1. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 1 August 25, 2005 RUC – RAOB – TAMDAR SOUNDINGS Ed Szoke* NOAA Forecast Systems Laboratory *Joint collaboration with the Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO

2. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 2 August 25, 2005 TAMDAR soundings vs RAOBs – some observations ● At the time of the last meeting... ● Found lots of variability in the TAMDAR soundings ● Often soundings close in time were not consistent ● Now... ● Much less variability ● Soundings tend to show good consistency ● And generally compare better to nearby raobs

3. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 3 August 25, 2005 Overview ● Assessing TAMDAR data quality...quick review ● Compare TAMDAR soundings with each other ● Compare to a “verifying” raob sounding ● Concentrated on DTW and MSP and PIA ● Examining impact of TAMDAR on RUC forecasts ● Look at RUC forecast soundings with and without TAMDAR and compare to raobs ● Also compare RUC analyses ● Potential forecast value of TAMDAR soundings ● Consistency and potential usefulness of TAMDAR soundings...a brief case

4. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 4 August 25, 2005 TAMDAR soundings vs RAOBs – Weather at 1200 UTC 19 August 05

5. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 5 August 25, 2005 TAMDAR soundings vs 1200 UTC 19 August 05 DTW RAOB – flights to ENE

6. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 6 August 25, 2005 TAMDAR soundings vs 1200 UTC 19 August 05 DTW RAOB – flights to ENE

7. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 7 August 25, 2005 TAMDAR soundings vs 1200 UTC 19 August 05 DTW RAOB – flights to ENE Agreement is not as good but note TAMDARS are heading NW and the raob would have headed to the ene.

8. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 8 August 25, 2005 TAMDAR soundings vs RAOBs – DTW 1200 UTC 22 August 05 Quite a bit of lower level moisture over the Upper Midwest.

9. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 9 August 25, 2005 TAMDAR soundings vs DTW RAOB – flights to the SE

10. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 10 August 25, 2005 TAMDAR soundings vs DTW RAOB – flights to the ENE

11. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 11 August 25, 2005 TAMDAR soundings vs DTW RAOB – flights to the NW Note that the raob heads to the ESE

12. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 12 August 25, 2005 TAMDAR soundings vs MSP RAOB – flights to the E Note the good consistency between TAMDARs 2 min apart.

13. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 13 August 25, 2005 TAMDAR soundings vs MSP RAOB – flights to the E-ENE Not sure about the 1231 UTC TAMDAR flight...

14. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 14 August 25, 2005 TAMDAR soundings vs MSP RAOB – flights to the S Excellent agreement on the height of the inversion base.

15. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 15 August 25, 2005 Next we will look at impact of TAMDAR on the RUC - Examine RUC with (“dev2”) and without (“dev”) TAMDAR - Using mainly DTW and MSP locations - Look first at RUC analyses and compare to raobs - Then see if impact is seen in the forecasts by looking at mainly 3 and 6 h forecasts and comparing to raobs.

16. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 16 August 25, 2005 RUC analysis soundings vs RAOBs – 18 August 2005 Surface map with radar for 1200 UTC.

17. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 17 August 25, 2005 RUC analysis soundings vs DTW RAOB – 18 August 2005 Comparison of RUC analyses for 1200 UTC with (dev2) and without (dev) TAMDAR. Appears to be a better match to the sounding when the TAMDAR data was included.

18. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 18 August 25, 2005 RUC analysis soundings vs MSP RAOB – 1200 UTC 18 August 05 The same type of example from MSP; could argue that dev2 is a slightly better match to the raob.

19. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 19 August 25, 2005 RUC forecast soundings vs RAOBs – 0000 UTC 19 Aug Comparison of RUC forecast soundings for Detroit at 0000 UTC – 3 h forecasts. -soundings are different, but dev1 (w/o TAMDAR) may be closer match to raob.

20. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 20 August 25, 2005 RUC forecast soundings vs RAOBs – 0000 UTC 19 Aug Comparison of RUC forecast soundings for Detroit at 0000 UTC – 6 h forecasts.

21. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 21 August 25, 2005 RUC forecast soundings vs RAOBs – 0000 UTC 19 Aug Comparison of RUC forecast soundings for Detroit at 0000 UTC – 9 h forecasts. -9 h is rather far into the forecast but note differences do appear between the forecasts...not clear which one is better for this case.

22. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 22 August 25, 2005 RUC forecast soundings vs RAOBs – 0000 UTC 19 Aug Comparison of RUC forecast soundings for Detroit at 0000 UTC – 12 h forecasts.

23. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 23 August 25, 2005 RUC forecast soundings vs RAOBs – 0000 UTC 23 Aug 05 Quite a bit of low level moisture MI- MN with extensive low clouds over MI.

24. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 24 August 25, 2005 RUC forecast soundings vs RAOBs – 0000 UTC 23 Aug 05 TAMDAR data available for 2300-0100 UTC, approximating what was available for the RUC 0000 UTC runs.

25. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 25 August 25, 2005 RUC analyses with and without TAMDAR for 0000 UTC 23 Aug Comparison with the Detroit 0000 UTC raob. RH differences exist between the RUC analyses but dev2 (with TAMDAR) does not look as good as dev1 (RUC analysis without TAMDAR) for this site.

26. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 26 August 25, 2005 RUC analyses with and without TAMDAR for 0000 UTC 23 Aug Comparison with the Minneapolis 0000 UTC raob. This time dev2 (with TAMDAR) looks better at lower levels.

27. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 27 August 25, 2005 RUC analyses with and without TAMDAR for 0000 UTC 23 Aug Comparison with the Davenport Iowa 0000 UTC raob. Dev2 (with TAMDAR) temperature looks better at and above 850 mb.

28. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 28 August 25, 2005 RUC analyses with and without TAMDAR for 0000 UTC 23 Aug Comparison with the Peoria Illinois 0000 UTC raob. No improvement seen for this site, but there are much fewer flights into PIA.

29. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 29 August 25, 2005 RUC 6h forecasts with and without TAMDAR for 0000 UTC 23 Aug Comparison of 6h RUC forecasts with the Detroit 0000 UTC raob. Mixed results, down low dev (w/o TAMDAR) looks best with T, but above ~850 mb dev2 (with TAMDAR) closely matches the raob in T and Td.

30. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 30 August 25, 2005 RUC 6h forecasts with and without TAMDAR for 0000 UTC 23 Aug Comparison with the MSP 0000 UTC raob. Less differences in the forecasts.

31. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 31 August 25, 2005 RUC 6h forecasts with and without TAMDAR for 0000 UTC 23 Aug Comparison with the Green Bay 0000 UTC raob. Mixed...T better, RH not, for dev2 (with TAMDAR).

32. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 32 August 25, 2005 RUC 6h forecasts with and without TAMDAR for 0000 UTC 23 Aug Comparison with the Peoria 0000 UTC raob. Little difference between the 2 forecasts aob 800 mb, but better RH with dev2 above this level.

33. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 33 August 25, 2005 RUC analyses with and without TAMDAR for 1200 UTC 23 Aug Quiet weather aloft but still lots of low level moisture, especially eastern WI through MI.

34. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 34 August 25, 2005 RUC analyses with and without TAMDAR for 1200 UTC 23 Aug TAMDAR flights before 1200 UTC.

35. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 35 August 25, 2005 RUC analyses with and without TAMDAR for 1200 UTC 23 Aug For Detroit. Not much difference down low, but aob 750 mb dev2 RH better.

36. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 36 August 25, 2005 RUC analyses with and without TAMDAR for 1200 UTC 23 Aug MSP shown here...much better temperature for dev2 in the lowest 100 mb.

37. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 37 August 25, 2005 RUC analyses with and without TAMDAR for 1200 UTC 23 Aug Not true though at PIA, but again less TAMDAR here.

38. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 38 August 25, 2005 RUC analyses with and without TAMDAR for 0000 UTC 24 Aug

39. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 39 August 25, 2005 RUC analyses with and without TAMDAR for 0000 UTC 24 Aug The same type of example for 12z from MSP; could argue that dev2 is a better analysis.

40. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 40 August 25, 2005 RUC analyses with and without TAMDAR for 0000 UTC 24 Aug Analyses for Detroit.

41. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 41 August 25, 2005 RUC analyses with and without TAMDAR for 0000 UTC 24 Aug Analyses for MSP

42. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 42 August 25, 2005 RUC forecasts without TAMDAR for Detroit for 0000 UTC 24 Aug 3 and 6 h forecasts for Detroit. Improvement with time around 800 mb but not lower down.

43. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 43 August 25, 2005 RUC forecasts with TAMDAR for Detroit for 0000 UTC 24 Aug Dev2 forecasts more consistent.

44. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 44 August 25, 2005 RUC forecasts without TAMDAR for MSP at 0000 UTC 24 Aug

45. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 45 August 25, 2005 RUC forecasts with TAMDAR for MSP valid at 0000 UTC 24 Aug

46. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 46 August 25, 2005 RUC forecasts with and without TAMDAR for 0000 UTC 24 Aug Comparing the two 3-h forecasts. Note the great match from dev2 for lower level T but dev is better for Td.

47. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 47 August 25, 2005 RUC analyses with and without TAMDAR for 1200 UTC 24 Aug Still lots of lower level moisture around.

48. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 48 August 25, 2005 ~TAMDAR availability for the 1200 UTC 24 Aug RUC

49. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 49 August 25, 2005 RUC analyses with and without TAMDAR for 1200 UTC 24 Aug Analyses for Detroit. Much better moisture down low with TAMDAR.

50. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 50 August 25, 2005 RUC analyses with and without TAMDAR for 1200 UTC 24 Aug Analyses for MSP. Dev2 with TAMDAR captures the low level inversion better.

51. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 51 August 25, 2005 Case study of potential forecast value of TAMDAR soundings -rapidly evolving environment in the Dakotas leading to tornadoes

52. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 52 August 25, 2005 Radar overview – 1900 UTC

53. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 53 August 25, 2005 Radar overview – 2100 UTC

54. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 54 August 25, 2005 Radar overview – 2200 UTC

55. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 55 August 25, 2005 Radar overview – 2300 UTC

56. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 56 August 25, 2005 TAMDAR availability: area is at the western edge of flights.

57. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 57 August 25, 2005 BIS RAOBs – the day starts with VERY shallow moisture but increasing southerly flow above the surface. A lot happens before the next raob at 0000 UTC to set up a supercell environment - what did TAMDAR show?

58. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 58 August 25, 2005 ABR RAOB with 1301 and 1326 UTC TAMDARs Note the increase in moisture just after the sounding launch and the increasing low level southerly flow.

59. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 59 August 25, 2005 ABR TAMDARs from 1533 to 1938 UTC. This Aberdeen TAMDAR series of soundings nicely shows the increasing depth of low-level moisture even as the boundary layer warms.

60. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 60 August 25, 2005 GFK TAMDARs from 1705 to 1913 UTC. Grand Forks TAMDAR series of soundings also shows the increasing depth of low-level moisture.

61. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 61 August 25, 2005 GFK CAPE/CIN for TAMDARs from 1705 vs. 1913 UTC. Considerably less inhibition and more CAPE in just 2 h as shown by the TAMDAR soundings.

62. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 62 August 25, 2005 Environmental variability within the spacing of the raob network Huge amount of variability on this day.

63. Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 63 August 25, 2005 Overall Summary ● TAMDAR quality has improved since our last meeting ● This allows forecasters to have more confidence in using the data ● Showing impact of TAMDAR on RUC forecasts is tricky ● But is fairly clear that one can see the impact on the analyses ● Would like to look more at < 3 h forecasts ● It is easier to find examples of how TAMDAR data can aid operational forecasting and these can be quite dramatic ● Compared with “smaller” effects in NWP models.