Forecasters in the Great Lakes region have for several decades recognized a general relationship of wind speed and overlake fetch to lake-effect snowstorm morphology. A recent study using idealized mesoscale model simulations of lake-effect conditions over circular and elliptical lakes showed the ratio of wind speed to maximum fetch distance (U/L) may be used to effectively predict lake-effect snowstorm morphology. The current investigation provides an assessment of the U/L criteria using observational datasets. Previously published Great Lakes lake-effect snowstorm observational studies were used to identify events of known mesoscale morphology. Hindcasts of nearly 640 lake-effect events were performed using historical observations with U/L as the predictor. Results show that the quantity U/L contains important information on the different mesoscale lake-effect morphologies: however, it provides only a limited benefit when being used to predict mesoscale morphology in real lake-effect situations. The U/L criteria exhibited the greatest probability of detecting lake-effect shoreline band events, often the most intense, but also experienced a relatively large number of false hindcasts. For Lakes Erie and Ontario the false hindcasts and biases were reduced and shoreline band events that occurred under higher wind speed conditions were better identified. In addition, the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory ice cover digital dataset was used in combination with observations from past events to assess the impact of ice cover on the use of U/L as a predictor of lake-effect morphology. Results show that hindcasts using the U/L criteria were slightly improved when the reduction of open-water areas due to lake ice cover was taken into account. © 2004 American Meteorological Society.
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.
CITATION STYLE
Laird, N. F., & Kristovich, D. A. R. (2004). Comparison of observations with idealized model results for a method to resolve winter lake-effect mesoscale morphology. Monthly Weather Review, 132(5), 1093–1103. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(2004)132<1093:COOWIM>2.0.CO;2