You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
CABLE takes the assumption the met. forcing defines the grid and the land-sea mask. This means the simulation runs exactly on the grid of the met. forcing and this forcing needs no interpolation/filling etc. operation.
JULES takes a different approach where the land-sea mask comes from a separate file or the land cover.
Which approach do we want to adopt? It seems avoiding regridding the met forcing before simulation is better but we need to decide.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I agree it will be better to avoid regridding met-forcing and adapting new ancils to match. We can use tools such as ants.analysis.make_consistent_with_lsm() to a) remove land data outside met forcing region, b) fill missing land points (ants.analysis.FillMissingPoints) using a "spiral-search" nearest neighbour approach.
CABLE takes the assumption the met. forcing defines the grid and the land-sea mask. This means the simulation runs exactly on the grid of the met. forcing and this forcing needs no interpolation/filling etc. operation.
JULES takes a different approach where the land-sea mask comes from a separate file or the land cover.
Which approach do we want to adopt? It seems avoiding regridding the met forcing before simulation is better but we need to decide.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: