The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

NPR just announced the lines have shifted and a very possible 6" just south of Tulsa to be delivered on the Yule.

I know we've got some weather geeks on here.  What say you?

Still too early to really tell.  As I said during the snowpocalypse of Feb 2011, anything further than 72 hours out for winter weather predictions is typically folly.  Ask me on Sunday.

Stop listening to NPR.  I need some new tires before it snows.   ;D

The GFS is lining up with the NAM model and both aren't agreeing with each other for said snow forecasts. Actually, when the only thing mets had to rely on were long range models (i.e. GFS, ECMWF, etc) none of the models agreed with each other. So like Hoss said, wait until it's closer. So far, per the NAM, flurries to light snow that won't stick...per the GFS, up to six inches with OKC seeing more of an impact than the Tulsa area. Models do agree with air temperatures in the teens as a result of this system.

I usually don't align myself with a local meteo, but Travis Meyer of Channel 6 has this graphic for tonight (noting that we are still 48 hours from the event, so this will likely fluctaute some):

(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/202480_361891877241084_847267742_o.jpg)0

We'll see.  I don't work Wednesday (well, I don't work most days..LOL) but have the able to work from home.

I hope it fluctuates south a bit.

That looks optimistic compared to some of the crazy model runs coming in. The graphic below was from earlier today...12z NAM model run for anyone that's interested. Your eyes aren't lying to you...that says 2 feet lol. Now you see why all the mets around town are going wild with this one. But I just don't see this verifying. "Freezing rain followed by snow" is why I think the NAM is over exaggerating snow totals. The GFS still says Tulsa will be getting much less snowfall. With the most current run as of right now, 00z, the GFS says 2-6" while the NAM says 6-12" snow totals with points North of OKC getting +12".

(http://www.twisterdata.com/data/models/nam/221/maps/2012/12/23/12/NAM_221_2012122312_F78_SNOWIN_SURFACE.png)

Looks like MC and I may be having standing rib roast alone this year and distributing left overs next weekend.  ;)

Some meteorologists are saying it looks unlikely for Tulsa to see any snow.

I wouldn't count on that.

I desperately hope. I love snow.

Still looking likely for Tulsa to not receive snow. Oh well I guess.

Merry Christmas!

Always tough to predict it.  Sometimes they over predict.  Sometimes they miss completely.

I survived Euclid.

Naming winter storms = stupidest self promotion ever.

I don't envy the weather forecasters. The models showed this storm with much more umph and going much further north until just yesterday. Many meteorologists didn't really believe that and kept their estimates with what had been consistent in the models for many runs. I don't blame them for missing this one. It was tough to predict. There is still a chance that Tulsa could get a dusting, however.

More crying "Wolf", stiring up the public into a panic, the stores were really busy as a result. IMO the FCC should look into this hyper weather alarmist/&  alerts, it does not serve the public.. Just report the facts.. The same thing happens in summer if a drak rain cloud passes over head  KRMG radio has that stupid ding-ding thing going off every 5 seconds. Then when there is a real storm threat it'll be ignored by the public as just being more scare tatics. I also don't think weathermen on TV should be giving their personal opinions about the weather such as "It'll be nice if we got snow for Christmas" NO, it won't be nice at all-  travel is bad enough at Christmas without having a white Christmas. Keep the personal opinons to yourself when you report the weather.  >:(

Scrooge.

Its all entertainment. Especially weather and local "personalities". Change the channel or drop cable if its so offensive. I do and I'm going to. ROKU and over the air.

I'm no fan of weatherforecasters, it's all about a show for ratings- however this does show how un-accurate computer models are- the same computer models that predict global warming is a certainity and a solid fact 100 years in the future. The computer models can't even get a 3 day weather event correct. Garbage in and garbage out. We're supposed to believe that the computer models are correct for 50 and 100 years ahead and destroy our economy in the meantime.

Do you actually KNOW any of these guys?  Outside of Nebraska anyway?

I do.  They'll be the first to tell you that predicting winter weather is a different animal altogether and if you listen to them they always use a caveat when trying to forecast it.  But you don't.

You should probably go back to your daily worship at the altar of Mary Failin'....

What Hoss said.

There are too many variables that complicate weather forecasting, so many that it's difficult to have much certainty more than 24 hours in advance.  Even so, some of our countrymen are willing to bring lawsuits against the forecasters when they're wrong.  Losing crops, property, or maybe some lives due to the weather is a common enough occurrence.

When a tornado hit Fort Smith some years ago, the city complained that the National Weather Service didn't give them enough time to warn residents.  The tornado descended on the edge of the city and sirens were triggered after it was already on the ground.  At the time, NWS had a lag time of about 5 minutes for data processing, as the radar antennas made multiple sweeps at different altitudes and computers crunched the data.  So by the time NWS put out a tornado alert, it was already tearing up Fort Smith.

There have been calls for privatizing the NWS too, calls that should be resisted.  If a for-profit corporation took over that function, we'd pay for weather reports and I can imagine hearing something like "An F5 tornado is on the ground west of Tulsa, but first, a word from our sponsors!"

'kraut...I've been doing this for almost 25 years...and hands down the most difficult event to forecast is winter precipitation. The extended computer models were great at signaling the potential for a big storm in the Plains at least 7 days out. This was very well advertised...and most folks around here understand that even a 25-50 mile variance in the track of the upper system can vastly impact snowfall totals over a small area.

The European computer models (ECMWF and the UKMET) were vastly superior to the models run here in the states. The computing power used to generate these models dwarf what we do here in the states. It's a shame really...but a discussion for another time. But as I said...forecasting precipitation type and intensity is so incredibly tricky...and these models just don't have the vertical resolution to handle it great all the time.

That said...I'm incredibly proud of my co-workers at NWS Tulsa. There was a short time when we had some significant snow amounts for Tulsa...especially in the south side of town...but all through the event we had the highest snow totals across southeast OK and west central AR...exactly where the heaviest snow eventually fell.

I'm not gonna bag on our buddies at the local TV stations...nor do they deserve it. We're dang lucky to have a fabulous relationship with the local TV and radio guys and they perform a huge service for us and the community.

Actually that's not true about the Fort Smith tornado. There was a severe thunderstorm warning out for Fort Smith well ahead of touchdown...and the tornado warning was issued 4 minutes before touchdown. However...leading edge winds had damaged power lines which prevented the sounding of the tornado sirens once the tornado warning was issued.

And I appreciate your support of the NWS. We have a good group here...probably the best I've worked with in my career.

I stand corrected.  Thank you. 

I attended a couple of the NWS seminars for amateur radio weather spotters a long time ago, and I have to say that I was impressed by the warning system here in Oklahoma, particularly in comparison to the system we had in rural Pennsylvania.  We had multiple tornadoes cross from Ohio into western PA one evening, and of course the first thing to go was the power grid.  Everyone went down to the fire station to listen on the VFD radio net as a fire crew from Greenville followed a twister as it tracked just north of us.  There were leaves, branches, and shingles falling out of the sky.  I ended up with a fire crew doing rescue and recovery near Franklin, PA.  It was a bad night.

Back in February, I think it was at the end of the month, an EF-2 tornado touched down in Harveyville, KS. What's interesting about this situation is that nearly half of the town sustained damage, yet the storm maintained a severe thunderstorm warning during it's course through the town. Historical radar data of the event clearly shows a tornadic radar signature, but no tornado warning was ever issued; thus, the local officials decided not to sound their sirens until it was too late (many cities will not initially sound their sirens if the media does not put them under a tornado warning). Residents literally had no warning.

In contrast, in April, SPC did something that was very very unusual. They issued a Day 2 high risk with 60% probabilities (highest possible probability). They also split the initial high risk area into two separate high risk areas, another rarity. At the end of the day, the news interviewed people saying "we had no warning." Really? Because there was a high risk issued the day before the day, something SPC has only done once before that date. People have become so selective with what they want to believe as far as the weather goes. But you can't help those who aren't willing to help themselves.

As a trained spotter and weather geek, I frequent many weather forums.  Some of these forums have different topics; one dealt with weather radios that use the SAME technology (using codes to generate alerts based on alert type and location).  One poor kid on this forum was complaining that the NWS was alerting Severe Thunderstorm Warnings and Tornado Warnings too much when they weren't warranted.  His argument was along the 'cry wolf' argument and that people would quit listening when the Tornado didn't materialize.

Look, these warnings indicate whether they were generated based on a spotter report, or whether they were doppler radar indicated.

Either way, I tell people to ignore these warnings at their peril.

To the defense of the NWS, Snowpocalypse 2011 they hit pretty close to the mark, IIRC.

I agree weather forecasting is complex, but is not funny how we are told to believe that global warming is a fact because computer models say so for a weather forecast that's 50 or 100 years in the future? We have to destroy our economy because the people living 100 years from today may get flooded coastlines. I wonder if the people who lived 100 years ago worried about our climate. If anything happens to the climate in 100 years the people of the future are the ones who will have adapt and  address that issue. We can't tell where a snow storm will hit 2 days in advance, global warming is 50 & 100 years out...

You're confusing weather and climate. 

you act as if the storm didn't happen. It did. The forecast wasn't wrong, the storm did exist, it was just off on the path of the storm.

I'm sure Sauer still uses the Farmer's Almanac to do all his 'forecasting'....

Anyone hear what the models look like for the precip on Monday yet?

What's the weather supposed to be like on Tuesday? I may take part in the "Polar Bear Plunge". It's a bruital event and a first for me. A two mile run and jumping into ice cold water. The big burrr. http://taturspolarbearplunge.eventbrite.com/#

No I am not, It's not me--  I am just going by what the global warming crowd says. One hot summer week means global warming is happening and is a fact as they claim!  Anyhow, the global warming crowd says the computer models show that in -whatever number of years 20, 40 or 50 the seas will be 20' higher the polar ice will be gone, Santa's work shop will be under water. The same computer models that can't tell where a storm system will go in 2 days. Heck the computers can't even get a long range weather report correct for a week or two ahead it's mostly just guess work. For the record I do not believe in global waming IMO it's a hoax.

You sound like a broken record.

Oh, and a kook.

It doesn't matter whether you believe in it or not. The ocean and soil temperatures are increasing.

You may agree or disagree that human's activities are causing it. But you can't deny it exists.

Actually, they're very different computer models, as the ones we use to predict the weather don't go out more than a couple weeks at most. Besides, I believe a lot of the future predictions come from a collection of observations and data, not just computer models alone.

I believe in global climate change. I'm unsure as to how much human activity has to do with it, mainly because I am not educated enough on the subject to form an opinion. You need to wake yourself up, learn some facts, and educate yourself before you start spewing these ideas.

My geology professor taught us that the Earth has normally been much warmer than it is at present.  We may be at the end of an ice age or merely in a brief warming trend between ice ages.  There's no way to know with certainty. 

But as Michael pointed out, soil and ocean temperatures are rising.  That's an incontrovertible fact, not a belief. 

Saw this earlier today. I guess all that ice on Greenland isn't going anywhere at -78F!

(http://i45.tinypic.com/zy7ha0.png)