[RegCNET] Non-hydrostatic RegCM4

[Peter Huszar]

Dear Michael,

recently, I came across this AMS proceeding paper done by Hungarian
colleagues. It however still remains at meso-scale (10km)

We recently are trying to run RegCM at dx = 3 km resolution, what I found
is that using 41 vertical layer is necessary in order to run being stable.

I hope this helps

Peter

On 29 March 2018 at 00:23, Erika Coppola <coppolae at ictp.it> wrote:

> Dear Michael,
> we indeed have the non hydrostatic version of RegCM working, but you need
> to use the 4.7 version of the model that will be officially released at the
> workshop next May.
> The non hydrostatic version was used in ICTP to simulate a 3km domain
> centered around the Alps and it was running stable up to  2 years in
> convection permitting mode. We used 41 vertical levels and we have two
> microphysical schemes available in the model. We  have a paper in which we
> examine 3 case studies of extreme precipitation events in this domain with
> an ensemble of convection permitting models and RegCM is there with 3
> ensemble members. The paper will be out soon on Climate Dynamics special
> issue on convection permitting climate simulations.
> We  also tested the non hydrostatic model over a domain in the California
> coast and in the African region of lake Victoria at the same resolution of
> the Alpine case.
> If you need more information about the model version and how to access it
> please contact me or Graziano.
> Best wishes
> Erika
>
>
>
> On Mar 28, 2018, at 9:46 PM, Ufuk Turuncoglu <
> u.utku.turuncoglu at be.itu.edu.tr> wrote:
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> My personal experience is that it is still far from being stable. I tested
> it to simulate Hurricane Katrina using 3 km horizontal resolution plus 23
> vertical layer (nested under 27 km case that covers almost entire Atlantic)
> but it crashes after couple of days even if i decrease the time step to
> very small numbers. It also creates some patchy output in the high
> resolution (at least in my version) case without any clue why. So, for
> non-hydrostatic applications i think you need to wait little bit more or
> you could choose any other model such as WRF, COSMO etc.
>
> Regards,
>
> --ufuk
>
> ------------------------------
> *From: *"Michael Notaro" <mnotaro at wisc.edu>
> *To: *"Sridhara Nayak" <sridharanayakiitkgp at gmail.com>, "RegCNET" <
> regcnet at lists.ictp.it>
> *Sent: *Wednesday, March 28, 2018 10:59:01 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [RegCNET] Non-hydrostatic RegCM4
>
> Thanks for your email.
>
> As far as I can tell, these papers all use the hydrostatic version of the
> model,
>
> not the non-hydrostatic, convection-resolving version.
>
> Michael
>
>
> Michael Notaro
> Associate Director
> Nelson Institute Center for Climatic Research
> University of Wisconsin-Madison
> Phone: (608) 261-1503
> Email: mnotaro at wisc.edu
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Sridhara Nayak <sridharanayakiitkgp at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 28, 2018 12:54 PM
> *To:* Michael Notaro
> *Subject:* Re: [RegCNET] Non-hydrostatic RegCM4
>
> Dear Michael,
> Follows are our few recent papers on RegCM4. Hope it helps.
>
> Paper 1:
> Nayak, S., Mandal, M., & Maity, S. (2017). Customization of regional
> climate model (RegCM4) over Indian region. *Theoretical and applied
> climatology*, *127*(1-2), 153-168.
> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Suman_Maity/publication/282893546_
> Customization_of_regional_climate_model_RegCM4_over_Indian_region/links/
> 575e8b4c08ae414b8e54218b/Customization-of-regional-
> climate-model-RegCM4-over-Indian-region.pdf
>
> Paper 2:
> Maity, S., Satyanarayana, A. N. V., Mandal, M., & Nayak, S. (2017).
> Performance evaluation of land surface models and cumulus convection
> schemes in the simulation of Indian summer monsoon using a regional climate
> model. *Atmospheric Research*, *197*, 21-41. https://doi.org/10.
> 1016/j.atmosres.2017.06.023
>
> Paper 3:
> Maity, S., Mandal, M., Nayak, S., & Bhatla, R. (2017). Performance of
> cumulus parameterization schemes in the simulation of Indian Summer Monsoon
> using RegCM4. *Atmósfera*, *30*(4), 287-309. http://dx.doi.org/10.
> 20937/ATM.2017.30.04.02
>
> Best Regards
> Sridhara
>
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 12:55 AM, Michael Notaro <mnotaro at wisc.edu> wrote:
>
> Are there any publications applying the non-hydrostatic version of RegCM4?
>
>
> Or could anyone share their experience using the non-hydrostatic version,
>
> in terms of its performance and potential challenges?
>
>
> Thanks, Michael
>
>
> Michael Notaro
> Associate Director
> Nelson Institute Center for Climatic Research
> University of Wisconsin-Madison
> Phone: (608) 261-1503
> Email: mnotaro at wisc.edu
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ictp.it/pipermail/regcnet/attachments/20180329/f82977aa/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: KT-PI-PR-BJ-AMS2018.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1177808 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ictp.it/pipermail/regcnet/attachments/20180329/f82977aa/attachment-0001.pdf>