A question for everyone here

[Derek Ortt]

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

[Cookiely]

Maybe they don't know any better.

[gkrangers]

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

Because it shows them what they want to see. Storm after storm after storm. They don't know specifics of modelology and meteorology...

[The Big Dog]

Maybe they don't know any better.

You got it, right there. Someone put it on a website, therefore it must be good.

[The Big Dog]

Because it shows them what they want to see. Storm after storm after storm. They don't know specifics of modelology and meteorology...

And that's the other big reason. I remember hearing that out of every 10 blobs, one will develop, on average. That model just seems to play to those out there who never met a blob they didn't like.

[Derek Ortt]

gk,

that may be part of it. It feeds some fantasies.

However, after being told numerous times that the model is wrong and explaining why it is wrong, yet people still choose to believe it does have me somewhat baffeled

[clfenwi]

Echoing the lines of previous posts... it gets mentioned so often on this board because it offers 'interesting' output... never mind that it is totally off the wall, implausible/impossible, etc...

Also, even though I've only been here a short time, I've already lost count of the number of times someone has dropped a link to it and described it as the FSU Superensemble...

[gkrangers]

gk,

that may be part of it. It feeds some fantasies.

However, after being told numerous times that the model is wrong and explaining why it is wrong, yet people still choose to believe it does have me somewhat baffeled

People only hear what they want to hear..and see what they want to see.

And clfenwi is right too, some people misinterpret it as the Superensemble.

[mike18xx]

People only hear what they want to hear..and see what they want to see.

I am continually astounded by those who fervently cling to model outputs after they've been clearly ambushed by reality (e.g., the NHC 0724 11pm Franklin advisory).

Honest to God: Sometimes a forecaster just has to break down and eyeball a satellite blort and say, "Yup! It's'a goin' thataway now -- no question about it!"

[Anonymous]

I know it could be a little off the wall, however it performed rather well with Dennis in the Gulf, and picked up on Cindy before it formed. One thing I like about it is how it points out systems more clearly.

[Derek Ortt]

the FSU version also had a BS stalling near the coast and insisted upon Texas, while the higher resolution version correctly depicted New Orleans and the center reformation, wheever everyone, including myself fell into the Texas Trap for Cindy

and for Dennis, I don't recall this hitting the Apalachee Bay

[Anonymous]

the FSU version also had a BS stalling near the coast and insisted upon Texas, while the higher resolution version correctly depicted New Orleans and the center reformation, wheever everyone, including myself fell into the Texas Trap for Cindy

and for Dennis, I don't recall this hitting the Apalachee Bay

What I mean, is that it took it to Florida. Unlike the UKMET which kept saying LA, and the Nogaps and GFDL which kept shifting.

[gkrangers]

the FSU version also had a BS stalling near the coast and insisted upon Texas, while the higher resolution version correctly depicted New Orleans and the center reformation, wheever everyone, including myself fell into the Texas Trap for Cindy

and for Dennis, I don't recall this hitting the Apalachee Bay

What I mean, is that it took it to Florida. Unlike the UKMET which kept saying LA, and the Nogaps and GFDL which kept shifting.

New Orleans might be closer to Pensacola than Apalachee Bay is!

[Derek Ortt]

It is closer

for example, when I did the nwhhc forecast verification last year, the forecast that had landfall just west of New Orleans only had a 72 hour error of 159NM, well below the average. The Apalachee Bay is a little farther away

The UKMET was on something for Dennis

[southerngreen]

maybe it's the difference in looking FOR weather and looking AT weather. or maybe it's the same group who slow down when there's an accident in the other lane - looking for the story.

[Derek Ortt]

<i>What I mean, is that it took it to Florida. Unlike the UKMET which kept saying LA, and the Nogaps and GFDL which kept shifting.</i>

The GFDL kept shifting on either side of Mobile, only had about a 50NM range in the landfall location in the final 3 days. And it was always within 100NM of the correct location, unlike the FSU MM5 that you seem to love so much, which was consistently more than 200NM off. It was consistently BAD

[MGC]

I don't consult the model when I prepare a forecast and I have shown myself to be fairly accurate. I go against the NHC when I see the need as in Cindy.....MGC

[ict1523]

I honestly never paid much attention to the MM5.

Although I do have to admit in the beginning of the winter it was decent with a couple of storms here in the Northeast.

[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? 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

[gkrangers]

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

News flash, it sucks.