A Case Study in Weather Forecasting:
Severe Weather in the Gulf of Mexico
This case is told by Mr. David
Etheridge, a senior civilian forecaster at the NASP METOC and a true
"weather lover." He has been
forecasting since 1966, including a tour in Viet Nam and service for the
Strategic Air Command. He also served
for a time as Instructor at the USN Aerography School. He has logged over 54,000 hours at
forecasting or forecasting-related tasks.
Although
this case involves a typical scenario of severe weather developing over the
Gulf of Mexico, the forecaster still needed to reason speculatively about what
might cause intensification or dissipation of a storm system. Reasoning about
how to determine the valid interval for warnings depends on thorough
understanding of client needs and the activities in which clients engage as a
result of issued warnings. Any need to ammend a warning implies a lack of
understanding of the weather situation.
It is important to have a thorough knowledge of typical scenarios, but
also to have had enough lived experience so as to have had the chance to learn
from errors during the typical scenarios.
Event
and Comments
|
Event
Type
|
Time
|
Before arrival at METOC I was skywatching.
I saw cirrus to the southwest--anvil cirrus blowing off
the tops.
You can see this even though the main clouds might be 100
- 200 miles away. It was not a blue
or gold sunset.
A novice may or may not
skywatch.
He may not have thought about
the situation before coming into it.
Novices know they have others
who will tip them off.
In this case, though, that would imply a delay before we
would catch it.
|
Observation or situation
assessment
|
March
1999
|
There were clear skies and high pressure over the region.
There were two Lows between
here and Corpus Christi, TX.
It
was like a stalled front.
The
Lows were waves on a stationary front.
They
were out over the Gulf.
One
was SSW of New Orleans, the other was NNE of Corpus Christi, also over the
Gulf.
The
Lows were losing 1 millibar per hour.
This was a textbook
scenario--a stalled front with waves and energy approaching it.
|
Observation or situation
assessment
|
5:00 PM
Start
of
Mid-
watch
|
This
implied deepening.
There
were no alternative interpretations.
This was open and shut.
All of the indicators were
there--cirrus, lightning.
As soon as I saw the bouy data,
that was it.
From the shift before we had a
good analysis going.
The turnover briefing was short
and to the point.
In the old days you'd do an analysis at the start of your shift and
then look upstream at what will happen.
Now, we have so many
monitors--all of the centers give us guidance or the big picture.
At watch change one shift does
not have to say much to the new shift.
An experienced guy will now
within 30 minutes what's going on.
But good pass-downs are useful.
The guy I was relieving was
new.
He just gave the standard
pass-down: Nothing was going on, a stalled front.
He
had no idea of the potential.
At
this point, I could have verified the strengthening and approach toward the
Charlie Areas of Responsibility and started informing the customers.
|
Decision
|
|
At sunset I saw cirrus to the
southwest, with lightning.
I could see anvil cirrus
blowing off the tops.
I knew I had to cover Charlie 1
and alert to possible gale-force winds.
To a relief Officer at this
point, I'd say that there were not enough data yet.
We had to query the bouys.
|
Observation or situation assessment
|
|
The following two Figures show the visible GOES images.
This implied that something in
the atmosphere was turning over.
Southwest is the magic
direction.
There must be some creature out
there generating it.
Something strong was out in the
"Charlie 1" area.
A novice would have known what
to do if he remembered the scenario they are taught in the School.
No errors were likely at this
point.
Something just had to be popping
up the moisture and causing lifting and clouds.
|
Decision
|
|
I started analyzing the bouy
data.
Winds were associated with the Lows.
I could see the pressure falling and knew I could put out
a warning for strong winds.
LPATS showed a ring of lightning around the Low.
This was unusually symmetrical, but showed that the Low
was well-organized.
From a hand plot of bouy data I could plot the front, the
Lows (position, movement, rate of movement).
I did about one plot per hour, about 6 or 8 in all.
Enough to know that the warning had to go out and then 2
or 3 more plots to show that it really was out there.
After that I just checked the
bouy data and added notes onto the plots I had done.
The analysis process is cut-and-dried.
You can see the trends in the pressure and wave heights.
If no bouy data were available, then this would be a tough
call.
I'd look at LPATS and NEXRAD for the Doppler effect.
GOES for the cirrus.
But you can't get surface winds from NEXRAD because of
earth's curvature below the horizon.
But you could read the winds a few thousand feet above the
surface.
You might be able to get some ship reports--scan for them.
Also, oil rigs put out data.
You'd have to look for
alternative sources of the surface data.
|
Action
|
6:00
PM
|
The following Figure illustrates the raw bouy data as
received at the METOC, and the Figure after that is the original chart that Mr.
Etheridge prepared.
I knew what the situation was.
There were no alternative interpretations.
My goal was to get ready to begin alerting our customers.
This was a textbook case.
A stalled front off the Texas
coast.
You look out to the southwest
and if you see any approaching trough, vorticity, or a vorticity maximum, any
Low or wave on the front will develop one or two storm systems.
It is taught in the School and
is discussed in the Local Handbook.
But you still need to
experience it first-hand a few times.
Experience makes all the
difference.
If you get burned once, then
you learn.
Trainees are given training
with sets of cases so they get exposed to it.
|
Decision
|
|
The following Figure shows the numerical model output
indicating two regions of vorticity in the Gulf, indicated by "Xs" in
enclosed dashed-line ellipses, one near the coast of Texas and the other south of New Orleans.
Pressures continued to drop in
the Lows.
The forecast out of Norfolk had
nothing.
The forecast out of Norfolk fit
the scenario, actually.
They mostly focus on the Atlantic;
they look east.
It was not totally unexpected
that they would not be forecasting what I saw.
The Lows developing along the
front could have blind-sighted Norfolk.
I wanted to alert them.
Norfolk should have put out
guidance about something developing but little fronts in the Gulf are not
their main concern.
If you are the little guy in
the Gulf and a sleeper jumps up and bites you...
And they just might have been
looking at it and working on it.
I needed to see what stage of
the game they were in, so that we could avoid putting out conflicting
warnings.
The pressures might have
started going up again of the system causing the deepening went out of phase
and the trough moved quickly.
Upper-air data covers only 12
hours.
Satellite fixes can be used to
determine trough speeds, and you can look to see if the trough speed is
greater than the speed of the Low at the surface.
If I lost the bouy data and the
pressure started to decrease, I would have contacted other stations and have
them give me the bouy data.
You're never really blinded.
|
Observation or situation assessment
|
|
I decided to call the Duty
Officer at Norfolk.
There were no alternatives.
I went to them for
confirmation since they are responsible for Gulf Warnings.
I asked: "Are you forecasting storms for here
in Pensacola? Do you want to modify
your forecast?"
The Officer replied that he
had just gotten on duty.
|
Action
|
7:00
PM
|
He told me to cover my own
area..
He looked at the data and
agreed with me.
This confirmed my assessment.
And I knew that the customers
would not get conflicting data.
|
Decision
|
|
I put out a non-tropical gale
warning (calling for 34-47 knot winds), for Charlie 1 and Charlie 2, valid
through the following day (18 hours out).
The warning could have been
more specific (e.g., speeds).
It is better to over-warn than
under-warn since you can always stop a warning.
But extending or changing a
warning implies that o do not really know the situation
And when a warning goes out
people go to work doing things like buttoning stuff down.
They may not be there to see a
modification or an extension.
A novice would have done the
same.
The NWS puts out bulletins at
standard times for 12 -24 hour or long-range warnings.
But I had no time to look at
those.
For fast-firing systems like
this one (12 hours or less), the NWS bulletins do not help.
|
Action
|
8:00
PM
|
The following figure shows the Warning that was issued.
>
The following two visible GOES images show what appeared over the Gulf at 10:41
PM Central time and 2:12 AM Central time.
I called the Operations Officer,
in case there were Navy operations going on.
People might have had special
needs.
Calling the Ops Officer is
checklist stuff you have to do.
|
Action
|
|
The trough moved across the Low
and moved ahead of it and out of phase.
Subsidence caught the Low and
weakened.
But at sea they had lightning
(on LPATS) and gale-force winds (from bouy data).
It was unlikely that things
would have unfolded any differently.
Maintained gale-force winds
require major storm systems.
This is rare.
Storm of March 1993 hit western
Florida with 112 mph winds.
that situation was similar to
this one--everything lines up perfectly.
But major storms out of this
scenario are rare.
These were minor storms.
|
Observation or situation assessment
|
Mid-
night
|
I kept monitoring the
data--radar, LPATS, but the main data were from the bouys since they told
winds and sea heights.
At this point, I was asking
myself:
Were the Lows intensifying and
moving eastward?
Intensification would imply a
need to upgrade the warning.
Would people need to do
preparations at the Base?
|
Observation or situation
assessment
|
|
The Lows carried on for a
while out at sea.
Based on the bouy data, I
could see that the winds were flattening out and would dissipate.
The seas flattened.
The energy causing it had gone
away.
Re-intensification was not
possible.
There was only one energy
source--the one trough.
|
Observation or situation
assessment
|
|
Through the night.
Once the trough moves out of
phase with the Lows, the pressure rose, the thunderstorms dissipated (seen in
GOES), the sea heights dropped (seen in the bouy data).
Dissipation also fit the
standard scenario.
My goal at this point had to
do with the warning that had been issued.
The warning was for too long a
valid interval.
Relief would have to change
the warning to free people up.
There was no need for them to
react to the warning.
They could go back to normal
operations.
|
observation or situation
assessment
|
|
I decided that the intensity
was lessening.
Error was unlikely at this
point.
A novice might have made an
error if they did not keep looking at the bouy data at this point.
|
Decision
|
|
I explained the situation to the
relief personnel at watch turnover.
They would have to decide
whether or not to let the warning ride or cut it short.
I knew the warning would have to
be cut short.
Under a gale warning, the
watch change briefing would never be minimal.
The Operations Officer gives
it a high level of attention since it has implications for the day's training
activities.
If there were a need to extend
the warning they would have to decide that at the beginning of the watch,
during the turn-over.
If the warning remained in
effect that would imply limits to what could be done in the Charlie areas.
|
Action
|
5:00
AM
Watch
change
|
They cancelled the warning.
|
Action
|
8:00
AM
|
Analysis
|
Non-tropical weather can kick
off quickly from the warm water.
You need to look at where the
stationary fronts are with weak Lows rippling along them and where upper-air
troughs come across them.
The upper-air troughs move into
phase with surface systems and for about 6 hours they intensify the Lows and
make them pump up in their lower levels.
the trough causes difluence
aloft and the air gets sucked up through the Lows.
This kicks off storms around the
Lows.
Nor' Easters start the same
way--a weak Low influenced by the upper-air.
Then the troughs overrun the
Lows and fill them in.
|
Decision Requirements
Cues and
Variables
|
·
Skywatching provides critical information before a watch period, as
well as during it.
|
Needed
information
|
·
A thorough knowledge of standard scenarios needs reinforcement by
lived experience.
·
Causes of lifting.
·
Sometimes there is no effective substitute for surface data to inform
about Low pressure systems, but helpful information can be gotten from LPATS
(i.e., storm organization and intensification) and NEXRAD (mid- to
upper-level winds).
·
Understanding and forecasting of Gulf weather is critically reliant
on data from bouys.
|
Hypotheticals
|
·
Rules of thumb for hypothetical reasoning in standard scenarios can
often be stated succinctly (e.g., stationary front over the Gulf with weak
lows can be energized by upper-level troughs overrunning them from the
south-west). "You look out to
the southwest and if you see any approaching trough, vorticity, or a
vorticity maximum, any Low or wave on the front will develop one or two storm
systems."
·
Forecasters need to be able to reason speculatively about what might
cause intensification or dissipation of developing storm systems.
|
Options
|
·
Mutual reliance among forecasters at various stations, to coordinate
warnings and share information.
|
Goals
|
·
Reasoning about determining the valid interval for warnings depends
on thorough understanding of client needs and the activities in which clients
engage as a result of issued warnings.
·
Coordination of warnings among responsible forecasting offices.
|
Rationale
|
·
Reasoning about determining the valid interval for warnings depends
on thorough understanding of client needs and the activities in which clients
engage as a result of issued warnings.
·
It is better to extend a warning out for a longer rather than a
shorter valid interval. Any need to
ammend a warning implies a lack of understanding of the weather
situation. Warnings can always be cut
short at the watch change.
|
Situation
Assessment
|
·
What might cause intensification or dissipation in a developing storm
system?
·
It is important to have a thorough knowledge of typical scenarios,
but also to have had enough lived experience so as to have had the chance to
learn from errors during the typical scenarios.
|
Time/effort
|
·
In severe weather situations, hand chart-work and hand charting
skills can be of critical importance to both understanding and forecasting.
·
Monitoring of data for long periods (many hours) is sometimes
necessary.
|
|