[RegCNET] dust model implementation
Marc Pace Marcella
marcpace at MIT.EDU
Fri Mar 23 17:23:59 CET 2007
Hi,
I'm trying to use the aerosol model, mostly the dust model over the
Middle East. Ive tried using regcm.in_4dust but i receive the
following error when trying to use this .in file:
too many values for NAMELIST variable, which corresponds to the line
in regcm.in where DUST is listed as the tracer four times. Ive tried
running it with DUST only listed once and only one corresponding
dustbsiz interval and chtrsol/dpv value but I dont think this is
correct. Could someone explain to me how to properly implement the
dust model?
Thanks in advance.
-Marc
On Mar 16, 2007, at 4:08 AM, regcnet-request at lists.ictp.it wrote:
>
>
> Content:
>
> 1. Re: Regional Climate Network Digest (Dr AP DIMRI)
> 2. Re: 10 km run (Rupak Rajbhandari)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: "Dr AP DIMRI" <apdimri at hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [RegCNET] Regional Climate Network Digest
>
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: https://lists.ictp.it/mailman/private/regcnet/attachments/
> 20070316/3fb2ee6a/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: "Rupak Rajbhandari" <rupak.rajbhandari at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [RegCNET] 10 km run
>
> Hi,
>
> Last year I tried to downscale, from 50 km to 15/20 km resolution for
> the Himalayan area (Nepal) in order to compare with the station data
> (Gridded), but the machine crashed all the time. I was using
> PentiumIV, 1.7 Ghz machine. I hope this time it works!!!
>
> Rupak Rajbhandari
> Department of Meteorology
> Tribhuvan University
> NEPAL
>
> On 3/15/07, Moetasim <mashfaq at purdue.edu> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> 1) I agree with gao that a direct run at 10 km using 2.5 degree
>> ICBC data is a
>> bit harsh use of RegCM3. The better approach is to run RegCM at
>> intermediate
>> resolution (say 25/30 km) and then run a further nested run at 10
>> km. Also, it
>> would be advisable to use better resolution ICBC data (e.g. a high
>> resolution
>> ERA40).
>>
>> 2) One reason of RegCM over estimation is your small domain. I
>> expect model
>> getting drier if you have a reasonbaly large domain. Small domains/
>> high
>> resolutions tend to give over estimation of precpitation. You have
>> to select a
>> reasonably large domain. A 50 x 50 domain at 50 km would be a
>> minumum near me-
>> this would require you to select a ~250 x 250 domain at 10 km at
>> least.
>>
>> 3) As gao said, CRU data should not be used to compare high
>> resolution run.
>> Better choice is station data or high resolution gridded data.
>>
>> Moet
>>
>>
>> The high precp at 10 km is bit surprising for me. I understand
>> that the domain
>> of your simulation is very small (smaller than what a RCM domain
>> should be as a
>> minimum).
>>
>> Quoting gaoxj at cma.gov.cn:
>>
>>> Hi Csaba,
>>>
>>> Seems you are doing the highest resolution simulation by RegCM3.
>>> I think we
>>> do not have such experiences before. I have some suggestions, but
>>> do not know
>>> whether they will work or not.
>>>
>>> 1. Generally, people say that the ratio for the driven resolution
>>> to RCM
>>> resolution is better to be in the range of 3-5, 10 is the
>>> maximum. There
>>> should be some references on this, but I do not have in hand.
>>> Maybe you can
>>> try the double-nesting, from 2.5 degrees to say 50 km first, then
>>> from 50 to
>>> 10?
>>>
>>> 2. CRU is in the resolution of 0.5 deg. It smoothes the precip peak.
>>> Meanwhile, over mountain areas, it tends to under-estimate the
>>> real precip
>>> because no weather stations there. What about try to evaluate the
>>> model by
>>> some station data?
>>>
>>> 3. A critical issue is that RegCM3 is hydro-statistic. Some
>>> people say a
>>> model like that can go to 10 km, some said not and you need a
>>> non-hydro-statistic one. I have no idea about this. Maybe others
>>> have?
>>>
>>> Good luck.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Gao
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Torma Csaba" <delivitez at nimbus.elte.hu>
>>> To: <regcnet at lists.ictp.it>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 6:20 PM
>>> Subject: [RegCNET] 10 km run
>>>
>>>
>>>> Dear RegCM Users,
>>>>
>>>> We just started to use RegCM3 driven by ERA40 2.5 degree
>>>> resolution ICBC
>>>> data for a European subregion containing the Carpathian Basin
>>>> and Hungary.
>>>>
>>>> Our grid resolution is 10 km.
>>>>
>>>> In the precipitation pattern we found big biases as compared to
>>>> the CRU
>>>> data, especially during summer (convective events cause too much
>>>> precipitation). We tried to use both Emanuel and Grell
>>>> convective schemes,
>>>> but the result was quite the same: the precipition was
>>>> overestimated by
>>>> the model with a factor of about 2.
>>>>
>>>> We suspect that the 10 km resolution causes this overestimation.
>>>> Using 25
>>>> km grid resolution the result is much more realistic, but we
>>>> would like to
>>>> use 10 km grid spacing. Is there any possible solution for this
>>>> overestimation? Any suggestion is welcome!
>>>>
>>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>> Csaba TORMA
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> RegCNET mailing list
>>>> RegCNET at lists.ictp.it
>>>> https://lists.ictp.it/mailman/listinfo/regcnet
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> RegCNET mailing list
>>> RegCNET at lists.ictp.it
>>> https://lists.ictp.it/mailman/listinfo/regcnet
>>>
>> reasonablyk we
>>> do not have such experiences before. I have some suggestions, but
>>> do not know
>>> whether they will work or not.
>>>
>>> 1. Generally, people say that the ratio for the driven resolution
>>> to RCM
>>> resolution is better to be in the range of 3-5, 10 is the
>>> maximum. There
>>> should be some references on this, but I do not have in hand.
>>> Maybe you can
>>> try the double-nesting, from 2.5 degrees to say 50 km first, then
>>> from 50 to
>>> 10?
>>>
>>> 2. CRU is in the resolution of 0.5 deg. It smoothes the precip peak.
>>> Meanwhile, over mountain areas, it tends to under-estimate the
>>> real precip
>>> because no weather stations there. What about try to evaluate the
>>> model by
>>> some station data?
>>>
>>> 3. A critical issue is that RegCM3 is hydro-statistic. Some
>>> people say a
>>> model like that can go to 10 km, some said not and you need a
>>> non-hydro-statistic one. I have no idea about this. Maybe others
>>> have?
>>>
>>> Good luck.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Gao
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Torma Csaba" <delivitez at nimbus.elte.hu>
>>> To: <regcnet at lists.ictp.it>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 6:20 PM
>>> Subject: [RegCNET] 10 km run
>>>
>>>
>>>> Dear RegCM Users,
>>>>
>>>> We just started to use RegCM3 driven by ERA40 2.5 degree
>>>> resolution ICBC
>>>> data for a European subregion containing the Carpathian Basin
>>>> and Hungary.
>>>>
>>>> Our grid resolution is 10 km.
>>>>
>>>> In the precipitation pattern we found big biases as compared to
>>>> the CRU
>>>> data, especially during summer (convective events cause too much
>>>> precipitation). We tried to use both Emanuel and Grell
>>>> convective schemes,
>>>> but the result was quite the same: the precipition was
>>>> overestimated by
>>>> the model with a factor of about 2.
>>>>
>>>> We suspect that the 10 km resolution causes this overestimation.
>>>> Using 25
>>>> km grid resolution the result is much more realistic, but we
>>>> would like to
>>>> use 10 km grid spacing. Is there any possible solution for this
>>>> overestimation? Any suggestion is welcome!
>>>>
>>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>> Csaba TORMA
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> RegCNET mailing list
>>>> RegCNET at lists.ictp.it
>>>> https://lists.ictp.it/mailman/listinfo/regcnet
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> RegCNET mailing list
>>> RegCNET at lists.ictp.it
>>> https://lists.ictp.it/mailman/listinfo/regcnet
>>>
>> precipitationwe
>>> do not have such experiences before. I have some suggestions, but
>>> do not know
>>> whether they will work or not.
>>>
>>> 1. Generally, people say that the ratio for the driven resolution
>>> to RCM
>>> resolution is better to be in the range of 3-5, 10 is the
>>> maximum. There
>>> should be some references on this, but I do not have in hand.
>>> Maybe you can
>>> try the double-nesting, from 2.5 degrees to say 50 km first, then
>>> from 50 to
>>> 10?
>>>
>>> 2. CRU is in the resolution of 0.5 deg. It smoothes the precip peak.
>>> Meanwhile, over mountain areas, it tends to under-estimate the
>>> real precip
>>> because no weather stations there. What about try to evaluate the
>>> model by
>>> some station data?
>>>
>>> 3. A critical issue is that RegCM3 is hydro-statistic. Some
>>> people say a
>>> model like that can go to 10 km, some said not and you need a
>>> non-hydro-statistic one. I have no idea about this. Maybe others
>>> have?
>>>
>>> Good luck.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Gao
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Torma Csaba" <delivitez at nimbus.elte.hu>
>>> To: <regcnet at lists.ictp.it>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 6:20 PM
>>> Subject: [RegCNET] 10 km run
>>>
>>>
>>>> Dear RegCM Users,
>>>>
>>>> We just started to use RegCM3 driven by ERA40 2.5 degree
>>>> resolution ICBC
>>>> data for a European subregion containing the Carpathian Basin
>>>> and Hungary.
>>>>
>>>> Our grid resolution is 10 km.
>>>>
>>>> In the precipitation pattern we found big biases as compared to
>>>> the CRU
>>>> data, especially during summer (convective events cause too much
>>>> precipitation). We tried to use both Emanuel and Grell
>>>> convective schemes,
>>>> but the result was quite the same: the precipition was
>>>> overestimated by
>>>> the model with a factor of about 2.
>>>>
>>>> We suspect that the 10 km resolution causes this overestimation.
>>>> Using 25
>>>> km grid resolution the result is much more realistic, but we
>>>> would like to
>>>> use 10 km grid spacing. Is there any possible solution for this
>>>> overestimation? Any suggestion is welcome!
>>>>
>>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>> Csaba TORMA
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> RegCNET mailing list
>>>> RegCNET at lists.ictp.it
>>>> https://lists.ictp.it/mailman/listinfo/regcnet
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> RegCNET mailing list
>>> RegCNET at lists.ictp.it
>>> https://lists.ictp.it/mailman/listinfo/regcnet
>>>
>> reasonablyk we
>>> do not have such experiences before. I have some suggestions, but
>>> do not know
>>> whether they will work or not.
>>>
>>> 1. Generally, people say that the ratio for the driven resolution
>>> to RCM
>>> resolution is better to be in the range of 3-5, 10 is the
>>> maximum. There
>>> should be some references on this, but I do not have in hand.
>>> Maybe you can
>>> try the double-nesting, from 2.5 degrees to say 50 km first, then
>>> from 50 to
>>> 10?
>>>
>>> 2. CRU is in the resolution of 0.5 deg. It smoothes the precip peak.
>>> Meanwhile, over mountain areas, it tends to under-estimate the
>>> real precip
>>> because no weather stations there. What about try to evaluate the
>>> model by
>>> some station data?
>>>
>>> 3. A critical issue is that RegCM3 is hydro-statistic. Some
>>> people say a
>>> model like that can go to 10 km, some said not and you need a
>>> non-hydro-statistic one. I have no idea about this. Maybe others
>>> have?
>>>
>>> Good luck.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Gao
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Torma Csaba" <delivitez at nimbus.elte.hu>
>>> To: <regcnet at lists.ictp.it>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 6:20 PM
>>> Subject: [RegCNET] 10 km run
>>>
>>>
>>>> Dear RegCM Users,
>>>>
>>>> We just started to use RegCM3 driven by ERA40 2.5 degree
>>>> resolution ICBC
>>>> data for a European subregion containing the Carpathian Basin
>>>> and Hungary.
>>>>
>>>> Our grid resolution is 10 km.
>>>>
>>>> In the precipitation pattern we found big biases as compared to
>>>> the CRU
>>>> data, especially during summer (convective events cause too much
>>>> precipitation). We tried to use both Emanuel and Grell
>>>> convective schemes,
>>>> but the result was quite the same: the precipition was
>>>> overestimated by
>>>> the model with a factor of about 2.
>>>>
>>>> We suspect that the 10 km resolution causes this overestimation.
>>>> Using 25
>>>> km grid resolution the result is much more realistic, but we
>>>> would like to
>>>> use 10 km grid spacing. Is there any possible solution for this
>>>> overestimation? Any suggestion is welcome!
>>>>
>>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>> Csaba TORMA
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> RegCNET mailing list
>>>> RegCNET at lists.ictp.it
>>>> https://lists.ictp.it/mailman/listinfo/regcnet
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> RegCNET mailing list
>>> RegCNET at lists.ictp.it
>>> https://lists.ictp.it/mailman/listinfo/regcnet
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RegCNET mailing list
>> RegCNET at lists.ictp.it
>> https://lists.ictp.it/mailman/listinfo/regcnet
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> RegCNET mailing list
> RegCNET at lists.ictp.it
> https://lists.ictp.it/mailman/listinfo/regcnet
>
>
> End of Regional Climate Network Digest
> **************************************
________________________________________________________________________
_________
Marc Pace Marcella
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(781)799-4287 marcpace at mit.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ictp.it/pipermail/regcnet/attachments/20070323/74a290fa/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the RegCNET
mailing list