1 / 33

Cloud Flash Evaluation Issues and Progress Report

Cloud Flash Evaluation Issues and Progress Report. Don MacGorman, NOAA/NSSL Al Nierow, FAA Dennis Boccippio, NASA/MSFC. Evaluation of NLDN Cloud Flashes. Compare times and reliability of first storm detection (various definitions of detection)

oki
Download Presentation

Cloud Flash Evaluation Issues and Progress Report

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. Cloud Flash Evaluation Issues and Progress Report Don MacGorman, NOAA/NSSL Al Nierow, FAA Dennis Boccippio, NASA/MSFC

  2. Evaluation of NLDN Cloud Flashes • Compare times and reliability of first storm detection (various definitions of detection) • Compare with higher cloud flash detection efficiency • Determine whether NLDN cloud flash detection is biased • Develop prototype cloud flash products for AWIPS and WDSSII

  3. PROGRESS • Improved OK-LMA network • added station and real-time link to old station • improved real-time data retrieval • Collected LMA data and NLDN cloud flash data for May – data collection continuing • Set up real-time OK-LMA data feed to NSSL and to Norman NWSFO (AWIPS and WDSSII) • Generation of real-time LMA products for WDSSII and AWIPS ready to begin • FSL’s development of prototype AWIPS NLDN cloud flash products to begin in June

  4. Real-time Data from OK-LMA 06-13-05

  5. Ground Strike Points Only All Lightning Comparisonof CG versusAll Lightning 21 June 2000 15-min accumulations ending at 0015 UTC & 0300 UTC 10 km X 10 km grid

  6. ConvectiveRegionFlash TELEX Mesoscale Convective System 19 June 2004

  7. Modeled CLD DE: NLDN-based Test Network – Spring 2004

  8. Fort Worth WSR-88D Base Reflectivity Image from 0204 UTC 13 October 2001 Lightning Comparisons 0141:49 - 0200:07 UTC 1 May 2004 DFW LDAR II Flash Initiation Points DFW LDAR II Sources LF Cloud Sources (Red), High DE Poly (Blue), Low DE Poly (Green)

  9. NLDN CG Flashes LF Cloud Sources (Red) and NLDN CG Strokes (Green)

  10. Quantitative Determinationof CLD DE • Steps: • Remove all LF CLD events associated with CG (1 sec) • Determine LDAR flash initiation points • Remove all except one event LF CLD event per LDAR initiation point (1 sec) • Move small positives (< 10kA) into LF CLD category • Compute statistics

  11. “Good” example – Various supercells The higher performance periods are when the storms are closer to the heart of the network (need to confirm)

  12. “Poor” Example – large squall line We typically see a limit of 50-100 LF CLD events/second from a local region, presumably due to communication rate limitations and the simple location algorithm (non-RPS)

  13. “Good” Example –airmass cells

  14. Climatological differences will affect comparative thunderstorm-detection performance of using CG only versus using all types of lightning.

  15. CG TIME LAG FOR OKLAHOMA STORMS 7% had no CG flashes 75% had CG within 11 min 50% had CG within 5 min 18% had CG within 1 min

  16. CG TIME LAG FORDFW STORMS 10% had no CG flashes 74% had CG within 23 min 50% had CG within 8 min 14% had CG within 1 min

  17. CG TIME LAG FOR HIGH PLAINS STORMS 41% had no CG flashes 59% had CG within 55 min 50% had CG within 37 min 4% had CG within 1 min

  18. Cloud Flash to Ground Flash Ratio % from Boccippio et al. (2001)

  19. Mapped Points Color-coded by Time

  20. Grided Points Color-coded By Density

  21. Fort Worth WSR-88D Base Reflectivity Image from 0204 UTC 13 October 2001 Lightning Comparison 0141:49 - 0200:07 UTC1 May 2004 DFW LDAR II Flash Initiation Points DFW LDAR II Sources

  22. Plan Projection of Lightning Density Kansas Supercell Storm 29-30 June 2000

  23. 20 8 May 2003 ALTITUDE (km) 0 200 Tornadic Supercell NORTH (km) -200 20 -200 0 200 ALTITUDE (km) EAST (km) Lightning density in 5-minute moving interval

  24. 20 km ALTITUDE OvershootingTop Oklahoma Supercell Storm NORTH 125 km 13 June 1998 125 km 20 km EAST ALTITUDE Courtesy of New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology Lightning density for moving 3-minute interval

  25. +CG to All CG Ratio Orville and Huffines (2001)

More Related