CI<\/strong><\/p>\nForecasters seemed to like the non-binary CI products. \u00a0Though the UAH CI product was understood, users appreciated the level of uncertainty afforded by the CIMSS products.<\/p>\n
UAH Sat Cast, looking for CI behind cirrus near dryline, never detected anything, which is good, no false alarms.\u00a0 Positive null detection<\/p>\n
Ice masking to aid in sanity check was useful and appreciated.<\/p>\n
NEARCAST products seemed not much different that looking at a RUC theta-E output for a few hours, but with advantage that it is based on observations and advected where you might not have the observations later.<\/p>\n
pGLM<\/strong><\/p>\nThere was more discussion\/comments on the pGLM product throughout the week than on the last day. \u00a0Though the storms in the DEL-MAR-VA area weren’t terribly severe when we were observing them, the pGLM added some additional level of confidence in (non) severity.<\/p>\n
The THU case was our best bet for looking at the pGLM, despite a LMA sensor\/comms failure that adversely impacted the network for a period late in the operations period.<\/p>\n
There was a request for to include what is known so far wrt to total lightning behavior. \u00a0Participants requested more WES style cases. \u00a0There was also a request for a CG\/IC ratio product.<\/p>\n
Lightning trend and jump information remains a hot topic, in that many are interested, but we want to make sure we don’t get the “cart before the horse” and verify any claims with solid research.<\/p>\n
OUN WRF<\/strong><\/p>\nOn THU, in particular, OUN WRF gave good indication of storm morphology \/ mode. \u00a0Was the only modle that depicted te storms in SW OK and maintaining them.<\/p>\n
There was a recommendation for improved\/new product combination available to the forecasters. \u00a0The SimRef\/Updraft Helicity\/Vert. Int. Graupel is already being implemented after week 2.<\/p>\n
Need to be wary about sharing outside the WFO (eg. EM community) for concerns of latching on to an incorrect solution. \u00a0Sometimes it “almost looks too real”.<\/p>\n
Time ensemble output\/display is desired (something that Sterling does).<\/p>\n
3DVAR<\/strong><\/p>\nSuggestion to break up Updraft\/Downdraft composites like the vorticity layer composites (0-3,3-7, total). \u00a0Also consider Storm Relative Depth layers.<\/p>\n
Request for a SRH product.<\/p>\n
Placement\u00a0of updraft seemed incorrect at times – especially with VA storms, but even with OK storms at times – even when compared to same-latency Sim Ref.<\/p>\n
Think the 3DVAR products have a lot of potential to help with SA and add confidence, to help uncertainty with sampling at far ranges or over cone-of-silence. \u00a0Swaths (trends) also very helpful.<\/p>\n
2D wind vectors would be great to have in AWIPS if possible. \u00a0Perhaps FSI, or using the “all-millibars” in the VB.<\/p>\n
Logistics\/Open Suggestions\/MRMS<\/strong><\/p>\nMRMS op system needs diagnostic tools, to show how many radars and elevation scans go into a grid point (or like CI ice-mask \u2013 not 100% optimal), and if it is less than 100% (radar outage), or radars running hot\/cold. \u00a0Need diagnostic tools to determine if system is not running optimally.<\/p>\n
Feels like, \u201cdo what you want to\u201d, \u201clook at everything\u201d, \u201cfalling into comfort zone\u201d.\u00a0 Maybe the pairs of forecaster can do traditional warning, and other person looks at the experimental products.\u00a0 At least one person is focused on that particular product.<\/p>\n
We again hear the suggestion of a multi-week setup. \u00a0We are certainly not opposed to this, though NWS logistics would be a tough hurdle to overcome.<\/p>\n
Hearing greater support (as well as from Week 3) for requiring future participants to complete training prior to arriving. \u00a0(powerpoints, articulate, WES cases). \u00a0This would help us gain “Monday” as an operational day.<\/p>\n
Respectfully Submitted:<\/p>\n
-kevin manross :: 2011 EWP Week 2 Weekly Coordinator<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Week two allowed us to “spread our wings” a little, in that we operated in the DC domain some, and we made use of the 19 May 2010 Displaced Real… <\/p>\n
Read more \u00bb<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":82,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2407","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-weekly-summaries"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/ewp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2407","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\/82"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/ewp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2407"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/ewp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2407\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/ewp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2407"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/ewp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2407"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/ewp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2407"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}