You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I just learned that some models for CMIP6 include the 'halo' cells (to e.g. accomodate the periodic boundary condition along the x axis) in the output, potentially causing issues with analysis and e.g. remapping to different coordinates.
If there is a quick automatic way to identify which cells (e.g. which end and how much) to trim, this would be a good thing to include in xMIP IMO.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I did some more digging here. I concluded from this that we really only need to remove two latitude/y columns at each side, IF they are all nans. But doing that naively might lead to trouble with e.g. datasets that have x and y swapped (#311).
Leaving this to simmer a bit, but if somebody needs a fix for now it could look like this:
For both dimensions (x/y) Check if both ends have an all nan column, but not more than one row! This is to avoid clipping the y/latitude dimension, which most of the time has a bunch of nan rows over antarctica.
Still might need some more research on this, particularly with other output (e.g. land, atmos).
I just learned that some models for CMIP6 include the 'halo' cells (to e.g. accomodate the periodic boundary condition along the x axis) in the output, potentially causing issues with analysis and e.g. remapping to different coordinates.
If there is a quick automatic way to identify which cells (e.g. which end and how much) to trim, this would be a good thing to include in xMIP IMO.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: