1 / 13

1 . FY12-13 GIMPAP Project Proposal Title Page date: 6 August 2012

10. 1 . FY12-13 GIMPAP Project Proposal Title Page date: 6 August 2012. Title : Enhanced downslope windstorm prediction with GOES warning indicators Status : Renewal Duration : 2 years Project Leads: Dr. Daniel Lindsey / NESDIS/RAMMB / dan.lindsey@noaa.gov

nyoko
Télécharger la présentation

1 . FY12-13 GIMPAP Project Proposal Title Page date: 6 August 2012

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. 10 1. FY12-13 GIMPAP Project Proposal Title Pagedate: 6 August 2012 Title: Enhanced downslope windstorm prediction with GOES warning indicators Status: Renewal Duration: 2 years Project Leads: Dr. Daniel Lindsey / NESDIS/RAMMB / dan.lindsey@noaa.gov Dr. Anthony Wimmers / U.Wisc-Madison/CIMSS / wimmers@ssec.wisc.edu Other Participants: Dan Bikos / CIRA, Ft. Collins, CO Eric Thaler / NWS Boulder, CO Randy Graham / NWS Salt Lake City, UT Stan Czyzyk/ NWS Las Vegas, NV Ken Pomeroy / NWS Western Region Scientific Services Division

  2. 2. Project Summary • CIRA has developed a model-based downslope windstorm prediction model valid at one location • CIMSS has developed a GOES-based downslope signatures algorithm • Combine the two methods and expand to several sites in the Western U.S. • Develop an experimental downslope windstorm probability product using both GOES and model-based predictors valid at these locations

  3. 3. Motivation / Justification • The growing population of the American West is expanding into areas prone to downslope windstorms, affecting personal safety and increasing the amount of vulnerable traffic Damage from a Wasatch Front downslope wind event in 2000. Image courtesy of Randy Graham, NWS SLC.

  4. 3. Motivation / Justification • Numerical models (even the newer high resolution models) struggle with accurately forecasting downslope windstorms • The NWS has a need for more accurate and usable windstorm forecasting tools • Daily weather forecast is one of NOAA’s Mission Goals Semi tractor trailers rolled over from a January 2008 downslope wind event in eastern Oregon

  5. 4. Methodology • Select a few locations in Colorado, Utah and Nevada prone to downslope windstorms, and collect their surface observations over several years • Using NARR data, determine the best model thresholds and predictors for high wind events at each location • Collect GOES and NARR data for several high wind event case studies, and optimize the model to reduce false alarms and create an improved GOES-derived downslope signatures product • Test the method on synthetic satellite imagery already being generated from the NSSL WRF model • Combine this improved GOES-derived product with the model predictors to create objective downslope windstorm probability models for each site

  6. 5. Expected Outcomes • The production of a mature, GOES-derived downslope signatures product. • A next-generation downslope prediction model valid at select stations in the Mountain West using NWP, GOES and possibly synthetic satellite imagery. • At least one publication highlighting the satellite product, empirical model innovations and surface station validation. • As we apply the methods to the individual sites, we will consider how well a single approach can be generalized across terrain, and what modifications are required for different sites. This will advance the applied science of downslope wind forecasting, and build the foundation for a more generalized model valid across an entire region.

  7. 6. First Year - Preliminary Results FY12 Milestones: • Choose surface stations and collect several years of data - We’ve coordinated with the SOOs at Boulder, Salt Lake City, and Las Vegas and have come up with a list of surface stations prone to downslope winds • Collect and examine NARR data to determine ideal model predictors for each site - As soon as the surface sites are finalized, NARR data will be collected and analyzed • Develop an updated version of the GOES-derived downslope signatures algorithm to work with the prediction model - The algorithm has been adapted to work with the regression model, and will be optimized in iterations as we do cal/val with NARR data (next slide)

  8. 6. First Year - Preliminary Results Map showing initial surface stations to be used in the study Centerville, UT Fort Collins, CO Boulder, CO Fremont Junction, UT White Reef, UT

  9. 6. First Year - Preliminary Results • Produced more GOES-derived downslope predictor tools for input into logistic regression: Downslope gradient Stationary pattern score Terrain pattern matching (& more)

  10. 7. Possible Path to Operations • The new, mature product will replace the current experimental downslope forecasting page. • Given a successful validation, we will seek PSDI funding for transition to operations when appropriate. • We anticipate building on this research with an attempt to generalize the product for all terrains.

  11. 8. FY13 Milestones • Optimize the prediction model that combines the GOES-derived algorithm with NWP model fields • Determine whether WRF forecast synthetic imagery is a viable predictor • Set up an experimental real-time forecast system for the chosen sites • Prepare at least 1 paper and present results at conferences

  12. 9. Funding Request (K)

  13. 10. Spending Plan FY13 • FY13 $88,000 Total Project Budget 1a. Grant to CIRA - $42,000 • % FTE (D. Bikos) - 42% • Travel - 0 • Publication charge - 0 1b. Grant to CIMSS - $45,000 • % FTE (Wimmers) - 30% • Travel (conference) - 2,000 • Publication charge - 3,000 2. Federal Publication Charges – $3,000

More Related