111 NWS SOO-NASA SPoRT Workshop 11-13, July, 2006 Earth Science Division National Aeronautics and Space Administration Advancements in Lightning- Severe.

1 1 1

NWS SOO-NASA SPoRT Workshop 11-13, July, 2006

Earth Science DivisionNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationAdvancements in Lightning-

Severe Storm Forecasts and Warnings: Results from the Southern Thunder Alliance

Photo, David BlankenshipGuntersville, Alabama

Steve Goodman

NASA Marshall Space Flight CenterEarth Science Office

Huntsville, Alabama, USA

NWS SRH SOO-NASA SPoRT Joint Workshop11-13 July, 2006

Huntsville Alabama

2 2 2


Earth Science DivisionNational Aeronautics and Space Administration

Outline of Presentation

• Motivation and Background

• Science and Technology Infusion– GOES-R Geostationary Lightning Mapper (GLM)– VHF Lightning Mapping– Nowcasting-Warning Decision Making– WRF Forecasts of Thunderstorm Initiation and

Lightning Threat

• Current Plans and the Way Forward

3 3 3



Background and Motivation

• NASA and NOAA working together to save lives– Tornado lead time -12 min national average

– Lightning strikes responsible for >500 injuries per year, 90% of victims suffer permanent disabilities and long term health problems, chiefly neurological in nature

– Lightning responsible for 80 deaths per year (second leading source after flooding)

– Aviation weather- airport operations, enroute savings $25M/yr

– In-cloud lightning lead time of impending ground strikes, often 10 min or more

– … forest fire initiation, utility crew deployment, NEXRAD coverage gaps, improved precipitation estimates, hail/wind/flood detection, …

Continuous GEO Total Lightning will identify severe storm potential

Process physics understood

Vortex Spins-up

Updraft Intensifies

Ice flux drives lightning

Lightning jump precedes severe weather Lightning improves storm predictability

Demonstrated in LEO with

OTD & LIS

Storm-scale model for decision support system

Physical basis for improved forecasts

IC flash rate controlled by graupel (ice mass) production (and vertical velocity)

GLM GOES E View

5 5 5



0 oC

Flash Rate Coupled to Mass in the Mixed Phase RegionCecil et al., Mon. Wea. Rev. 2005 (from TRMM Observations)

Mapping storm initiation, growth, decay

•TRMM provides us a huge database of paired lightning, radar, IR and passive microwave observations (training / validation)

•Over entire tropics & subtropics (generalization)

•Total lightning increases as storm intensifies – can increase lead time for warning of severe and tornadic storms

TRMM LIS-Lightning: May 1999 Stroud, OK Tornado

GOES-R GLM Perspective

7 7 7



GOES-R Geostationary Lightning Mapper (GLM)

GLM on GOESDual imager concept

July 2006 Status-• 3 on-going industry led GLM formulation studies• NESDIS sponsored risk reduction- NSSTC lead

8 8 8



NASA-NOAA-University-Industry Partners• SPoRT Center (NASA MSFC/NSSTC)• New Mexico Tech and other universities• OU/NSSL• Vaisala, Inc.• WFOs – Huntsville (HUN), Nashville (OHX), Birmingham (BMX), Fort

Worth (FDW), Melbourne (MLB), Norman (OUN), Sterling (LWX)• NWS/MDL

LMA systems located in NWS Southern Region• North Alabama• OU/NSSL• New Mexico Tech Langmuir Laboratory• White Sands Missile Range• KSC/CCAFS (LDAR II)• TAMU (LDAR II)• Dallas/Fort Worth (Vaisala LDAR II)

Southern Thunder AllianceA collaboration among LMA owner-operators and end users

9 9 9



North Alabama LMA CoverageNWSFO HUN CWA

Tennessee

Alabama

10 10 10



North Alabama Lightning Mapping Array (LMA)

• Network of 10 detectors centered about HSV (NMT heritage)

• Computes 4-D location of all electrical discharges (“flashes”) within LMA (CG…and IC, CC, CA)

• Flash location overlaid on radar

and satellite imagery and updated every minute

• Trend information for individual storms

• Validation for TRMM LIS– NASA Senior Review to extend

mission approved through 2009

11 11 11



Ingest into AWIPS

NASA

SRHFTP

Server

LDAD DS1

Forecaster

AWIPS Workstation

12 12 12



0-17 km

7 km

5 km

10 km

0-17 km

7 km

5 km

10 km

LMA Imagery in AWIPS

• 17 height levels

• Lowest level is composite

• Auto-loads 2 min grids

• Grids 1 km x 1 km, or 2 km x 2 km horizontal, 1 km vertical

• Future Algorithm- use first VHF pulse to identify flash, ratio IC:CG grid for more rapid storm tendency insight

•Can dither image with NEXRAD reflectivity and velocity, satellite, or any other fields

CompositeCompositedBZdBZ

NLDN NLDN 5-min5-min

LMALMA2-min2-min

VILVIL

SVR Upgraded to TOR

13 13 13



A

B

A

B

Drizzle

Lt. Rain

Mod. Rain

Heavy Rain

Hail

Hail/Rain

Small Hail

Rain/Sm. Hail

Dry Snow

Wet Snow

Cloud

Ice Crys.

PID Z hv

ZDR KDP DP

PID Z hv

ZDR KDP DP

Drizzle

Lt. Rain

Mod. Rain

Heavy Rain

Hail

Hail/Rain

Small Hail

Rain/Sm. Hail

Dry Snow

Wet Snow

Cloud

Ice Crys.

Drizzle

Lt. Rain

Mod. Rain

Heavy Rain

Hail

Hail/Rain

Small Hail

Rain/Sm. Hail

Dry Snow

Wet Snow

Cloud

Ice Crys.

PID Z hv

ZDR KDP DP

PID Z hv

ZDR KDP DP

HID dBZ

ZDR KDP

ARMOR: 04-07-05 Winds and HID

ARMOR-88D WINDS OPERATIONAL: 88D, LMA AND GOES

RESEARCH: ARMOR HID

OPERATIONAL:ARMOR HID

Courtesy Walt Petersen

14 14 14



Total Lightning Impacts Decision Making….

o Has directly contributed to several correct severe warning decisions at HUN and BMX

– “…the LMA density map gives you a great overall view of where storms with intensifying updrafts are located. So it gives you a good map of where to concentrate attention.”

– “I believe the flash density rates were the primary factor in holding off on a warning.”

o Used in Warning Event Simulator (WES) for office training

May 6, 2003 Case

Ill-defined Rotational

Couplet

1.5º SRM

0.5 º SRM

0.5 º Refl LMA

Source Density

1236 UTC

May 6, 2003 Case

Broad Rotational

Couplet

Lightning Jump

1.5º SRM

0.5 º SRM

0.5 º Refl LMA

Source Density

1246 UTC

Lightning 'hole' and convective surge 'C' in tornadic storm, 0629 STEPS 2000

Convective surge

Lightning hole (WER)

LMA Benchmarking: Interim Results 2003-2005

Warning Variable Rankings on Scale of 1-10

Warning Variable All SurveysLMA+ impact=9/19

Severe Storms80 warnings, 13 surveys

Tornado41 Warnings, 6

surveys

Reflectivity Signatures 9.1 8.7 9.7

LMA Total Lightning 6.7 7.0 6.2

Near storm Environment 5.8 5.2 6.8

Eyewitness Report 5.2 4.1 7.7

Strong Rotation 5.2 3.2 9.3

Boundaries 3.8 3.4 4.5

NLDN CGs 3.7 3.7 4.0

TVS 2.3 1.5 3.8

Previous SVR WX 1.5 0.2 4.5

19 19 19



Southern Thunder Workshop #2Fort Worth, Texas 25-27, 2005

One of the Workshop Recommendations:

Due to cancellation of VORTEX-II Experiment in 2007, pursue newly available opportunity to deploy, evaluate, and assess the scientific and technological merits of total lightning mapping with the NMT portable LMA in an additional operational setting.

Why DC Metro Area:• Transitional climatic regime, yet still many severe storms• Coverage of 3 major heavily used airports• Complex terrain to west, urban environment• Sterling WFO history of supporting new technology assessments

– Leverage with on-going TDWR evaluations• Proximity of MDL developers to WFO forecasters• Access to students, faculty for system operations/maintenance• Local interest (broadcast community, researchers, forecasters)

DC Lightning Mapping Array – Strawman Topology

Circles: 150 km radius (approx. 3D coverage) 250 km radius (approx. max range)

1"

68 km

1"

25 km

Strawman DC Metro Lightning Mapping Network

Major Airports

(Oklahoma LMA as template)

Mapping Stations

Current Date/Time 11:55 PM Tue 4 July 2006

Subject: Tornado(S)/Severe Thunderstorm(S) /Floods/ High Wind Etc.

Severe Thunderstorms Impact National 4th of July Festivities at District of Columbia (D.C.) Mall

Event: Description/Time Of Triggering Event For FTR (E.G., Deaths, Injuries, And Damage Occurred)

A cluster of severe thunderstorms moved through the D.C. as 80,000 people were gathering on the Mall to attend 4th of July activities. MIC Jim Lee and SOO Steve Zubrick staffed the multi-agency D.C. Command Center to support the national Fourth of July Celebration on the Mall. WFO Sterling provided information to the Command Center and DC emergency management via phone and NAWAS while Jim and Steve provided on-site briefings and support. The 80,000 attendees were evacuated from the Mall in advance of the storm. The evacuation took about 15 minutes, and was a direct result of numerous NWS briefings. The storm blew down trees and tents in and around the mall.

Location: District of Columbia

Damage: (Include Dollar Estimates, If Possible) Large elm trees and tents were blown down on the Mall. Airborne debris was noted at the height of storm. A peak wind gust of 47 mph was observed at National Airport in associate with this storm.

Outlooks: (e.g., SPC and/or HWO), if appropriate The potential for severe thunderstorms was noted in the Hazardous Weather Outlook issued at 3:55 AM on July 1; the D.C. areas was included in the Day 1, Day 2, and Day 3 outlooks; SPC placed the D.C. area in a Slight Risk of Severe Weather on July 3; the severe thunderstorm potential was highlighted in the LWX Area Forecast Discussion (AFD) at 3:00 PM July 3.

Watches In Effect?Type And Number/ Valid Time

Severe Thunderstorm Watch #582 issued at 12:40 PM, valid until 9:00 PM.

Warnings In Effect? Type And Time Issued/ Valid Time

Severe Thunderstorm Warning for D.C. issued at 4:45 PM, in effect until 6:00 PM.

Verification: (Time Severe Weather/Flooding, etc. was first reported in affected County/Area); Lead Time

Large elm trees were reported down at 5:15 PM; reported by National Park Service via Jim Lee at the Command Center…warning lead time 30 minutes.

Service: (Significant Briefing, etc.) Numerous briefings were conducted both on-site at the Command Center and via phone/NAWAS by WFo Sterling. During the warning valid period, additional NAWAS briefings were conducted to give D.C. area officials time of arrival and threat information specifically for the Mall areas.

Systems: (Issues With AWIPS, WSR-88D, NWR, ASOS, etc.)

None.

Staffing Issues: None. After evaluating potential threat, WFO Sterling had 5 forecasters and 2 HMT on station for the event, along with MIC Jim Lee and SOO Steve Zubrick providing on-site support at the D.C. Command Center.

Media Attention: Unknown at this time.

User Response: WFO Sterling received praise from the D.C. Command Center and Smithsonian Folklife Festival immediately following the event for the excellent and timely flow of information and weather support provided by the office.

DC Severe Thunderstorms 4 July 2006

“I used the DC-LMA web site to view updates on lightning activity during my shift at the command center (through about 3:45 PM). It was VERY useful, since I had no other "real-time" lightning data available. I used various links to NWS forecasts, radar, and satellite data via the Internet to conduct weather briefings to the command center staff. In addition, our WFO staff kept an eye on the DC area via all of the data available in AWIPS.

… the DC-LMA data were VERY useful in monitoring storm activity. I was able to show the center staff where the lightning was occurring. In addition, I monitored changes in lightning coverage/intensity as a rough gauge of thunderstorm changes in intensity.”

Steve ZubrickWFO Sterling (LWX)

DC Severe Thunderstorms 4 July 2006

24 24 24



DC Metro LMA Demo Network9 July 2006 at 2300 UTC

5-station LMA source density NEXRAD Reflectivity

25 25 25



Enhanced Thunder19 July 2005

2000Z – 2012Z

NCEP SPC/Schaefer

SPC Experimental Product

F15 SREF 3-hr COMBINEDF15 SREF 3-hr COMBINEDPROBABILITY OF LIGHTNINGPROBABILITY OF LIGHTNING

- Pr (CPTP) >= 1 x Pr (PCPN) >= .01”

Uncalibrated probabilityof lightning

SPC Experimental Product

27 27 27



1 hr

2 hrs

3 hrs

4 hrs

Warn-on-forecast(warnings out to 4 hoursbased upon observations

+ short term model forecasts)

Warn on Forecast Concept

Courtesy Kevin Kelleher, SDR Grand Challenges

28 28 28



WRF Thunderstorm Premises and Objectives

WRF: Weather Research and Forecast ModelCRM: Cloud Resolving ModelAdditional Forecast Interests

CI - convective initiationTi - First lightning (35 dBZ at -15C, glaciation)Tp - Peak flash rate VIL (Mass)Tf - Final lightning

Given:1. Precipitating ice aloft is correlated with LTG rates2. Mesoscale CRMs are being used to forecast convection3. CRMs can represent many ice hydrometeors (crudely)

Goals:1. See if WRF can forecast LTG threat, based on ice flux in layers near -15 C.

29 29 29



WRF Thunderstorm and Lightning Forecasts:

Methodology

1. Use high-resolution (2-4 km) WRF simulations to prognose convection2. Develop diagnostics from model output fields to serve as a proxy for LTG3. Create 0-6 h forecasts of LTG threat based on WRF data4. Compare WRF forecasts with actual reflectivity and LTG and other observations using HSV area assets5. Subjectively and objectively evaluate WRF capabilities for forecasting LTG

30 30 30




10 December 2004

31 31 31



WRF Configuration10 December 2004 Case Study

• 4km horizontal resolution• 37 vertical levels• Dynamics and physics

– Eulerian mass core– Dudhia SW radiation– RRTM LW radiation– YSU PBL scheme– Noah LSM– WSM 6-class microphysics

scheme– Explicit convection

• 24h forecast initialized at 00 UTC 10 December 2004 with AWIP212 NCEP EDAS analysis

• Eta 3-h forecasts used for LBC’s

Cloud cover18h forecast valid at 18 UTC 10 Dec 2004

32 32 32



WRF vs Eta Surface-based CAPE18h fcst valid 18 UTC Dec 10

33 33 33



WRF Sounding ~ 800 J/kg CAPE

34 34 34



MIPS Sounding ~ 761 J/kg CAPE

• Low level lapse rates and low freezing level efficient for converting CAPE to kinetic energy

• Surface: T=15C, Td=10C

• Similar CAPE to MIPS, but for different reasons

• High-res RAMS storm: Max w = 19 m/s

UAH MIPS, Kevin Knupp

35 35 35



WRF vs Eta 3h Regional Precip.21h fcst valid 21 UTC 10 Dec 2004

36 36 36



WRF vs Eta 3h Local Precip.21h fcst valid 21 UTC 10 Dec 2004

Question: Any lightning, when was it,What was WRF reflectivity at -15 C?

37 37 37



x1

x2

WRF Reflectivity (dBZ)at -15 C (4.0 km)

1200 UTC forecast valid at 18:50 UTC 10 Dec 2004

38 38 38



x1: Reflectivity (dBZ), Temperature (°C), and Pressure (hPa)

1200 UTC forecast valid at 18:50 UTC 10 Dec 2004

Max dBZ< 40 dBZ

39 39 39



x2: Reflectivity (dBZ), Temperature (°C), and Pressure (hPa)

6h 50m forecast valid at 18:50 UTC 10 Dec 2004

Max dBZ~50 dBZ; wmax only 4 m/s;But no hail reaches the surface

40 40 40



Ground-truth Report of Dime-Size Hail

Owens Crossroads, AL, 10 Dec 2004

-1.8 -0.9 0.1 1.0 1.9 2.9 3.6 -15 - 5 5 15 25 35 45

dBZ ZDR

ARMOR: 12/10/04 17:55:06 EL=1.3o

Rain

55+ dBZ

Hail

55+ dBZ

Rain

2 to 3.5 dB

Hail

-1 to 0.5 dB

Hail

-1.5 to 0.5 dB

Rain/Hail

-0.5 to 2 dB Rain/Hail

40-55 dBZ

Hail

50-55 dBZ

At 17:55 IC fl. rate ~ 3/minute in southern cell

No IC’s in northern cell at 17:55

No CG’s in either cell for 20 minutes centered on 17:55

Only 3 CG’s detected for duration of storms

LMA S. Cell 17:52:30 – 17:57:30

42 42 42



LMA Observed Flashes Precede Hail Report

43 43 43



High-res RAMS “Validation” Run

• 500 m horizontal resolution• Heightz is variable, from 250 m at

bottom to 750 m at 20 km height• Domain 75 km x 75 km x 24.5 km• Time, t = 4 s, five acoustic steps

between• Smagorinsky subgrid mixing scheme• 5-class precipitating hydrometeors:

– Rain, snow, aggregates, graupel, hail• Initialized with 3K warm bubble,

radius=12 km at z=0• 120 min simulation, initiation effects

dominate until t=60 min

Reflectivity

Note: wmax reaches 19 m/s

44 44 44



RAMS Graupel Cross-Section







Graupel

45 45 45



RAMS Hail Cross-Section







Hail

Note: some hail reaches surface

46 46 46




22 April 2005

47 47 47



WRF Reflectivity at -15C:

22 April 2005

48 48 48



WRF Graupel Flux at -15C:

22 April 2005

49 49 49



LMA Flash Extent Density:

22 April 2005

50 50 50




30 March 2002

51 51 51



WRF Reflectivity at -15C:

30 March 2002

52 52 52



WRF Graupel Flux at -15C:

30 March 2002

53 53 53



LMA Flash Extent Density:

30 March 2002

54 54 54



Conclusions:

1. WRF forecasts of deep convection are useful, but of variable quality

- Timing and intensity of convection are depicted fairly well- Location and morphology of storm systems sometimes wrong

2. WRF convection is deep enough, with sufficient reflectivity, to suggest lightning3. WRF updraft strengths on 2-4 km grids often too weak, relative to observed weather and high-res RAMS simulations4. WRF microphysics still too simple; need more ice categories5. Finer model mesh may improve updraft representation, and hydrometeor amounts6. Biggest limitation is likely errors in initial mesoscale fields

55 55 55



Future Work:

1. Expand catalog of simulation cases to obtain robust statistics2. Develop quantitative metrics for LTG forecasts

- Need link between graupel flux and lightning probabilities, rates

3. Compare LTG threat parameter against environmental variables- CAPE, LI, etc.4. Enhance accuracy of WRF forecasts5. Hot start WRF applied to archived North Alabama WES cases

56 56 56



2006 Nowcasting and Assessment Plans1. Thunderstorm Forecasts/Lightning Threat

Analysis of SPoRT WRF 2 km simulations Analysis of 22 April 2005 Alabama event with OU 2 km WRF Complete 10 December 2004 North Alabama Case study Complete P. Gatlin M.S. thesis Develop AWIPS lightning threat product and assessment

(LMA+NLDN) North Alabama (additional) WES Cases

• Develop more extensive training case for other WFOs based on the 6 May 2003 outbreak

• Quantitative analysis of archived WES severe event cases NCEP SPC 2007 Spring Program participation/collaboration Hazardous Weather Test bed- NASA-UAH/SPC-NSSL Collaboration

2. LMA Extensions DC LMA Demo- NWS OST, Eastern Region GTRI Extension of NALMA to Atlanta (+2 stations) NCAR Autonowcaster/4DWX at RTTC (LMA + ARMOR) GOES-N Science Test, November 2006 GOES R nowcasting experiment- NY area

57 57 57



Shared interest to improve forecasts by infusing new technology and applying emerging research techniques

Identify goals and objectives of collaboration

• Improve warning decision making• Increased confidence and situational awareness• Increase lead time, reduce false alarms• Lightning hazard forecast and warning

Need to have advocates in the WFOs

Key Elements to Successful Transition

58 58 58



LMA Web Calendar

59 59 59



Web Sites

http://weather.msfc.nasa.gov (SPoRT, Workshops) http://branch.nsstc.nasa.gov (North AL, DC Metro LMA) http://lightning.nmt.edu (OK LMA)

111 NWS SOO-NASA SPoRT Workshop 11-13, July, 2006 Earth Science Division National Aeronautics and Space Administration Advancements in Lightning- Severe.

Documents