1 / 31

Forecasting the Maintenance of Mesoscale Convective Systems Crossing the Appalachian Mountains

Forecasting the Maintenance of Mesoscale Convective Systems Crossing the Appalachian Mountains. Casey Letkewicz CSTAR Workshop October 28, 2010. 9 August 2000. 20 April 2000. Observational Study. 20 crossing and 20 noncrossing cases from Keighton et al. 2007 database

meryl
Download Presentation

Forecasting the Maintenance of Mesoscale Convective Systems Crossing the Appalachian Mountains

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. Forecasting the Maintenance of Mesoscale Convective Systems Crossing the Appalachian Mountains Casey Letkewicz CSTAR Workshop October 28, 2010

  2. 9 August 2000

  3. 20 April 2000

  4. Observational Study • 20 crossing and 20 noncrossing cases from Keighton et al. 2007 database • Two observed soundings chosen for each case • One to represent upstream environment, one to represent downstream environment • Soundings modified with surface conditions within 1 hour of MCS passage • Downstream environment discriminated between crossing and noncrossing cases

  5. Observational Study • Key discriminatory parameters: • MUCAPE, combined with MUCIN

  6. Observational Study • Key discriminatory parameters: • 0-3 and 0-6 km shear; 3-12 km mean wind speed • Mountain-perpendicular 0-3 km shear and 3-12 km wind speed • Crossing cases on average had weaker shear and mean wind…why?

  7. Conceptual Model Frame and Markowski (2006)

  8. Influence of Mean Wind

  9. Influence of Low-level Shear

  10. Questions • Do changes to the wind profile alone result in a crosser or noncrosser? • Is the influence of the wind profile greater in smaller CAPE (i.e. noncrossing) environments?

  11. Idealized Modeling • CM1 model, version 1.14 • ∆x, ∆y = 500 m; ∆z stretched from 150 m at model surface to 500 m aloft • Gaussian-bell shaped barrier, 100 km wide and 1 km tall • Squall lines allowed to evolve and mature for 3 hours before reaching the barrier

  12. Experimental Design SBCAPE = 1790 J/kg SBCIN = -20 J/kg MUCAPE = 2290 J/kg MUCIN = 0 J/kg

  13. Experimental Design

  14. Control Without terrain With terrain

  15. Control--dry

  16. Mean Wind Experiments Mean wind +5 m/s Mean wind -5 m/s

  17. Shear Experiments

  18. Shear Experiments

  19. Wind Profile Experiments • Conceptual model of Frame and Markowski (2006) upheld • The environmental hydraulic jump in the lee also contributed to system redevelopment • Changes to the wind profile alone do not discriminate crossing vs. noncrossing systems • What about a less favorable thermodynamic environment?

  20. Thermodynamic Experiments Cool 6K SBCAPE = 825 J/kg SBCIN = -150 J/kg MUCAPE = 2290 J/kg MUCIN = 0 J/kg Cool 12K SBCAPE = 0 J/kg SBCIN = 0 J/kg MUCAPE = 1370 J/kg MUCIN = -5 J/kg

  21. Lee Cooling -Increasing the mean wind did not prevent system redevelopment in the lee Still have ample MUCIN and small MUCIN!

  22. Thermodynamic Experiments Drying to Observed RH SBCAPE = 600 J/kg SBCIN = -20 J/kg MUCAPE = 600 J/kg MUCIN = -20 J/kg

  23. Lee Drying

  24. Thermodynamic Experiments Cooling, drying, midlevel warming SBCAPE = 110 J/kg SBCIN = -720 J/kg MUCAPE = 575 J/kg MUCIN = -100 J/kg

  25. Lee Cooling, Drying, Midlevel Warming

  26. Thermodynamic Experiments • MUCAPE upheld as most important forecasting parameter, especially when combined with MUCIN • Changes to wind profile have greater influence in low CAPE, high CIN environments

  27. Conclusions • Greatest influence on MCS maintenance is the downstream thermodynamic environment • Especially MUCAPE and MUCIN • Wind profile does not play a primary role in determining MCS maintenance over a barrier • Wind profile exerts a stronger influence in low CAPE, high CIN environments

  28. Publications • Letkewicz and Parker, 2010: Forecasting the maintenance of mesoscale convective systems crossing the Appalachian mountains. Wea. Forecasting, 25, 1179-1195. • Modeling study submitted for publication in Monthly Weather Review

  29. Shear Experiments

More Related