[Wrf-users] Wrf-users Digest, Vol 74, Issue 14
vincentajayi at gmail.com
Sun Oct 24 01:02:26 MDT 2010
On 10/21/10, wrf-users-request at ucar.edu <wrf-users-request at ucar.edu> wrote:
> Send Wrf-users mailing list submissions to
> wrf-users at ucar.edu
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wrf-users-request at ucar.edu
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wrf-users-owner at ucar.edu
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wrf-users digest..."
> Today's Topics:
> 1. RIP4 - ./rip doesn't work (Mikhail Titov)
> 2. Damping and Diffusion Issues (Huber, David)
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 12:56:44 +1300
> From: Mikhail Titov <TitovM at ap.aurecongroup.com>
> Subject: [Wrf-users] RIP4 - ./rip doesn't work
> To: wrfhelp <wrfhelp at ucar.edu>
> Cc: "wrf-users at ucar.edu" <wrf-users at ucar.edu>
> <OF695EA23D.75FC8C56-ONCC2577C2.00827186-CC2577C2.00838973 at conwag.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> Dear WRF Help and WRF Users,
> I'm trying to work with RIP4 installed on SGI after 5 years I used it last
> I don't remember any problems when I worked with RIP4 before but I have
> very odd problems
> with RIP4 now.
> 1) ./ripdp runs without any problems, creates all files and stops with:
> forecast time= 7.000556
> (YYMMDDHH = 10083119 plus 2.00000 seconds)
> But this time is beyond the latest requested time.
> RIPDP is now stopping.
> We're outta here like Vladimir !!
> FORTRAN STOP
> But any attempt to run ./rip itself fails with the same mistake (bug?):
> [titovm at aurecon RIP4]$ ./rip -f Takaka/Taka rs-101cg_d03_wd
> rip [-f] model_case_name rip_case_name
> -f: standard rip printout should go to a file
> named rip_case_name.out rather than to
> the screen.
> Note: "rip_case_name" should be the root part of
> the name of the ".in" file. Do not inlcude ".in"
> at the end of "rip_case_name" on the
> rip command line.
> FORTRAN STOP
> Did anybody have the same problems with RIP4? I googled this problem and
> found a couple of notices on
> WRF forum with the same RIP4 problem. But I didn't find any responses with
> Any help or suggestion is highly appreciable.
> Many thanks,
> Dr. Mikhail Titov | Energy | Aurecon
> Ph: +64 3 366 0821 ext.9231 DDI +64 367 32 31 | Fax: +64 3 379 6955 | Mob:
> +64 21 106 5563
> Email: TitovM at ap.aurecongroup.com
> PO Box 1061, 122 Gloucester Street | Christchurch 8140 | New Zealand
> Please consider your environment before printing this e-mail.
> Disclaimer - http://www.aurecongroup.com/apac/disclaimer/
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 09:15:40 -0500
> From: "Huber, David" <dbh409 at ku.edu>
> Subject: [Wrf-users] Damping and Diffusion Issues
> To: <wrf-users at ucar.edu>
> <B879161FC3A1444B86315CDA69FCADB9E9F38F at MAILBOX-13.home.ku.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> Hello All,
> I am having an issue with vertical velocities at 700mb on a 12km grid
> spacing model run for July 2001. The full simulation is for June-July 2001,
> but the issue is most noticeable in July. The first time I ran the model, I
> opted not to use damping or 6th-order diffusion, which resulted in the
> following month-long average 700mb w-field:
> The grid scale noise over N Texas was concerning to me, so to remove 2dx
> noise I turned on 6th order diffusion (diff_6th_opt = 1, diff_6th_factor =
> 0.12) and in case the problem was being caused by the interaction with the
> mountain range in eastern New Mexico and the subtropical high positioned
> over N Texas, I also turned on w-Rayleigh damping (damp_opt = 3, damp_coef =
> 0.2). This resulted in the following w-field at 700mb:
> (units in both images are cm/s)
> This solution removes the grid scale noise, but introduces a wave-like
> solution everywhere. Also, it introduces positive vertical velocities over
> the southeastern corner of the domain (you'll have to click on the links to
> see this, since the pictures are too large to show on this forum). I am
> leaning towards the second solution, but I worry about whether the wave-like
> velocities should be noticeable on a month-long average. I'm really at a
> loss as to how to proceed. Should I consider different options for damping
> and diffusion? Is the grid scale noise OK, or if not, does the damped and
> diffused solution seem OK? Any incites would be much appreciated.
> Wrf-users mailing list
> Wrf-users at ucar.edu
> End of Wrf-users Digest, Vol 74, Issue 14
Sent from my mobile device
Department of Meteorology
Federal University of Technology,
PMB 704 Akure
More information about the Wrf-users