SnowGoose69

I think almost all the convection tomorrow is to the W-SW

I don't think NYC hits 100 at this point, LGA it may come down to if they can get more of a shift to the WNW

The Mt Pocono stat surprises me.  You'd think in all these heatwaves in 93/95/99/11 they'd have gotten over 92 at some point

Sea breeze has reached LGA.  NYC got to at least 95, might have or could still briefly tie the record of 96

Those are strange winds at JFK ion 7/23/72, probably some type of trof passage occurred.   

KJFK 231200Z 26009KT 4SM FU CLR 29/23 A//// RMK SLP115 
KJFK 231500Z 29017KT 7SM SCT/// 35/21 A//// RMK SLP105 
KJFK 231800Z 31017KT 15SM SCT/// SCT/// 37/21 A//// RMK SLP098 T03720206,
KJFK 232100Z 31014KT 15SM SCT/// SCT/// 37/19 A//// RMK SLP085 T03720194

1 minute ago, LibertyBell said:

Interesting thing about the sea breeze front is sometimes it moves back south and moves around, especially before around 3 pm.  Temperatures are still rising here, although not as quickly as before.  Now 92 on a SW wind and HI of 107.

Some days too the LI sea breeze can hook up with the SI sea breeze off New York Bay and accelerate much faster across Queens to LGA.  It happens maybe 5 days a summer and no models pick it up, can cause LGA to turn south 3 hours faster than they otherwise would. 

The lightning detection systems often miss cloud to cloud or cloud to air lightning.  They tend to be better at picking up CGs.  Often elevated convective events you can see way more lightning than the detection systems pick up 

48 minutes ago, Sundog said:

I remember some type of event from the early 90s where the Weather Channel was showing models forecasting moderate snow dropping down from the north in a line. Even as a little kid I remember seeing that and thinking that was weird. 

2/6/93

Winds now in Farmingdale as I ride the LIRR east as pretty strong from the WSW.  Not sure if that’s some mesoscale induced feature   

1 minute ago, Cfa said:

Looks like I’ll be spending much of the day in the eastern half of Suffolk. If we can’t get thunderstorm I don’t want any rain.

Rain does appear as if it’ll end from NNE-SSW.  Can already see a good part of Long Island it’ll end soon 

Thank goodness this will move the cocktail hour for the wedding I am headed to on Long Island inside. 

7 minutes ago, forkyfork said:

supercell in west central nj

Was about to say that cell needs to be watched 

8 minutes ago, Modfan2 said:

Starting to fall apart the further east it comes. How much do the cool ocean temps with this southerly breeze add to a more stable environment as you get east of 84?

The S-SW flow is so deep today that it can probably pull a stabilizing effect in from the waters off RI and down by the Islands.  Ideally an offshore flow is best but the flow today I think has been established for enough hours that no doubt at elevated levels you've got air parcels from the Atlantic reaching well north.  Notice how as soon as the line cleared east of ORH the weakening really began.  West of there you had upstream flow mostly crossing land other than LI Sound briefly.

Currently forecasting for BOS airport I said it could be nothing but showers by time it gets there, even without a sea breeze.

a few lightning strikes did show up 10-15 minutes ago near Teterboro

The Euro was correct on coverage by 21z.  I am not sure it'll be correct about how quickly this presses east though

Euro is still fairly aggressive.  Has storm initiation now from 20-2030Z from NE NJ back towards Trenton

1 minute ago, NJwx85 said:

The storm threat drops East of the Hudson however I like today's threat for Northern/Central NJ extending into the LHV, especially if we can get some clearing. 

I think 21-23Z is the chance for any "real" activity.  Its possible the 00-03Z period could have alot of elevated activity, even as far east as Queens/WRN LI but I always am reluctant at this time of year to even count on that due to the water temps

1 hour ago, Stormlover74 said:

Nams are well west with the heaviest rains. Only models really showing this

The HRRR sort of is too.  The one thing most models agree on is the TSTMs 21-23Z over NRN-CNTRL NJ.  The Euro idea though of steady rain by 2330-00Z from NYC and east is probably more likely than the HRRR/NAM holding that area back til 02-03Z

KBLM 292323Z AUTO 04021KT 8SM OVC095 09/07 A3006 RMK AO2 PK WND 05026/2310 WSHFT 2303 PRESRR KBLM 292256Z AUTO 23004KT 10SM FEW095 25/08 A3001 RMK AO2 SLP161 T02500083

Its currently 82 in far SW Brooklyn and 60 just a few miles north

3 minutes ago, NorthHillsWx said:

This is living up to its potential, sadly. 

Overall pretty close, they got the high risk area almost exactly correct. The north end of the high risk in AL looks like it won't verify, does appear they trimmed it back slightly on this latest update.

For the time being I believe a federal judge has stopped this, unless I am misunderstanding.  If true I guess these employees would all be reinstated for the time being and have to hope that in the time it takes for this to go to the SC they can be convinced that cutting from this sector is not smart.  It would almost certainly be upheld there but they'd have a few months probably to prove their case they should not go ahead with it

3 minutes ago, GaWx said:

1. Did this actually occur today or is this from another day?

2. What is the meaning of “probationary” federal employees?

3. What does “at NOAA’s EMC responsible for keeping all US weather model systems running” mean specifically? Does this mean instead of humans operating the computers that the models would just run automatically? If so, is it possible that that would be a legit way to increase efficiency without decreasing what NOAA provides to the public?

I think anyone with 365 days or less since their hire date is probationary.  So this will have a totally unbalanced impact because some WFOs probably have 0 people with that status and some probably have 2 or even 3 in rare cases so that impacts them very differently.  I actually personally know 4 people who got terminated during their probationary period in the NWS since 1992.  One for just being the hostile person they were and still are, a second for breaking vital equipment, one for entering the office during off hours intoxicated (they mistakenly told the taxi that was their house), the other for being just awful at the job and having some personal issues with mental health (they should never have been let go and gotten the help they likely needed).

17 minutes ago, snowman19 said:

Exactly. The model depicted PAC pattern isn’t changing one iota. It’s the exact same pattern we have had literally all winter long, since the end of November. An exact replica, carbon copy. Good luck with big snow threats in March since nothing is changing. More of the same. Just because it’s a different month, doesn’t mean we get a different result, this PAC pattern has been a complete failure for the last 4 months. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result….

It can be easier to get something in March that might miss to the east in Dec/Jan/Feb.  My memory is the April 82 storm did not have a very favorable pattern and probably would have missed to the east in winter due to things being progressive.