Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “mesoscale convective system”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

508 records · Page 29
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

Assimilation of a Coordinated Fleet of Uncrewed Aircraft System Observations in Complex Terrain: Observing System Experiments

Uncrewed aircraft system (UAS) observations from the Lower Atmospheric Profiling Studies at Elevation–A Remotely-Piloted Aircraft Team Experiment (LAPSE-RATE) field campaign were assimilated into a high-resolution configuration of the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) Model. The impact of assimilating targeted UAS observations in addition to surface observations was compared to that obtained when assimilating surface observations alone using observing system experiments (OSEs) for a terrain-driven flow case and a convection initiation (CI) case observed within Colorado’s San Luis Valley (SLV). The assimilation of UAS observations in addition to surface observations results in a clear increase in skill for both flow regimes over that obtained when assimilating surface observations alone. For the terrain-driven flow case, the UAS observations improved the representation of thermal stratification across the northern SLV, which produced stronger upvalley flow over the eastern half of the SLV that better matched the observations. For the CI case, the UAS observations improved the representation of the pre-convective environment by reducing dry biases across the SLV and over the surrounding terrain. This led to earlier CI and more organized convection over the foothills that spilled outflows into the SLV, ultimately helping to increase low-level convergence and CI there. In addition, the importance of UAS capturing an outflow that originated over the Sangre de Cristo Mountains and triggered CI is discussed. These outflows and subsequent CI were not well captured in the simulation that assimilated surface observations alone. We report that observations obtained with a fleet of UAS are shown to notably improve high-resolution analyses and short-term predictions of two very different mesogamma-scale weather events.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS2010

Peak Wind Tool for General Forecasting

The expected peak wind speed of the day is an important forecast element in the 45th Weather Squadron's (45 WS) daily 24-Hour and Weekly Planning Forecasts. The forecasts are used for ground and space launch operations at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS). The 45 WS also issues wind advisories for KSC/CCAFS when they expect wind gusts to meet or exceed 25 kt, 35 kt and 50 kt thresholds at any level from the surface to 300 ft. The 45 WS forecasters have indicated peak wind speeds are challenging to forecast, particularly in the cool season months of October - April. In Phase I of this task, the Applied Meteorology Unit (AMU) developed a tool to help the 45 WS forecast non-convective winds at KSC/CCAFS for the 24-hour period of 0800 to 0800 local time. The tool was delivered as a Microsoft Excel graphical user interface (GUI). The GUI displayed the forecast of peak wind speed, 5-minute average wind speed at the time of the peak wind, timing of the peak wind and probability the peak speed would meet or exceed 25 kt, 35 kt and 50 kt. For the current task (Phase II ), the 45 WS requested additional observations be used for the creation of the forecast equations by expanding the period of record (POR). Additional parameters were evaluated as predictors, including wind speeds between 500 ft and 3000 ft, static stability classification, Bulk Richardson Number, mixing depth, vertical wind shear, temperature inversion strength and depth and wind direction. Using a verification data set, the AMU compared the performance of the Phase I and II prediction methods. Just as in Phase I, the tool was delivered as a Microsoft Excel GUI. The 45 WS requested the tool also be available in the Meteorological Interactive Data Display System (MIDDS). The AMU first expanded the POR by two years by adding tower observations, surface observations and CCAFS (XMR) soundings for the cool season months of March 2007 to April 2009. The POR was expanded again by six years, from October 1996 to April 2002, by interpolating 1000-ft sounding data to 100-ft increments. The Phase II developmental data set included observations for the cool season months of October 1996 to February 2007. The AMU calculated 68 candidate predictors from the XMR soundings, to include 19 stability parameters, 48 wind speed parameters and one wind shear parameter. Each day in the data set was stratified by synoptic weather pattern, low-level wind direction, precipitation and Richardson Number, for a total of 60 stratification methods. Linear regression equations, using the 68 predictors and 60 stratification methods, were created for the tool's three forecast parameters: the highest peak wind speed of the day (PWSD), 5-minute average speed at the same time (A WSD), and timing of the PWSD. For PWSD and A WSD, 30 Phase II methods were selected for evaluation in the verification data set. For timing of the PWSD, 12 Phase\I methods were selected for evaluation. The verification data set contained observations for the cool season months of March 2007 to April 2009. The data set was used to compare the Phase I and II forecast methods to climatology, model forecast winds and wind advisories issued by the 45 WS. The model forecast winds were derived from the 0000 and 1200 UTC runs of the 12-km North American Mesoscale (MesoNAM) model. The forecast methods that performed the best in the verification data set were selected for the Phase II version of the tool. For PWSD and A WSD, linear regression equations based on MesoNAM forecasts performed significantly better than the Phase I and II methods. For timing of the PWSD, none of the methods performed significantly bener than climatology. The AMU then developed the Microsoft Excel and MIDDS GUls. The GUIs display the forecasts for PWSD, AWSD and the probability the PWSD will meet or exceed 25 kt, 35 kt and 50 kt. Since none of the prediction methods for timing of the PWSD performed significantly better thanlimatology, the tool no longer displays this predictand. The Excel and MIDDS GUIs display forecasts for Day-I to Day-3 and Day-I to Day-5, respectively. The Excel GUI uses MesoNAM forecasts as input, while the MIDDS GUI uses input from the MesoNAM and Global Forecast System model. Based on feedback from the 45 WS, the AMU added the daily average wind speed from 30 ft to 60 ft to the tool, which is one of the parameters in the 24-Hour and Weekly Planning Forecasts issued by the 45 WS. In addition, the AMU expanded the MIDDS GUI to include forecasts out to Day-7.

Barrett, Joe H., III↗
NASA NTRS2010

Tool for Forecasting Cool-Season Peak Winds Across Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station

The expected peak wind speed for the day is an important element in the daily morning forecast for ground and space launch operations at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS). The 45th Weather Squadron (45 WS) must issue forecast advisories for KSC/CCAFS when they expect peak gusts for >= 25, >= 35, and >= 50 kt thresholds at any level from the surface to 300 ft. In Phase I of this task, the 45 WS tasked the Applied Meteorology Unit (AMU) to develop a cool-season (October - April) tool to help forecast the non-convective peak wind from the surface to 300 ft at KSC/CCAFS. During the warm season, these wind speeds are rarely exceeded except during convective winds or under the influence of tropical cyclones, for which other techniques are already in use. The tool used single and multiple linear regression equations to predict the peak wind from the morning sounding. The forecaster manually entered several observed sounding parameters into a Microsoft Excel graphical user interface (GUI), and then the tool displayed the forecast peak wind speed, average wind speed at the time of the peak wind, the timing of the peak wind and the probability the peak wind will meet or exceed 35, 50 and 60 kt. The 45 WS customers later dropped the requirement for >= 60 kt wind warnings. During Phase II of this task, the AMU expanded the period of record (POR) by six years to increase the number of observations used to create the forecast equations. A large number of possible predictors were evaluated from archived soundings, including inversion depth and strength, low-level wind shear, mixing height, temperature lapse rate and winds from the surface to 3000 ft. Each day in the POR was stratified in a number of ways, such as by low-level wind direction, synoptic weather pattern, precipitation and Bulk Richardson number. The most accurate Phase II equations were then selected for an independent verification. The Phase I and II forecast methods were compared using an independent verification data set. The two methods were compared to climatology, wind warnings and advisories issued by the 45 WS, and North American Mesoscale (NAM) model (MesoNAM) forecast winds. The performance of the Phase I and II methods were similar with respect to mean absolute error. Since the Phase I data were not stratified by precipitation, this method's peak wind forecasts had a large negative bias on days with precipitation and a small positive bias on days with no precipitation. Overall, the climatology methods performed the worst while the MesoNAM performed the best. Since the MesoNAM winds were the most accurate in the comparison, the final version of the tool was based on the MesoNAM winds. The probability the peak wind will meet or exceed the warning thresholds were based on the one standard deviation error bars from the linear regression. For example, the linear regression might forecast the most likely peak speed to be 35 kt and the error bars used to calculate that the probability of >= 25 kt = 76%, the probability of >= 35 kt = 50%, and the probability of >= 50 kt = 19%. The authors have not seen this application of linear regression error bars in any other meteorological applications. Although probability forecast tools should usually be developed with logistic regression, this technique could be easily generalized to any linear regression forecast tool to estimate the probability of exceeding any desired threshold . This could be useful for previously developed linear regression forecast tools or new forecast applications where statistical analysis software to perform logistic regression is not available. The tool was delivered in two formats - a Microsoft Excel GUI and a Tool Command Language/Tool Kit (Tcl/Tk) GUI in the Meteorological Interactive Data Display System (MIDDS). The Microsoft Excel GUI reads a MesoNAM text file containing hourly forecasts from 0 to 84 hours, from one model run (00 or 12 UTC). The GUI then displays e peak wind speed, average wind speed, and the probability the peak wind will meet or exceed the 25-, 35- and 50-kt thresholds. The user can display the Day-1 through Day-3 peak wind forecasts, and separate forecasts are made for precipitation and non-precipitation days. The MIDDS GUI uses data from the NAM and Global Forecast System (GFS), instead of the MesoNAM. It can display Day-1 and Day-2 forecasts using NAM data, and Day-1 through Day-5 forecasts using GFS data. The timing of the peak wind is not displayed, since the independent verification showed that none of the forecast methods performed significantly better than climatology. The forecaster should use the climatological timing of the peak wind (2248 UTC) as a first guess and then adjust it based on the movement of weather features.

Barrett, Joe H., III↗
DOE OSTI2025

Amplified Mesoscale and Submesoscale Variability and Increased Concentration of Precipitation under Global Warming over Western North America

Abstract Cold-season precipitation statistics in simulations from the storm-resolving WRF Model at 6-km and 1-h resolution over western North America are analyzed. Pseudo–global warming future simulations for the 2041–80 period, constrained by GCMs under the RCP8.5 scenario, are compared to the 1981–2020 historical simulation. The analysis focuses on the dynamical properties of precipitation time series at subdaily scales and on the morphology of storms. The statistical distribution of precipitation intensities in each pixel of the simulation domain is characterized through nonparametric statistical indicators: frequency of wet hours, mean wet-hour precipitation intensity, and Gini coefficient as a measure of the temporal concentration of the precipitation volume. Additionally, the temporal and spatial Fourier power spectra of precipitation time series and precipitation fields are analyzed. The half-power period (HPP) and half-power wavelength (HPW) are defined as spectral measures of the characteristic scales of precipitation’s temporal and spatial patterns. The results show statistically significant increases in the mean wet-hour precipitation intensity and in the Gini coefficient in 99% of the pixels, indicating that the seasonal precipitation volume becomes more concentrated within a smaller number of hours with higher precipitation intensity. The statistics of change in the frequency of wet hours are more contrasted across the simulation domain. The changes are also reflected in the power spectra, which show the spatial and temporal variability increasing proportionally more with finer spatial and temporal scales and the HPW and HPP decreasing. These projected changes are expected to have consequences, not only in terms of hydrologic impacts but also in terms of the predictability of precipitation patterns. Significance Statement The precipitation characteristics of winter storms over the western United States and southwestern Canada are analyzed in future climate simulations for the 2041–80 period. As compared to present-day climate, the most intense parts of the storms are projected to produce a higher rainfall volume, with increased concentration over smaller areas and shorter time intervals. The propensity of rainfall intensity to vary rapidly over time will be enhanced in the future according to the simulations. These model predictions imply an increased risk of rapid flooding in small basins. They also suggest that predicting several hours ahead the time and location at which a storm will produce maximum rainfall may become more challenging in the future.

Climate change↗