SnowGoose69

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

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

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

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

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).

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.

Still looking like another weak or even chance of a borderline moderate Nina at the moment. The QBO may be more favorable next winter though

This close in I don't like using ensembles anyway, the cut off to me on those is 84, once to 72 I often won't even look

JB is sorta right, PSU echoed this in the MA forum that even if you looked at the CIPS analogs, many show the 500 setup from like Chicago to the Delmarva being one where we had storms that were so far west the coast changed over. Its likely just a case here thats an extremely rare circumstance where a couple of things being slightly off are leading to an atypical result given the setup. Or the NAM is gonna pull another January 2016 on us...

I definitely lean more towards a total shutout here now. obviously we’re not seeing that on any ensembles or models yet but at this stage given the changes we’ve seen I suspect that once we get inside about 84 or 90 we’ll probably see this at a high risk of flattening out even further. I just warned some people online I said you might even have to be worried in DC, which I was telling people about here yesterday