1. OWLeS Research
Ashanté McLeod-Perez, Stephen Piechowski, Scott Steiger, Lauren Cutler, Shania Nichols, Tyler Kranz, Andrew Janiszeski
SUNY Oswego

2. Objectives Show Dual Doppler Analysis Show Objective Analysis
Discuss lightning and findings
Discuss WRF modeling

3. Dual-Doppler: DOWs 6 & 8 Step 1: Edit via SOLO-3
2: Objective Analysis (2-pass Barnes)
Grid spacing m (so can resolve features > 1.7 km)
Smoothing parameter km2
3: Dual-Doppler
Code provided by CSWR; thank you, Paul Robinson & Karen Kosiba for all of your help!
Upward integration of anelastic mass continuity equation to get w

4. 22:50 UTC 2013-12-18 Dual Doppler Plot

5. 06:57 UTC 2014-01-07 Dual Doppler Plot

6. Sensitivity tests and future work
The beam width of the DOW is 0.93
DOW oversamples so we can adjust the beam width
Reran objective analysis for 06:57 UTC using a 0.7 and a 0.5 beam width
The images were clearer but the data did not go up as high as with the 0.93 beam width
Mask the edges of the Dual Doppler plots so large vorticity anomalies don’t appear
Finish 07:00:10 UTC-07:02:30 UTC
Create a loop using 06:57 UTC and 07:00:10 UTC- 07:02:30 UTC

7. Objective analysis for 06:57 UTC 2014-01-07 using a 0
Objective analysis for 06:57 UTC using a 0.93 beam width vs 0.7 beam width

8. Lake-Effect Lightning

9. Some quick facts for NLDN Flashes
After grouping together the NLDN data into flashes, we found that 22:50 UTC
featured a total of 3 CG flashes and no IC flashes. All 3 of the CG flashes occurred within 300 m of a wind turbine. The first flash was classified as an LTUL, while the last two flashes were SIUL’s.
06:57 UTC featured a total of 7 IC flashes and 15 CG flashes (22 flashes total). In other words, about 32% of all the flashes were IC flashes and about 68% were CG flashes.
Out of all the 7 IC flashes during 06:57 UTC , 4 of them occurred within 300 m of a turbine. Since there are no CG strokes involved in the IC flashes, we could not classify these as SIUL’s or LTUL’s. We simply classified them as regular IC flashes .
Out of all the 15 CG flashes during 06:57 UTC , 5 were categorized as SIUL’s. 2 were categorized as LTUL’s. The remaining 8 were categorized as regular CG flashes.
For 06:57 UTC , exactly 50% of all the CG and IC flashes that occurred were within 300 m of a turbine or TV tower. For 22:50 UTC , 100% of the flashes occurred within 300 m of a turbine.

10. 22:50 UTC
Green: Cloud to Ground lightning
Red: Intra-Cloud lightning
06:57 UTC

11. Lightning Hypothesis Figure

12. WRF Modeling Objectives and Overview
Test different PBL schemes to determine performance in re-simulated lake-effect events. Use of PBL schemes with TKE profile for determining PBL height was chosen.
Previously only used YSU scheme, which uses Bulk-Richardson number for PBL height.
Using wrf output every 5 minutes from 22:50 UTC , create plots of PBL height, snow mixing ratio and precipitable water ( both observation periods)

13. Cross-Sect at 00z 28 Jan WRF-RAP int MYJ

14. RAP-int. MYJ Cross Sect. 00Z 28 Jan.
PBL height increasing? Certainly looks like it as we travel through the band.

15. Utah Obs. Sndg at 03z 28 Jan vs MYJ (left) and YSU (right)
Here, observed sounding has deeper boundary layer (~ 50 mb).

16. PBL Height (m) overlaid with Snow Mixing Ratio (kg/kg) for 07:30 UTC on 2014-01-07

17. Conclusion
06:57 UTC showed better miso vorticies during lightning than 22:50 UTC which did not have miso voticies but had lightning. This shows that our hypothesis of miso vorticies and lightning being related need more investigation
Cloud to ground lightning strikes were found to occur inland as opposed to along the shoreline. Most CG lightning was collocated with wind turbines.
Maple ridge windfarm may be a factor in lightning.
Initiating the SUNY Oswego WRF with the RAP produced the best results, but still the output PBL heights were shallower than observed heights.