Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,795
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    manaja
    Newest Member
    manaja
    Joined

MO/KS/AR/OK 2024-2025 Winter Discussion


JoMo
 Share

Recommended Posts

You know, it takes a PERFECT setup for something like this to happen with high totals. One thing is off and POOF it can evaporate.

Obviously, this isn't going to go the way we were hoping in Tulsa, but I'm trying to adjust my perspective and just enjoy this for what it is :)

Models are still suggesting it picks up, so we will see. I know there is a band developing NE of OKC that would be in-line with moving over Tulsa. If we can still squeeze 3 ish inches out of this, I'll be happy.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, schoeppeya said:

I'm finally letting myself buy in now that we are 12ish hours from the start and trends are increasing totals if anything. Looking like it's going to be the biggest snow since Feb 2011 followed by deep, deep cold. Hope everybody gets the goods and enjoys this once in every 15- or 20-year type event. 

Absolutely classic that we immediately started trending away from the high end solutions after this post

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The Waterboy said:

Wondering how you all feel about these: 

1.  I’ll take a wet snow over a dry, blowing snow pretty much every time.  
2.  I much prefer models showing a few inches and the storm over performing vs this nonsense of 12” turning into way less.  

Agree on both.  These over hyped ones seem to bust more often than not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Currently in a heavy band that's near whiteout at times due to the wind. I expected early on that in this type of setup that the area that got into the heavier bands of snow would end up with a lot more than areas outside the banding. I'd say it looks like maybe 5" out there but can't really tell due to the drifting. I know Doug Heady said 3.5" earlier before this band started. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MUWX said:

I am guessing we are around 4 inches. SGF seeing the radar and high res models today and still coming out at 2:00 and saying 8-10 more inches was on the way is so on brand for SGF.

Well, there was a 10%-80% chance of it happening. The same Springfield that took major heat for missing several tornado warnings recently as well. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, schoeppeya said:

Not going to drone on about it anymore but this is the worst modeling bust inside of 12 hours I can remember outside of a severe weather bust or two. Radar estimates have me at .1” QPF which is 1/4 the lowest amount any model had me at even as if 06z this morning.


.

Yah this was pretty bad. One thing I've learned is just focus on those 10:1 ratio maps and ignore the Kuchera. I caught myself looking at Kuchera with all the talk of strong arctic intrusion and higher ratios. I think looking back the Euro 10:1 had it pretty close, at least in my area. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, schoeppeya said:

Not going to drone on about it anymore but this is the worst modeling bust inside of 12 hours I can remember outside of a severe weather bust or two. Radar estimates have me at .1” QPF which is 1/4 the lowest amount any model had me at even as if 06z this morning.


.

Do you remember the Tulsa "Donut Hole" last year?! lol where it was snowing all around Tulsa but never in Tulsa?! That was the absolute worst and depressing!:lol: I can deal with 4 inches, if that ends up verifying for Tulsa. My hubby has about a quarter of an inch of ice on his truck windows underneath the snow, which by far, makes this "storm" much more dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SGF reported 3.5" at 6:00, just a stunning bust. The 00Z NMB last night was almost 12 inches. Hard to comprehend how everything missed that badly 12 hours from the start of the event. 

I have a screenshot of the most recent HRRR run at 7 this morning still showing 9” for Tulsa and I have MAYBE 1” on the ground at my house.

As frustrating as it is for someone who loves big weather events, it’s one of the reasons I love it so much. As much as people want to think we have it figured out, there’s always reminders like this that Mother Nature will still do what she wants.


.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, schoeppeya said:


I have a screenshot of the most recent HRRR run at 7 this morning still showing 9” for Tulsa and I have MAYBE 1” on the ground at my house.

As frustrating as it is for someone who loves big weather events, it’s one of the reasons I love it so much. As much as people want to think we have it figured out, there’s always reminders like this that Mother Nature will still do what she wants.


.

Below is the Euro from 12z Sunday.  10:1 map. It's still high in places but much more in line with actual results. 

Screenshot_20250216_120848_Chrome.thumb.jpg.b7b1d47edaa50747acf3e2371a7dbc9a.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, MoWeatherguy said:

Just a screwed up modeling storm.  Not sure what they were seeing that didn't happen. 

Dry air at 2,000 feet, and then at 12-14,000 ft killed the forecast in all likelihood. It didn't show up until you looked at the Euro runs yesterday and then the HRRR runs last night. Hidden in plain sight.

But in all reality, it is very hard to get a >10" snowstorm out in this part of the country. The numbers being put on the street by models and others yesterday were surreal. In some way, it felt like a bad troll job.  

The synoptic setup of having arctic air come in ~12 hours before the event will always cause issues because the initial cold air advection in those airmasses can be quite powerful. Having done some case study work on this, most big snowfalls in this part of the country have had 24-48 hours of cold in place before the snow begins. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, rockchalk83 said:

Dry air at 2,000 feet, and then at 12-14,000 ft killed the forecast in all likelihood. It didn't show up until you looked at the Euro runs yesterday and then the HRRR runs last night. Hidden in plain sight.

But in all reality, it is very hard to get a >10" snowstorm out in this part of the country. The numbers being put on the street by models and others yesterday were surreal. In some way, it felt like a bad troll job.  

The synoptic setup of having arctic air come in ~12 hours before the event will always cause issues because the initial cold air advection in those airmasses can be quite powerful. Having done some case study work on this, most big snowfalls in this part of the country have had 24-48 hours of cold in place before the snow begins. 

In addition, it's difficult to get big snowfall in this region without some type of storm system. There was nothing at the surface. The system at the 500 MB level was not impressive and the 700MB winds were from the SW. There was more of a system at the 850 MB level to help with lift at that level. So the entire system was based on the 700 MB and 850 MB response. There was always going to be more QPF squeezed out in the persistent bands of snow and where they set up which tied in with where the various fronts were. With that being said, the GFS/NAM are almost always too moist and generate too much QPF.  

  • 100% 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, JoMo said:

In addition, it's difficult to get big snowfall in this region without some type of storm system. There was nothing at the surface. The system at the 500 MB level was not impressive and the 700MB winds were from the SW. There was more of a system at the 850 MB level to help with lift at that level. So the entire system was based on the 700 MB and 850 MB response. There was always going to be more QPF squeezed out in the persistent bands of snow and where they set up which tied in with where the various fronts were. With that being said, the GFS/NAM are almost always too moist and generate too much QPF.  

Yah I've often thought that as well, about the lack of a surface low tracking to our south. Along with the lack of cold air already in place. We had a classic low pressure back in the January storm.

  • 100% 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...