🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BxoEpu.JFG@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, gpetty@rain.atms.purdue.edu (Grant W. Petty) writes:
[...]
> I received a number of responses; the most interesting of which are
> condensed below.
[...]
> From hbrooks@uiatma.atmos.uiuc.edu:
>
> The best mesoscale model around now is the The Penn State/NCAR model,
> MM4.  It beats the life out of the second most common model, CSU-RAMS.

This is a very strong statement, to say the least.  Can you substanciate
the above? Have you seen any specific comparisons between these two models?
The above statement, implies that both models were tested, running identical
simulations, and comparisons were carried out, against observed data,
which might have showed that CSU-RAMS was outperformed by MM4. I would
appreciate it, if you can provide us with some references.

On the other hand, I would strongly suggest you look at report 009.5-90.4
of Environment Health and safety (contact Richard Thuillier, the project
manager for EPRI RP2434-6), entitled "The Status of Subregional and
Mesoscale Models for Air Quality and Meteorology", July 1990. There are
comparisons of various Model Capapbilities   (San Jose, MASS,
NCAR/PSU/SUNY, Drexel, CSU-RAMS, ERT CMC/PBL. Los Alamos). Judging solely
on the capabilities of each model, I would conclude that RAMS-CSU is the
most complete, and I would wait for specific numbers, before passing
judgment on an one-on-one shootout.

> It runs on IBM RISC-6000 stations of a variety of flavors.  I believe
> Nelson Seaman at TPSU is the correct contact person.

D. Anderson has been running the MM4 on the NCAR IBM RISC-6000 cluster.

> Harold Brooks                    hbrooks@uiatma.atmos.uiuc.edu
> National Severe Storms Laboratory/CIMMS (Norman, OK)



--
Zaphiris Christidis
zaphiri(@watson.ibm.com @yktvmh.bitnet)