USCG RS

16 minutes ago, RedSky said:

Hopefully not an 8.8 

16 minutes ago, JetsPens87 said:

9.4km depth vs 4.7km depth for the first.

Not sure if that has any implications?

This is a good quick explanation: https://phys.org/news/2016-08-difference-shallow-deep-earthquakes.html

In general the depth between two, from what I have researched, appears that it would not make much difference in the grand scheme.

Just now, LibertyBell said:

Baltimore reminded me of The Mothman Prophecies.  That was based around another bridge collapse and the happenings around that time were creepy to say the least.

Yeah... that movie haunted my childhood. 

7 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Yeah this registers a 0.8 on the Long Island Traffic Index

 

Listen - I saw that movie and was like.. Hmm. Then Baltimore happened. Just saying 

9 minutes ago, JetsPens87 said:

Not to say it couldn't or never happens but USGS does say it is exceedingly rare.

My apologies here, I did not mean to ignite a firestorm. I was trying to say it comfortingly.. but.... alas, I missed. 

2 minutes ago, MJO812 said:

4.0 magnitude in the same spot

At least it looks like the main event was this morning and that these are aftershocks, rather than foreshocks (admittedly much more rare). That, or the US has taken North Koreas idea and began underground testing 

2 hours ago, coastalplainsnowman said:

Honest question - is there anything in a meteorologist's training that would make them particularly knowledgable about earthquakes?  I ask because most of the on air folks I'm watching today seem to be struggling.  Granted, they're being asked to make a story out of something which, other than some shaking and the novelty of it, is a not much of a story, but some of it is frankly tough to watch.  

Meteorology and seismology share some common ground, yet they represent distinct scientific disciplines. I suspect producers may assume all scientists are interchangeable, but in reality, understanding seismology requires independent study. While an atmospheric scientist might manage to gather basic knowledge through quick research, a deeper understanding typically necessitates dedicated study.

2 hours ago, bluewave said:

I would not want to experience anything stronger than this. 
 

 

I went through a 6.6M earthquake in San Luis Obispo in 2003. I still tense up when trucks pass by at times. 

On 2/11/2024 at 10:50 AM, Allsnow said:

Probably never see this again…

 

 

Ah shucks, now I miss my childhood and parents 

9 hours ago, LongBeachSurfFreak said:

97/98 was full of benchmark rainstorms. Little bit different scenario, with the entire continent flooded with pacific air, but same net result. 

I hated 97/98. Absolute horrific winter. 

11 hours ago, SBUWX23 said:

Not really sure but Bernie Rayno says follow the 528 thickness line, but that was news to me 

10 hours ago, RCNYILWX said:

Amounts like what occurred are essentially impossible to predict but the existence of the strong banding signatures are handled better by today's modeling. This was strong mid-level f-gen, good jet dynamics, and the combined robust lift being well aligned with a very deep and saturated DGZ.

You could find guidance that showed on planar view and cross sections the strong f-gen circulation, good RH, and slantwise instability, the issue is the exact location and the ratios under banding of that nature. I think the HRRR did an excellent job with the depiction of the band on simulated reflectivity.

When you see something like that, you just kind of have to throw out the verbatim snow outputs and assume a very narrow corridor of much higher ratios that could result in totals like what occurred even with QPF probably not being terribly far off, and even that would lbe too low and the gradient sharper than you could possibly forecast. The OKX AFD yesterday was excellent in hinting at what took place. Worth a read.

 

8 hours ago, wdrag said:

The answer is yes.  I’ll try to demonstrate with yesterday’s 12z.  Guidance but w grand kids now.  Probably 9pm tonight.   It’s not exact bu I think we can do this within 60 mo either side in a 12-24 lead time.  Demo later.  

5 hours ago, wdrag said:

https://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/snowbands/view.php

The first two are from here, using .05 and .10 and you can see the members piling up. Scroll the time from start to finish and you see the evolution. I snapshotted this I can conference call this, though I have a sick grandchild so need to watch that situation. 

Time snapshot 08z-09z/17. 

 

http://moe.met.fsu.edu/banding/. That's for the last two graphics 900-500 Fgen and 800-600 Fgen. Nam is my favorite...well defined and the lift is in advance of the red and black intense FGEN signal, downwind trajectory, 

I closed with the HREF max axis forecast.  Am sure that had something to do with the PHI initial;l warning, 

 

Like the snow depth change graphics as a minimum amount, these are all worth checking-incorporating. 

Thank you for all of this valuable information. It is greatly appreciated and something I will no doubt study more in depth to add to my repertoire. 

@wdrag I hope your grandchild is feeling better. Also, you mentioned something about a conference call? 

@SnowGoose69  @brooklynwx99 @wdrag @forkyfork @SBUWX23 or any other met, or someone with knowledge, who would like to chime in.

It appears that these types of bands are impossible to predict, even right up to game time. That's also what I've always seen said  

That withstanding, is there anything that can point to where a band like this may set up - geographically prior to now casting? Or are we just not technologically advanced enough to see and predict where these will set up?

@SBUWX23 Man that weenie band missed long Island by the skin of its teeth. 

5 minutes ago, SnoSki14 said:

One of these days we'll get a 4'+ blizzard. Climate change assisted snow bomb. 

On my bucket list... It's a blizzard warning for July 4. Will we ever get it.. Who knows.  But something I've always wanted to see. 

2 hours ago, MJO812 said:

Coney island seems a little too much . Around 7-8seems more reasonable.

This was my area in south Brooklyn

Are your service drops (power lines to the house) always that low? Or is it just the snows weight? 

2 minutes ago, SBUWX23 said:

Been thinking the same thing but seems to be differing opinions on this. Maybe east end isn't as great but think at least western half should be ok. Some south shore places may see more in this one than Tuesday.

Yeah, I could definitely see that. SWFE can sometimes favor southern areas. That withstanding - given trends- I would say most of LI should be in for a good period of accumulating snow. I would not be surprised to see 4-7 in places. 

1 hour ago, the_other_guy said:

That’s fine. There seems to be a concerted effort here to make 38° sound like it’s a normal overnight temp in February and cold enough for snow. The snow is gonna have to start falling and the temperature is gonna have to cool down. And all that has to happen in an urban environment.

 

And that will affect total accumulations. That’s all I’m saying.

 

 

 

 

I agree with what you are saying regarding 38F in February being not great. That withstanding, this is a different situation. The Physics of the atmosphere changes everything. 38F in dry cold air with a system overrunning (SWFE) is a pretty good place to be in February. Now, if we were developing a coastal with initially Easterly winds prior to a backside, then I would 100% be agreeing that NYC was in trouble. Different system and physics here though. 

1 hour ago, SnowGoose69 said:

It sure does look right now relative to 12-18Z models today that the heaviest snows may end up north of that

I think LI is another good spot here. 

6 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

with the dewpoint that low it could even get into the upper 20s.

temps wont be a problem, I just wish the storm was moving a little more slowly.

 

I miss blocking.

Just now, SBUWX23 said:

I disagree. Temp is 37 now with a dewpoint of 12. When it starts precipitating temperature will drop to freezing and then should drop a bit more through the early morning.

I agree. Between the snow cover in the area and the Wet bulb temps, I do not see much of an issue regarding accumulation. Now, NYC Roadways, of course are a different story absent moderate rates, but this is normal. 

Day 10, so I really don't want to say it, but I like the zero from a macro scale perspective. 

Granted it may be our last chance

@SnowGoose69 I feel like you would know this (for some reason): Why does CPK always measure so low?

20 minutes ago, BxEngine said:

Youre from Long Island of course you are 

Wife and I went to Greenville, SC. Trust me, it ain't just Long Island. Or perhaps if everywhere I go there is a douchebag and I am there... Nah. 

9 minutes ago, jaquanweb said:

im going to be working outside during the height  at ewr tommorow 

Streaking with @MJO812 ?

6 minutes ago, jm1220 said:

Yeah that would be a massacre for 4-5 hours. 

Which is honestly what my forecast is for the area and what I have been seeing for a day or two now. This is why I am concerned about area roadways.