1 / 25

Northeast Convective Flash Floods: Helping Forecasters Stay Ahead of Rising Water

Northeast Convective Flash Floods: Helping Forecasters Stay Ahead of Rising Water. Joe Villani - National Weather Service, Albany, NY Derek Mallia - University at Albany NROW XI – November 4-5, 2009. Goals.

barto
Télécharger la présentation

Northeast Convective Flash Floods: Helping Forecasters Stay Ahead of Rising Water

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. Northeast Convective Flash Floods: Helping Forecasters Stay Ahead of Rising Water Joe Villani - National Weather Service, Albany, NY Derek Mallia - University at Albany NROW XI – November 4-5, 2009

  2. Goals • Better anticipate meteorological environments that produce flash flooding (FF) • Forecast “watch” phase of a FF event (12-24 hours in advance) • Identify factors that may distinguish days with isolated vs. widespread FF

  3. Methodology • Investigate 20 FF events from Albany County Warning Area (CWA) • Warm season events from 2005 through July 2009 (non-tropical) • Classify events based on type of dominant feature when FF occurred

  4. Methodology • Compile sounding derived parameters for each event • Enter data in spreadsheet • Stratify data based on isolated vs. widespread events

  5. Methodology • Isolated = FF occurring over a small area resulting from one or two clusters of convection • Widespread = FF occurring over a large (or multiple) area(s) resulting from several different clusters of convection

  6. Methodology • Composite plots of synoptic scale features using CDC website • Compare composites for days with widespread vs. isolated FF • Signatures evident in: • 500 hPa height anomalies • 850 hPa meridional wind anomaly • 250 hPa zonal wind mean

  7. Data Sources • Weather Event Simulator (WES) • Archived local AWIPS data • Radar, satellite, surface observations, observed soundings, model initialized soundings • Soundings from 12 UTC or 18 UTC • Times preceded FF occurrences • Data mainly from ALB, some OKX

  8. Sounding Derived IndicesAverages for all FF events

  9. Significant Features • Four different classifications: • Cut-off Low • Frontal (cold, warm, stationary) • Upper Level Ridge/Surface boundary • Upper Level Trough/Low (NOT cut-off)

  10. Widespread vs. Isolated FF Comparison

  11. Widespread vs. Isolated FF Comparison • Not much difference in parameters overall • Somewhat stronger max 0-3 km wind • Other parameters relatively insignificant • Signatures evident in composites plots of synoptic scale features

  12. Widespread vs. Isolated FF Comparison 250 hPa Zonal Wind Mean

  13. Widespread vs. Isolated FF Comparison • 250 hPa Zonal Wind Mean: • Stronger jet positioned across Ohio Valley region (widespread) • Northeast CONUS in left-exit region of jet (widespread)

  14. Widespread vs. Isolated FF Comparison 500 hPa Geopotential Height Anomaly

  15. Widespread vs. Isolated FF Comparison • 500 hPa Geopotential Height Anomaly: • Much stronger negative anomaly across Central/Eastern Great Lakes region (widespread) • Stronger positive anomaly across Northeast Quebec (widespread)

  16. Widespread vs. Isolated FF Comparison 850 hPa Meridional Wind Anomaly

  17. Widespread vs. Isolated FF Comparison • 850 hPa Meridional Wind Anomaly: • Stronger and more expansive positive anomaly (southerly wind component) across Eastern New York into New England (widespread)

  18. Observations/Conclusions • Widespread FF more likely with Cut-off Lows • 4 of 5 Cut-off Low events resulted in widespread FF • Most events occurred in June/July and during the afternoon and evening hours

  19. Observations/Conclusions(From Sounding Data) • Most events exhibited veering wind profile in lowest 3 km • Less directional shear for widespread events • Mainly unidirectional flow in 3-6 km • “Tall/Skinny” character of CAPE for most events

  20. Observations/Conclusions • Surface dewpoints in the 60s-70s for all events except one • June 15th 2009 dewpoints in the 50s • Almost all cases exhibited positive Theta-E advection at 850 hPa

  21. Observations/Conclusions(Storm Scale) • In general, convective cells that produced FF were either: • Low Echo Centroids – most of significant reflectivity below the 0°C level (warm cloud processes resulting in high efficiency rainfall) • Slow-moving cells with taller updrafts (some produced hail and FF) • Training cells (repeatedly moved across the same areas)

  22. Future Work • Look for synoptic scale features when forecasting isolated vs. widespread FF • Study some null events to compare to parameters/composites • Investigate hydrologic component of FF?

  23. Acknowledgments • Derek Mallia, University at Albany • Julie Gabriel, University of Delaware • Neil Stuart, NWS Albany

  24. Questions? Joe.Villani@noaa.gov

More Related