Day 3 Wrap Up

Wrap-Up and feedback from the day yesterday is listed below. Yesterday was a pretty slow day weather wise which gave the forecasters a good opportunity to explore more of the products.

GLM

A summation somewhere between 1 and 5 minutes would be perfect, not sure of the 2 minutes is the
perfect answer

Struggled to find a need to have the FED and the event density. FED and flash area seem to provide
the most use when using it within warning operations

Flashes and subsequently FED seems to be the most intuitive product

Hands on training would be the most imperative to get people up to speed on using GLM data in
operations and what and when the products are useful

Need to stick with simplicity, especially when presenting the information to the public or to EMs

It is important to use in conjunction with other lightning data to see CG strokes

GLM seems to provide a much larger coverage in stratiform areas or areas behind a line

ProbSevere

Environment yesterday was not conducive for ProbSevere to be real useful

Had some pulse storms and microbursts that weren’t detected

Still took a little while to catch on to the hail in the Texas storm as the background environment again
wasn’t real good

The object tracking was a little junky yesterday. It would combine cells and then split apart and then
combine again and so on.

Might be worthwhile to try to use reflectivity at -10C, even if it was a minute or so later

NUCAPS

Liked the lapse rate procedures to compare to models and see how well things were handled by the
models

Soundings would definitely be useful outside of the balloon times

Yesterday the modified had a substantially better boundary layer representation compared to the
unmodified version

Useful to have a background satellite image to understand which soundings are useful

The DB soundings seem to have a lot more yellow points than the operational version

CI

Continue to struggle with the fact that the severe CI is higher in a lot of cases that the non severe

The jumps in probabilities are inconsistent between the two products and don’t instill much confidence
in using the product

To use the product it needs to really draw my attention with a consistent higher value in a field of lower
values, especially in the summertime southeast thunderstorm environments

The data is very noisy and jumpy especially in the more discrete cloud areas

All-Sky LAP

Had some problems in the Arkansas area where there was quite a bit of cloud cover and the GFS data
seemed to be convectively contaminated and undercut the CAPE values

Did show a nose of more unstable air coming up into southern AR where storms did intensify slightly

Would be worth trying to have a CONUS “nest” using a little more high resolution model data to fill in the
cloudy regions

Like having the All-sky compared to the baseline product to fill in the cloudy areas, but some
improvements would be desired

Worked pretty well in Texas where there was very little cloud cover

GOES-16 Products

Loaded the Day Convection RGB, but need the higher resolution to be useful

Love using the Day Cloud Phase Distinction in initiation stages

Looking at the three WV channels on their own is still the most useful

Generally, the RGBs are difficult to understand and interpret without a lot of experience, even with
quick guides and training

The 1 minute updates are amazing