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, I have maybe a foolish question, associated with many hail variables in model output. I have run model with itype_gscp=4, and included in output list
<span class="caps">
TQH
</span>
,
<span class="caps">
HAIL
</span>
_GSP variables. But, the output lffd… are not containing these variables. I have seen many presentations including ones from
<span class="caps">
COSMO
</span>
-seminars, and it states about comprising hail parameterization in
<span class="caps">
COSMO
</span>
model code. As I have understand, it was included in itype_gscp=4 (‘graupel scheme’), or I’m not right?
<br/>
Could you suggest, which namelist parameters values I should to set to have
<span class="caps">
TQH
</span>
and
<span class="caps">
HAIL
</span>
_GSP in output?
<br/>
Thanks a lot!
</p>

<p>
Dear colleagues, I have maybe a foolish question, associated with many hail variables in model output. I have run model with itype_gscp=4, and included in output list
<span class="caps">
TQH
</span>
,
<span class="caps">
HAIL
</span>
_GSP variables. But, the output lffd… are not containing these variables. I have seen many presentations including ones from
<span class="caps">
COSMO
</span>
-seminars, and it states about comprising hail parameterization in
<span class="caps">
COSMO
</span>
model code. As I have understand, it was included in itype_gscp=4 (‘graupel scheme’), or I’m not right?
<br/>
Could you suggest, which namelist parameters values I should to set to have
<span class="caps">
TQH
</span>
and
<span class="caps">
HAIL
</span>
_GSP in output?
<br/>
Thanks a lot!
</p>

Dear colleagues, I have maybe a foolish question, associated with many hail variables in model output. I have run model with itype_gscp=4, and included in output list
TQH
,
HAIL
_GSP variables. But, the output lffd… are not containing these variables. I have seen many presentations including ones from
COSMO
-seminars, and it states about comprising hail parameterization in
COSMO
model code. As I have understand, it was included in itype_gscp=4 (‘graupel scheme’), or I’m not right?
Could you suggest, which namelist parameters values I should to set to have
TQH
and
HAIL
_GSP in output?
Thanks a lot!

<p>
Dear Vladimir,
</p>
<p>
To produce
<span class="caps">
HAIL
</span>
output, you need to use the second moment scheme. This is not a namelist option. It requires the model to be compiled with this scheme (including the second moment scheme code and the flag -
<span class="caps">
DTWOMOM
</span>
_SB).
</p>
<p>
However, if you want to produce realistic amount of hail, you also need to use a relevant resolution (same is true for the “graupel scheme”).
<br/>
At the resolution you use, the convective plumes are not resolved enough to produce realistic vertical wind speeds. This results in an severe underestimation of your graupel estimation.
</p>
<p>
To summarise, if you want to produce graupel output, increase the resolution of your model to the convection-permitting scale (e.g. 0.0275°) (this will be very very expensive for your domain) and include the second moment scheme (about 40% increase in computational cost).
</p>
<p>
If you want more information on this or have some more questions, do not hesitate to contact me directly.
</p>
<p>
Kind regards,
<br/>
Erwan
</p>

<p>
Dear Vladimir,
</p>
<p>
To produce
<span class="caps">
HAIL
</span>
output, you need to use the second moment scheme. This is not a namelist option. It requires the model to be compiled with this scheme (including the second moment scheme code and the flag -
<span class="caps">
DTWOMOM
</span>
_SB).
</p>
<p>
However, if you want to produce realistic amount of hail, you also need to use a relevant resolution (same is true for the “graupel scheme”).
<br/>
At the resolution you use, the convective plumes are not resolved enough to produce realistic vertical wind speeds. This results in an severe underestimation of your graupel estimation.
</p>
<p>
To summarise, if you want to produce graupel output, increase the resolution of your model to the convection-permitting scale (e.g. 0.0275°) (this will be very very expensive for your domain) and include the second moment scheme (about 40% increase in computational cost).
</p>
<p>
If you want more information on this or have some more questions, do not hesitate to contact me directly.
</p>
<p>
Kind regards,
<br/>
Erwan
</p>

To produce
HAIL
output, you need to use the second moment scheme. This is not a namelist option. It requires the model to be compiled with this scheme (including the second moment scheme code and the flag -
DTWOMOM
_SB).

However, if you want to produce realistic amount of hail, you also need to use a relevant resolution (same is true for the “graupel scheme”).
At the resolution you use, the convective plumes are not resolved enough to produce realistic vertical wind speeds. This results in an severe underestimation of your graupel estimation.

To summarise, if you want to produce graupel output, increase the resolution of your model to the convection-permitting scale (e.g. 0.0275°) (this will be very very expensive for your domain) and include the second moment scheme (about 40% increase in computational cost).

If you want more information on this or have some more questions, do not hesitate to contact me directly.

<p>
Sorry small mistake:
</p>
<p>
Dear Vladimir,
</p>
<p>
To produce
<span class="caps">
HAIL
</span>
output, you need to use the second moment scheme. This is not a namelist option. It requires the model to be compiled with this scheme (including the second moment scheme code and the flag -
<span class="caps">
DTWOMOM
</span>
_SB).
</p>
<p>
However, if you want to produce realistic amount of hail, you also need to use a relevant resolution (same is true for the “graupel scheme”).
<br/>
At the resolution you use, the convective plumes are not resolved enough to produce realistic vertical wind speeds. This results in an severe underestimation of your graupel estimation.
</p>
<p>
To summarise, if you want to produce
<strong>
hail
</strong>
output, increase the resolution of your model to the convection-permitting scale (e.g. 0.0275°) (this will be very very expensive for your domain) and include the second moment scheme (about 40% increase in computational cost).
</p>
<p>
If you want more information on this or have some more questions, do not hesitate to contact me directly.
</p>
<p>
Kind regards,
<br/>
Erwan
</p>

<p>
Sorry small mistake:
</p>
<p>
Dear Vladimir,
</p>
<p>
To produce
<span class="caps">
HAIL
</span>
output, you need to use the second moment scheme. This is not a namelist option. It requires the model to be compiled with this scheme (including the second moment scheme code and the flag -
<span class="caps">
DTWOMOM
</span>
_SB).
</p>
<p>
However, if you want to produce realistic amount of hail, you also need to use a relevant resolution (same is true for the “graupel scheme”).
<br/>
At the resolution you use, the convective plumes are not resolved enough to produce realistic vertical wind speeds. This results in an severe underestimation of your graupel estimation.
</p>
<p>
To summarise, if you want to produce
<strong>
hail
</strong>
output, increase the resolution of your model to the convection-permitting scale (e.g. 0.0275°) (this will be very very expensive for your domain) and include the second moment scheme (about 40% increase in computational cost).
</p>
<p>
If you want more information on this or have some more questions, do not hesitate to contact me directly.
</p>
<p>
Kind regards,
<br/>
Erwan
</p>

To produce
HAIL
output, you need to use the second moment scheme. This is not a namelist option. It requires the model to be compiled with this scheme (including the second moment scheme code and the flag -
DTWOMOM
_SB).

However, if you want to produce realistic amount of hail, you also need to use a relevant resolution (same is true for the “graupel scheme”).
At the resolution you use, the convective plumes are not resolved enough to produce realistic vertical wind speeds. This results in an severe underestimation of your graupel estimation.

To summarise, if you want to produce
hail
output, increase the resolution of your model to the convection-permitting scale (e.g. 0.0275°) (this will be very very expensive for your domain) and include the second moment scheme (about 40% increase in computational cost).

If you want more information on this or have some more questions, do not hesitate to contact me directly.

<p>
Dear Erwan, thanks a lot for your explanation and useful recommendations! Of course, I have planned to increase resolution of my model run (via downscaling, i.e. the domain area would be smaller), therefore, I will try to take into account your suggestions and to compile a new binary.
</p>

<p>
Dear Erwan, thanks a lot for your explanation and useful recommendations! Of course, I have planned to increase resolution of my model run (via downscaling, i.e. the domain area would be smaller), therefore, I will try to take into account your suggestions and to compile a new binary.
</p>

Dear Erwan, thanks a lot for your explanation and useful recommendations! Of course, I have planned to increase resolution of my model run (via downscaling, i.e. the domain area would be smaller), therefore, I will try to take into account your suggestions and to compile a new binary.

## Hail variables in output

Dear colleagues, I have maybe a foolish question, associated with many hail variables in model output. I have run model with itype_gscp=4, and included in output list TQH , HAIL _GSP variables. But, the output lffd… are not containing these variables. I have seen many presentations including ones from COSMO -seminars, and it states about comprising hail parameterization in COSMO model code. As I have understand, it was included in itype_gscp=4 (‘graupel scheme’), or I’m not right?

Could you suggest, which namelist parameters values I should to set to have TQH and HAIL _GSP in output?

Thanks a lot!

Dear Vladimir,

To produce HAIL output, you need to use the second moment scheme. This is not a namelist option. It requires the model to be compiled with this scheme (including the second moment scheme code and the flag - DTWOMOM _SB).

However, if you want to produce realistic amount of hail, you also need to use a relevant resolution (same is true for the “graupel scheme”).

At the resolution you use, the convective plumes are not resolved enough to produce realistic vertical wind speeds. This results in an severe underestimation of your graupel estimation.

To summarise, if you want to produce graupel output, increase the resolution of your model to the convection-permitting scale (e.g. 0.0275°) (this will be very very expensive for your domain) and include the second moment scheme (about 40% increase in computational cost).

If you want more information on this or have some more questions, do not hesitate to contact me directly.

Kind regards,

Erwan

Sorry small mistake:

Dear Vladimir,

To produce HAIL output, you need to use the second moment scheme. This is not a namelist option. It requires the model to be compiled with this scheme (including the second moment scheme code and the flag - DTWOMOM _SB).

However, if you want to produce realistic amount of hail, you also need to use a relevant resolution (same is true for the “graupel scheme”).

At the resolution you use, the convective plumes are not resolved enough to produce realistic vertical wind speeds. This results in an severe underestimation of your graupel estimation.

To summarise, if you want to produce

hailoutput, increase the resolution of your model to the convection-permitting scale (e.g. 0.0275°) (this will be very very expensive for your domain) and include the second moment scheme (about 40% increase in computational cost).If you want more information on this or have some more questions, do not hesitate to contact me directly.

Kind regards,

Erwan

Dear Erwan, thanks a lot for your explanation and useful recommendations! Of course, I have planned to increase resolution of my model run (via downscaling, i.e. the domain area would be smaller), therefore, I will try to take into account your suggestions and to compile a new binary.