Hi wei, thanks for the help.
I don’t understand why same code yields different results for var_f (in my case)
under ncl-6.1.0 and 6.2.0?
As commented in the code, using 6.1.0, the var_f prints my desired one, which is -99,
but in 6.2.0, var_f will print -9900.
Hi Wei:
Thanks for your response.
I put an example online https://github.com/slashgithub/test_2btau,
which contains data and test script, please download and check it.
---
Regards
Cheung
At 2014-04-29 00:53:57,"Wei Huang" <huangwei@ucar.edu> wrote:
Cheung,Can you point us a data you are using, so we can take a look?Thanks,WeiOn Apr 23, 2014, at 6:23 AM, Cheung <zuibeidemei@126.com> wrote:Dear all:
I just came across a different result when I use ncl-6.2.0 processing the HDF-eos file from CloudSat, before I was using 6.1.0.
This particular variable is layer_optical_depth from 2b-tau as documented http://www.cloudsat.cira.colostate.edu/dataSpecs.php?prodid=2.
I used to use:
var = short2flt(eos_file->layer_optical_depth_2B_TAU)/100 to retreive the "actual" value in float from this file due to a factor of 100.
However, in this new version, I found I need to "xxxxx/10000" to retreive the "actual" value in float.
I'm not sure what happen during this process, any comment is appreciated.
Regards
Cheung
_______________________________________________
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 Tue Apr 29 08:03:40 2014
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Apr 29 2014 - 09:04:20 MDT