MetUM mask

[amworr]

Overview

• Product name and version: Reanalysis-driven high-resolution MetUM evaluation runs
• Purpose of your product: Downscale ERA5 reanalysis
• Geographic region: Antarctica and Arctic
• Year(s) covered by product: 1979 to 2018, and 2000 to present

Upstream

• What upstream mask product did you use? Ice mask created from the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) data in combination with 1 km AVHRR data from the period of 1992 to 1993.

• Reason for using this mask: This is the default for the MetUM

• If you modified the upstream mask, for example, to define and split ‘main’ vs. ‘peripheral’, how and why? N/A

• Effort required by you if upstream product changed (to a community standard) Would need to also modify the orography fields used by the MetUM.

• If you used internal basins, which product and why? N/A

• If you subset to a geographical region (Greenland, Antarctica, sub-region, peripheral, individual glacier), how and why N/A

• Type: vector, raster

• Resolution if raster:

• Projection information: [Example: WKT string, proj4 string, EPSG code, or other]

• Year or years of input product(s):

[mankoff]

From follow-on conversation with @amworr:

Effort required by you if upstream product changed (to a community standard) Would need to also modify the orography fields used by the MetUM.

The most straightforward solution would be to use an up to date DEM and create an updated or 'new' resolved orography field/input file that is consistent with the common ice mask. This could then be combined with the default or 'old' sub-grid orography fields, to create a complete orography file that would be used to initiate the model. A more complex solution would be to recreate the sub-grid orography fields using the up to date DEM. The optimal solution would be to change the MetUM datasets so that by default it uses the dataset that is used for the common ice mask, as well as the accompanying orography dataset.