Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

A case study analysis of the cloud-Top Height product (CTOP) during the landfall of Hurricane Frances

  • Jamie K. Wolff
  • , Lacey Holland
  • , Barbara Brown
  • , Robert Hueftle
  • , Agnes Takacs
  • National Center for Atmospheric Research

Research output: AbstractPaperpeer-review

Abstract

For this case study, observations and diagnostics from 5 September 2004 were examined. This day was characterized by interesting and significant weather along the Florida Peninsula due to Hurricane Frances making landfall. All datasets (including the land based radar and rawinsondes) were also available along the coast line. Qualitative results show that the CTOP and NCTP products were similar. However, with a nominal resolution of 14 km in the region examined, the NCTP product did not capture the fine-scale details as well as the CTOP, which has 4 km resolution. The resolution also hindered the ET dataset, which displayed the maximum echo top in each 4×4 km box. For the rawinsonde data, balloons are launched twice a day at 00 UTC and 12 UTC, so the valid times can be difficult to match up with the CTOP. In general, the trends in both the ET and RCTH data provided analogous information regarding the minimum and maximum cloud top areas when compared to the CTOP. Overall, the comparisons of all the different "observational" platforms with the CTOP product indicate good agreement much of the time for this case study. The higher resolution in the CTOP shows a greater detail with values that are consistent with the other types of observations.

Original languageEnglish
StatePublished - 2006
Event86th AMS Annual Meeting - Atlanta, GA, United States
Duration: Jan 29 2006Feb 2 2006

Conference

Conference86th AMS Annual Meeting
Country/TerritoryUnited States
CityAtlanta, GA
Period01/29/0602/2/06

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A case study analysis of the cloud-Top Height product (CTOP) during the landfall of Hurricane Frances'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this