Wrfout：All walues are identical WRF-LES

[Kongs]

Hello everyone, when I run WRF-LES at a 200 meter scale, the output WRFOUT file shows all walues are identical in v10 and u10. There was no problem when I was measuring at the 600 meter scale. Here are my input files .
I hope to receive your help, thank you very much!

 

[kwerner]

Apologies for the delay. Can you share one of your output files? It will likely be too large to attach here, so if you have another way to share the file (via a link), that would be great. Otherwise, see the home page of this forum for details on uploading large files. Thanks!

By the way, are you using ndown to run this?

 

[Kongs]

为延迟道歉。你能分享你的输出文件之一吗？它可能太大而无法附加到此处，因此如果您有其他方式共享文件（通过链接），那就太好了。否则，请参阅本论坛的主页以了解有关上传大文件的详细信息。谢谢！

顺便问一下，您是否使用 ndown 来运行它？

Dear sir, I allowed it through ndown. exe and opened sf_ surface_ The physics option can be successfully allowed because it was previously turned off. May I ask why the near formation plan is affected? I am allowing WRF-LES. Will opening these options have an impact?

Thank you very much for your reply!

 

[kwerner]

Hi,
If I understand your description and question, you are saying that you originally had sf_surface_physics = 0, but when you set it to a value (non-zero), you were able to get past the problem? And then you're asking if setting sf_surface_physics = 0 is problematic? Yes, sf_surface_physics must have a NON-zero value. I hadn't noticed that setting in your namelist when I first looked at it. Apologies for overlooking that.

 

[Kongs]

Hi,
If I understand your description and question, you are saying that you originally had sf_surface_physics = 0, but when you set it to a value (non-zero), you were able to get past the problem? And then you're asking if setting sf_surface_physics = 0 is problematic? Yes, sf_surface_physics must have a NON-zero value. I hadn't noticed that setting in your namelist when I first looked at it. Apologies for overlooking that.

Thank you for your reply!