WRF-SUEWS evaluation in Shanghai case

[zhenkunl]

I have run a 3-nested domain case for Shanghai. The domain configuration is as figure below.

[zhenkunl]

Building heights based on gis (provided by my colleague) are put into wrfinput. It looks like: I run the model for 13 days from 2013-08-06 to 2013-08-19 and there was no rain during this period. Both the observation and model output are at 30-min interval. Here are some results (LH may have some abnormal values):

[sunt05]

Good job!

[sunt05]

For QE obs, better to remove the outliers.

[sunt05]

Also, provide some statistics, e.g. MAE, MBE, to show the performance.

[zhenkunl]

Yes, I will try tomorrow. I am new to data visualization using python, so it takes a long time to achieve these.

[zhenkunl]

Figs above are updated and T2 and QF are plotted.

[suegrimmond]

The modelled T2 – is that diagnosed by SUEWS or WRF/original?

Best wishes Sue

Prof Sue Grimmond Dept. of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading, RG6 6BB T: 44 118 378 6248 – messages get emailed to me O:Met Building (#58 on map) rm:1U14 E: c.s.grimmond@reading.ac.ukmailto:c.s.grimmond@reading.ac.uk W: http://micromet.reading.ac.uk/

From: Zhenkun Li notifications@github.com Sent: 05 June 2019 11:33 To: Urban-Meteorology-Reading/WRF-SUEWS WRF-SUEWS@noreply.github.com Cc: Subscribed subscribed@noreply.github.com Subject: Re: [Urban-Meteorology-Reading/WRF-SUEWS] WRF-SUEWS evaluation in Shanghai case (#45)

Figs above are updated and T2 and QF are plotted. [T2]https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/12846201/58949978-98795780-8785-11e9-9bf9-8ce1e444c966.png [QF]https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/12846201/58949981-9c0cde80-8785-11e9-84b0-115bf24375e0.png

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/Urban-Meteorology-Reading/WRF-SUEWS/issues/45?email_source=notifications&email_token=AE2KZXQOSYWATTOI3E4QF43PY6I7FA5CNFSM4HSDRR2KYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGODW7JREA#issuecomment-499030160, or mute the threadhttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AE2KZXRG3VTHM2K3QOPRDVTPY6I7FANCNFSM4HSDRR2A.

[suegrimmond]

What does the radiation and QH look like?

Best wishes Sue

Prof Sue Grimmond Dept. of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading, RG6 6BB T: 44 118 378 6248 – messages get emailed to me O:Met Building (#58 on map) rm:1U14 E: c.s.grimmond@reading.ac.ukmailto:c.s.grimmond@reading.ac.uk W: http://micromet.reading.ac.uk/

[hamidrezaomidvar]

@suegrimmond : I think he updated the results above for the newest version. I think it would be good to have the both previous results and the new version. @zhenkunl : are these updated version after updating the land cover from data?

[sunt05]

The modelled T2 – is that diagnosed by SUEWS or WRF/original?

By SUEWS.

@zhenkunl: let's focus on the SEB results first; the diagnostics (e.g., T2) make less sense to see at this stage as the bias may be attributable to various factors.

[zhenkunl]

@hamidrezaomidvar I haven't done a new run and I just dropped the abnormal values in observations. @sunt05 What does SEB mean here?

[sunt05]

SEB: surface energy balance.

[zhenkunl]

@hamidrezaomidvar @sunt05 when I run offline SUEWS for Shanghai to spin up, it is possible I only load the initial conditions if I change the path_runcontrol in file wrfinput-processor/param_extractor_SuPy/getting_SUEWS_params.py as df_forcing keep the values from the sample data.

    print('Initializing SUEWS variables.....')
    df_state_init, df_forcing = sp.load_SampleData()

    path_runcontrol = Path('./run_London') / 'RunControl.nml'
    df_state_init = sp.init_supy(path_runcontrol)

I think I should add

grid = df_state_init.index[0]
df_forcing = sp.load_forcing_grid(path_runcontrol, grid)

It that right?

[sunt05]

Yes.

Sent from my iPhone

On 6 Jun 2019, at 23:49, Zhenkun Li notifications@github.com wrote:

@hamidrezaomidvar @sunt05 when I run offline SUEWS for Shanghai to spin up, it is possible I only load the initial conditions if I change the path_runcontrol as df_forcing keep the values from the sample data.

print('Initializing SUEWS variables.....') df_state_init, df_forcing = sp.load_SampleData()

path_runcontrol = Path('./run_London') / 'RunControl.nml' df_state_init = sp.init_supy(path_runcontrol) I think I should add

grid = df_state_init.index[0] df_forcing = sp.load_forcing_grid(path_runcontrol, grid) It that right?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[zhenkunl]

The land use information are updated and I rerun the model for three days. Here are the flux components:

[hamidrezaomidvar]

@zhenkunl What are the LANDUSEF_SUEWS for the pixel that you are comparing the results?

[zhenkunl]

sorry for late reply. LANDUSEF_SUEWS of XJH site are [0.5, 0.5, 0. , 0. , 0. , 0. , 0. ]. I can't get more accurate land use info.

[zhenkunl]

It seems WRF-SUEWS has some problem with goddard lw/sw radiation scheme. It had run for hours but crashed. The error logs are:

running goddard lw radiation
running goddard sw radiation
d01 2013-08-11_06:00:00  Input data is acceptable to use:
d01 2013-08-11_12:00:00  Input data is acceptable to use:
d01 2013-08-11_18:00:00  Input data is acceptable to use:
d01 2013-08-12_00:00:00  Input data is acceptable to use:
d01 2013-08-12_06:00:00  Input data is acceptable to use:
forrtl: error (69): process interrupted (SIGINT)
Image              PC                Routine            Line        Source
wrf.exe            0000000003447861  Unknown               Unknown  Unknown
wrf.exe            0000000003445FB7  Unknown               Unknown  Unknown
wrf.exe            00000000034011C4  Unknown               Unknown  Unknown

[zhenkunl]

If I have high resolution land use categories data based on SUEWS (i.e. seven types), how can I put it into WRF-SUEWS without reclassification to the MODIS 21-category?

[sunt05]

20190719 meeting

• [ ] radiation issue @zhenkunl to check the popular WRF physics configurations used in SIMS.

• [ ] land cover

(@hamidrezaomidvar to modify this ) #53

@zhenkunl: to provide an up-to-date building footprint data to @hamidrezaomidvar.

[zhenkunl]

I have run a test run with both ra_lw_physics and ra_sw_physics equal 24, here are the results: More work need to be done to trace the error sources.

[suegrimmond]

Do we know if there has been any evaluations in the past by others of the WRF modelling Kdown in Shanghai? If not there may be something interesting there to have a look at. If yes, please can we determine what was concluded, settings etc

[zhenkunl]

I talked with one of postdocs who work with Baode Chen today. She told me their BL scheme has not been released by WRF but it is been preparing. She has lots of modelling experiences with cloud and aerosol. We discussed the kdown bias in WRF-SUEWS. Unfortunately, She didn't compare the radiation results before. She said kdown may be reduced when accounting for aerosol in WRF, however, the gap between model and obs seems too large even if we change radiation scheme or add aerosol in WRF. Also she provided the wrfout data of one case which start on 20160719. The kdown is as below. The maximum is close to 1000w/m2 in the figure. So I think I should double check the radiation observations are reliable or not first.

[zhenkunl]

I have run another case with all the settings same as previous one except using Noah land-surface model. The following figure shows the comparison of SWDOWN. The top is based on WRF-Noah, and the bottom WRF-SUEWS. We can see the magnitudes are similar, so we can conclude that WRF may overestimate SWDOWN over Shanghai area, and it can not be improved by land surface model.

[zhenkunl]

Sorry I can't find valid observations of SWDOWN, though I download the ERA5 hourly reanalyses. Here is the ERA5 surface solar radiation downwards.

[sunt05]

Please put these, ERA-5, WRF simulations and observations, together for a comparison.

[suegrimmond]

I think the observations are valid.

Best wishes Sue

Prof Sue Grimmond Dept. of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading, RG6 6BB T: 44 118 378 6248 – messages get emailed to me O:Met Building (#58 on map) rm:1U14 E: c.s.grimmond@reading.ac.ukmailto:c.s.grimmond@reading.ac.uk W: http://micromet.reading.ac.uk/

From: Zhenkun Li notifications@github.com Sent: 25 July 2019 17:06 To: Urban-Meteorology-Reading/WRF-SUEWS WRF-SUEWS@noreply.github.com Cc: Sue Grimmond c.s.grimmond@reading.ac.uk; Mention mention@noreply.github.com Subject: Re: [Urban-Meteorology-Reading/WRF-SUEWS] WRF-SUEWS evaluation in Shanghai case (#45)

Sorry I can't find valid observations of SWDOWN, though I download the ERA5 hourly reanalyses. Here is the ERA5 surface solar radiation downwards. [image]https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/12846201/61889930-f67e1c00-af38-11e9-95c2-8c68ef7b512b.png

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/Urban-Meteorology-Reading/WRF-SUEWS/issues/45?email_source=notifications&email_token=AE2KZXTIOAJGYZCCJZBDS3LQBHFPHA5CNFSM4HSDRR2KYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD2Z6DVA#issuecomment-515105236, or mute the threadhttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AE2KZXQQXVHOB6GC3EPFNR3QBHFPHANCNFSM4HSDRR2A.

[sunt05]

It looks WRF does overestimate Kd, even compared with ERA-5.

@zhenkunl for your WRF simulation, which forcing did you use? FNL or ERA-5?

[zhenkunl]

The latest runs were driven by ERA-interim

在 2019年7月26日，00:24，Ting Sun notifications@github.com 写道：

It looks WRF does overestimate Kd, even compared with ERA-5.

@zhenkunl for your WRF simulation, which forcing did you use? FNL or ERA-5?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[zhenkunl]

I have run cases with one domain around center Shanghai (9x9 grids and 9km resolution) for quick test. First, I ran WRF-SUEWS with original Modis landuse fraction (refer to as Modis Landuse), then a sensitive experiment with modification of the landuse fraction according to Ao's paper. Specifically, I set urban fraction of all the grids which exceed 90% to 85% and it was split into 62% paved and 23% buildings, and the other five types have values of 3%, 1%, 10%, 0, 1% respectively (refer to as Ao's Landuse). The landusef distribution of urban type are shown as below.

[zhenkunl]

I compared the flux and T2 of the two cases. The differences of corresponding flux component are very small. It shows the bias between the model and observation can not be reduced by more accurate land use. Also I have tested other shortwave radiation schemes, the results are similar.

[zhenkunl]

I ran another case using the original WRF with Noah LSM as well. Since there are no QN, KUP and LUP in wrfout, I only compared the other components.

[zhenkunl]

It is strange that the phase of anthropogenic heat flux of WRF-SUEWS is not consistent with observation. Here observation means LUCY output from Ao.

[hamidrezaomidvar]

@zhenkunl Is the time zone correct? the WRF outputs are in UTC. Also check the time saving in namelist.suews

[zhenkunl]

I changed timezone to 8 in module_sf_suews.F, but the result are the same as before. Any ideas?

[sunt05]

just looked at the code, I think this is a bug/caveat: timezone is only used in calculation of sun positions but nowhere else. so for QF calculations, the UTC time, rather than local time, is still used. Let me think how can we fix this.

[hamidrezaomidvar]

We can fix this by rotating the qf profile in namelist.suews

On Aug 2, 2019, at 11:52 AM, Ting Sun notifications@github.com wrote:

just looked at the code, I think this is a bug/caveat: timezone is only used in calculation of sun positions but nowhere else. so for QF calculations, the UTC time, rather than local time, is still used. Let me think how can we fix this.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[sunt05]

Good idea for the workaround! @hamidrezaomidvar

[sunt05]

Some further thoughts on this:

1. as WRF uses UTC while SUEWS uses local time, we may change this at the interface: SuMin.
2. as only human activity related profiles are impacted by this issue, we can adjust the profiles during SUEWS_init at the WRF site; while users can still provide profiles in LST, which might be more intuitive.

[hamidrezaomidvar]

I think we just need to pass timezone to sue_init and rotate the profile that is written in LOcal time

On Aug 2, 2019, at 11:57 AM, Ting Sun notifications@github.com wrote:

Good idea for the workaround! @hamidrezaomidvar

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[sunt05]

I think we just need to pass timezone to sue_init and rotate the profile that is written in LOcal time …

I think this would be a better solution.

[zhenkunl]

I have rotated the AHProf_24hr, then QH looks fine. So the sensible flux becomes reasonable as well.

[suegrimmond]

Great – looks like there is a one hour shift – do we understand why that is?

Best wishes Sue

Prof Sue Grimmond Dept. of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading, RG6 6BB T: 44 118 378 6248 – messages get emailed to me O:Met Building (#58 on map) rm:1U14 E: c.s.grimmond@reading.ac.ukmailto:c.s.grimmond@reading.ac.uk W: http://micromet.reading.ac.uk/

From: Zhenkun Li notifications@github.com Sent: 02 August 2019 17:23 To: Urban-Meteorology-Reading/WRF-SUEWS WRF-SUEWS@noreply.github.com Cc: Sue Grimmond c.s.grimmond@reading.ac.uk; Mention mention@noreply.github.com Subject: Re: [Urban-Meteorology-Reading/WRF-SUEWS] WRF-SUEWS evaluation in Shanghai case (#45)

I have rotated the AHProf_24hr, then QH looks fine. [QF-0802]https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/12846201/62384300-9e709680-b584-11e9-8e23-ae50eb018aea.png So the sensible flux becomes reasonable as well.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/Urban-Meteorology-Reading/WRF-SUEWS/issues/45?email_source=notifications&email_token=AE2KZXSKEYMTRF65EG36ZTLQCRNOJA5CNFSM4HSDRR2KYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD3OG3JQ#issuecomment-517762470, or mute the threadhttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AE2KZXXURZH5WVIVQGD3GGLQCRNOJANCNFSM4HSDRR2A.

[sunt05]

Could be due to daylight saving related calculations.

[suegrimmond]

But China doesn’t have it – unless it is turned on when it should not be!

Best wishes Sue

Prof Sue Grimmond Dept. of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading, RG6 6BB T: 44 118 378 6248 – messages get emailed to me O:Met Building (#58 on map) rm:1U14 E: c.s.grimmond@reading.ac.ukmailto:c.s.grimmond@reading.ac.uk W: http://micromet.reading.ac.uk/

From: Ting Sun notifications@github.com Sent: 02 August 2019 17:28 To: Urban-Meteorology-Reading/WRF-SUEWS WRF-SUEWS@noreply.github.com Cc: Sue Grimmond c.s.grimmond@reading.ac.uk; Mention mention@noreply.github.com Subject: Re: [Urban-Meteorology-Reading/WRF-SUEWS] WRF-SUEWS evaluation in Shanghai case (#45)

Could be due to daylight saving related calculations.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/Urban-Meteorology-Reading/WRF-SUEWS/issues/45?email_source=notifications&email_token=AE2KZXX2LMAM3AD7E4RIS43QCROADA5CNFSM4HSDRR2KYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD3OHHZQ#issuecomment-517764070, or mute the threadhttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AE2KZXVHG5GDMA6BKZIA6M3QCROADANCNFSM4HSDRR2A.

[zhenkunl]

@sunt05 I have done a case with setting all the urban grids to 100% cropland. Here are the results.

[sunt05]

But China doesn’t have it – unless it is turned on when it should not be! Best wishes Sue

Yep, seems to be the case: daylight saving magically happened.

@zhenkunl, you may need to check how the DLS-related parameters are set in your simulation.

[sunt05]

But why LH is so low?

[zhenkunl]

@sunt05 @hamidrezaomidvar Could you tell me if the sequence of AHProf_24hr means UTC time or local time, or which time representation is expected in AHProf_24hr? I just rotate the array similar to cshift(AHProf_24hr, 8)

[suegrimmond]

1) Looks like there is a timing problem in Lup also 2) Is QF= gone to 0 ? Please can we plot this each time. (if not- we need to modify SUEWS to check that population data /QF is sensible given the land surface choices (i.e. if 100 % veg or water etc--t there should not be a large population -- or there should be some comment put out.