sunt05
commented
5 years ago Further to the comments by @hamidrezaomidvar, we may classify the possible issues in the preprocessing into the following:
- inconsistent urban/built-up-related parameters between inner and outer domains;
- possible problematic initial conditions (e.g., soil moisture) for outer domains.
I think the real issue may be highly dependent on the urban fractions in outer domains; but as long as they are minimal/small, we can be relaxed.
If we are worrying about this, maybe we can try a setup with NOAH in outer domains but SUEWS inside and see if the results of innermost domains would qualitatively change. Anyway (i.e., changed or unchanged), it would be very informative to us to justify our current approach for preprocessing.
Something that we have not fixed yet and I think it is essential to fix (or justify it) in this stage is the following:
When changing
wrfinputsfor each specific area from the suitable parameters, we add SUEWS related parameters to all domains (1,2,3, or 4 in this case). For domains 3 and 4 there is no problem since we can modify them based on the specific city (London or Swindon). However, it is not clear what should we do for domain 1 and 2 and which parameters should be given to each grid in these domains.So far, for example for 3 domains run of London/Swindon, the same parameters as domain 3 would be added for domains 1 and 2, and for urban related parameters (e.g. population, building height etc..), the values are scaled based on the urban fraction.
I know that it might not have lots of impacts on the final results as long as we put correct parameters in the smallest domain, and semi-correct ones in bigger ones, but how can we justify this is the best approach?
Originally posted by @hamidrezaomidvar in https://github.com/Urban-Meteorology-Reading/WRF-SUEWS/issues/37#issuecomment-492650107