[MITgcm-support] 转发: The obvious difference between ERA5 and NCEP-R1 forcing

[Matthew Mazloff]

Hi Mike

It is possible it could give worse results, but very unlikely. However its too hard for me to diagnose what is going on. There are many variables to your problem.

For ERA5 I have this in my data.exf:
 &EXF_NML_03
 exf_offset_atemp   = 273.15,
 exf_inscal_swdown  = -1.0,
 exf_inscal_lwdown  = -1.0,

Not sure how to help you, 
Matt



> On Mar 15, 2020, at 5:41 AM, Leming Van <ifanliming at outlook.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi, everyone
> 
> Recently I tried to change forcing dataset from NCEP-R1(6-hourly) to ERA5(hourly), but the results of them look so different. I compared the results of NCEP-R1 with the reanalysis data of HYCOM, and these two data look similar. 
> 
> Did I pick the wrong variables from ERA5? Or does this mean that higher temporal and spatial resolution atmospheric forcing ERA5 results in worse simulation results than lower resolution NCEP-R1?
> 
> I put the results at here, https://1drv.ms/u/s!AoS5GLJhmvDtjB5Ovnz63FidKeMo?e=c2hS7z <https://1drv.ms/u/s!AoS5GLJhmvDtjB5Ovnz63FidKeMo?e=c2hS7z>
> Suggestions are welcome.
> 
> 
> -Mike
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-support mailing list
> MITgcm-support at mitgcm.org <mailto:MITgcm-support at mitgcm.org>
> http://mailman.mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-support <http://mailman.mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-support>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.mitgcm.org/pipermail/mitgcm-support/attachments/20200315/ab93e1b5/attachment.html>