Long run with no crash, but bad results - insights?

Topics specifically related to any of the WRF runtime options, such as SST update, DFI, nudging, restarts, global runs, adaptive time step, ndown.exe, tc.exe, moving nest, etc.
Post Reply
bkbainy
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2021 6:24 pm

Long run with no crash, but bad results - insights?

Post by bkbainy » Mon Apr 12, 2021 3:04 pm

Hello,

I am running a 5 year simulation for a region in Northeast Brazil. I'm using FNL 0.25deg as inicial and boundary data and ERA5 for SST updates and using spectral nudging for the coarse domain. I've set 2 domains, 9 and 3 km resolution. All the other options in namelist.input are pretty much usual. I took lots of tips from other posts here. I did change SST lines on METGRID.TBL following https://dreambooker.site/2017/12/20/Ini ... eanalysis/ because I was getting the error "grid%tsk unreasonable" while running ./real - and it solved.
I've simulated about 3 months so far, and as I was comparing some data with observation at two points within the finer domain, I got very good results in one of them (Poço Verde) and bad results in the other (Brejo Grande). Any ideas why? I'm not an experienced modeller, so I'm wondering wether I can actually improve my results. My goal is to obtain reliable data for another point (Japaratuba).
I do not believe changing parameterizations would improve significantly my results.
I attached my domains, terrain plot, weather stations over a map, namelists (.wps and .input) and plots for T and TD for the 2 stations.

I appreciate any insight, solutions or ideas.
Attachments
Weather_stations.jpg
wrf_gsn_TerrenoD02.png
wrf_gsn_TerrenoD01.png
wps_show_dom.pdf
(45.49 KiB) Downloaded 4 times
T_Td_PocoVerde.png
T_Td_BrejoGrande.png
namelist_ERA5.wps
(1.52 KiB) Downloaded 5 times
namelist.input
(4.81 KiB) Downloaded 11 times

bkbainy
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2021 6:24 pm

Re: Long run with no crash, but bad results - insights?

Post by bkbainy » Mon Apr 12, 2021 6:12 pm

New info:

Since my suspicions for my problem are mostly regarding either nudging, SST or topography, I checked on my wrfout files the variables SST and SST_INPUT (which is supposed to be data from wrflowinp).
- When checking ncdump -v SST wrfout_d02_2016-01-06_00\:00\:00, I got reasonable values (around 300 K) and zeroes (which I believe are for the land points)
- When checking ncdump -v SST_INPUT wrfout_d02_2016-01-06_00\:00\:00, all I got were zeroes. Could that be my problem? Or in case of zeroes (absent data) the model would run just as if I didn't have any extra SST information?

kwerner
Posts: 2287
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:21 pm

Re: Long run with no crash, but bad results - insights?

Post by kwerner » Wed Apr 14, 2021 3:58 am

Hi,
I honestly am not sure how the SST_INPUT variable works, but I have a case that has reasonable results and SST_INPUT is 0 everywhere, as well, so I don't *think* that's causing a problem. Out of curiosity, does your other case/location have values for that variable in the wrfout* files?

As for the bad results, unfortunately there is no secret ingredient to making the simulation output match the observations. It can sometimes just take a bit of playing around with some settings. These are the things I would try, but I don't know if my suggestions will give you the desired outcome:
1) Using nudging for the entire simulation is typically useful when the size of your domain is about the size of a continent (e.g., a CONUS domain), but your domain is pretty small, and therefore it's probably not necessary to use nudging for the entire simulation, though I don't know that it would hurt to do so. You may want to just try a simulation where you only use it near the beginning - just to see if the results differ.
2) As I mentioned, your domains are pretty small. We recommend using domains with a size of at least 100x100, and yours meet that requirement, but not much over. I would especially increase the size of d02 some. It doesn't need to be huge, but I think it may help to have the boundaries of that domain further away from the station of interest. Just remember that you want d02 to be about 1/3 the distance on all sides from d01, so if you make d02 much larger, you may want to also increase d01 a bit. Right now, you have plenty of room for an increase in d02 size.
3) The only physics modification I would recommend trying is perhaps to use NoahMP for surface.
NCAR/MMM

bkbainy
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2021 6:24 pm

Re: Long run with no crash, but bad results - insights?

Post by bkbainy » Wed Apr 14, 2021 5:34 pm

Hi,

Thanks for your reply.
I was testing the same case but with ERA5 data only, including SST update, and the SST_INPUT variable in the wrfout* files was still only zerores, but with reasonable values in the SST variable... I haven't checked the output yet.
I'm running a test now, increased D02 from 115 to 169 points each way and with the surface scheme physics you suggested. I excluded nudging from this test.

Post Reply

Return to “Special Running Options”