Strange wind data in small area over Alps in CCLM5 output – in #9: CCLM
in #9: CCLM
Cookies disclaimer
Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your
device in order to verify your login. These cookies are essential
to provide access to resources on this website and it will not
work properly without.
Learn more
<p>
Dear colleagues,
</p>
<p>
I encountered a problem with
<span class="caps">
COSMO
</span>
-
<span class="caps">
CLM
</span>
_5_clm16 version on 0.0275° resolution at a few grid points in the southern Alps (South Tyrol region). Immediately after model start (visible at first output after the start) unusual high winds (+/- 30 m/s) occur at these grid points and remain there without affecting neighbouring points. However, also surface temperature and fluxes are affected. The problem exists in a historical run, in a scenario run and also with different forcing.
<br/>
Does anyone of you face similar problems or has anyone a suggestion what is going on there?
</p>
<p>
Best regards,
</p>
<p>
Michael
</p>
<p>
Dear colleagues,
</p>
<p>
I encountered a problem with
<span class="caps">
COSMO
</span>
-
<span class="caps">
CLM
</span>
_5_clm16 version on 0.0275° resolution at a few grid points in the southern Alps (South Tyrol region). Immediately after model start (visible at first output after the start) unusual high winds (+/- 30 m/s) occur at these grid points and remain there without affecting neighbouring points. However, also surface temperature and fluxes are affected. The problem exists in a historical run, in a scenario run and also with different forcing.
<br/>
Does anyone of you face similar problems or has anyone a suggestion what is going on there?
</p>
<p>
Best regards,
</p>
<p>
Michael
</p>
Strange wind data in small area over Alps in CCLM5 output
I encountered a problem with
COSMO
-
CLM
_5_clm16 version on 0.0275° resolution at a few grid points in the southern Alps (South Tyrol region). Immediately after model start (visible at first output after the start) unusual high winds (+/- 30 m/s) occur at these grid points and remain there without affecting neighbouring points. However, also surface temperature and fluxes are affected. The problem exists in a historical run, in a scenario run and also with different forcing.
Does anyone of you face similar problems or has anyone a suggestion what is going on there?
<p>
Hi Michael,
</p>
<p>
I have to admit, I see it also, in my
<span class="caps">
FPS
</span>
Convection simulations.
<br/>
It appears in all simulations,
<span class="caps">
ERA
</span>
-Interim evaluation runs, and
<span class="caps">
MPI
</span>
-
<span class="caps">
ESM
</span>
-LR, hist and RCP8.5 10-years time slices.
<br/>
And in the direct neighborhood of a grid-point with high positive U_10m values there are points with large negative values.
<br/>
I did not look at V_10m yet.
<br/>
My runs are two nest simulations, this means, I further downscaled already existing
<span class="caps">
CCLM
</span>
data to the final resolution of 0.0275 deg (=3km).
<br/>
Thus, I will have look into the results of the first nests.
<br/>
I looked into the soiltype data in that area. In my data the code there is 5 (loam).
<br/>
Can steepness of orography be a problem?
<br/>
Perhaps, it might be worth to activate filtering of orography and, in a second step, valley filling.
<br/>
But both settings have to be done already in INT2LM.
</p>
<p>
Best
<br/>
Hans-Juergen
</p>
<p>
Hi Michael,
</p>
<p>
I have to admit, I see it also, in my
<span class="caps">
FPS
</span>
Convection simulations.
<br/>
It appears in all simulations,
<span class="caps">
ERA
</span>
-Interim evaluation runs, and
<span class="caps">
MPI
</span>
-
<span class="caps">
ESM
</span>
-LR, hist and RCP8.5 10-years time slices.
<br/>
And in the direct neighborhood of a grid-point with high positive U_10m values there are points with large negative values.
<br/>
I did not look at V_10m yet.
<br/>
My runs are two nest simulations, this means, I further downscaled already existing
<span class="caps">
CCLM
</span>
data to the final resolution of 0.0275 deg (=3km).
<br/>
Thus, I will have look into the results of the first nests.
<br/>
I looked into the soiltype data in that area. In my data the code there is 5 (loam).
<br/>
Can steepness of orography be a problem?
<br/>
Perhaps, it might be worth to activate filtering of orography and, in a second step, valley filling.
<br/>
But both settings have to be done already in INT2LM.
</p>
<p>
Best
<br/>
Hans-Juergen
</p>
I have to admit, I see it also, in my
FPS
Convection simulations.
It appears in all simulations,
ERA
-Interim evaluation runs, and
MPI
-
ESM
-LR, hist and RCP8.5 10-years time slices.
And in the direct neighborhood of a grid-point with high positive U_10m values there are points with large negative values.
I did not look at V_10m yet.
My runs are two nest simulations, this means, I further downscaled already existing
CCLM
data to the final resolution of 0.0275 deg (=3km).
Thus, I will have look into the results of the first nests.
I looked into the soiltype data in that area. In my data the code there is 5 (loam).
Can steepness of orography be a problem?
Perhaps, it might be worth to activate filtering of orography and, in a second step, valley filling.
But both settings have to be done already in INT2LM.
<p>
Hi Michael,
</p>
<p>
to my opinion, the problem is independent of the CCLM5 sub-version.
<br/>
I see it also in the results of some of my 1-year (1999) test runs that I carried out in order to find a suitable model setup for the
<span class="caps">
FPS
</span>
Convection runs.
<br/>
These tests had been perforemd with CCLM5-0-10.
<br/>
And I think I identified the responsible Namelist-parameter by checking a variety of the test runs.
<br/>
It seems to be:
<br/>
hd_corr_u_in
<br/>
that I set to the value of 1., since the experiment with this value showed a positive impact on precipitation by reducing the wet bias over mountainous areas.
<br/>
The value used in
<span class="caps">
COSMO
</span>
_DE and, thus, also im my reference setup of the tests, is 0.1
<br/>
The coded default is 0.25.
</p>
<p>
Only those of my experiments that used hd_corr_u_in=1. show the strange U_10M data in the region you mentioned.
<br/>
I tested also hd_corr_u_in=0.0; no such strange values.
</p>
<p>
I have to admit, while analyzing the results of my tests I focused on
<span class="caps">
TOT
</span>
_PREC and T_2M. I never looked at the wind components.
</p>
<p>
Would it be possbile that you perform a short test by putting the hd_corr_u_in value back to 0.1? (myself, I can’t run jobs presently!!!)
<br/>
I assume you will see an impact very soon.
<br/>
I see the U_10M “hotspot” already after the first hour (my storage interval is 1 hour).
</p>
<p>
However, some questions remain:
<br/>
- why only U and not V? What really “happens” in the code?
<br/>
- why only in this small area and not also elsewhere?
<br/>
- would the change of hd_corr_u_in from 1 back to 0.1 also have an impact on other variables, e.g.
<span class="caps">
TOT
</span>
_PREC and T_2M? If yes, how strong?
</p>
<p>
Hans-Juergen
</p>
<p>
Hi Michael,
</p>
<p>
to my opinion, the problem is independent of the CCLM5 sub-version.
<br/>
I see it also in the results of some of my 1-year (1999) test runs that I carried out in order to find a suitable model setup for the
<span class="caps">
FPS
</span>
Convection runs.
<br/>
These tests had been perforemd with CCLM5-0-10.
<br/>
And I think I identified the responsible Namelist-parameter by checking a variety of the test runs.
<br/>
It seems to be:
<br/>
hd_corr_u_in
<br/>
that I set to the value of 1., since the experiment with this value showed a positive impact on precipitation by reducing the wet bias over mountainous areas.
<br/>
The value used in
<span class="caps">
COSMO
</span>
_DE and, thus, also im my reference setup of the tests, is 0.1
<br/>
The coded default is 0.25.
</p>
<p>
Only those of my experiments that used hd_corr_u_in=1. show the strange U_10M data in the region you mentioned.
<br/>
I tested also hd_corr_u_in=0.0; no such strange values.
</p>
<p>
I have to admit, while analyzing the results of my tests I focused on
<span class="caps">
TOT
</span>
_PREC and T_2M. I never looked at the wind components.
</p>
<p>
Would it be possbile that you perform a short test by putting the hd_corr_u_in value back to 0.1? (myself, I can’t run jobs presently!!!)
<br/>
I assume you will see an impact very soon.
<br/>
I see the U_10M “hotspot” already after the first hour (my storage interval is 1 hour).
</p>
<p>
However, some questions remain:
<br/>
- why only U and not V? What really “happens” in the code?
<br/>
- why only in this small area and not also elsewhere?
<br/>
- would the change of hd_corr_u_in from 1 back to 0.1 also have an impact on other variables, e.g.
<span class="caps">
TOT
</span>
_PREC and T_2M? If yes, how strong?
</p>
<p>
Hans-Juergen
</p>
to my opinion, the problem is independent of the CCLM5 sub-version.
I see it also in the results of some of my 1-year (1999) test runs that I carried out in order to find a suitable model setup for the
FPS
Convection runs.
These tests had been perforemd with CCLM5-0-10.
And I think I identified the responsible Namelist-parameter by checking a variety of the test runs.
It seems to be:
hd_corr_u_in
that I set to the value of 1., since the experiment with this value showed a positive impact on precipitation by reducing the wet bias over mountainous areas.
The value used in
COSMO
_DE and, thus, also im my reference setup of the tests, is 0.1
The coded default is 0.25.
Only those of my experiments that used hd_corr_u_in=1. show the strange U_10M data in the region you mentioned.
I tested also hd_corr_u_in=0.0; no such strange values.
I have to admit, while analyzing the results of my tests I focused on
TOT
_PREC and T_2M. I never looked at the wind components.
Would it be possbile that you perform a short test by putting the hd_corr_u_in value back to 0.1? (myself, I can’t run jobs presently!!!)
I assume you will see an impact very soon.
I see the U_10M “hotspot” already after the first hour (my storage interval is 1 hour).
However, some questions remain:
- why only U and not V? What really “happens” in the code?
- why only in this small area and not also elsewhere?
- would the change of hd_corr_u_in from 1 back to 0.1 also have an impact on other variables, e.g.
TOT
_PREC and T_2M? If yes, how strong?
Strange wind data in small area over Alps in CCLM5 output
Dear colleagues,
I encountered a problem with COSMO - CLM _5_clm16 version on 0.0275° resolution at a few grid points in the southern Alps (South Tyrol region). Immediately after model start (visible at first output after the start) unusual high winds (+/- 30 m/s) occur at these grid points and remain there without affecting neighbouring points. However, also surface temperature and fluxes are affected. The problem exists in a historical run, in a scenario run and also with different forcing.
Does anyone of you face similar problems or has anyone a suggestion what is going on there?
Best regards,
Michael
Hi Michael,
I have to admit, I see it also, in my FPS Convection simulations.
It appears in all simulations, ERA -Interim evaluation runs, and MPI - ESM -LR, hist and RCP8.5 10-years time slices.
And in the direct neighborhood of a grid-point with high positive U_10m values there are points with large negative values.
I did not look at V_10m yet.
My runs are two nest simulations, this means, I further downscaled already existing CCLM data to the final resolution of 0.0275 deg (=3km).
Thus, I will have look into the results of the first nests.
I looked into the soiltype data in that area. In my data the code there is 5 (loam).
Can steepness of orography be a problem?
Perhaps, it might be worth to activate filtering of orography and, in a second step, valley filling.
But both settings have to be done already in INT2LM.
Best
Hans-Juergen
Hi Michael,
to my opinion, the problem is independent of the CCLM5 sub-version.
I see it also in the results of some of my 1-year (1999) test runs that I carried out in order to find a suitable model setup for the FPS Convection runs.
These tests had been perforemd with CCLM5-0-10.
And I think I identified the responsible Namelist-parameter by checking a variety of the test runs.
It seems to be:
hd_corr_u_in
that I set to the value of 1., since the experiment with this value showed a positive impact on precipitation by reducing the wet bias over mountainous areas.
The value used in COSMO _DE and, thus, also im my reference setup of the tests, is 0.1
The coded default is 0.25.
Only those of my experiments that used hd_corr_u_in=1. show the strange U_10M data in the region you mentioned.
I tested also hd_corr_u_in=0.0; no such strange values.
I have to admit, while analyzing the results of my tests I focused on TOT _PREC and T_2M. I never looked at the wind components.
Would it be possbile that you perform a short test by putting the hd_corr_u_in value back to 0.1? (myself, I can’t run jobs presently!!!)
I assume you will see an impact very soon.
I see the U_10M “hotspot” already after the first hour (my storage interval is 1 hour).
However, some questions remain:
- why only U and not V? What really “happens” in the code?
- why only in this small area and not also elsewhere?
- would the change of hd_corr_u_in from 1 back to 0.1 also have an impact on other variables, e.g. TOT _PREC and T_2M? If yes, how strong?
Hans-Juergen