[Wrf-users] cu_physics for dx = 7km

Wed Jun 29 16:33:06 MDT 2016

Why not try the scale-aware Grell-Frietas cu-physics option? That might work OK, and is worth testing.

    ‎                              Bob

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network.
From: John Mejia
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 4:14 PM
To: Jonas Kaufmann
Cc: wrf-users at ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [Wrf-users] cu_physics for dx = 7km

You are in the grey zone… I have tried both cu and no-cu. Unfortunately, results are sensitive.
—j
On Jun 29, 2016, at 2:40 AM, Jonas Kaufmann <jonas.kaufmann at gmail.com<mailto:jonas.kaufmann at gmail.com>> wrote:

Hello Thomas,

yes, I think I have to test the CU scheme in my use case - but maybe some other users were facing the same problem, too. In my current test case and for my optimization it looks like running without a CU scheme might be better.

Thank you for your hint regarding the PBL scheme. I am looking to optimize for 10m above ground winds, for this I am using the YSU scheme (bl_pbl_scheme = 1). I am still testing with topo_wind = 1 enabled. Does anyone have experience with this use case or maybe a hint for a better configuration?

Best regards,

Jonas

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 1:31 AM, Thomas Kloetzke <t.kloetzke at uq.edu.au<mailto:t.kloetzke at uq.edu.au>> wrote:
Hi Jonas,

indeed, between 3 km (or 4 km) and 10 km it is a bit hard to find out what suits best.

I was running WRF for a simulation of an observed tropical cyclone (for reproduction) and my domains were 10 km and 3.3 km (following the 1:3 grid ratio). For the outer domain, I always used a cumulus scheme, for the inner domain I tried both cumulus scheme on and off and there were only tiny differences regarding track and intensity. But this may differ from case to case.

>From my personal point of view, there is no thumb rule saying: You have to use a CU scheme or not for resolutions below 10 km. As I said before, this can be different depending what are you trying to simulate. I would recommend to try both, first leave the CU scheme on for the 4 km domain, second, turn it off and compare the results. From this sort of simulation you will learn much more about the behaviour of the CU scheme and it’ll help you to evaluate which parameterisation might fit better.

Which pressure levels do you use for your wind forecasts? For low-level winds, the choice of the planetary boundary layer scheme will be important as well.

Hope this helps. I am happy to discuss more about that, as I am in the learning process as well and I think many people might be interested in sharing some experiences as well.

Regards,
Thomas

From: wrf-users-bounces at ucar.edu<mailto:wrf-users-bounces at ucar.edu> [mailto:wrf-users-bounces at ucar.edu<mailto:wrf-users-bounces at ucar.edu>] On Behalf Of Jonas Kaufmann
Sent: Wednesday, 29 June 2016 6:09 AM
To: wrf-users at ucar.edu<mailto:wrf-users at ucar.edu>
Subject: [Wrf-users] cu_physics for dx = 7km

Hello,

I have set up a domain over Europe with 7km resolution. My main focus is to generate wind forecasts with this domain.

I am comparing outputs between different physics settings, and there is one thing with Cumulus schemes that I do not understand at the moment. I have found presentations online that said that below 4km resolution you probably won't need a cumulus scheme, between 4km and 10km it is not sure and above 10km you need a cumulus scheme. However I have also found that the Grell 3D scheme (cu_physics = 5) is also supported for resolutions below 10km.

Now I am not sure how to proceed with this. Can you give a recommendation when to use the Grell 3D scheme vs. not using a Cumulus scheme for my use case?

Thank you for your help!

Best regards,

Jonas

_______________________________________________
Wrf-users mailing list
Wrf-users at ucar.edu<mailto:Wrf-users at ucar.edu>
http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wrf-users

PUBLIC RECORDS NOTICE: In accordance with NRS Chapter 239, this email and responses, unless otherwise made confidential by law, may be subject to the Nevada Public Records laws and may be disclosed to the public upon request.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucar.edu/pipermail/wrf-users/attachments/20160629/3d48ad65/attachment-0001.html 