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

real.exe changes the values of LANDMASK.

Chen W

New member
I used the modis_lake dataset in the Landusetype. I have obtained the accurate LANDMASK in the geo_em.d01.nc file and the met_em.d01.*.nc files. However, the execution of real.exe has resulted in the modification of the LANDMASK variable in wrfinput_d01. The value of LANDMASK is more like "lakemask", which means lake = 1, non-lake=0. We also got the XLAND data in the wrfinput_d01 file, which appears accurate and matches the LANDMASK variable in the geo_em.d01.nc and met_em.d01.*.nc files. Is this ok or are there any errors in the LANDMASK variable in the wrfinput file? I used WRFv3.6 and WPSv4.0.


The following images are LANDMASK in geo_em.d01.nc, met_em.d01.*.nc, wrfinput_d01 and XLAND in wrfinput_d01.

geo_em.d01.nc.pngmet_em.d01.nc.pngLANDMASK in wrfinput_d01.pngXLAND in wrfinput_d01.png
 
Hi,
1) Did you make any modifications to the geo_em* or met_em* files?
2) What version of WPS/WRF are you using?
3) Can you attach your namelist.wps and namelist.input files so I can take a look?
 
Thanks for your reply. Actually I used WRFCHEM V3.6.1 and WPS V4.0. But I ran the model with chemistry turned off( I want to make sure the WRFCHEM can run successfully for the meteorology part). I didn't make any modification to the geo_em* and met_em* files. If I use modis_30s as the land use type. The LANDMASK in the wrfinput file would be all zero.
 

Attachments

  • namelist.wps
    2.2 KB · Views: 2
  • namelist.input
    10.5 KB · Views: 2
Thanks for the response. Can you try to run this with the latest version of WRF (V4.6.0 - without chem) and let me know if that changes anything. We no longer support versions 3 of WRF.
 
Top