1 / 31

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

FORECASTING EASTERN US WINTER STORMS Are We Getting Better and Why?. Jeff S. Waldstreicher NOAA/NWS Eastern Region Scientific Services Division – Bohemia, NY Northeast Regional Operational Workshop (NROW) November 4, 2004. OUTLINE. Winter Storm Warning Program Verification Review

niveditha
Download Presentation

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

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 EASTERN US WINTER STORMSAre We Getting Better and Why? Jeff S. Waldstreicher NOAA/NWS Eastern Region Scientific Services Division – Bohemia, NY Northeast Regional Operational Workshop (NROW) November 4, 2004

  2. OUTLINE • Winter Storm Warning Program • Verification Review • Key Activities and Developments • Relationship Between Event Totals and Warning Performance • Summary

  3. MOTIVATION • Winter of 2003-2004 Performance • EASTERN REGION WIDE • POD - .921 • FAR - .321 • Lead Time – 18.5 hours • NORTHEAST • POD - .920 • FAR - .321 • Lead Time – 20.3 hours • Is this indicative of a positive performance trend? • If yes, what are the contributing factors?

  4. WINTER STORM WARNINGVERIFICATION RESULTS 1993-94 to 2003-04

  5. NORTHEASTPOD

  6. NORTHEASTFAR

  7. NORTHEASTLEAD TIME

  8. KEY ACTIVITIES AND DEVELOPMENTS RELATED TO FORECASTING WINTER STORMS 1993-2004

  9. NWP ADVANCES • Global Model • 1993 – AVN/MRF at T126/L28 • 2/day AVN to 126h and 1/day MRF to 240h • 2004 – GFS at T256/L64 to 84 h • 4/day to 384h (T170/L42 84-180h T126/L28 to 386h) • Numerous improvements to physics, data assimilation etc… • Medium Range Ensemble Forecast System (MREF) • ~1997 – 1/day 12 member system • 2004 – 4/day 48 member system including lag members • NGM– Static Since 1993

  10. NWP ADVANCES • Eta (NAM) • 1993 – Early Eta 80 km / 38 levels / 00 and 12Z / 48h • 1995 – Meso Eta 32 km / 50 levels / 03 and 15Z / 33h • 2004 – MesoEta 12 km / 60 levels / 4 x day / 84 hr • Numerous improvements to physics, data assimilation etc… • Local Area Modeling - Workstation Eta • Short Range Ensemble Forecast System (SREF) • ~1999 – 10 members (5 48 km Eta / 5 RSM) • 2004 – 15 members (10- 32 km Eta / 5- 40 km RSM) • Rapid Update Cycle (RUC) • ~1994 – RUC1 – 60 km / 25 levels • 1998 – RUC2 – 40 km / 40 levels • 2004 – RUC2 – 20 km / 50 levels

  11. 1994-1997 • WSR-88D Network Installation Completed • PCGRIDDS/NAWIPS/GARP • Gridded Model Data into Field Offices • NWS Lake Effect Snow Study • BUFKIT • Expansions of Snow Spotter Networks • Expansion of Collaborative Research Projects (COMET) • First Real-time local model in NWS ER field office (MM5 at BUF and BGM)

  12. 1998-2000 • AWIPS Installations Completed • Advanced Workstations w/ Integrated Data Sets • Public Forecast Program Transfers • 1998-99 – BGM/CTP start Winter Warning Program • 1999-00 – AKQ/BTV/CAR/RNK start Winter Warning Program • Pros – New ideas/techniques, Smaller Forecast Areas • Cons – Less experience • Active Teletraining Program Established • Web based training modules

  13. 1998-2000 • Regional Workshops/Conferences • Northeast Regional Operational Workshop • Southern New England Workshop • Great Lakes Operational Meteorology Workshop • Northeast Storm Conference • Continued Expansion of COMET Projects • CSTAR Collaborative Research Projects Funded • North Carolina State Univ. – WFO Raleigh (early 2000) • State Univ. of New York at Albany – WFO Albany (late 2000)

  14. 2001-2004 • Eastern Region Winter Weather Best Practices Team (2001) • IFPS • Collaborative Forecast Process • HPC Winter Weather Experiment (WWE) • 2001-02 – 4 WFOs (AKQ/LWX/PHI/CTP) • 2002-03 – All Eastern Region • 2003-04 – ~75% of CONUS • 2004-05 – Integrated into routine HPC Operations • Test new collaborative forecast process among HPC and WFOs for winter storm events • Evaluate new products from SREF

  15. 2001-2004 • Implementation of CSTAR Research Results • U. at Albany Project • Mesoscale Banding in Winter Storms • Precipitation Microphysics • Cold Season Closed Lows • Terrain-Forced Snow Storms • Impacts of Climate Regimes (ENSO, NAO, etc…) • N.C. State Project • Cold Air Damming • Coastal Fronts • Precipitation Type Forecasting Methodologies • Regional COMET Projects • BTV/McGill Univ. • OKX/Stony Brook Univ.

  16. 2001-2004 • Weather Event Simulator (WES) – 2001 • Training Workstation that can simulate real-time data flow and forecast processes • AWIPS Archive Server- 2002 • Local Capability to archive full AWIPS data sets for WES playback • Expansion of local office training activities and workshops

  17. 2001-2004 • Coming together of several activities and developments: • Applied Research and Technique Development • Technologies • Training • Operational Application and Procedures

  18. Mesoscale Band Project Timeline

  19. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EVENT COUNTS AND WARNING PERFORMANCE IMPACTS OF CLIMATE REGIMES?

  20. ACTIVE SEASONS IN NORTHEAST>1200 Events

  21. MODERATE SEASONS IN NORTHEAST800-1200 Events

  22. LAMESEASONS IN NORTHEAST<800 Events

  23. MONTHLY NAO/PNA vs. Events • Cumulative Winter (Dec-Jan-Feb-Mar) Monthly Mean NAO shows some correlation to number of winter storm events • Cumulative Winter Monthly Mean PNA shows little or no correlation • Shorter term (daily/weekly) index values likely more important

  24. SUMMARY • Winter storm warning performance appears to be improving across the Northeast • Greatest improvements in Lead Time • Lead Time improvements are not a result of improved POD • No increase in false alarms noted • Event totals impact warning performance • More events – better performance • Most impact on False Alarms and Lead Time

  25. SUMMARY Performance improvements appear to be related to an evolving “end-to-end” collaborative process of: • Discovery and Sharing • Demonstration of Added Value (Operational Utility) • Operational Implementation • Training Activities • Periodic Review and Refinement

More Related