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

Long run with no crash, but bad results - insights?

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.


New member

I am running a 5 year simulation for a region in Northeast Brazil. I'm using FNL 0.25deg as inicial and boundary data and ERA5 for SST updates and using spectral nudging for the coarse domain. I've set 2 domains, 9 and 3 km resolution. All the other options in namelist.input are pretty much usual. I took lots of tips from other posts here. I did change SST lines on METGRID.TBL following because I was getting the error "grid%tsk unreasonable" while running ./real - and it solved.
I've simulated about 3 months so far, and as I was comparing some data with observation at two points within the finer domain, I got very good results in one of them (Poço Verde) and bad results in the other (Brejo Grande). Any ideas why? I'm not an experienced modeller, so I'm wondering wether I can actually improve my results. My goal is to obtain reliable data for another point (Japaratuba).
I do not believe changing parameterizations would improve significantly my results.
I attached my domains, terrain plot, weather stations over a map, namelists (.wps and .input) and plots for T and TD for the 2 stations.

I appreciate any insight, solutions or ideas.


  • namelist.input
    4.8 KB · Views: 40
  • namelist_ERA5.wps
    1.5 KB · Views: 32
  • T_Td_BrejoGrande.png
    28.7 KB · Views: 947
  • T_Td_PocoVerde.png
    26.4 KB · Views: 948
  • wps_show_dom.pdf
    45.5 KB · Views: 34
  • wrf_gsn_TerrenoD01.png
    138.4 KB · Views: 948
  • wrf_gsn_TerrenoD02.png
    133.6 KB · Views: 948
  • Weather_stations.jpg
    2.2 MB · Views: 947
New info:

Since my suspicions for my problem are mostly regarding either nudging, SST or topography, I checked on my wrfout files the variables SST and SST_INPUT (which is supposed to be data from wrflowinp).
- When checking ncdump -v SST wrfout_d02_2016-01-06_00\:00\:00, I got reasonable values (around 300 K) and zeroes (which I believe are for the land points)
- When checking ncdump -v SST_INPUT wrfout_d02_2016-01-06_00\:00\:00, all I got were zeroes. Could that be my problem? Or in case of zeroes (absent data) the model would run just as if I didn't have any extra SST information?
I honestly am not sure how the SST_INPUT variable works, but I have a case that has reasonable results and SST_INPUT is 0 everywhere, as well, so I don't *think* that's causing a problem. Out of curiosity, does your other case/location have values for that variable in the wrfout* files?

As for the bad results, unfortunately there is no secret ingredient to making the simulation output match the observations. It can sometimes just take a bit of playing around with some settings. These are the things I would try, but I don't know if my suggestions will give you the desired outcome:
1) Using nudging for the entire simulation is typically useful when the size of your domain is about the size of a continent (e.g., a CONUS domain), but your domain is pretty small, and therefore it's probably not necessary to use nudging for the entire simulation, though I don't know that it would hurt to do so. You may want to just try a simulation where you only use it near the beginning - just to see if the results differ.
2) As I mentioned, your domains are pretty small. We recommend using domains with a size of at least 100x100, and yours meet that requirement, but not much over. I would especially increase the size of d02 some. It doesn't need to be huge, but I think it may help to have the boundaries of that domain further away from the station of interest. Just remember that you want d02 to be about 1/3 the distance on all sides from d01, so if you make d02 much larger, you may want to also increase d01 a bit. Right now, you have plenty of room for an increase in d02 size.
3) The only physics modification I would recommend trying is perhaps to use NoahMP for surface.

Thanks for your reply.
I was testing the same case but with ERA5 data only, including SST update, and the SST_INPUT variable in the wrfout* files was still only zerores, but with reasonable values in the SST variable... I haven't checked the output yet.
I'm running a test now, increased D02 from 115 to 169 points each way and with the surface scheme physics you suggested. I excluded nudging from this test.