LAP
- CAPE values were slightly less than those from RAP, but I understand this because GFS was fairly low, which is used as the first guess in the retrievals. Although, RAP may have been high.
- The LAP CAPE gradient was right through our CWA. It was helpful to focus on the location and movement of this gradient, as convection developed right along it.
- Layer PW was helpful for identifying drying aloft. I thought with wind and hail, and TPW values being relatively low, this seemed correct.
- LAP LPW showed really dry air aloft. This was apparent in the RAOBs, and confirmed in LPW.
GOES-R CI
- It was not good yesterday in FWD. We didn't see any probabilities from severe or regular CI despite having cu develop and initiate into severe storms. There did not appear to be cirrus contamination.
- There were instances when severe CI was higher than regular CI
- In San Angelo, things were slow to get going. Early on, there were no probabilities until convection had already began to develop. Later in the day it was better. It keyed in on new development further south when we were focused on the ongoing convection to the north.
ProbSevere
- For the first storm of the day that got a warning yesterday, I was very confident that it was going to go severe. It looked good on radar with a strong reflectivity core. I put a warning on it despite probsevere being only 40-50%. After the warning, the storm weakened pretty quickly. Lightning and shear had both been low.
- Yesterday, if probabilities went over 80, I thought it had a good chance of going severe.
- I went liberal on one warning. Without ProbSevere I would have waited to warn. It definitely added lead time in that situation.
- Through using ProbSevere, I could see warning lead time going up, but also FAR rate increasing.
- Towards the end of the day yesterday, probsevere was in the 90s with a storm, but based on radar reflectivities, it appeared that the storm was weakening. Lightning flash rates were high at this time.
Lightning Jump
-Training needs to be improved for this, as I did not understand the LJ before using it yesterday
- I noticed a lot of fluctuations in LJ in a cell.
- It helped with my confidence, seeing jumps with the rapidly developing storms
- I liked using the 4-panel with ProbSevere and LJ together. The first time I used the two together, ProbSevere gave me more confidence in what I was seeing in radar, and LJ gave me confidence in what I was seeing in Probsevere. I liked this.
- I didn't feel like I needed to see a new lj to warn, but it added confidence.
- For me, it was more a a SA tool, alerting us to cells that we hadn't really been watching yet but needed to start keeping an eye on. It was an early indication that we need to look at the storm further.
- I actually liked the display, the blob really jumps out. We aren't really interrogating radar in that panel anyway, so it is fine that it gets covered up.
- I could see LJ being a confidence booster in pulse thunderstorm cases. Maybe not as much with a qlcs event dropping wind damage, when we know it is severe.
SRSOR
- With one storm I was watching, a storm split was obvious in the 1-min imagery much earlier than it was in the radar imagery.
- I could see the strengthening of the updraft and OT well in multiple supercells quicker than was apparent in radar.
- I enjoyed looking at IR imagery. The OTs as indicated by areas of very cold temperature were pretty brief, but the 1-min imagery was able to capture them. They weren't long-lived OTs, occuring in-between radar and routine satellite scans. So it was helpful to have this rapidly updating information.
- I could see the Overshooting Tops shoot up before strengthening in radar.
- With a cell that ended up being severe, you could see it forming along the outflow boundary before you could tell what was going on in radar.
- It was easy to see cu clouds feeding into the supercells
- It was informative to observe low clouds moving under the anvil, a depiction of deep layer shear.
SRSOR winds
- Early in the day and in the 18z radiosonde, there was not much shear. But later, the satellite-winds indicated strengthening westerly flow aloft.
- Helped to find areas of low-level convergence.
- The winds indicated convergence along a boundary ahead of the dryline. We did get enhanced cu development in this area. The winds alerted us to areas of concern.
- When upper-level winds came in with a storm anvil, we could see veering with height.
- This will be useful in extracting a pseudo wind profile, and monitoring layer wind shear.
NUCAPS
- Looking at the Plan view and cross section displays in FWD, I think these can be very helpful.
- Mixing ration plan view at 700 mb showed a nice gradient near the CWA boundary. Convection was dying as it crossed this gradient into the drier air.
- The highest mixing ration values were collocated with the storms in Mexico.
- The NUCAPS data is a great check on the models
- NUCAPS matched closely with the nearby Del Rio sounding in terms of CAPE and PW.
- It reinforced my understanding of the present thermodynamic environment.
- Prior to CI, I would look at NUCAPS while gauging the environment.
- If we do an 18Z sounding, then get NUCAPS a couple hours later, the temporal change would be helpful to see.
- I do not want to have to modify a NUCAPS sounding in the middle of warning operations.
- With the plan view, it was easy to pick out areas of bad data. So in this case, I would not want a model adjustment. But I would want an adjustment to the actual profile.
- I like the idea of not using model data for the low-level correction. I think it would be better to do whatever correction you can with available observations.
- Even without the 18Z sounding, I think NUCAPS would be helpful, assuming you have someone to modify the sounding. This would fill the gap of no 18Z special sounding.
- 130 PM timing for NUCAPS is perfect. It is right before CI usually.
-
No comments:
Post a Comment