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

Run with different microphysics

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.


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.

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.


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