A question for everyone here

[ict1523]

I am curious as to why everyone is placing so much stock in the inferior FSU MM5 model, even after being told many times that the MM5 is simply not good at that poor of a resolution? 36km is just not appropriate for a mesoscale model. Furthermore, the model does not even have the proper terrain file as evidenced by many storm forming and rapidly intensifying over 18,000 ft mountains.

I'm just curious as I've seen this many times here that some hold that poor version of a good model in such high regard

i've heard that is a great model

You've heard wrong unfortunately.

[The Big Dog]

I am curious as to why everyone is placing so much stock in the inferior FSU MM5 model, even after being told many times that the MM5 is simply not good at that poor of a resolution? 36km is just not appropriate for a mesoscale model. Furthermore, the model does not even have the proper terrain file as evidenced by many storm forming and rapidly intensifying over 18,000 ft mountains.

I'm just curious as I've seen this many times here that some hold that poor version of a good model in such high regard

i've heard that is a great model

Once again, the FSU MM5 is NOT the FSU Superensemble, if that's what you're thinking.

[Astro_man92]

can some one give me a link to the MM5 map please

[The Big Dog]

can some one give me a link to the MM5 map please

http://moe.met.fsu.edu/tcgengifs/

[clfenwi]

I am curious as to why everyone is placing so much stock in the inferior FSU MM5 model, even after being told many times that the MM5 is simply not good at that poor of a resolution? 36km is just not appropriate for a mesoscale model. Furthermore, the model does not even have the proper terrain file as evidenced by many storm forming and rapidly intensifying over 18,000 ft mountains.

I'm just curious as I've seen this many times here that some hold that poor version of a good model in such high regard

i've heard that is a great model

Have you heard that the MM5 is a great model (in general) or that the FSU implementation of the MM5, specifically, is a great model?

Therein may lay some confusion for some people...

[clfenwi]

can some one give me a link to the MM5 map please

The implementation that Derek is asking about is at http://moe.met.fsu.edu/mm5/ and is also on the tcgengifs page at moe.met.fsu.edu.

[ncweatherwizard]

The UKMET was on something for Dennis

I'm really interested as in to what really caused UKMET to screw up in that situation, since it tends to (at least moreso than GFDL) to handle mid-latitude steering patterns well. Of course, I haven't even bothered to really look into yet...

[Derek Ortt]

the version of the MM5 that I run is a very, very good model. Except for one MM5_GFS run that took the storm into Tampico and another into the Baffin Bay (again, if thats a bad forecast for 3-5 days out, thats saying something)

[recmod]

I am curious as to why everyone is placing so much stock in the inferior FSU MM5 model, even after being told many times that the MM5 is simply not good at that poor of a resolution?

At the risk of sounding really ignorant.....

If the MM5 model is seriously inferior due to being run at a poor resolution, then why is it not run at a higher resolution so that the results are more useful????? Why is this model used at all if it is completely useless?? There MUST be some merit to this model's output.

--Lou

[Astro_man92]

I am curious as to why everyone is placing so much stock in the inferior FSU MM5 model, even after being told many times that the MM5 is simply not good at that poor of a resolution?

At the risk of sounding really ignorant.....

If the MM5 model is seriously inferior due to being run at a poor resolution, then why is it not run at a higher resolution so that the results are more useful????? Why is this model used at all if it is completely useless?? There MUST be some merit to this model's output.

--Lou

no kiddin'

[HurryKane]

I am curious as to why everyone is placing so much stock in the inferior FSU MM5 model, even after being told many times that the MM5 is simply not good at that poor of a resolution? 36km is just not appropriate for a mesoscale model. Furthermore, the model does not even have the proper terrain file as evidenced by many storm forming and rapidly intensifying over 18,000 ft mountains.

I'm just curious as I've seen this many times here that some hold that poor version of a good model in such high regard

How about this, then. Instead of admonishing people for incorrectly 'believing' in it--including people who might not have ever read your posts as to why the FSU MM5 is inferior, or are confused because they read that yeah, you think you'll run an MM5 run on an interesting blob, or who simply haven't read all your posts--why don't you prepare a very clear paragraph or two detailing the differences between the FSU MM5 that is released, the MM5 you run, and the FSU Superensemble (without giving away its patented secrets), and then you can link to it anytime someone appears to put too much stock into the FSU MM5?

It's not immediately evident to amateurs that the FSU MM5 has a bad terrain file or is run at poor resolution. That kind of information could go into that concise description of the differences in these three model forecasting techniques.

Not everyone here has read or recalls every word you've ever posted, Derek, and new people show up here every day. Give them the benefit of the doubt and help them learn about it--don't make them feel stupid.

[P.K.]

I am curious as to why everyone is placing so much stock in the inferior FSU MM5 model, even after being told many times that the MM5 is simply not good at that poor of a resolution?

I haven't even looked at it since I was told by someone over here not to use it.

It seems to like developing everything from what I've seen, I mean look what it does to Franklin in the latest run.

[mikey mike]

A lot of you take this stuff way too seriously and sometimes personally.Step away from that computer and go and enjoy life every now and then.There will be hurricanes long after all of you are gone.

[Derek Ortt]

I'm admonishing people about it, because I have stated this fact 10,000 times already... yet some don't or don't want to listen

The MM5 is a great model, but not the way it is being ran at FSU (In a perfect world, I'd run it at 5km, but we don't have the computing power to do that realistically in real time

[HurryKane]

I'm admonishing people about it, because I have stated this fact 10,000 times already... yet some don't or don't want to listen

The MM5 is a great model, but not the way it is being ran at FSU (In a perfect world, I'd run it at 5km, but we don't have the computing power to do that realistically in real time

Like I said, not everyone has read every single one of your posts. Some people may not have understood why the FSU MM5 is bad. Others may have only seen you say it once or twice. Giving people the benefit of the doubt is the nice thing to do.

The information you've relayed about the MM5 in this post, and in the previous post about the terrain and resolution, is no doubt important. Please consider consolidating such information into something you can reference when someone gets on the FSU MM5 train. All it would take is a link to a couple of paragraphs you've written and a comment like "Please see this information about the FSU MM5 before giving it too much weight."

Then, instead of chastising people for not knowing something, you've had a chance to teach them. The latter is a far greater endeavor both in accomplishment and in deed.

[wxcrazytwo]

I'm admonishing people about it, because I have stated this fact 10,000 times already... yet some don't or don't want to listen

The MM5 is a great model, but not the way it is being ran at FSU (In a perfect world, I'd run it at 5km, but we don't have the computing power to do that realistically in real time

Like I said, not everyone has read every single one of your posts. Some people may not have understood why the FSU MM5 is bad. Others may have only seen you say it once or twice. Giving people the benefit of the doubt is the nice thing to do.

The information you've relayed about the MM5 in this post, and in the previous post about the terrain and resolution, is no doubt important. Please consider consolidating such information into something you can reference when someone gets on the FSU MM5 train. All it would take is a link to a couple of paragraphs you've written and a comment like "Please see this information about the FSU MM5 before giving it too much weight."

Then, instead of chastising people for not knowing something, you've had a chance to teach them. The latter is a far greater endeavor both in accomplishment and in deed.

thank god he ain't no teacher, god help us all..

[NEXRAD]

The FSU MM5 is just one of the other models I pass reference to in my discussions, not that I neccessarily put faith in it. For example, I referenced the BAMD even when this model was not a good choice with Franklin. Why bother with this? History was one of my previous college majors, and I there learned that before drawing conclusions, all data and facts related to the topic are considered and weighed.

A subjective note, too, I've found the FSU MM5 to be fair with storm track, at least as reasonable as the BAMs, LBAR, and downright bad 98E. If you filter out the FSU MM5's intensity biases, it does not seem to be the worst of the models. Meteorology is becoming bogged with models. The way the models are used also seems poor. This of course is opinion.

- Jay
KSC FL

[x-y-no]

I am curious as to why everyone is placing so much stock in the inferior FSU MM5 model, even after being told many times that the MM5 is simply not good at that poor of a resolution? 36km is just not appropriate for a mesoscale model. Furthermore, the model does not even have the proper terrain file as evidenced by many storm forming and rapidly intensifying over 18,000 ft mountains.

I'm just curious as I've seen this many times here that some hold that poor version of a good model in such high regard

Well, I for one have not placed any stock in it. So it's hardly "everyone."

[Downdraft]

John Hope used to say sometimes you just needed to sit down and go back to plotting the isobars by hand to get a feeling for what a storm is going to do. I wonder how many "experts" today could plot isobars by hand? It seems the more we depend on technology the less we remember the basics. Over the years so many have placed their faith in computer models only to have eat generous portions of some model's crow.

[ericinmia]

What about the Air Force MM5.... I'm not sure what resolution that on is run at.

For how important these things are... why can't we devote more copmuting power/resources to them. Coming from the IT field, this is very easily feesible. With the proper grants.
-Eric