1 / 23

Nathan Uhlenbrock Steve Ackerman Wayne Feltz R. Sharman 2 , and J. Mecikalski 3

P5.30. The use of satellite water vapor imagery and model output to diagnose and forecast turbulent mountain waves. Nathan Uhlenbrock Steve Ackerman Wayne Feltz R. Sharman 2 , and J. Mecikalski 3 1 Cooperative Institute of Meteorological Satellite Studies (CIMSS)

hazel
Download Presentation

Nathan Uhlenbrock Steve Ackerman Wayne Feltz R. Sharman 2 , and J. Mecikalski 3

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. P5.30 The use of satellite water vapor imagery and model output to diagnose and forecast turbulent mountain waves Nathan UhlenbrockSteve AckermanWayne Feltz R. Sharman2, and J. Mecikalski3 1Cooperative Institute of Meteorological Satellite Studies (CIMSS) University of Wisconsin-Madison 2NCAR 3University of Alabama

  2. Outline of Presentation • Goals • Data used in the study • Mountain Waves in water vapor imagery • Case Studies • Conclusions and Future Work

  3. Goal • Improve the use of satellite observations in nowcasting and short term forecasting of turbulence affecting air traffic. • One approach: Use model output and raobs to identify favorable regions of mountain wave turbulence, then use satellite observations to identify if the turbulence is present. • What do identify?

  4. Data • Satellite • Terra and Aqua MODIS (1 km in infrared) • GOES-12 imagery • GOES ABI (2-km resolution); simulation • Pilot Reports (PIREPS) of turbulence during 2004 over the Continental Unite States • Model output from the RUC and GFS • Surface and upper air analyses and soundings

  5. Data: Some Notes on PIREPS • PIREPS were used as a validation data set in this study to “verify” that lee waves were occurring, but there are some known issues with the data • PIREPS are subjective by nature; • a pilot can only report what he/she feels • The location of a reported turbulence event has errors because the aircraft is moving quickly, and the pilots first responsibility is safety, not data reporting • A region of turbulence will effect a Cesna 172 quite differently than a Boeing 777 due to scale factors • PIREPS can only be issued by planes in the air, so few PIREPS are issued during the late night and early morning

  6. Mountain Waves and Satellite Imagery Cloud patterns indicate presence of mountain waves. This example is visible image over eastern United States.

  7. Mountain waves Mountain Waves and Satellite Imagery Signature of wave activity is also found in cloud free regions in the water vapor channel. Region of study is the front range of the Rocky Mountains in Colorado, USA

  8. Mountain waves Mountain Waves and Satellite Imagery Signature of wave activity is also found in cloud free regions in the water vapor channel. Region of study is the front range of the Rocky Mountains in Colorado, USA

  9. Mountain Waves and Satellite Imagery • MODIS 6.7 micron imagery over CO was analyzed for each day in 2004 for wave signatures. • 89 days exhibited waves over Colorado in 2004 (about 1 out of 4 days in 2004). • The days that exhibited waves were grouped into qualitative categories dividing the waves by: • Amplitude (high/low) • Interference (some/none) • Wavelength (short/long) • Extent Downstream Categorized with turbulence reports from pilots (above 12,000 feet).

  10. Type 5 Prominent wave events with no interference. Sept. 09, 2004

  11. Prominent wave events with no interference Type 5 Example Sept. 09, 2004

  12. Type 6 example Aqua MODIS water vapor image from 1950Z March 06, 2004 (Colorado)

  13. Type 6 example Aqua MODIS water vapor image from 1950Z March 06, 2004 (Colorado)

  14. Image analysis (2004)

  15. Types 3 and 6 Aqua MODIS water vapor image from 1950Z March 06, 2004 (Colorado)

  16. Visible imagery shows waves in cloud free region

  17. Mar. 06 300mb flow Conditions favorable for untrapped mountain wave

  18. What altitude, how deep? Weighting functions given a broad indication of level… 250-550mb Water Vapor (6.7 micron)

  19. What altitude, how deep? 14.2 micron

  20. Wave appear to propagate vertically 6.7 micron 14.2 micron

  21. Waves appeared earlier, but no ‘interference pattern’ 6 March, 2004 0845Z 6 March, 2004 1950Z

  22. Seen in Terra MODIS as well… 6 March, 2004 1810 (6.7 left, 11 right)

  23. Conclusions and Future Work • There were many days with mountain waves that were not reported with moderate/severe turbulent. • The majority of moderate/severe turbulent days (as determined from PIREPS) over Colorado were due to lee waves • Days with waves exhibiting more complex patterns were also the days with the most moderate to severe PIREPS of turbulence. • Now that we know what to look for: • How to best recognize the features, • Are these signatures indications of breaking waves, interference, trapped waves?

More Related