2017
DOI: 10.1175/mwr-d-16-0296.1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Impact of Low-Level Moisture Errors on Model Forecasts of an MCS Observed during PECAN

Abstract: This article investigates errors in forecasts of the environment near an elevated mesoscale convective system (MCS) in Iowa on 24-25 June 2015 during the Plains Elevated Convection at Night (PECAN) field campaign. The eastern flank of this MCS produced an outflow boundary (OFB) and moved southeastward along this OFB as a squall line. The western flank of the MCS remained quasi stationary approximately 100 km north of the system's OFB and produced localized flooding. A total of 16 radiosondes were launched near… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

9
35
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(51 citation statements)
references
References 58 publications
9
35
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Thompson et al [23] also provided two different soundings associated with elevated supercells that had no DCIN (their Figure 6), or where DCIN was zero or nearly so, depending upon the level from which descending parcels were initiated (their Figure 3). Similar DCIN values of zero or nearly so are found [25] in the dropsonde data (their Figure 7) and radiosonde data (their Figure 4), the [15] pre-warm-frontal radiosonde data (their Figure 3a), and the [21] radiosonde data (their Figure 4). In fairness, each of the soundings in the aforementioned papers possessed weak and/or shallow near-surface inversions, and those with a surface boundary were in relatively close proximity to that boundary.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 73%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Thompson et al [23] also provided two different soundings associated with elevated supercells that had no DCIN (their Figure 6), or where DCIN was zero or nearly so, depending upon the level from which descending parcels were initiated (their Figure 3). Similar DCIN values of zero or nearly so are found [25] in the dropsonde data (their Figure 7) and radiosonde data (their Figure 4), the [15] pre-warm-frontal radiosonde data (their Figure 3a), and the [21] radiosonde data (their Figure 4). In fairness, each of the soundings in the aforementioned papers possessed weak and/or shallow near-surface inversions, and those with a surface boundary were in relatively close proximity to that boundary.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 73%
“…The RAP was introduced as the necessity increased for situational awareness in short-term forecasts for rapidly changing weather conditions [20]. For this study, initial fields were preferred to minimize the kinds of errors in convective timing, placement, and intensity often associated with model forecasts of convection (e.g., [21]).…”
Section: Model Initial Fieldsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The increased near‐surface moisture content in response to the warmer SSTs lowers the LCL and LFC (Figures h and k), leading to a decrease in the vertical distance required for surface air parcels to reach the LFC. This is favorable for triggering deep convection systems more effectively on the upwind side (Peters et al, ). The updraft axes exhibit a downwind tilt in the cooler SST simulations (Figure n) but less so in the warmer SST simulations (Figure q).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The deviation of the model‐simulated θ e profiles from observation is consistent with the underprediction of CAPE values by the model, since the CAPE corresponds to the area where the parcel temperature is warmer than the environmental temperature from LFC to equilibrium level (EL). Generally, the numerical weather prediction (NWP) models have limitations at simulating middle‐ and upper level humidity (Yang et al ., ), and the results from the analyses are consistent with previous studies (Peters et al ., ). Since the above discussed results were the average of all the events or those during a particular season, and the simulated CAPE was found to be considerably underestimated by model, the simulated CAPE for individual cases was also compared with the observations.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%