[Wrf-users] Re: Wrf-users Digest, Vol 17, Issue 4

[Y. Yamasaki]

Hi !
It seems to me that you are using too small domain (I 
suppose that you are running the model using GFS grib2 
data with no nesting ). Why dont'you try to increese the 
size of your domain.
good luck
yy
   
Em Fri, 20 Jan 2006 12:01:20 -0700
  wrf-users-request at ucar.edu escreveu:
> Send Wrf-users mailing list submissions to
> 	wrf-users at ucar.edu
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, 
>visit
> 	http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wrf-users
> 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. Near Surface Temperatures (Sam Drinkard)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 13:50:54 -0500
>From: Sam Drinkard <sam at wa4phy.net>
> Subject: [Wrf-users] Near Surface Temperatures
> To: wrf-users at ucar.edu
> Message-ID: <43CFDF8E.2010307 at wa4phy.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; 
>format=flowed
> 
> List:
> 
>    I've got WRF v.2.1 up and running real data, but I am 
>not impressed 
> with near surface or surface temperatures.  I typically 
>see in my 
> domain(s) anywhere from 5, to as much as 10 degrees 
>difference between 
> observed and forecast.  I'm curious if this is something 
>everyone has to 
> deal with, or if perhaps something in my setup is 
>causing these 
> discrepancies.  The largest temp difference usually 
>occurs in the 
> afternoons, and WRF is running on average, 7-9 degrees 
>too cool.  In the 
> mornings, the model is not picking up on the low temps 
>either, but 
> errors on the order of 2-3 degrees are common.  I can 
>live with that.  
> The current setup for the inner domain is 12km, 34 
>levels, the lower 
> ones being 1.000, 0.999, 0.997, and 0.994.  The rest 
>above that are 
> defaults from SI.  The model is initialized via the NAM. 
> 
> As for physics, the run is set with::
> 
> mp_physics=5 (Ferrier (new ETA))
> ra_lw = 1, (rrtm scheme), radt = 33
> sf_sfclay_physics = 2 (Monin-Obukhov)
> sf_surface_physics = 2 (Noah LSM)
> bl_pbl_physics = 2 (Mellor_Yamada_Janjic)
> cu_physics = 1 (Kain-Fritsch)
> 
> I've played around with various schemes trying to find a 
>mixture of 
> things that would help bring surface temps in line with 
>where they 
> should be, but no combinations I've tried have made any 
>significant 
> difference.  About the only thing I can see that does 
>appear to be 
> mostly correct is the surface temp of the Clark Hill 
>lake, approx 15nm 
> north of me.  I do see as much as 5-7 degrees difference 
>at times over 
> water, vs land. 
> 
> I'd appreciate very much if someone has some suggestions 
>to try or 
> anything that might help get surface temps in line.
> 
> Graciously thanking you,
> 
> 
> Sam
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Wrf-users mailing list
> Wrf-users at ucar.edu
> http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wrf-users
> 
> 
> End of Wrf-users Digest, Vol 17, Issue 4
> ****************************************