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

Interpretation of RMOL from WRF

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.

N

n1o1o3n

New member
Hi!!

I am doing some analysis related to atmospheric stability. And I understand WRF outputs RMOL, which represents atmospheric stability, with revision of Registry or Run-Time IO.
However, I can not understand the unit of RMOL from WRF. According to a description in Registry.EM_COMMON, it is a non-dimensional variable, although theoretically, it should be "m-1".

So, please kindly let me know which is a correct unit, and also how to convert from the non-dimensional RMOL into MOL.
Looking forward to hearing from you!

Best,
Shogo
 
Shogo,

You are correct that the units are m-1. I agree that the description in the registry file is confusing.
 
Hi, kwerner.

Thank you for your reply. Well understood.
Based on my analysis, 1/RMOL multiplied by observation height, which is 10m in my case, seems more realistic than simple 1/RMOL, when compared to one calculated from a sonic observation by Eddy Covariance Method.
That is the reason why I checked the registry file and unit of RMOL. Then, I posted this topic here.

However, as you mentioned, if the registry is incorrect and unit of RMOL is truly inverse of [m], I need to find another cause of the difference...

Anyway, your answer is appreciated.


Shogo
 
Hi, kwerner

I am still considering the possibility that the unit of RMOL from the WRF model is [-] rather than [m-1],
since a comparison with observation implies there is a big gap between the two.

Can you make sure that the hypothesis is not true?
Looking forward to hearing from you again.

Shogo
 
Hi Shogo,
I apologize for the delay. I wanted to check with our physics expert, who said he's pretty sure it should be 1/L (we also have ZOL which is za/L where za is the lowest level).
 
Hi, kwerner,

Thank you for your support during your busy time. Well understood.
To ensure his comment, I will dig into the source code and find how those variables work shortly.
And then will get back to you.

Best,
Shogo
 
Hi, kwerner

After a discussion with my colleagues, we found out that the inverse of MOL calculated from Ri has a good agreement with RMOL.
So, the unit should be [m-1].
Anyway, thank you for your support!

Shogo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top