# Presentation: 522976

## Advancements in Lightning-Severe Storm Forecasts and Warnings: Results from the Southern Thunder Alliance 

**Advancements in Lightning-Severe Storm Forecasts and Warnings: Results from the Southern Thunder Alliance**

- Photo, David Blankenship
- Guntersville, Alabama

**Steve Goodman**
- NASA Marshall Space Flight Center
- Earth Science Office
- Huntsville, Alabama, USA

**NWS SRH SOO-NASA SPoRT Joint Workshop**
**11-13 July, 2006**
**Huntsville Alabama**

## 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

## 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***

## Flash Rate Coupled to Mass in the Mixed Phase Region

**Flash Rate Coupled to Mass in the Mixed Phase Region**
**Cecil 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

## GOES-R Geostationary Lightning Mapper (GLM)

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

## 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)

- 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

## North Alabama LMA CoverageNWSFO HUN CWA

## 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**

## Slide 11

##  LMA Imagery in AWIPS

** ****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**

**SVR Upgraded to TOR**

## ARMOR: 04-07-05 Winds and HID

**ARMOR: 04-07-05 Winds and HID**

- ARMOR-88D WINDS

**RESEARCH: **ARMOR HID

**OPERATIONAL:**
- ARMOR HID

- Courtesy Walt Petersen

## Total Lightning Impacts Decision Making....

**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.”***
**Used in Warning Event Simulator (WES) for office training**

## May 6, 2003 Case

- 1236 UTC

**Notes:**
Case 1:  1st TOR warning using LMA
Line of thunderstorms moving across Northern AL
Rotational copulet is ill-defined

## May 6, 2003 Case

- 1246 UTC

**Notes:**
Case 1 (cont.):  1st TOR warning using LMA
Still no apparent low-level rotation
Front-end reflectivity gradient increasing
Electrical activity sharply increases

## Lightning Hole

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

**Lightning Hole**

**Convective surge**

- Lightning hole (WER)

## LMA Benchmarking: Interim Results 2003-2005Warning Variable Rankings on Scale of 1-10

| Warning Variable | All Surveys
LMA+ impact=9/19 | Severe Storms
80 warnings, 13 surveys | Tornado
41 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 |

## Southern Thunder Workshop #2Fort 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)**

## Circles:  150 km radius (approx. 3D coverage)

-               250 km radius (approx. max range)

## Strawman DC Metro Lightning Mapping Network

- Major Airports

- (Oklahoma LMA as template)

- Mapping Stations

## DC Severe Thunderstorms 4 July 2006

| 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

- Steve Zubrick
- WFO Sterling (LWX)

## DC Metro LMA Demo Network9 July 2006 at 2300 UTC

- 5-station LMA source density

- NEXRAD Reflectivity

## Enhanced Thunder

- 19 July 2005
- 2000Z – 2012Z

- NCEP SPC/Schaefer

- SPC Experimental Product

##   - Pr (CPTP) >= 1 x Pr (PCPN) >= .01”

**F15 SREF 3-hr COMBINED**
**PROBABILITY OF LIGHTNING**

-   **- Pr (CPTP) >= 1 x Pr (PCPN) >= .01”**

**Uncalibrated probability**
**of lightning**

- SPC Experimental Product

## Warn on Forecast Concept

**Warn-on-forecast**
**(warnings out to 4 hours**
**based upon observations **
**+ short term model forecasts)**

**Warn on Forecast Concept**

- Courtesy Kevin Kelleher, SDR Grand Challenges

## WRF Thunderstorm Premises and Objectives

- WRF: Weather Research and Forecast Model
- CRM: Cloud Resolving Model

- _Additional Forecast Interests_
- CI - convective initiation
- Ti  - First lightning (35 dBZ at -15C, glaciation)
- Tp - Peak flash rate  VIL (Mass)
- Tf  - Final lightning

- Given:
- Precipitating ice aloft is correlated with LTG rates
- Mesoscale CRMs are being used to forecast convection
- CRMs can represent many ice hydrometeors (crudely)
- Goals:
- See if WRF can forecast LTG threat, based on ice flux
-       in layers near -15 C.

## WRF Thunderstorm and Lightning Forecasts:Methodology 

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

## WRF Thunderstorm and Lightning Forecasts:10 December 2004 

## WRF Configuration10 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 cover
- 18h forecast valid at 18 UTC 10 Dec 2004

## WRF vs Eta Surface-based CAPE

**WRF vs Eta Surface-based CAPE**
**18h fcst valid 18 UTC Dec 10**

## WRF Sounding ~ 800 J/kg CAPE

**WRF Sounding ~ 800 J/kg CAPE**

## 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

## WRF vs Eta 3h Regional Precip.

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

## WRF vs Eta 3h Local Precip.

**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?

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

**WRF Reflectivity (dBZ)****at ****-15 C (4.0 km)**
**1200 UTC forecast valid at 18:50 UTC 10 Dec 2004**

## Max dBZ< 40 dBZ

**x1:  Reflectivity (dBZ), Temperature (****°****C), and Pressure (hPa)**
**1200 UTC forecast valid at 18:50 UTC 10 Dec 2004**

**Max dBZ< 40 dBZ**

## Max dBZ~50 dBZ; wmax only 4 m/s;

**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**

## Ground-truth Report of Dime-Size Hail

- Owens Crossroads, AL, 10 Dec 2004

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

**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 Observed Flashes Precede Hail Report

**LMA Observed Flashes Precede Hail Report**

## High-res RAMS “Validation” Run

- 500 m horizontal resolution
- Heightz 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

## RAMS Graupel Cross-Section

- 500 m horizontal resolution
- Heightz 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

- Graupel

## RAMS Hail Cross-Section

- 500 m horizontal resolution
- Heightz 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

- Hail

- Note: some hail reaches surface

## WRF Thunderstorm and Lightning Forecasts:22 April 2005 

## WRF Reflectivity at -15C:22 April 2005 

## WRF Graupel Flux at -15C:22 April 2005 

## LMA Flash Extent Density:22 April 2005 

## WRF Thunderstorm and Lightning Forecasts:30 March 2002 

## WRF Reflectivity at -15C:30 March 2002 

## WRF Graupel Flux at -15C:30 March 2002 

## LMA Flash Extent Density:30 March 2002 

##                                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 lightning3. WRF updraft strengths on 2-4 km grids often too weak, relative    to observed weather and high-res RAMS simulations4. WRF microphysics still too simple; need more ice categories5. Finer model mesh may improve updraft representation, and    hydrometeor amounts6. Biggest limitation is likely errors in initial mesoscale fields 

##                                Future Work:1. Expand catalog of simulation cases to obtain robust statistics2. 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 forecasts5. Hot start WRF applied to archived North Alabama WES cases 

## 2006 Nowcasting and Assessment Plans

**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**
**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**

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

** ****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**

## LMA Web Calendar

## Web Sites

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