Hi all,
I’m currently using WRF to simulate a greater density of pressure levels in the stratosphere, and I’d appreciate any insights or feedback on my approach.
To initialize the model, I’m using GDAS data available at the time of the forecast. I’ve configured eta_levels in namelist.input to have a very high density towards the top of the atmosphere, with a p_top_requested value of 1000. My primary goal is to improve wind direction forecasts in the stratosphere, specifically for stratospheric balloon trajectory planning. I’m comparing the model’s wind direction outputs to actual flight paths to evaluate whether this approach yields better results.
We currently use GFS for our forecasts, but at stratospheric altitudes, the vertical layers in GFS are spaced more sparsely than near the surface. While the intervals are reasonable for surface-level forecasting, they equate to much larger differences in altitude at higher atmospheric levels. We believe there may be “hidden layers” of detail in between the standard pressure levels that are not being fully captured, and that increasing the vertical resolution could help reveal these and improve the accuracy of our flight paths.
Given this reasoning, is it reasonable to expect improved results with this approach? If anyone has experience fine-tuning WRF for stratospheric forecasts or balloon trajectory modeling, I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Thanks in advance for any advice!
I’m currently using WRF to simulate a greater density of pressure levels in the stratosphere, and I’d appreciate any insights or feedback on my approach.
To initialize the model, I’m using GDAS data available at the time of the forecast. I’ve configured eta_levels in namelist.input to have a very high density towards the top of the atmosphere, with a p_top_requested value of 1000. My primary goal is to improve wind direction forecasts in the stratosphere, specifically for stratospheric balloon trajectory planning. I’m comparing the model’s wind direction outputs to actual flight paths to evaluate whether this approach yields better results.
We currently use GFS for our forecasts, but at stratospheric altitudes, the vertical layers in GFS are spaced more sparsely than near the surface. While the intervals are reasonable for surface-level forecasting, they equate to much larger differences in altitude at higher atmospheric levels. We believe there may be “hidden layers” of detail in between the standard pressure levels that are not being fully captured, and that increasing the vertical resolution could help reveal these and improve the accuracy of our flight paths.
Given this reasoning, is it reasonable to expect improved results with this approach? If anyone has experience fine-tuning WRF for stratospheric forecasts or balloon trajectory modeling, I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Thanks in advance for any advice!