ejd_wrf_user
New member
Hello,
One of the most useful/interesting components of CLM is the telescoping (i.e., land use; soil/snow columns; PFTs) structure in each grid cell. But when coupled to WRF, the preprocessing handles all of the land use/soil type data before WRF 'knows' which land surface model it will be using. So, the heterogeneity of the soil type information has already been removed when the grid is built in the pre-processing before WRF knows that it is using CLM (which is specified afterward in the model namelist).
Is my interpretation of this correct? For example, if you are running WRF with 15km horizontal grid spacing, the grid will be built with the land use/soil type information at 15 km before it 'knows' that CLM is the choice of LSM. Does that remove the useful telescoping structure?
How does this affect the performance of CLM in WRF? Does this mean the version of CLM in WRF is not the same as the stand alone version?
One of the most useful/interesting components of CLM is the telescoping (i.e., land use; soil/snow columns; PFTs) structure in each grid cell. But when coupled to WRF, the preprocessing handles all of the land use/soil type data before WRF 'knows' which land surface model it will be using. So, the heterogeneity of the soil type information has already been removed when the grid is built in the pre-processing before WRF knows that it is using CLM (which is specified afterward in the model namelist).
Is my interpretation of this correct? For example, if you are running WRF with 15km horizontal grid spacing, the grid will be built with the land use/soil type information at 15 km before it 'knows' that CLM is the choice of LSM. Does that remove the useful telescoping structure?
How does this affect the performance of CLM in WRF? Does this mean the version of CLM in WRF is not the same as the stand alone version?