# Presentation: 200378

## ‘MIMIC’ morphed microwave animations: 2005 TCs and new displays

- Tony Wimmers, Chris Velden

- University of Wisconsin - Cooperative Institute for
- Meteorological Satellite Studies (CIMSS)

- Sponsored by The Oceanography of the Navy through the PEO C4I PMW-150 program office and the Naval Research Laboratory

- _M_orphed _I_ntegrated _M_icrowave _I_magery at _C_IMSS

**Notes:**
‘Morph’ is the operative word here - it means blending sequential images together in a fancy way, doing more than just a fade between images
‘CIMSS’ is here to remind me that everything I’m going to describe here can be found on the CIMSS Tropical Cyclones page

## 85-91 GHz microwave band

- 85-91 GHz channels of the: DMSP 13/14/15 SSM/I, DMSP 16 SSMIS, TRMM Thematic Mapping Imager (TMI) and Aqua AMSR-E
- Global coverage

**DMSP SSM/I**

**TRMM TMI**

**Aqua AMSR-E**

**Notes:**
Quick introduction to the imagery I’m using here, I know some of you are more familiar with this than others...

3) It’s like having an x-ray through the clouds and into the key structure of the storm

*** But, in plain English, this imagery is the only imagery of its kind that hurricane forecasters can use to interpret what is happening to the eye, but we’re limited to getting individual images only when one of these satellite passes over the hurricane. Then the hurricane forecasters, who have a LOT of demands on their time, are forced to put together a diagnosis of this storm from a small set of images each with a unique time stamp on the bottom. Now tell me, if radar worked that way, would it still be used as effectively? Would we still get as much out of it as we do now?

## 85-91 GHz microwave band

- Signal is strongly attenuated by hydrometeors generated by deep convection, so it can be used as a proxy for precipitation (like radar)
- Unique tool for observing eyewall dynamics (such as eyewall formation, replacement cycles, motion of spiral bands delivering vorticity to the eye)

**DMSP SSM/I**

**TRMM TMI**

**Aqua AMSR-E**

**Notes:**
Quick introduction to the imagery I’m using here, I know some of you are more familiar with this than others...

3) It’s like having an x-ray through the clouds and into the key structure of the storm

*** But, in plain English, this imagery is the only imagery of its kind that hurricane forecasters can use to interpret what is happening to the eye, but we’re limited to getting individual images only when one of these satellite passes over the hurricane. Then the hurricane forecasters, who have a LOT of demands on their time, are forced to put together a diagnosis of this storm from a small set of images each with a unique time stamp on the bottom. Now tell me, if radar worked that way, would it still be used as effectively? Would we still get as much out of it as we do now?

## Problem: Irregular time gaps in LEO microwave imagery

- 06

- 08

- 10

- 12

- 14

- 16

- 18

- 20

- 22

- 00

-   02  UTC

- Sept 12

- Sept 13

- Example: Hurricane Ivan (2004)

- AMSR-E

- TRMM TMI

- SSMI

- SSMI

## What do we do about it now?

**Notes:**
We can go to the handy NRL page

## What do we do about it now?

## What do we do about it now?

## 2 major visualization problems

- Irregular time gaps are too difficult to piece together mentally.
- This is worsened by the fact that most of us think we’re smart enough to do it.

- 06

- 08

- 10

- 12

- 14

- 16

- 18

- 20

- 22

- 00

- Sept 12

- Sept 13

- AMSR-E

- TRMM TMI

- SSMI

- SSMI

**Notes:**
(1) This may be a contentious claim to make, so let me dig myself deeper into a hole and say ... (2)

## 10 Sept, 1220 UTC

**10 Sept, 1220 UTC**

- Example: Hurricane Ivan (2004)

## 10 Sept, 1829 UTC

**10 Sept, 1829 UTC**

- Example: Hurricane Ivan (2004)

## 10 Sept, 2257 UTC

**10 Sept, 2257 UTC**

- Example: Hurricane Ivan (2004)

## 11 Sept, 0202 UTC

**11 Sept, 0202 UTC**

- Example: Hurricane Ivan (2004)

## 11 Sept, 0537 UTC

**11 Sept, 0537 UTC**

- Example: Hurricane Ivan (2004)

## 11 Sept, 0641 UTC

**11 Sept, 0641 UTC**

- Example: Hurricane Ivan (2004)

## 11 Sept, 1131 UTC

**11 Sept, 1131 UTC**

- Example: Hurricane Ivan (2004)

## Hurricane Ivan (2004): 10 Sept 1200 UTC - 11 Sept 1200 UTC

## Morphing strategy

**10 Sept, 1829 UTC**

- _Morphing strategy_

## Morphing strategy

**10 Sept, 1829 UTC**

- 1) Axially symmetric rotation

- _Morphing strategy_

## Morphing strategy

**10 Sept, 1829 UTC**

- 2) ~Holland profile of windspeed (advection)

- _Morphing strategy_

## Morphing strategy

- _Morphing strategy_

- 3) Advection proportional to
- reported maximum winds

## Morphing strategy

**10 Sept, 1829 UTC**

- 3) Advection proportional to
- reported maximum winds

- _Morphing strategy_

## Morphing strategy

**10 Sept, 1829 UTC**

- 4) No advection within ~55 km from the center

- _Morphing strategy_

## 5) Blended images regenerate once per hour

## Example: Katrina, 27-29 August, 2005

## Example: Wilma, 19-22 October 2005

## 2 major visualization problems

- 2.   Intercomparison between images (esp. microwave and infrared) should be easy - that’s the programmer’s job, not the forecaster’s

- Microwave

- Radar

- Geo Infrared

## ‘MIMIC-IR’: Katrina, 27-29 Aug 2005

- Microwave component uses the Polarization Corrected Temperature (PCT) - a proxy for precipitation
- The microwave layer is semitransparent
- Yellow areas are ‘no data’

## ‘MIMIC-IR’: Wilma, 19-22 Oct 2005

## Latency issues with LEO microwave and geo IR

- t - 2hrs

- t

- ~ 2-10 hrs

- 15 min

- t - 4hrs

- t - 6hrs

- t - 8hrs

- t - 10hrs

- ...

- ...

## Microwave “persistence forecast” (7 hr latency)

- t - 2hrs

- t

- 3 hrs persistence fx

- 15 min

- t - 4hrs

- t - 6hrs

- t - 8hrs

- t - 10hrs

- ...

- ...

- +3 hrs persistence fx fading out

## Microwave “persistence forecast” (2 hr latency)

- t - 2hrs

- t

- 2 hrs persistence fx

- 15 min

- t - 4hrs

- t - 6hrs

- t - 8hrs

- t - 10hrs

- ...

- ...

## Persistence forecast: Lessons from 2005 TCs

-  3-6 hours is the optimal length of a persistence forecast
-  50% of the time, this strategy yields a well-developed nowcast of the TC precipitation structure

- All data

- 2-hour persistence forecast

## Main conclusion

- 	Morphing does not add information to the image sequence from which it is built, but it can make the image sequence incredibly easier to visualize

**Notes:**
... and we found this with all three examples

Emphasize not, can, incredibly

## Tradeoffs of morphing

- Easier to interpret than irregularly-spaced image sequences (_makes the most of the original imagery_)
- Can be calculated quickly on a desktop computer (on the order of minutes) without an atmospheric model or radiative transfer model

- Still smoothes out the spatial detail somewhat
- Not sufficient for capturing transitions in rapidly developing events (cumulus development, rotation inside eyewall)
- Morphing can be deceptively convincing, even when it’s done wrong

- _Advantages_

- _Disadvantages_

**Notes:**
Everyone says it’s cool. But beyond that, what can we get out of it?
Let’s try to distill the message of these examples into this two-column list
Here’s my chance to be critical...

## For more information:

-  MIMIC website
-  Real time TCs
-  Product description
-  FAQ
-  2004-2005 archives
- _[ ](http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/tropic/real-time/marti/marti.html)__[http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/tropic/real-time/marti/marti.html](http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/tropic/real-time/marti/marti.html)_, or _[tinyurl.com/pec9s](http://www.tinyurl.com/pec9s)_

-  MIMIC-IR website (NEW)
-  Real time TCs
-  Product description
-  FAQ
-  2005 archives
- _[ ](http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/tropic/real-time/marti/mimic-ir.html)__[http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/tropic/real-time/marti/mimic-ir.html,](http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/tropic/real-time/marti/mimic-ir.html)_ or _[tinyurl.com/pzxlo](http://www.tinyurl.com/pzxlo)_

## Slide 36

## Total Precipitable Water from DMSP-13/14/15

## Total Precipitable Water from DMSP-13/14/15

## Total Precipitable Water from DMSP-13/14/15

## Total Precipitable Water from DMSP-13/14/15

## Total Precipitable Water from DMSP-13/14/15

## Total Precipitable Water from DMSP-13/14/15

## Total Precipitable Water from DMSP-13/14/15

## Total Precipitable Water from DMSP-13/14/15

## Total Precipitable Water from DMSP-13/14/15

## Total Precipitable Water from DMSP-13/14/15

## Total Precipitable Water from DMSP-13/14/15

## Total Precipitable Water from DMSP-13/14/15

## Total Precipitable Water from DMSP-13/14/15

## (Cat 4 to Cat 2 in <18 hrs on 09/06)

- Total Precipitable Water from DMSP-13/14/15

## MIMIC-IR persistence forecast

- All data

- Forecast (beginning at 0800 UTC)

## How do you deal with these obstacles to morphing?

**10 Sept, 1220 UTC**

**10 Sept, 1829 UTC**

- Average temporal spacing between images is 4-5 hours, but the lifetime of most features is shorter than that
- Smaller features advect cyclonically with the windspeed, but larger areas of convection remain quasi-stationary
- Many convective features regenerate repeatedly in the same location

## MIMIC: Morphed Integrated Microwave Imagery at CIMSS

*(insert MIMIC-IR Katrina avi)*

**Notes:**
Incidentally...