[RegCNET] dust model implementation

Fabien SOLMON fabien.solmon at aero.obs-mip.fr
Fri Mar 23 18:05:53 CET 2007 

Hi
Maybe you need to check the value of ntr and nbin ( that control the
size of dust arrays) in the Main/parame file .. if you use 1 dust bin :
ntr=nbin=1, if you use  4 bin, ntr=nbin=4  ... and then recompile  the
sources ..
Fabien




Marc Pace Marcella a écrit :
> 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>>>> <mailto:delivitez at nimbus.elte.hu>>
>>>> To: <regcnet at lists.ictp.it <mailto: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 <mailto:RegCNET at lists.ictp.it>
>>>>> https://lists.ictp.it/mailman/listinfo/regcnet
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> RegCNET mailing list
>>>> RegCNET at lists.ictp.it <mailto: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
>>>> <mailto:delivitez at nimbus.elte.hu>>
>>>> To: <regcnet at lists.ictp.it <mailto: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 <mailto:RegCNET at lists.ictp.it>
>>>>> https://lists.ictp.it/mailman/listinfo/regcnet
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> RegCNET mailing list
>>>> RegCNET at lists.ictp.it <mailto: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
>>>> <mailto:delivitez at nimbus.elte.hu>>
>>>> To: <regcnet at lists.ictp.it <mailto: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 <mailto:RegCNET at lists.ictp.it>
>>>>> https://lists.ictp.it/mailman/listinfo/regcnet
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> RegCNET mailing list
>>>> RegCNET at lists.ictp.it <mailto: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
>>>> <mailto:delivitez at nimbus.elte.hu>>
>>>> To: <regcnet at lists.ictp.it <mailto: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 <mailto:RegCNET at lists.ictp.it>
>>>>> https://lists.ictp.it/mailman/listinfo/regcnet
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> RegCNET mailing list
>>>> RegCNET at lists.ictp.it <mailto:RegCNET at lists.ictp.it>
>>>> https://lists.ictp.it/mailman/listinfo/regcnet
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> RegCNET mailing list
>>> RegCNET at lists.ictp.it <mailto:RegCNET at lists.ictp.it>
>>> https://lists.ictp.it/mailman/listinfo/regcnet
>>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RegCNET mailing list
>> RegCNET at lists.ictp.it <mailto: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
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> RegCNET mailing list
> RegCNET at lists.ictp.it
> https://lists.ictp.it/mailman/listinfo/regcnet
>

More information about the RegCNET mailing list