Breathless Blizzard Watch for Christmas?

[BillPatt]

The GFS for Christmas (http://www.nco.ncep.noaa.gov/pmb/nwp...s_pcp_264l.gif) is showing another Nor'Easter, this one a lot further east than the one this weekend. This means SNOW!

Of course, it's 11 days out, so there's not much to be said yet. Wait another four days, when it starts showing up on the NCEP Extended Forecasts.

...

[Bill O]

11 days? I wont be holding my breath.

[BillPatt]

Durn skippy. The new GFS has it a day faster and further west. It's a nice dream, though.

[Bill O]

Durn skippy. The new GFS has it a day faster and further west. It's a nice dream, though.

Who knows, it could come back.

I don't remember the exact details but I seem to recall that the March 1993 "Superstorm" was remarkably well forecast out in dreamland, like 7+ days. Not that this storm is going to be a superstorm, but these long range forecasts can pan out. I also think the Blizzard of 1996 was well resolved in the long range.

[Bill O]

At this time frame the thing to be watching is consistency. If multiple models and multiple model runs keep the storm in the same place in the same time period you may be onto something. Otherwise the models don't even know what they are doing.

[JimS]

mmm...tempting morsels of GFS-384!!!

[Bill O]

mmm...tempting morsels of GFS-384!!!

Is there any data on the accuracy of a 384 hour forecast, much less 240? I'm curious.

If I ever need a 14 day forecast I go straight to Accuweather. If I'm looking for sunny weather in two weeks I love to see rain/snow in the forecast. With the odds of being correct at 14 days less than 50% a rainy forecast means sun.

[JimS]

Is there any data on the accuracy of a 384 hour forecast, much less 240? I'm curious.

If I ever need a 14 day forecast I go straight to Accuweather. If I'm looking for sunny weather in two weeks I love to see rain/snow in the forecast. With the odds of being correct at 14 days less than 50% a rainy forecast means sun.

I haven't seen a model accuracy/verification study on the long range...but it is undeniably unquantifyably poor...

[Bill O]

...but it is undeniably unquantifyably poor...

I unambiguously and unanimously agree. Although the model solutions do provide realistic representations of what could happen.

[JimS]

I unambiguously and unanimously agree. Although the model solutions do provide realistic representations of what could happen.

There's a good point...they usually get the longwave patterns somewhat right pretty far out!