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


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 see that in some of the GHRSST flavors (from the JPL PODAAC) also contain SEAICE analyses. The MUR files also contain a SEAICE Mask.

Any advice on whether a SEAICE MASK would be useful in WRF would be appreciated. Should I include that mask in any WPS Intermediate files I make?
This can be useful if you are doing runs at higher latitudes (near the poles), during winter months where there is a large amount of sea ice.
Hi Kelly,

Could you be more specific about how it might be useful? What fields in a METGRID.TBL would benefit from an ICEMASK?

Should one, for example, apply the MUR (1.3km) ICEMASK to the SEAICE data from e.g. ERA5 (~28km)? What bad behavior from WRF would that avoid?

Hi Bart,
Having the specific SEAICE mask field will let the model know which points are actually ice, as opposed to water points in the landmask. Additionally, if your simulation is long, and you have updated seaice mask data, then the mask will change with freezing and melting. This all helps later when the LSM is used. It can just give a more accurate representation of the environment, but it's not mandatory.