-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 100
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add Accumulated Snow, Graupel and Freezing Rain to Grib2 Output #568
Comments
The snowfall (ASNOW) has units of meters while the freezing rain (FRZR) and sleet/graupel (FROZR) units are in kg/m^2 (mm). Do we keep this inconsistency or do we make sure all units are the same? These diagnostics have units of meters in FV3. |
@ericaligo-NOAA It would be good to keep the the same category parameters having the consistent units. Would you consider to use different parameter name for snow fall, e.g. TSNOWP? |
@WenMeng-NOAA, sure. I was able to find TSNOWP in /parm/params_grib2_tbl*: |
@ericaligo-NOAA TSNOWP is not defined in UPP yet. You need to add it for bucket and continuous accumulated ones via following the procedure of adding new variable in UPP at |
I noticed in the operational HRRR, the precipitation ice density is read into INITPOST.f (see code below), however, it's not listed in any of the xml files in the parm directory and it's not in the HRRR output. I followed the HRRR approach in RRFS meaning the precip ice density is read in, but it won't be in the grib2 output. Do we want this field in output? Would it be a lot of trouble to do this? Is reading it in sufficient and we decide down the road what to do? @EricJames-NOAA @barlage ! snowfall density |
Wen, I have another question. The 7 new winter diagnostics will be present only when running with the Thompson, NSSL or GFDL microphysics schemes. They will be absent if any other microphysics scheme is used. Will this cause a problem if INITPOST_NETCDF.f tries to read in 7 fields that are not available in the history files? Would it cause any issues for both the offline and inline UPP? @JacobCarley-NOAA @yangfanglin |
@ericaligo-NOAA You might add a threshold for reading 7 new fields based on specified MP. A sample in UPP at |
Wen, I'm making changes to the inline UPP now. I'm in the parm directory. From what I can see in the makefile, I only need to make changes to post_avblflds.xml and fv3lam_rrfs.xml? |
@ericaligo-NOAA There are two user define control files for RRFS, fv3lam_rrfs.xml and fv3lam.xml, You need to update both for RRFS. In the future, we will unify them. |
@ericaligo-NOAA From the UPP regression tests, I saw these six winter diag. variables are output in GRIB2 for GFS and RRFS as:
Now both bucket and continuous accumulated variables are written in correct grib2 head message . You may access my tests on Hera at /scratch1/NCEPDEV/stmp2/Wen.Meng. The model history files from GFS and RRFS in my tests do not include six winter diag. variables, so the UPP just output them as undefined values in GRIB2 files. It would great if you can provide me the sample model history files including new winter diag. variables. Thanks! |
Sample RRFS files are here:
/scratch2/NCEPDEV/fv3-cam/noscrub/Eric.Aligo/2020011712/fv3_sar_thompson_mynn_mynn_ruclsm_newufswx
Sample GFS files are here:
/scratch1/NCEPDEV/stmp2/Eric.Aligo/FV3_RT/rt_277905/control_p8
Eric
…On 12/22/2022 1:35 PM, WenMeng-NOAA wrote:
@ericaligo-NOAA <https://github.com/ericaligo-NOAA> From the UPP
regression tests, I saw these six winter diag. variables are output in
GRIB2 for GFS and RRFS as:
|RRFS: ***@***.*** fv3r_2022030200]$ pwd
/scratch1/NCEPDEV/stmp2/Wen.Meng/fv3r_2022030200 ***@***.***
fv3r_2022030200]$ wgrib2 PRSLEV10.tm00 -match TSN
858:4068164470:d=2022030200:TSNOWP:surface:0-10 hour acc fcst:
865:4079143186:d=2022030200:TSNOWP:surface:9-10 hour acc fcst:
***@***.*** fv3r_2022030200]$ wgrib2 PRSLEV10.tm00 -match FR
856:4065469558:d=2022030200:FROZR:surface:0-10 hour acc fcst:
857:4066817014:d=2022030200:FRZR:surface:0-10 hour acc fcst:
863:4076448274:d=2022030200:FROZR:surface:9-10 hour acc fcst:
864:4077795730:d=2022030200:FRZR:surface:9-10 hour acc fcst: GFS:
***@***.*** gfs.20190830]$ pwd
/scratch1/NCEPDEV/stmp2/Wen.Meng/gfs.20190830 ***@***.***
gfs.20190830]$ wgrib2 gfs.t00z.master.grb2f006 -match TSN
867:2293027015:d=2019083000:TSNOWP:surface:0-6 hour acc fcst:
871:2296382027:d=2019083000:TSNOWP:surface:0-6 hour acc fcst:
***@***.*** gfs.20190830]$ wgrib2 gfs.t00z.master.grb2f006 -match
FR 865:2291846961:d=2019083000:FROZR:surface:0-6 hour acc fcst:
866:2292436988:d=2019083000:FRZR:surface:0-6 hour acc fcst:
869:2295201973:d=2019083000:FROZR:surface:0-6 hour acc fcst:
870:2295792000:d=2019083000:FRZR:surface:0-6 hour acc fcst: |
Now both bucket and continuous accumulated variables are written in
correct grib2 head message . You may access my tests on Hera at
/scratch1/NCEPDEV/stmp2/Wen.Meng. The model history files from GFS and
RRFS in my tests do not include six winter diag. variables, so the UPP
just output them as undefined values in GRIB2 files. It would great if
you can provide me the sample model history files including new winter
diag. variables. Thanks!
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#568 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALQ75MIUO52UXWPQ2ZZS6ADWOSNONANCNFSM6AAAAAAQ5YR7HM>.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
@ericaligo-NOAA Please see my tests at |
Thanks. The GFS files look good. For RRFS, the bucket and continuous
fields had the same average and max values at the 3h forecast time in
your RRFS run directory, however, it's likely because fhzero was set to
3 hours. Can we look at 6 hours? I ran the offline UPP with my branch
and at 6 hours, I can see the bucket fields of 3-6h and the continuous
fields of 0-6h.
Eric
…On 12/22/2022 4:15 PM, WenMeng-NOAA wrote:
@ericaligo-NOAA <https://github.com/ericaligo-NOAA> Please see my tests at
RRFS: /scratch1/NCEPDEV/stmp2/Wen.Meng/post_rrfs_2020011712 -- /PRSLEV/
GFS: /scratch1/NCEPDEV/stmp2/Wen.Meng/gfs.2021032206 -- /master/
Let me you know if you see issues. Thanks!
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#568 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALQ75MJDBBOD2QL7M3GCKN3WOTAGRANCNFSM6AAAAAAQ5YR7HM>.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
@ericaligo-NOAA Good suggestion. Please see the new test for RRFS at |
I should have changed fhzero from 3 to 1 since that is what RRFS is
using. I looked at your output and it looks good. I re-ran RRFS with
fhzero=1 and ran the UPP. Everything looks good. If you're interested,
the new output with fhzero=1 is located here:
/scratch2/NCEPDEV/fv3-cam/noscrub/Eric.Aligo/2020011712/fv3_sar_thompson_mynn_mynn_ruclsm_newufswx
…On 12/22/2022 8:36 PM, WenMeng-NOAA wrote:
@ericaligo-NOAA <https://github.com/ericaligo-NOAA> Good suggestion.
Please see the new test for RRFS at
/scratch1/NCEPDEV/stmp2/Wen.Meng/post_rrfs_2020011712
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#568 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALQ75MKDOQ7DRARTBZHDENTWOT62XANCNFSM6AAAAAAQ5YR7HM>.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
@ericaligo-NOAA Please see the new 1-hour bucket test at |
Looks good!
…On 12/23/2022 1:05 PM, WenMeng-NOAA wrote:
@ericaligo-NOAA <https://github.com/ericaligo-NOAA> Please see the new
1-hour bucket test at
/scratch1/NCEPDEV/stmp2/Wen.Meng/post_rrfs_2020011712
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#568 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALQ75MJDMBXTGN3S4CVAPXLWOXSU7ANCNFSM6AAAAAAQ5YR7HM>.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
The surface accumulated snow, graupel and freezing rain will be added to RRFS and GFS output files. Examples of the accumulated fields are shown in the PDF attached.
New Precipitation Ice Density_Accumulated Surface Winter Diags Prelim Results.pdf
Related to Issue#1449
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: