1 / 11

Development of an eastern Great Lakes sub-regional WRF ensemble for lake effect snow prediction

Development of an eastern Great Lakes sub-regional WRF ensemble for lake effect snow prediction. Outline. Background Why should we do this? What have we done What will be done. Background… The Eastern Great Lakes Lake Effect Snow Project (EAGLLES). A field study scheduled for ???

addison
Download Presentation

Development of an eastern Great Lakes sub-regional WRF ensemble for lake effect snow prediction

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Development of an eastern Great Lakes sub-regional WRF ensemble for lake effect snow prediction

  2. Outline • Background • Why should we do this? • What have we done • What will be done

  3. Background… The Eastern Great Lakes Lake Effect Snow Project (EAGLLES) • A field study scheduled for ??? • Looking for operational forecast challenges related to lake effect snow forecasting • The concept of sub-regional ensembles had been proposed (Rich) • Proposal – to develop a sub-regional ensemble for use operationally, and for use in the EAGGLES field study

  4. Why should we do this? • Several NWS Offices around the eastern Great Lakes utilize locally run meso-scale models (workstation Eta / WRF). • Given that an ensemble is already available, we should explore utilizing the power of ensemble prediction techniques in lake effect snow environments (identify high confidence vs. low confidence solutions). • Share what works and what does not work.

  5. Current model configurations Note: BUF is running the KF CPS, BTV is running BMJ.

  6. Model Domain

  7. Web Interfaces • http://198.206.43.25/wrf/index.php (examine individual model runs) • http://www.lightecho.net/scripts/all_version5.php?image=Wx (side by side comparisons)

  8. 4 panel display

  9. On-going case study (proof of concept) • CTP and BGM are collaborating on a few case study from last winter using this data. • Justin Arnot will use GRADS to display ensemble products from 2 LES events, plus a synoptic snow event.

  10. Example – Output from 4 members (BGM, CLE, CTP1, CTP2)

  11. What’s next • Finish proof of concept case studies (CTP / BGM / CLE) Add runs from BUF, BTV, ALY? • Get a limited subset of grib data from the models into AWIPS (CLE). • Continue development of ensemble graphics (means, probabilities) (CTP / BGM / CLE) • More models into the system (ALY) • Assimilate results from COMET project with SUNY Oswego (BUF) • Forecaster evaluation and feedback (All offices).

More Related