<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear wrf-users,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We are experiencing problems with output reflectivity on pressure surfaces for both the Thompson and Milbradt-Yau microphysics schemes (mp_physics = 8,9), using the ARW core and the unipost to create output GRIB files.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I noticed that in MDLFLD.f of the UPP, these schemes are both handled uniquely when computing reflectivity from model fields compared to the other microphysics schemes, although I can’t say that I’ve looked into great detail yet at the
contributing fields to the calculations. Our min/max ranges are obviously unrealistic when interpolating the reflectivity to pressure surfaces, as we see values ranging from 3e-17 to very large values sometimes approaching 1e+6.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Can someone advise us on what might be going wrong in the UPP when computing reflectivity on pressure surfaces with these 2 schemes?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">FYI, we are using WRF v3.4.1, UPP v2.1, and have implemented the Thompson reflectivity patch.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Many thanks,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Jonathan <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">*****************************************************************<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Jonathan Case; Research Meteorologist at ENSCO, Inc./NASA<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Short-term Prediction Research and Transition (SPoRT) Center<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">320 Sparkman Dr., Room 3008; Huntsville, AL 35805<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Emails: <a href="mailto:Jonathan.Case-1@nasa.gov">Jonathan.Case-1@nasa.gov</a> (preferred) or
<a href="mailto:case.jonathan@ensco.com">case.jonathan@ensco.com</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Voice: 256.961.7504 ; Fax: 256.961.7788<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://weather.msfc.nasa.gov/sport/">http://weather.msfc.nasa.gov/sport/</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">*****************************************************************<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>