I. In attendance…
Matt Parker, Keith Sherburn, Jason Davis (NCSU), Pat Moore (GSP), Mike Cammarata (CAE), Steve Nelson (FFC), Stephen Latimer (HUN), Frank Alsheimer (CHS), Jonathan Blaes and Mike Strickler (RAH), Steve Keighton (RNK), Steve Zubrick and Steve Listemaa (LWX), Andrew Zimmerman (AKQ).
II. Status of SPC Mesoanalysis
The beta version of the SPC Mesoanalysis remapped to Google Earth has been released for comment. Investigators should be aware that only CAPE fields are shaded at this time so as to reduce conflicts between color tables when more than one field is displayed at the same time. Some comments thus far…
1. Might want to have a white background in addition to the black background
2. Might want other map backgrounds, such as one with better terrain or a gray-scale shaded relief map.
3. Need to investigate how the county background map is displayed, as it might not appear at a desired zoom factor.
4. The state lines do not always match between the analysis and the map background.
There was some brief discussion about converting .kml files to use in GR2Analyst. For this to happen, the contours in the mesoanlysis field would have to be converted to a series of coordinates that GR2 could understand, at least as I understand it.
Steve and Steve at LWX suggested having the web page spawn a Google Earth when a .kmz file is selected in order to facilitate browsing of the mesoanalysis graphics. Steve Listemaa will contact Matt to provide the code for reconfiguring the server to allow this to happen (which he has already done).
Before the data is ordered from the SPC, we need to decide if there are any parameters not already listed that investigators might want to have included. Collaborative Investigators should look over the MASTER_PARAMETERS_LIST. xls spreadsheet, under the “ParametersPlotted” tab, to view the 57 parameters currently slated for inclusion in the mesoanalysis conversion. Other parameters NOT planned for inclusion can be seen under the other tabs in the spreadsheet.
Collaborative Investigators are asked to reply to Matt, Pat, Justin, and Hunter by the end of the day on 15 October with suggestions for additional parameters to include.
III. Status of Null Event Database
Student volunteers at FFC are still working on the database. Steve N. will talk to Trisha to determine the status of the null database.
This precipitated (pun intentional) an interesting discussion about events when warnings were issued but were not verified. Matt was wondering if there was a way to quickly search a database of warnings to find situations where multiple warnings were issued that did not verify. The thinking was that if the NWS issued a warning, then there was something threatening about that cell at that time, so non-verified warnings could be used as a quick way of building a list of radar scans/cells that raised concern but ultimately did not produce a severe weather report. The Iowa Environmental Mesonet (IEM) page with the “IEM Cow” application was discussed. See http://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/panda/ for more information. However, the warnings listed as unverified by the IEM Cow application may not necessarily be false alarms as the application only matches up warning polygons with local storm reports (LSR). Some of the warnings are likely to be verified well after the fact such that an LSR is not issued. The Storm Data publications at NCDC would have to be checked to determine if a warning was actually unverified. All the usual pitfalls of warning verification were briefly mentioned and acknowledged. However, it might still be an interesting exercise to study a few events with several unverified warnings to find out what the rationale was behind the issuance of the warnings. JB mentioned that RAH keeps track of warning basis to a limited extent and that he could share their database with Matt in order to find a suitable event. JB and Mike mentioned that RAH could share their application with other NWS offices if they were interested.
IV. Status of GSP Demonstration Case Study
Pat and Justin have not made any significant progress toward completing a case study, owing to annual leave and other commitments. The case study will be discussed in the next call.
V. Next call will be 27 October