Timeline for WRF output grid is smaller than input definition
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 6, 2015 at 23:56 | comment | added | milancurcic | I can confirm this answer is correct. | |
| May 6, 2015 at 23:05 | comment | added | casey | @farrenthorpe Thanks. I had to think for a minute as the model I use (CM1) does it the other way around where you specify nx and ny for the scalar/mass points and it uses nx+1, ny+1 for the u,v grids. | |
| May 6, 2015 at 21:39 | comment | added | piyushnz | yes, I believe you are right. Reading the documentation again, I see it says that the e_we and e_sn values do in fact refer to an unstaggered grid. The terminology for the centered coordinates is the mass grid. I think I am doing the right thing with my nested domains, but I might have to rethink how to set up my grids to align with a validation point (originally I was going to centre the grid on such a point, but the mass grid then is not aligned...) | |
| May 6, 2015 at 21:36 | vote | accept | piyushnz | ||
| May 6, 2015 at 21:25 | comment | added | f.thorpe♦ | Exactly Right! If his start value had been 0 (instead of 1) then the end value would be 24. It is an inclusive extent range. | |
| May 6, 2015 at 20:53 | history | answered | casey | CC BY-SA 3.0 |