Steve expresses concern about workload with multiple threats on same storm.

Kevin Manross (Gridded Warning Cognizant Scientist)

Steve and Ryan switch off, with Steve now drawing the warnings. He deleted/canceled the warnings on the NErn storms du e to decreasing MESH and getting behind the sfc boundary.

Steve asks – how will cancellations be handled?

Reworking the SWrn storm’s hail threat.

Kevin Manross (Gridded Warning Cognizant Scientist)

Although TOR threat is not high, Greg questions whether the threat is greater than zero. Steve and Ryan agree that it is non-zero (background) and so are starting a TOR warning.

Kevin Manross (Gridded Warning Cognizant Scientist)

Holding off on TOR warning. Hail sig in radar seems to be obscuring velocity and hence confidence.

Kevin Manross (Gridded Warning Cognizant Scientist)

Issuing hail threat on sup. to SW of KRAX. Following up with TOR threat. TBSS grabbed our attention to hail (MESH “confirmed”). Hook/RFD signature is impetus for TOR.

Kevin Manross (Gridded Warning Cognizant Scientist)

Let’s try this again (lost my last post)…

Sitting with Ryan K. and Steve R. on a storm near KRAX. Initially tracking a hail threat but transitioning to a wind threat.

NOTE: about 30 minutes ago we had a network/data hiccup that killed our MESH. it is coming back.

Steve notes that there seems to be much more discussion about probs, than meterology.

Greg said the suggestion was offered to have the contour advect with the threat area.

Kevin Manross (Gridded Warning Cognizant Scientist)

Running PROBWARN exercise with Ryan K. and Steve R. focusing on storm(s) near KRAX. Currently have one hail threat outlined and working on a new wind threat as the storm falls behind the cold side of the boundary.

Note: Network/data hiccup about 25 to 30 minutes ago, which has knocked out our gridded MESH.

Kevin Manross (Gridded Warning Cognizant Scientist)

SHAVE is working North Carolina and Georgia this afternoon, and will link up with the Prob Warning exercise in another hour or two.

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

Gridded Warning Discussion:

We sectorized warnings in TX–north (Ron and Dan M.) and south (Dan P. and Dave). Both groups focused on all three threats (wind, hail and tornado), targeting 2-4 storms each.

Would like to sync multiple threat types for same storm, such that if storm motion is changed for the hail threat and then update (if chosen) coincidently for wind and tornado for that storm. (Could try on a case such as Greensburg where you have to separate tornado threats with different storm motions.)

Felt like lost concentration as moved in ’round-robin’ from storm to storm. Possibly focused on too many storms.

Sig hail, Sig Wind options–on top of other three threats–add to the amount of data a forecaster must maintain, but seem necessary. 100% pea-sized hail or 100% baseball hail or possibility instead state for exceedance of a level: e.g., 100% prob of nickel size, 40% prob for > golf ball.

Pulsing storms for group 1 caused constant updates in trend, sometimes trends would be changed quickly from one update to the next. *Do the forecasters worry about continuity or accuracy more? * Second group dealt with storms that maintained more continuity and followed conceptional model of HP storms, so confidence in hail and wind threats especially was particularly high.

In terms of software, would like interface such that forecasters could draw trend in line graph (e.g, bell shape or up and then flatten).

Kristin Kuhlman (PAR Cognizant Scientist)

Could note better convergence signature in PAR data with faster updates.

Ron P. has taken over warning contour operations attm. Updating threat area in Okuskee Co. to cover growth of storm. Has higher threat embedded within lower threat.

Kristin Kuhlman (PAR Cognizant Scientist)