Week 4 Summary and Feedback

Below is feedback from our final, week 4 weekly debrief session, along with a photo of the week 4 participants.

This marks the conclusion of the GOES-R portion of the 2014 HWT Spring Experiment!


- Bill Line, SPC/HWT Satellite Liaison

Simulated Satellite Imagery:
- It’s great to use the imagery to evaluate model performance.
- Had issues with burning off low stratus too early, leading to errors with heating during the day and errors of convection timing
- Do you see simulated model imagery being useful in forecast environment; would you like to see this data with other high res models?
    o All say yes, it is useful and would like to see it with other models (hrrr, etc)
    o Higher res models might pick up more discrete features things
 - Easy ways to pick up on errors in the model

Nearcast
- I used it mainly for ted and pw, it almost shows this better then anything I have in my office
- Nice to have in awips to overlay other things
- Helpful to show where boundaries will move, areas that are moistening
- Best as a precursor, ~3 hours prior to ci mostly
- I like the fact that you could really key in on boundaries, and I saw convection go there.
- Even subtle gradients up in high plains, small increases in ted, see showers pop up
- In Raleigh, having a tool that may easily show boundaries, esp in spring and summer, it could help
- I see more utility in theta-e and ted than in the PW field
- Calibration issue, we are used to looking at CAPE and LI. What does the ted values mean? Is there a way to do this?
- Its real-world information, which is good
- Overlayed forcing parameters on it.

Ci
- Didn’t increase my confidence as much as I had hoped
- One cell I tracked for a while in Huntsville area, had pretty high value, that did go up and eventually became strong
- Get rid of lower values

Probsevere
- This is especially useful for more slowly developing convection. Storms that look the same may have different probs, pointing out which storms are actually more threatening,
- Not as useful when convection is rapidly developing. The 1-2 scan lag hurts
- Good as a confirmation tool even for mature convection
- Good for slowly developing storms, detects hail well, poor with wind, not sure with tors. Prob severe hail may be better name. Rapidly growing convection, it wasn’t as useful with lag (1 volume scan), which hurt.
- Broadcaster – I really enjoyed this product. I am doing a lot during a day, especially severe day, it pinpointed where I should look. Same with CI
- Right now, as a regional SA tool, storms coming in from neighboring CWA, would be good to watch. Also for updating warnings.
- Column velocity to determine wind threat,
- Seems like product that has room to do some interesting things.
- with prob severe/hail/wind/tor, have a 4 panel, with total severe and 3 threats. Different parameter underlaid each

Overshooting Tops
- Broadcaster – really useful for me, in busy environment. I can speak for every broadcaster, we’d all love to have this product.
- More utility at night than during the day
- Helpful to CWSU cause I'm looking at a much larger area

Tracking tool
- This trend information is beneficial to have.
- Probably best for warning coordinator, or for research purposes. It is high maintenance, takes a lot of work to use

Lightning
- Broadcaster – lightning is especially useful for me, the chopper folks are constantly asking me where there is lightning to decide whether it is safe for them or not
- Most useful for rapidly developing convection
- Any time a jump occurred on a storm, the dBz’s would spike soon after
- I think it is everybody’s favorite thing, the lightning
- Most helpful for a warning operator, everything else was more SA.
     o Mostly because we had information every minute.
     o Getting additional info while we are waiting for next volume scan
- It impacted my warning decision making process.
- Especially useful in rapidly developing convection
- Broadcaster – lightning is very important even if it isn’t severe
- I wish I had more time to look at it.
- Training for lightning is not that good, to understand more why/how this is working, would be helpful. Why in certain environments and situations would it not work so well. But why better in others
   o Explain what is going in and why it is working

Broadcaster – from this perspective, most of the products demonstrated make it easier for him to do his job, because he can easily spot where a new storm is coming up in busy situations, where lightning is increasing. It helps make things easier for everyone at station.

CWSU – CI and OTD would be most useful for me, covering a broad forecast area. OTD quickly shows me where the strongest updrafts are, and ci highlights where convection is initiating or most likely to initiate in the near future. Also, lightning data is valuable for me.

General – be cautious of data overload. Products have to quickly prove their worth and utility in operations. Some products might be more useful for a warning coordinator, while lightning and maybe prob severe could be helpful for radar operator

Overall
- 1pm briefings from EFP, is there a reason for us to be in on that. A lot of it was not important
- Even from the briefings, I had no idea what was going on. It seemed more like a debrief for themselves. It had no application to us, it was geared to the efp
- I could have better spent my time making myself aware of the meeting.
- Schedule our debriefing during that, and maybe have it earlier (noon)?
- Since a lot is pre convective environment, we should come in at 9 or 10 to start.
- To be able to look at these products with other convective modes would be useful too.
- Broadcaster – recommend others to get with local wfo and get a couple hours in front of awips. Simuawips helped quite a bit.
     o This is most fascinating week of science I've had in a while.
     o Very much against working with just broadcasters in the hwt, found it very beneficial to be here with nws mets.
- All forecasters gained, learned from each others unique perspectives. Against segregated experiments.

Blog 9 June 5 HSV Area

Image lost do to network issues-

Have spent time tracking a cell ahead of the MCS over NE Al. Mainly in Jackson Cty. Little storm damage reports from it in-spite of lightning jump, and only a so-so reflectivity presentation. At 2130Z we do now have an OT top detection on this cell and it looks rather  impressive on vis imagery.

Did a 64 frame tracking tool analysis on the cell moving through Limestone AL and into Madison. This cluster produced 59 mph winds at KHUN and reports of lightning induced fires in Decatur area. Many reports of damage, trees down, and some building damage from strong winds. While the radar presentation was not impressive the track tool shows overshooting top detection at 2140Z with 5 sigma lightning jump at 2202Z. Flash density peaks at 2145 then diminished but then steadily rises to 60 at 2204.

Prob severe not much above 25- See post by KP for more on this. Good example here of flash extent and OT and lightning jump being a clue that this storm was severe. Radar look alone would be of little initial value, esp with no storm reports (late night hours for instance)

DSatterfield

Daily Summary: Week 4, Day 3 (4 June 2014)

Today, we operated in 4 county warning areas:

Team 1 (Fowle & Anderson)

Louisville, KY
Springfield, MO
Cheyenne, WY
Team 2 (Pelczynski & Satterfield)

Boulder, CO
Early in the day, it appeared that the greatest severe threat would exist in the MS/OH valley region.  Additionally, there were enough breaks in the high-level clouds to allow for use of the GOES-R satellite products.  However, as the day progressed, it became apparent that the region would not destabilize as much, so we moved Team 1 to Springfield, MO (based on a favorable mesoscale discussion).  As it turns out, the capping inversion would hold over that area.  Thus, we moved Team 1 to Cheyenne, WY – hoping that we could catch some lightning data from the LMA in Denver.  A few marginally-severe storms did develop.

Team 2 remained in Boulder all day.  There, they used the GOES-R products extensively, including the NearCast, UAH CI, Probability of Severe, and lightning data.  Several severe storms developed, though only one severe report was officially logged (for a landspout tornado).

-G. Garfield
Week 4 Coordinator

*** Day 3 Feedback (Bill Line): ***

Simulated Satellite Imagery
- Spot on yesterday. As far as overall timing and development, it was really good. The fact that it picked up on little features early gave me confidence in the rest of the forecast
- Not as good in Missouri area.
- Burning off stratus too quickly seems to be a recurring issue with the model

Nearcast:
- I liked it yesterday, particularly because as we sat down there was convection getting going, related to theta-e diff gradients, you could predict where they would move based on the nearcast forecast.
- We looked at it for a good 2 hours
- Theta-e values were pegging where it finally developed in far northwestern NE

Goes-r CI
- Looked at in with the other products in the 4 panel
- In Kentucky, it was bubbly, weak CIN,  a lot of low values that jumped around, noisy field, didn't see values over 60%
- It triggered on a few but we were already on them.
- Might be better for larger areas of monitoring (larger than CWA)

Prob severe
- Sometimes it is a nice confirmation of what we already concluded
- With rapidly developing convection, storms went severe within a few scans, prob severe lag kind of hurt it
- With gradually developing storms, it may be more of a confidence builder to issue a warning
- In broadcast world, this is valuable in pinpointing a storm to look at
- One went 16 to 60 in one scan, making me look at the storm
- In Louisville, a lot were hanging in low range, it told us what environment would be like that day, very low end, bubbly stuff
- The values it showed us were helpful (predictors) to see
- Satellite ingest made a huge difference (with satellite data compared to without)
- Tells us what is the trend of the day, perculating stuff, or fast growing
- With trends it was somewhat helpful with dissipating storms, you could see that chances of it being severe were becoming less. Caused me to look at it more
- There was a lag between when I issued a warning based on prob severe and when NWS finally issued

overshooting tops
- I can see, with mcs’s, having this info is useful, you can see where stronger storms are in a complex, you have a long line, key in on these areas.

Pglm and LJ:
- I could see reflectivity increase 15 to 20 min after lightning jumped up. Tracking tool helped me see this. I think both of them together is valuable
- The lightning jumps led to me quickly issue a warning with rapidly developing storm in boulder.
- I used just lightning data to issue warnings,
- Using FED in conjunction with LJ was a red flag that storm was rapidly increasing in strength
- I thought it was really good yesterday
- LJ- I find it useful and like being able to see when it jumps,
- Option for max LJ over last 5 mins would be great. Still update every minute though. (Running max). So that I don’t miss an LJ in the rapidly updating product.

Tracking Tool
- I like the idea and concept of it, compare trends in fields and different storms. But there are a lot of problems
- Looks like I have to load all products first, then load  tool
- I crashed my system
- Very handy with lightning and reflectivity
- May be more useful to look back at archive data. Research tool
- In real time, it takes too long to work, you don’t have that much time. Maybe just the warning coordinator
- Its not telling you a lot different than what you can see

Issues with the Tracking Meteogram Tool

The tracking meteogram tool is nice, but there is an issue with the graphs that are plotted. They pop up whenever they feel like it, and while I can understand why some variables are plotted, others seem random.

-KP

Tracking Meteogram

While this tool is fun to play with…I’m not sure it tells me anything I can’t already see. However, watching the trends of multiple storms against one another is nice. This product would be most useful for well behaved (non-deviant) mature storms where less user input in required for accurate output. Not sure how the graphs on the right work, as a new one appears each time a new meteogram is added, but there are duplicates. I suppose that if you load a product with more variables, i.e. KDP, CC, etc., there may be less duplication and more valuable information.



-KP

tracking meteogram tool

you can add multiple tracks to the same base image. I think this would be best again for SA and not necessarily the warning forecaster to keep an eye on which storms are growing/decaying.

jason anderson

WEEK 3 FEEDBACK (including Day 4)

Day 1, 2 and 3 Feedback is included in the respective Daily Summery posts. This post includes feedback from the Week 3 final debrief.

-Bill Line

Simulated Satellite Imagery

- Maybe for last week, show nssl wrf reflectivity as well and show things that you can see in the synthetic sat imagery that you cant in reflectivity

- I like it, I used it every day. 

- Model issues

    o It was off with strength of storm, position, timing sometimes. 

    o Cirrus and low clouds often out

- The technique is great, to be able to visualize what the satellite would look like if this model were to pan out. I use nam in my office. It is nice to show low clouds and cirrus shields in the model. if you come out on day shift and it is showing supercells later in day, I would look at early part of forecast to give me more or less confidence in later forecast

NearCast

- I think it is a benefit to have

- I think at the very least it helped to visualize moisture and instability very well

- How to use it from day to day changed. First day, storms initiated as theta-e tongue came in. Next day, theta-e was feeding directly into storm, and it popped up. Next over DC, entire theta-e field, storms followed along with the movement of theta-e

- Go to product between warnings, see what the environment is. Continues to tell you if storm is gonna be in field where it continues to explode, or will it move out of it. 

- I can see it being useful as I come in in morning, it fills gap in sounding data, gives you idea of scope of convective instability.

- Its observed data so I really like it

- I though the model forecasts did well too when there wasn’t missing data.

- Forecasters agreed it would be neat to see winds plotted

GOES-R CI

- I agree it would be very useful in non-severe situations.

- It had its hits and misses

- If doing esta update, might be good to say precip chances might be increased in a certain region

- I couldn't get a handle on a threshold where this is when convection would go. I couldn't rely on it

- I think it would work for SPC mesoscale forecaster

- Instead of individual colors for each object, highlight a general area of interest where convection is more likely to go.

- It is a good situational awareness tool

- Neighborhood approach, larger spatial probabilities might be a good idea. Instead of showing probs for each individual object

Prob Severe

- I like it: I used it every day. The trends were very useful. I liked seeing the data when I sampled (I looked at trends in the numbers). It helped me to zone in on certain storms (broadcaster)

- Yesterday I used it fairly heavily.  Storms moving form KY to TN, what happened was because it was multicellular, there was an adjacent storm that prob severe latched on to, and the product took over that other cell too. So it was then difficult to key in on that particular storm. I wanted to increase lead time, but I wasn't able to in this particular instance. There was some lag time too

- A way to have a sub-scale tracking to make sure to track individual cells to try alleviate merge issue

- Would you use in your office: All yes

- It at least brings your attention to storms to watch

- You start with all tilts. From a spatial awareness perspective. Id be worried about new forecasters getting lazy, relying on these derived products. You still need to get them used to using the base products. Similar to other products.

- But I think it could be treated as any other algorithm I don’t think that ^ is a problem

- There have been times im interrogating a storm in base data, this algorithm would point out a storm that I should look at. It catches things the human would miss.

- What would you like to see added: you don’t want it to get too cluttered. I like the compactness of it. Other environmental attributes could  help that would tell you what type of severe. DCAPE

- I would like to see effective SRH added. 

- Would you like to see probs of individual hazards: all yes

- I could envision a 4 panel. Over all prob severe, prob tor, prob wind, prob hail.

    o And have different fields under each

OTD

- I really tried to use it yesterday. One of limitations was the 15-30 min updates. It wasn't terribly useful in the hot seat. Might be better for mesoscale forecaster.

- I see this being most used in places where you don’t have radar. Oceans, aviation even more so (route planes around this). 

- I see it being much more useful, viable with higher temperal, spatial resolution. (super rapid scan with goes-r)

PGLM and LJ

- It was very useful in Denver day. Seeing total lightning and LJ

- I could see myself using it in warning operations. Monitoring health of updraft

- Pulse. In OK you see storms pulsing. Total lightning showed this. within 10-30 min I can guarantee something will happened

- In W Texas, severe winds were reported. Cell merger > LJ > wind

- LJ twice in a row, prob severe was trending up, I warned, big jump on warning

- Because it is one minute data, I was able to see jump before next radar scan

- I view storms as how much energy they can output, lightning kind of gauges how much energy is in the storm > hail, wind, etc. Updraft > more ice, static electricity, lightning.

- As a broadcaster, it would be nice to have total lightning, because it shows more than just CG.

- LJ display: I was fine with it, I was fine with sigma jumps

Tracking Tool

- I think it has a lot of potential, I was excited to use it, but it dissipated me.

- I like that you have a graph that pops up. I prefer it to be side by side

- If you close it, it would be nice to be able to pull the box back up

- I would like the ability to take the box out, I like screen real estate. 

- I think this type of tool (to show meteogram) is useful. I like the circles. I think it would be useful to track many different fields

- I prefer when you clear, for box to go away.

- In warning mode, I could see myself using this. 

- Its awesome to be able to use the individual points without having to move the whole track

SRSOR

- Do you see it having an impact on my decision making process (4 yes’s).

- Watching area, I could see growth in the 1-minute data, it helped to gain more confidence, I need to pay attention to this area

- In office, many times waiting 15 minutes for next scan. With 1 minute data, you can see convective attempts, failures, dead anvils.

- Would you be disappointed if goes-r was launched and we did not get 1-minute data? (all yes’s)

Tracking Tool, Lightning Jumps and Storm Evolution

Above are two examples using the Tracking Meteogram tool and Flash Initiation Density to build flash rates of two individual storms near Washington D.C.    Rapid increases in total lightning signalled the onset of storm intensification in both cases, and multiple lightning jumps were observed as each storm developed and moved across the DC and Baltimore Metro areas. Hail to the size of golfballs was observed in the top storm with the first 1 inch hail reports falling at 1939 UTC.  At the time of this post, the southern storm produced hail to the size of quarters at 2035 UTC.

Chris S.

Tracking tool. Just not ready for prime time.

Gave the tracking tool a second chance today.  Bad results. It appears to be a computational issue. I had loaded a 60minute Composite Reflectivity off of MRMS for it to compute. It allowed me set up the circles nicely… however when it started graphing it would only display 2 minutes of difference on the graph initially. About 3 to 5 minutes later It was displaying  4 minutes, 3-5 minutes later it was displaying 6 minutes. So 2 minute increments.

All panes were active while I was grabbing this first screen shot. However, while realizing that both panes were not in the shot; I went back to grab screen shots of the meteogram itself, and discovered that all panes had locked up. A couple minutes later All of CAVE had crashed as if the system had run out of memory.

Grant H.

Meteogram Tracking Want

I was using the Tracking Tool Meteogram and it was very useful to track the changes in the lightning density and jumps, but when i closed out of the tool by clicking on the X it didn’t take away the rings. It would be nice if you excited out of the tool it also removed the Tracking Meteogram circles from the panel as well.

-JB

Daily Summary: Week 3, Day 2 (May 20th, 2014)

What some people (including me) called a marginal day last night were pleasantly surprised with the amount and extent of convection observed in all CWAs utilized today. For a majority of the day we operated in the Cheyenne, WY and Quad Cities, IA/IL CWAs (CYS and DVN). As a supercell fired east of Denver, CO (BOU) forecasters leveraged this opportunity to look at the lightning jump detection algorithm and track total lightning on the tornado warned storm. In the late afternoon as the storms in the CYS area weakened, we shifted our product evaluation to Chicago, IL (LOT) for a DVN/LOT side-by-side warning operations session.

By splitting our operations into West vs. East, we were able to take advantage of (and blog about) almost all products brought into the experiment…with the exception of OUNWRF (sorry Gabe :( ). The tracking meteogram was put to the test again today with  forecasters wanting to track multiple product types simultaneously (radar + MR/MS, etc.) with mixed results. All forecasters issued their fair share of warnings (especially Danielle!) this afternoon. The training storms in the DVN region provided quite the challenge and convection is firing like crazy in LOT right now. I think it will be hard to pull the forecasters away from their computers tonight.

Feedback (BL)

Simulated Satellite Imagery:
- It matched pretty well in the morning, and continued throyughout the forecast
- I really liked it (WV) it captured SW and speed max in KANSAS. This gave me confidence that later in the day the speed max would be good.
- Boudnaries were setting up correctly, off by about a county, gave me a few that this was an area to look at

NearCast

- Wonderful. For all three systems. It will be helpful for inititiation

- In boulder, theta-e stream feeding storm

- In Chicago, convection developed along the northern gradient. As soon as cu hit the boundary, storms went up

- Looked at pw and theat-e products. I had to do some interpolating where data was unavailable which was fine. 

- I liked around 18z, there was a nice cu field in Kansas to Wyoming, that is where highest instability was, and where deepest moisture was.

- Color bar took sonme getting getting used to, but I was able to easily calibrate. 

- All really liked the wide spectrum of colors so it would easily show gradients. 

GOES-R CI

- Mixed results in Chicago area. Highlighted boundary where we had towering cu. Wide variety of values, from 10 to 80, but whole boundary went.

- Mixed feelings. Initially you can see thin line of cu firing across northern iowa. I don’t think the ci product captured that development. Highest value was maybe 40%> there was a 70 further south, nothing developed

Prob Severe

- I liked prob severe, it was pretty on point with targeting big storms that formed, looking at trends was helpful. They started low then amped up so I warned.
- Initially a little hesitant about the product. But by end of shift was really confident in it because it was doing really well.
- It drew the eye to the storm (good color scale).
- In chicago area,, to the south, storms were growing and splitting. Typically you pay attention to right split. Both storms actually had high values. You wouldn’t normally think this one would have as high a prob, this product made you want to look at it. The left split did have a severe hail report
- It didn’t work as well out in Wyoming. Storms were marginally severe (occasional quarter) probs were always low (below 50). On front range
- Im colorblind, so I changed colors. The gradients weren’t good for me. I changed it to – anything below 50 was black, then blocks of color every 10 to 100.
- For convective maintenance it was helpful. When the probs went down, the hail sizes reports went down.

OTD
- Chicago storm that had big hail had an OT. Several others had OTs but did not meet criteria of algorithm, the one that met criteria was longest lasting with biggest hail. Consistant detection. Certainly highlighted biggest storm

Tracking Tool
- I had mixed results with this. i tracked base velocity. The meteograms started to multiply so I stopped
- With boulder storm, I looked at composite reflectivity, all the panes locked up.
- I had major issues. It was great initially. But trying to load with dual pole (many panes) too m,any graphs. Switched to reflectibity and velocity, tab went blank. Reloaded, time with velocity did not match reflectibity. Velocity would update, reflecitivity did not. Red banner kept po[ping up, loading error. But I think it whas potential

-Darrel Kingfield
EWP Week 3 Coordinator

My First Go at the Tracking Meteogram Tool

Well… unfortunately, my first crack at this tool has not gone well. When I initially pulled up the tool, it looked fine but then at some point, I had closed the Tracking Meteogram tab and could not figure out a way to pull it back up without reloading it all over again. I consulted with folks and we could not figure out how to bring a closed tab back up. It is unfortunate because I had already created a track and my points so I had to redo it.

Another problem I ran into was when the tab was opened, the meteogram would sporadically go blank/missing. Additionally, I received constant red banners that said An internal error occurred during: “Loading Tracking Meteogram.,” whether the meteogram was visible or missing. Lastly, I was testing the meteogram with KDVN 0.5 Z/V products and the Z meteogram did not line up temporally with V. Every time a new radar scan would come in, the V meteogram would update with the latest scan but the Z meteogram increased in the amount of points on the x-axis without accurately or correctly updating the time (x-axis)/max reflectivity value (y-axis).

I do like the ability to move individual points (instead of the entire line like with similar tracking tools in AWIPS-I) and it was interesting to be able to increase/decrease the circle size to capture certain storm features. I also like the capability that it has to offer to be able to see trends laid out in graph form for a particular product or set of products.

~Linda

Three Meteogram Boxes One Product

I loaded the the base velocity product and then the meteogram program and it seemed to work well initially, but as the radar product updated the meteorgram split into two boxes, one for 8 bit and one that just indicated velocity. It later added a 3rd box that included 4-bit after the screen updated again.

-JB

Same Storm Different Lightning Jump

A secondary lightning jump occurs at 23:28 UTC with the same storm east of Denver Co. The lightning jump here reached the 2 sigma level when the total flash rate increased from 8 flashes per minute to 16 flashes per minute in the span of two minutes. This reinforcing lightning jump indicates that the storm’s updraft was still undergoing periods of intensification.  Baseball size hail was being reported at the time of the jump, and ping pong ball size hail was reported at 23:35 UTC in association with this storm.  Hail was reported as deep as 3 inches on the ground.

*There appears to be a delay between the jump occurrence in the Flash Initiation Density (23:28 UTC) and the LJA sigma plot (23:33 UTC).

PGLM, Lightning Jump, and Quarter size hail

Example lightning jumps from just east of Denver CO at 2251 UTC. The image above shows the lightning jump feature (shaded purple), flash initiation density (FID; pink boxes) and the meteogram output information.  The top two panels are the sigma levels at which lightning jump occurs, and the bottom panel is the total flash rate from the PGLM.   The Tracking meteogram outline is the white circles encompassing the storm.  Two lightning jumps occur at 2249 and 2251 UTC.  The first jump occurs as the total flash rate from the PGLM reaches 10 flashes per minute (4 sigma level; anything above 2 sigma indicates a lightning jump according to Schultz et al. 2011), and the second jump occurs with the larger increase in total lightning from 5 flashes a minute to 15 flashes per minute (6 sigma).  The jumps are indicating increases in updraft strength and volume,and can be used as a metric in storm intensification.  Quarter size hail was reported approximately 20 minutes later at 2310 UTC.

*note the flash rates are likely higher with this storm because the LMA used in this case only had 5-8 sensors active at any given time.*

First impressions with the new tracking tool.

First impressions with the new tracking features. graphs next to the tracking bar in the meteogram may need to be more editable. In this case were were able to zoom out of the Y axis allowing dBZ to show up as a more usable function. However it still is lacking some standardization of axis that is more common from other programs functions like Excel and Powerpoint graphs. Perhaps finding a way to automatically load a standardized graph  when certain meteorological fields show up. (dBZ, VIL, CC, etc..)

Also of note. Shortly after zooming out on the axis…. other panes  that were on screen where not accessible for a very long time . Probably 5 to 10 minutes while writing this blog.

Grant H.

Daily Summary: Week 3, Day 1 (May 19th, 2014)

Today started with such promise (or blind optimism…whatever you want to call it): an isolated region of “SLGT” risk encompassing parts of of SE Wyoming and W Nebraska with many storm-scale models showing isolated thunderstorm initiation around 21z. EFP probabilistic forecasts were focused in this area as well.

Day 1 forecast probability of hail. A 20% bullseye was located in the CYS and LBF CWAs.

Forecasters were situated in the Cheyenne, WY (CYS) and North Platte, NE (LBF) for the duration of the shift on the edge of their seats waiting for initiation.

We must realize that not all days will be “end of the world” scenarios, and today provided a great medium for forecasters to be exposed to several of the experimental product sets for comparative analysis and evaluation (sans OUNWRF).

Forecaster/Investigator interaction during the early evening on May 19th.

vLAPS was utilized to (1) identify and diagnose regions of enhanced instability (mainly CAPE) and (2) validate forecast composite reflectivity with MR/MS composite reflectivity. Throughout the day, comparative analyses of the NSSL-WRF simulated satellite imagery with real-time IR/WV fields were analysed. Any convection was immediately pounced upon with Super-Rapid Scan visible analysis, ProbSevere and Convective Initiation product analyses. NearCast was utilized to gauge storm lifetime and identify regions of destabilization.

The tracking meteogram was put through its paces today with numerous data dropouts observed in the time trend graph during periods were these data were available. Forecasters consistently wanted to use the 0.5 deg reflectivity mosaic product for tracking.

Near the end of the shift, total lightning from the Northern Colorado LMA was observed in Laramie and Kimball Counties in Wyoming which gave forecasters (1) exposure to the SPoRT LMA plugin and (2) guidance on how total lightning information can be combined with other sensor information (e.g. radar, satellite) in the storm interrogation process.

Flash Initiation Density and MR/MS Merged Reflectivity combination at 0024z.

Feedback (BL)

NearCast
- I found it to be pretty cool. I liked that you could see the areas of higher instability. When I used it in conjunction with pprob severe or ci I found it helpful to see if cu fiend is developing in area of higher instability or not
- I think it has potential. I am excited to see it

GOES-R CI
- It was very interesting in that it helped to tell you which areas not to focus on. Then I would go in and focus on areas with higher probs
- There were areas with no ci showing up that I thought it should
- Over relying on this product could catch you off guard. You need to be aware  of its deficiencies (under cirrus, etc)

ProbSevere

- It helped me focus in on certain areas

- I think I could use this on television, to tell viewers to focus in on this particular storm

- I like the annotation of moderate, strong, etc next to some of the parameters.

PGLM

-          - Total lightning towards the end of the day seemed to emphasize where the electrification in the storm was (something CG data sources to not show). 

Tracking Tool

-         -  It gave me a lot of problems. Gaps in the data (reflectivity)

SRSOR
- The one minute satellite data was amazing, I could sit it stare at it all day
- This is one of those products that we need yesterday
- It was nice to see details in in convective development

-Darrel Kingfield
EWP Week 3 Coordinator

Flash Extent Density vs. Reflectivity

Overlaying the 0.5 km MSL composite merged reflectivity with the flash extent density showed some interesting things. The image below shows a positive correlation between flash extent density and reflectivity.

As the flash extent density increased, the reflectivity increased as well, which can be seen from the meteogram. Furthermore, the increase in reflectivity appeared to be a response to the increase in flash extent density. For example, flash extent density displayed an increase in its value while the cell of interest still had relatively low reflectivities (<= 30 dBz). In the successive image of 0.5 km MSL composite merged reflectivity, a large increase in reflectivity was observed. Additionally, the max reflectivity of the cell seemed to approximately follow the max in flash extent density, with the location of max flash extent density remaining slightly out ahead of the location of max reflectivity.

Tracking Meteogram

When using the tracking meteogram product, I found that while using it with a gridded radar it dropped data.  The second problem I found was I can’t edit the meteogram itself.  When products are hidden in the main AWIPS screen, they should also be hidden in the  meteogram.  Another suggestion, is that you should be able to reload the last tracking you did so it saves you extra work and time.  I really do like the concept of this and the reason I am suggesting these changes is because I would like to use the product in the future!  It is useful! – Vollmar

Week 2 Summary

This week, the EWP had forecasters from the Louisville, Buffalo, and  Norman WFO’s, as well as a broadcast meteorologist from WUSA (DC CBS affiliate) participate in the Big Spring Experiment. Operations on Monday began in the Davenport and St. Louis CWA’s. Throughout the week, operations slowly shifted eastward as we evaluated the products with severe weather development along an eastbound cold front. These operations included the Detroit, Cleveland, Wilmington, Charleston WV, Pittsburgh, and Sterling CWA’s. One group on Thursday operated in the Shreveport CWA, where marginal severe weather occurred as an upper level disturbance moved through a region characterized by weak low-level moisture but steep lapse rates and only marginal instability. This unique environment posed some interesting forecast challenges, so it was neat to see how the various satellite products and OUN WRF performed.

Participants were able to use all of the demonstration products this week, which included  GOES-R and lightning products, LAPS fields, and the OUN WRF model finally on Thursday. There were many good blog posts written throughout the week highlighting the use of all of these products in various situations across various regions of the US. Below is some end-of-the-week feedback on each product from this weeks participants:

Simulated Satellite Imagery:

• This gave me a heads up on where clouds would move. There isn’t great guidence for sky grids, so I would look at this to see where stratus is moving, etc. if it was verifying well
• I think it is especially effective on the large scale because it picks up on large scale features well.

NearCast System:

• I liked and used it because it is observed thermodynamic data, of which there is very little
• This added value to my forecast process. For example, in West Virginia no boundary was evident at the surface, but there was a boundary in NearCast, and that is where convection fired. That sold me.
• I do not like to rely on NWP data, so this was nice.
• I really liked seeing the gradients, most of the storms developed in theta-e difference minima or moisture maxima or along gradients.
• There were a few cases where you saw decreasing moisture moving in, which was not picked up in the models, and it did have a big effect on storm development.
• In Wilmington, dry air moved in and storms decreased, but they actually did increase a later, so it was kind of inconclusive in this case.

GOES-R Convective Initiation

• Some times it was giving lead time of 30-45 minutes, other times it provided no lead time.
• It was more useful in rapid scan mode.
• I was very impressed with its performance, but sometime the lead timne just wasn’t worth it.
• I thought this product was really great during the daytime, but I do not see it being at all useful at night as it was very inaccurate.
• It was sometimes hard to get a sense of what the probs meant. If I used it, I would get rid of everything under 50%. I just don’t like that much clutter.
• It was particularly erratic around the Appalachian mountains.

Prob Severe Model

• It works awesome in hail situations. I am a fan of it for hail detection and determining which storms will produce hail
• It does have issues with linear storm modes.
• The best part for me was teh moiseover sampling and being able to look at the predictors. It really enhances your situational awareness
• It would be nice to color code the growth rates in the readout
• I noticed a lot of sat growth rates that were older than an hour, that mad eme lose confidence in the signal.
• I think it did increase my confidence in hail events, because I was saw a clear progression in probabilities
• When I saw over 80%, I had great confidence that that storm would become severe
• I do think it could give additional lead time to warnings
• I am fine with including the lower probs because the display is not obtrusive, and I like seeing the progression to higher probs.
• I think what you have now, for hail I would use this product today.
• The survey questions were good
• It gives you a good idea of which storm(s) you should be interrogating
• All participants agreed they would use this in their local WFO.
• Broadcaster: I would use this on the air. If there were a lot of cells, I would point to this storm [with the higher probs] and say that that is the cell to watch. Would not necessarily show probs, but could show colors, etc.

Overshooting Top Detection

• This was not useful for me.
• I see this being most useful when incorporated into another product. This would be a great benefit
• We were unable to use it at night when it is harder to see OT’s, and when many more OT’s are often detected as storms have matured.

PGLM

• I really like the total lightning data
• I’ve never used total lightning, bit I do like it

Lightning Jump Algorithm

• I think I could use this in a warning environment.
• I don’t mind the sigma values as indicators.
• An outline (like prob severe)  might be better then the blob
• It might be good to incorporate the LJ product in the prob severe tool
• I don’t see the zero sigma being necessary
• I told AWIPS-II to blink sigma values that were greater than 2.

Tracking Tool

• There are too many circles on the screen, too much clutter.
• I would prefer to have one circle that you just put on the cell, and it gives you the meteogram.
• Entering the cell id # to track the storm might be a good idea
• I don’t really mind the circles, but I just can’t see myself using this in a warning situation.
• I can see this being used after the fact, looking at a storm, but not in real-time. It is too labor intensive.
• I like the graph itself, but the actual functionality is bad. 
• It is difficult to move the circle-track to align with the track of the storm, especially when many images are loaded. Also, sometimes it does not track at first, so you have to move it around to get it to track. Finally, changing the size of the circles is frustrating, as making some circles bigger makes other smaller. 

GOES-14 SRSOR (1-minute imagery)

• It's great!
• I saw subtle boundaries that I wouldn't otherwise see
• We want quicker satellite updates, it's a no-brainer
• No worry about information overload with this
• I will prefer to view the raw data, but I do see it being useful as input into other products as well

Other:

• I thought the training was good.
• The week was very well organized, well done, and I liked that we stuck to the schedules, it made things very easy.
• I liked the relaxed environment
• Less structure was good, it gave us freedom to see what works well for us.

- Bill Line, SPC/HWT Satellite Liaison and Week 2 EWP Coordinator