General Weather Discussion - January and February 2017

[TU 'cane]

I'd argue about the same in South Tulsa. Just iced enough to see covered on my bushes and trees. Just had a bout of light rain as well that lasted for probably 30 mins.

Weather channel forecast said the worst is yet to come and will be pushing into later today/tonight.

[SoonerDave]

About 1/16" of an inch here in NW OKC, with not a whole lot more to our SW.

Yeah, obviously can't speak for anyone else, but this was a non-starter here for us in SW OKC. A bit of ice hanging off parked cars, some on trees/grass, but the roads simply never got worse than moist. And my son is already giving me the evil eye for *strongly* encouraging him to get off the roads before midnight last night..

While I realize some people did get some ice, and I know there was apparently a fatality accident on I-40, I don't think this entire event was anywhere near the scale that was projected or that the models showed. Can't help but wonder what kind of a "post-mortem" on this will arise on this...Was the moisture that fell through the surface freezing mass too warm at the upper levels to freeze as it fell? Was their less moisture than expected? Or did the models just get it wrong?

I guess the frustrating thing for me is that I talk to someone like my son, and he doesn't understand (or want to try) the complexities of winter forecasting, and from his perspective this thing was just another winter forecast bust. Even as someone who at least tries to understand and appreciate the difficulties with weather forecasting in general, it's hard for me to disagree...

[C_M_25]

This one was a pretty bad "swing and a miss." It has been a while since I've seen the weather forecasts miss the mark this badly.

I know that these weather models contain a lot of complex math with numerous input data that needs to properly be quantified for the models to work, so I understand the difficulty here. I also understand that these models are typically based in sound physics so theoretically, they shouldn't bomb this badly. What is missing then? Do we have a sampling problem where we aren't collecting enough data on the fly to properly feed these models to get better results? Rather, are we missing experiences meteorologists to properly interpret the model results? To me, it seems like all of our meteorologists at the moment are all fairly young professionals. I sure would have liked to see how somebody with Gary England's experience with these events would have forecasted this storm.

[SoonerDave]

This one was a pretty bad "swing and a miss." It has been a while since I've seen the weather forecasts miss the mark this badly.

I know that these weather models contain a lot of complex math with numerous input data that needs to properly be quantified for the models to work, so I understand the difficulty here. I also understand that these models are typically based in sound physics so theoretically, they shouldn't bomb this badly. What is missing then? Do we have a sampling problem where we aren't collecting enough data on the fly to properly feed these models to get better results? Rather, are we missing experiences meteorologists to properly interpret the model results? To me, it seems like all of our meteorologists at the moment are all fairly young professionals. I sure would have liked to see how somebody with Gary England's experience with these events would have forecasted this storm.

My trick knee tells me that a lot of these younger mets are trained just to examine the models almost to the point of exclusivity, not to use them as a tool with all the other information that's out there and apply some critical thinking. I liken it very much to the apparent change in the way I think doctors are being trained, with the expectation that *everything* follows a simple flowchart/cookbook.

There's no better example of this to me in the way the school districts call classes for winter weather (or even severe weather). When I was in school, it took all-but an act of congress to close schools for winter weather. I remember driving to high school on days when the roads were stuffed with ice and snow and plenty of routes within neighborhoods would be what they deem "impassable" now. That's 100% flipped now.

I think if you asked someone of the previous generation like Gary England or perhaps Jim Williams (Ch 4), Rick Tasetano (KTOK), Gene Collett (also of KTOK) about how meteorology has changed, they'd probably give you a pretty interesting story (Yes, I realize some of those names are no longer with us, but my point is to illustrate the generational differences).

Part of me says you could probably find some older farmers in rural OK who could have given you a pretty darned good forecast in all this just by their own experience, instinct, and observation. That's probably the worst in what's been lost in how we train people to study the weather - it can't always been reduced to a cookbook.

[jn1780]

My trick knee tells me that a lot of these younger mets are trained just to examine the models almost to the point of exclusivity, not to use them as a tool with all the other information that's out there and apply some critical thinking. I liken it very much to the apparent change in the way I think doctors are being trained, with the expectation that *everything* follows a simple flowchart/cookbook.

There's no better example of this to me in the way the school districts call classes for winter weather (or even severe weather). When I was in school, it took all-but an act of congress to close schools for winter weather. I remember driving to high school on days when the roads were stuffed with ice and snow and plenty of routes within neighborhoods would be what they deem "impassable" now. That's 100% flipped now.

I think if you asked someone of the previous generation like Gary England or perhaps Jim Williams (Ch 4), Rick Tasetano (KTOK), Gene Collett (also of KTOK) about how meteorology has changed, they'd probably give you a pretty interesting story (Yes, I realize some of those names are no longer with us, but my point is to illustrate the generational differences).

Part of me says you could probably find some older farmers in rural OK who could have given you a pretty darned good forecast in all this just by their own experience, instinct, and observation. That's probably the worst in what's been lost in how we train people to study the weather - it can't always been reduced to a cookbook.

Its an on-demand age we live in now. People want a 100 percent accurate forecast for next week now. The old timers didn't have to work with that kind of pressure in their day. They could get away with leaving the forecast kind of ambiguous because people had the habit of taking things day by day.

Now people say "You have x5000 super radar! You should be 100 percent right all the time!".

[d-usa]

It doesn't help that the weather guys are going "we have x5000 super radar, we are more right than the other guys".

[SoonerDave]

Its an on-demand age we live in now. People want a 100 percent accurate forecast for next week now. The old timers didn't have to work with that kind of pressure in their day. They could get away with leaving the forecast kind of ambiguous because people had the habit of taking things day by day.

Now people say "You have x5000 super radar! You should be 100 percent right all the time!".

That expectation isn't exactly helped by 100% forecasts from those very people....

Emily Sutton is apparently fighting back against some flak on Facebook, inviting people to "try predicting freezing rain themselves" since it's so hard. She's using the "we keep people safe" card. And maybe that's the key: Stop trying to make "safety" the priority (which rationalizes ANY forecast), and make *weather forecasting* the priority. Let the "safety" calls flow from that.

Like it or not, they're creating a generation of people who simply no longer believe them. If they stop believing, they stop watching, and that's a bad combination for local TV that is trying to stay alive by selling the relevance of its locally produced content.

[Anonymous.]

Models did not do a good job with precipitation. They were overzealous with development during the day Friday along the boundary that only saw intermittent showers and drizzle. The one area that saw a consistent rain ended up getting coated in ice along I-40 near Weatherford. This initial coating of ice made temperatures 4-5 degrees colder in this spot for the entire day, so when the waves came through overnight - the result was much quicker and extensive impacts from the freezing rain that did fall. This is a lot like what happened across C OK last year for the Thanksgiving weekend storm. The initial waves coated everything, causing temperatures to be much lower than originally forecast - the result was a solid ice storm. However, the temperatures during that were still around 30F - so it wasn't completely disastrous. For a catastrophic ice storm you really need temperatures lower than about 27-28. OKC was able to sustain @ around 29-30 all day Friday and Friday night, which by the time the heavy waves moved in, the warm air was already eroding the cold layer at the bottom (see freezing line moving NW now).

All that being said, it isn't just OK. All of KS and MO have been under Ice Storm Warnings longer than Oklahoma and some of them haven't seen a drop of precipitation. The models just went too crazy with precipitation and coverage on Friday, that ended up actually being extremely localized.

[SoonerDave]

anon, doesn't that suggest just too much reliance on the models??

[C_M_25]

I feel like Emily Sutton's push back to her criticism shows her immaturity and lack of accountability for both her science and her interpretation on model results. Telling people they need to step up to the plate and predict winter weather is dumb. I've never liked that retort. She is the one being paid money to interpret all of the information available to her to make her best interpretation. If it's wrong, it's wrong. If I push back on criticism that my boss gives me because I made the wrong interpretation that cost the company money, it probably wouldn't go very well for me. There is nothing wrong with stepping back and saying, "look, our models didn't work out this time, and that led us to make erroneous forecasts. We learned a lot from this storm and will be looking at this data from a different perspective next time."

[SoonerDave]

Spot on, CM. That response was a little surprising. And just on an initial reaction it did seem a little juvenile.

[judysue]

It was a bit sad to see the continued coverage of the ice storm with little to show. I kept waiting for a TV met to say, "well, it appears that this is not going to be as bad as we first thought" but if that was said I didn't hear it. David Payne did say this morning that things were basically over for OKC in terms of icy conditions.
This storm seemed to fool most forecasters--even the weather channel with their Winter Storm Jupiter hype were all about it. I have a cousin who lives in Kansas and she told me they also had widespread school closures for nothing on Friday. Just one of those storms, I guess. Will probably be a long time before school districts make the call so early.

[emtefury]

This happened last year or the year before where schools closed (even Tinker AFB closed) and the freezing rain did not come. It was dry the entire day. I don't foresee a learning lesson out of it because we are living in the moment anticipating the foretasted storm and need to be prepared. We cannot 100% predict something that we have no control or the slightest bit of influence of, which is the weather.

[jn1780]

anon, doesn't that suggest just too much reliance on the models??

I don't really know how you can be a forecaster without using models. This will be however be a learning experience that will help scientists make models more accurate. Sometimes models are right and sometimes they are wrong.

I did find it premature for all these schools and state offices to close the night before.

[LocoAko]

anon, doesn't that suggest just too much reliance on the models??

Honestly, I don't think forecasts would have been much better without using them. Over-reliance on the models is definitely a concern, but the large-scale pattern here definitely suggested an ice storm... hence the NWS mentioning it in their forecast discussions from a whopping 8-days out. A lot of the focus was on where the 32F line would set up, for obvious reasons, but I think many just assumed the storms would be a guarantee. In the end, I think the "bust" (moreso of expectations than the actual forecasts) was due to two things: road temps just being a tiny bit warmer than anticipated, and the showers that developed dropping less precipitation than forecast. In both cases, these are exceedingly hard to predict considering how nonlinear and binary the consequences are. If pavement temps were 1-2F cooler, everything could have been coated in a sheet of ice and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Freezing efficiency also seemed to be under-predicted, as radar estimates of precipitation generally showed what was forecast, if a bit less. Again, freezing efficiency can change with as little as 1-2F, and we're just not at the point where we can nail that down (consider how remarkably well temperatures were forecast even in the face of models not performing too well there), and not using models would not have aided there. Unfortunately, in cases like this, a tiny little change in temperature results in a binary change in outcome. As far as precipitation goes, it is incredibly hard to predict with accuracy when dealing with such low amounts. Models rely on a number of assumptions in their microphysics to save computing time, but ultimately very minute differences can affect the outcome there... how much evaporates, little changes in temperature aloft affecting instability and whether showers develop,, etc. That's not to make excuses for forecasts falling short, but freezing rain events are notoriously hard for a reason, and I think ordinarily differences of this magnitude in terms of forecasts vs observations go unnoticed when not right at the 32F line.

The only way I think overreliance on models have have hurt us was last night when some of the models changed to show heavy storms in the metro yet what developed on radar was much less. As I noted last night, the HRRR wasn't initializing well and was showing storms early on in the forecast that weren't there, perhaps a warning sign not to trust it too literally. However, there was fairly good consensus and lift moving into the area, so I see why they decided to take a chance and upgrade the forecast (imagine the consequences of not doing so and having a surprise 0.5-1.0" of freezing rain hit OKC overnight). To the person who said all the forecasters are youngsters, that's just not true. Perhaps on TV, but the NWS in Norman has plenty of veterans forecasting.

Separately, I think the hype got out of control with this storm... and that's not the NWS's fault (though perhaps the media's, I wasn't watching closely). Up until last night, only 0.1-0.25" was forecast for the metro, and it was always known we'd warm up above freezing Saturday. Why people panicked as if the apocalypse was coming and cleared the shelves in supermarkets was always silly to me, and I said as much two days ago. I don't know why there was a runaway fear with this one as OKC was never supposed to bare the brunt of this, but I definitely think those expectations result in people's feeling of a "bust" more than the actual outcome (I wound up with at least 0.1" on my trees... so initial forecasts weren't all that off...). If there was any failure here, IMO it was the failure to communicate the uncertainty and scattered nature of these showers rather than showing large swaths of "high power outage risks" for OKC (looking at you, KFOR...), followed by 3 changes to the forecast in the following 5 hours. Ugh.

As an aside, I also found the response by Emily Sutton to be unbecoming. Her pushing back against people calling this a premature bust yesterday was perhaps warranted, but ultimately you take responsibility for your forecasts and move on.

Sorry for the rant. Signed, a frustrated and conflicted meteorologist.

[Anonymous.]

If anyone has links to the local met drama, please post. I am always down for a good read.

[emtefury]

If anyone has links to the local met drama, please post. I am always down for a good read.

Below is the link. She actually got mostly complements and understanding.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?sto...91&__tn__=%2As

[turnpup]

In the grand scheme of things, if we have to have something that's hard to accurately predict, I'd sure rather it be winter precip than tornadoes. I'm so thankful that meteorologists now have the technology to give us several days' heads-up on the super high-risk days during the spring months.

[Bunty]

I'd argue about the same in South Tulsa. Just iced enough to see covered on my bushes and trees. Just had a bout of light rain as well that lasted for probably 30 mins.

Weather channel forecast said the worst is yet to come and will be pushing into later today/tonight.

With temps now like 30-31, I'm concerned they may not be able to get just above freezing for what comes later tonight. Northwestern Oklahoma, where the worst was forecast, looks to be getting it for now.

[Anonymous.]

The freezing line is nearly stationary. Models are confident that the warm air will win over, but right now it is struggling for sure. I would attribute some of the struggle to the 'refrigeration effect' from the current light ice accumulations across SW, W, and C OK.

[SoonerDave]

Below is the link. She actually got mostly complements and understanding.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?sto...91&__tn__=%2As

I'm certainly not one to *bash* mets for the "swing and a miss" on this, but I do think that you cannot simultaneously live in the fishbowl of TV meteorology and effectively bathe in its notoriety one day, then kick back when those forecasts - however well intentioned - go awry for whatever reason. You have to stand up and say, "hey, this is what the data told us, and it didn't pan out that way." I think what LocoAko said was very apt - you stand up for the forecast, you learn from it, and you move on. Given that's a response from someone who works at the Drive South channel, I'm willing to give her a bit of a break thinking in terms of how that staff is probably guided.

Also, city and state authorities have to recalculate just when they're going to call emergencies and mass school closing *the day before* an event hits. That's when the forecasts that fail hit the wall. You just blew a snow day for most metro districts and, for whatever reason, it wasn't necessary. And I remember seeing graphics from virtually every local channel putting up 100% forecasts for ice across much or most of the state, so in that vein it's a bit hard for me to accept the response of "this is hard to forecast." If it's truly *that* hard to forecast, man, that 100% certainty really must mean something.

From what I'm reading, this has not just been a bust in OK, but going north and east up through KS and MO the precip levels haven't panned out - and the NFL moved a freakin' playoff game as a result of the forecasts. So this isn't just a matter of Emily Sutton missing a forecast or David Payne freaking out - these variables mixed up to throw forecasters across the region for a loop - and a lot of people are understandably frustrated.

I'd just like to see one TV or even NOAA met just come out and say *something* to the effect that the broad forecast over the last week just didn't pan out as the data led them, and try to improve going forward. I'm kinda bothered by (some of) the TV people who are saying "this is exactly what we forecast," when I just can't say that's a fair response. You can't create a forecast that led to mass school closures, event rescheduling, city services being moved, electrical service trucks coming in from out of state, only to have almost *none* of it pan out, and then say "this is what we forecast." I remember a big snow forecast several years ago on one Saturday, I think around or just after Christmas, calling for supposedly 6-10" for the metro, and we got dry-slotted. I've been leery of big snow forecasts for OKC ever since - especially those set out in advance by the GFS....

Perhaps NOAA regionally needs to get more in the middle of this, although I'm not sure how. If they perceive the TV mets are going overboard, then they need to hop on social media and say so.

I'm just hoping people *learn* from this. Just brickbatting the mets for getting it wrong doesn't help, so I'm surely not trying or wanting to do that. Make the models better, learn what kinds of factors might have led one not to trust the models, figure out what the outlier variables were, integrate everything, and make the process smarter for everyone going forward.

Like I told Anon earlier this week, I wouldn't want to be a meterologist in OK during the winter. Seems to me its a much tougher job than the severe stuff in the springtime. You'd be pulling your hair out in no time.

[jn1780]

A lot of this was people over reacting to being caught off guard by the evening ice event in December.

Most places did see some freezing rain ot was just way below previous expectations so I don't see anything wrong with what how NWS handled things. TV forecaster always go into their own catagory.

[LocoAko]

Meanwhile, here in NW OKC we are still at 31F (had expected to go above freezing by mid-morning) with occasional freezing rain showers. Now have a freezing rain advisory through tomorrow morning for the potential of up to another 0.2" of glaze. Go figure. :P

[Anonymous.]

Elevated objects in OKC will continue to accumulate ice heading into tonight.

[Sirsteve]

Elevated objects in OKC will continue to accumulate ice heading into tonight.

Hey Anon, just wondering if this storm system is still going to give us some good moisture to help alleviate the drought we are in. I know for awhile they were predicting upwards of 2 inches or more of rain here in central Oklahoma but with the way this storm is panning out or should i say not panning out im very skeptical.