Re: the script and data you sent offline:
The following are both *rectilinear* grids:
GEOS5.1_19x2_20050101.nc
IPCC_emissions_RCP45_SO2_anthropogenic_2005_0.5x0.5_v1_21_12_2009.nc
--- netcdf GEOS5.1_19x2_20050101 { dimensions: lat = 96 ; lon = 144 ; lev = 72 ; time = UNLIMITED ; // (4 currently) ilev = 73 ; variables: float lat(lat) ; lat:units = "degrees_north" ; lat:long_name = "latitude" ; float lon(lon) ; lon:units = "degrees_east" ; lon:long_name = "longitude" ; [SNIP] --- netcdf IPCC_emissions_RCP45_SO2_anthropogenic_2005_0.5x0.5_v1_21_12_2009 { dimensions: lat = 360 ; lon = 720 ; time = UNLIMITED ; // (12 currently) variables: float lat(lat) ; lat:long_name = "Latitude" ; lat:units = "degrees_north " ; lat:comment = "center of cell" ; float lon(lon) ; lon:long_name = "Longitude" ; lon:units = "degrees_east" ; lon:comment = "center of cell" ; [SNIP] ---- Not a big deal but having the WRF letters implies the WRF model Opt@WgtFileName = "rec_to_WRF.nc" Since you want rectilinear to rectilinear, I'd suggest Opt@WgtFileName = "rec360x720_to_rec96x144.nc" -- Neither grid is a "Regional CONUS Lambert Confrontal Projection" (36kmx36km)" or, more likely, "Regional CONUS Lambert Conformal Projection" (36kmx36km)" Why is map projection mentioned in the email? ==== As to your original question "..it turns out the regridding data are still not consistent with the original ones. There will be 5%-15% less compared with original dataset, depending on the species." The code you sent uses 'bilinear' not 'conserve' regrid Bilinear performs a weighted average of the four closest points. Hence the interpolated values are lower than the original grid (0) ======== (0) AreaAvg_var =1.69607e-12 kg m-2 s-1 (0) AreaAvg_var_regrid=1.48177e-12 kg m-2 s-1 (0) ======== (0) ratio: bilinear : (AreaAvg_var_regrid/AreaAvg_var)=0.873647 0) ======== (0) AreaAvg_var =1.69607e-12 kg m-2 s-1 (0) AreaAvg_var_regrid=1.69259e-12 kg m-2 s-1 (0) ======== (0) ratio: conserve : (AreaAvg_var_regrid/AreaAvg_var)=0.997951 Attached code On 6/17/13 12:42 PM, Yuqiang Zhang wrote: > Hi Everyone > > > > I am intending to use the "ESMF_regrid" function to regrid my "Global > Lon-Lat projection" of emission data (unit in kg/s or kg/m2/s) in 0.5x0.5 > degree to a "Regional CONUS Lambert Confrontal Projection" (36kmx36km). > After I read the sample scripts on the NCL website and I thought I could do > that. However, after regridding, my total emissions in the region are not > consistent with my original data at the same region. First I thought this > may be because the two regions are not exactly overlapped as one is in > lon-lat projection and another one is in LLC. Then I tried to use the > function to regrid this global emission to another coarse resolution global > (2x.2.5 degree) as I did before using function " > <http://www.ncl.ucar.edu/Document/Functions/Contributed/area_conserve_remap_ > Wrap.shtml> area_conserve_remap_Wrap ", it turns out the regridding data are > still not consistent with the original ones. There will be 5%-15% less > compared with original dataset, depending on the species. > > > > Can anyone tell me whether or not I can use this function to do that. If > possible, should I keep the unit of "kg/m2/s" or convert to "kg/s"? > > > > Regards, > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Yuqiang Zhang > > PhD student > > Environmental Science and Engineering Department > > Univerisyt of North Carolina at Chapel Hill > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jun 24 2013 - 11:46:47 MDT