How to check that CAMtr* file is correclty read by WRF (V3.6) ?

[Arty]

Hello,

I wonder how may I check that the right CAMtr* file is correctly read by WRF (V3.6) ?

I'm using a modified version of the RCP8.5 scenario where all GHG concentrations are constant, based on year 2090 (CAMtr_2090_GHG_Values.RCP8.5). I've checked that the modified file is correctly linked and renamed (CAMtr_volume_mixing_ratio ; without extension) in the working directory as seen below (2nd line) :

/CONFIGS/A4P0SBA32_FTR/rundir/A4P0SBA32_FTR_execute/19910201_19910228> ls -l CAMtr*
lrwxrwxrwx 1 pmauger grmoaw 82 Sep 21 22:40 CAMtr_volume_mixing_ratio -> /home/datawork-lops-siam-moawi/PROJECTS/CLIPSSA/CAMtr/CAMtr_2090_GHG_Values.RCP8.5
lrwxrwxrwx 1 pmauger grmoaw 78 Sep 21 22:40 CAMtr_volume_mixing_ratio.A1B -> /home3/datahome/pmauger/WRF/WRFV3GHG/run/../data/CAMtr_volume_mixing_ratio.A1B
lrwxrwxrwx 1 pmauger grmoaw 77 Sep 21 22:40 CAMtr_volume_mixing_ratio.A2 -> /home3/datahome/pmauger/WRF/WRFV3GHG/run/../data/CAMtr_volume_mixing_ratio.A2
lrwxrwxrwx 1 pmauger grmoaw 81 Sep 21 22:40 CAMtr_volume_mixing_ratio.RCP4.5 -> /home3/datahome/pmauger/WRF/WRFV3GHG/run/../data/CAMtr_volume_mixing_ratio.RCP4.5
lrwxrwxrwx 1 pmauger grmoaw 79 Sep 21 22:40 CAMtr_volume_mixing_ratio.RCP6 -> /home3/datahome/pmauger/WRF/WRFV3GHG/run/../data/CAMtr_volume_mixing_ratio.RCP6
lrwxrwxrwx 1 pmauger grmoaw 81 Sep 21 22:40 CAMtr_volume_mixing_ratio.RCP8.5 -> /home3/datahome/pmauger/WRF/WRFV3GHG/run/../data/CAMtr_volume_mixing_ratio.RCP8.5

Despite I did set debug_level = 10, rsl* files show no trace of any 'CAMtr' pattern using 'grep' (nor 'vmr').

According to the User's Guide, everything seems in order and the model is running for 30mn now, but I'd really like to make sure.

Thanks for your help

 

[Arty]

Even when setting debug_level = 100 does not provide any information on the reading of CAMtr* file.

Does anyone have an insight ? I read that I can add some lines in the radiation module but must recompile which is not an option. Surely there's another way to verify such an important feature is taken into account ?

Thanks

 

[kwerner]

Hi,
Admittedly, I've also struggled with finding out information in the code regarding the files read-in. I spoke to our physics specialist, who said that, at least with RRTMG SW it should echo the values when debug_level =1. Search for GHG in rsl.out.0000. That should be true for the most recent version of WRF. V3.6 is very old, and I'm not even able to get it to compile on my system, so I can't check that version to see if it's still true.

 

[Arty]

Hi,
Admittedly, I've also struggled with finding out information in the code regarding the files read-in. I spoke to our physics specialist, who said that, at least with RRTMG SW it should echo the values when debug_level =1. Search for GHG in rsl.out.0000. That should be true for the most recent version of WRF. V3.6 is very old, and I'm not even able to get it to compile on my system, so I can't check that version to see if it's still true.

Thank you Kelly. I did a thorough check in all rsl* files but weren't able to find any trace of pattern GHG, CO2, VMR, CAMtr. To make sure, I relaunched a 2 days run with debug_level set to 1. I tried 10 and 100 but the rsl* files are pretty heavy that way and I could not learn much from it.

That said, could you please confirm that there typically shouldn't be any issues : I checked that the modified table is well copied and renamed properly in my run directory ; as stated in the User's Guide.

It would have been reassuring to have a more robust "proof" that the table is being read correctly, but it seems I won't be able to achieve that without modifying the RA module and recompiling the code.

Also, I want to acknowledge that I’ve learned my lesson about using an outdated version. Unfortunately, due to various problems, it seemed like the quickest workaround at the time, but I now see how I would have benefited from using a more recent version.

 

[Arty]

Here are the rsl*0000 files along with the namelist.input file from the 2-day test run, in case they may be useful for anything.

 

[kwerner]

Hi,
Thanks for providing that information. I can confirm that there aren't any known problems with those files, so since your simulation completed without problems, just make sure the results are what you'd expect and are reasonable, and you should be okay to proceed. I apologize that it's not simple to see what files are being used.