Recently in Weather Category

I'm fortunate to work at an unnamed national severe weather forecasting center that serves as one of the last bastions of frequent manual map analysis in the nation. Twice a day, the mandatory level (925, 850, 700, 500 and 250 mb) upper air charts appear from printers on 11" x 17" paper for analysis in support of the core forecast mission. Surface maps are printed for analysis many times per day as forecasters take the time and interest to do so. When these analyses are done in a careful, detailed way, this is a very, very good thing; for it forces the mind to slow down and truly immerse in the observations, connecting them into a carefully constructed, multivariate conceptual model of that snapshot of our atmosphere.

Excellent analysis is time-consuming, and requires a good deal of both skill and practice. Unfortunately, especially in local offices, hand analysis is vanishing, partly because of increasing volumetric workload (and resulting loss of time) and partly from ignorance and laziness. I often feel that time pressure myself, and fear that the same fate may befall the national center(s) if we're not diligent and careful. The slow creep of forecast automation -- and of the related phenomenon of "meteorological cancer" (first noted in this 31 year old paper by Snellman) -- is on the move in some insidious ways. As I've pointed out here before, procedure is taking over forecasters' time at the expense of meteorology.

Sometimes it seems like those of us who bother to do detailed hand analysis are becoming an endangered species. It utterly baffles me why so many put so little value in it, and why the quality of many hand analyses is so poor -- with lines on the wrong side of data, closed highs or lows unlabeled, missed boundaries, unlabeled lines, time continuity jumps (e.g., a cold front oscillating backward from one map to the next) and other fundamental errors. Were I still a synoptic meteorology teaching assistant, I would assign grades of "D" or lower to 90% of the drawn maps I have seen, anywhere, in the last several years. I don't understand this inattention to excellence in hand analysis. Is it lack of exposure or training, time pressure, disinterest, inexperience or all of the above?

Acquiring the deepest possible grasp on the current state of atmosphere is absolutely essential to forming the conceptual models needed for consistently good forecasts, and also, for good forecasts of rare and extreme events that are most poorly handled by objective analyses and guidance. Throughout all the technological advances, this basic truth remains unaltered.

I engage both hand-drawn maps and objective analyses of all kinds on a daily basis, in considerable detail, and can assure you that the latter is a piss-poor substitute for the former, when excellence in hand analysis is made top priority. Now please understand that I wouldn't violate the Golden Rule by holding anyone else to a greater standard than myself; nor do I claim to be a more skilled analyst. The principle of (and need for) analytic excellence absolutely applies to me as much as anyone. I can (and do) go back and find inexcusable and shameful mistakes in my own analyses.

A missed max or min here or there, or a boundary not drawn under hurried circumstances, may not seem like much, but how does one know what "minor" feature is really unimportant until the event is over?

Superficial skimming of objective, computer-drawn analyses -- which often miss or misplace small but critical features -- is not the same as truly diving into the data, taking the time to thoroughly draw for and interpret it. If it comes to a choice between more hand analysis or more model output, I'm choosing the hand analysis. An informal (not yet published) experiment called Project Phoenix, managed by Pat McCarthy of Environment Canada's Prairie and Arctic Storm Prediction Centre, showed over several seasons that forecasters who looked at observational information only (including hand analyzed charts, as well as satellite, radar and other observed data) performed better at forecasting basic variables during day-1, and often into day-2, than those on regular, operational shifts looking at numerical models. Why would this be?

I don't advocate eschewing model guidance any more than I would dropping hand analyses. In the practical sense of operational forecasting, it would be dumb to ignore the most pertinent nuggets of prognostic information. I make intensive use of models in day-to-day forecasting, including an increasingly heavy reliance on clues provided by short-range ensemble forecasts (SREF). But when pressed for time, I'll sacrifice a deterministic model or two for more insight into the current state of things. After all, how can we consistently predict the future atmosphere without deepest possible understanding of the present atmosphere? Those who claim to have such understanding by ignoring manual diagnostics and looking at objective analyses instead have deluded themselves, amidst the intoxicating abundance of quick-n-ready digital diagnostics -- the choice drug of forecasting, so to speak. These forecasters are dooming themselves to a fate they probably deserve -- automation of their jobs -- but in the process, increasing that risk for the rest of us as well. Just remember: garbage in, garbage out. Without corroboration from reality, how does one know the computer drawn map is accurate?

Failing to do good hand analysis also is quite selfish. The subjective analyses are not just for the forecaster doing them; they are for the entire forecast team and shift successors, and are important to continuity of understanding of an evolving situation. Even if a forecaster doesn't "get much" from his own analysis (which is a surefire sign of a scientific and conceptual deficiency on his/her part), it has meaning to others, and as such, should be done and done thoroughly. Hence...

Understanding the current state of the atmosphere isn't a matter of personal choice; it's a matter of professional responsibility.

The solution for the troubled forecaster is simple: Get out those colored pencils and start drawing! To help get going, here are links to online, national upper air maps, ideal for hand analysis and optimized for 11 x 17 printer paper (but useable at smaller sizes):

12Z Plots with VAD and Profiler Winds (PDF format): 925 mb | 850 mb | 700 mb | 500 mb | 250 mb

The first step in making the best forecast that the science permits requires a thorough high quality diagnosis. Successful short range forecasts are more the result of good diagnosis than of prognosis.

- Len Snellman, 9 October 1991

Some colleagues and I have had a discussion about the merits and demerits of wind farms when storm observing, which also wandered into some concern over the impact of removing gigawatts of energy from the boundary layer. The latter is very nebulous, but photographically speaking, one thing is clear: One man's eyesore is another's photogenic desire. I've found the wind farms in some sky-scape settings to make great subjects or foregrounds (e.g., from SkyPix, Outflow Power and Solar Powered Wind Power), and fully intend to make use of them in the future as opportunity permits.

Some other storm observers have taken great shots using wind farms as foregrounds or silhouettes. Elke and I also took a bunch of mixed wind-farm pics (old style windmills in front of the giant new turbines) recently in Baca County CO, just W of US-287 (not while chasing). I'll post those links once we get the shots processed. [Still working on images from 2008 chase vacation...]

I'm in favor of more wind farms, which is fortunate since their numbers across the Great Plains are rising no matter what we think about them. They provide relatively clean energy and an economic boost to remote and downtrodden communities. In the process of learning more about the Roscoe wind farm shown in that last link, I came across this article from NPR online, which illustrates the point well.

Many of these areas have been beaten into submission economically and welcome both the income infusion and the opportunity to contribute some cleaner energy to the power stream than what's come out of the ground beneath. The expensive part, from various sources I've read, is providing the high-capacity transmission infrastructure to get this power from remote, windswept reaches of the Great Plains to somewhat nearby areas of high demand (e.g., the Metroplex, DEN, MKC, etc.).

Boone Pickens wants to set up essentially a nearly unbroken chain of wind farms from west Texas to the Canadian border. The guy's motives are questionable and his schemes often laced with more hyperbole than legitimacy. Still, whether it's by his doing or from an aggregated collection of lesser fat-cats, you can count on the same basic thing happening: numerous wind farms from west TX to the Dakotas within 10-15 years. The energy source exists, and as it becomes more economically feasible, will be exploited to the extent that environmental regulation, private landowners and market economics allow. And it's going to be a lot harder to regulate something as wholly subjective and purely judgmental as "sight pollution" versus measurable, tangible, physical emissions from fossil fuels.

Like other Great Plains enthusiasts, I would like to keep the wind farms out of some areas of special scenic meaning to me as well (e.g., Flint Hills, Badlands, Wichita Mountains, national grasslands). [Incidentally, a part of the power I'm using to post this comes from that OEC wind farm N of the Wichitas, near Meers OK. That sucker slices across the northern horizon every time I'm atop Mt. Scott.]

Compromises will be necessary between competing aesthetic/economic/societal interests if this is going to work at all. But if we as a civilization decide to keep either exhausting or checking off sources like wind, coal, nuclear, oil, solar, hydro, etc., from the list, for various reasons large and small, then we might as well let the roads crumble, close down our offices, and go back to a mixed hunter-gatherer/agrarian society, and storm chasing and all BLOGs are moot matters anyway. [I am, BTW, for vastly expanded nuclear energy production in this country as well. ]

As far as the kinetic energy removed by wind turbines from the boundary layer, this needs to be analyzed better to see what, if any, physical feedbacks there are among pressure/height gradients (wind origin), forcings aloft for related isallobaric fields in the lowest ~100 m where the energy is being extracted, and the response/restoration of said gradients to that energy extraction (if any). I'll hypothesize that it's a negligible gnat fart of an effect given the small aggregated cross sectional area of the blades compared to any vertical cross section of the entire boundary layer across the Plains, but let's find out if that's valid.

Does an array of turbines extracting a few gigawatts of energy alter del-p at the surface, or isallohypsic patterns aloft by upward propagating influences of boundary layer processes? How big of a butterfly is a wind farm in Texas relative to a tornado in Kansas? We do know one thing: Ultimately, wind energy is solar in origin, and the sun's output is independent of kinetic energy removal in the ~100 m layer above ground. Beyond that...who knows? It's a great area for research.

For several years now, Rich Thompson has been mired in a prolonged situation where he sometimes sees tornadoes, but only at a distance, at night, wrapped in rain, in low contrast, while driving and unable to safely pull over, or other settings absolutely not conducive to quality still photography. In some ways, I can relate, because I've had stretches of a few years at a time like that.

In addition, however, Rich has had untimely medical problems that forced him to either miss some great chase days, or in one case, he couldn't hold up a camera well enough to this tornado because of a surgically repaired arm mired in a cumbersome, unwieldy sling. Pneumonia, flu, surgery, suddenly hospitalized relatives, bad patterns, inescapable prior commitments...you name it, aside from the lack of photogenic tubes when able to head out, other calamities of many sorts have dominated his chase vacations. Rich has described the phenomenon to many friends and colleagues this way: "(For photographing tornadoes) this whole decade has been an absolute suckfest."

I am happy to report the suckfest is ending. Rich, chasing with Ryan Jewell, saw a few decent contrast, daytime tornadoes out on NW KS yesterday, and from what I've heard, got a few shots of them. They'll have more opportunities for perhaps even better success today, as stronger storm-relative upper level winds give them a shot at more updraft-precipitation separation.

Outstanding! This is great news, not just for Rich and Ryan, but for the rest of us who have watched this sad state of affairs unfold since 2000. I say this not just because Rich and Ryan are among the photographers for Insojourn, and the possibility of more great images beckons. Instead, as a fellow 23+ year storm observer who has experienced long droughts, it stinks to go extended periods without the atmosphere providing photogenic hoses on available chase days. Rich is as skilled and knowledgeable of a storm observer as there is. But misfortune with timing -- luck still being the biggest factor in chase success -- has had him snake-bitten for the most part. The only cure is a feast on the smorgasbord of atmospheric violence. And so it is.

I'm glad they called with their reports, too. Rich and Ryan didn't have contact info and aren't on Spotter Network yet, so it was good to be able to relay their reports to the right offices quickly and without disrupting official duties whatsoever at my unnamed workplace. It was also neat to be able to see their observations on Ryan's dashboard camera, which will be active again today whenever they have digital cellular telephone connectivity.

I'm watching this whole several-day event unfold in front of computer screens, being on a set of evening shifts throughout. I won't complain, though. It goes that way sometimes, and I actually don't mind as much as it may seem. There certainly are worse things to keep you from observing an event than forecasting for it. Doing outlooks for these events is challenging in a good way, because every forecaster wants to tackle the "big stuff." Work has to take priority anyway..it pays the bills! I'm also saving hundreds of bucks in fuel and lodging that I'll surely spend later when Elke and I go on our June vacation.

So my hope for Ryan and Rich today is a hosefest of epic proportions, to further flush the suckfest down the toilet of history. Go git' em dudes!

I've been too busy to do much BLOGging lately, but this has been a good brand of preoccupation. The most active early portion of storm chase season in my recent memory is calming down somewhat, and I have been fortunate enough to participate in most of the events as a mobile observer.

Here we are in mid-April, and in climatologically common fashion, several strong synoptic waves and short waves in the upper levels have come and gone since mid March. This is the time of year when, as Rodgers and Hammerstein once wrote, the wind comes sweepin' down the plains...but then, back up them again, then back down again, then back up again, and so forth.

The difference is that, in many recent years over the southern Plains, the approaching waves were timed badly with respect either to the solar heating cycle or to scant return of Gulf moisture following its expulsion deep into the subtropics by preceding frontal passages. Granted, moisture return has been same-day and less than ideal for prolifically tornadic storms in most of these events. But there have been some, and I was fortunate enough to witness the beginning of one of the tornadic circulations (SW of Breckenridge TX near Eolian, 9 Apr).

More importantly, these systems have decorated southern Plains skies with an impressive array of photogenic supercells with amazing structure, the likes of which more commonly swirl across the high plains in May and early June than this region in March and April. Normally, I count myself fortunate to get the right days off and atmospheric cooperation for one or two great "structure storms" in a season. This year there have been five -- three of them in one day (7 Apr on three sides of Wichita Falls) and two on the other (30 Mar around Corn and Gotebo OK).

Things have been so busy, in fact, between the usual family time, working during several severe weather events, and traveling for both business and pleasure (including visual indulgences of the atmospheric kind), that I've hardly had time to stop and smell the roses -- or in our case, the eruption of pleasantly pungent wisteria blooms over our front porch that is being buzzed by clouds of ecstatic bumblebees on a daily basis.

In one six day period, I traveled from Norman to Orlando (to speak on TC tornadoes at the National Hurricane Conference), back to Norman, down to Mineral Wells TX the same day my flight got back...down further to Fredericksburg and Llano (yes...Cooper's barbecue, German food and wildflower photography with Elke again)...back to Norman, down to Wichita Falls the same day I got back to Norman (three spectacular, sculpted supercells in one fine evening), then back to Norman the same night. This was after recent trips to Texas A&M in College Station, a US-China Symposium session here in Norman, and a regional severe weather conference in Beaufort NC -- also to give talks on TC tornadoes. A few other chases also interspersed themselves somewhere in the past month, including a fun one with the kids down to southeast Oklahoma that was at least as much about dad time as about storms. It was good to get some rest after all that, but I ain't complaining...far from it!

Usually I don't like rushing around so much, but that was an absolute blast. I love learning and teaching about tornadoes and about hurricanes, so the combination of the two is outstanding. Then there is that great Texas Hill Country drive that Elke and I try to do annually anymore, usually around the peak of wildflower season if I've got fortuitously placed days off. The bluebonnets this year actually were better in North Texas, up around I-20, than in some of the usual hot spots like the Willow City loop, thanks to untimely dry and wet periods farther south. Nonetheless it still was a great time with fantastic food and scenery, and some time just to spend with my beautiful bride of six years. And of course, the feasts at the smörgåsbord of atmospheric violence...every one was an adventure unto itself, as all worthwhile chase trips are. I've just started posting photo-festooned summaries of those to our chase BLOG, and will continue to do so in the coming days or nights.

I'm going on a stretch of assorted evening and night shifts through early May that will curtail storm observing almost completely, but I am not complaining about that, either. Some years have been so lame, both atmospherically and as far as timing of opportunities, that I've been unable to chase even once by this time. it's great to have some spectacular storms under the belt already, and a couple of period of more extended time off in mid May and mid June still are a good ways off.

Yet Another Large Event Venue Is Spared a Mass Disaster

There was exactly one tornado reported in the whole USA on 14 March 2008 (preliminary), and it hit large venues in downtown Atlanta. That's astounding. It goes to show that there doesn't need to be a well-organized outbreak, or even a singular large and violent tornado (this one "only" was an EF-2) to realize a dangerous situation. A single, isolated severe storm in precisely the wrong place can pose a huge problem also.

They got extraordinarily lucky at the Georgia Dome. Even while barely sideswiping it, the tornado and its inflow winds were starting to transform that stadium from an indoor to an outdoor facility. Had the tornado been stronger and/or scored a more direct hit, there would have been larger pieces of that roof coming down onto those fans -- maybe even the hanging catwalk that already was swinging back and forth.

The PA announcer in the infamous video waited 'til the tornado was upon them to announce severe weather in the area. That's not evidence of a well-known, detailed severe weather plan. In this day and age, the liability risk is too large for any major venue to fail to execute a short-fuse severe storm and tornado plan of action. Instead, it was "every man for himself" in the fan seating.

The reason fans hadn't already dispersed into the street (where they would have been even more endangered) was that the game went into overtime. That's pure, unadulterated good luck. Spectator safety, when severe weather strikes large venues, should not depend on serendipity. But it did, and here's how:

1. The game happened to go to overtime, keeping the fans inside before the tornado, yet
2. By good fortune, the tornado strike wasn't stronger and more direct, therefore the roof didn't suffer partial or substantial collapse with major falling pieces crushing those fans still milling about the exposed seating areas.

A comprehensive plan for such situations would discourage the fans from going outside, but also, use fully warning-informed announcements and posted tornado shelter signs to direct them away from areas where that roof could fall down on them. In a place like that, such shelter may include areas under the upper deck and any concourses not exposed to outside airflow.

The nightmare scenario about which I've BLOGged here, and about which Les Lemon and I have presented many times and written in a paper years ago, almost happened...again.

The good news is that Les, who has great organizational skills and some key contacts, has been working hard behind the scenes to assemble a national committee of experts from many related communities (public and private meteorology, severe storms forecasting and research, large venue operators, major league sports, sociology, emergency management, etc.) to tackle this matter in a systematic, nationwide way. The G-Dome event certainly will help to motivate some folks who otherwise were hesitant or unaware of the problem to get proactive. Others will keep their heads in the sand, baselessly blame "acts of God" and play Russian roulette with the crowds at these events.

[EDIT] As of this writing (18 March 2008, 2152 CDT), a fairly thorough search of the Georgia Dome website reveals no public severe weather safety plan, whatsoever. This is interesting, considering the taxpayers fund this facility directly through the State of Georgia's Georgia World Congress Center Authority.

The first true storm intercept trip of the spring season can't be matched for its sense of relief and release, even if temporary, from the frigid and dreary dungeon of winter. It is a door atop a stairwell leading upward from the catacombs, opening wide into the bright light of the dawn of storm season, another spring's world of adventures, anticipations of travels yet to be determined.

Think of all the new sights, sounds and smells and combinations thereof, somewhere out there -- who knows where? Isn't that sort of uncertainty a fantastic thing in its own right, one of those far-too-uncommon unknowns that is to be anticipated instead of dreaded?

Moments of elation and frustration and boredom and excitement, impatient waiting followed by a frenzy of danger or beauty or some hybrid of both, all cobble together to form a big gift revealed and assembled one component at a time. Each chase day is another multi-hued piece that clips onto the one before, and in turn into the next, to form a truly unique whole kaleidoscope of learning, beauty and adventure, a storm season that never can be duplicated again in ten thousand lifetimes.

This isn't just a chance to whisk away the mental cobwebs of a long offseason, shake off observational rust and test drive new equipment (if any), but also, to begin a season-long process of renewal and reinvigoration, all at the behest of every southerly surge of warm, moist return flow. Such rejuvenation has an uncertain duration, across still undetermined travels and parts unknown, dictated by the whims of the atmosphere. Its beginning, on the other hand, is definite and most welcome: storm chase trip number one. It is wanted, needed, and finally happening!

The inaugural chase of the new year begins against that backdrop. Heading out onto the highway amidst the mild southerly breezes, the promise of a new storm observing season begins to be fulfilled, with all that brings not only in anticipation and eagerness to experience whatever adventures that lie ahead, but also a sense of heading home. Yes, home. For the connoisseur at the smorgasbord of atmospheric violence, home is wherever the storms are.

My friend and colleague Greg Stumpf would like to announce this traveling charity event to benefit the citizens of Greensburg KS. As an extension of the Storms of 2007 project, this is a most worthy cause...

========================================

Project Greensburg
Storm Chasers Giving Back to the Community

Date: February 6, 2008
Web URL: http://www.thestormsof2007.org

On May 4, 2007, the quiet farming community of Greensburg, Kansas, was nearly entirely destroyed by an EF-5 tornado. When people are in desperate need, others instinctively rush to help, sometimes in very unique ways. This is how Project Greensburg was born.

Project Greensburg will be a series of free public showings of the storm-chaser produced "Storms of 2007" DVD in several cities across central Kansas. DVDs will be for sale at these showings, and all profits raised at these special events will be donated for disaster relief for the City of Greensburg. More information on the "Storms of 2007" DVD is available at http://www.thestormsof2007.org.

The first showing will be on March 1, 2008 at the Pratt Community College Auditorium in Pratt, Kansas. Doors will open at 5:30pm. Mike Umscheid, the National Weather Service meteorologist who issued the Tornado Warning for Greensburg, will be the special speaker at this event. Greg Stumpf, a National Severe Storms Laboratory meteorologist who, in 2004, co-created of the "Storms of" DVD charity project, will also speak. Mickey Ptak, the lead producer of the "Storms of 2007" DVD, will round out the show.

Natural disasters attract a distinctive group of individuals who are awed by the power of nature. For decades, "storm chasers" have pursued tornadoes, hurricanes, and other severe storms, armed with video cameras and other equipment. Some of these storm chasers have turned their talents into a successful fundraiser to benefit storm victims - the "Storms of 2007" DVD - and 100% of the profits are donated to organizations and charities which help storm victims. Over 100 storm chasers collaborated to collect some of the most remarkable video of the year for the DVD. The "Storms of 2007" DVD is the 4th volume from the highly successful "Storms of" DVD series. Sales from the first three DVDs have already raised over $20,000. The majority of the profits for the DVDs have been donated to the American Red Cross Disaster Relief Fund. This unique gift is for sale now at http://www.thestormsof2007.org.

========================================

This sounds like a great way to raise some money for the townsfolk of Greensburg, as well as to spread some good news about storm observers and the positive outcomes of storm observing. I got the DVD as a Christmas present (would have bought it otherwise), and it's well worth owning for any weather buff.

Only a bonafide tornado nut like me would notice something like this, but here goes anyway. For several hours last night and into this morning (Feb. 5-6), the Drudge Report (normally one of my favorite websites) perpetuated a goof at minimum, and a copyright violation at maximum. Before I provide the answer below, take a mental exercise and guess which tornado is in the photo below. [Click on the thumbnail to get the full-sized screen capture in a separate window or pane.]

The tornado-related articles on Drudge that night dealt with the Super Tuesday tornado outbreak of 5 Feb 2008. That photo is real, and was taken from within the damage path of a tornado as it retreated from town.

The town was Union City, OK, and the date was 24 May 1973! I recognized that tornado immediately, having catalogued numerous slides of it over 20 years ago as a former NSSL student research aide and storm intercept crew member.

Some asking around amongst storm chasing old-timers has indicated that the photo was taken by Al Moller using Randy Zipser's camera. I don't know if it is copyrighted by either of those guys, or was released to the public domain. Either way, the record should be set straight, even if very, very few ever would notice or even care.

First a Tropical Storm, Now an Ice Storm...

We in central Oklahoma just finished the bulk of an episodic, two-day ice storm that rendered nearly a half million residents without electricity, the largest figure in state history. Schools are closing for at least two days -- more because of power outages and direct blockages by fallen trees than from driving restraints imposed by ice. Around half an inch to an inch of solid accumulation is quite common, busting branches and sometimes taking down whole trees. I could hear the distinctive crack-n-crash sounds in the woods around my property for much of the day, and saw several large branches topple -- an experience common to anyone outdoors across several central OK counties.

For the Christmas-1987 ice storm, I was an OU student out of town for Christmas break, so my last experience with this magnitude of ice or greater was in Dallas, New Year's Day, 1979. That was worse, with more ice (1.5 to 2 inches) in a city of a million people, and 600,000 people without power. I vividly recall that Saturday night and Sunday morning, staying awake until after 3 a.m. to the noise of crashing limbs and the flashes of both lightning and power line blowouts. After we lost power, I remember listening in a transistor radio to Ray Ward, Dallas Power and Light spokesman, describing the mounting troubles throughout the night in various interviews. Another vivid memory from that event was all the yankee license plates (Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, etc.) that I saw on vehicles that slid off Central Expressway and other area roads. [This was during a peak of the mass exodus of jobs to the Sun Belt from the Rust Belt.]

This Okie event definitely brought back some memories and points for comparison. A key difference is that the ground was warmer here, and the roads stayed largely ice-free. Unlike the 1987 event in Norman, or the 1979 Dallas storm, travel was inhibited in the latest ice storm only by fallen trees and by powerless signals. Nonetheless, while this ice storm isn't as severe in terms of absolute amount as that Dallas event, or separate but similarly thick ice accumulations several years ago in northwestern and southeastern Oklahoma, its location over relatively thickly populated areas has created a considerable mess.

Several rounds of mostly spotty, convective rains atop the subfreezing air caused this event. The heaviest thunderstorms, overnight last night, produced very short-lived and localized rain rates to near an inch an hour, with more common rates of .10-.25 inches over a larger area. Still, rain rates didn't add up to total accumulation, because there still was obvious runoff in the heaviest thunderstorm cores.

Here in Norman, we had a 36-hour period where no more than a couple of hours passed between seeing lightning or hearing thunder, all with below freezing surface temperatures, thanks in part to a series of perturbations in southwesterly flow aloft, and their destabilizing effects above an elevated plume of low level moisture. Last night, one of those lightning strikes hit in the woods next to my house, contributing to the first downed tree branch of many (either through direct strike, or through percussive effects).

This hasn't been Chamber of Commerce weather. We've had some power outages, but luckily, not the multi-day ones (as we did in Dallas in '79 or others in Oklahoma have currently). My neighborhood, while liberally festooned with downed branches and trees, still fared better than those of folks in the main part of Norman and north-northeastward across parts of Oklahoma and Lincoln Counties, where the heaviest storm totals were. Thousands upon thousands of trees and large limbs are down; and once the ice melts, it will look as if a hurricane selectively hammered only the vegetation.

Farther north, across much of KS, MO, southeast NE and IA, the ground is much colder; half as much rain will create much more travel problems and still take down some trees and limbs.

The sounds of chain saws -- including mine -- will permeate the air for a couple of weeks to come. Much as in parts of Dade County FL, after Hurricane Andrew, trees around these parts are going to look shorter, really haggard and imbalanced for a few years, until younger branches and trees grow enough to fill in the canopy.

I'm not going to complain too much. Those of us who choose to make our home in the Sooner State either do, or damn well should, accept that these things do happen here, and learn to cope. We get ice storms, deep droughts, 100+ degree heat waves, dust storms, tornadoes, tremendous flash floods, giant hail and derechos. All these combine to make life hard on trees in these parts, and in combination with poor soil, explain why we don't have many tall or fast-growing trees. This is living in Oklahoma (and, when applicable, adjacent north Texas and Kansas). We deal with it and forge forward. I make lemonade from lemons by doing both documentary and artistic photography, though my shift and sleep schedule won't allow much opportunity to get out and chronicle this event in images as thoroughly as other folks.

And for those of us who are meteorologists, we also learn as much as possible about these events in order to better predict them in the future. Fortunately, this one generally was well forecast; and the Norman forecast office deserves a good deal of credit for discussing ice potential a few days out in hazardous weather outlooks, then ramping up threat levels to an ice storm warning well before the first trees fell.

I've posted a small gallery of photography from the event, including the ones above, at this location online.

While it's still there, check out a Houston Chronicle article, within which former NHC director Neil Frank (for whom I do have a good deal of respect, BTW) questions NHC's decision to name several weak or debatably tropical 2007 storms.

If Neil was quoted in good context in that article -- never a given in the modern attack-media -- he seems to advocate turning back the clock and treating some of this year's hybrid or cold-to-warm core transitions as something other than tropical. If so, I don't agree. His statements are patently oversimplified and unfair to the forecasters now there. We as scientists need to do the best we can, under the best understanding currently available, and call a spade a spade. This means tropical if it meets all the criteria (as did, for example, Erin over Oklahoma, which was: warm core, 35+ kt sustained for several hours, structurally characteristic with an eye, eyewall and spiral band, effectively devoid of baroclinicity and ingesting low level temperature and moisture fields similar to the tropics). [Erin's final "best track" info still hasn't been fully determined yet.]

1979-era rules of thumb don't apply in the framework of today's vastly better sensor sampling. This includes QuikSCAT, coastal and inland fixed mesonets, mobile observing systems and deployed sensors in landfalling storms, fixed and mobile Doppler radars, and other tools that were either unavailable or much more primitive in that era. We're seeing named storms that wouldn't have been named way back when, you bet. But there are valid reasons.

This isn't because of some desire to inflate numbers for verification's sake or to support any "global warming" hysteria, as some of the reactionary but grotesquely ignorant BLOGgers have posted in response to that article. I'll respond for now to the BLOGs and postings in response to that article, not to Neil's quotes...

It's a lot harder to play verification games with TCs than with severe storms, given the intense scrutiny that every single Atlantic event gets in real time from storm aficionados of all flavors worldwide, as well as real meteorologists and meteorologist wanna-be's. I firmly believe that NHC is not playing verification games, has not, and won't be. I know those forecasters and they've got more integrity than that. By contrast, locally inflating a thunderstorm wind report to verify a warning, recording a dubious gust estimate that happens to occur in a warning, turning a "marble into a shooter" hailstone, or declaring an ongoing event as occurring one minute into the warning, is not so hard to do, and can go under the radar (pun intended) amidst the prevailing flurry of tens of thousands of other reports every year. Does that happen nowadays in verifying local storm warnings? I can't firmly vouch or prove either way. But I am quite confident that NHC is acting with the utmost integrity in classifying tropical systems. So...

As for those claiming NHC is playing "global warming" games, that's unadulterated crap. Real live NHC forecasters aren't dealing with climate change in their forecasting and verification duties -- just trying to make the best predictions possible and figure out what happened with each storm after the fact, using all available evidence. There is no grand conspiracy, period...no bogeyman under the bed, no chains rattling in the attic, no little green space-alien freaks planting chips in our heads, and no massive hidden agenda on naming tropical systems. Of course, irrational paranoids in the BLOGosphere never will be convinced otherwise!

Back to Neil's implication that marginal or hybrid systems could be left alone: Now isn't an era when some P.O.S., no-impact swirly in the middle of the subtropical Atlantic can be swept under the rug! NHC cannot just ignore marginal systems "way out there" or fail to name a storm that has strong evidence of qualifying characteristics.

Unlike in the 70s and 80s, satellite, radar, RECON and other data is available almost instantly, worldwide, to anyone with Internet connectivity. This audience runs the gamut from some really brilliant atmospheric scientists to beer-swilling, ill-educated conspiracy mongers drooling all over their keyboards in facile worship of Art Bell. From both extremes and everywhere between, accountability exists as never before, and the spotlight shines bright and hot. It's also true that not every customer will agree with the results, given the sheer size and diversity of the user base behind those spotlights. Clearly Neil and some of the BLOGgers aren't happy with it. So be it. Can't please everyone...

In the tropical arena, we are getting more marginal or atypical systems named than before for at least these three reasons, the first also being a legitimate reason we've got more severe local storm reports in the U.S. now as well:

1. They are being sampled much more thoroughly, both remotely and in situ, and

2. Scientific understanding of their existence, behavior and morphology has improved, contributing to better documentation of the processes and transitions and distinctions between tropical and extratropical. As meteorologists continue to gain understanding, and as technological and measuring capabilities improve, classification of tropical systems will and should evolve too!

3. Both policies and practices on naming subtropical systems have loosened since the 80s, and even since I was there in the early 90s. We also know the atmosphere doesn't give a flip about naming policy, and will keep cranking out these systems whether or not we decide to call them TS Bubba, STS Bubba or just "low." Therefore, the climatological record will include biases related to either written or unwritten rules changes on nomenclature. For a tropical or climate researcher, this sucks; but it is what it is. Adapt and adjust accordingly. Severe storms scientists are having to account for a much larger, crazier and more change-prone database.

These also are good reasons not to compare apples to oranges and try to make sweeping climatic conclusions from our flawed and inconsistently gathered records of Atlantic (or even worldwide) TCs. The same holds true even more so in the severe weather arena, where even relatively advanced U.S. records haven't been kept as long, and deep flaws in the data are well enunciated in the literature.

What is the good researcher to do? Any atmospheric scientist worth his/her degree(s) is absolutely obligated to either
1. Fully disclose and acknowledge the recording trends and biases in the cyclone data used for his/her work, or
2. Carefully and openly document, normalize and statistically detrend the data for all known biases, so as to minimize the impact on the storm climatology of the evolution in sampling, recording and naming of these storms.