{"id":19128,"date":"2022-06-24T11:39:25","date_gmt":"2022-06-24T16:39:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/ewp\/?p=19128"},"modified":"2022-07-12T10:12:45","modified_gmt":"2022-07-12T15:12:45","slug":"ilx-ramblings","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/ewp\/2022\/06\/24\/ilx-ramblings\/","title":{"rendered":"ILX Ramblings"},"content":{"rendered":"

A comparison of NUCAPS at 19Z with observed\/analysis products from SPC showed good comparison for both modified and unmodified data. Below shows the unmodified NUCAPS sounding that was \u201cgreen\u201d over the north-central portion of the ILX CWA. The MLCAPE was around 500 J\/kg, with DCAPE around 690 J\/kg, freezing levels just below 10,000 feet, and PW\u2019s around 1.1 inches.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

A modified NUCAPS sounding for the same location showed an uptick in MLCAPE to around 600 J\/kg, along with similar PW\u2019s, DCAPE and freezing level.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

A comparison with SPC mesoanalysis at 20Z showed very comparable PW values, between 1.1 to 1.2 inches over north-central IL, and freezing levels between 10 to 11 kft. As for MLCAPE, it appeared that for both modified and unmodified NUCAPS, the observed was higher than NUCAPS, around 1000-1500 J\/kg, perhaps not having a high enough surface dewpoint. As for 850 mb temperatures, they were comparable to those observed, in the 12-14 degC range. DCAPE was also comparable in NUCAPS with what the SPC mesoanalysis page was showing, between 600-700 J\/kg.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

With regards to lightningCAST, ProbSevere, and GLM, around 1932Z, once again the LightningCast was showing good lead time for areas downstream of storms. The main cell at this time I was watching was in the southeast Part of our CWA, which had a nice contour of 75% to the north and east of that cell extending well north of the storm core.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

At 20Z, the Optical Flow divergence field appeared to match up well with observed convection at this time. It thus showed quite well with the shear field.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

ProbSevere\u2019s time series graph continues to show added value, allowing the forecaster to see the trend in a storm’s severity and probability of severe potential. This image was at 20:40Z.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Around 21Z, I noticed a jump in GLM FED for the area of storms in the northwest part of the CWA. Alongside this, the GLM TOE also increased, along with a decrease in MFA with the same storm cell. This area corresponded with increased flash rates in the EarthNetworks. I modified the GLM FED scale to 20-25 as a maximum to see the activity better, as well as lowering TOE to 50 as a maximum.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Around 22Z, the GLM TOE showed a good correlation with the 3 strongest storms based on dBZ and ProbSevere, one to the north, and two in the far southeast, bordering Indiana. For this display of TOE, I lowered the contours to a max of 50, which seemed to work well.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Around 22:12Z, the LightningCast showed an uptick in probabilities of 75% north of a cell that was starting to show towering CU on the day cloud phase. This was before GLM and ground-based radar showed uptick in lightning activity.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Are the edges of LightningCast contours related to the detection of GLM? See below image\u2026The contours do not close off.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Snowfan<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A comparison of NUCAPS at 19Z with observed\/analysis products from SPC showed good comparison for both modified and unmodified data. Below shows the unmodified NUCAPS sounding that was \u201cgreen\u201d over… <\/p>\n

Read more \u00bb<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":181,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[64,90,68,82,92,14,89],"tags":[52,83,84,45,81,86,35],"class_list":["post-19128","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-glm","category-lightningcast","category-nucaps","category-optical-flow-winds","category-phsnmwnabi","category-probsevere","category-spg2022","tag-glm","tag-hwt2022","tag-lightningcast","tag-nucaps","tag-optical-flow-winds","tag-phsnmwnabi","tag-probsevere"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/ewp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19128","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/ewp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/ewp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/ewp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/181"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/ewp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=19128"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/ewp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19128\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":19129,"href":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/ewp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19128\/revisions\/19129"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/ewp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19128"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/ewp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19128"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/ewp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19128"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}