Applied Meteorology Unit (AMU) Quarterly Report
31 July 2011 Third Quarter FY-11 Contract NNK06MA70C
This Quarter's Highlights
The AMU Team completed one task and continued work on three others:
• Mr. Wheeler completed a study for the 30th Weather Squadron at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California in which he found precursors in weather observations that will help the forecasters deter mine when they will get strong wind gusts at their northern towers. The final report is now on the AMU website at http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/amu/final-reports/30ws-north-base-winds.pdf. • Dr. Watson continued work on the second phase of verifying the performance of the MesoNAM weather model at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS). • Ms. Crawford continued work to improve the AMU peak wind tool by analyzing wind tower data to determine peak wind behavior during times of onshore and offshore flow. • Dr. Bauman continued updating lightning c1imatologies for KSC/CCAFS and other airfields around central Florida and created new c1imatologies for moisture and stability thresholds.
1980 N. Atlantic Ave., Suite 830 Cocoa Beach, FL 32931 'ENSCO (321) 783-9735, (321) 853-8203 (AMU) Quarterly Task Summaries
This section contains summaries ofthe AMU activities for the third quarter of Fiscal Year 2011 (April - June 2011). The accomplishments on each task are described in more detail in the body ofthe report starting on the page number next to the task name.
Peak Wind Tool for User LCC, Phase IV (Page 4)
Purpose: Recalculate the Phase III cool season peak wind statistics using onshore and offshore flow as an added stratification. Peak winds are an important forecast element for launch vehicles, but the 45th Weather Squadron (45 WS) indicates that they are challenging to forecast. The forecasters have noticed a difference in behavior of tower winds between onshore and offshore flow. Recalculating the statistics after stratifying by these flows could make them more ro bust and useful to operations.
Accomplished: The upwind sectors were determined for each tower sensor, and then the upwind data were stratified by onshore/offshore flow before calculating the hourly c1imatologies. Irregularities in the hourly values prompted a closer look at the tower locations and sen sor orientations. New information about the towers led to changes in the upwind sector directions, and new hourly c1imatologies were cal culated for each sensor, month and upwind stratification. The rela tionships between hourly gust factors and a solar parameter showed promise. Due to issues with the code used to calculate the mixed lay er height, the goal of stratifying the data by stability was dropped in order to allow the task to be completed on time.
Situational Lightning Climatologies for Central Florida, Phase V (Page 7)
Purpose: Update the existing lightning climatology to improve op erational weather support to Kennedy Space Center (KSC), Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS), Patrick Air Force Base (PAFB), and commercial and general aviation across central Flori da. The update includes adding more years of data to the data base, adding more sites and adding stratifications for moisture and stability parameters. These updates will provide c1imatologies for new sites for which the 45 WS and National Weather Service (NWS) have forecast responsibility, and to help forecasters distin guish lightning days that are more active from those that are less active within the same flow regime.
Accomplished: Completed lightning c1imatologies for all 34 prima ry and backup sites with the precipitable water stratification and extended period of record. Updated the graphical user interface (GUI) and delivered it to the customers. Selected Thompson Index (TI) as the stability parameter stratification and tested the TI strati fication on one site to assess the impact to the c1imatologies due to the reduced sample size. Quarterly Task Summaries (continued)
Vandenberg Air Force Base North Base Wind Study (Page 10)
Purpose: Analyze local wind tower, surface, upper air and sounding data from Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB) to find precursors to high wind events in the north base towers. The 30 WS states that terrain influences the unpredicted strong northeast winds that have been measured on several of the north base wind towers and exceed their 35 kt warning criteria. This study will examine those influences and document any precursors that may be found that will assist forecasters in an alyzing their wind warning criteria.
Accomplished: The VAFB wind tower data analysis was com pleted. The final report was completed after making modifica tions suggested in the internal MAU and external customer re view and is now available on the AMU website: http:// science.ksc.nasa.gov/amu/final-reports/30ws-north-base winds.pdf.
MesoNAM Verification Phase II (Page 11) Purpose: Update the current tool that provides objective verifi cation statistics of the 12-km North American Mesoscale (NAM) 45th Weather Squadron model (MesoNAM) for CCAFS and KSC. This tool helps the MesoNAM Verification Tool V2.0. July 2010 Launch Weather Officers understand the model's performance Developed by NASA's Applied Meteorology Unit when they use it to evaluate launch commit criteria (LCC) dur
M...IT...(OM....' M_IT Accomplished: Modified the existing Phase I scripts to refor mat and process MesoNAM forecast and wind tower data into Excel worksheets. The modifications were to stratify the tower data by onshore and offshore flow and compute the daily bias. All the data from Phase I were merged with the data from this ... ~ .~ ... ~ ~ - ~ •• UUI~M"~"'"' •• 'lnu •I Ulll~."'.&I"",.""nu task to compute the bias, standard deviation of bias, root mean _ ...... ~~ _Yl*.... "'",.....~ square error and hypothesis zero tests. Also, three more months of data were added to the period of record. AMU ACCOMPLISHMENTS DURING THE PAST QUARTER The progress being made in each task is provided in this section, organized by topic, with the primary AMU point of contact given at the end of the task discussion. SHORT-TERM FORECAST IMPROVEMENT Peak Wind Tool for Shuttle Pads and east (90°). The northwest sensor is mounted on a boom extending 397... 39A (south) User LCC, Phase IV west from and parallel to the north 398":·· r-039B (north) (Ms. Crawford) face and the southeast sensor is 393····~ mounted on a boom extending east The peak winds are an important ~394' Atlas from and parallel to the south face. forecast element for the Expendable 41'::: Launch Vehicle and Space Shuttle If upwind is defined solely as flow programs. As defined in the Launch not through the tower, the sector for Commit Criteria (LCC) and Shuttle the northwest sensor would be 180° .oeltalV Weather Flight Rules, each vehicle through 90° moving clockwise, and has peak wind thresholds that cannot 0° through 270° for the southeast be exceeded in order to ensure safe sensor. However, flow along the launch and landing operations. The edge of the tower can also be turbu 45th Weather Squadron (45 WS) and lent and cause erroneous wind the Spaceflight Meteorology Group speeds and directions. In operations, (SMG) indicate that peak winds are a "Oelta II the upwind sector is 204° through challenging parameter to forecast, 68° for the northwest sensor and 23° • launch Pads particularly in the cool season. To 2••..• through 248° for the southeast sen A Wind Towers alleviate some of the difficulty in sor (Bauman 2010). This provides a ,40\': making this forecast, the AMU calcu buffer of 22°-24° away from the tow lated cool season wind climatologies Figure 1. Map showing the locations of er sides in order to eliminate this and peak speed probabilities for the launch pads and Lee wind towers. source of turbulence. each of the towers used to evaluate Dr. Merceret continued analyzing Tower 2 LCC (Figure 1) in Phase I (Lambert relationships between the onshore The upwind sectors for Tower 2 2002). In Phase III (Crawford 2010), and offshore gust factors and a solar in this analysis are different than the the AMU updated these statistics parameter. After experiencing diffi other towers to the north (Figure 1). with six more years of data, added culty in fitting a model to the data, he The coastline orientation just south new time-period stratifications and suggested calculating the hourly val of Tower 2 was used to determine created a graphical user interface ues using only observations with di upwind for each sensor. For the (GUI) to display the desired values rections upwind to each sensor. northwest sensor, the upwind and similar to that developed for SMG in offshore sector is 226° through 45° Phase II (Lambert 2003). The 45 WS The tower geometry is important (clockwise); for the southeast sensor, launch weather officers (LWOs) and in determining the upwind sectors. the upwind and onshore sector is forecasters have seen marked differ Most of the LCC towers are square 46°-225°. These are both 180° sec- ences in the tower winds between and made with scaffold construction. onshore and offshore flow.Therefore, Air can flow through the scaffolding, the 45 WS tasked the AMU to stratify but will be disturbed as it does. This the data by onshore/offshore flow is reflected in the downwind sensor and recalculate the c1imatologies and observations as higher standard de probabilities. These modifications will viations in speed and direction and likely make the statistics more robust less accurate mean and peak wind and useful to operations. values. Figure 2 is a schematic showing the scaffold tower and sen Upwind Stratification sor configuration. The sides of the As discussed in the previous tower face the cardinal directions of Figure 2. Sensor configuration on AMU Quarterly Report (Q2 FY11), north (0°), west (270°), south (180°) the scaffold towers (not to scale). tors as opposed to the approximate could disturb the flow at any of the ure 3a is a Google Earth image of 225° upwind sector described in the towers. They later looked at Google the lightning protection towers and previous section. The onshore sec Earth images of the towers and de Figure 3b shows the individual tower tors for the northwest sensor would termined that the distance to the shape and orientation, and the loca have been 46°-68° and 204°-225°, coastline for onshore flow was, on tion of the sensors on the towers. 22° and 21 ° sectors, respectively, for average, farther for the southeast Based on data provided by the a total of 43° of onshore flow. This is sensors than the northwest sensors. 45 WS, Ms. Crawford assumed the too small to derive meaningful on Ms. Crawford varied the coastline towers were equilateral triangles and shore statistics for the northwest orientation in the code, but the differ that one side of each sensor tower sensor. A similar argument can be ence in values remained. Dr. Mercer was parallel to the pad orientation. made for offshore flow at the south et theorized that the roughness She also assumed that the sensor east sensor. length difference between the sen booms extended out from the point sors due to the difference in distance Tower 108 of the triangles and not parallel to to the coast is the likely cause. one side. Using these assumptions, Tower 108 is a scaffold tower, SLC 41 Towers and Sensors the sensor on the northwest tower is but only has sensors on the south on the triangle point directed at 280° east side. Therefore, all statistics for When visiting the tower sites, and the sensor on the southeast tow this tower will be from the upwind they also discovered potential issues er is on the point directed at 220° sector for the southeast sensor, with the sensors at SLC 41 due to (Figure 3b). The upwind directions 23°-248°, divided into onshore and tower construction and orientation, for the northwest sensor, including offshore flow. There will be no statis and sensor placement. The wind along the sides of the tower, would tics calculated for winds from the sensors at SLC 41 are mounted at be 130° through 70° (clockwise), and sector 249°-22°. 230 ft on two of the four lightning for the southeast sensor 70° through protection towers surrounding the Towers 39X 10° (clockwise). launch pad. The towers are triangu The wind sensors at Space lar and of lattice construction, and Downwind Sector Launch Complex (SLC) 39A and B would experience the same issues of If a buffer similar to that for the are mounted at the top of masts, or disturbed flow through the towers as scaffold towers is introduced, there solid poles, not on scaffold towers as with scaffold construction. The would be a sector to the northeast illustrated in Figure 2. Therefore, the launch complex is orientated 10°• that would not be upwind from either upwind sector is all directions 0°• 190°, just 10° east and west of north sensor. For a 20° buffer along each 360°. These data were stratified only and south, respectively. The four edge, the upwind sector would be by onshore and offshore flow as de towers surround the pad with two on 150° through 50° for the northwest fined in the previous AMU Quarterly the north side and two on the south sensor and 90° through 350° for the Report (Q2 FY11). side. The wind sensors are on the southeast sensor. This leaves a 40° northwest and southeast towers. Fig- Tower Data Issues Ms. Crawford stratified the upwind sectors by hour and onshore/offshore flow sectors defined in the previ ous AMU Quarterly Report (Q2 FY11), and then calcu lated the hourly means and gust factors. Dr. Merceret was able to attain a better fit with linear models using the new values, but found differences between the opposing sensors at some of the towers for onshore flow. He and Ms. Crawford visited the sites and took photos of the towers and the surrounding vegetation and buildings to try and de termine the cause of the b differences. They did not discover anything that sector from 50°-90° that would be 108 and 110, and SLCs 39A1B and downwind from both sensors and, 41 is oriented approximately 315° to therefore, not included in the analy 135°. sis. The winds from this sector have Stability Determination had the lowest peak wind thresholds for some of the launches, making it Mr. Kienzle of ENSCO's GeoSys an important sector from which to tern Solutions Division calculated the have reliable wind observations. Ms. mixed layer (ML; Stull 1988) height Crawford will use the upwind sectors using algorithms developed for without a buffer so that all directions transport and diffusion models. Ms. can be included in the analysis. This Crawford intended to use the ML may introduce error into the statis height as the proxy for the height of tics. the boundary layer in determining the local scale stability over Kennedy Boom Length Space Center (KSC) and Cape Ca Another issue noted by Dr. Mer naveral Air Force Station (CCAFS). ceret is the length of the boom in re He delivered the ML data in April and lation to the width of the tower. The Ms. Crawford began working with Figure 4. The SLC 41 southeast boom on the southeast tower is them in May. She found a difference lightning protection tower and wind shown in Figure 4 extending to the sensor, looking west-northwest. The between the way the Richardson left of the tower. It appears shorter top ofthe southwest lightning tower is number was calculated for the ML than the width of the tower. A boom in the background. data and the formula she used previ that is too short would require the ously. Mr. Kienzle determined that buffer angle from the tower sides be The boom length issue should be the version of the Richardson num larger. Head winds could also cause investigated to determine an optimal ber he used assumed a wind speed a problem due to turbulent back length. Depending on length, the of 0 at the surface. He modified the eddies from wind buffeting the tower. boom may also have to be supported code with a new version of the Rich A boom of proper length would put to minimize wobble. At the very least, ardson number that uses the wind the sensor beyond such a turbulent the effects of the current exposure speed at the first layer of the sound zone. The World Meteorological Or should be determined so LWOs can ing and began testing the algorithm. ganization (WMO) states that a understand the impacts on the ob He had not completed testing by the boom length should be at least three servations they are times the width of the tower (WMO using to evaluate Table 1. The LCC wind towers, upwind sector for 2008) to alleviate exposure to turbu the LCC. each side, and the onshore and offshore sectors lence from the tower. The WMO is Upwind, Onshore/ within the upwind sector. All direction ranges are not explicit about the type of tower, Offshore clockwise. whether solid or lattice, and it could be that the effective width of the SLC Sectors Tower and Upwind Upwind Upwind 41 towers is smaller than the actual Using the tower 1-_.S.i.de__..._S.e.ct.o.r.._O.n.sh.o.".e.._O.ffi.S.ho./i.elllllll width. This should be determined so and sensor loca 0020 NW 226°-45° 226°-45° the effects on the resulting wind ob tion information 0021 SE 46°-225° 46°-225° servations can be evaluated. discussed above, Ms. Crawford de 0061 NW 204°-68° 316°-68° 204°-315° Solutions termined the on 0062 SE 23°-248° 23°-135° 136°-248° The simplest and lowest cost so shore and offshore 316°-70° lution to solving the downwind sector flow sectors within SLC 41 NW 130°-70° 136°-315° 130°-135° issue is to move the sensor on the the upwind sectors 316°-10° southeast tower to the eastern-most for each sensor, SLC 41 SE 70°_10° 136°-315° point on that tower. This would en shown in Table 1. 70°-135° sure that winds from the east The line dividing 108 SE 23°-248° 23°-135° 136°-248° northeast would be upwind of this the onshore and 1101 NW 204°-68° 316°-68° 204°-315° sensor. The same can be accom offshore sectors for plished by moving the sensor on the Tower 2 is oriented 1102 SE 23°-248° 23°-135° 136°-248° northwest tower to the northern-most 45° to 225° parallel 0393 NW 0°-360° 316°-135° 136°-315° point. Either solution would work, but to the coastline 0394 SE 0°-360° 316°-135° 136°-315° only one should be chosen so that closest to it (Figure winds from the east-northeast will be 1). The coastline 0397 NW 0°-360° 316°-135° 136°-315° upwind for one of the sensors. nearest Towers 6, 0398 SE 0°-360° 316°-135° 136°-315° end of June, and Ms. Crawford de the probabilities calculated by his tion, the GUI will be redesigned for termined that it would be difficult to models to the Gumbel distribution the climatologies and probabilities. complete the task on time if she wait used in the previous phase Ms. Crawford began modifying the ed for these data to complete this (Crawford 2010) and requested by GUI to access the new stratifications milestone. She met with Mr. Roeder the 45 WS to be used in the current for the climatology portion. of the 45 WS to discuss the issues, task. Ms. Crawford sent the Gumbel She also modified and ran the and he directed the AMU to move parameters and the stratified data scripts to calculate the Gumbel distri forward with the onshore/offshore used to create them to Dr. Merceret butions for the onshore/offshore stratifications using only the upwind so he could begin a performance stratifications to facilitate Dr. Mercer sectors for each sensor. comparison of the two methods. et's investigation. At the meeting Ms. Crawford sent the data strati Statistics mentioned above, Mr. Roeder di fied as described above to Dr. Mer rected the AMU to deliver the Gum Ms. Crawford completed calculat ceret for his continued development bel distributions in the final product ing the hourly climatologies of the 5 of a model relating the gust factors and to not wait for the comparison minute mean and peak speeds for (GFs) to a solar parameter - a possi between the Gumbel distributions each month and sensor using the ble proxy for stratifying by stability. and the solar parameter models be upwind data stratified by onshore He was able to create good fits of ing created by Dr. Merceret. and offshore flow. These data are linear models to the GFs and GF ready for input to the graphical user Contact Ms. Crawford at standard deviations with the values interface (GUI). Because of the new [email protected] or created from the upwind stratifica upwind onshore/offshore stratifica- 321-853-8130 for more information tions. The next step was to compare Situational Lightning months of May through September NWS MLB region. Within the NWS (1989-2007). The climatologies in MLB region, the 45 WS and SMG Climatologies for Cen cluded the probability of lightning at share forecasting responsibility for tral Florida, Phase V 5-, 10-, 20- and 30-NM distances KTTS (SLF) and the 45 WS has fore- from the center point of the runway (Dr. Bauman) at each site. The c1imatologies were The threat of lightning is a daily stratified by flow regimes with proba concern during the warm season in bilities depicted at 1-, 3-, and 6-hour Florida. Research has revealed dis intervals. This phase updates the tinct spatial and temporal distribu previous work by adding 14 sites to tions of lightning occurrence that are the 9-site database including the strongly influenced by large-scale CCAFS Skid Strip, PAFB and 12 atmospheric flow regimes. The 45 commercial airports. It also adds WS, SMG and National Weather three years of NLDN data resulting in Service in Melbourne, Fla. (NWS a 22-year period of record (POR) for MLB) have the responsibility of issu the warm season months from 1989 ing weather forecasts for airfields 2010. In addition to the flow regime located in central Florida. SMG and stratification, moisture and stability 45 WS share forecasting responsibil stratifications will be added to sepa ity for the SLF depending on the mis rate more active from less active sion. The 45 WS has forecasting re lighting days within the same flow sponsibility for the CCAFS Skid Strip regime. and Patrick Air Force Base (PAFB) PWA TStratification while the NWS MLB is responsible for issuing terminal aerodrome fore Dr. Bauman created the lightning casts (TAF) for airports throughout c1imatologies with the precipitable central Florida. In the previous phase water (PWAT) stratification for the 34 (Bauman 2009), Dr. Bauman calcu sites requested by the AMU custom ers. Figure 5 shows the 34 sites and Figure 5. Map ofFlorida showing the lated lightning climatologies for the locations of the sites within each of the Shuttle Landing Facility (SLF) and their locations within each NWS weather forecast office (WFO) area four NWS WFO regions included in this eight other airfields in central Florida lightning climatology. From north to of responsibility. There are six sites based on a 19-year record of c1oud south, NWS Jacksonville (cyan), NWS to-ground (CG) lightning data from in the NWS Jacksonville region, six Tampa (green), NWS MLB (yellow) the National Lightning Detection Net sites within the NWS Tampa region, and MWS Miami (magenta). The 45 work (NLDN) for the warm season seven sites within the NWS Miami WS and SMG sites located within the region and thirteen sites within the NWS MLB region are shown in red. casting responsibility for KXMR 1950-2009 XMRlCOF Surface-300 mb Precipitable Water (CCAFS) and KCOF (PAFB). 3.00 ,------..., Four sounding locations (Figure 2.75 6) were used to determine PWAT 2.50 values for each day in the paR. Dr. Bauman assigned each site to one of '":' 2.25 the four soundings based on proximi ':'= 2.00 p~==~;.e.:.;.;.:,:,;.~~~~.:..:..:.....::.:..:..:..:.:..:..:;;~~~~~.:..:.:..:..::.:..:..:..:.~;..;~:..:.:.j ty of the site to the sounding location ~ ~ 1.75 F;;;;;;;;e;;;;~~=~==7_:_;;~==_:::_:=~~~~==~ ~ ::c 1.50 !l ]- 1.25 t-:--:.--:;;--:;--~---~-.?~~~2~C~=:_=~=:_=~5~~~::jSi 0': 1.00 0.75 0.50 t-=---~--=---~--~-======~ 0.25 0.00 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Figure 7. Climatological XMR Precipitable Water plot from the Rapid City, S.D. NWS WFO. The 25th percentile is shown by the brown curve and the 75th percentile by the cyan curve. UpdatedGUI sounding source, month, PWAT range, time interval, flow regime and Dr. Bauman updated the GUI paR for the data displayed on the with the PWAT stratification lightning page. On the left side of the data bar probability values and delivered it to is a Microsoft Excel icon that links the customers prior to the start of the the user to the spreadsheets contain 2011 warm season. The updated ing the all of the data used to create GUI (Figure 8, next page) uses a the page being viewed. Each page of Figure 6. Map ofFlorida showing the drop-down menu for navigation locations of the soundings used to the GUI with data shows tables of among the various stratifications. Di determine the PWAT threshold values. the climatological probabilities of The WFO region outline colors are the rectly below the navigation menu, lightning occurrence and a corre same as in Figure 5. there is a data bar showing the site, sponding chart. The PWAT stratifications for each sounding location were derived Table 2. PWAT threshold values for each warm season month from each of from the climatological surface to the four sounding locations. Colors for the low, average and high thresholds 300 mb precipitable water plots correspond to the percentiles in Figure 7. (http://www.crh.noaa.gov/unr/? XMR JAX n=pw) created by Mr. Matthew Bun Month Low Average High Month Low Average High kers, the Science and Operations May < 1.00" 1.00" to 1.50" > 1.50" May < 0.90" 0.90" to 1.40" > 1.40" Officer at the Rapid City, S.D. NWS Jun < 1.45" 1.45" to 1.90" > 1.90" Jun < 1.30" 1.30" to 1.80" > 1.80" WFO. Based on discussions with NWS MLB, values below the 25th Jul < 1.60" 1.60" to 1.95" > 1.95" Jul < 1.60" 1.60" to 1.95" > 1.95" percentile were considered low, val Aug < 1.65" 1.65" to 2.05" > 2.05" Aug < 1.60" 1.60" to 2.00" >2.00" ues above the 75th percentile were Sep < 1.55" 1.55" to 2.00" > 2.00" Sep < 1.35" 1.35" to 1.90" > 1.90" considered high, and the values TBW MFL between them and inclusive were Month Low Average High Month Low Average High considered average. The climato logical PWAT plot from 1950-2009 May < 1.00" 1.00" to 1.45" > 1.45" May < 1.05" 1.05" to 1.55" > 1.55" for XMR is shown in Figure 7. Table Jun < 1.40" 1.40" to 1.85" > 1.85" Jun < 1.50" 1.50" to 1.90" > 1.90" 2 shows the PWAT threshold val Jul < 1.60" 1.60" to 1.95" > 1.95" Jul < 1.60" 1.60" to 1.95" > 1.95" ues for each warm season month Aug < 1.65" 1.65" to 2.00" > 2.00" Aug < 1.65" 1.65" to 2.00" > 2.00" from each of the four sounding lo Sep < 1.55" 1.55" to 1.95" > 1.95" Sep < 1.65" 1.65" to 2.05" > 2.05" cations. ------ • Silo: TTS I Sound..: XMR I _: Aug I US' S PW S 2.05'" I I.hour Intervals I All Flow R.,.illlOl I POR: Wann _lIay 10 Sap 1989.2010 • 11' o • SW.I 5H11 101111 20HII 30. AIIII-Hr InteMlls SW·l FR Alii PWAT m OG-OI U~ 16~ 2S~ :W~ 01.02 7% U~ 27% m _SNM -lONM -ZONM -30NM 02.oJ 9'4 I.~ 27% m lDOll 0J.0l S~ 9'4 m 27% 01-45 0% 2lI S~ 9'4 ~~ OS« 0% 0% 2lI S~ ao~ 06-01 0% 2lI 2lI ,,~ 70" 01-48 0% 2lI S~ 7% 1''- oa.og 0% 0% 2lI 7% i 60" I ,),. 09-10 0% 0% 2lI 7% i SO" II' \'- 10." 0% 0% 0% 2lI ..! '0" 11·12 0% 2lI 2lI S~ .. 30" ' ... //...... \ 12·13 0% 0% 0% 0% : -"':::\ h/ //'...'-- 13-1. 0% 0% 2lI 2lI 20" :~\\ ///V/ ,,~ 10% 1.·1S 0% 0% 2lI ~ LlI./'" 1S-16 2lI II~ 18% 23% 0% """" 16-11 7% 18% 231l. 27% qqqq~~9~$~~~~;~~~~~~~~~~ 11·1' 9'4 ,.~ 30% 36~ 8;SS!~8~8~2=~O~~~~~~~N~~ 16~ 27% 36~ .8% ,.." Tlmo Into",.1 (UTe) \9-20 27% :W~ .8% 66~ 20-21 23% :W~ SO% 13% 21·22 ll~ 25~ SO% ,." 22·23 23% S2lI S7% 23-2. '.~11~ m 32% .3% . ' .. , . SW02 5HII lOHIi 20 HII JOHII AlIIl·Hr Int.Mlls SW·2 FR Alii PWAT m OG-OI 7% ,.~ :W~ 46~ 01.02 .~ 1211 21~ :W~ -SNM -lONM -20NM -!OHM 16~ 2.~ 02.03 3% 8% 10011 OJ.Ol .~ ,~ ll~ "~ OI.oS 2lI 4~ 12lI 19'4 90" OS« I~ 3" 7% 11~ 10" 06-01 ,~ I" 7% 12lI -"'"' 01-48 31l. 6" 10% 70" / ..--.. \. oa.og 2lI'" .~ .~ 8% I 60" 1/ \\ 09-10 0% I~ 31l. 7% i 50" I, /I A \. 10.11 0% I~ 1~ 1 *J" ll·I2 0% 0% 0% ."2lI .. '\. /I/' \. ' 12·13 0% 0% 1% 4% 30" \."\.. //1 ~'\.. 13-1. 0% 0% 1~ 1~ 20" I_,~ //// \. ,..,S 6~ 0% 1% 1% 10" ./ 'I IS-I' 0% .% II" O!l 16-11 9'4'" "% 25~ qqqq~~q~$~;~~;~~~~~~~~~~ 11·1' 16~'" 231l. 31" 37% 8;9S!~8~8~2=~O~~~~~~~N~~ ~ 3S~ SI~ 6'~ '''1' Tlmo Into",.1 (UTe) 19-20 2.% 39% 60% 69'4 20-21 28% "~ ~~ 16% 21·22 2SOJ\ :W~ ~~ 17% 22·23 11~ 24~ "~ 66~ 23-2A 9'4 19'4 :W~ S,~ Figure 8. An example ofa web page for the SLF (TTS) from the updated GUI. each organization (four NWS WFOs The first level of the navigation and the 45 WS/SMG) and the help menu at the top of the GUI displays page. The sites associated with each links to the home page, the sites for HO"'" r.'Lt1.,',,· 1''':1,1''. '.1fL.IIO· JAX\',FC'· 45WS,SMG T Help COF • XMR 1·hr Intervals september Warm season • 5E·1 5£·2 NE 1m Other AI Figure 9. The menu bar used to navigate the GUI (blue bar at top) and an example of an expanded menu bar depicting navigating to the SLF (TTS) during July, for an average PWAT, for a 6-hr time interval. the TI stratification to assess if add Additional Sites Tampa WFO in Ruskin, FL. ing this stratification to the others al Dr. Bauman requested the NLDN ready in use in the tool would reduce The NWS MLB requested two data for these two sites for May the sample size to the point where more sites be added to the climatolo September 1989-2010 from Mr. they are statistically insignificant. gy. This request was based on NWS Roeder of the 45 WS. The 14th Based on this one site, it appears Headquarters Technicallmplementa Weather Squadron prepared the that some flow regimes will not have tion Notice 11-24 dated 9 June 2011 NLDN data files and Dr. Bauman enough days to be statistically signifi that stated, in part, "Effective Thurs downloaded them from their servers. cant, but these are the lowest light day, October 20, 2011, at 1200 Uni While waiting for AMU customer as ning-producing regimes of northeast, versal Coordinated Time (UTC), the sessment of the TI stratification, Dr. northwest and southeast flow. The NWS office at Ruskin FL, will begin Bauman will add Punta Gorda and southwest flow regimes appear to TAF service for Punta Gorda Region Lakeland to the PWAT stratification have enough days in the climatology. al Airport (KPGD) in Punta Gorda, and update the GUI. Therefore, Dr. Bauman will provide FL, and for Lakeland Linder Regional the COF files to the customers to as Airport (KLAL) in Lakeland, FL." For more information contact Dr. sess the results before adding the Therefore, NWS MLB will be respon Bauman at 321-853-8202 or stability stratification to other sites. sible for issuing TAF service for the [email protected]. se sites as part of their backup to the Vandenberg Air Force Basin high pressure weather regime. Status The LWOs have seen these rapid Mr. Wheeler completed the draft Base North Base Wind wind increases in Towers 60, 70 and of the final report and then modified it 71 (Figure 3) along the northern edge Study (Mr. Wheeler) after receiving comments from the of VAFB in excess of the 35 kt warn AMU internal and external customer The 30th Weather Squadron (30 ing threshold. For this task, the 30 reviews. He then distributed the re WS) states that terrain influences WS requested the AMU analyze data port to the customers and submitted along the extreme northern fringes of from days when these towers report the request to NASA for public re Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB) ed winds in excess of 35 kt and de lease of the report. Once approved make it difficult for forecasters to is termine if there are any precursors in for public release, Mr. Wheeler post sue timely and accurate high wind the observations that would allow the ed the final report on the AMU web warnings for that part of the base LWOs to better forecast and warn site. during northeasterly wind events. their operational customers of these These events tend to occur during wind events. For more information contact Mr. the winter or early spring when they Wheeler at 321-853-8205 or are under the influence of the Great [email protected] MESOSCALE MODELING~===- -=I MesoNAM Verification Wind Tower Data and merged all data from Phase I of this MesoNAM Forecast Products task (Bauman 2010) with the new Phase II (Dr. Watson) bias data. The merged Excel work Dr. Watson modified Visual Basic sheets were reformatted to calculate The 45 WS LWOs use the 12-km (VB) scripts written by Dr. Bauman the bias, standard deviation of bias, resolution North American Mesoscale that process and reformat the Meso root mean square error, and hypothe (NAM) model (MesoNAM) text and NAM forecasts and wind tower data sis zero tests of the MesoNAM verifi graphical product forecasts exten and prepare them for the objective cation statistics for all towers from sively to support launch weather op statistical analysis. Each MesoNAM Phase I and II of this task. erations. In Phase I of this task forecast file contains the initialization (Bauman 2010), the AMU measured and hourly forecasts to 84 hours at a After completing the statistical the actual performance of the model single model initial time of 00, 06, 12 analysis for the POR from February objectively by conducting a detailed and 18 UTC. As a first step, Dr. Wat 2010 to January 2011, Dr. Watson statistical analysis of model output son reformatted a VB script to split had enough time to add three more compared to observed values. The the monthly tower data files into daily months of data. She followed the model products included hourly fore files that contain separate Excel steps outlined above for the new da casts from 0 to 84 hours based on worksheets for observations starting ta, bringing the POR for Phase II of model initialization times of 00, 06, each day at 00, 06, 12 and 18 UTC, the task to 15 months (February 12 and 18 UTC. The objective analy and extending out to 84 hours to 2010-April 2011) and the total POR sis compared 3.5 years of MesoNAM match the MesoNAM forecasts. Next, for Phase I and II to 4 years and 7 forecast winds, temperature and dew Dr. Watson modified a script to im months (September 2006-April point, as well as the changes in these port the MesoNAM files into Excel 2011 ). parameters over time, to the ob spreadsheets and reformat them to Verification Examples served values from the sensors in the match the wind tower observation KSC/CCAFS wind tower network. For spreadsheets. This included convert As in Phase I, the model bias of this task, the 45 WS requested the ing the temperature and dew point temperature (T) and dew point tem AMU modify the current tool by add from Celsius to Fahrenheit and mov perature (Td) showed a diurnal fluc ing an additional year of model out ing rows and columns in the Meso tuation for onshore and offshore flow. put to the database and recalculating NAM spreadsheets to match the wind Figure 1 shows charts of the offshore the verification statistics. The AMU tower spreadsheets. She then and onshore model bias of T and Td will also update the GUI with the new merged the wind tower observations for SLC 39A using sensors from statistics. This tool helps the LWOs spreadsheets with the MesoNAM Towers 0393 (northwest sensor) and understand the model's performance spreadsheets. 0394 (southeast sensor) for January. when they use it to evaluate LCC The model bias of T was most pro Dr. Watson modified previously during launch operations. nounced with a warm bias of up to written VB scripts to stratify tower 4°F, which is similar to the Phase I data by onshore and offshore flow results. The model dew point follows and to compute the daily bias for the same general trend as the tem- each Excel worksheet. She then Model T and Td Btu (Onshore) Model T and Td Bias (Offshore) OOZ Initialization, Tower 393/394, 60 ft, January OOZ Initialization, Tower 393/394, 60 ft, January _Hypothesis%«o -T(OF) --_oTd('F) _HypothesisZero -T(OF) --_oTd('F) 5.0 ...., ------4.0 ~.o 3.0.l..- 3.0 '------1--\--- 2.0 F 2.0 E 1.0 i 1.0 !• 0.0 J1I-r,....,...-~ ! 0.0 i -1.0 -:0:..0V4<.f-'V 10 . ] I -2.0 ~i·-2.0 '-.-----..:..~. ~ ·3.0 :------·3.0 -4.0 -4.0 -5.0 L-I------_ -5.0 ForlQSt V.11d TIme from Modellnltl.IIU1tlon Foreeast V.lld TIme from Modellnlt"lI"tlon Figure 1. Onshore (left) and offshore (right) charts showing model bias of T (blue line) and Td (red dashed line) and the hypothesis zero results (green) from a 00 UTe model initialization at SLe 39A using observations from sensors at Towers 0393 and 0394 at a height of 60 ft for January 2007-2011. AA Model Standard Dev of T and Td Bias (Onshore) Model Standard Dev ofT and Tel Bias (Offshore) OOZ Initialization, Tower 393/394, 60 ft, January OOZ Initialization, Tower 393/394, 60 ft, January -Tl'fl ----Td('F) -T('fl ----Td rFl 8.0 8.0 7.0 7.0 _6.0... _6.0... ~s.o ~s.o ~ II 4.0 4.0 ~ !~ ~ 3.0 ~ 3.0 ~.. 2.0 ~.. 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0 6 U ~ ~ ~ % ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n n M 0 6 U ~ ~ ~ % ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n n M Forecast Valid TIme from Model Initialization Forecast Valid TIme from Model Initialization Figure 2. As in Figure 1 except for standard deviation ofbias. perature, but has a negative bias. standard deviation of the bias of T increased during the forecast period The green shaded regions indicate and Td and indicates the model error for both wind speed and wind direc the forecast times during which the increased with the forecast period for tion during January as shown in Fig hypothesis zero test was true. This both parameters with the variance of ures 3 and 4 for onshore and off test was true when the bias at that Td being higher. shore flow at SLC 39A. point was not statistically significantly Th b' f' d d d . d . e las 0 win spee an win For more information contact Dr. different from zero ~nd the mod.el direction did not show the same diur- Watson at 321-853-8264 or forecast for that pO.lnt was considered nal fluctuation as T and Td. Similar to [email protected] to have no error. Figure 2 shows the Ph I th t d f th d I ase, e ren 0 e mo e error Model Standard Dey of Wind Speed Bias (Onshore) Model Standard DeY of Wind Speed Bias (Offshore) OOZ Initialization, Tower 393/394, 60 ft, January OOZ Initialization, Tower 393/394, 60 ft, January 6.0 6.0 S.o 4 0 1. ;' 3.0 .L.o 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 o 6 U ~ ~ ~ % ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n n M o 6 U ~ ~ ~ % ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n n M Forecast Valid TIme from Model Initialization Forecast Valid TIme from Model Initialization Figure 3. Onshore (left) and offshore (right) charts showing model standard deviation of bias of wind speed from a 00 UTC model initialization at SLC 39A using observations from sensors at Towers 0393 and 0394 at a sensor height of 60 ft for January 2007-2011. Model Standard DeY of Wind Direction Bias (Onshore) Model Sbndard Dev of Wind DIrection BillS (Offshore) OOZ Initialization, Tower 393/394, 60 ft, January OOZ Initialization, Tower 393/394, 60 ft, January 80 70 70 ~ ';;;"~.. ;50 r. so .. c! 40 40 1 i I~ tl 30 ! ! is 20 is 20 10 10 0 0 0 6 U ~ ~ ~ % ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n n M 0 6 U ~ N ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ " n n u Forecast Valid Tlme from ModellnltlaJlzatlOCl F«ecast Valid TIme from ModellnltlallDtlOll Figure 4. As in Figure 3 except for wind direction. AMUACTIVITIES AMU Chief's Technical occurred at precisely the same lati Dr. Huddleston wrote an Excel tude and longitude as the center of Visual Basic program for Mr. Roeder Activities the area of interest. to iterate through two seasons of Total Threat Scores (TIS) from the (Dr. Huddleston) Dr. Huddleston provided an up AMU's Severe Weather Tool with date to the interpolation tool for the After taking over the position of the goal of providing a best fit curve Range Reference Atmosphere AMU chief from Dr. Merceret in that converts TTS to probability of (RRA) rawinsonde climatology for March, Dr. Huddleston continued to severe weather. become familiarized with the needs the 45 WS. The RRA gives mean u of the 45WS and the activities of the wind, v-wind and wind speed, but Dr. Huddleston completed a draft AMU. She fixed the 45 WS lightning does not provide mean wind direc paper of the lightning probability al spreadsheet to account for an error tion. She added the interpolated gorithm for the Journal of Spacecraft that occurred if a lightning stroke mean wind direction for both the and Rockets and submitted it for ap temperature and height options. proval. REFERENCES ~--""=---~'--==----~---~=------=~-~-~--~-==------==l Bauman, W. H. III, 2009: Situational Lightning Climatologies for Central Florida: Phase IV. NASA Contractor Report CR-2009-214763, Kennedy Space Center, FL, 39 pp. [Available from ENSCO, Inc., 1980 N. Atlantic Ave., Suite 830, Cocoa Beach, FL 32931 and http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/amu/final-reports/lightning-climo-phase4.pdf.] Bauman, W. H. III, 2010: Verify MesoNAM Performance. NASA Contractor Report CR-2010-216287, Kennedy Space Center, FL, 31 pp. [Available from ENSCO, Inc., 1980 N. Atlantic Ave., Suite 830, Cocoa Beach, 32931, and at http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/amu/final.html.] Crawford, W., 2010: Statistical Short-Range Guidance for Peak Wind Forecasts on Kennedy Space Center/Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Phase III. NASA Contractor Report CR-201 0-216281, Kennedy Space Center, FL, 33 pp. [Available from ENSCO, Inc., 1980 N. Atlantic Ave., Suite 830, Cocoa Beach, FL 32931 and http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/amu/final-reports/windstats-phase3.pdf.] Lambert, W., 2002: Statistical Short-Range Guidance for Peak Wind Speed Forecasts on Kennedy Space Center/ Cape Canaveral Air Force Station: Phase I Results. NASA Contractor Report CR-2002-211180, Kennedy Space Center, FL, 39 pp. [Available from ENSCO, Inc., 1980 N. Atlantic Ave., Suite 830, Cocoa Beach, FL 32931 and http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/amu/final-reports/windstats-phase1.pdf.] Lambert, W., 2003: Extended Statistical Short-Range Guidance for Peak Wind Speed Analyses at the Shuttle Landing Facility: Phase II Results. NASA Contractor Report CR-2003-211188, Kennedy Space Center, FL, 27 pp. [Available from ENSCO, Inc., 1980 N. Atlantic Ave., Suite 830, Cocoa Beach, FL 32931 and http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/amu/final-reports/windstats-phase2.pdf.] Stull, R. B, 1988: An Introduction to Boundary Layer Meteorology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 670 pp. World Meteorological Organization, 2008: Guide to Meteorological Instruments and Methods of Observation, WMO No.8, Seventh Edition. [Available online at http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/www/IMOP/publications/CIMO Guide/CIMO Guide-7th Edition-2008.html.] ... - LIST OFACRONYMS 14 WS 14th Weather Squadron LWO Launch Weather Officer 30 SW 30th Space Wing MesoNAM 12-km North American Mesoscale model 30 WS 30th Weather Squadron ML Mixed Layer 45 RMS 45th Range Management Squadron MSFC Marshall Space Flight Center 45 OG 45th Operations Group NCEP National Centers for Environmental 45 SW 45th Space Wing Prediction 45 SW/SE 45th Space Wing/Range Safety NLDN National Lightning Detection Network 45 WS 45th Weather Squadron NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric AFSPC Air Force Space Command Administration AFWA Air Force Weather Agency NWS MLB National Weather Service in Melbourne, FL AMU Applied Meteorology Unit PAFB Patrick Air Force Base BSS Brier Skill Score POR Period of Record CCAFS Cape Canaveral Air Force Station PWAT Precipitable Water CG Cloud-to-Ground lightning RRA Range Reference Atmosphere CSR Computer Sciences Raytheon SLC Space Launch Complex FSU Florida State University SLF Shuttle Landing Facility FY Fiscal Year SMC Space and Missile Center GF Gust Factor SMG Spaceflight Meteorology Group GSD Global Systems Division TAF Terminal Aerodrome Forecast GUI Graphical User Interface TI Thompson Index JSC Johnson Space Center TTS Total Threat Score KCOF (COF) PAFB 4(3)-letter identifier USAF United States Air Force KSC Kennedy Space Center VAFB Vandenberg Air Force Base KTIS (TIS) SLF 4(3)-letter identifier VB Visual Basic KXMR (XMR) CCAFS 4(3)-letter identifier WFO Weather Forecast Office LCC Launch Commit Criteria WMO World Meteorological Organization The AMU has been in operation since September 1991. Tasking is determined annually with reviews at least semi-annually AMU Quarterly Reports are available on the Internet at http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/amu/ They are also available in electronic format via email. If you would like to be added to the email distribution list, please contact Ms. Winifred Crawford (321-853-8130, [email protected]). If your mailing information changes or if you would like to be removed from the distribution list, please notify Ms. Crawford or Dr. Lisa Huddleston (321-861-4952, [email protected]). Distribution NASA HQIAAI 45 WS ADOMI. Whisel HQ AFWAl16 WSMIXPI 46 WSIIDO/J. Mackey W. Gerstenmaier 45 WS/DOR/M. McAleenan D. Keller 46 WSMIST/E. Harris NASA KSCIAAlR. Cabana 45 WS/DOR/M. Buchanan HQ USAF/A30-W/R. Stoffler 412 OSS/OSW/P. Harvey NASA KSC/KT-C/J. Perotti 45 WS/DOR/J. Smith HQ USAF/A30-WXI 412 OSS/OSWM/C. Donohue NASA KSCILXlP. Phillips 45 WS/DOR/R. Parker C. Cantrell UAH/NSSTCMI. Vaughan NASA KSC/MKlL. Cain 45 WS/DOR/F. Flinn HQ USAF/lntegration, Plans, FAAIK. Shelton-Mur and Requirements Divl NASA KSC/NEM501 FSU Department of 45 WS/DORI T. McNamara Directorate of Weatherl L. Huddleston Meteorology/H. Fuelberg 45 WS/DOR/J. Tumbiolo A30-WX NASA KSC/PHI R. Willcoxon ERAUlApplied Aviation 45 WS/DOR/K. Winters NOAA "W/NP"/L. Uccellini NASA KSC/PH/M. Leinbach Sciences/C. Herbster 45 WS/DOR/D. Craft NOAAlOARISSMC-I/J. Golden NASA KSC/PH/S. Minute ERAUIJ. Lanicci 45 WS/SYAlJ. Saul NOAAlNWS/OST12/SSMC21 NCARIJ. Wilson NASA KSC/PH-A2/D. Lyons 45 WS/SYRMI. Roeder J. McQueen NASA KSC/PH-3/J. Madura 45 RMS/CCIT. Rock NOAA Office of Military Affairsl NCARIY. H. Kuo NOAAlFRB/GSD/J. McGinley NASA KSC/PH-3/F. Merceret 45 SW/CD/G. Kraver M. Babcock NASA KSC/PH-3/J. Wilson 45 SW/SELR/K. Womble NWS Melbourne/B. Hagemeyer Office of the Federal Coordinator for NASA KSC/SAIM. Wetmore 45 SWIXPRIR. Hillyer NWS Melbourne/D. Sharp Meteorological Services NASA KSC/SAlH. Garrido 45 OG/CC/D. Sleeth NWS Melbourne/S. Spratt and Supporting Researchl NASA KSC/SAIB. Braden 45 OGITD/C. Terry NWS Melbourne/P. Blottman R. Dumont NASA KSCNAIA. Mitskevich CSR 4500/J. Osier NWS Melbourne/M. Volkmer Boeing Houston/S. Gonzalez NASA KSCNA-2/C. Dovale CSR 45001T. Long NWS Southern Region HQf'Wl Aerospace CorplT. Adang NASA JSCMlS8/F. Brody CSR 7000/M. Maier SR"/S. Cooper In/G. Kennedy NASA JSCMlS8/B. Hoeth SLRSC/ITI/L. Grier NWS Southem Region HQf'Wl Timoth ~Ifong Associatesl SR3"ID. Billingsley NASA JSCMlS81 SMC/RNP/M. Erdmann . Wilfong K. Van SpeyBroeck NWSf'W/OST1"/B. Saffle SMC/RNPIT. Nguyen ENSCO, InclJ. Clift NASA MSFC/EV44/D. Edwards NWSf'W/OST12"ID. Melendez SMC/RNP/R. Bailey ENSCO, Inc.lE. Lambert NASA MSFC/EV44/B. Roberts NWS/OST/PPD/SPB/P. Roo SMC/RNP(PRC)/K. Spencer ENSCO. Inc.lA. Yersavich NASA MSFC/EV44/R. Decker NSSUD. Forsyth HQ AFSPC/A3FW/J. Carson ENSCO, Inc.lS. Masters NASA MSFC/EV44/H. Justh 30 WS/DO/J. Roberts HQ AFWAlA3/M. Surmeier NASA MSFC/MP71/G. Overbey 30 WS/DORID. Vorhees HQ AFWAlA3T/S. Augustyn NASA MSFC/SPoRTI 30 WS/OSS/OSWSI HQ AFWAlA3T/D. Harper G. Jedlovec M. Schmeiser HQ AFWAl16 WSIWXEI NASA DFRC/RAlE. Teets 30 WS/OSS/OSWSIT. Brock J. Cetola NASA LaRC/M. Kavaya 30 SWIXPE/R. Ruecker HQ AFWAl16 WSMlXEI 45 WS/CC/S. Cahanin G. Brooks Det 3 AFWAlWXUK. Lehneis 45 WS/DO/L. Shoemaker NASIC/FCTI/G. Marx NOTICE: Mention of a copyrighted, trademarked, or proprietary product, service, or document does not constitute endorsement thereof by the author, ENSCO, Inc., the AMU, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, or the United States Government. Any such mention is solely for the purpose of fully informing the reader of the resources used to conduct the work reported herein.