Re: Integration over the vertical levels:

From: Dennis Shea <shea_at_nyahnyahspammersnyahnyah>
Date: Thu Dec 27 2012 - 09:16:27 MST

Hi Thejna

Just looking at the numbers, I would say that the 'vavg=-296.803'
looks about right. [The 52.5N, 13E is approximately for Berlin.]

The 'dp' are layer thicknesses in pressure. They 'dp' look like they
are in Pa. The look reasonable. The 'dp' are weights for
each pressure level. The formula is:

     x_wgt_avg = SUM[ x(p)*wgt(p) ]/ SUM[ wgt(p) ]

---
I am not sure how the 'ncwa' operator was used. Clearly, the -146
is wrong if it is for the same location. Perhaps, you should
send a help request to
   http://sourceforge.net/projects/nco/forums/forum/9830
Note: ncl-talk does not respond to usage or help regarding the NCO.
Good Luck
On 12/27/12 7:25 AM, Thejna Tharammal wrote:
>   Thank you. I tried the steps and the results are as below:
> ;=============================================================
> Variable: dp
> Type: float
> Total Size: 479232 bytes
>   119808 values
> Number of Dimensions: 3
> Dimensions and sizes:	[26] x [48] x [96]
> Coordinates:
>
>
> Variable: vavg
> Type: float
> Total Size: 18432 bytes
>   4608 values
> Number of Dimensions: 2
> Dimensions and sizes:	[lat | 48] x [lon | 96]
> Coordinates:
>   lat: [-87.15909455586285..87.15909455586285]
>   lon: [ 0..356.25]
> Number Of Attributes: 3
>   units :	Permil
>   long_name :	Weighted Vertical Average: ~F33~d~F26~D in vapor
>   _FillValue :	-9999
> (0)	vavg: min=-476.326 max=-260.598
> (0)	---
> (0)	x=-269.741 dp=270.114 xdp=-72860.8
> (1)	x=-299.394 dp=498.721 xdp=-149314
> (2)	x=-349.433 dp=816.959 xdp=-285473
> (3)	x=-414.574 dp=1178.52 xdp=-488584
> (4)	x=-478.909 dp=1478.61 xdp=-708119
> (5)	x=-527.338 dp=1698.25 xdp=-895554
> (6)	x=-557.539 dp=1690.66 xdp=-942606
> (7)	x=-571.784 dp=1372.02 xdp=-784498
> (8)	x=-577.103 dp=1614.11 xdp=-931507
> (9)	x=-572.299 dp=1898.91 xdp=-1.08675e+06
> (10)	x=-538.315 dp=2233.97 xdp=-1.20258e+06
> (11)	x=-500.48 dp=2628.16 xdp=-1.31534e+06
> (12)	x=-484.412 dp=3091.88 xdp=-1.49775e+06
> (13)	x=-470.985 dp=3637.45 xdp=-1.71318e+06
> (14)	x=-432.153 dp=4279.27 xdp=-1.8493e+06
> (15)	x=-372.448 dp=5034.33 xdp=-1.87503e+06
> (16)	x=-325.192 dp=5922.63 xdp=-1.92599e+06
> (17)	x=-283.061 dp=6967.67 xdp=-1.97228e+06
> (18)	x=-251.629 dp=8197.11 xdp=-2.06263e+06
> (19)	x=-223.193 dp=9643.47 xdp=-2.15236e+06
> (20)	x=-193.715 dp=9425.81 xdp=-1.82592e+06
> (21)	x=-167.191 dp=8580.53 xdp=-1.43459e+06
> (22)	x=-143.797 dp=7158.41 xdp=-1.02936e+06
> (23)	x=-125.373 dp=5219.05 xdp=-654326
> (24)	x=-115.379 dp=2883.48 xdp=-332693
> (25)	x=-111.104 dp=1475.61 xdp=-163946
> (0)	---
> (0)	LAT=52.5 LON=13 vavg=-296.803
> (0)	---
> ;=============================================================
>
> I am not sure how to interpret the dp values, could you please explain if
> they are in the acceptable range?
> For the same coordinates, I get lower (~ -146) using ncwa vertical
> integration.
> Thanks,
> Thejna
>
> ----------------original message-----------------
> From: "Dennis Shea" shea@ucar.edu
> To: "Thejna Tharammal" ttharammal@marum.de
> CC: ncl-talk@ucar.edu
> Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2012 21:54:56 -0700
> -------------------------------------------------
>
>
>> Why not debug at one grid point?
>>
>>
>> http://www.ncl.ucar.edu/Document/Functions/Built-in/dpres_hybrid_ccm
>> .shtml
>>
>> Example 3 ... modified here
>>
>> ---
>>
>> load "$NCARG_ROOT/lib/ncarg/nclscripts/csm/contributed.ncl"
>>
>> ....
>>
>> dp = dpres_hybrid_ccm (ps,p0,hyai,hybi) ; Pa
>> xdp = x*dp ; (temporary variable)
>> copy_VarCoords(x, xdp)
>>
>> vint = dim_sum_n( xdp, 1)
>> dpsum= dim_sum_n( dp, 1)
>> vavg = vint/dpsum ; weight average
>>
>> copy_VarCoords(ps, vavg) ; add variable meta data
>> vavg@long_name = "Weighted Vertical Average: "+x@long_name
>> vavg@units = x@units
>> printVarSummary(vavg)
>> print("vavg: min="+min(vavg)+" max="+max(vavg))
>>
>> LAT = 52.5 ; arbitrary grid point
>> LON = 13.0
>>
>> nt = 0
>> print("---")
>> copy_VarCoords(x, dp)
>> print("x="+x(nt,:,{LAT},{LON}) +" dp="+ dp(nt,:,{LAT},{LON}) +"
>> xdp="+xdp(nt,:,{LAT},{LON}))
>> print("---")
>> print("LAT="+LAT+" LON="+LON+" vavg="+vavg(nt,{LAT},{LON}))
>> print("---")
>>
>> delete( [/dp, xdp, ps, vint, dpsum/] ) ; delete temporary variables
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/26/12 8:12 PM, Thejna Tharammal wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I want to calculate the total column mean of a variable from the CCSM
> model
>>> results. I tried to use dim_sum_n for the purpose as,
>>>
>>> ;**************************************
>>>
>>>
>>> dp = dpres_hybrid_ccm (ps,p0,hyai,hybi)
>>>
>>> xdp=x(0,:,:,:)*dp
>>>
>>> vint=x(0,0,:,:)
>>>
>>> vint = dim_sum_n(xdp,0)
>>>
>>> ; for average, 1/(b-a) * integral ( from a to b ) of f(x)
>>>
>>> vintAvg=vint
>>>
>>> vintAvg =vint/dim_sum_n(dp, 0)
>>>
>>> ;**************************************
>>>
>>> I find that the results obtained are very different from the ones
> calculated
>>> using nco vertical integration functions ("ncwa -a lev") as a test. So I
>>> wonder if the
>>> method I used is correct?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Thejna
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ncl-talk mailing list
>>> List instructions, subscriber options, unsubscribe:
>>> http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/ncl-talk
>>>
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
ncl-talk mailing list
List instructions, subscriber options, unsubscribe:
http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/ncl-talk
Received on Thu Dec 27 09:16:45 2012

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jan 04 2013 - 15:32:29 MST