Slide 1

Forecasting the Maintenance of Mesoscale Convective Systems Crossing the Appalachian Mountains Casey Letkewicz CSTAR Workshop October 28, 2010

Slide 2

9 August 2000

Slide 3

Slide 4

20 April 2000

Slide 5

Slide 6

Observational Study 20 crossing and 20 noncrossing cases from Keighton et al. 2007 database Two observed soundings chosen for each case One to represent upstream environment, one to represent downstream environment Soundings modified with surface conditions within 1 hour of MCS passage Downstream environment discriminated between crossing and noncrossing cases

Slide 7

Observational Study Key discriminatory parameters: MUCAPE, combined with MUCIN

Slide 8

Observational Study Key discriminatory parameters: 0-3 and 0-6 km shear; 3-12 km mean wind speed Mountain-perpendicular 0-3 km shear and 3-12 km wind speed Crossing cases on average had weaker shear and mean windwhy?

Slide 9

Conceptual Model Frame and Markowski (2006)

Slide 10

Influence of Mean Wind

Slide 11

Influence of Low-level Shear

Slide 12

Questions Do changes to the wind profile alone result in a crosser or noncrosser? Is the influence of the wind profile greater in smaller CAPE (i.e. noncrossing) environments?

Slide 13

Idealized Modeling CM1 model, version 1.14 x, y = 500 m; z stretched from 150 m at model surface to 500 m aloft Gaussian-bell shaped barrier, 100 km wide and 1 km tall Squall lines allowed to evolve and mature for 3 hours before reaching the barrier

Slide 14

Experimental Design SBCAPE = 1790 J/kg SBCIN = -20 J/kg MUCAPE = 2290 J/kg MUCIN = 0 J/kg

Slide 15

Experimental Design

Slide 16

Control Without terrain With terrain

Slide 17

Control--dry

Slide 18

Mean Wind Experiments Mean wind +5 m/s Mean wind -5 m/s

Slide 19

Shear Experiments

Slide 20

Slide 21

Wind Profile Experiments Conceptual model of Frame and Markowski (2006) upheld The environmental hydraulic jump in the lee also contributed to system redevelopment Changes to the wind profile alone do not discriminate crossing vs. noncrossing systems What about a less favorable thermodynamic environment?

Slide 22

Thermodynamic Experiments MUCAPE = 2290 J/kg MUCIN = 0 J/kg SBCAPE = 825 J/kg SBCIN = -150 J/kg Cool 6K Cool 12K SBCAPE = 0 J/kg SBCIN = 0 J/kg MUCAPE = 1370 J/kg MUCIN = -5 J/kg

Slide 23

Lee Cooling -Increasing the mean wind did not prevent system redevelopment in the lee Still have ample MUCIN and small MUCIN!

Slide 24

Thermodynamic Experiments SBCAPE = 600 J/kg SBCIN = -20 J/kg MUCAPE = 600 J/kg MUCIN = -20 J/kg Drying to Observed RH

Slide 25

Lee Drying

Slide 26

Thermodynamic Experiments Cooling, drying, midlevel warming SBCAPE = 110 J/kg SBCIN = -720 J/kg MUCAPE = 575 J/kg MUCIN = -100 J/kg

Slide 27

Lee Cooling, Drying, Midlevel Warming

Slide 28

Thermodynamic Experiments MUCAPE upheld as most important forecasting parameter, especially when combined with MUCIN Changes to wind profile have greater influence in low CAPE, high CIN environments

Slide 29

Conclusions Greatest influence on MCS maintenance is the downstream thermodynamic environment Especially MUCAPE and MUCIN Wind profile does not play a primary role in determining MCS maintenance over a barrier Wind profile exerts a stronger influence in low CAPE, high CIN environments

Slide 30

Publications Letkewicz and Parker, 2010: Forecasting the maintenance of mesoscale convective systems crossing the Appalachian mountains. Wea. Forecasting, 25, 1179-1195. Modeling study submitted for publication in Monthly Weather Review

Slide 31

Shear Experiments