Climatology and Predictability of Cool-Season High Wind Events in the New York City Metropolitan
and Surrounding Area
Michael LayerSchool of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences
Stony Brook UniversityStony Brook, NY
Outline
• Motivation • Data & Methods• Climatology Results• Model Verification Results• Conclusions
Motivation
2007-2013
Counts StatisticsWarnings Events Scores
Total Verif NOTVerif Total Warned NOT
Warned POD FAR
OKX 422 123 299 191 150 41 0.785 0.709
• Poor verification statistics for High Wind Warning events
Source: NWS Performance Management [available online at https://verification.nws.noaa.gov/]
Motivational Questions• What synoptic regimes and meteorological
conditions are common to non-convective cool-season high wind events?– Height and MSLP pattern evolution– Low level winds and stability
• What atmospheric mechanisms might be responsible for the generation of high surface winds?
• How well does an ensemble forecast system improve the prediction of NCWEs as compared with deterministic forecasts?
Data & Methods
Observational data• RUC 13 km analyses
– 1-hr temporal resolution– Available 2008-2013
• NARR 32 km analyses– 3-hr temporal resolution– Available 1979-2013
• ACARS profiles– Variable temporal resolution– Available 2005-2013
• ASOS METARs– 5-minute temporal
resolution– Available 2000-2013 for 6
primary climate sites
Data & Methods• Climatology study period: 2000-2001 through 2012-2013
“cool seasons” (15 September – 15 May)• Model verification study period: 2009-2010 through 2011-
2012 seasons• Use 5-Minute ASOS observations to find observed High Wind
Warning criteria (Sustained wind 35 kts or higher and/or wind gust 50 kts or higher)– Observations >=9 hours apart are separate events– Exception: Regime change (frontal passage)
• Exclude convective events • Bin events into 3 common types
– Pre-cold frontal– Post-cold frontal– Nor’easter/coastal storm
Event Type Classification• Pre-cold frontal (PRF)– 14 observed events – 1 false alarm
• Post-cold frontal (POF)– 32 observed events – 4 false alarms
• Nor’easter/Coastal storm (NEC)– 14 observed events– 7 false alarms
Observed PRF events
Observed PRF events
Observed POF events
Observed post-cold frontal events
Observed NEC events
Observed NEC events
Large-Scale Synoptic Summary• Pre-cold frontal (14 observed events)
– Trough deepening and going negatively tilted over the Great Lakes, ridging over the W. Atlantic/SE Canada
– Simultaneous strengthening of negative and positive height & MSLP anomalies, oriented in a WSW-ENE direction
• Post-cold frontal (32 observed events)– Trough deepening and going negatively tilted over the NE U.S./SE
Canada– Rapidly strengthening negative height & MSLP anomalies
• Nor’easter/Coastal (14 observed events)– Trough deepening and going negatively tilted over the Great Lakes,
ridging over the W. Atlantic– Simultaneous strengthening of negative and positive height &
MSLP anomalies, oriented in a SW-NE direction
Diurnal Climatology of High Winds
Influence of Height Gradient
PRF Vertical Profiles
NEC Vertical Profiles
POF Vertical Profiles
Larger-Scale vs. Smaller-Scale Factors• Diurnal factor insignificant except for POF events• Correlation between maximum height gradient & maximum
wind/gust is positive but not significantly positive• LLJ strength/height cannot solely differentiate between an
observed event vs. a false alarm• PRF profiles
– Stable low-levels– Strong LLJ signature
• POF profiles– Weak low-level stability– Weak LLJ signature
• NEC profiles– Moderate low-level stability– Strong LLJ signature
SREF Ensemble Verification
• Verification of the previous version of SREF (October 2009 – August 2012)
• 32 km horizontal resolution, 21 members, 4 different model cores
• Two daily model runs (09Z and 21Z)• Verified against RUC analyses and ACARS profiles• Four forecast lead time periods
– 1st period: 1-6 hour – 2nd period: 9-24 hrs– 3rd period: 27-48 hrs– 4th period: 51-72 hrs
2nd Period Verification
2nd Period Verification
2nd Period Verification
2nd Period Verification
Verification Summary
• The SREF as a whole has a high bias in low-level (875-1000 hPa) wind forecasts
• The WRF-ARW core has the largest error in over-predicting the LLJ
• SREF ensemble provides a significant improvement in skill over the deterministic (control) members
Conclusions• Highest FAR with NEC events• Lowest POD with POF events• Large-scale synoptic evolutions can be used as
pattern recognition/analog tools• Height/pressure gradient and LLJ height & strength
cannot solely determine an event vs. a non-event• Analyze wind profile & low-level stability plus other
factors (if applicable)• SREF over-predicts LLJ, but still provides improved
forecast skill over any of the 5 control members