[Wrf-users] PBL dramatic differences between WRF_3_7_1 and WRF_3_7

[Julio Castro]

Dear Users,

I got dramatic differences in the PBL estimations when using WRF V3_7_1 or WRF V3_7, in two different modellings (different domains), both in coastal areas in the north of Chile. Using exactly the same configuration file and exactly the same input data for WPS. I checked .tbl files consistency and everything for both versions, as I understand that a few of them changed, so I have no clue what might be the problem.

When I saw the results in WRF_v_3_7_1, I didn't like the PBL daily profiles, so I decided to go back to WRF_v_3_7 and repeat the simulations.

In both cases, results for version 3_7 make more sense than results for version 3_7_1.

I'm sending the results just for 1 point close to the coast for one of the two simulations for the month of July 2014, but differences are similar for whole year, especially between March and October. I'm sending the namelist.input as well.

I'm using the Quasi-Normal Scale Elimination PBL  and the Noah Land Surface Model


Kind regards

Julio Castro M. | Especialista Senior en Calidad de Aire | julio.castro at arcadis.com [cid:image001.png at 01D04153.85B72E10] <http://cl.linkedin.com/in/jcastrom>
ARCADIS Chile | Antonio Varas #621| Providencia
CP 7500966 | Santiago | Chile
T. + 56 2 2386 6248
www.arcadis.com<http://www.arcadis.com/>

[cid:image002.jpg at 01D0F524.9AF6AEB0]

Be green, leave it on the screen.


This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are the property of Arcadis. All rights, including without limitation copyright, are reserved. This e-mail contains information which may be confidential and may also be privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s) please note that any form of distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error please return it to the sender and then delete the e-mail and destroy any copies of it. Whilst reasonable precautions have been taken to ensure no software viruses are present in our emails we cannot guarantee that this e-mail or any attachment is virus-free or has not been intercepted or changed. Any opinions or other information in this e-mail that do not relate to the official business of Arcadis are neither given nor endorsed by it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucar.edu/pipermail/wrf-users/attachments/20151105/f1de221e/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 655 bytes
Desc: image001.png
Url : http://mailman.ucar.edu/pipermail/wrf-users/attachments/20151105/f1de221e/attachment-0001.png 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3755 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
Url : http://mailman.ucar.edu/pipermail/wrf-users/attachments/20151105/f1de221e/attachment-0003.jpg 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WRF_v_3_7.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 94512 bytes
Desc: WRF_v_3_7.jpg
Url : http://mailman.ucar.edu/pipermail/wrf-users/attachments/20151105/f1de221e/attachment-0004.jpg 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WRF_v_3_7_1.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 64731 bytes
Desc: WRF_v_3_7_1.jpg
Url : http://mailman.ucar.edu/pipermail/wrf-users/attachments/20151105/f1de221e/attachment-0005.jpg 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: namelist.input
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 6683 bytes
Desc: namelist.input
Url : http://mailman.ucar.edu/pipermail/wrf-users/attachments/20151105/f1de221e/attachment-0001.obj