The aftermath

The forecast challenges this week can easily be summed up by Fridays forecast Moderate risk in Oklahoma and the extension of increased risk through IL. That was our area of focus.  We had the full complement of model guidance, and some experience from days prior about how difficult it is to have confidence in making good areal forecasts and then putting the probabilities in the right 3 hour time windows.



The signals from the models were, ...well... fantastic. I could ask for better forecasts of convective initiation but that would only help us in the details but not necessarily the RISK. If I summed up the forecast in words it would sound like this:

1. Initiation along lines first in MO/KS in the 18-21 UTC period, multiple bands will form but only a few would evolve into supercells if outflow wasnt too strong.
2. Central and northern OK would follow after 21 UTC. Expected mode was supercells initiated by Horizontal Convective Rolls intersecting the boundary.
3. Heating in SW OK would initiate storms along or near the boundary but may struggle in the capped air mass.
4. The area of highest convective coverage would result in upscale growth across MO and NE OK. 

The real problem was trying to figure how those storms would move and then evolve as they move off the boundary. This was discussed as trying to figure out where exactly the corridors of severe weather would set up. But the corridors themselves would not map directly to the reports, which is how we verify our forecasts. So we knew we could manage the risk areas reasonably well but knew that uncertain was inherent in any forecast.

Which corridor would favor the upscale growth was unknown so we really could only go on the model signals. The convective coverage was low enough, a handful of supercells in central and southern OK, that it seemed less likely storms would rapidly transition into this MCS further south. So we tried to cover this area broadly. Of course in hindsight narrowing the corridors favorable for upscale growth would have helped in the QPF forecast but we were not charged in that aspect. This is one of the ways where you can become, for lack of a better term, disassociated with the larger picture when focusing in on only some aspects of the severe weather threats.

The verification we have on the website is incomplete as damage surveys have not yet indicated tornado reports from the Norman WFO. Too many people died despite what I consider to be a good but not shining example of forecast guidance (exactly the kind we have access to), a fantastic understanding and dissemination of the risk (both formal SPC and WFO Norman) products, watches, warnings, and public statements and outreach from the WFO Norman.

Lets be clear: Being more precise offers an illusion of safety that isnt there. We need to remember to differentiate luck from skill. We dont always have both, but usually have one. On days when we have neither ... and we cant predict when this will happen ... there is little room for hype and over confidence.

And there are many non meteorological factors that go into making great products and services. The bridge between great science and the publics is great communication theory, strategy, and tactics. If we want to get better and be better, and stay ahead of the curve on social technology ... we will have to work as hard on the forecasting science as we do on the policy, communication, and behavorial sciences.