surface_input_source = 3, mismatch_landmask_ivgtyp error

[sd16121]

Dear Colleagues,

For the 'surface_input_source', I can only use option 1, but when I use the default option (3), it reported the error below:
************************
Max map factor in domain 1 = 0.98. Scale the dt in the model accordingly.
Using sfcprs3 to compute psfc
d01 2019-06-11_00:00:00 flag value of flag_qnwfa is 0
d01 2019-06-11_00:00:00 No average surface temperature for use with inland lakes
Assume Noah LSM input
-------------- FATAL CALLED ---------------
FATAL CALLED FROM FILE: <stdin> LINE: 2963
mismatch_landmask_ivgtyp
-------------------------------------------
application called MPI_Abort(MPI_COMM_WORLD, 1) - process 0
************************

Could you please kindly let me know the reason for this?
For your convenience, I attach my namelist.input file.

By the way, I would like to know:
Based on "parent_grid_ratio = 1, 3, 3", whether there is an obvious running time difference between setting "parent_time_step_ratio" as 1,1,1 and 1,3,3?

Best wishes,
Stella

 

[kwerner]

Hi Stella,
I first would like to apologize for the long delay in response. I've been traveling for the past few weeks and am just now catching up with forum inquiries.Thank you for your patience. Can you let me know what version of WRF you are using and what type of input data?

As for your question about parent_time_step_ratio, yes this can make a difference, but whether the difference is significant will depend on your particular run and your definition of significant. When you set it to 1, 3, 3, domains 02 and 03 are processing data 3x more often, which will take a bit more time. I would suggest that you run a couple of short cases with the settings to compare the difference in timing. You can then interpolate the time to the total time you wish to run your simulation.

 

[sd16121]

Dear Colleague,

Many thanks for your kind reply. I use WRF 3.8.1, and the input data maybe indicate Geographical Static Data, which were downloaded from https://www2.mmm.ucar.edu/wrf/users/download/get_sources_wps_geog_V3.html

By the way, could you please kindly have a look at the other two questions below:
https://forum.mmm.ucar.edu/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=10406&p=21629#p21629
https://forum.mmm.ucar.edu/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=10405&p=21628#p21628

Hope you or your colleagues could help me with them.

Best regards,
Stella

 

[Ming Chen]

Stella,
In the code dyn_em/module_initialize_real.F, we can find the following piece:

              ELSE
                  print *,'the grid%landmask and soil/veg cats do not match'
                  print *,'i,j=',i,j
                  print *,'grid%landmask=',grid%landmask(i,j)
                  print *,'grid%ivgtyp=',grid%ivgtyp(i,j)
                  print *,'grid%isltyp=',grid%isltyp(i,j)
                  print *,'iswater=', config_flags%iswater
                  print *,'grid%tslb=',grid%tslb(i,:,j)
                  print *,'grid%sst=',grid%sst(i,j)
                  CALL wrf_error_fatal ( 'mismatch_landmask_ivgtyp' )
               END IF
[/ccode]

What are the other information before the message of  'mismatch_landmask_ivgtyp'?
Would you please send me your namelist.wps to take a look? Thanks.
Ming

 

[sd16121]

Dear Ming,

Thanks for your kind reply. The attachment is my namelist.wps.

Best regards,
Stella

 

[Ming Chen]

Hi Stella,
This is a known problem in WFV3.8.1. It is first found when using ERA-I as forcing data for WRF (also occaasionally other input data). Please see the page
https://www2.mmm.ucar.edu/wrf/users/wrf_files/wrfv3.8/known-prob-3.8.1.html

This problem is not fixed until WRFV4.1. You can find details in the website:
https://github.com/wrf-model/WRF/commit/b1b0a7e7d36be799781e183f6536021a1f955892

Can you take a look at the modified codes and manage to put them in your WRFV3.8.1? Note that WRF vertical coordinate has been changed since WRFV4.0, which makes the codes not back-consistent with older version of WRF.