Push notifications in your browser are not yet configured.
You are not logged in, you may not see all content and functionalities. If you have an account, please login .
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments.
Now I read the paper you mentioned (Brisson et al., 2015), and it is really helpful for me to understand better configuration of both CPCS and CCLM .
(1) Although Brisson’s study shows redundant of intermediate step, we are willing to consider triple-nesting not only for CPCS , but for analyze CCLM 12.5km with other type of RCM s’ 12.5km results over Korea region.
(2) Since I do not know about itype_gscp options well, graupel parameterization is the most impressive one for me. However, contrary to Brisson’s dry-bias over Belgian region in CCLM 25km, we find little wet-bias over Korea region in our CCLM 25km run ( BGF : ERA - INTERIM ), so I want to do sensitivity test (short-period, less than 1 year) for itype_gscp (3 or 4) and their impacts over Korea region.
(3) As Brisson recommends, we will apply lateral boundary fields wider than our initial setting.
(4) I appreciate your kindness providing simulation information. We will reflect your set-ups carefully for our simulation. And also, as you pointed, we will carefully set the ‘dt’ to escape CFL violations.
Best regards,
Donghyun