Hello,
I am simulating downslope windstorms in complex terrain, which means that detailed LANDUSE is desirable. I decided to use this 250m CORINE dataset:
zenodo.org
The authors suggest that using NoahMP is needed for this option, as well as turning off the urban physics. I did so, and geo_em files now contain the CORINE-derived LANDUSE (and LU_INDEX), and the coastline is as a result much finer in resolution. All good so far.
However, when running a test simulation, I see extremely large negative values (O ~ -3 e36) in fields which seem to be related to vegetation. I confirmed this by grepping all the Registry files with the offending fields, and they all seem to be related to NoahMP and vegetation. Examples of some fields are below - large negative values are over west Alps. Additionally, I verified that these values are NOT in the geo_em* and met_em* files, thus the issue seems to be when WRF is run (i.e., physics options).
I am having some doubts about my hypothesis however, as the issue only happens in the domain 1 (nested domains which are NOT over the Alps, and are instead over Croatia, seem not to have these issues). Additionally, the SH2O field has zero moisture (exactly 0.0, so not almost zero) exactly at those points.
My question is thus - which option would you suggest to use to avoid these issues (from 1 to 9 in the namelist.input)? Or if the issue is not the vegetation (as the issue seems not to be in the smaller domains), what could be the culprit instead?
I am also attaching my namelist.wps and .input. files.
I am simulating downslope windstorms in complex terrain, which means that detailed LANDUSE is desirable. I decided to use this 250m CORINE dataset:
CORINE dataset for WRF-NoahMP model (v4.3, v4.2)
This dataset is an interpolated and converted version of the CORINE 2012 (Version 2020_20u1) land cover raster database (https://land.copernicus.eu/pan-european/corine-land-cover/clc-2012) to WRF geogrid compatible format. The original CORINE database has a 100 m resolution, but WRF requires a...
The authors suggest that using NoahMP is needed for this option, as well as turning off the urban physics. I did so, and geo_em files now contain the CORINE-derived LANDUSE (and LU_INDEX), and the coastline is as a result much finer in resolution. All good so far.
However, when running a test simulation, I see extremely large negative values (O ~ -3 e36) in fields which seem to be related to vegetation. I confirmed this by grepping all the Registry files with the offending fields, and they all seem to be related to NoahMP and vegetation. Examples of some fields are below - large negative values are over west Alps. Additionally, I verified that these values are NOT in the geo_em* and met_em* files, thus the issue seems to be when WRF is run (i.e., physics options).
I am having some doubts about my hypothesis however, as the issue only happens in the domain 1 (nested domains which are NOT over the Alps, and are instead over Croatia, seem not to have these issues). Additionally, the SH2O field has zero moisture (exactly 0.0, so not almost zero) exactly at those points.
My question is thus - which option would you suggest to use to avoid these issues (from 1 to 9 in the namelist.input)? Or if the issue is not the vegetation (as the issue seems not to be in the smaller domains), what could be the culprit instead?
I am also attaching my namelist.wps and .input. files.
