To ensure wet deposition --or at least the chance for it-- would be realistically modeled, we investigated different physics settings of WRF. Here are a couple notes about our findings:


(1) Be careful how you plot WRF precipitation. It is accumulated precipitation, written every hour (as currently used, "history_interval" in namelist.input = 60 minutes). Some models will accumulate precip. in "buckets" with the bucket being emptied out every {interval of history write}. WRF is not like that, it has an accumulated precip. bucket that grows with time. WRF accumulated precipitation for any particular time = the accumulated precipitation from the start of the run to that particular time. 

(2) There is a higher agreement between NARR precipitation and WRF precipitation when using the Kain-Fritsch cumulus parameterization (cu_physics = 1 in namelist.input). This is not the same cu. param. that Claus and Caitlin used (Grell, cu_physics = 5).


(3) The sensitivity to land surface model is very small, so continuing to use the Pleim-Xu LSM (sf_sfclay_physics = 7 in namelist.input), as Claus and Caitlin had used, is fine. 


(4) Changing the cumulus parameterization has very little influence on nudged temperatures because they are nudged. Changing the cu. param. is just for precipitation's sake.