Q2 Workshop
-
Upload
sydnee-bennett -
Category
Documents
-
view
30 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Q2 Workshop
![Page 1: Q2 Workshop](https://reader037.fdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110210/56812eee550346895d948b32/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Q2 Workshop
William E. LawrenceDevelopment and Operations Hydrologist
Arkansas-Red Basin River Forecast CenterTulsa, OK
June 28, 2005
Multi-sensor QPE:Current Operational Capabilities, Issues
and Perspectives from ABRFC view
![Page 2: Q2 Workshop](https://reader037.fdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110210/56812eee550346895d948b32/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
ABRFC QPE History
May 1992 – HAS software delivered to ABRFC
March 1993 – Formal HAS operations begin
August 1993 – StageIII software operational, ABRFC switches to using MAPX vs old MAP
June 1994 – Start of ABRFC online archive of QPEs, largest in NWS
June 1996 – ABRFC investigates COE precipitation software, and starts porting code for our use
July 1996 – ABRFC finishes P1 & performs testing
November 1996 – ABRFC switches to using P1 almost exclusively
![Page 3: Q2 Workshop](https://reader037.fdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110210/56812eee550346895d948b32/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Why P1?
The P1 code, using a simple scientific algorithm, allowed ABRFC forecasters an easier faster method to come up with reliable QPE’s
Outperformed StageIII both in speed, ease of use, and quality of product
Did not have severe underestimation of rainfall in cooler season months
Had added functionality such as easy ways to “make” snow, remove AP, save changes, etc.
Code and results were forwarded to OHD
![Page 4: Q2 Workshop](https://reader037.fdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110210/56812eee550346895d948b32/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
LMRFC StageIII Study~ -33% error
•(Stellman, 2000)
![Page 5: Q2 Workshop](https://reader037.fdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110210/56812eee550346895d948b32/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
ABRFC Process1 Study~ + 2% error
![Page 6: Q2 Workshop](https://reader037.fdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110210/56812eee550346895d948b32/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Satellite Data – Do we use it?
ABRFC receives satellite data every hour
Experience has shown its better than nothing, but often misplaced and amounts are unreliable
ABRFC forecaster may use when all else fails, but this occurs only very rarely
P3 has ability to draw in polygon area to swap to satellite data anywhere in basin
Overall, we much prefer radar/gage mix of data
![Page 7: Q2 Workshop](https://reader037.fdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110210/56812eee550346895d948b32/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Satellite Data – Do we use it?
![Page 8: Q2 Workshop](https://reader037.fdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110210/56812eee550346895d948b32/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Satellite Data – Do we use it?
![Page 9: Q2 Workshop](https://reader037.fdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110210/56812eee550346895d948b32/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Gage Data – How do we use it?
Approximately 1200 automated gages in ABRFC area
At any given time, approximately 400 in “bad gage list”
Only ASOS gages are heated, and even they have trouble with frozen precipitation
Oklahoma mesonet data is extremely valuable, well-run mesonet
GOES data also valuable, but maintenance sometimes lacks
Schoolnet, Alert systems least desirable as little maintenance is performed after initial setup.
Overall, gage data is EXTREMELY important to ABRFC in coming up with acceptable QPEs
![Page 10: Q2 Workshop](https://reader037.fdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110210/56812eee550346895d948b32/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Gage Data – How do we use it?
ABRFC feels that human interaction is necessary for sufficient QC of gage data. What appears good at first look may turn out to be poor data, ie under-reporting, reporting at wrong hour, etc.
Bad data isn’t always obvious until you start adding up many hours
Gages constantly being moved into and out of “bad gage list”
Most important HAS function at ABRFC is QCing hourly QPEs
![Page 11: Q2 Workshop](https://reader037.fdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110210/56812eee550346895d948b32/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Current Issues
Continue to have serious deficiencies/difficulties in producing accurate QPEs in winter events
Continue to have serious deficiencies with radar estimates in mountainous areas; luckily we have few areas like this
Radar estimates of QPE at ranges greater than 75 miles continue to be problematic during cool season
List of problems almost exactly the same as described in ABRFC memo to OHD in 1993
![Page 12: Q2 Workshop](https://reader037.fdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110210/56812eee550346895d948b32/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Current Perspective
ABRFC feels that well known issues should be addressed before we dive into probabilistic QPEs.
“If we can’t even produce a good deterministic QPE year round, then why are we attempting to develop a probabilistic QPE?”
![Page 13: Q2 Workshop](https://reader037.fdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110210/56812eee550346895d948b32/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Why not MPE?
MPE is great improvement over StageIII
Output is roughly equivalent to P3
Older versions were not user friendly in frozen precipitation events, nor did they remember changes made
Still problems with performance of MPE vs P3
Radar artifacts are still part of MPE
ABRFC continues to work with OHD so that we may adapt using a national software
![Page 14: Q2 Workshop](https://reader037.fdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110210/56812eee550346895d948b32/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
MPE Artifact
![Page 15: Q2 Workshop](https://reader037.fdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110210/56812eee550346895d948b32/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
MPE Artifact