Questions Abount MOZART-MOSAIC in WRF-Chem
twgl...@ncsu.edu
1) Is this option coupled to both aerosol direct and indirect effects as well as the Greenhouse effects of O3 within the model ?
2) Are there any WRF physics options or other chemistry options that this chemical mechanism is not compatible with?
3) Are there any limitations that would make this option a bad choice for the scope and length of simulation I’m doing other than the computational efficiency?
4) I noticed that sea-salt emissions for MOSAIC have been disabled in the WRFv9.1.1. version. Sea-salt aerosols are important in chemistry-climate studies so are there any work arounds to turn them on? I can't use the GOCART aerosols because I need nitrate, ammonium, and SOA in my study.
5) Is there currently any way to generate fire emission for use with the plume rise calculations and aircraft emissions using the NCAR emission processing utilities?
6) Is there any way to easily output the dry/wet deposition fluxes, natural emissions (Dust, Sea-Salt, and Biogenic VOCs), and AOD at 550 nm using this option?
Thanks,
Tim Glotfelty
Gabriele Pfister
Also on the website you can download the fire_emiss tool that you can use to create wrffirechemi* files for use with the plumerise code. We do not have a public tool for aircraft emissions.
Outputting deposition fluxes, natural emissions, AOD (or rather extinction factor) is possible. Look through the registry.chem to see all the field
state real ebio_iso ij misc 1 - rh "EBIO_ISO" "Actual biog emiss" "mol km^-2 hr^-1"
The h indicates that it should be output to the history file. Alternatively you can also control output during runtime using the
Gabriele Pfister
Mary Barth
Hello Tim,
Just to follow up on Gabi's response, and your questions.
1) Yes, chem_opt = 202 is appropriate for examining aerosol-radiation and aerosol-cloud interactions. As part of this, you would set aer_rad_feedback = 1 (and aer_op_opt > 0). This ensures that WRF-Chem predicted aerosols affect the radiation calculation in either RRTMG or Goddard shortwave scheme -- this is explained in the WRF-Chem Users Guide. However, I suggest confirming that the radiation code is also using the predicted O3 from WRF-Chem. I am not positive that this is the case.
2) With respect to your questions regarding what chem_opt=202 is or is not compatible with, I suggest following the guidance of our Users Guide at https://www2.acom.ucar.edu/wrf-chem, and if you have a specific question, to ask that.
3) As Gabi said, you are proposing a very large run with lots of output. In addition, the cloud chemistry could possibly slow the computation somewhat/significantly (I'm not sure how much). If you were conducting shorter runs, I would suggest skipping the cloud chemistry, but I think the sulfate production would be important for your proposed project.
4) I am not sure about the sea-salt emissions being disabled in MOSAIC for WRFV3.9.1.1. You could confirm this with Jerome Fast and/or by looking at the code. Plus, there's nothing stopping you from modifying the code to be sure it is working okay.
5) See Gabi's answer for the fire emission question.
We can create aircraft emissions (Barth et al., 2012). Attached is the preprocessor that I have for the aircraft emissions along with a README file. The preprocessor code is in IDL. I hope that is not a problem. I hope to upload this preprocessor code to our web page soon. For Barth et al., 2012, we used aircraft emissions from Baughcum 1999, which may be outdated. I know there are also other aircraft emission datasets available. Let me know if you need to get an aircraft emissions inventory.
Regards,
Mary
-- ^--^--^--^--^--^--^--^--^--^--^--^--^--^--^--^--^--^--^--^--^--^ Mary Barth Phone: 303-497-8186 Senior Scientist email: bar...@ucar.edu National Center for Atmospheric Research P.O. Box 3000 Boulder, CO 80307 https://staff.ucar.edu/users/barthm DC3 Web Site: http://www2.acom.ucar.edu/dc3/ +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
Timothy Glotfelty
mp_physics = 10, 5, 5,
ra_lw_physics = 4, 4, 4,
ra_sw_physics = 4, 4, 4,
radt = 30, 30, 30,
sf_sfclay_physics = 5, 1, 1,
sf_surface_physics = 4, 2, 2,
bl_pbl_physics = 5, 1, 1,
bldt = 0, 0, 0,
cu_physics = 5, 1, 0,
cudt = 5, 5, 5,
icloud = 1,
cu_rad_feedback = .true.,.true.,.false.,
num_soil_layers = 4,
num_land_cat = 21,
sf_urban_physics = 0, 0, 0,
sst_update = 1,
tmn_update = 1,
sst_skin = 1,
bucket_mm = 1000.0,
bucket_J = 1.e9
sf_lake_physics = 1,
aer_opt = 1,
progn = 1,
lightning_option = 11,
iccg_method = 3,
iccg_prescribed_num = 3,
iccg_prescribed_den = 1,
cellcount_method = 1,
lightning_start_seconds = 600,
flashrate_factor = 60.,
cldtop_adjustment = 0,
/
kemit = 1,
chem_opt = 202,
bioemdt = 30,
photdt = 30,
chemdt = 10,
io_style_emissions = 1,
emiss_opt = 10, 0,
emiss_opt_vol = 0, 0,
emiss_ash_hgt = 20000.,
chem_in_opt = 1, 0,
phot_opt = 1, 0,
gas_drydep_opt = 1, 1,
aer_drydep_opt = 1, 1,
bio_emiss_opt = 3, 0,
ne_area = 400,
depo_fact = 0.25,
dust_opt = 3,
dmsemis_opt = 0,
seas_opt = 2,
gas_bc_opt = 1, 0,
gas_ic_opt = 1, 0,
aer_bc_opt = 1, 0,
aer_ic_opt = 1, 0,
gaschem_onoff = 1, 0,
aerchem_onoff = 1, 0,
wetscav_onoff = 1, 0,
cldchem_onoff = 1, 0,
vertmix_onoff = 1, 0,
chem_conv_tr = 1, 0,
conv_tr_wetscav = 1, 0,
conv_tr_aqchem = 1, 0,
biomass_burn_opt = 2, 0,
plumerisefire_frq = 30, 0,
have_bcs_chem = .true., .false., .false.,
aer_ra_feedback = 1,
aer_op_opt = 1,
opt_pars_out = 1,
lnox_opt = 1,
N_IC = 125.,
N_CG = 125.,
diagnostic_chem = 0,
/
Mary Barth
Tim,
Here is one thing to check which is posted on the wrfchem-ltng
discussion email
https://groups.google.com/a/ucar.edu/forum/?hl=en#!forum/wrf-chem-lightning
Check to see if the lightning start time and time step works smoothly with the meteorology time step. We've added a correction to the logic that is implemented in the upcoming WRFV4.0.
I do not know the biomass burning emissions as well and will let someone else answer that question.
Mary
Timothy Glotfelty
Gabriele Pfister
Gabriele Pfister, Deputy Director
Timothy Glotfelty
Hi Mary,
Rui Pedro Silva
