<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Jeff<br>
<br>
You can also use the Gauge Comparison Tool on the NSSL MRMS
development site to do real-time and archived comparisons. You can
select the operational (NCO OPS section in the pull-down), or the
developmental version of the MRMS Q3 products.<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mrms-dev.nssl.noaa.gov/">https://mrms-dev.nssl.noaa.gov/</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mrms-dev.nssl.noaa.gov/qvs/gauge_vs_qpe.php">https://mrms-dev.nssl.noaa.gov/qvs/gauge_vs_qpe.php</a><br>
<br>
Jeff W<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/22/2018 3:38 PM, Michael Magsig -
NOAA Federal wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6b95c137-f499-c014-1837-7007f28c65ae@noaa.gov">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Hi Jeff,</p>
<p>Have you downloaded our AWIPS bundles from RAC to compare the
precip sources? Here is the RAC Procedures Download Page (note
you can find this on AWIPS by doing a manual AIR search for rac
using the right click on any CAVE text legend):</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://vlab.ncep.noaa.gov/web/wdtd/racproc"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://vlab.ncep.noaa.gov/web/wdtd/racproc</a><br>
</p>
<p> We have a methodology for quickly assessing differences in
precip type for choosing the best precip source and identifying
things like melting hail contamination that causes high biases
in Dual Pol QPE. A difference like this will stick out like a
sore thumb in the instantaneous rate six panel (see image
below). You should be able to see how the rates compare to
Legacy and Dual Pol and see if there is anything unusual in the
patterns of surface precip type. Most likely it is triggering
the tropical convective if it is overestimating. Watch for
temporal continuity in SPT during the period of heaviest
rainfall and see if it is missing any hail signals in the base
data.<br>
</p>
<p>I've been looking at a number of heavy rainfall events
throughout the country for our flash flood training development,
and my perception is that MRMS tends to perform a little better
than Dual Pol which performs a bit better than Legacy most of
the time but it varies by environment/season and can change
during an event, so we recommend starting each event assessing
if you have any significant differences between sources and
choosing a source that looks to be the most reasonable to start
with. Then spot check your precip sources routinely during an
event to see who is doing best where it matters most. MRMS
typically shines in hail contamination events because its rate
cap is 2"/hr for hail which usually lowers MRMS estimates
significantly (which is fine until you have heavy rainfall rates
>2"/hr with hail). MRMS overestimates like your case are
usually tropical convective SPT when it shouldn't be or MRMS not
identifying hail.<br>
</p>
<p>Differences of 10-25% are common among all our operational
precip sources, and I routinely find differences of 50% or
larger at times during heavy rainfall. The biases can sometimes
vary spatially and temporally in an event (and during the
seasons) for all precip sources, so we preach using all of your
observations and giving more weight to those in the strongest
cores for flash flood warnings, and only use the mean field bias
corrections or the MRMS spatially varying corrections as a first
guess. Also pay extra attention to MRMS biases because those
biases will propagate to the FLASH streamflows.<br>
</p>
<p>Accurate QPE is still a challenge for all of today's
algorithms, and those who rely too heavily on the precip source
that worked in the previous event are going to be susceptible to
unpleasant surprises (I see that a lot actually with many
offices). Maybe we will have more consistent separation for MRMS
when it starts using Dual Pol variables in one of the next
versions, but I foresee the best warning performance coming from
carefully selecting and re-assessing your precip source and
blending that with the new streamflow products. <br>
</p>
<p>At least the MRMS overestimates out west should be addressed
now that 11.5 has allowed continental ZRs instead of just
tropical ZR for heavy rainfall. Feel free to share some of your
MRMS screen captures with me offline, as I enjoy the challenge
of quickly getting to the bottom line for the differences in
QPE.<br>
</p>
<p><img src="cid:part2.8F72188B.F71832CE@noaa.gov" alt="" class=""></p>
<p>Mike<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/22/2018 12:55 PM, Jeffrey Hovis
- NOAA Federal wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:LYRIS-21262-562610-2018.06.22-13.56.12--Michael.A.Magsig%23noaa.gov@infolist.nws.noaa.gov">
<div dir="ltr">All,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I want to thank everyone for answering. It did answer
some of my questions. I am going to read through everything
and see where</div>
<div>I go with any additional questions.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Jeff</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div class="gmail_extra"> <br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 10:54 AM,
Joseph Moore - NOAA Federal <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:joseph.moore@noaa.gov" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">joseph.moore@noaa.gov</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Jeffery, I'll definitely agree with you that for
where the most precip fell, MRMS was on the hot side
(mrms-radar-only.PNG). The gauge-adjusted product
doesn't seem to have really changed much of that
(mrms-gauge-adj.PNG), though looking at the
diagnostic provided by MRMS (the <i>Gauge Influence
Index</i>, viewable on MRMS Op Product Viewer
site) there doesn't appear to be <i>any </i>gauge
correction going on anywhere right now or in the
past 24 hours for any precip accumulation timeframe.
(<b>I think the issue of no gauge adjustment
happening is an actual problem with MRMS, so I'm
looping the MRMS Users email list on this thread</b>.)<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Compared to the RLX radar (STA, STA-hires, and
STP images), the MRMS data certainly has a broader
area of 3"+ and a fairly broad area of 4"+ compared
to the legacy and dual-pol estimates. So even
compared to other precip estimates, MRMS seems on
the high side. Why the MRMS estimates are running
too hot? As I said in my first message, it is
probably a case of mis-classification of the type of
rainfall occurring - maybe using the tropical
algorithm when it should be using a standard
convection one. Looking through the Reflectivity
Cube (see the Op Product Viewer), during the most
intense parts of the rain yesterday MRMS certainly
seems to have ingested your radar and surrounding
radars correctly with no gross errors obvious to me.
The MRMS Ops folks on the Users listserv may be able
to diagnose what's going on in this case better than
I can.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We can't expect MRMS to be perfect, just like we
know the radar-based legacy and dual-pol estimates
are going to have errors for various reasons. For
what it's worth, on our recent heavy rainfall event
last weekend MRMS absolutely <i>nailed </i>the
precip estimation with no strong high or low bias -
it got the maximum amounts just about as spot-on as
you can expect... and that was with our primary
radar down! (MPX's radar provided sufficient radar
data to help fill in the gap to our radar being
down, but at a higher elevation than DLH would have
been scanning if it were up.) <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If there is a noticeable problem with MRMS data,
this should be reported to the MRMS/NCEP folks so
they can investigate (I think <i><a
href="mailto:ncep.list.idp.mrms.users@noaa.gov"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">ncep.list.idp.mrms.users@noaa.<wbr>gov</a></i>
is the best choice but someone else chime in there's
a better option!)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-Joe<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>MRMS Op Product Viewer: <a
href="https://mrms.nssl.noaa.gov/qvs/product_viewer.php"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://mrms.nssl.noaa.gov/qvs<wbr>/product_viewer.php</a></div>
<div>WRH Wx and Hazard Viewer: <a
href="https://www.wrh.noaa.gov/map/"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.wrh.noaa.gov/map/</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote"><span class="">On Fri, Jun
22, 2018 at 9:19 AM, Timothy Humphrey - NOAA
Federal <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:timothy.humphrey@noaa.gov"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">timothy.humphrey@noaa.gov</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span
class="">
<div dir="ltr">Over the past several days here
at the Lake Charles office, we also noticed
that the MRMS-QPE Radar only was running quite
hot compared to our individual radars'
estimates and surface observations. Comparing
this morning's 12Z 72 hour MRMS estimates to a
variety of observation sites including
ASOS/ALERT/COOP confirmed this with a few
comparisons listed below:
<div><br>
</div>
<div>JYDT2: 7.91" MRMS: 10.33"</div>
<div>JYET2: 7.76" MRMS: 13.18"<br>
<div>JYGT2: 6.38" MRMS: 7.48"</div>
<div>KBPT: 5.79" MRMS: 8.11"</div>
<div>ORNT2: 4.91" MRMS: 6.06"</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Based on our experience, the QPE-Radar
Only seemed that it was running much
hotter compared to previous events and we
were also curious what might have been
causing such a large difference. Our
concern is that these large differences
could result in derived FLASH products
being less reliable for warning decision
making.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</span>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div>
<div class="h5">
<div>
<div class="m_-251700852220942345h5"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 22,
2018 at 8:54 AM, Jeffrey Hovis - NOAA
Federal <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:jeffrey.hovis@noaa.gov"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">jeffrey.hovis@noaa.gov</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">Jack,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It was approximately 10 miles
from the area of heaviest
rainfall to the radar site (RLX)
. As you indicated, COOPS are
not included in the MRMS data.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I just wanted to see what
might have caused the large
difference in rainfall
amounts. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We issued a Flash Flood
Warning based on the MRMS data.
It was a good warning as we did
have lots of flash flooding
reports. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Jeff</div>
<div>
<div
class="m_-251700852220942345m_7024192615613847659h5">
<div><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On
Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 9:42
AM, Jack Settelmaier -
NOAA Federal <span
dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:jack.settelmaier@noaa.gov"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">jack.settelmaier@noaa.gov</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote
class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px
#ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">I may be
mistaken, but I'm
guessing MRMS does not
use COOP data in its
algorithms, as it's
more real-time (not
QCd too much) and
mostly just uses radar
data. How far from
the nearest radar was
the site?
<div><br>
</div>
<div><a
href="https://training.weather.gov/wdtd/courses/MRMS/index.php"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://training.weather.gov/w<wbr>dtd/courses/MRMS/index.php</a>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div>
<div
class="m_-251700852220942345m_7024192615613847659m_-4156293075502595429h5"><br>
<div
class="gmail_quote">On
Fri, Jun 22,
2018 at 8:10 AM,
Jeffrey Hovis -
NOAA Federal <span
dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:jeffrey.hovis@noaa.gov" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">jeffrey.hovis@noaa.gov</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote
class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">All,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I just
wanted to give
you an
update. When
I came into
the office
this morning,
I checked the
MRMS 24 hour
QPE amount
against our
COOPs, We had
a COOP that
was located in
the area of
heavy rain.
MRMS indicated
that rainfall
amounts
between 3.54
and 5.11
inches near
the location
of our COOP.
Our COOP
actually
reported 2.20
inches of
rain.</div>
<div>This is a
very big
difference.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There was
Flash Flooding
in the area.
However if the
MRMS data had
verified, the
flooding would
likely have
been much
worse.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Jeff </div>
<div
class="gmail_extra"> <br>
<br>
<div
class="gmail_quote">On
Thu, Jun 21,
2018 at 3:23
PM, Jeffrey S.
Hovis <span
dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:jeffrey.hovis@noaa.gov" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">jeffrey.hovis@noaa.gov</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote
class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">All,<br>
<br>
We are
currently
experiencing
an area of
heavy rain
north of our
office. The
MRMS QPE-Radar
Only product
is indicating
as much as
3.42 inches of
rain had
fallen over a
location in
the past 3
hours.
However, none
of the
surrounding
radars are
indicating
that much rain
has fallen.
In fact, the
highest 3 hour
rainfall
amount based
on radar that
I have found
is closer to
2.5 inches.<br>
<br>
What could be
causing this
difference
between these
two products?<br>
<span
class="m_-251700852220942345m_7024192615613847659m_-4156293075502595429m_-3672412057387341659m_-8035783454247603723m_7772369388418594077HOEnZb"><font
color="#888888"><br>
Jeffrey Hovis
<br>
</font></span></blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<span
class="m_-251700852220942345m_7024192615613847659m_-4156293075502595429HOEnZb"><font
color="#888888">--
<br>
<div
class="m_-251700852220942345m_7024192615613847659m_-4156293075502595429m_-3672412057387341659gmail_signature"
data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div
style="font-size:small">Jack
Settelmaier</div>
<div
style="font-size:small">Digital
Techniques
Meteorologist</div>
<div
style="font-size:small">NOAA/NWS,
Southern
Region HQ</div>
<div
style="font-size:small">Fort
Worth, TX </div>
<div
style="font-size:small">Work:
682 703 3685</div>
</div>
</div>
</font></span></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<span class=""><span
class="m_-251700852220942345HOEnZb"><font
color="#888888">-- <br>
<div
class="m_-251700852220942345m_7024192615613847659gmail_signature"
data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div
style="margin-left:40px"><font
face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Tim Humphrey</font></div>
<div
style="margin-left:40px"><font
face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br>
Meteorologist</font></div>
<div
style="margin-left:40px"><font
face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">National Weather Service</font></div>
<div
style="margin-left:40px"><font
face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Lake Charles, Louisiana</font></div>
<div
style="margin-left:40px"><font
face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">337.477.5285<br>
</font></div>
<div
style="margin-left:40px"><br>
</div>
<div
style="margin-left:40px">Follow
us on <a
href="http://www.facebook.com/NWSLakeCharles"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">Facebook</a>,
<a
href="http://www.twitter.com/NWSLakeCharles"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">Twitter</a>
and <a
href="http://www.youtube.com/user/NWSLakeCharles"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">Youtube</a></div>
<div
style="margin-left:40px"><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</font></span></span></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<span class=""><br>
-- <br>
<div class="m_-251700852220942345gmail_signature"
data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div><b>Joseph J.
Moore</b><br>
</div>
Meteorologist | WFO
Duluth Social Media
& IDSS Program
Leader | Open Source
GIS Evangelist <br>
</div>
<div>NOAA/National
Weather Service
Duluth, MN<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</span></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Michael A. Magsig - KD5YKJ
Meteorologist Instructor
Warning Decision Training Division
120 David L. Boren Blvd, Suite 2640, Norman, Oklahoma, 73072
Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Michael.A.Magsig@noaa.gov" moz-do-not-send="true">Michael.A.Magsig@noaa.gov</a> Phone:(405)-325-2995 Fax:(405)-325-3203 </pre>
<!--'"--><br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Ncep.list.idp.mrms.users mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Ncep.list.idp.mrms.users@lstsrv.ncep.noaa.gov">Ncep.list.idp.mrms.users@lstsrv.ncep.noaa.gov</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.lstsrv.ncep.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/ncep.list.idp.mrms.users">https://www.lstsrv.ncep.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/ncep.list.idp.mrms.users</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>