Scheduled Downtime
On Friday 21 April 2023 @ 5pm MT, this website will be down for maintenance and expected to return online the morning of 24 April 2023 at the latest

Extrapolation over complex terrain and propagation to real.exe

This post was from a previous version of the WRF&MPAS-A Support Forum. New replies have been disabled and if you have follow up questions related to this post, then please start a new thread from the forum home page.

Colleagues,

As an experienced WRF user, I have an embarrassing question.

Build-up:
metgrid.exe provides the met_em files that contain pressure level data ingested by real.exe in the creation of the lower/lateral boundary condition, nudging, and initialization file.

In many driving isobaric datasets (e.g. ERA5), there are many below-ground gridcells that are populated with extrapolated values over complex terrain. If I set these same gridcells to something crazy (-9.99d+12) and run metgrid.exe, real.exe subsequently crashes. This indicates that real.exe may be pulling data from below-ground gridcells in the met_em files(?)

On a related note, in preprocessing GCM input binaries, I am finding that my wrf.exe results near areas of complex terrain are somewhat sensitive to whether or not I use vinth2p with numerical extrapolation or vinth2p_ecmwf with physical extrapolation (in NCL) at below-ground gridcells.

As a climate modeler, these differences disturb me.

Since my soil/skin temperatures do not suffer from this issue, and because this issue arises at a small percentage of my total gridcells, I am wondering just how much uncertainty is being introduced into my modeling framework as a result of changing the extrapolation method across gridcells that should be below-ground and thus not used(?)

This is a philosophical question, so I will not attach technical info for the moment...

-Stefan Rahimi, UCLA
 
Stefan,
Please see my answers below:
(1) In many driving isobaric datasets (e.g. ERA5), there are many below-ground gridcells that are populated with extrapolated values over complex terrain. If I set these same gridcells to something crazy (-9.99d+12) and run metgrid.exe, real.exe subsequently crashes. This indicates that real.exe may be pulling data from below-ground gridcells in the met_em files(?)

For the output from metgrid, when the data is isobaric (as FNL probably is), the k=1 level is the surface, and k=2 through N are the isobaric surfaces (1000, 950, 900, etc hPa up through 1 hPa). It is not unusual in areas over topography that the surface level height (k=1) is larger than the k=2 1000 hPa height value (somewhere under the ground). This is not a concern. REAL program will handle this issue later.

Note that REAL doesn't accept missing values (i.e. crazy values in your case).

(2) On a related note, in preprocessing GCM input binaries, I am finding that my wrf.exe results near areas of complex terrain are somewhat sensitive to whether or not I use vinth2p with numerical extrapolation or vinth2p_ecmwf with physical extrapolation (in NCL) at below-ground gridcells.

My understanding is that vinth2p is commonly used for extrapolation, and it should work fine in WRF. Some can correct me if I am wrong.

(3) Since my soil/skin temperatures do not suffer from this issue, and because this issue arises at a small percentage of my total gridcells, I am wondering just how much uncertainty is being introduced into my modeling framework as a result of changing the extrapolation method across gridcells that should be below-ground and thus not used(?)

Honestly I don't know the answer. We ever really compare the impacts of the two different interpolation methods. Please keep us updated if you know something about this issue.
 
Top