The idea is to start with archiving of the former EURO4M outputs in MARS the same way as UERRA data will be stored in the future.
Solution chosen:
- original data in GRIB1 (no common definitions of the parameters) for period 2008-2009
- 15 selected surface parameters only
List of parameters to be stored from EURO4M into MARS
@grib parameter description in the table: unit, parameter number/Id, table number (LTYPE), level
@Precipitation: We would like to have total, large-scale, and convective precipitation, rainfall, and snowfall available. In order to achieve that it is necessary to only store two of the total, large-scale, convective and precipitation, rainfall, snowfall combinations. Is this abundance of precipitation output of scientific value or is, e.g., total precipitation sufficient?
Variable Name | SMHI | Comments | Uni Bonn/HErZ | Comments | Météo France | Comments | UKMO | Comments | UERRA GRIB2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Geopotential | m^2/s^2 6 105 0 | m^2/s^2 | m^2/s^2 |
| gpm | geopotential height is provided | orog | ||
10m U,V wind components | m/s |
| m/s |
| m/s |
| m/s |
| |
1.5m / 2m temperature | K |
| K |
| K |
| K | 1.5m temperature over land | 2t |
1.5m / 2m Tx, Tn | K |
| K | Defined within a time interval | NA |
| K | Min, Max temperature at 1.5m since previous post-processing | |
Net shortwave radiation flux at the surface | J/m^2 | Net surface short-wave radiation (accumulated) | W/m^2 | Net short-wave radiation flux at surface (instantaneous) | NA |
| W/m^2 | Net short-wave radiation flux (surface) | ssr |
Downwelling (global) short-wave radiation | J/m^2 | Accumulated value | W/m^2 | Instantaneous value (sum of direct and diffuse radiation at surface) | J/m^2 | accumulated flux at the surface | J/m^2 | Short wave radiation flux at surface (accumulated) | ssrd |
Total cloud cover | fraction |
| % |
| NA |
| ?
| ??? | tcc |
Total precipitation | kg/m^2 | accumulated | kg/m^2 | Accumulated in forecasting interval | m |
| Kg /(m^2*day) | Total accumulated precip. | tp |
Total rainfall | NA |
| NA |
| NA |
| NA |
| |
Total snowfall | Kg/m^2 | accumulated | NA |
| NA |
| NA |
| sf |
Convective precipitation | ??? |
| NA |
| NA |
| kg / m^2 | Convective precip (water) | cp |
Convective rainfall | NA |
| kg/m^2 | Accumulated in forecasting interval | NA |
| NA |
| |
Convective snowfall | ??? |
| kg/m^2 | Accumulated in forecasting interval | NA |
| m of water |
| |
Large-scale precipitation | ??? |
| NA |
| NA |
| NA |
| lsp |
Large-scale rainfall | NA |
| kg/m^2 | Accumulated in forecasting interval | NA |
| NA |
| |
Large-scale snowfall | ??? |
| Kg/m^2 | Accumulated in forecasting interval | NA |
| NA |
| |
Snow depth | m |
| m |
| m | not available for EURO4M | NA |
| sd |
| Surface long-wave radiation (downwards) | J/m^2 175 128 0 | strd | |||||||
| 2m relative humidity | % 157 128 2 | q/r |
6 Comments
Peter Jermey
I don't think splitting precipitation into subtypes is that scientifically useful as it is model dependent.
Anonymous
So, are you saying that total precipitation would be sufficient to start with?
Peter Jermey
Yes I think so!
Peter Jermey
Others might object though
Michael Borsche
Hi Peter, I hope I'm correctly logged in now and my Name (Michael) is shown.
Thanks for commenting. I've initially put it into the table because I thought that convective precipitation, and maybe also snowfall, would be important output of the regional reanalyses which are worth evaluating.
Unknown User (sm0c)
Hi,
if you want to fill in the blanks regarding our SMHI dataset, look here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1klKBqQ9F6u7h8bl79MW8nAv3tuGeXFvj8El9KHBdgp0/edit?usp=sharing
Let me know if you need edit rights.
/Sébastien