Run with different microphysics

This post was from a previous version of the WRF&MPAS-A Support Forum. Please do not add new replies here and if you would like the thread moved out of the Historical / Archive section then contact us, making sure to include the link of the thread to be moved.

Dear all,
The WRF-Solar is an excellent initiation to get important radiation variables. Actually, I needed to simulate these Radiation variables with different microphysical options except the MP=8 and 28 (with aer_opt=1 and remaining all like reference configuration). Is it reasonable?
Thank you.

Srinivas.
 

jimenez

New member
Staff member
Srinivas,
Yes, testing sensitivities to the microphysics representation is reasonable.
Pedro.
 
Thank you for your quick response. I have another doubt, suppose, Running the model with reference configuration (i.e MP Phy=8, 28) in cloudy condition and compare these results with the remaining microphysics options (raining all configuration is same). Is it good? why I am asking, actually, Thompson is aerosols aware physics, and the remaining are not. Please suggest, the disparity in results is mainly due to aerosols or microphysical properties? I have a little bit of confusion. Please help me.

And also, I was run the model with reference configuration. But, in the output, radiation parameters data showing null value at sometimes (some time steps like attached figures) but remaining all data is good. Why it's happened? Please suggest to me.

Thank you.
 

Attachments

  • 24h_dfi.png
    24h_dfi.png
    32.6 KB · Views: 785
  • 15h_dfi.png
    15h_dfi.png
    28 KB · Views: 785
  • 6h_dfi.png
    6h_dfi.png
    205.4 KB · Views: 785

jimenez

New member
Staff member
for mp 8 you can set aer_opt = 1 but for mp 28 you can use aer_opt =3. Other microphysics should be compatible with aer_opt = 1.
The largest differences should come from the microphysics.
The diffuse should be zero during nighttime.
 
Top