<html 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=utf-8">
<meta name="Title" content="">
<meta name="Keywords" content="">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (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:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.msoIns
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-style-name:"";
text-decoration:underline;
color:teal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:595.0pt 842.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body bgcolor="white" lang="EN-GB" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Hi all, <br>
We ran WRF simulations (3.8.1) which are identical, except for the LSM choice, i.e., NOAH versus CLM.
<br>
While the simulation using NOAH look very reasonable, the one using CLM looks rather strange.
<br>
<br>
CLM_PBLH_ncview.png shows PBL heights of about 900 m within the relaxation zone, but about 100-200 m inside.
<br>
While i always expect some discontinuity within the relaxation zone, this looks spurious.
<br>
<br>
NOAH_PBLH_ncview.png shows PBL heights at the same output time, and we do not have this issue.
<br>
<br>
The same thing issue reflected in the sensible heat flux (HFX) outputs (also attached).
<br>
CLM_HFX_ncview.png shows higher sensible heat flux over inland water points as compared to the land points.....
<br>
NOAH_HFX_ncview.png shows near zero sensible heat flux over the inland water points, and much higher over land points, which makes a lot more sense.
<br>
<br>
When i look at SWDOWN from the CLM outputs (CLM_SWDOWN_ncview.png attached), it's exactly zero across the domain, except over the inland water point where it is 600 Wm-2. How is this possible??
<br>
<br>
SWDOWN for NOAH looks fine (NOAH_SWDOWN_ncview.png attached). <br>
<br>
Has anyone else experienced similar issues when using CLM in WRF? The namelists are attached, and the only difference is sf_surface_physics and num_soil_layers:
<br>
<br>
134:temp_CLM Jatin$ diff namelist.input_CLM ../temp_NOAH/namelist.input.NOAH <br>
71c71 <br>
< sf_surface_physics = 5, 5, 5, 5, <br>
--- <br>
> sf_surface_physics = 2, 2, 2, 2, <br>
80c80 <br>
< num_soil_layers = 10, <br>
--- <br>
> num_soil_layers = 4, <br>
<br>
Both simulations are driven with Era-Interim. real.exe was run for each simulation separately, using the same met_em files.
<br>
<br>
tar files with all input and few output files can be downloaded from here if that's useful:
<br>
<br>
<a href="https://www.dropbox.com/s/nigy40p1pqb1sdz/CLM.tar?dl=0">https://www.dropbox.com/s/nigy40p1pqb1sdz/CLM.tar?dl=0</a>
<br>
<a href="https://www.dropbox.com/s/b1dfs3wum5ytb8p/NOAH.tar?dl=0">https://www.dropbox.com/s/b1dfs3wum5ytb8p/NOAH.tar?dl=0</a>
<br>
<br>
Thanks in advance, <br>
Jatin <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black"></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>