I. In attendance…
Matt Parker, Keith Sherburn, Jason Davis (NCSU), Pat Moore, Justin Lane (GSP), Hunter Coleman, Mike Cammarata, Shawn Smith (CAE), Steve Nelson (FFC), Andy Kula, Stephen Latimer (HUN), Jonathan Blaes (RAH), Steve Zubrick (LWX)
II. Status of SPC Mesoanalysis
Matt Parker has obtained some of the SPC mesoanalysis data in Gempak format and has successfully converted one day’s worth of data to Google Earth. Matt showed an image from the SPC Mesoanalysis data that he coverted about an hour before the call. The image should only be considered a “rough cut” as we still need to explore the capabilities and features of Google Earth. On the positive side, the images are scalable and zoomable. Each image will be about 30k in size. The conversion to kml will probably prove to be cleaner than grib format as the parameters we want to use do not exist in the standard grib format, which will require some “bogusing” of the data. There was some discussion about the characteristics of the image. WFO Huntsville suggested the image domain would have to be extended 1 or 2 degrees of longitude farther west to encompass more of their area of concern, while WFO Sterling would like the domain expanded one degree of latitude farther north. We might also want to use progressive colors for the contours. The background satellite-surface image was cause for concern, but it appears that a black background can be substituted. The SPC mesoanalysis data files have about 300 parameters which is too many to share. We will want to choose 50 or 60 of the parameters to process. At some point Matt will make available a list for us to choose from. Matt and his group will continue to work on the SPC data and have more to show during the next call.
There was also some brief discussion about GR-Earth and ways of bringing radar data together with the SPC mesoanalysis. Hunter volunteered to investigate ways of converting between Google Earth and GR2Analyst.
III. Status of Case Studies
The remainder of the call dealt with issues related to case studies. It seems preferable to have some uniformity between the case studies done by individual offices. Some general ingredients for a case study would include the reason why the event was important (i.e. what happened), the synoptic to mesoscale to storm scale environment, and detailed radar analysis. The mesoscale analysis would include RUC soundings and SPC parameters dealing with CAPE, shear, and helicity. While radar analysis is important, it was acknowledged that it could get too detailed when dealing with an entire event. Matt suggested that it would be best for each office to tackle one case study at a time to make sure that at least one was completed, rather than having several in various stages of completion. There remained some uncertainty about how each office should proceed and it was suggested that one office complete a case study as an example, after which the group can have a better idea about what should be included. Justin and Pat volunteered to take the lead because all three GSP high priority cases have been studied and appear on their local research internet page, so they have a “head start.” The GSP team will attempt to have a case study to share during the October conference call.
IV. Next call will be 22 September.