LibertyBell

so the control is just like another member of the ensembles? From what I recall, it's never been all that accurate, but is used as a comparison for the OP to be graded against for verification scores?

it's spread out over a much larger area, therefore its intensity doesn't behave according to the same pressure rules otherwise you'd hear about Cat 5 hurricanes wandering about in the north atlantic and north pacific lol.

These names confuse me....why not just say that 10 inch snowstorm in NYC that dropped 2 feet in Suffolk County in Jan 2015 it's immediately memorable then. And I don't get why people are so sore about a 10 inch snowstorm, it was fine, and we got our 30 incher the following year. People need to stop treating that storm as if it were the reincarnation of March 2001.

whats the difference between the ENS C and the ENS M....the latter is much higher than the former. is C control and M is mean?

Those must be an extremely rare kind of storm where both DC and BOS gets big snows and NYC doesn't Did Philly do well in that one too?

There was another one that I almost forgot....weren't we supposed to get a big snowstorm on Veterans Day too....was that 1987 or 1989? Another blown call....we did get 1-2 inches which was better than getting nothing, which is what happened with the other 2 storms. But areas both to the north and south of us got a lot more.

In your opinion which was the worse bust.....Feb 1989 or Dec 1989

That location is fine for all of Long Island and eastern parts of the city.

The decade wasn't finished yet.... February 1989 sucked with ACY getting over a foot of snow while we got virga and blew a predicted 6-8 inch call, but then December 1989 came and we blew the call the other way as a 6-8 inch forecast turned into rain at the last minute despite a month that had an average temp of an astounding 12 degrees below normal, we got like 2 inches of snow LOL

Man thats not a good thing, we already had Feb 1989 earlier in January, don't need it again.

https://ams.confex.com/ams/27WAF23NWP/webprogram/Handout/Paper273676/GFS4cycle_2015_NWP_Chicago_15A.pdf Yep this one.

• 06Z data count is always less (10~30%) than other cycles. • Even though the 18Z-cycle forecast score is worse than that of the 00Z cycle, 18Z conventional data count is not less than 00Z data count! Note even though the total number of land soundings is almost the same among the four cycles, 06Z and 18Z have much less land RAOBs than the 00Z and 12Z cycles ! Among the four cycles, there is no difference in land Sfc and Marine Sfc data counts. • 18Z has the same amount of Aircraft data as the 00Z does, but has worse forecast skill scores. • 12Z has less Aircraft data than 00Z, but has similar forecast skill scores to 00Z. • Difference in Aircraft data cannot explain forecast skill differences between 00Z/12Z and 06Z/18Z cycles. There is no difference in satellite data count among the four cycles. • 18Z and 00Z have the same amount of conventional data, but 18Z has worse forecast skills than 00Z. On the other hand, 12Z has less conventional data than 00Z, but 12Z and 00Z have similar forecast skills. • 06Z and 18Z cycles have 10 to 20 times less land rawinsonde observations than the 00Z and 12Z cycles. Is the lack of RAOBS responsible for the lower forecast scores of the 06Z and 18Z cycles? More investigation is required to understand its impact. The forecast skills of GFS 06Z and 18Z cycles are not as good as that of the 00Z and 12Z cycles. what are the benefits of running these two extra cycles of forecast ? 06Z and 18Z cycles are significantly worse than 00Z cycle for forecasts up to 6 to 7 days.

This paper should be the go to for verification scores of the GFS. In contrast to the NH, in the SH there is no systematic differences between the four cycles except that the 06Z cycle is slightly worse. GFS 06Z and 18Z cycle are less skillful than the 00Z and 12Z cycles. • The difference in the NH is the largest

Right the GFS is the odd person out. Also check the above PDF from the pros, it's pretty clear cut that the 6z and 18z have far lower verification scores, I'm not sure why anyone questions it anymore.

https://ams.confex.com/ams/27WAF23NWP/webprogram/Handout/Paper273676/GFS4cycle_2015_NWP_Chicago_15A.pdf All cycles have been steadily improved. • 12Z cycle is comparable to 00Z cycle. • 06Z and 18Z cycles are worse than 00Z and 12Z

Thanks where do you find these? Is it about the same for JFK?

It's true, someone posted the verification scores of the GFS and the 6z and 18z consistently ranked as the lowest.

So Don, the AO could be going negative just in time for this storm starting Friday night? What about the NAO?

You need to move back to CT lol. It's way better for snow than where you are now.

6z and 18z runs are less than useless as far as the GFS is concerned.

It need to get further west but 10" is pretty good in a storm that maxes out under 18"

lol it's amusing to see how the phrases used in the NE forum have migrated to the other subforums

How many have 20"+ back to at least the city.

Wow, excellent, so the data input into the simulation showed we got 25 pct more snow in Jan 2016 because of this change?

Life is a lot easier if you only pay attention to 0z and 12z model runs, trust me.