1 / 8

A Comparative Analysis of Severe Weather Warnings in the Continental United States

A Comparative Analysis of Severe Weather Warnings in the Continental United States. Rachel Reeves Jennifer Tate Aaron Treadway Harold Brooks, NSSL Kim Klockow, OU. http://weather.ou.edu/~warnstats / warnstatscapstone@gmail.com. Research / Development Topic.

zena
Download Presentation

A Comparative Analysis of Severe Weather Warnings in the Continental United States

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. A Comparative Analysis of Severe Weather Warnings in the Continental United States Rachel Reeves Jennifer Tate Aaron Treadway Harold Brooks, NSSL Kim Klockow, OU http://weather.ou.edu/~warnstats/ warnstatscapstone@gmail.com

  2. Research / Development Topic • Do different Weather Forecast Offices (WFOs) warn storms differently? • Did the switch from county-based warnings to polygon-based warnings change forecast quality?

  3. Goals • Primary Goals: • Quantify size, shape, length of warning & lead times of warnings • Compute statistics to determine forecast quality • Analyze warning text for various selected storms • End Goal: • Compare the above results for different WFOs

  4. Plan of Attack • Use IEM Cow to collect data on all warnings and local storm reports (LSRs) from 2005-2012 • Analyze collected data and compare by WFO and year • Compare warning text of storms that crossed WFO boundaries

  5. Map of WFOs

  6. Motivation KSGF (Springfield) and KLZK (Little Rock) issue different warning types on the same stormPhoto from 1/29/13 22:33Z Courtesy of David Goines

  7. Importance of Project • Forecasters in adjacent WFOs should have an idea of how WFOs around them warn • Consistency between WFOs is important for the public's understanding of warnings • Discrepancies between WFOs may warrant further research

  8. References • Brooks, H. E., 2004: Tornado-warning performance in the past and future: a perspective from signal detection theory. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 85, 837-843. • Call, D. A., 2009: An assessment of national weather service warning procedures for ice storms. Wea. Forecasting, 24, 104–120. • Hoekstra, S., H. Brooks, J. Brotzge, S. Erickson, K. Klockow, and R. Riley, 2010: A preliminary look at the social perspective of warn-on-forecast: preferred tornado warning lead time and the general public’s perceptions of weather risks. Wea. Climate Soc., 3, 128-140. • Hoium, Debra K., A. J. Riordan, J. Monahan, K. K. Keeter, 1997: Severe Thunderstorm and Tornado Warnings at Raleigh, North Carolina. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 78, 2559–2575. • Roebber, P. J. and L. F. Bosart, 1996: The complex relationship between forecast skill and forecast value: a real-world analysis. Wea. Forecasting, 11, 544–559. • Roebber, P.J., L. F. Bosart, 1996: The Contributions of Education and Experience to Forecast Skill. Wea. Forecasting, 11, 21–40. • Roebber, P. J., L. F. Bosart, G. S. Forbes, 1996: Does Distance from the Forecast Site Affect Skill?. Wea. Forecasting, 11, 582–589. • Roebber, P. J., 2009: Visualizing multiple measures of forecast quality. Wea. Forecasting, 24, 601–608.

More Related