1. A High-Resolution Observational Climatology and Composite Study of Mesoscale Band Evolution within Northeast U.S. Cyclones David Novak NOAA/NWS Hydrometeorological Prediction Center Brian Colle * Anantha Aiyyer # * School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, Stony Brook University # Dept. of Marine, Earth and Atmos. Sciences, NCSU © New York Times

2. The Challenge of QPF Bands make Quantitative Precipitation Forecasts (QPF) difficult –Localized heavy precipitation –Extreme gradients –Evolution 12 Feb 2006 NYC 2

3. Max = 47 mm Max = 30 mm ObservedNAM Forecast (24 h prior) The Challenge of QPF Bands make Quantitative Precipitation Forecasts (QPF) difficult –Localized heavy precipitation –Extreme gradients –Evolution 3

4. Objectives Novak et al. (2004) Conceptual Model Novak et al. (2008) Case Study Is there a common banded cyclone and band life cycle?

5. Novak et al. (2004) BANDED Feb 12 2006 Distinguishing characteristics between cyclones with closed midlevel circulations that develop bands and those that do not? Objectives

6. Motivation Novak et al. (2004) Feb 11 2005 Distinguishing characteristics between cyclones with closed midlevel circulations that develop bands and those that do not? NONBANDED

7. Data and Methods Cases: Daily Weather Maps series to identify cases exhibiting > 25.4 mm (rain) or > 12.7 mm liquid equivalent (snow), during a 24-h period at a point in the study domain. Study Domain: Northeast U.S. Period: October-April 2002-2008 7

8. Data and Methods 700 hPa low vs. no low: 3-hourly North American Regional Reanalysis (NARR; Mesinger et al. 2006) data examined to identify cases exhibiting a midlevel (700 hPa) closed low 8

9. Data and Methods Among the 75 cases exhibiting a 700-hPa low: 2 km WSI composite radar data were examined to identify types of events: -Single-banded : meets shape, intensity, and duration criteria. -Transitory null: meets two out of the three criteria (shape, intensity, duration) -Null: meets at most one of the three criteria (shape, intensity, duration) 9

10. Band Environment Evolution Rapid Update Cycle (RUC) analysis and 2 km composite radar data used to characterize the environmental evolution RUC (Benjamin et al. 2004) assimilates variety of synoptic and asynoptic datasets Archived 20 km horizontal spatial resolution / 25 mb vertical resolution Hourly temporal resolution Band-relative time framework 10

11.  Cross sections of: 2-D frontogenesis (black) Saturated equivalent potential temperature (θ es ) (thin green) Ascent (dotted) 70 % RH (thick green)  Cross sections taken following movement of the band. 0900 UTC 12 Feb 2006 Band Environment Evolution Conditional stability above the frontogenesis maximum in a 200 hPa layer where RH > 70%. Frontogenesis maximum in the 800–500 hPa layer within 100 km of the observed radar band. 11

12. Frontogenesis generally maximizes during band maturity Stability smallest at time of band formation, and generally increases afterward. Banded event frontogenesis is stronger than null (90% confidence level) Banded event stability is weaker than null (but not statistically significant) *Common band life cycle* Mean Evolution

13. Stability Types (N=36) Conditional StabilityInertially stableInertially stable and EPV <0 Inertially unstable and EPV <0 >1 K (100 hPa) −1 “Stable”CSIIICSI/II <1 K (100 hPa) −1 but > 0 K (100 hPa) −1 “Neutral”CSIIICSI/II <0 K (100 hPa) −1 CI CI/II 13

14. Synoptic classification based on PV evolution for 1996-2008 cool seasons (72 banded cyclones) Banded Cyclone Types -Treble-clef (53 cases): Traditional LC 2 (cyclonic wrap-up)] Posselt and Martin (2004) -Cutoff (10 cases) Upper PV maximum isolated from the polar PV reservoir -Diabatic (9 cases): Band formation east of the upper PV trough, and within 300 km of a saturated 700-hPa PV maximum (i.e., diabatic PV anomaly) PV evolutions subjectively classified as: 14

15. Composite Technique All banded events exhibited a 700 hPa trough in the vicinity of the banded event, and trough was also present in many null events. Trough-relative composite framework [C /(100 km)/(3h)] 700-hPa low center serves as anchor point (x=0,y=0) 0900 UTC 12 Feb 2006 15

16. RUC field moved such that anchor point is at mean low position (40 N/75 W). RUC field rotated about this point such that the 700 hPa height trough is aligned N-S. Fields averaged (composited) for selected cases. Composite Technique All banded events exhibited a 700 hPa trough in the vicinity of the banded event, and trough was also present in many null events. Trough-relative composite framework 700-hPa low center serves as anchor point (x=0,y=0) [C /(100 km)/(3h)] 0900 UTC 12 Feb 2006 16

17. Treble Clef Cyclone Evolution (N=26) T= − 6 1000 hPa -height -winds -temp 700 hPa -height -winds -temp - frontogenesis 400 hPa -PV -winds -PV adv 400 hPa -PV -isotachs -winds - divergence 17

18. Treble Clef Cyclone Evolution (N=26) T= 0 1000 hPa -height -winds -temp 400 hPa -PV -PV adv -winds 400 hPa -PV -isotachs -winds - divergence 700 hPa -height -winds -temp - frontogenesis 18

19. Treble Clef Cyclone Evolution (N=26) T= end 1000 hPa -height -winds -temp 400 hPa -PV -PV adv -winds 400 hPa -PV -isotachs -winds - divergence 700 hPa -height -winds -temp - frontogenesis 19

20. Box -Average Diagnostics  Frontogenesis (FRNT)  Normalized Frontogenesis (NFRNT)  Magnitude of θ gradient (DELT) Changes in kinematic flow dominate changes in temperature gradient in explaining frontogenesis evolution Differences in normalized frontogenesis appear only 2 h prior to t=0

21. Cross Sections Treble ClefNull T= − 6 Frontogenesis (shaded) Isentropes (dark green) Ascent (dashed blue) Flow in plane of x-section (vectors) 70% isohume (thick solid) Hakim and Keyser (2001)

22. A Common Banded Cyclone Evolution and Band Life Cycle 22

23. Common Banded Cyclone Evolution and Band Life Cycle T= −6 23

24. T= −6 A B Common Banded Cyclone Evolution and Band Life Cycle

25. T= −6 A B Common Banded Cyclone Evolution and Band Life Cycle

26. T= 0 A B Common Banded Cyclone Evolution and Band Life Cycle

27. T= +6 A B Common Banded Cyclone Evolution and Band Life Cycle

28. Distinguishing Treble vs. Null events Null and Treble Cleft events synoptically similar Null events were characterized by: -a weaker surface cyclone*, -weaker midlevel frontogenesis*, -larger conditional and symmetric stability, -less jet-front coupling. *statistically significant 28

29. Summary PRECEEDING FORMATION: Midlevel frontogenesis increases as mesoscale trough develops in region of upper PV advection and left-exit region of upper jet. Conditional stability reduced via differential horizontal temperature advection. FORMATION: Release of instability modes by increasing frontogenesis along mesoscale midlevel trough, along poleward edge of upper-PV “hook”, and in the left-exit region of upper jet. MATURITY: Increasing stability offset by increasing frontogenetical forcing. LHR from band contributes to increasing frontogenesis. DISSIPATION: Kinematic flow changes associated with new diabatic PV anomaly weakens frontogenesis in presence of large stability. Jet-front coupling disrupted by increasing separation. 29 The primary discriminator between banded and null events is the strength of the frontogenesis. The synoptic flow is similar between PV hook and null cases, although the PV hook cyclones are deeper, and exhibit a smaller separation distance between the upper jet and midlevel frontogenesis. There is a common banded cyclone evolution and band life cycle:

30. Back up 30

31. Null Cyclone Evolution T= 0 1000 hPa -height -winds -temp 700 hPa 400 hPa -PV -PV adv -winds 400 hPa -PV -isotachs -winds - divergence 31

32. Band vs. Null Scatterplot 32