An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
(Gridded), but the machine crashed all the time. I was using
PentiumIV, 1.7 Ghz machine. I hope this time it works!!!
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).
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 -----
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 mailing list
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 -----
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 mailing list
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 -----
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 mailing list
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 -----
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 mailing list
_______________________________________________
RegCNET mailing list