Aspects of 6 June 2007: A Null “Moderate Risk” of Severe Weather Jonathan Kurtz Department of Geosciences University of Nebraska at Lincoln NOAA/NWS Omaha/Valley,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Runnin’ Against the Wind Making Your Own Forecast Justin Turcotte.
Advertisements

You Can Go Your Own Way Making Your Own Forecast Justin Turcotte
SPC Potential Products and Services and Attributes of Operational Supporting NWP Probabilistic Outlooks of Tornado, Severe Hail, and Severe Wind.
SPC Input – EMC GFS Satellite Data Denial Experiment April 2011 Tornado Outbreak Examination of Day 7 and Day 4 Guidance for SPC Severe Weather Outlooks.
Cold Fronts and their relationship to density currents: A case study and idealised modelling experiments Victoria Sinclair University of HelsinkI David.
Analysis of Rare Northeast Flow Events By Joshua Beilman and Stephanie Acito.
Warm Season Frontogenesis Forcing Applications and Implications for Convective Initiation (or Failure) Dan Miller Science and Operations Officer NWS/WFO.
NOAA/NWS Change to WRF 13 June What’s Happening? WRF replaces the eta as the NAM –NAM is the North American Mesoscale “timeslot” or “Model Run”
Improving Excessive Rainfall Forecasts at HPC by using the “Neighborhood - Spatial Density“ Approach to High Res Models Michael Eckert, David Novak, and.
The Impact of Gravity Wave/Undular Bore Dissipation on the June 22, 2003 Deshler and Aurora Nebraska Tornadic Supercells AARON W. JOHNSON NOAA/NWS Weather.
Visually Enhanced Composite Charts for Severe Weather Forecasting and Real-time Diagnosis Josh Korotky NWS Pittsburgh PA NROW Annual Meeting 2002.
Danielle M. Kozlowski NASA USRP Intern. Background Motivation Forecasting convective weather is a challenge for operational forecasters Current numerical.
An Overview of Environmental Conditions and Forecast Implications of the 3 May 1999 Tornado Outbreak Richard L. Thompson and Roger Edwards Presentation.
A tale of two severe weather surprises – The isolated event of 16 July 2010 and the severe weather outbreak of 17 July 2010 Neil A. Stuart NOAA/NWS Albany,
S. Hunter Coleman*, Michael Cammarata, Anthony Petrolito NOAA/National Weather Service WFO Columbia, SC * A Significant Hail.
Warm-Season Lake-/Sea-Breeze Severe Weather in the Northeast Patrick H. Wilson, Lance F. Bosart, and Daniel Keyser Department of Earth and Atmospheric.
The Father’s Day 2002 Severe Weather Outbreak across New York and Western New England Thomas A. Wasula NOAA/NWS WFO at Albany.
Correlations between observed snowfall and NAM forecast parameters, Part I – Dynamical Parameters Mike Evans NOAA/NWS Binghamton, NY November 1, 2006 Northeast.
The August 9, 2001 Lake Breeze Severe Weather Event Across New York and Western New England Thomas A. Wasula NOAA/NWS WFO at Albany.
Warm-Season Lake-/Sea-Breeze Severe Weather in the Northeast Patrick H. Wilson, Lance F. Bosart, and Daniel Keyser Department of Earth and Atmospheric.
Using Ensemble Probability Forecasts and High Resolution Models To Identify Severe Weather Threats Josh Korotky NOAA/NWS, Pittsburgh, PA and Richard H.
6/26/2015 RUC Convective Parameters and Upscale Events in Southern Ontario Mike Leduc Environment Canada.
An Examination of the Tropical System – Induced Flooding in Central New York and Northeast Pennsylvania in 2004.
Atmospheric Modeling at RENCI Brian J. Etherton. Atmospheric Modeling at RENCI Focus of RENCI for C- STAR project is to provide modeling support/development.
Severe Squall Line over Quebec August 18th 2008 Robert Michaud QSPC – Montreal October 29th 2008.
Synoptic, Thermodynamic, Shear Setting May 7, 2002 Tornadic Thunderstorm in Southwestern Kansas Michele Blazek May 15, 2005.
A Storm-Scale Analysis of the 16 June 2008 Significant Severe Weather Event across New York and Western New England Thomas A. Wasula NOAA/NWS at Albany.
The 4 August 2004 Central Pennsylvania Severe Weather Event – Environmental and Topographical Influences on Storm Structure Evolution Joe Villani NOAA/NWS,
Characteristics of Isolated Convective Storms Meteorology 515/815 Spring 2006 Christopher Meherin.
The March 01/02 Non-Winter Weather Event: Part 1 Michael W. Cammarata Anthony W. Petrolito.
Roll or Arcus Cloud Supercell Thunderstorms.
Determining Favorable Days for Summertime Severe Convection in the Deep South Chad Entremont NWS Jackson, MS.
Use of TAMDAR Data in a Convective Weather Event Saturday, May 21, 2005.
The National Environmental Agency of Georgia L. Megrelidze, N. Kutaladze, Kh. Kokosadze NWP Local Area Models’ Failure in Simulation of Eastern Invasion.
Christopher S. Foltz Jeremy Martin Brad Mickelson NWS WFO Goodland, KS 13 th High Plains Conference August 2009.
Poorly Forecast Convection During the Evening of 20 July 2008 in Southern North Dakota Justin Turcotte Meteorologist Meridian Environmental Technology.
Evaluation of a Challenging Warm Season QPF month at HPC: June 2009 Brendon Rubin-Oster Richard Otto (with contributions from Mike Bodner, Keith Brill,
Lecture 2a Severe Thunderstorm Primer Synoptic Laboratory II – Mesoscale Professor Tripoli.
SYNOPTIC METEOROLOGY LABORATORY The Dallas and Fort Worth Storms of May 5, 1995 Storms of May 5, 1995 BY: Brent Crisp, Phil Grigsby, Thomas Jones, Devon.
Mesoscale convective systems. Review of last lecture 1.3 stages of supercell tornado formation. 1.Tornado outbreak (number>6) 2.Tornado damage: Enhanced.
“Effects of Pacific Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Anomalies on the Climate of Southern South Carolina and Northern Coastal Georgia ” Whitney Albright Joseph.
Earth-Sun System Division National Aeronautics and Space Administration SPoRT SAC Nov 21-22, 2005 Regional Modeling using MODIS SST composites Prepared.
Composite Analysis of Environmental Conditions Favorable for Significant Tornadoes across Eastern Kansas Joshua M. Boustead, and Barbara E. Mayes NOAA/NWS.
An Experiment to Evaluate the Use of Quantitative Precipitation Forecasts from Numerical Guidance by Operational Forecasters Joshua M. Boustead and Daniel.
Soundings and Adiabatic Diagrams for Severe Weather Prediction and Analysis Continued.
19 July 2006 Derecho: A Meteorological Perspective and Lessons Learned from this Event Ron W. Przybylinski, James E. Sieveking, Benjamin D. Sipprell NOAA.
The Rapid Evolution of Convection Approaching the New York City Metropolitan Region Brian A. Colle and Michael Charles Institute for Terrestrial and Planetary.
Soundings and Adiabatic Diagrams for Severe Weather Prediction and Analysis.
Using Ensemble Probability Forecasts And High Resolution Models To Identify Severe Weather Threats Josh Korotky NOAA/NWS, Pittsburgh, PA and Richard H.
CONVECTIVE STORM STRUCTURES AND AMBIENT CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH SEVERE WEATHER OVER THE NORTHEAST UNITED STATES Kelly A. Lombardo and Brian A. Colle.
August 4, 2015: Two Rare High End Severe Weather Events Inside 12 Hours In Southern New England Hayden Frank NOAA/National Weather Service Taunton, MA.
Analysis of the 2 April 2006 Quasi-Linear Convective System (QLCS) over the Mid- Mississippi Valley Region: Storm Structure and Evolution from WSR-88D.
The July 19, 2015 “Non Severe” Event in Southern New England What Happened? NROW XVI – November, 2015 Frank Nocera NOAA/NWS Taunton MA.
HWT Spring Experiment 2011 model comparisons 1 June OK-MO severe storms Very subtle boundaries, really not a lot of surface forcing But lots of storms.
A Rare Severe Weather and Tornado Event in Central New York and Northeast Pennsylvania: July 8, 2014 Presented by Mike Evans 1.
Conditions for Convection The Ingredients Method.
Soundings and Adiabatic Diagrams for Severe Weather Prediction and Analysis Continued.
Cirrus anvil cumulonimbus T (skewed) LCL (Lifting Condensation Level) LFC (Level of Free Convection) EL (Equilibrium level) p overshooting CAPE Sounding.
Jeffrey A. Chapman Philip N. Schumacher NOAA/NWS Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
OKX The OKX sounding at 1200 UTC has 153 J kg -1 CIN extending upwards to 800 hPa and < 500 J kg -1 CAPE. There was 41.8 mm of precipitable water. By 1400.
Soundings and Adiabatic Diagrams for Severe Weather Prediction and Analysis Ooohhhh!!!!!!!!!!! Aaaahhhhhhhh!!!!!! Look at the pretty picture!
Radar Observation of Severe Weather
Alan F. Srock and Lance F. Bosart
ATM 401/501 Status of Forecasting: Spring 2013
Better Forecasting Bureau
The November 26, 2014 banded snowfall case in southern NY
Thermodynamic Diagrams and Severe Weather
Lake Effect Storms.
IHOP Convection Initiation And Storm Evolution Studies
Rita Roberts and Jim Wilson National Center for Atmospheric Research
Presentation transcript:

Aspects of 6 June 2007: A Null “Moderate Risk” of Severe Weather Jonathan Kurtz Department of Geosciences University of Nebraska at Lincoln NOAA/NWS Omaha/Valley, NE

Project Outline Definition of a Moderate Risk as defined by the Storm Prediction Center (SPC). Overview of Synoptic Scale conditions of 6 June Study of the different forecast models available and their predictions of the events of 6 June 2007; including Quantitative Precipitation Forecasts (QPF), their forecasts of the closed surface low, forcing mechanisms, shear and instability.

6 June 2007 Moderate Risk SPC Forecasted Moderate at 0600 UTC 6 June 2007 for the majority of the north central Plains, including North Dakota, South Dakota, western Minnesota, central and eastern Nebraska, western Iowa and north central Kansas.

SPC Definition of a Moderate Risk “moderate risks imply a greater concentration of severe thunderstorms, and in most situations, greater magnitude of severe weather. Within a moderate risk area, at least 30 reports of hail 1 inch or larger, or 6-19 tornadoes, or numerous wind events (at least 30 reports that likely would be associated with a squall line, bow echo or derecho).”

Overlay Map of the 0600 UTC Moderate and Preliminary Storm Reports Red Triangles: Tornadoes == Blue Triangles: Hail == Green Squares: Wind 19 Reports of Hail 1 inch or greater 6 Tornado Reports 13 Wind reports of speeds over 65 mph

Synoptic Situation

HPC (Hydrometeorological Prediction Center) Surface Fronts Analysis 21 UTC 6 June UTC 7 June UTC 7 June 2007

Closed 979 hPa Low High Wind Warning Criteria Met… 63 mph observed at Fairbury, NE out of the South!

GFS BUFKIT Data 21 UTC Lincoln, NE: 00 UTC Model Run Indices CAPE: 1381 J/kg CIN: 370 J/kg Lifted Index: -2.8 K index: 17 SWEAT: 426 Showalter: -2 Bulk Richardson:21.19 Shear 0-3 Km: 35 m/s 0-6 Km: 46 m/s Helicity 0-3 Km: Km: 362

NAM BUFKIT Data 21 UTC Lincoln, NE: 00 UTC Model Run Indices CAPE: 1697 J/kg CIN: 333 J/kg Lifted Index: -4.6 K Index: 23 SWEAT: 502 Showalter: -4 Bulk Richardson:35.39 Shear 0-3 Km: 32 m/s 0-6 Km: 38 m/s Helicity 0-3 Km: Km: 313

NAM Mixed Layer Computed CAPE and CIN 2100 UTC 6 June 2007

RUC Km Bulk Shear and Bulk Shear Vectors 2100 UTC 6 June 2007

RUC BUFKIT Data 21 UTC Lincoln, NE: 21 UTC Model Run Indices CAPE: 216 J/kg CIN: 439 J/kg Lifted Index: -0.7 K index: 20 SWEAT: 397 Showalter: -1 Bulk Richardson:3.13 Helicity 0-3 Km: Km: 425 Shear 0-3 Km: 42 m/s 0-6 Km: 56 m/s

NAM12 Surface Dew Point and Temperatures (2100 UTC 6 June 2007)

GFS40 Surface Dew Point and Temperatures (1800 UTC 6 June 2007)

Surface Observations and RUC 80 Surface Dew Point Analysis 21 UTC 6 June 2007

Model Predicted Moisture vs. Observations On average there was a significant difference in the surface dew point temperatures predicted by the models and the dew points observed throughout the day. The NAM was predicting close to 10 degree higher dew points and the GFS was predicting 3 to 5 degree higher dew points than were actually observed during the course of the day. The forecasting of greater moisture led to the models predicting higher CAPE and lower CIN values than what would occur. Given the low available moisture, actual CAPE values were much lower than predicted, and more importantly, the values of CIN were extremely high.

Visible Satellite Image 2115 UTC and METAR OBS 2100 UTC 6 June 2007

RUC hPa Winds: 18 UTC 6 June UTC 6 June UTC 6 June UTC 7 June 2007

RUC hPa Divergent Q Vectors: 6 June UTC 6 June UTC 6 June UTC 7 June 2007

NAM Time-Height Cross Section of RH and Omega 12 UTC 6 June – 00 UTC 7 June

NAM 40 and GFS hPa Omega 24 hour forecast valid at 00 UTC 7 June 2007 NAM 40GFS 40 Strong Vertical Motion

MSAS Moisture Flux Divergence and METAR OBS 0100 UTC 0.5 Reflectivity 0136 UTC and METAR OBS 0200 UTC 0800 PM CDT 6 June 2007

0.5 Reflectivity 0200 UTC and METAR OBS 0200 UTCMSAS Moisture Flux Divergence and METAR OBS 0200 UTC 0900 PM CDT 6 June 2007

GFS 40: 6 June UTC Initiation 18 UTC 6 June UTC 7 June UTC 7 June 2007

NAM 80 7 June UTC Initiation 18 UTC 6 June UTC 7 June UTC 7 June 2007

NAM 12 6 June UTC Initiation 21 UTC 6 June UTC 7 June UTC 7 June 2007

NGM 80 6 June UTC Initiation 18 UTC 6 June UTC 7 June UTC 7 June 2007

NOAA SPC Spring Program Experimental Forecast Program involving the National Severe Storms Laboratory (NSSL) and the SPC The 2007 Spring Experiment included high resolution NWP forecast data and observed data from the 6 June 2007 event. Studied the WRF data comparing WRF model runs from the Advanced Research WRF (ARW) at 2 and 3 km resolution, the Nonhydrostatic Mesoscale Model (NMM at 4 km resolution, the NSSL at 4 km resolution and the Storm Scale Ensemble Forecast (SSEF) model with the Base reflectivity for the north central Plains. Tried to conclude which of the WRF models best represented the observed storm complex across the north central Plains.

ARW3-NMM4-NSSL4-ARW2-SSEFCN (1km AGL REFL) vs. Base Reflectivity 00Z 7 June 2007

ARW3-NMM4-NSSL4-ARW2-SSEFCN (1km AGL REFL) vs. Base Reflectivity 03Z 7 June 2007

ARW3-NMM4-NSSL4-ARW2-SSEFCN (1km AGL REFL) vs. Base Reflectivity 06Z 7 June 2007

Conclusions The models erroneous prediction of high surface dew points was a major contributor to the erroneous forecast of high CAPE and low CIN. Vertical forcing over the region was hampered by the convergence at the nose of the jet, causing subsidence over the majority of central Nebraska. Shear was sufficient for the development of well structured storms but the vertical motion was far too weak to over come the strong cap. Later outlooks issued by the SPC took into account these forecast concerns and properly decreased the moderate risk area.

Thank You Any Questions? Special Thanks to: Dan Nietfeld, NOAA/NWS Omaha/Valley, NE Josh Boustead, NOAA/NWS Omaha/Valley, NE Becky Griffis, NOAA/NWS Omaha/Valley, NE