Updated Radar-Based Techniques for Tornado Warning Guidance in the Northeastern United States Brian J. Frugis & Thomas A. Wasula NOAA/NWS Albany, New York.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Build 10 Tornado Detection Algorithm The Build 9 Tornado Vortex Signature ( TVS ) Detection Algorithm was not very robust, and was designed to be a place.
Advertisements

Radar Climatology of Tornadoes in High Shear, Low CAPE Environments in the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast Jason Davis Matthew Parker North Carolina State University.
The 4 Sep 2011 Tornado in Eastern New York: An Example for Updating Tornado Warning Strategies Brian J. Frugis NOAA/NWS Albany, NY NROW XIII 2-3 November.
A Refresher on Super-Resolution Radar Data Audra Hennecke, Dave Beusterien.
Pam Heinselman NOAA National Severe Storms Laboratory Warn on Forecast Workshop 8 Feb 2012 Exploring the Impact of Rapid-scan Radar Data on NWS Warnings.
20 Years of Connecticut Tornadoes Ryan Hanrahan / WVIT-TV NBC Connecticut.
Echo Tops Fairly accurate at depicting height of storm tops Inaccurate data close to radar because there is no beam angle high enough to see tops. Often.
Anomalous Velocity Signatures in Low Level Super Resolution Data.
THE IMPACTS OF THUNDERSTORM GEOMETRY AND WSR-88D BEAM CHARACTERISTICS ON DIAGNOSING SUPERCELL TORNADOES Steve Piltz – WFO Tulsa, OK Don Burgess – CIMSS.
 Definition of Spectrum Width (σ v ) › Spectrum width is a measure of the velocity dispersion within a sample volume or a measure of the variability.
Mike Evans / NWS Binghamton, NY. Outline Large-scale pattern / meso-analysis Radar data High resolution model output Summary.
A Study on Convective Modes Associated with Tornadoes in Central New York and Northeast Pennsylvania Timothy W. Humphrey 1 Michael Evans 2 1 Department.
Preparing for a “Change” in Severe Hail Warning Criteria in 2010 Brian J. Frugis NWS WFO Albany, NY NROW XI November 4-5, 2009.
The Father’s Day 2002 Severe Weather Outbreak across New York and Western New England Thomas A. Wasula NOAA/NWS WFO at Albany.
Correlations between observed snowfall and NAM forecast parameters, Part I – Dynamical Parameters Mike Evans NOAA/NWS Binghamton, NY November 1, 2006 Northeast.
The August 9, 2001 Lake Breeze Severe Weather Event Across New York and Western New England Thomas A. Wasula NOAA/NWS WFO at Albany.
6/26/2015 RUC Convective Parameters and Upscale Events in Southern Ontario Mike Leduc Environment Canada.
6/26/2015 Examination of the low level polarimetric radar parameters associated with the Aug southern Ontario tornadic supercells Mike Leduc Sudesh.
Tornado Detection Algorithm (TDA) By: Jeffrey Curtis and Jessica McLaughlin.
A Storm-Scale Analysis of the 16 June 2008 Significant Severe Weather Event across New York and Western New England Thomas A. Wasula NOAA/NWS at Albany.
The 4 August 2004 Central Pennsylvania Severe Weather Event – Environmental and Topographical Influences on Storm Structure Evolution Joe Villani NOAA/NWS,
1 Supercell Thunderstorms Adapted from Materials by Dr. Frank Gallagher III and Dr. Kelvin Droegemeier School of Meteorology University of Oklahoma Part.
Severe Weather Seminar Spring 2011
 Mentoring: A productive volunteer experience.  To explore environments that effect cloud top cooling detections.  To explore thunderstorm behavior/impacts.
Severe Weather Operations. Severe Weather Staffing (Positions in orange are minimum needed) Severe Weather Coordinator – oversees the operations of the.
Reanalysis of Southern New England Tornadoes To Improve Warning Verification Daniel Brook, Lyndon State College* Joseph DelliCarpini, NOAA/NWS Taunton,
National Weather Service Weather Forecast Office – Taunton, MA (BOX)
Verification of the 88D Hail Detection Algorithm at WFO Cheyenne Mike Weiland WFO Cheyenne.
A Study on the Environments Associated with Significant Tornadoes Occurring Within the Warm Sector versus Those Occurring Along Boundaries Jonathan Garner.
High-Resolution RUC CAPE Values and Their Relationship to Right Turning Supercells By: Andy Mair Mentor: Dr. William A. Gallus Jr. Department of Geological.
Christopher J. Schultz 1, Walter A. Petersen 2, Lawrence D. Carey 3* 1 - Department of Atmospheric Science, UAHuntsville, Huntsville, AL 2 – NASA Marshall.
The Inland Extent of Lake- Effect Snow (LES) Bands Joe Villani NOAA/NWS Albany, NY Michael L. Jurewicz, Sr. NOAA/NWS Binghamton, NY Jason Krekeler State.
Correlation Coefficient (CC)
Improving the Forecasting of High Shear, Low CAPE Severe Weather Environments Keith Sherburn and Jason Davis Department of Marine, Earth, and Atmospheric.
Justin Schultz¹ Mentors: Karl Jungbluth² and Dr. Mike Chen¹ Department of Geological and Atmospheric Sciences Iowa State University¹ Johnston, Iowa: National.
TOP CWA Golf Ball Size Hail Study Bill Gargan WFO TOP, KS.
Chad Entremont Daniel Lamb NWS Jackson, MS
Tornadoes and Tornadic Storms Robert Davies-Jones, R. Jeffrey Trapp, and Howard B. Bluestein Presentation by Christopher Medjber Severe Convective Storms,
WFO Huntsville, Alabama A Review of the North Alabama Violent Tornado Outbreak February 6, 2008 Brian Carcione & David Nadler NWS Huntsville, Alabama.
An Examination of “Parallel” and “Transition” Severe Weather/Flash Flood Events Kyle J. Pallozzi and Lance F. Bosart Department of Atmospheric and Environmental.
BP-31 Updated Radar-Based Techniques for Tornado Warning Guidance in the Northeastern United States Brian J. Frugis and Thomas A. Wasula NOAA/National.
Tornado Warning Skill as a Function of Environment National Weather Service Sub-Regional Workshop Binghamton, New York September 23, 2015 Yvette Richardson.
A Review of the March 28, 2007 Tornado Event Teresa Keck NWS North Platte, Nebraska Courtesy of Mike Hollingshead.
2. Basic Characteristics and Forecast The 500-hPa pattern for this event featured a deep low centered over Idaho. A composite analysis of past tornado.
A Rare Severe Weather and Tornado Event in Central New York and Northeast Pennsylvania: July 8, 2014 Presented by Mike Evans 1.
The 22 May 2014 Duanesburg, NY, Tornadic Supercell Brian Tang, Matt Vaughan, Kristen Corbosiero, Ross Lazear, & Lance Bosart University at Albany, SUNY.
Quantifying the Significance of the April 2011 Severe Weather Outbreak Matthew S. Stalley, Chad M. Gravelle, Charles E. Graves Saint Louis University.
The 1 November 2004 tornadic QLCS event over southwest Illinois Ron W. Przybylinski Science and Operations Officer National Weather Service – St. Louis.
Anthony Phillips Department of Geography Virginia Tech.
DUAL-POLARIZATION RADAR UPGRADE Emergency Manager Workshop Feb Chad Entremont.
Balanced or Slightly Shear Dominant Regions of the QLCS Line Normal 0-3 km Bulk Shear ≥ 30 Knots Surge or Bow in the Line 1 1.Define the Updraft Downdraft.
Tornado Events Associated With Supercells and Quasi- linear Convective Systems Sara Jupin EAS4480 4/28/2011 Sara Jupin EAS4480 4/28/2011.
Conducted by: Robert Frye & Jason Schaumann NWS Springfield, MO
Comparison of Spectrum Width, Normalized Rotation, and Correlation Coefficient in Tornadic QLCS and Supercell Circulations Brian Greene University of Oklahoma.
WSR - 88D Characteristics of Significant Tornadoes in New York and New England Lance Franck University of Massachusetts Hayden Frank NOAA/NWS/Weather.
The 22 May 2014 Duanesburg, NY, Tornadic Supercell
Paper Review Jennie Bukowski ATS APR-2017
Pamela Eck, Brian Tang, and Lance Bosart University at Albany, SUNY
Northeast US Tornadoes and Tornado Debris Signatures
An overview by: Thomas Jones December 2, 2002
Zdr/Kdp Behavior in Potentially Tornadic Storms
Michael L. Jurewicz, Sr. and Christopher Gitro
CAE Tornado Cases Hunter Coleman Anthony Petrolito Michael Cammarata
Northeast Regional Operational Workshop XVII 3 November 2016
Bow Echo Workshop March 2017
Zdr/Kdp Behavior in Potentially Tornadic Storms
William Flamholtz, Brian Tang, and Lance Bosart
Brian J. Frugis NOAA/NWS Albany, New York NROW XIX – 7 November 2018
Improving Tornado Detection and
Brian J. Frugis and Thomas A. Wasula NOAA/NWS Albany, New York
Presentation transcript:

Updated Radar-Based Techniques for Tornado Warning Guidance in the Northeastern United States Brian J. Frugis & Thomas A. Wasula NOAA/NWS Albany, New York NROW XVI – 4-5 November 2015

Motivation CSTAR study has been completed to update the V-R Shear Technique for tornado warning guidance using 8 bit, high resolution radar data – This was originally done for the area around the Albany CWA in , but has been expanded this year for tornadoes over the entire Northeastern US – Will the updated version of this study help detect tornadoes that were previously difficult to predict?

Motivation (continued) Impact-based warnings require knowledge regarding the estimated strength of the tornado – Ongoing studies have been looking at estimating tornadic strength from the maximum height of tornadic debris from events from the Southeast & Plains, but Northeastern United States tornados have not been examined in this matter. – Although limited due to the small amount of tornadic events, are the results for these Northeastern US Events similar to the findings for other parts of the US?

Original V-R Shear Study (LaPenta et al. 2000) Maximum observed gate-to-gate shear below 3 km was found to be useful in identifying tornadic storms (LaPenta et al. 2000) S=V r /(D*1800) Shear (S) is measured in units of s -1, rotational velocity (V r ) in knots and D is the diameter of which S is calculated in n mi. V m is the maximum strength of the mesocyclone, which can be found using a vertical cross-section over a 3.5 n mi width Radar data was 4 bit and had to be range normalized due to radar resolution and beam spreading

Expanded V-R Shear Study 8-bit radar data from 76 tornadoes from were examined using Gibson Ridge Software’s GR2Analyst. This expanded the dataset that was previously just 41 tornadic events near the ALY CWA that was originally completed in null cases (storms with strong rotation that prompted tornado warnings but didn’t produce a tornado) were also looked at. Shear was calculated for each tornado using a diameter of 0.5 n mi for all tornadoes from within 60 n mi of radar (since super-res data was available). The old methodology for determining D was used for tornadoes from The maximum velocity differential of the mesocyclone (V m ) was calculated for each storm Results of S and V m were compared to the nomogram graphic created by the LaPenta study

Using the V-R Shear Method Rotational Velocity of tornadic couplet from 0.5° SRM measured over 0.5 nm width (about 10 nm from KENX radar located just south- southeast of tornadic couplet) V r =42.5 kts, S= s -1 Cross-Section of SRM over 3.5 nm width of Mesocyclone. Max Strength: 89 kts (V m =Max inbound + Max Outbound of Meso)

Updated V-R Shear Study Nomogram for Entire Northeastern United States (n=76) Group I: No Clear Signal Between Tornadic & Non-Tornadic Mesocyclones; no F2/EF2 or stronger Group II: 71% Tornadic & Mainly Weak Tornadoes Group III: 100% tornadic; mainly F1+/EF1+ Group I: No Clear Signal Between Tornadic & Non-Tornadic Mesocyclones; no F2/EF2 or stronger Group II: 71% Tornadic & Mainly Weak Tornadoes Group III: 100% tornadic; mainly F1+/EF1+

Tornadic Debris Signature Detection (TDS) Methodology (Adapted from Entremont and Lamb 2015) 1)Find a tornadic couplet in SRM with gate-to-gate rotation. 2)Have Correlation Coefficient (CC) less than 0.90 co-located with the couplet. 3)Have Reflectivity (Z) values 35 dBZ or greater co-located with the couplet. 4)Have Differential Reflectivity (ZDR) values around zero co-located with the couplet. 5)If all these criteria are met, check next radar elevation slice above and continue the process until they are not met anymore. The top slice where all criteria is met is the Max TDS Height UTC 22 May 2014 Duanesburg-Delanson, NY EF3 KENX Radar 0.5° Elevation Angle Top-left: SRM (kts), Top-right: CC Bottom-left: Z (dBZ), Bottom-right: ZDR (dB)

Tornadic Debris Signature Statistics Northeastern US Events tornadic events from from the Northeastern United States were examined for the presence of a Tornadic Debris Signature (TDS). Out of those 69 tornadoes, a TDS was present in 24 of them (35%). Of these 24, 12 tornadic events occurred within supercell thunderstorms and 12 were within Quasi-Linear Convective System (QLCS) thunderstorms. All EF2+ strength tornadoes occurring in the Northeastern US between displayed a TDS. EF-0EF-1EF-2EF-3EF-4EF

Maximum Height of TDS Average & Median Values For the 24 events examined between , the average & median values increase with increasing tornadic strength, especially once reaching the EF2 level. This is similar to results found by Entremont and Lamb (2015). More storms will be examined in future years as the dataset expands to see if these trends continue.

Maximum Height of TDS vs. EF Scale Strength vs. Range Weak tornadic events (EF0) were generally only see close to the radar, as debris generally didn’t get very high and beam height rising over distance would prevent these further away storms from being seen. Hard to seen much difference between EF0/EF1 storms with this plot.

Maximum Height of TDS Northeastern US Tornados Box and Whisker Plot EF0/EF1 are similar, but jump up seen with EF2+ events. Entremont and Lamb (2015) also saw a similar signal in their data as well (which contained 181 events).

Normalized Rotation (NROT) NROT is a derived product found in GR2Analyst that attempts to assess rotation for each range bin, regardless of distance from radar Values range from -5 to 5 and are unitless – Software documentation notes that over 1.00 is significant and over 2.50 is extreme NROT display from GR2Analyst from 2247Z 29 May NROT values reached a maximum of just prior to tornado touchdown.

Normalized Rotation (NROT) Data & Analysis 137 tornadic events from from the Northeastern United States were examined using Gibson Ridge’s software GR2Analyst. The value of Normalized Rotation (NROT) was recorded at the onset for each tornadic event. In addition, 42 null events were examined as well. Null events showed enough rotation to warrant a tornado warning, but a tornado was not reported.

Normalized Rotation (NROT) As Compared to Storm Strength

Normalized Rotation (NROT) Null vs. Tornadic Events

Conclusions: Expanded V-R Shear Study The updated V-R Shear technique shows similar results as the previous study done by LaPenta et al. in 2000, but now accounts for the improvements in radar resolution. – Expanded dataset over entire Northeastern US helps increase confidence in study results Weak Tornadoes (EF0/EF1) continue to be difficult to detect via radar – Expanded V-R Shear Study still shows little skill differentiating between null mesocyclones & weak tornadoes Strong tornadoes for the Northeast (EF2+) show a strong correlation between increasing amounts of low-level shear and the increased strength within the mid-level mesocyclone

Conclusions: Northeastern US TDS Study As also shown by Entremont and Lamb 2015, the higher Max TDS Heights are correlated with an increase in tornado strength. Most pronounced jump in Max TDS height occurs with transition between weak (EF0/EF1) to strong tornados (EF2+) Small amounts of tornados since launch of Dual- Polarization are a limiting factor, but results are similar to larger study by Entremont and Lamb

Conclusions: Normalized Rotation (NROT) NROT is not always a clear discriminator on its own for tornadic vs. non-tornadic storms. There also isn’t a strong signal seen in increasing tornadic strength with increasing NROT values either. NROT could be useful if combined with other mesoscale information – WFO BGM has done work regarding this & has shown this at previous NROW meetings

Questions?