How to calculate precipitation water vapor(PWV) from different source?

[XinhaoSuo]

Hi~
I used the iCESM1.2 to simulate water vapor from different regions. The results include precipitation(PRECC,etc), H2O isotope mmr for VAPOR,H2O isotope mmr for LIQUID, etc. How can I get the precipitable water vapor(PWV) from different source? Only the Total (vertically integrated) precipitable water(TMQ) in the result, but not the individual sources, is there any way to output directly in results? Or I have to do it myself according to the formula?
THANKS!!!

 

[nusbaume]

Hi Xinhao,

When you say precipitable water vapor, do you mean the vertically integrated water vapor, but just for the different tags?

If so, then you can output the TMQ values for your water tags by simplying adding "TMQ_<TAGNAME>" to your output list in user_nl_cam.

For example, if you have a water tracer/tag labeled "ATL", then you can output the precipitable (vertically-integrated) water vapor for the ATL tag alone by adding the following line:

fincl0 = "TMQ_ATL"

to user_nl_cam. If you had another tracer/tag labeled "PAC" then you could do the following instead:

fincl0 = "TMQ_ATL", "TMQ_PAC"

Of course you will need to re-run the simulation in order to output those particular results. Otherwise you can simply use the 3-D vapor values (i.e. the variables with tag names that end in "V") to calculate the vertically integrated values post-model run.

Anyways, I hope that helps, and if you have any other questions or concerns please let me know.

Thanks, and have a great day!

Jesse

 

[XinhaoSuo]

Hi Xinhao,

When you say precipitable water vapor, do you mean the vertically integrated water vapor, but just for the different tags?

If so, then you can output the TMQ values for your water tags by simplying adding "TMQ_<TAGNAME>" to your output list in user_nl_cam.

For example, if you have a water tracer/tag labeled "ATL", then you can output the precipitable (vertically-integrated) water vapor for the ATL tag alone by adding the following line:

fincl0 = "TMQ_ATL"

to user_nl_cam. If you had another tracer/tag labeled "PAC" then you could do the following instead:

fincl0 = "TMQ_ATL", "TMQ_PAC"

Of course you will need to re-run the simulation in order to output those particular results. Otherwise you can simply use the 3-D vapor values (i.e. the variables with tag names that end in "V") to calculate the vertically integrated values post-model run.

Anyways, I hope that helps, and if you have any other questions or concerns please let me know.

Thanks, and have a great day!

Jesse

Hi Jesse,

Thank you for your help! It is really useful to me, and I will try to re-run the simluation.

 

[XinhaoSuo]

Hi Xinhao,

When you say precipitable water vapor, do you mean the vertically integrated water vapor, but just for the different tags?

If so, then you can output the TMQ values for your water tags by simplying adding "TMQ_<TAGNAME>" to your output list in user_nl_cam.

For example, if you have a water tracer/tag labeled "ATL", then you can output the precipitable (vertically-integrated) water vapor for the ATL tag alone by adding the following line:

fincl0 = "TMQ_ATL"

to user_nl_cam. If you had another tracer/tag labeled "PAC" then you could do the following instead:

fincl0 = "TMQ_ATL", "TMQ_PAC"

Of course you will need to re-run the simulation in order to output those particular results. Otherwise you can simply use the 3-D vapor values (i.e. the variables with tag names that end in "V") to calculate the vertically integrated values post-model run.

Anyways, I hope that helps, and if you have any other questions or concerns please let me know.

Thanks, and have a great day!

Jesse

HI Jesse,

I want to got the Total grid-box cloud ice water path (TGCLDIWP) or cloud water path for different tags. I added the output variable in the same way:

fincl1="TGCLDIWP_NAO","TGCLDIWP_PAC"......

However, when I submit the simulation, it will report an error: FLDLST: TGCLDIWP_NAO in fincl( 1 ) not found.


I wonder if this variable can't be tagged?

Have a nice day and give my best wishes to you!

Xinhao

 

[nusbaume]

Hi Xinhao,

Those diagnostics weren't developed for water tracers because previously no one seemed to have an interest in those particular quantities. However, I have attempted a simple implementation of those variables in the attached source code file. If you include this file in your SourceMods/src.cam directory (without the ".txt" ending) and then add the respective TGCLDIWP_XXX variables to fincl1 then you should get the output you are looking for. Please let me know if this does (or does not) work for you, as that way I can add this diagnostic to the version on Github as well.

Thanks, and have a great day!

Jesse

 

[XinhaoSuo]

Hi Xinhao,

Those diagnostics weren't developed for water tracers because previously no one seemed to have an interest in those particular quantities. However, I have attempted a simple implementation of those variables in the attached source code file. If you include this file in your SourceMods/src.cam directory (without the ".txt" ending) and then add the respective TGCLDIWP_XXX variables to fincl1 then you should get the output you are looking for. Please let me know if this does (or does not) work for you, as that way I can add this diagnostic to the version on Github as well.

Thanks, and have a great day!

Jesse

Hi Jesse,

Thanks for your help, I added this file to the directory and ran the model again， and it worked very well. I checked the results of one month and successfully I get the variables which I needed. It really helpful for me.

Wish you have a nice day!
Best regards!

Xinhao

 

[XinhaoSuo]

Hi Xinhao,

Those diagnostics weren't developed for water tracers because previously no one seemed to have an interest in those particular quantities. However, I have attempted a simple implementation of those variables in the attached source code file. If you include this file in your SourceMods/src.cam directory (without the ".txt" ending) and then add the respective TGCLDIWP_XXX variables to fincl1 then you should get the output you are looking for. Please let me know if this does (or does not) work for you, as that way I can add this diagnostic to the version on Github as well.

Thanks, and have a great day!

Jesse

Hi Jesse,

After I added the new file in my SourceMods/src.cam directory and simluted for 30 years. I found there was something wrong with the result.

I marked the North Pacific Ocean as NPAC, and I found that in some grids the value of TGCLDLWP_NPAC was higher than the TGCLDLWP (The totoal value of LWP). I think the total value should be highter than any of the components, so I think something went wrong.

I'm sorry I'm not good at code, but I try to compare the original file " cloud_fraction.F90" and "water_tracers.F90". I think the problem may be in line 366：

liq_ratio = wtrc_ratio(iwspec(m), state%q(i,k,wtrc_iatype(m,iwtliq)), state%q(i,k,wtrc_iatype(1,iwtliq)))


which probably be changed to
liq_ratio = wtrc_ratio(iwspec(wtrc_iatype(m,iwtliq)), state%q(i,k,wtrc_iatype(m,iwtliq)), state%q(i,k,wtrc_iatype(1,iwtliq)))


But that's just my guess. I'm not sure that's the problem.Looking forward to your reply!

Wish you have a nice day!

Best regards!

Xinhao

 

[nusbaume]

Hi Xinhao,

Whoops, that is definitely a bug, and it would probably help to implement the change you recommended in both the liq_ratio and ice_ratio code as well, as that is the correct fix.

Sadly I am not sure if that will solve the issue with the NPAC tracer being larger than the bulk water values. Are other NPAC variables larger than the bulk water equivalents (for example, is TMQ_NPAC larger than TMQ), or is it just the TGCLDIWP_NPAC variable? Also if you have a plot to share that shows where the NPAC variable is larger than the regular variable that would be helpful too. Otherwise I don't see anything obvious, but there could certainly be a bug or algorithmic issue somewhere.

Thanks!

Jesse

 

[XinhaoSuo]

Hi Jesse,

Thank you for your reply!

As you say, after I modified the code, the result was still problematic. The sum of TGCLDLWP_XXX from ocean is larger than TGCLDLWP in some grids, but TMQ doesn't have that problem.

I calculate the TGCLDLWP in 2000, and there are two comparison pictures. It is obvious that value of TGCLDLWP_Ocean is significantly larger than TGCLDLWP.


And the way I calculated it is:

data_ocean =data.TGCLDLWP_NPAC+ data.TGCLDLWP_BOB +data.TGCLDLWP_XXX+...


Wish you have a nice day!

Best regards!

Xinhao