From WBOC Metr. Dan Satterfield: This is a post I wrote for the American geophysical Union last week.
NOAA has decided on the nuts and bolts of a new, next generation, weather model that will replace the present Global Forecast System (GFS model), and the choice is sure to spark some controversy. The choice boiled down to a system called MPAS vs FV3. Many meteorologists were rooting for MPAS, which was developed by NCAR, while NOAA was leaning toward the FV3 which was a project of the GFDL Lab.
Dr. Cliff Mass (at the Univ. of Washington) has written several blog posts about how we have fallen behind in numerical weather modelling, and has been championing the MPAS system as the much better way forward. It looks like this will not happen, based on news I just heard about tonight. NOAA chose the FV3 today, instead of MPAS (The video above shows the FV3 in action) and I am anxious to hear the debate that will soon ensue.
There are two sides to this issue, and smart people have different opinions on both sides, and NOAA’s press release is here. I’ve asked Cliff Mass for a comment, and will update this post when new info arrives. NOAA folks, and others, who favor the FV3 core, I would love to share your views as well.
We definitely need a new global model. The ECMWF model, run in the UK near London, is clearly superior, but NOAA’s high-resolution, short-range HRRR model is state of the art for very short-range forecasting, and it’s about to be upgraded, and run out beyond the current 15 hours. The ECMWF folks do one very good global model. Charles Emerson Winchester (M*A*S*H) said it best at 2:05 in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Ubs8i8fJU. While NOAA runs regional/global/air pollution, and ocean models, so things are different here.
So, there you have it. More on this soon, and while I thought Professor Cliff Mass (Univ. of Washington Meteorologist) made a very good case for MPAS, I’m not taking sides..yet. Actually, I say we run both!