Re: wrf dimension changing

You response shed no light on the issue>

[1] If you used the same 'everything',
     why are they different? *You* should explain that.

[2] The files contain different spatial areas. PLEASE
     look at the end of the appended email.

===================wrf.11102100.
>> float g0_lat_1 ( g0_lat_1 )
>> long_name : latitude
>> GridType : Cylindrical Equidistant Projection Grid
>> units : degrees_north
>> Dj : 0.3333333
>> Di : 0.3333333
>> Lo2 : 65
>> La2 : 59
>> Lo1 : -18
>> La1 : 9
>>

>> wrf.11102112
>> float g0_lat_1 ( g0_lat_1 )
>> long_name : latitude
>> GridType : Cylindrical Equidistant Projection Grid
>> units : degrees_north
>> Dj : 0.333
>> Di : 0.3336231
>> Lo2 : 70
>> La2 : 55.922
>> Lo1 : -16.742
>> La1 : -3.352

[3] I don't think this is an NCL problem.

On 10/27/2011 02:05 PM, ahmed lasheen wrote:
> both files are produced of the same WRF-NMM configureation and with
> the same type of ICBC data model( GFS)
> and i used the same wgrib command to cut them .
> so what this difference means ?
>
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Dennis Shea<shea@ucar.edu> wrote:
>> %> ncl_filedump wrf.11102100.grb> dump.wrf.11102100
>> %> ncl_filedump wrf.11102112.grb> dump.wrf.11102112
>>
>> The files are different sizes:
>> 13295 Oct 27 07:32 dump.wrf.11102100
>> 10171 Oct 27 07:32 dump.wrf.11102112
>>
>> The files you sent do not contain the same variables
>> nor similarly sized forecast_time{0,4,5}.
>>
>> Further, the grids look different.
>>
>>
>>
>> %> diff dump.wrf.11102100 dump.wrf.11102112 | less
>>
>> 9,10c9,10
>> < filename: wrf.11102100
>> < path: wrf.11102100
>> ---
>>> filename: wrf.11102112
>>> path: wrf.11102112
>> 13,24c13,20
>> < forecast_time0 = 4
>> < g0_lat_1 = 151
>> < g0_lon_2 = 250
>> < lv_ISBL3 = 39
>> < forecast_time4 = 34
>> < g0_lat_5 = 179
>> < g0_lon_6 = 261
>> < lv_ISBL7 = 25
>> < lv_HYBL8 = 2
>> < forecast_time9 = 22
>> < g0_lat_10 = 179
>> < g0_lon_11 = 277
>> ---
>>> forecast_time0 = 34
>>> g0_lat_1 = 179
>>> g0_lon_2 = 261
>>> lv_ISBL3 = 25
>>> lv_HYBL4 = 2
>>> forecast_time5 = 23
>>> g0_lat_6 = 179
>>> g0_lon_7 = 277
>> [snip]
>>
>> wrf.11102100
>> float g0_lat_1 ( g0_lat_1 )
>> long_name : latitude
>> GridType : Cylindrical Equidistant Projection Grid
>> units : degrees_north
>> Dj : 0.3333333
>> Di : 0.3333333
>> Lo2 : 65
>> La2 : 59
>> Lo1 : -18
>> La1 : 9
>>
>> float g0_lon_2 ( g0_lon_2 )
>> long_name : longitude
>> GridType : Cylindrical Equidistant Projection Grid
>> units : degrees_east
>> Dj : 0.3333333
>> Di : 0.3333333
>> Lo2 : 65
>> La2 : 59
>> Lo1 : -18
>> La1 : 9
>>
>>
>>
>> wrf.11102112
>> float g0_lat_1 ( g0_lat_1 )
>> long_name : latitude
>> GridType : Cylindrical Equidistant Projection Grid
>> units : degrees_north
>> Dj : 0.333
>> Di : 0.3336231
>> Lo2 : 70
>> La2 : 55.922
>> Lo1 : -16.742
>> La1 : -3.352
>>
>> float g0_lon_2 ( g0_lon_2 )
>> long_name : longitude
>> GridType : Cylindrical Equidistant Projection Grid
>> units : degrees_east
>> Dj : 0.333
>> Di : 0.3336231
>> Lo2 : 70
>> La2 : 55.922
>> Lo1 : -16.742
>> La1 : -3.352
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/27/11 2:35 AM, ahmed lasheen wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello
>>> the output of the WRF is quit large to upload so i have cut only two
>>> variable from the file (geopotential height and u wind component)
>>> but the size still quit large 250MB ,their name are
>>> wrf.11102100 and wrf.11102112
>>> i found from the ncl_fildump that one of them has more dimension than
>>> the other although they use GFS data
>>> the difference only is in the time 00 and 12 .
>>> is it a problem of how NCL read the grib or it is a problem related to
>>> the wrf itself .
>>> thanks
>>>
>>>> Would you be able to provide us with a sample file? You can put it on our
>>>> anonymous ftp. Please see:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ncl.ucar.edu/report_bug.shtml
>>>>
>>>> for ftp instructions.
>>>>
>>>> I noticed from your attached output files that you are getting a warning:
>>>>
>>>> warning:NclGRIB: Unknown grib parameter number detected (130, center
>>>> 11, table version 2 grib record 172), using default variable name (VAR_130)
>>>>
>>>> These warnings should be paid attention to, because they could signify
>>>> that NCL doesn't fully recognize the file.
>>>>
>>>> If we can get a sample file, we might be able to fix this problem soon.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> --Mary
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 23, 2011, at 1:36 PM, ahmed lasheen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello
>>>>> i have problem in which the ncl_fildump of the WRF-NMM change from 00
>>>>> to 12 forcast cycles ,i donot know why , both run are identical in all
>>>>> things
>>>>> so what makes such changes , i am using the GFS data for intial and
>>>>> boundary condition for the WRF model.
>>>>> i have attached the output of ncl_filddump of both files.
>>>>> for example for 00 cycle
>>>>> forecast_time0 = 4
>>>>> g0_lat_1 = 151
>>>>> g0_lon_2 = 250
>>>>> lv_ISBL3 = 39
>>>>> forecast_time4 = 34
>>>>> g0_lat_5 = 179
>>>>> g0_lon_6 = 261
>>>>> lv_ISBL7 = 25
>>>>> lv_HYBL8 = 2
>>>>> forecast_time9 = 22
>>>>> g0_lat_10 = 179
>>>>> g0_lon_11 = 277
>>>>> lv_SPDY12 = 2
>>>>> forecast_time13 = 33
>>>>> forecast_time14 = 17
>>>>> forecast_time15 = 16
>>>>> forecast_time16 = 11
>>>>> forecast_time17 = 11
>>>>> and for the 12
>>>>> forecast_time0 = 34
>>>>> g0_lat_1 = 179
>>>>> g0_lon_2 = 261
>>>>> lv_ISBL3 = 25
>>>>> lv_HYBL4 = 2
>>>>> forecast_time5 = 23
>>>>> g0_lat_6 = 179
>>>>> g0_lon_7 = 277
>>>>> forecast_time8 = 33
>>>>> forecast_time9 = 17
>>>>> forecast_time10 = 16
>>>>> forecast_time11 = 11
>>>>> forecast_time12 = 12
>>>>>
>>>>> i don't know why this is occurring ?and how to get ride of these
>>>>> changes if i wanna to write script for operational work
>>>>> ahmed
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> ===============
>>>>> Ahmed Lasheen
>>>>> Junior researcher at Cairo Numerical Weather Prediction Center (CNWPC)
>>>>> Egyptian Meteorological Authority(EMA)
>>>>> Cairo,Egypt
>>>>> ===============
>>>>> <2112><2100>_______________________________________________
>>>>> ncl-talk mailing list
>>>>> List instructions, subscriber options, unsubscribe:
>>>>> http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/ncl-talk
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>

-- 
======================================================
Dennis J. Shea                  tel: 303-497-1361    |
P.O. Box 3000                   fax: 303-497-1333    |
Climate Analysis Section                             |
Climate & Global Dynamics Div.                       |
National Center for Atmospheric Research             |
Boulder, CO  80307                                   |
USA                        email: shea 'at' ucar.edu |
======================================================
_______________________________________________
ncl-talk mailing list
List instructions, subscriber options, unsubscribe:
http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/ncl-talk