Not likely, since this is only one case, too little data to make a decision.

Yes. The forecaster may be checking how well he (or someone else) performed on yesterday’s forecast, as input to today’s forecast.

Not likely. Try again.

Yes. Here the user is trying to track the long term trend in temperature forecast errors, for example to convince his superiors that improvements are being made.

Not likely. The verification is summarized into one value per year, too much averaging to be of use in determining how to further improve the forecast.

Not likely. Try again.

Yes, possibly. The user may want to know whether the forecasters can still "beat" the model to decide staffing levels in weather offices. For precipitation, one would be wise to use more than 3 months of data.

Yes, possibly. The user may wish to identify those situations or periods where forecasters have the best chance of improving on the model forecasts.

Yes. There could well be both administrative and scientific reasons for comparing forecasts from two sources.

Yes, definitely. This is a request that has been made by high level management in more than one national meteorological service, usually for feedback to the general public or political leaders.

No. It is difficult to think of any defendable scientific reason for verification scores which try to summarize all aspects of accuracy into one number.

No. Try again.

Yes, possibly. This could be at the request of either weather service managers or boating groups to determine the reliability of forecasts of extreme conditions.

Yes, possibly. Stratification of forecast datasets into extreme and non-extreme values using a threshold is a way of determining the quality of a product for important situations to help direct research efforts.

Yes. There could be administrative or scientific reasons for defining threshold values of the predicted variable for the purpose of verification. The threshold should be specified by the user. Check the other answers for examples.