[wrfems] Using the adaptive time step with nested runs (Was: Major Temperature Problem)

Robert Rozumalski Robert.Rozumalski at noaa.gov
Tue Apr 3 08:18:57 MDT 2012


Jon,  A cold bias within the inner domain(s) is the strong indication 
that the adaptive TS is having problems. The model may
not crash but the error still exists.

Try doing a direct comparison to a non-adaptive TS simulation.

Bob



On 4/3/12 8:09 AM, Case, Jonathan (MSFC-ZP11)[ENSCO INC] wrote:
>
> Thanks for the update!   We'll be reporting on some WRF verification 
> results that used the adaptive timestep in a nested grid configuration.
>
> Your diagnostics will be most helpful to explain the cold bias we're 
> seeing, especially during the day.
>
> Jon
>
> *From:*Robert Rozumalski [mailto:Robert.Rozumalski at noaa.gov]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 03, 2012 9:07 AM
> *To:* Case, Jonathan (MSFC-ZP11)[ENSCO INC]
> *Cc:* wrfems at comet.ucar.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [wrfems] Using the adaptive time step with nested runs 
> (Was: Major Temperature Problem)
>
>
>
> Hello Jon,
>
> My primary conclusion after 2 weeks of testing was that the adaptive 
> time step is unreliable when running nested simulations.
>
> I have not had as many problems with single domain simulations. The 
> few I've seen can be corrected by changing the adaptive
> time step options in the configuration file.
>
> However, I've exhausted all my options in attempting to provide a 
> robust workaround to the problem of  the model crashing
> when nested domains are included.  There appears to be two sources of 
> error, a violation of the vertical CFL condition and a
> disruption in the  of physics timing.  It is possible to tweak  the 
> adaptive TS  configuration settings for a specific domain/case
> but those settings are probably not a panacea for all simulations, 
> which is  rather frustrating  for me.
>
> The issues appear to primarily affect the child domains, but the 
> consequences may take down the entire simulation.
>
> I'm hoping that WRF V3.3+ has a fix for these problems but I'm not 
> that far along in the testing.
>
> Bob
>
>
>
>
> 4/3/12 7:38 AM, Case, Jonathan (MSFC-ZP11)[ENSCO INC] wrote:
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> Were you able to determine whether this adaptive time-step problem 
> occurs only on the inner nests, or on all domains including d01?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jon
>
> *From:*wrfems-bounces at comet.ucar.edu 
> <mailto:wrfems-bounces at comet.ucar.edu> 
> [mailto:wrfems-bounces at comet.ucar.edu] *On Behalf Of *Robert Rozumalski
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 27, 2012 9:06 AM
> *To:* wrfems at comet.ucar.edu <mailto:wrfems at comet.ucar.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [wrfems] Using the adaptive time step with nested runs 
> (Was: Major Temperature Problem)
>
>
> Good morning all,
>
> I'm just following up to Don's issue regarding a serious problem with 
> the near-surface fields when running a nested simulation with an 
> adaptive time step.
>
> Symptom of the problem:
>
>   Many near surface fields within a nested domain, such as 2m 
> temperature, stop updating during the course of a simulation. This 
> problem may occur from
>   the beginning, or start at  some point during a simulation.  It also 
> may start/stop multiple times over an entire simulation.  This issue 
> tends to be sporadic,
>   sometimes occurring  over consecutive simulations and then disappear 
> for an extended period of time.
>
>   The problem only appears when the adaptive time step is used in a 
> nested simulation.
>
>
> After days of scouring through the code and running many dozen test 
> simulations, I've determined that the nested domain tendencies coming 
> out of the
> LSM and PBL schemes are not being added to the model perturbation 
> fields.  It appears this problem is due to the timing between 
> ever-changing model
> time step and the frequency of calls to the physics schemes.  My guess 
> is that the tendency fields are being zero'd out before they are added 
> to the
> model perturbation fields but I'm not completely certain if this is 
> the exact cause.
>
> I've been able to correct the problem by changing the frequency of 
> calls to the physics schemes (CUDT, BLDT and RADT) and modifying the 
> adaptive
> time step  parameters for Don's case but I need to run some additional 
> simulations in order to develop some general configuration guidelines.
>
> I hope to have this information available this afternoon.
>
> Bob
>
>
>
>
> On 3/19/12 12:16 PM, Don Van Dyke wrote:
>
> Thanks for your help.  Unfortunately, I only saved the grib files from 
> a failed run and didn't think to save the raw netCDF files, so I don't 
> have any failed netCDF files to look at for the moment.  The 12z run 
> today worked fine.  The only change we've made so far is to remove the 
> RUC from the initialization and just go with the NAMPTILE and 
> NAMPTILELSM with the sport SSTs for initialization.  If another run 
> fails, I'll try to get the netCDF copied off to look at.  I really 
> hope the cause is not the adaptive time-step somehow, since that's the 
> only way we can cram 4 runs per day on that computer.  However, we've 
> had the adaptive running for around a month now without any problems 
> at all.
>
> This issue brought up another question with the RUC data.  The RUC is 
> scheduled to be discontinued quite soon and replaced by the RAP.  Will 
> be able to use the RAP data right away, or will we need to wait for 
> another build and resort to using something other than RUC in the 
> meantime?  Thanks again!
>
> -Don
>
> Robert Rozumalski wrote:
>
>
>
> Hello Don,
>
> I've attempted to run a simulation using your configuration and got an 
> interesting result, a segmentation fault after 23 hours.
>
> Typically, a segmentation fault that occurs well into a simulation 
> suggests a problem with the WRF code. It's possible that you
> are getting the same errors without a seg fault since the fault will 
> occur when the model is attempting to access a block of
> memory on a system that is not accessible.  In your case it may be 
> that wrf is accessing memory from an allowed area but
> it's not the correct area, so the simulation continues.
>
> For a failed run, take a look at the domain 2 WRF netCDF output files 
> in the  wrfprd directory  with "ncview":
>
>    %  ncview <netCDF file>
>
>        Look at:   2D Vars -> 2T    (2m temp)
>
> Start at the beginning of the run and work forward in time. Do you see 
> anything unusual?
>
> I suspect you will see an increase in the amount of white area with 
> time. The white indicates that the data are bad.
>
> I'm working  to determine the cause of the issue.
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> On 3/18/12 6:19 AM, Don Van Dyke wrote:
>
>
> Bob and others,
>
> We have developed a major temperature problem with our local WRF here 
> at WFO Tallahassee in the last 2 days.  For some unknown reason, the 
> surface and boundary layer temperatures are occasionally not rising 
> during the daylight hours for our inner 4 km nest.  We run a 12 km/4 
> km configuration.  What is even stranger about this problem is that 
> the 12 km outer nest is just fine, and the problem seems 
> intermittent.  The nest is configured as a one-way nest though, so I 
> guess the problem must be isolated to the 4 km version of the model 
> somehow.  I first noticed this problem with the 12z March 17th run, 
> then the subsequent 18z and 00z runs were fine, then the problem 
> reappeared on the 06z March 18th run.  I've attached some screenshots 
> as an example.  On the 12z March 17th run, the 4km model forecast 
> areas of fog all day for the 18th with highs near 60 while the 12 km 
> parent nest was normal with highs in the 80s.  I've also attached the 
> log files from the 06z March 18th run.   We've never seen this happen 
> before, and we're at a loss to explain why it's only affecting the 4 
> km nest and not the 12 km run, and why the problem seems to be 
> intermittent.  Also, to my knowledge, nothing has changed on our 
> computer other than I recently added crons for 00z and 12z runs.  (We 
> previously only did 06z and 18z runs.)  However, I did not change 
> anything with the model configuration.  This just suddenly started 
> happening.  Thanks for any help anyone can give!
>
> Don Van Dyke
> General Forecaster
> NWS Tallahassee, FL
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> wrfems mailing list
> wrfems at comet.ucar.edu <mailto:wrfems at comet.ucar.edu>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Robert A. Rozumalski, PhD
> NWS National SOO Science and Training Resource Coordinator
>
> COMET/UCAR PO Box 3000   Phone:  303.497.8356
> Boulder, CO 80307-3000
>
>   
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> wrfems mailing list
> wrfems at comet.ucar.edu <mailto:wrfems at comet.ucar.edu>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> wrfems mailing list
> wrfems at comet.ucar.edu  <mailto:wrfems at comet.ucar.edu>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Robert A. Rozumalski, PhD
> NWS National SOO Science and Training Resource Coordinator
>   
> COMET/UCAR PO Box 3000   Phone:  303.497.8356
> Boulder, CO 80307-3000
>   
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Robert A. Rozumalski, PhD
> NWS National SOO Science and Training Resource Coordinator
>   
> COMET/UCAR PO Box 3000   Phone:  303.497.8356
> Boulder, CO 80307-3000
>   


-- 
Robert A. Rozumalski, PhD
NWS National SOO Science and Training Resource Coordinator

COMET/UCAR PO Box 3000   Phone:  303.497.8356
Boulder, CO 80307-3000


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.comet.ucar.edu/pipermail/wrfems/attachments/20120403/d0c2168f/attachment.html>


More information about the wrfems mailing list