Hi All,
Significant differences were found in the SWDOWN calculation between WRF-4.3.1 and WRF-4.4.1.
Compared with measured radiation data, WRF-4.4.1 shows much worse scores.
Similar differences are in CLDFRA: compared to satellite observation WRF-4.4.1 underestimates
the values of the parameter. The attached images show CLDFRA values (right: 4.3.1, left:4.4.1).
The first picture shows the 1st, and the second is the 30th vertical model level.
This feature can be found at mp_phys=8, 28, 16, and ra_sw_physics= 4.
It seems there is a problem with CLDFRA calculation regardless of the mp_phys.
Applied namelist.input is also attached.
Do you have any suggestions to solve this problem, or is it perhaps a bug?
Thanks
Significant differences were found in the SWDOWN calculation between WRF-4.3.1 and WRF-4.4.1.
Compared with measured radiation data, WRF-4.4.1 shows much worse scores.
Similar differences are in CLDFRA: compared to satellite observation WRF-4.4.1 underestimates
the values of the parameter. The attached images show CLDFRA values (right: 4.3.1, left:4.4.1).
The first picture shows the 1st, and the second is the 30th vertical model level.
This feature can be found at mp_phys=8, 28, 16, and ra_sw_physics= 4.
It seems there is a problem with CLDFRA calculation regardless of the mp_phys.
Applied namelist.input is also attached.
Do you have any suggestions to solve this problem, or is it perhaps a bug?
Thanks
