Daniel N. – interested in combining base data with MRMS data in a 4-panel.  Also found track info helpful in polygon issuance

Steve – MRMS data helpful particularly when storms went near/over radar.  Expressed concern about the difference between MRMS “X above Y” compared to single radar data and model soundings.  Found Rotationtracks quite usedul.

Discussion – usefulness of “X above Y” products when dual-pol comes along.  Will these become obsolete?  All agreed that this would be very useful in reanalysis

Kevin Manross (EWP Weekly Coordinator, 8-12 June 2009)