Assessing the Predictability of Band Formation and Evolution during Three Recent Northeast U.S. Snowstorms David R. Novak NOAA/ NWS Eastern Region Headquarters,

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Investigating medium-range forecast uncertainty and large error cases along the East coast using ensemble and diagnostic tools  Minghua Zheng, Brian Colle,

Advertisements

HEDAS ANALYSIS STATISTICS ( ) by Altug Aksoy (NOAA/AOML/HRD) HEDAS retrospective/real-time analyses have been performed for the years

Investigating Mesoscale Precipitation Banding in Two East Coast Snowstorms Adam Frumkin.

To perform statistical analyses of observations from dropsondes, microphysical imaging probes, and coordinated NOAA P-3 and NASA ER-2 Doppler radars To.

Observed and Simulated Multi-bands in Northeast U.S. Winter Storms S ARA A. G ANETIS 1, B RIAN A. C OLLE 1, S ANDRA E. Y UTER 2, AND N ICOLE C ORBIN 2.

Correlations Between Observed Snowfall and NAM Forecast Parameters : Part 2 – Thermodynamic Considerations Michael L. Jurewicz, Sr. NOAA/NWS Binghamton,

An Update on the Stony Brook University Ensemble Forecast System        Brian A. Colle, Matthew Jones, Yanluan Lin, and Joseph B. Olson Institute.

Analysis of Precipitation Distributions Associated with Two Cool-Season Cutoff Cyclones Melissa Payer, Lance F. Bosart, Daniel Keyser Department of Atmospheric.

Precipitation Over Continental Africa and the East Atlantic: Connections with Synoptic Disturbances Matthew A. Janiga November 8, 2011.

A Compare and Contrast Study of Two Banded Snow Storms Part I – January 6 th, 2002.

Anticipating Mesoscale Band Formation in Winter Storms David Novak, Jeff Waldstreicher NWS Eastern Region, Scientific Services Division, Bohemia, NY Lance.

An Investigation of Cool Season Extratropical Cyclone Forecast Errors Within Operational Models Brian A. Colle 1 and Michael Charles 1,2 1 School of Marine.

Validation of Storm Surge Models for the New York Bight and Long Island Regions and the Impact of Ensembles Tom Di Liberto Dr. Brian A. Colle Stony Brook.

A High-Resolution Climatology and Composite Study of Mesoscale Band Evolution within Northeast U. S. Cyclones David Novak NOAA/ NWS Eastern Region Headquarters,

Correlations between observed snowfall and NAM forecast parameters, Part I – Dynamical Parameters Mike Evans NOAA/NWS Binghamton, NY November 1, 2006 Northeast.

The Collaborative Effort Between Stony Brook University and the National Weather Service Part 3 – Integration of Mesoscale Models in Operational Weather.

Using Ensemble Probability Forecasts and High Resolution Models To Identify Severe Weather Threats Josh Korotky NOAA/NWS, Pittsburgh, PA and Richard H.

United States Coast Guard 1985 Evaluation of a Multi-Model Storm Surge Ensemble for the New York Metropolitan Region Brian A. Colle Tom Di Liberto Stony.

Use of the Nondivergent Wind for Diagnosing Banded Precipitation Systems Thomas J. Galarneau, Jr., and Daniel Keyser Department of Earth and Atmospheric.

NCEP SREF for the 2010 Christmas East Coast snowstorm Jun Du Mesoscale Modeling Branch/EMC/NCEP.

FORECASTING EASTERN US WINTER STORMS Are We Getting Better and Why? Jeff S. Waldstreicher NOAA/NWS Eastern Region Scientific Services Division – Bohemia,

CSTAR Update: New Tools for More Efficient Use of Ensembles in Operations Brian A. Colle, Minghua Zheng, and Edmund K.M. Chang, School of Marine and Atmospheric.

The Relative Contribution of Atmospheric and Oceanic Uncertainty in TC Intensity Forecasts Ryan D. Torn University at Albany, SUNY World Weather Open Science.

The Blizzard Discussion 1.Summary Discussion a. Medium Range Issues (Days 4-7) b. Short-Range Issues c. Ensemble trends d. Upstream differences.

High-Resolution Simulations of the 25 December 2002 Banded Snowstorm using Eta, MM5, and WRF David Novak NOAA/ NWS Eastern Region Headquarters, Scientific.

The Rapid Evolution of Convection Approaching New York City and Long Island Michael Charles and Brian A. Colle Institute for Terrestrial and Planetary.

Ensemble Post-Processing and it’s Potential Benefits for the Operational Forecaster Michael Erickson and Brian A. Colle School of Marine and Atmospheric.

Evaluation and Comparison of Multiple Convection-Allowing Ensembles Examined in Recent HWT Spring Forecasting Experiments Israel Jirak, Steve Weiss, and.

National Weather Service Hydrometeorological Prediction Center Post-Tropical Cyclone Sandy Rain, Snow, and Inland Wind Impacts David Novak Jim Hoke, Wallace.

Coastal Meteorology and Atmospheric Prediction (COMAP) Research at Stony Brook University Michael Erickson, Brian A. Colle, Sara Ganetis, Nathan Korfe,

“1995 Sunrise Fire – Long Island” Using an Ensemble Kalman Filter to Explore Model Performance on Northeast U.S. Fire Weather Days Michael Erickson and.

Observing Strategy and Observation Targeting for Tropical Cyclones Using Ensemble-Based Sensitivity Analysis and Data Assimilation Chen, Deng-Shun 3 Dec,

Evaluation of a Challenging Warm Season QPF month at HPC: June 2009 Brendon Rubin-Oster Richard Otto (with contributions from Mike Bodner, Keith Brill,

How can LAMEPS * help you to make a better forecast for extreme weather Henrik Feddersen, DMI * LAMEPS =Limited-Area Model Ensemble Prediction.

High-resolution Observations and Model Simulations of the Life Cycle of an Intense Mesoscale Snowband over the Northeastern United States Reporter: Prudence.

Earth-Sun System Division National Aeronautics and Space Administration SPoRT SAC Nov 21-22, 2005 Regional Modeling using MODIS SST composites Prepared.

Ensemble Forecasting and You The very basics Richard H. Grumm National Weather Service State College PA

The Rapid Evolution of Convection Approaching the New York City Metropolitan Region Brian A. Colle and Michael Charles Institute for Terrestrial and Planetary.

SPC Ensemble Applications: Current Status, Recent Developments, and Future Plans David Bright Storm Prediction Center Science Support Branch Norman, OK.

Using Ensemble Probability Forecasts And High Resolution Models To Identify Severe Weather Threats Josh Korotky NOAA/NWS, Pittsburgh, PA and Richard H.

The “Ambrose” (New York Bight) Jet: Climatology and Simulations of Coastally Enhanced Winds Brian A. Colle School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, Stony.

Use of Mesoscale Ensemble Weather Predictions to Improve Short-Term Precipitation and Hydrological Forecasts Michael Erickson 1, Brian A. Colle 1, Jeffrey.

Refinement and Evaluation of Automated High-Resolution Ensemble-Based Hazard Detection Guidance Tools for Transition to NWS Operations Kick off JNTP project.

Ensemble variability in rainfall forecasts of Hurricane Irene (2011) Molly Smith, Ryan Torn, Kristen Corbosiero, and Philip Pegion NWS Focal Points: Steve.

Using Model Climatology to Develop a Confidence Metric Taylor Mandelbaum, School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, Stony Brook, NY Brian Colle, School.

Predictability of High Impact Weather during the Cool Season: CSTAR Update and the Development of a New Ensemble Sensitivity Tool for the Forecaster Brian.

An Investigation of the Mesoscale Predictability over the Northeast U.S.        Brian A. Colle, Matthew Jones, and Joseph Olson Institute for Terrestrial.

DRAFT – Page 1 – January 14, 2016 Development of a Convective Scale Ensemble Kalman Filter at Environment Canada Luc Fillion 1, Kao-Shen Chung 1, Monique.

Impacts of Rossby Wave Packets on Forecast Uncertainties and Errors

A High-Resolution Observational Climatology and Composite Study of Mesoscale Band Evolution within Northeast U.S. Cyclones David Novak NOAA/NWS Hydrometeorological.

Exploring Multi-Model Ensemble Performance in Extratropical Cyclones over Eastern North America and the Western Atlantic Ocean Nathan Korfe and Brian A.

Predicting Hurricanes with Explicit Convection: The Advanced Hurricane-research WRF (AHW) Chris Davis NCAR Earth System Laboratory Mesoscale and Microscale.

NCEP CMC ECMWF MEAN ANA BRIAN A COLLE MINGHUA ZHENG │ EDMUND K. CHANG Applying Fuzzy Clustering Analysis to Assess Uncertainty and Ensemble System Performance.

An Investigation of Model-Simulated Band Placement and Evolution in the 25 December 2002 Northeast U.S. Banded Snowstorm David Novak NOAA/ NWS Eastern.

The Risks and Rewards of High-Resolution and Ensemble Modeling Systems David Schultz NOAA/National Severe Storms Laboratory Paul Roebber University of.

Brian Freitag 1 Udaysankar Nair 1 Yuling Wu – University of Alabama in Huntsville.

The Developmental Testbed Center: Historical Perspective and Benefits to NOAA Steve Koch DTC Deputy Director Director, NOAA/ESRL/Global Systems Division.

The Quantitative Precipitation Forecasting Component of the 2011 NOAA Hazardous Weather Testbed Spring Experiment David Novak 1, Faye Barthold 1,2, Mike.

Challenges in Convective Storm Prediction for the Coastal-Urban New York City-Long Island Brian A. Colle 1, Kelly Lombardo 2, John Murray 3, and Harrison.

REGIONAL SCALE ENSEMBLE FORECAST OF THE LAKE EFFECT SNOW EVENT OF 7 FEBRUARY 2007 Justin Arnott and Michael Evans NOAA/NWS Binghamton, NY Richard Grumm.

Xuexing Qiu and Fuqing Dec. 2014

A Compare and Contrast Study of Two Banded Snow Storms

Ensemble variability in rainfall forecasts of Hurricane Irene (2011)

High Resolution Simulations of Floyd (1999): Structural Evolution and Responsible Mechanisms for the Heavy Rainfall over the Northeast U.S.   

North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina

FORECASTING EASTERN US WINTER STORMS Are We Getting Better and Why?

Predictability of Snow Multi-Bands Using a 40-Member WRF Ensemble

14th Cyclone Workshop Brian Ancell The University of Washington

Northwest Connecticut Snowburst of 19 February 2009

SUPERCELL PREDICTABILITY:

Presentation transcript:

Assessing the Predictability of Band Formation and Evolution during Three Recent Northeast U.S. Snowstorms David R. Novak NOAA/ NWS Eastern Region Headquarters, Scientific Services Division, Bohemia, New York Stony Brook University, State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York Brian A. Colle Stony Brook University, State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York © New York Times

Motivation High-resolution models are capable of simulating mesoscale snowbands

1800 UTC 25 Dec 2002 Dual Doppler 4 km MM5 Radar Reflectivity (shaded, dBZ) 3 km winds

1815 UTC Dual Doppler 4 km MM5 Radar Reflectivity (shaded, dBZ) 3 km winds

1830 UTC Dual Doppler 4 km MM5 Radar Reflectivity (shaded, dBZ) 3 km winds

1845 UTC Dual Doppler 4 km MM5 Radar Reflectivity (shaded, dBZ) 3 km winds

1900 UTC Dual Doppler 4 km MM5 Radar Reflectivity (shaded, dBZ) 3 km winds

1915 UTC Dual Doppler 4 km MM5 Radar Reflectivity (shaded, dBZ) 3 km winds

1930 UTC Dual Doppler 4 km MM5 Radar Reflectivity (shaded, dBZ) 3 km winds

1945 UTC Dual Doppler 4 km MM5 Radar Reflectivity (shaded, dBZ) 3 km winds

2000 UTC Dual Doppler 4 km MM5 Radar Reflectivity (shaded, dBZ) 3 km winds

2015 UTC Dual Doppler 4 km MM5 Radar Reflectivity (shaded, dBZ) 3 km winds

2030 UTC Dual Doppler 4 km MM5 Radar Reflectivity (shaded, dBZ) 3 km winds

2045 UTC Dual Doppler 4 km MM5 Radar Reflectivity (shaded, dBZ) 3 km winds

2100 UTC Dual Doppler 4 km MM5 Radar Reflectivity (shaded, dBZ) 3 km winds

Motivation High-resolution models are capable of simulating mesoscale snowbands An ensemble of high-resolution models may provide useful band predictability information However, in the words of Rich Grumm: “high- resolution deterministic forecasts can be highly detailed, but highly inaccurate.”

Objectives Demonstrate ability of a high-resolution ensemble to provide qualitative band predictability information during three recent snowstorms Explore sources of band uncertainty 25 Dec Feb Feb 2007

Ensemble Design -multi-model (MM5 v3 /WRF-ARW v 2.2) -multi-initial condition (GFS/NAM/SREF) -multi-physics (Microphysics/Convective) MemberModelIC/BCMicrophysicsConvectivePBL NAM-MM5MM5NAMSimpleGrellMRF GFS-MM5MM5GFSSimpleGrellMRF GFS-MM5-R2MM5GFSReisner2GrellMRF SREF_N1-MM5MM5SREF_N1SimpleGrellMRF SREF_N2-MM5MM5SREF_N2SimpleGrellMRF SREF_P1_MM5MM5SREF_P1SimpleGrellMRF SREF_P1- MM5-KFMM5SREF_P1SimpleKain FritchMRF SREF_P2-MM5MM5SREF_P2SimpleGrellMRF NAM-WRFWRFNAMWSM-3GrellMRF GFS-WRFWRFNAMWSM-3GrellMRF GFS-WRF-ThomWRFGFSThompsonGrellMRF SREF_N1-WRFWRFSREF_N1WSM-3GrellMRF SREF_N2-WRFWRFSREF_N2WSM-3GrellMRF SREF_P1_WRFWRFSREF_P1WSM-3GrellMRF SREF_P1- WRF-KFWRFSREF_P1WSM-3Kain FritchMRF SREF_P2-WRFWRFSREF_P2WSM-3GrellMRF Initialized h prior to band formation

Band Definition Model band = simulated reflectivity feature which has an aspect ratio (length/width) of 4:1 or greater, with an intensity of at least 30 dBZ, maintained for at least 2 h. No BandBand

Feb

14 Feb 2007 Surface Cyclone Depth

ObservedEnsemble Storm Total Precipitation

Band Occurrence 16 of 16 members (100%) had bands at some time during event

Band Timing Band formation among members ranged from 14 UTC to 00 UTC Band dissipation among member ranged from 22 UTC to 3 UTC

Band Location Formation

Band Location Maturity

Band Location Dissipation

Feb Summary Band Characteristic SpreadConfidence Occurrence16/16 membersHigh Timing~ 8 hModerate Location~100 kmHigh

Dec

25 Dec 2002 Surface Cyclone Depth

ObservedEnsemble Storm Total Precipitation

Band Occurrence 15 of 16 members (94%) had bands at some time during event

Band Timing Band formation among members ranged from 17 to 23 UTC Band dissipation among members ranged from 20 UTC to 2 UTC

Band Location Formation

Band Location Maturity

Band Location Dissipation

25 Dec 2002 Summary Band Characteristic SpreadConfidence Occurrence15/16 membersHigh Timing~6 hModerate Location~250 kmModerate

12 Feb 2006

12 Feb 2006 Surface Cyclone Depth

ObservedEnsemble Storm Total Precipitation

Band Occurrence 12 of 16 members (75%) had bands at some time during event

Band Timing Band formation among members ranged from 10 to 20 UTC Band dissipation among members ranged from 13 UTC to 0 UTC

Band Location Formation

Band Location Maturity

Band Location Dissipation

Band Location After Dissipation

12 Feb 2006 Summary Band Characteristic SpreadConfidence Occurrence12/16 membersModerate Timing~9 hLow Location~400 kmLow

Band occurrence was favored in the ensemble for each case However the specific timing and location of the bands had considerable spread, especially in the 25 Dec 2002 and 12 Feb 2006 cases. Why?

Location Difference (GFS errored left, NAM errored right) 14 Feb 2007

36 km NAM 0000 UTC GFS NAM - GFSR ~475 – 250 mb PV PVU PVU

36 km NAM 0600 UTC GFS NAM - GFSR ~475 – 250 mb PV PVU PVU

36 km NAM 1200 UTC GFS NAM - GFSR ~475 – 250 mb PV PVU PVU

36 km NAM 1800 UTC GFS NAM - GFSR ~475 – 250 mb PV PVU PVU

Location Difference (SREF_N1 errored left, GFSR errored right) 25 Dec 2002

36 km GFSR 0000 UTC SREF_N1 SREF_N1 - GFSR ~475 – 250 mb PV PVU PVU

36 km GFSR 0600 UTC SREF_N1 SREF_N1 - GFSR ~475 – 250 mb PV PVU PVU

36 km GFSR 1200 UTC SREF_N1 SREF_N1 - GFSR ~475 – 250 mb PV PVU PVU

36 km GFSR 1800 UTC SREF_N1 SREF_N1 - GFSR PVU PVU

Location Difference (GFSR errored left, SREF-N1 errored far right) 12 Feb 2007

36 km SREF_N UTC GFS ~475 – 250 mb PV SREF - GFSR PVU PVU

36 km SREF_N UTC GFS ~475 – 250 mb PV SREF - GFSR PVU PVU

36 km SREF_N UTC GFS ~475 – 250 mb PV SREF - GFSR PVU PVU

36 km SREF_N UTC GFS ~475 – 250 mb PV SREF - GFSR PVU PVU

36 km 1200 UTC GFS ~475 – 250 mb PV SREF_N PVU PVU SREF - GFSR

Summary A simple 16-member 12-km multi-model,-initial condition, and -physics ensemble can identify favored time periods and corridors of band formation threat. Although band occurrence was favored in the ensemble for each case, the specific timing and location of the bands had considerable spread. -suggests that answering whether a band will occur may be easier to answer than when or where it will occur, even at h forecast projections. Spread of variables differed markedly amongst the three cases – appeared to be related primarily to IC uncertainty. -suggests the largest improvements in band prediction may occur with targeted initial condition improvements.

Model Comparison

Spread Where is the spread coming from? -Examine 24 h forecast MSLP spread (max MSLP minus min MSLP) for each sub ensemble 25 Dec12 Feb14 FebMean IC10.0 mb8.5 mb mb Model6.4 mb2.1 mb3.6 mb4.0 mb Physics1.5 mb0.3 mb3.8 mb1.8 mb IC uncertainty dominates

MSLP Spread Method MemberModelIC/BCMicrophysicsConvectivePBL NAM-MM5MM5NAMSimpleGrellMRF GFS-MM5MM5GFSSimpleGrellMRF GFS-MM5-R2MM5GFSReisner2GrellMRF SREF_N1-MM5MM5SREF_N1SimpleGrellMRF SREF_N2-MM5MM5SREF_N2SimpleGrellMRF SREF_P1_MM5MM5SREF_P1SimpleGrellMRF SREF_P1- MM5-KFMM5SREF_P1SimpleKain FritchMRF SREF_P2-MM5MM5SREF_P2SimpleGrellMRF NAM-WRFWRFNAMWSM-3GrellMRF GFS-WRFWRFNAMWSM-3GrellMRF GFS-WRF-ThomWRFGFSThompsonGrellMRF SREF_N1-WRFWRFSREF_N1WSM-3GrellMRF SREF_N2-WRFWRFSREF_N2WSM-3GrellMRF SREF_P1_WRFWRFSREF_P1WSM-3GrellMRF SREF_P1- WRF-KFWRFSREF_P1WSM-3Kain FritchMRF SREF_P2-WRFWRFSREF_P2WSM-3GrellMRF IC Spread= (MSLP spread of MM5 members with simple ice and Grell physics) + (MSLP spread of WRF members with simple ice and Grell physics) / 2 Members involved in calculation are highlighted

MSLP Spread Method MemberModelIC/BCMicrophysicsConvectivePBL NAM-MM5MM5NAMSimpleGrellMRF GFS-MM5MM5GFSSimpleGrellMRF GFS-MM5-R2MM5GFSReisner2GrellMRF SREF_N1-MM5MM5SREF_N1SimpleGrellMRF SREF_N2-MM5MM5SREF_N2SimpleGrellMRF SREF_P1_MM5MM5SREF_P1SimpleGrellMRF SREF_P1- MM5-KFMM5SREF_P1SimpleKain FritchMRF SREF_P2-MM5MM5SREF_P2SimpleGrellMRF NAM-WRFWRFNAMWSM-3GrellMRF GFS-WRFWRFNAMWSM-3GrellMRF GFS-WRF-ThomWRFGFSThompsonGrellMRF SREF_N1-WRFWRFSREF_N1WSM-3GrellMRF SREF_N2-WRFWRFSREF_N2WSM-3GrellMRF SREF_P1_WRFWRFSREF_P1WSM-3GrellMRF SREF_P1- WRF-KFWRFSREF_P1WSM-3Kain FritchMRF SREF_P2-WRFWRFSREF_P2WSM-3GrellMRF Model Spread= [(NAM-MM5 minus NAM-WRF)+(GFS-MM5 minus GFS-WRF) + (GFS-MM5-R2 minus GFS-WRF-R2) + (SREF_N1-MM5 minus SREF_N1-WRF)+etc..] / 8 Members involved in calculation are highlighted

MSLP Spread Method MemberModelIC/BCMicrophysicsConvectivePBL NAM-MM5MM5NAMSimpleGrellMRF GFS-MM5MM5GFSSimpleGrellMRF GFS-MM5-R2MM5GFSReisner2GrellMRF SREF_N1-MM5MM5SREF_N1SimpleGrellMRF SREF_N2-MM5MM5SREF_N2SimpleGrellMRF SREF_P1_MM5MM5SREF_P1SimpleGrellMRF SREF_P1- MM5-KFMM5SREF_P1SimpleKain FritchMRF SREF_P2-MM5MM5SREF_P2SimpleGrellMRF NAM-WRFWRFNAMWSM-3GrellMRF GFS-WRFWRFNAMWSM-3GrellMRF GFS-WRF-ThomWRFGFSThompsonGrellMRF SREF_N1-WRFWRFSREF_N1WSM-3GrellMRF SREF_N2-WRFWRFSREF_N2WSM-3GrellMRF SREF_P1_WRFWRFSREF_P1WSM-3GrellMRF SREF_P1- WRF-KFWRFSREF_P1WSM-3Kain FritchMRF SREF_P2-WRFWRFSREF_P2WSM-3GrellMRF Physics Spread= [(GFS-MM5 minus GFS-MM5-R2)+(GFS-WRF minus GFS-WRF-Thom)+(SREF_P1-MM5 minus SREF_P1- KF)+(SREF_P1-WRF minus SREF_P1-WRF-KF)] / 4 Members involved in calculation are highlighted