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

Modifying wrfbdy file for future climate question

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.


I am running a real case to study a future climate scenario as it compares to a current case. To do this, I modify the wrfinput and wrflow file per the methodology in Keller et al. (2018) in the following ways:

1. Add 2K to all absolute temperatures
2. Adjust QVAPOR such that the RH remains constant.

Everything worked fine for these files. However, when I take a look at the wrfbdy file, the perturbation theta values (T_BXS, T_BXE, T_BYS, & T_BYE) are definitely not potential temperature perturbations; they look like fill values. Their tendencies (T_BTXS, T_BTXE, T_BTYS, & T_BTYE) look reasonable, however. The QVAPOR variables also follow this trend (unphysical absolute values but reasonable tendencies).

I think I can thus leave the wrfbdy file alone for this short future climate experiment. However, I need to be absolutely sure that I've interpreted the meaning of the temperature and vapor variables in the boundary file.


Many thanks,

Source: "The sensitivity of Alpine summer convection to surrogate climate change: an intercomparison between convective-parameterizing and convective-resolving models" --ACP
The variables in wrfbdy are coupled with (mu+mub). That is why they have large values. However, their tendencies are uncoupled and look more reasonable.
Yes WRF does read those variables saved in wrfbdy. They are values at the outermost boundary grids.