[Wrf-users] WRF sea breeze

[preuter at labri.fr]

Dear Dorita and Mikhail,

I am also studying the sea breeze effects with WRF V2.2, and had  
feedback for several months. I am also using "feedback = 1" in the  
namelist, and I had pretty incredibly precise results compared to what  
happened in the real-world!

Being  very interested in this topic, I would like to hear other  
advices also, such as experiences about the physics to use, and the  
comparison of ARW and NMM!

Have a nice day

   Patrick



"Dorita Rostkier-Edelstein" <drostkier at yahoo.com> a écrit :

> Hi Mikhail,
>  
> From my experience simulating sea-land breeze with WRF over Israel  
> over complex topography (but with versions 2 of WRF) I suggest that  
> you use 2-way nesting WITH feedback. My experience is that if large  
> scale flow is strong unless you use 2-way with feedback the large  
> scale will erase the high resolution mesoscale effects very quickly,  
> in particular land-breeze. Also, re-start the model often, the range  
> of predictability is very short at 1 km resolution (the uptake of  
> the dynamics by the lateral boundaries, i.e., the large scale). I  
> re-start 4 times a day, and spin up is very short, ~3 hours. I have  
> not noticed significant differences between PBL parameterizations as  
> compared to the differences caused by the nesting strategy and lead  
> time.
>  
> I will be very interested to read about your new results if you try  
> my advice.
>  
> Dorita
>  
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Mikhail Titov <mikhail.titov at canterbury.ac.nz>
> To: wrf-users at ucar.edu
> Cc: Mike Green <mike.green at canterbury.ac.nz>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 3:32:17 AM
> Subject: [Wrf-users] WRF sea breeze
>
>
> Dear All,
>  
> I model diurnal-nocturnal cycle of see breeze for Australia (desert  
> pattern) using WRF v3.0 with ETA levelling.
> But in the modelled one year mean wind off-show night breeze is  
> much better developed than on-shore day breeze.
> In fact WRF (4-grid run: 27-9-3-1 km with local topography) fails to  
> reproduce on-shore day breeze to compare with observations.
>  
> My physical parameterisation is the next one:
> =============================================
>  &physics
>  mp_physics                           = 6,     6,     6,    6,
>  mp_zero_out                          = 2,
>  ra_lw_physics                        = 1,     1,     1,    1,
>  ra_sw_physics                       = 1,     1,     1,    1,
>  radt                                       = 27,    27,    27,   27,
>  sf_sfclay_physics                   = 1,     1,     1,    1,
>  sf_surface_physics                 = 2,     2,     2,    2,
>  bl_pbl_physics                       = 1,     1,     1,    1,
>  bldt                                       = 0,     0,     0,    0,
>  cu_physics                            = 1,     1,     0,    0,
>  cudt                                      = 3,     3,     3,    0,
>  isfflx                                      = 1,
>  ifsnow                                   = 0,
>  icloud                                   = 1,
>  surface_input_source             = 1,
>  num_soil_layers                    = 4,
>  ucmcall                                = 0,
>  mp_zero_out                        = 0,
>  maxiens                              = 1,
>  maxens2                             = 3,
>  maxens3                             = 16,
>  ensdim                               = 144,
>  slope_rad                            = 0,
>  topo_shading                      = 0,
>  omlcall                               = 1,
>  oml_hml0                           = 50.,
>  oml_gamma                       = 0.13,
> ===========================================
>  
> I use physical parameterization applied to desert places of Africa  
> and Arabia (WRF workshop, Boulder,  June 2008). 
> Also I use two-way nesting (feedback = 0).
>  
> Any suggestions about what kind of physical parameterization is  
> better to reproduce see breeze in WRF is highly appreciable.
> Any experience how is better to model see breeze using WRF will be  
> very useful. 
>  
> Many thanks,
> Michael
>  
> --------------------------------------
> Dr. Mikhail Titov
> Connell Wagner Ltd.
> VP of the NZ Met.Society
> Universityof Canterbury
> Christchurch, New Zealand
> E-mail: Mikhail.Titov at canterbury.ac.nz
> --------------------------------------