All Activity

Hazardous Weather Outlook National Weather Service State College PA 303 AM EDT Tue Apr 7 2026 PAZ026>028-035-036-049>052-056-057-059-063>066-080715- Huntingdon-Mifflin-Juniata-Fulton-Franklin-Union-Snyder-Montour- Northumberland-Perry-Dauphin-Lebanon-Cumberland-Adams-York-Lancaster- 303 AM EDT Tue Apr 7 2026 ...FREEZE WARNING IN EFFECT FROM MIDNIGHT TONIGHT TO 9 AM EDT WEDNESDAY... ...FREEZE WATCH IN EFFECT FROM LATE WEDNESDAY NIGHT THROUGH THURSDAY MORNING... This Hazardous Weather Outlook is for central Pennsylvania. .DAY ONE...Today and tonight. Please listen to NOAA Weather Radio or go to weather.gov/StateCollege on the internet for more information about the following hazards. Freeze Warning. .DAYS TWO THROUGH SEVEN...Wednesday through Monday. Please listen to NOAA Weather Radio or go to weather.gov/StateCollege on the internet for more information about the following hazards. Freeze Warning. Freeze Watch.

Developing consensus is key part of the scientific process. Below is the leading paragraph of the Wikipedia entry on scientific consensus. Scientists are well aware of the scientific consensus in their field. They have to know the current state of knowledge to advance further. In the case of climate change, with high impact and a wide range of scientific disciplines, there are also governmental and technical organization activity to document the scientific consensus. IPCC is the leading example but there are many others. I encourage you to look at IPCC reports (link below). Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the vast majority of active, qualified experts on a conclusion in a specific scientific discipline.[1] Scientific consensus results from the self-correcting scientific process of peer review, replication of the event through the scientific method, scholarly debate, meta-analysis, and publication of high-quality review articles, monographs, or guidelines in reputable books and journals to establish facts and durable knowledge about the topic.[2][3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/

Today Snow showers likely before 2pm, then scattered rain showers. Cloudy, with a high near 43. Calm wind becoming northwest 5 to 7 mph in the afternoon. Winds could gust as high as 23 mph. Chance of precipitation is 70%. Total daytime snow accumulation of 1 to 2 inches possible.

Snowing lightly in Newtonville too.

Euro thru the end of the run. Going to get crispy here fast.

We snow!

Yeah but whats the cost for 150' of gutter? Sent from my SM-S921U using Tapatalk

Temperatures will be in freeze territory Wednesday morning one week from last frost date

My Magnus Opus of why I can never be mad at preceiptitation reports after a big storms.. We've all been there. NEXRAD shows 0.50" for your pixel. Your CoCoRaHS gauge reads 0.22". Your neighbor two blocks over posts 0.81". Both of you are right. The radar might also be right. Here's why, and why it gets genuinely alarming during intense convection. The Geometry First I'm 73.8 miles from KCCX at State College. At that range, the 1° beam has expanded to 6,803 feet in diameter — that's 1.29 miles across. The center of that beam is floating 7,882 feet above my roof. The super-resolution pixel covering my house is 0.830 square miles / 2.15 km². The legacy pixel was 1.660 square miles / 4.30 km². That single dBZ value stamped on that pixel represents the average backscatter of a volume of air roughly the size of 12 Disneylands hovering a mile and a half above the ground. Now imagine 100 top-of-the-line rain gauges evenly distributed across that pixel. Super-res spacing works out to one gauge every 481 feet. I stand dead-center in my grid cell. By Pythagoras, my four nearest gauges are at the corners — each 340 feet away from me. Here's Where It Gets Uncomfortable For well-behaved stratiform rain — your warm-frontal overrunning, your classic nimbostratus — everything is fine. CV of 0.10 to 0.16. My four nearest gauges within a few hundredths of each other. Radar is defensible. Life is good. But bump up into Category 7 — intense convective core directly over the pixel — and the math falls apart spectacularly. Radar reports 0.50". CV = 1.00. Standard deviation = 0.50". Lognormal distribution gives a pixel-wide range of 0.090" to 1.391" at the P5/P95 level. That's a 15:1 spread across my 0.830 square mile pixel, between gauges that are less than half a mile from each other. But here's the part that genuinely made me sit back: my four nearest gauges — 340 feet away from me, about the length of a city block — have a realistic P10/P90 spread of 0.250" to 0.810". Three-to-one variation between gauges I can practically see from my porch. Both are physically correct measurements of the same event. Scale that up to Category 8 — extreme/flash flood/training cells — and it becomes almost philosophical. Radar reports 0.50". Pixel range P5/P95: 0.052" to 1.613". That's a 31:1 ratio. My four nearest gauges: 0.157" to 0.965". Six-to-one. The gauge 340 feet north of me reads under two tenths. The gauge 340 feet east reads close to an inch. The radar says half an inch. Every single instrument is functioning perfectly. At 1.00" reported by the radar the numbers get worse: Cat 7 gives my nearest four a spread of 0.500" to 1.620" and Cat 8 gives 0.314" to 1.930". The gauge closest to me physically could read less than a third of an inch while the one a city block away reads nearly two inches. During the same event. At the same time. Why This Matters for Verification Work This isn't a measurement error problem. This isn't instrument quality. This is the fundamental physics of convective precipitation at sub-kilometer scales, documented by Peleg et al. (2013) with a dense gauge network and confirmed repeatedly in the literature. Rainfall within a single radar pixel during convection can vary by over 100% — and that finding came from a network covering a smaller area than my NEXRAD pixel at 73.8 miles. When someone posts their CoCoRaHS total and it's half what radar showed during a summer storm, the correct response isn't "your gauge is off." The correct response is "yes, that is entirely expected and physically consistent with everything we know about convective precipitation structure." The radar isn't wrong. Your gauge isn't wrong. The atmosphere just doesn't care about our need for tidy single-number summaries. The only honest statement you can make about precipitation during a Cat 7/8 event with a single gauge is: this is what fell at this exact point. Full stop. Extrapolating to even the next block over is an act of faith, not measurement. Methodology: Lognormal distribution fit to literature CV values by precip type (Ciach & Krajewski 1999, 2006; Peleg et al. 2013; Jensen & Pedersen 2005). Local near-gauge CV compressed by exponential spatial correlation model. KCCX beam geometry calculated using 4/3 Earth radius refraction. All pixel areas computed from actual Camp Hill–KCCX range of 73.8 miles. Sent from my SM-S731U using Tapatalk

Being that the current OISST dailies suggest that RONI is likely ~-0.3 to -0.4, it is a very tall order to get the full April averaged RONI to rise all of the way to +0.6, which is what this BoM run has. We’ll see what the very strong WWB/TC triplets are able to do. The rate of April warming would probably have to be well beyond record highs to get April RONI up to +0.6. The daily RONIs may have to approach +1.5 by April 30th!! I don’t see that being realistic at all.

A Few Things That Should Make You Uncomfortable At 100 ft — 62,351 ft³. Roughly the size of a large house. This is the only range where the radar is sampling anything resembling a point. At 1 mile — 92 ft beam diameter, still smaller than a football field. Still reasonable. Still vaguely honest. At 10 miles — beam is now 922 ft wide. Bigger than the range gate itself. The pancake starts to make sense. At 65 miles (Camp Hill) — ~22 billion ft³. The beam diameter (~5,990 ft) is now wider than it is deep by a factor of 7. Your "data point" is a disc, not a cube. And it's floating at ~5,200 ft AGL. At 100 miles — 54.9 billion ft³, beam nearly 1.75 miles wide, center beam at 9,708 ft AGL. At this point the radar is essentially sampling the lower stratosphere and calling it precipitation data. Depth is always 822 feet. It took me a number of ever increasing pancake sizes and a traffic cone of unsavory origins to visualize this. This pulse and about 50;more with 97% overlap get run through a bunch of algorithms and out pops a pixel over us. So if radar makes you want to pull your hair out, this is why. America’s Boeing Everett Factory, 25 miles north of Seattle, remains the world’s largest building by volume and world’s largest factory. Workers assemble Boeing aircraft—including the new 787 Dreamliner—within this 472,000,000-cubic-foot factory. My single radar pixel contains roughly 47 Boeing Everett Factories worth of air Sent from my SM-S731U using Tapatalk

The atmosphere is a terrible heater and a spectacular refrigerator, and it's been this way for 4.5 billion years with zero apologies. Seriously, haha, what happens when air heats up. It rises and cools. One state requires energy in, another requires nothing Sent from my SM-S731U using Tapatalk

Couldn’t agree with you more. The purposeful imprecision of ALL of our media companies is appalling no matter what side of the spectrum one might be on.

Kudos to NWS for the freeze watch!

Another week of boring ass weather. Yawn…wake me up when we start getting weekly severe thunderstorm chances.

Makes perfect sense to me.From JB:April 5, 2026The forecast numbers have been taken way down.The Canadian model has been thrown out.The European indicates a powerful El Niño and a negative AMO "look".The closest analog is 2015.The impact forecast is a roll of the dice.Impacts will likely be below normal and scattered.There is always the threat of one (un)lucky punch.Early season Gulf or SE system a concernThe Western Pacific will take up the Global slack.Eastern Pacific Mexican higher impact season possibleThe forecast numbers for the 2026 seasonTotal storms: 9-13Hurricanes: 3-5Major Hurricanes: 1-2Landfalling U.S. hurricanes: 1-2Impact storms on the U.S. when at least a warning is issued: 3ACE Index: 85-105The closest analog is 2015

What an icy disaster today. The Lookout Snow Cam had 3” but reality was less. Could've added 3” to the tally but went with 1” instead. High Road had less than 1”, which is what the hill skied with. But there’s no shortage of snow in general.

That Map is low on Totals in much of the area. The Snow started where I lived west of Pennington gap around 1:15 Thursday the 2nd as a rain/snow mix that quickly turned to all Snow. It continued non stop until 1:15 Sunday the 5th. I measured about 20" at it's deepest but, it was melting underneath the whole time as the ground was warm from 2 Weeks of temps in the 70's before this. There was 30" on a parked Vehicle that sat near the north side of my Neighbor's house at the time the Snow ended. I did have some Photos I'd taken of it but misplaced them in moving process.

I don’t want this.

Absolutely beautiful day here. Pollen and dust was gone, wind died down to just a slight breeze and a high of 69 with the dew point of around 50.

We’re due for a derecho, too.

Yep El Nino on the way. Strength is yet to be determined.

Those past catastrophic events in the geological record didn’t have anywhere near as rapid a rise in CO2 as we are causing now, yet still caused mass extinctions. It’s easy to forget how truly short our lives our - the fact that baby boomers have seen a rise of about 30%, give or take, in CO2 levels over the course of their lifetimes, is crazy.