NWS State College Case Examples
Eastern United States Wild Weather 27-30 April 2014-Draft
Significant quantitative precipitation bust
By
Richard H. Grumm
National Weather Service State College, PA
and
Joel Maruschak
1. Overview
Over a 3-day period extreme weather was experienced across the United States including
extremely heavy rainfall (Fig. 1) and flooding over western Florida (AP 2014) which produced
over 20 inches of rainfall in portions of the Florida panhandle. The weather during the period
was the result of a strong short-wave which at 500 hPa moved over the Pacific northwest on 26
April (Fig. 2a) and rapidly moved eastward. As the trough moved eastward a ridge developed
over the western Atlantic allowing moisture from the Gulf of moisture to move into the central
United States (Fig. 3). The high heights over eastern North America produced a cold air
damming situation over the northeastern United States.
The deep moisture (Fig. 3). and strong low-level winds (Fig. 4) produced a severe weather event
over the eastern Plains and Mississippi Valleys on 27-28 April (Fig. 5). The severe weather
diminished as the system moved eastward and encountered relatively cold low-level air. The
boundary between the cold air and the warm moist air produced heavy rainfall and flooding from
northern Virginia into southern New York (Fig. 6). The surge of high PW air and strong winds
over the frontal boundary in the northeast had the appearance of a Maddox synoptic type event
(Fig. 7 & 8).
This paper will focus on the two areas of rainfall which produced flooding over the eastern
United States. The focus is on the rainfall and how well it was predicted with the NCEP
operational forecast systems around Pensacola and Philadelphia. The Stage-IV rainfall data is
used to compare the rainfall timing and amounts relative to the forecasts systems.
2. Data and Methods
The large scale pattern was reconstructed using the 00-hour forecast of the NCEP Global
Forecast System as first guess at the verifying pattern. The standardized anomalies were
computed in Hart and Grumm (2001). All data were displayed using GrADS (Doty and Kinter
1995). The focus on the larger scale pattern was to show the standardized anomalies and how
they may help identify potential high impact weather events (HIWE).
NWS State College Case Examples
The NCEP GFS, GEFS, and SREF were used to examine the forecasts of this event. As the
pattern was generally well predicted the focus is on the quantitative precipitation forecast (QPF)
produced by these systems.
The stage-IV data were used to get a first guess at where, when, and how much precipitation was
observed. These data were analyzed in planview with GrADS and in Python to make point
diagrams showing the timing of the rainfall. Python was used to plot all-time series and plume
diagrams.
3. Forecasts
i.
Western Florida
Figure 9 shows the 6-hour gridded rainfall accumulations over Florida with 454 mm of rainfall
which accumulated over about 30 hours. The rainfall was associated with a slow moving
mesoscale convective complex (not shown). The rain being convective in nature is often difficult
for larger scale models to forecast. There is some evidence (not shown) that convective allowing
models provided better forecasts than the coarser guidance. These data were not available and
were not used here.
The SREF plume diagrams from 0900 and 1500 UTC 28 April (Fig. 10) shortly before the heavy
rains began show that the SREF grossly under predicted the rainfall over western Florida. These
data suggest that the SREF did relatively well with the timing but missed the magnitude of the
rainfall. The SREF at 16km likely had some issues and the 6.09 inches of rainfall may have
approached the maximum rainfall in the SREF implying the need to know the systems
internal climatology.
Forecasts from the GFS, SREF, and GEFS (Fig. 11 &12) are presented in Plainview which all
show that these NCEP systems had great difficulty predicting the heavy rainfall and in-effect
were incapable of forecasting the rain as observed. The point data in the SREF suggests there
was some utility in using the SREF but this would have required knowing the extreme of the
models internal M-Climate.
Though not shown here, the NCEP models correctly predicted the surge of high PW air, the
strong low-level jet and the potential for MCS development. The focus here was not on the
pattern but the QPF issues related to the extreme rainfall.
ii.
Mid-Atlantic region.
The rapid rainfall accumulations in Baltimore, MD and Philadelphia, PA (Fig. 13) show that
these two locations had heavy rainfall. To a first guess, 3 inches of rain typically will cause
flooding in much of the Mid-Atlantic region though this can vary based on antecedent
conditions. The plume diagrams from two SREF runs show that the predicted heavy rainfall for
NWS State College Case Examples
Philadelphia, PA (Fig. 14) and Baltimore, MD (Fig. 15). The QPF error was smaller than that in
Pensacola, FL likely due to the stronger forcing during this phase of the event.
Comparisons between the 27 km GFS, 16km SREF and 55km GEFS (Fig 16) show that all three
systems had heavy rainfall predicted in the Mid-Atlantic region. The area affected varied with
forecast length but in general these systems alerted users to the potential for heavy rainfall and
the errors relative the Florida case were small.
Figures 17 and 18 show 6 GEFS and 6 SREF forecasts for the event in the Mid-Atlantic region.
There was considerable variability with regards to the axis of heavy rainfall but the systems did
show the general regions affected. As implied in the plume diagrams and in ensemble mean
plots (not shown) these systems predicted local maximum which were close to the observed
maximum.
4. Summary
A strong trough moving across the United States during the period of 26 April through 1 May
2014 (Fig. 2) opened the Gulf of Mexico allowing a surge of high PW air into the eastern United
States. This resulted in a multi-day severe weather event, an MCS which produced over 20
inches of rain over the Florida Panhandle, and heavy rain in the Mid-Atlantic region. The heavy
rains produced flooding in Florida and in the Mid-Atlantic region.
The overall QPF errors in the event over Florida are somewhat troubling. All forecast systems
grossly under predicted the heavy rainfall. Perhaps internal model climatologies (M-Climate)
data would be of value. The 6 inches produced in several SREF members may have indicated a
record rainfall in the forecast system, information which could be of use to forecasters.
Additionally, as this rainfall was convectively driven, intense events such as this may require
convective following models. There were some indications that 3-4km models did produce as
much as 15 inches of rainfall over or offshore of the Florida panhandle.
The rain and flood event over the Mid-Atlantic was well predicted relative to the event over
Florida. This was likely due to the stronger meso- and synoptic forcing, conditions where the
operational non-convective allowing models perform well. The plume diagrams show that the
QPF error was smaller for Philadelphia (Fig. 14) and Baltimore (Fig. 15) relative to Pensacola,
FL (Fig. 9) likely due to the stronger synoptic scale forcing which the models were better able to
resolve. The mesoscale nature of the Florida flood event limited the utility of the NCEP
operational non-convective following models.
In convective situations, ensemble outliers, convective allowing models, and monitoring
observations are likely the best means to predict significant convective precipitation systems.
NWS State College Case Examples
5. Acknowledgements
The Pennsylvania State University for data access and providing students for research and case
study projects.
6. References
Bodner, M. J., N. W. Junker, R. H. Grumm, and R. S. Schumacher, 2011: Comparison of
atmospheric circulation patterns during the 2008 and 1993 historic Midwest floods.
Natl. Wea. Dig., 35, 103-119.
Doswell,C.A.,III, H.E Brooks and R.A. Maddox, 1996: Flash flood forecasting: ingredients
based approach. Wea. Forecasting, 11, 560-581.
Doty, B.E. and J.L. Kinter III, 1995: Geophysical Data Analysis and Visualization using
GrADS. Visualization Techniques in Space and Atmospheric Sciences, eds. E.P.
Szuszczewicz and J.H. Bredekamp, NASA, Washington, D.C., 209-219.
Durkee, JD., L Campbell, K Berry, D Jordan, G Goodrich, R Mahmood, S Foster, 2012: A
Synoptic Perspective of the Record 1-2 May 2010 Mid-South Heavy Precipitation Event.
Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 93, 611–620. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-1100076.1
Junker, N. W., R. S. Schneider and S. L. Fauver, 1999: Study of heavy rainfall events
during the Great Midwest Flood of 1993. Wea. Forecasting, 14, 701-712.
Lorenz, E. N., 1963: Deterministic nonperiodic flow. J. Atmos. Sci., 20, 130–141.
Lorenz, E.N , 1969: The predictability of a flow that possesses many scales of motion.
Tellus, 21, 289–307.
Lorenz,E.N, 1993: The Essence of Chaos. University of Washington Press, 227pp.
Palmer, T. N., 2005: Quantum Reality, Complex Numbers, and the Meteorological Butterfly
Effect. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 86, 519–530.doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-86-4-519
Stuart, N., Grumm, R. (2009) The Use of Ensemble and Anomaly Data to Anticipate Extreme
Flood Events in the Northeastern United States. Nat. Wea. Digest 33: 185-202.
Toth, Z, Y.Zhu,and T Marchok, 2001: On the ability of ensembles to distinguish between
forecasts with small and large uncertainty. Weather and Forecasting, 16,436-477
NWS State College Case Examples
NWS State College Case Examples
Figure 1. Stage-IV rain estimated for the 24 hour periods ending at a) 1200 UTC 30 April and b) 1200 UTC 30 April 2014. Over
Over the southern United States and zoomed over Florida. Return to text.
NWS State College Case Examples
Figure 2. GFS 00-hour forecasts of 500 hPa heights (m) and height anomalies in 24 hour increments from a) 1200 UTC 26 April through f) 1200 UTC 1 Mayl 2014.
Return to text.
NWS State College Case Examples
Figure3. As in Figure 2 except for precipitable water (mm) and precipitable water anomalies in 6-hour increments from a) 0000 UTC 27 April through f) 1200 UTC
8 April, the time of the heaviest rainfall. Return to text.
NWS State College Case Examples
Figure 4. As in Figure 3 except for 850 hPa winds (kts) and v-wind anomalies. Return to text.
NWS State College Case Examples
Figure 5. Storm reports from the Storm Prediction Center from 27-29 April 2014. Return to text.
NWS State College Case Examples
Figure 6 As in Figure 1 except for Stag-IV data over the Mid-Atlantic region form 0000 UTC 30 April through 0000 UTC 1 May 2014. . Return to
text.
NWS State College Case Examples
Figure 7. As in Figure 4 except for 1200 UTC April through 1800 UTC 30 April in 6-hour periods. Return to text.
NWS State College Case Examples
Figure 8. As in Figure 3 except for for 1200 UTC April through 1800 UTC 30 April in 6-hour periods. Return to text.
NWS State College Case Examples
Figure 9. Stage-IV point data from a point near Pensacola, FL . from 0000 UTC 28 to 1800 UTC 30 April 2014. values in mm.
Return to text.
NWS State College Case Examples
Figure 10. SREF accumulated precipitation from a point near Pensacola, FL from the 0900 UTC SREF and the 1500 UTC SREF.
Return to text.
NWS State College Case Examples
Figure 11. GFS QPF (mm), SREF and GEFS probability of 50 mm or more QPF valid for the 24 hour period ending at 1200 UTC 30 April 2014 from a) GFS
initialized at 0000 UTC 27 April, b) SREF initialized at 0300 UTC 27 April, c) GEFS initialized at 0000 UTC 27 April, d) GFS initialized at 0000 UTC 28 April, e)
SREF initialized at 0300 UTC 28 April, f) GEFS initialized at 0000 UTC 28 April Return to text.
NWS State College Case Examples
Figure 12. As in Figure 11 except for forecast on 0600 UTC 27 and 28 April and the SREF offset to 0900 on both days. Return to text.
NWS State College Case Examples
Figure 13. As in Figure 9 except for Baltimore and Philadelphia total estimated Stage-IV QPE. Return to text..
NWS State College Case Examples
Figure 14. As in Figure 10 except for point near Philadelphia, PA. Return to text.
NWS State College Case Examples
Figure 15. As in Figure 14 except for Baltimore, MD. Return to text.
NWS State College Case Examples
Figure 16. As in Figure 12 except GFS and GEFS initialized at 0000 UTC 28 and 0000 UTC 29 April and SREF initialized at 0300 and 0300 29 APirl
2014. Return to text.
NWS State College Case Examples
Figure 17. NECP GEFS forecast of 50 mm or more QPF for the 24 period ending at 0000 UTC May 2014 for GEFS initialized at a0 1200 UTC 26 April
2014, b) 1200 UTC 27 April, c) 1200 UTC 28 April, d) 00000 UTC 29 April, e) 1200 UTC 29 April, and f) 0000 UTC 30 April 2014. Return to text.
NWS State College Case Examples
Figure 18. As in Figure 19 except for SREFs from a) 0900 UTC 27 and b) 28 April, c) 2100 UTC 28 April, d) 0900 UTC 29 April, e) 1500 UTC 29 April,
and f) 2100 UTC 29 April 2014. Return to text.
NWS State College Case Examples
NWS State College Case Examples
Figure 19. Not used MCS image http://rammb.cira.colostate.edu/ramsdis/online/images/goes-west_goeseast/geir404/geir404_20140429054500.gif