OWLe S Research Ashant Mc LeodPerez Stephen Piechowski

  • Slides: 17
Download presentation
OWLe. S Research Ashanté Mc. Leod-Perez, Stephen Piechowski, Scott Steiger, Lauren Cutler, Shania Nichols,

OWLe. S Research Ashanté Mc. Leod-Perez, Stephen Piechowski, Scott Steiger, Lauren Cutler, Shania Nichols, Tyler Kranz, Andrew Janiszeski SUNY Oswego

Objectives • Show Dual Doppler Analysis • Show Objective Analysis • Discuss lightning and

Objectives • Show Dual Doppler Analysis • Show Objective Analysis • Discuss lightning and findings • Discuss WRF modeling

Dual-Doppler: DOWs 6 & 8 • Step 1: Edit via SOLO-3 • 2: Objective

Dual-Doppler: DOWs 6 & 8 • Step 1: Edit via SOLO-3 • 2: Objective Analysis (2 -pass Barnes) • Grid spacing 300 - 340 m (so can resolve features > 1. 7 km) • Smoothing parameter 0. 71 - 1. 16 km 2 • 3: Dual-Doppler • Code provided by CSWR; thank you, Paul Robinson & Karen Kosiba for all of your help! • Upward integration of anelastic mass continuity equation to get w

22: 50 UTC 2013 -12 -18 Dual Doppler Plot

22: 50 UTC 2013 -12 -18 Dual Doppler Plot

06: 57 UTC 2014 -01 -07 Dual Doppler Plot

06: 57 UTC 2014 -01 -07 Dual Doppler Plot

Sensitivity tests and future work • The beam width of the DOW is 0.

Sensitivity tests and future work • The beam width of the DOW is 0. 93 • DOW oversamples so we can adjust the beam width • Reran objective analysis for 06: 57 UTC 2014 -01 -07 using a 0. 7 and a 0. 5 beam width • The images were clearer but the data did not go up as high as with the 0. 93 beam width • Mask the edges of the Dual Doppler plots so large vorticity anomalies don’t appear • Finish 07: 00: 10 UTC-07: 02: 30 UTC 2014 -01 -07 • Create a loop using 06: 57 UTC 2014 -01 -07 and 07: 00: 10 UTC-07: 02: 30 UTC 2014 -01 -07

Objective analysis for 06: 57 UTC 201401 -07 using a 0. 93 beam width

Objective analysis for 06: 57 UTC 201401 -07 using a 0. 93 beam width vs 0. 7 beam width

Lake-Effect Lightning https: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=KXRe 7 npyw 4 Q http: //wivb. com/2014/11/14/more-lightning-in-our-future/

Lake-Effect Lightning https: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=KXRe 7 npyw 4 Q http: //wivb. com/2014/11/14/more-lightning-in-our-future/

Some quick facts for NLDN Flashes • After grouping together the NLDN data into

Some quick facts for NLDN Flashes • After grouping together the NLDN data into flashes, we found that 22: 50 UTC 2013 -12 -18 • featured a total of 3 CG flashes and no IC flashes. All 3 of the CG flashes occurred within 300 m of a wind turbine. The first flash was classified as an LTUL, while the last two flashes were SIUL’s. • 06: 57 UTC 2014 -01 -07 featured a total of 7 IC flashes and 15 CG flashes (22 flashes total). In other words, about 32% of all the flashes were IC flashes and about 68% were CG flashes. • Out of all the 7 IC flashes during 06: 57 UTC 2014 -01 -07, 4 of them occurred within 300 m of a turbine. Since there are no CG strokes involved in the IC flashes, we could not classify these as SIUL’s or LTUL’s. We simply classified them as regular IC flashes. • Out of all the 15 CG flashes during 06: 57 UTC 2014 -01 -07, 5 were categorized as SIUL’s. 2 were categorized as LTUL’s. The remaining 8 were categorized as regular CG flashes. • For 06: 57 UTC 2014 -01 -07, exactly 50% of all the CG and IC flashes that occurred were within 300 m of a turbine or TV tower. For 22: 50 UTC 2013 -1218, 100% of the flashes occurred within 300 m of a turbine.

Green: Cloud to Ground lightning 22: 50 UTC 2013 -1218 Red: Intra. Cloud lightning

Green: Cloud to Ground lightning 22: 50 UTC 2013 -1218 Red: Intra. Cloud lightning 06: 57 UTC 2014 -0107

Lightning Hypothesis Figure

Lightning Hypothesis Figure

WRF Modeling Objectives and Overview Test different PBL schemes to determine performance in resimulated

WRF Modeling Objectives and Overview Test different PBL schemes to determine performance in resimulated lake-effect events. Use of PBL schemes with TKE profile for determining PBL height was chosen. Previously only used YSU scheme, which uses Bulk. Richardson number for PBL height. Using wrf output every 5 minutes from 22: 50 UTC 201312 -18, create plots of PBL height, snow mixing ratio and precipitable water ( both observation periods)

Cross-Sect at 00 z 28 Jan WRF-RAP int MYJ

Cross-Sect at 00 z 28 Jan WRF-RAP int MYJ

RAP-int. MYJ Cross Sect. 00 Z 28 Jan. PBL height increasing? Certainly looks like

RAP-int. MYJ Cross Sect. 00 Z 28 Jan. PBL height increasing? Certainly looks like it as we travel through the band.

Utah Obs. Sndg at 03 z 28 Jan vs MYJ (left) and YSU (right)

Utah Obs. Sndg at 03 z 28 Jan vs MYJ (left) and YSU (right) Here, observed sounding has deeper boundary layer (~ 50 mb).

PBL Height (m) overlaid with Snow Mixing Ratio (kg/kg) for 07: 30 UTC on

PBL Height (m) overlaid with Snow Mixing Ratio (kg/kg) for 07: 30 UTC on 2014 -01 -07

Conclusion • 06: 57 UTC 2014 -01 -07 showed better miso vorticies during lightning

Conclusion • 06: 57 UTC 2014 -01 -07 showed better miso vorticies during lightning than 22: 50 UTC 2013 -12 -18 which did not have miso voticies but had lightning. This shows that our hypothesis of miso vorticies and lightning being related need more investigation • Cloud to ground lightning strikes were found to occur inland as opposed to along the shoreline. Most CG lightning was collocated with wind turbines. • Maple ridge windfarm may be a factor in lightning. • Initiating the SUNY Oswego WRF with the RAP produced the best results, but still the output PBL heights were shallower than observed heights.