Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

New ERA5 Vtable #265

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

JoshLovesFun
Copy link

I have made a new ERA5 Vtable using the Vtable.ECMWF as a template. I have not made any changes that should make this Vtable.ERA5 function differently from the current Vtable.ECMWF. I have just made some clarifications and added some comments.

This Vtable.ERA5 is needed, because it will diverge from the Vtable.ECMWF when the Vtable.ECMWF is updated based on the new changes to ECMWF: #264
I have tested it, and it worked successfully. Attached are my Ungrib logs.
ungrib_pres.log
ungrib_sfc.log

@@ -21,6 +21,8 @@ Vtable.ECMWF_sigma ECMWF sigma-level output
Vtable.ERA-interim.ml ERA interim model level
Vtable.ERA-interim.pl ERA interim pressure level output

Vtable.ERA5 ERA5 single level and pressure level data from the Climate Data Store
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@JoshLovesFun Do you mean 'sigma' level?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@weiwangncar In this case, it is actually pressure levels. Because the specific dataset that this Vtable is targeting is the ERA5 data in the climate data store that has already been regridded to pressure levels from the native hybrid-sigma levels. So thinking about it more, this Vtable should be called "Vtable.ERA5.pl".

If I work with the native ERA5 model data in the future, I could make a "Vtable.ERA5.native"

I think the native ERA5 data is a bit more difficult to download and use, but I haven't tried it. I think most user's would get the pressure level data.

@HathewayWill
Copy link

I was able to use the existing ECMWF table with the new changes and it worked for me, not sure why it happened though @JoshLovesFun

@JoshLovesFun
Copy link
Author

I was able to use the existing ECMWF table with the new changes and it worked for me, not sure why it happened though @JoshLovesFun

Both this table and the existing table should effectively be identical for ERA5 data. I would think neither table would work as we want it to work for the new ECMWF version though.

@HathewayWill
Copy link

I was able to use the existing ECMWF table with the new changes and it worked for me, not sure why it happened though @JoshLovesFun

Both this table and the existing table should effectively be identical for ERA5 data. I would think neither table would work as we want it to work for the new ECMWF version though.

that makes more sense thank you for clarifying

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants