<div dir="ltr">Thanks for all responses.<div><br></div><div style>epssm solved the problem (0.1, 0.3, 0.6, 0.9 for 27, 9, 3, 1 km of resolution). But I have one more question: </div><div style><br></div><div style>I am interested in wind speed below 100m, then I am asking me if epssm parameter has some impact on surface winds results? </div>
<div style><br></div><div style>Regards</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div>Atentamente<br>Jorge Arévalo Bórquez<div>Profesor Auxiliar<br>Coordinador LMA-UV<br>Departamento de Meteorología<br>Universidad de Valparaíso<br>
56-32-2508710<br></div></div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Ólafur Rögnvaldsson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:or@belgingur.is" target="_blank">or@belgingur.is</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Dear Jorge.<br>
<br>
In our experience you may need to set "epssm" to an even greater number than what David suggests.<br>
<br>
The value we use for our SARWeather system is:<br>
<br>
epssm = 0.3, 0.6, 1.2,<br>
<br>
where the model resolution is 9, 3, and 1km, respectively.<br>
<br>
This setup, using the following 41 full-sigma levels<br>
<br>
eta_levels = 1.000, 0.993, 0.985, 0.969, 0.953, 0.937, 0.921, 0.905,<br>
0.888, 0.870, 0.853, 0.835, 0.816, 0.798, 0.778, 0.759,<br>
0.739, 0.718, 0.696, 0.674, 0.651, 0.628, 0.603, 0.577,<br>
0.550, 0.522, 0.492, 0.461, 0.426, 0.389, 0.348, 0.302,<br>
0.242, 0.212, 0.182, 0.152, 0.121, 0.091, 0.061, 0.030,<br>
0.000,<br>
<br>
gives a stable solution over a 24 hour period for a 160x160 points 1km domain (nested from 9 and 3 km domains) centered over Mt. Aconcagua:<br>
<br>
<a href="https://www.sarweather.com/forecast/result/20130614-214823-09d847906bb8/static/wind/0" target="_blank">https://www.sarweather.com/forecast/result/20130614-214823-09d847906bb8/static/wind/0</a><br>
<br>
Hope this is of some use and good luck with your simulations.<br>
<br>
Best, Ólafur.<br>
<br>
Ps. You need to register (<a href="https://www.sarweather.com/accounts/register/" target="_blank">https://www.sarweather.com/accounts/register/</a> -> this is free of charge) if you want to download the wrfout-files from the simulation I linked to.<br>
<div><div class="h5"><br>
> Jorge,<br>
><br>
> I see you have tried many of the recommended steps. Have you tried<br>
> setting epssm to a larger number? For my 4th domain, 0.2 is<br>
> sufficient<br>
> epssm = 0.1, 0.1, 0.1, 0.2,<br>
> but you might want as much as 0.4 or even higher. Change that in the<br>
> &dynamics section of your namelist.input file, rerun real.exe, and try<br>
> your run again.<br>
><br>
> David<br>
> --<br>
> David Ovens e-mail: <a href="mailto:ovens@atmos.washington.edu">ovens@atmos.washington.edu</a><br>
> Research Meteorologist phone: (206) 685-8108<br>
> Dept of Atm. Sciences plan: Real-time MM5 forecasting for the<br>
> Box 351640 Pacific Northwest<br>
> University of Washington <a href="http://www.atmos.washington.edu/mm5rt" target="_blank">http://www.atmos.washington.edu/mm5rt</a><br>
> Seattle, WA 98195 Weather Graphics and Loops<br>
> <a href="http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~ovens/loops" target="_blank">http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~ovens/loops</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 01:36:11PM -0400, Jorge Alejandro Arevalo Borquez wrote:<br>
>> Dears,<br>
>><br>
>> I am trying to run WRF over Central Chile. I am using 4 nested domains, the<br>
>> finner one has 1 km of horizontal resolution with 50 vertical levels.<br>
>> Domains includes Aconcagua mountain wich is about 6900 masl.<br>
>><br>
>> When I run wrf I get cfl errors at few seconds after start in grid-points<br>
>> near to Aconcagua, but wrf crash in the call to radiation parametrization.<br>
>><br>
>> I tried to decrease time-step, use adaptive time-step, edit GEOGRID.TBL to<br>
>> use 1-2-1 smooth option, change my set of parametrization. Even I tried to<br>
>> edit geog data and apply a simple filter to smooth topography near<br>
>> aconcagua region. All efforts has concluded with the same cfl errors.<br>
>><br>
>> Any advice is welcome<br>
>><br>
>> Regards<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Atentamente<br>
>> Jorge Ar?valo B?rquez<br>
>> Profesor Auxiliar<br>
>> Coordinador LMA-UV<br>
>> Departamento de Meteorolog?a<br>
>> Universidad de Valpara?so<br>
>> 56-32-2508710<br>
><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Wrf-users mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:Wrf-users@ucar.edu">Wrf-users@ucar.edu</a><br>
>> <a href="http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wrf-users" target="_blank">http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wrf-users</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Wrf-users mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Wrf-users@ucar.edu">Wrf-users@ucar.edu</a><br>
> <a href="http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wrf-users" target="_blank">http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wrf-users</a><br>
<br>
</div></div>--<br>
Kveðja/regards,<br>
Dr. Ólafur Rögnvaldsson<br>
Belgingur, reiknistofa í veðurfræði<br>
<a href="http://www.riv.is" target="_blank">www.riv.is</a> - <a href="http://www.belgingur.is" target="_blank">www.belgingur.is</a><br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>