Question on model output on z-levels – in #9: CCLM

in #9: CCLM

<p> Hello, </p> <p> I have a small question on <span class="caps"> CCLM </span> model output on z-levels (with namelist parameters yvarzl + zlev): </p> <p> I wonder whether these z-levels are specified with respect to <span class="caps"> MSL </span> or with respect to the topography (I suspect these are just flat, so <span class="caps"> MSL </span> ?). </p> <p> Follow-up question: If one would desire output at 90m above the surface of a region, then the z-level approach would not be fit for this if these z-levels are with respect to <span class="caps"> MSL </span> (because of the relief). What would be the best alternative to achieve this then instead? When using the height-based hybrid µ coordinate, I would think that specifying the half level heights in such a way that model output is given at about 90m on a model level, could work. </p> <p> Already a big thank you in advance! <br/> Best, <br/> Ruben </p>

  @rubenborgers in #dae91b3

<p> Hello, </p> <p> I have a small question on <span class="caps"> CCLM </span> model output on z-levels (with namelist parameters yvarzl + zlev): </p> <p> I wonder whether these z-levels are specified with respect to <span class="caps"> MSL </span> or with respect to the topography (I suspect these are just flat, so <span class="caps"> MSL </span> ?). </p> <p> Follow-up question: If one would desire output at 90m above the surface of a region, then the z-level approach would not be fit for this if these z-levels are with respect to <span class="caps"> MSL </span> (because of the relief). What would be the best alternative to achieve this then instead? When using the height-based hybrid µ coordinate, I would think that specifying the half level heights in such a way that model output is given at about 90m on a model level, could work. </p> <p> Already a big thank you in advance! <br/> Best, <br/> Ruben </p>

Question on model output on z-levels

RB wrote

Hello,

I have a small question on CCLM model output on z-levels (with namelist parameters yvarzl + zlev):

I wonder whether these z-levels are specified with respect to MSL or with respect to the topography (I suspect these are just flat, so MSL ?).

Follow-up question: If one would desire output at 90m above the surface of a region, then the z-level approach would not be fit for this if these z-levels are with respect to MSL (because of the relief). What would be the best alternative to achieve this then instead? When using the height-based hybrid µ coordinate, I would think that specifying the half level heights in such a way that model output is given at about 90m on a model level, could work.

Already a big thank you in advance!
Best,
Ruben

View in channel
<p> Use <br/> <pre> lzint_above_ground=.TRUE., </pre> <br/> in the gribout. </p>

  @burkhardtrockel in #07f0537

<p> Use <br/> <pre> lzint_above_ground=.TRUE., </pre> <br/> in the gribout. </p>
BR replied

Use 

  lzint_above_ground=.TRUE.,

in the gribout.

View in channel
<p> Dear Burkhardt, </p> <p> I was not aware of this parameter yet, thanks. </p> <p> And with this parameter equal to .TRUE., I suppose that over sea the ground is just equal to <span class="caps"> MSL </span> then? </p> <p> Best regards, <br/> Ruben </p>

  @rubenborgers in #731eec4

<p> Dear Burkhardt, </p> <p> I was not aware of this parameter yet, thanks. </p> <p> And with this parameter equal to .TRUE., I suppose that over sea the ground is just equal to <span class="caps"> MSL </span> then? </p> <p> Best regards, <br/> Ruben </p>
RB replied

Dear Burkhardt,

I was not aware of this parameter yet, thanks.

And with this parameter equal to .TRUE., I suppose that over sea the ground is just equal to MSL then?

Best regards,
Ruben

View in channel
<p> Yes </p>
BR replied

Yes

View in channel
<p> Ok, thanks a lot! </p>

  @rubenborgers in #80a7a9e

<p> Ok, thanks a lot! </p>
RB replied

Ok, thanks a lot!

View in channel