GewellLlorin
New member
Hello!
We are doing some work with the WRF urban canopy models and are currently post-processing the simulation files for analysis. Our simulations make use of the default modis_landuse_30s_with_lakes land cover as well as an updated and reclassified land cover for 2018 that includes the low intensity residential (31), high intensity residential (32), and industrial or commercial (33) categories. Attached below is a visualization of these.
We came across an issue when comparing some surface variables between the two land cover scenarios (attached is another figure showing what we have right now.) ALBEDO, EMISS, and VEGFRA were taken from the wrfout files, while roughness length was visualized based on the land cover category following the values tabulated in the LANDUSE.TBL file. The problem now is that there seems to be no difference between the VEGFRA parameter between the two land cover scenarios, and we are also unsure if the roughness length parameter used in the simulations is 0.8 across the 31/32/33 categories.
We would really appreciate knowing where to find the default parameters WRF is using for the urban 31, 32, and 33 categories. Any additional insight as to why there is no change in the VEGFRA would be very helpful as well.
Thank you!
We are doing some work with the WRF urban canopy models and are currently post-processing the simulation files for analysis. Our simulations make use of the default modis_landuse_30s_with_lakes land cover as well as an updated and reclassified land cover for 2018 that includes the low intensity residential (31), high intensity residential (32), and industrial or commercial (33) categories. Attached below is a visualization of these.
We came across an issue when comparing some surface variables between the two land cover scenarios (attached is another figure showing what we have right now.) ALBEDO, EMISS, and VEGFRA were taken from the wrfout files, while roughness length was visualized based on the land cover category following the values tabulated in the LANDUSE.TBL file. The problem now is that there seems to be no difference between the VEGFRA parameter between the two land cover scenarios, and we are also unsure if the roughness length parameter used in the simulations is 0.8 across the 31/32/33 categories.
We would really appreciate knowing where to find the default parameters WRF is using for the urban 31, 32, and 33 categories. Any additional insight as to why there is no change in the VEGFRA would be very helpful as well.
Thank you!
