Questions about updating initial and boundary conditions in WRF-VPRM

[sushx]

Dear Mike:

I saw your reply to Pwang about CO2_bio being all positive (WRF_VPRM have no negative value in CO2_BIO and CO2_OCE). I had the same problem, I updated the initial and boundary conditions with CT2022, but since I didn't know which variable to update, I only updated the variable CO2_BCK. In this way the simulated CO2_bio were all positive.

Does updating the initial and boundary conditions mean updating all three variables, CO2_ANT, CO2_BCK and CO2_BIO, at the same time? In your previous reply you said that the initial and boundary conditions can be set to 400 ppm. Is this referring to the CO2_BCK variable?

In addition, I see that the CO2 background in CT2022 is about 400 ppm, biogenic CO2 is about -37 to 20 ppm, and anthropogenic CO2 is about 69 ppm. Should I update the initial and boundary conditions of the variables corresponding to them (CO2_BCK, CO2_BIO and CO2_ANT,) based on the values of these variables of CT2022? I am confused about how to correctly update the initial and boundary conditions to simulate CO2.

I apologize for asking so many questions at once. I appreciate it and look forward to your reply.

Best regards,
Shixiang Su

 

[Michal_Galkowski]

Hi Su,

Initial and boundary condition in the chem_opt = 16/17 need to be set for two tracers:

CO2_BIO
CO2_BCK

1. CO2_BIO is the tracer with which VPRM module interacts with, i.e. the GEE and respiration CO2 fluxes are added / subtracted in the model at every time step. If you initialize the field with 0 (and/or provide the boundary conditions equal to 0 via wrfbdy file), you might run into a problem if you simultaneously use positive tracer valuies in the namelist.input. Thus, the recommended initial and boundary value of CO2_BIO is constant and equal to 400 ppm. This value needs to be subtracted in post-processing. Please note that the usual care should be taken close to the boundaries of the domain, as the mole fractions will be unrealistic in case boundary is immediately upwind.

Typical CO2_BIO values are expected to vary be within -20 and +20 ppm, following photosynthetic and respiraction activity of the simulated biosphere. Thus. I am fairly convinced that your positive-only values are because you've run with forced-positive tracer option. This cannot be fixed and I'm afraid you'll need to rerun your simulations.

2. CO2_BCK, simply is meant to provide the realistic boundary conditions, usually from a coarse resolution global model. In studies over Europe and South America, we saw excellent performance using CO2 fields from optimized Jena CarboScope system (link here), but CT2022 will likely also work. Just FYI and for the record, one can run the model without providing CO2_BCK tracer, but this will make it extremely difficult to compare against in situ observations, as the other tracers only represent additions in your model from inside your d01 at most.

Other tracers (CO2_ANT, CO2_TST, CO2_BBU, CO2_OCE) available in the GHG module require no initial nor boundary condition, although some spinup period for the model is recommended (lenght should be established based on the domain size).

Hope this helps. Kind regards,

Mike Galkowski

 

[sushx]

Dear Mike,

Thank you very much for your patient and helpful reply! Now I understand why CO2_BIO is positive in my simulation and how to solve this problem.

Best regards,
Shixiang Su

 

[Ming]

Dear Mike:

I saw your reply to Pwang about CO2_bio being all positive (WRF_VPRM have no negative value in CO2_BIO and CO2_OCE). I had the same problem, I updated the initial and boundary conditions with CT2022, but since I didn't know which variable to update, I only updated the variable CO2_BCK. In this way the simulated CO2_bio were all positive.

Does updating the initial and boundary conditions mean updating all three variables, CO2_ANT, CO2_BCK and CO2_BIO, at the same time? In your previous reply you said that the initial and boundary conditions can be set to 400 ppm. Is this referring to the CO2_BCK variable?

In addition, I see that the CO2 background in CT2022 is about 400 ppm, biogenic CO2 is about -37 to 20 ppm, and anthropogenic CO2 is about 69 ppm. Should I update the initial and boundary conditions of the variables corresponding to them (CO2_BCK, CO2_BIO and CO2_ANT,) based on the values of these variables of CT2022? I am confused about how to correctly update the initial and boundary conditions to simulate CO2.

I apologize for asking so many questions at once. I appreciate it and look forward to your reply.

Best regards,
Shixiang Su

Hi Su,

Initial and boundary condition in the chem_opt = 16/17 need to be set for two tracers:

CO2_BIO
CO2_BCK

1. CO2_BIO is the tracer with which VPRM module interacts with, i.e. the GEE and respiration CO2 fluxes are added / subtracted in the model at every time step. If you initialize the field with 0 (and/or provide the boundary conditions equal to 0 via wrfbdy file), you might run into a problem if you simultaneously use positive tracer valuies in the namelist.input. Thus, the recommended initial and boundary value of CO2_BIO is constant and equal to 400 ppm. This value needs to be subtracted in post-processing. Please note that the usual care should be taken close to the boundaries of the domain, as the mole fractions will be unrealistic in case boundary is immediately upwind.

Typical CO2_BIO values are expected to vary be within -20 and +20 ppm, following photosynthetic and respiraction activity of the simulated biosphere. Thus. I am fairly convinced that your positive-only values are because you've run with forced-positive tracer option. This cannot be fixed and I'm afraid you'll need to rerun your simulations.

2. CO2_BCK, simply is meant to provide the realistic boundary conditions, usually from a coarse resolution global model. In studies over Europe and South America, we saw excellent performance using CO2 fields from optimized Jena CarboScope system (link here), but CT2022 will likely also work. Just FYI and for the record, one can run the model without providing CO2_BCK tracer, but this will make it extremely difficult to compare against in situ observations, as the other tracers only represent additions in your model from inside your d01 at most.

Other tracers (CO2_ANT, CO2_TST, CO2_BBU, CO2_OCE) available in the GHG module require no initial nor boundary condition, although some spinup period for the model is recommended (lenght should be established based on the domain size).

Hope this helps. Kind regards,

Mike Galkowski

Dear Mike and Su,

I added 400 ppm for CO2_BIO in the initial and boundary value as suggested. However, the simulated results still show values greater than 400 ppm, with no instances below 400 ppm. This implies that the vegetation's respiratory action is consistently stronger than the photosynthetic action, even in seasons when vegetation is growing vigorously (like in July and August). I am not sure what could be causing this issue and would appreciate your guidance.

Best regards,
Ming

 

[Michal_Galkowski]

Hello Ming.

This doesn't sound right. It could mean that the VPRM input files are somehow at fault, but the fact that you see respiration signal (? -- I assume they make sense?) suggests that the module functions. Could you provide a CO2_BIO plot for the second model level 2 at the centre of your domain, let's say from for a selected week in the middle of summer?

MG

 

[jianjun5212]

Hi Su,

Initial and boundary condition in the chem_opt = 16/17 need to be set for two tracers:

CO2_BIO
CO2_BCK

1. CO2_BIO is the tracer with which VPRM module interacts with, i.e. the GEE and respiration CO2 fluxes are added / subtracted in the model at every time step. If you initialize the field with 0 (and/or provide the boundary conditions equal to 0 via wrfbdy file), you might run into a problem if you simultaneously use positive tracer valuies in the namelist.input. Thus, the recommended initial and boundary value of CO2_BIO is constant and equal to 400 ppm. This value needs to be subtracted in post-processing. Please note that the usual care should be taken close to the boundaries of the domain, as the mole fractions will be unrealistic in case boundary is immediately upwind.

Typical CO2_BIO values are expected to vary be within -20 and +20 ppm, following photosynthetic and respiraction activity of the simulated biosphere. Thus. I am fairly convinced that your positive-only values are because you've run with forced-positive tracer option. This cannot be fixed and I'm afraid you'll need to rerun your simulations.

2. CO2_BCK, simply is meant to provide the realistic boundary conditions, usually from a coarse resolution global model. In studies over Europe and South America, we saw excellent performance using CO2 fields from optimized Jena CarboScope system (link here), but CT2022 will likely also work. Just FYI and for the record, one can run the model without providing CO2_BCK tracer, but this will make it extremely difficult to compare against in situ observations, as the other tracers only represent additions in your model from inside your d01 at most.

Other tracers (CO2_ANT, CO2_TST, CO2_BBU, CO2_OCE) available in the GHG module require no initial nor boundary condition, although some spinup period for the model is recommended (lenght should be established based on the domain size).

Hope this helps. Kind regards,

Mike Galkowski

Hi Mike,
I found the above information is very useful to my simulations. I am new user. The CO2 components, including background, ff, ocean, ... are provided in CT2022. My confuse is that the CO2_BCK initial value in wrf-chem is set with CO2 background component in CT2022 or with the total values in CT2022? I found if i set the CO2_ANT=positive values (e.g., 400), the output CO2_ANT values have the negative values, if CO2_ANT=0, the output CO2_ANT values are always positive. Which one is correct?
Many thanks,
Liu

 

[Wright08]

Ensuring consistency between the initial conditions and the model setup is crucial. Office ally This includes matching the spatial and temporal resolution of the initial conditions with that of the WRF-VPRM simulation, as well as ensuring that variables like soil moisture and vegetation properties are representative of the model domain.

 

[Michal_Galkowski]

Hi Mike,
I found the above information is very useful to my simulations. I am new user. The CO2 components, including background, ff, ocean, ... are provided in CT2022. My confuse is that the CO2_BCK initial value in wrf-chem is set with CO2 background component in CT2022 or with the total values in CT2022? I found if i set the CO2_ANT=positive values (e.g., 400), the output CO2_ANT values have the negative values, if CO2_ANT=0, the output CO2_ANT values are always positive. Which one is correct?
Many thanks,
Liu

Liu,

Regarding CO2_BCK, it is intended for carrying information from the boundaries of your parent domain (d01). For the initial conditions it's best to set a reasonable (total) signal from a global model (like CT2022), but keep in mind that usually, you would wait for the emissions from WRF internal emission modules to produce enough signal for interpretation. In other, simpler words, the good practice is for the domain should have time to be flushed.

As for CO2_ANT value setting, what you see is not a regular behaviour. CO2_ANT is directly linked with the wrfchemi_dXX emission files and the variable eco2_tst. So the behaviour that you see likely depends on what you provide in terms of emissions.

Kind regards

Mike

 

[zhengzich]

hi, I must say that the above questions and answers helped me solve a lot of problems. I am now able to open auxinput15 and run WRF-chem normally. First of all, I need to make it clear that I am running the mid-latitude data of January, and photosynthesis and respiration may be affected. I modified the boundary value of 415, but did not change the initial value, which is still 380.
But my CO2_BIO has hardly changed. What should I do? Where did I go wrong?
I want to know if this is related to the relevant Settings of namelist, can provide me with a possibility of namelist.
Thanks!

 

[ffxf210]

亲爱的 Mike 和 Su，

我按照建议在初始值和边界值中为 CO2_BIO 添加了 400 ppm。然而，模拟结果仍然显示大于 400 ppm 的值，没有低于 400 ppm 的情况。这意味着植被的呼吸作用始终强于光合作用，即使在植被生长旺盛的季节（如七月和八月）。我不确定是什么原因导致了这个问题，希望得到您的指导。

此致，

Dear MING,

I encountered the same issue as you did. I modified CO2_BIO to 400 in both wrfinput and wrfbdy, but after running the simulation, all CO2_BIO values remained above 400. This occurred even in July. Have you found a solution? My CO2_ANT seems reasonable, and CO2_BIO is also sensible except for the lack of negative values. The EBIO_GEE and EBIO_RES values also appear reasonable. My WeChat ID is “ffxf210”; perhaps we can discuss further.

YiFu