1

NOAA NWSWINTER

WEATHER DESK (WWD)

2005-2006

Informational/Decisional Briefing

(an NCEP HPC Perspective)

Peter C. Manousos

NCEP HPC Science & Operations Officer

(peter.manousos@noaa.gov)

2

Goals of Briefing

• Provide refresher of Winter Weather Desk (WWD) process

• Show results of WWD

• Provide recommended changes for WWD 2006-2007

• Seek Committee endorsement for select WWD items

3

WWD PROCESS

1. Arrival of new NCEP guidance to HPC (SREF, NAM, GFS)

2. Preliminary issuance of HPC winter weather products for all CONUS WFOs

3. HPC/WFO collaboration, as needed

4. Official issuance by NWS of short term winter weather products and forecasts

Twice daily from Sept 15 through May 15

WWD process fosters a NWS collaborated suite of winter weather products targeted at answering

“What’s most likely to happen, and What’s possible to happen in this event ?”

4

• Accumulation Web Graphics– 24h ZR and S/IP accumulations– 40km res east of 105W, 5km elsewhere– Via password protected web page

• Model Diagnostic Web Graphics– To support collaboration

WWD PRELIMINARY PRODUCTS

EXPERIMENTAL

5

HPC/WFO Collaboration

• Routine collaboration using 12 Planet

• Verbal collaboration by phone and initiated by WFO or HPC WWD WFO/HPC COLLABORATION (2005-2006)

Green (light) – 12 Planet only

Red (dark) – Phone Only

Brown (medium) - Both

6

HPC WWD FINAL PRODUCTS• 24h Probability exceedance probabilities to Day 3

– 4”, 8”, 12” S/IP & .25” ZR thresholds

– Based on HPC/WFO collaboration – designed to

Complement contents of NDFD

• 72h Low Tracks Graphic– Technical and non-technical format

• Discussion (QPFHSD)

EXPERIMENTAL

7

Experimental Products• Public version of Low Tracks (external)• 5km Accumulation graphics (internal)• SREF “Impact” graphics (external)

– Automated SREF derived graphics targeted at highlighting an event’s greatest impact to public such as duration, timing, and intensity

– http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/wwd/impactgraphics

SREF IMPACT GRAPHIC EXAMPLE

Probability (shaded) Surface Visibility

is ¼ mile or lessEXPERIMENTAL

8

Additional WWD Activities• In Season

– WWD Training

– SLR evaluation

– Impact Graphics Evaluation

– Model evaluation (NAMP)

– AWOC Winter Track development

• Post Season– Verification

– Post Mortems

– Changes for next seasonWFO Participation in WWD Training by HPC (Fall 2005)

Green (light) – via VISIT

Red (dark) – in person as part of local workshop

Brown (medium) – requested HPC .ppt presentation

9

Results

10

Regional Stats

ER WWE1

01-02’

WWE2

02-03’

WWE3

03-04’

WWD*

04-05’

WWD*

05-06’

# WFO 8 23 23 ALL ALL

POD .89 .90 .92 .92 .91

FAR .33 .30 .32 .30 .35

CSI .62 .65 M .66 .61

LT Warn 13 15 18 21 19

CR WWE

01-02’

WWE2

02-03’

WWE3

03-04’

WWD

04-05’

WWD

05-06’

# WFO NA 8 33 ALL ALL

POD NA .90 .88 .92 .91

FAR NA .40 .45 .32 .38

CSI NA .57 .51 .65 .53

LT Warn NA 13 13 17 17

WR WWE

01-02’

WWE2

02-03’

WWE3

03-04’

WWD

04-05’

WWD

05-06’

# WFO NA NA 10 ALL ALL

POD NA NA .88 .88 .86

FAR NA NA .27 .30 .36

CSI NA NA .67 .64 .58

LT Warn NA NA 14 16 16SR WWE

01-02’

WWE2

02-03’

WWE3

03-04’

WWD

04-05’

WWD*

05-06’

# WFO NA NA 11 ALL ALL

POD NA NA .92 .90 .85

FAR NA NA .38 .39 .48

CSI NA NA .59 .57 .48

LT Warn NA NA 9 9 11

* Oct - Mar

11

WFO FEEDBACK• Direct contact

– Emails, chat messages, phone calls

• AFD References– WWD was referenced in WFO AFDs 20% of the time (30 out of 150 days)

• Online survey – WWD aspects rated on scale of 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest)

56 WFOs (green) responding to survey

(WR=20, CR=19, ER = 11, SR=4, AK=1, PR=1)

Intermountain=24, Non Intermountain=32

12

WFO Survey Results• Non intermountain Region WFOs

– Felt process was beneficial, particularly having the preliminary graphics available from HPC

• Major Benefits (via comments)– Process allowing impacted WFOs to get on same page– 3rd party oversight a valuable steering tool– Process maintains continuity in local thinking especially with relatively new

forecasters at WFO – Valuable having HPC available as a safety net, starting point, second opinion– Issuance times of internal graphics fit WFO forecast process well– Iterative and collaborative process valuable – particularly after HPC began

updating prelim graphics post collaboration– Collaboration options (12 planet and phone call) fit WFO forecast process well

• Major Issues (via comments)– Difficult to integrate web graphics directly to grid editing– Run to run continuity of internal graphics – Precip type accuracy in regions of complex terrain (Appalachians)– Significant number of WFOs still assume HPC will provide details to local level

13

WFO Survey Results• Intermountain Region WFOs

– Felt WWD process overall was NOT beneficial– 5km PRISM adjusted accumulations were overall not found beneficial either

» Although some WFOs felt WWD 5km accumulations were beneficial and intend to use them next season

• Major Issues (via comments)– Lack of local knowledge by HPC forecaster a major hurdle– Hard to integrate web graphic directly to grid editing

» Issues amplified stereotype of DC forecaster unable to help “over here” – 5km resolution insufficient (some WFOs editing at much higher resolutions)– PRISM (climatological) adjustment not always representative of current event

• Positive comments were received– HPC responsiveness on 12 Planet and willingness to collaborate– HPC willingness to explore better ways to serve intermountain region WFOs

» Although some are tiring of the exploration process

14

WFO FEEDBACK SREF IMPACT GRAPHICS

• Very little feedback received in season and post season– Web hits of approximately ~500/day dropped to 2/day after December

• Noted benefits– “Great” tool– Good way of entraining SREF output in operations

• Issues– Needed more of a winter to offer subjective evaluation– Not aware they existed– Not in AWIPS– At times not in line with local forecasts– No verification available – Horizontal resolution a limitation for use by Intermountain Region WFOs (PR, AR, WR, CR)

» HFO helped determine resolution unable to signal events atop the “Big Island”

• Requests– Get in AWIPS– Validate output– Employ Better VIS algorithm– Expand WSW exceedance probabilities across CONUS

15

Notable External Feedback

• Internal Graphics– CMC inquired for access to WWD internal graphics

• SREF Impact Graphics– Airlines Ops director sent kudos for utility in decision making

• External Probability Graphics– A variety of TV Mets around the US sent “kudos” regarding utility– Used by TWC “in house” for guidance– USA Today directly utilized (example next page)

Only positive external feedback was received

16

USA TODAY Thu Dec 8 2005 AM Edition

• Direct attribution to HPC

• Direct use of HPC WWD Moderate Probability (green contours) for Snow & Ice areas

• Direct use of HPC Low Tracks Graphic

17

HPC FEEDBACK

• Major work load issue collaborating on a national scale– Little time to adequately edit preliminary accumulation grids between

arrival of new guidance and when WFOs want the information

• Major work load issue post collaboration generating probability maps over the CONUS– Four thresholds * Three Forecast Days = 12 national scale graphics to edit

• Seeking more interaction with Intermountain Region WFOs

18

Proposed Changes• Make experimental non technical Low Tracks graphic operational

– Add initial low position if it exists, and modify derivation of uncertainty circles

• Change “Low” label on probability products to “Slight”– Make consistent with other NCEP probability products

• Maintain SREF IMPACT graphics as experimental– Update VIS algorithm, nix HI graphics per WFO feedback, expand WSW graphic to

whole CONUS

• Continue to explore/improve support for intermountain region WFOs– PRISM a start, but need <5km res and perhaps snow level guidance grid

• Issuance of WWD Grids– Gather formal requirements to have HPC issue accumulation grids for ingest by GFE

19

SUMMARY

• WWD process overall served WFOs and public favorably

• Continued discussions with intermountain region offices needed to determine optimal product suite for these areas

• Recommend implementing proposed changes

• WWD training and research activities continue to expand

20

Background Slides

• Average Daily Web Hits• HPC WWD Internal Accumulation Stats• Low Track Verification• WWD 2005-2006 Change Log

21

WWD External and Internal Web ProductsAverage Daily Web Hits 2005-2006

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr

Prob D1

Prob D2

Prob D3

ZR D1

ZR D2

ZR D3

Lowtrack

Disc

Internal

Impact

22

23

Internal WWD

Combined Snow/Ice Pellet

Accumulation Verification

24

Internal WWD

Freezing Rain

Accumulation Verification

25

WWD 2005-2006 Change Log

• Changes made for start of this past season – Staggered deadlines for INTERNAL graphics– Increase size of web based Model Diagnostic images– Elimination of all WWE reference– Issuance of Experimental Non Technical version of Low Track Graphics per public

feedback

• Changes made during the season– Capitalized on addition of 6 WRF members in SREF– SPC coordination outlined to WFOs– Issuance of 5km PRISM adjusted accumulation graphics for intermountain region

WFOs– Update of internal graphics based on WFO collaboration– SLR algorithm changes– SREF Vis algorithm changes late in season– Added city markers on WWD graphics