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
Data are currently exchanged between the OM and ISM on a 2d grid/mesh in 2d space. In reality the exchange occurs on a surface (well, leaving aside "mushy" layers...) in 3D space. ESMF is capable of allowing us to use 2D grids/meshes in 3D space, but using this would increase complexity of the regridding operations.
The vertical coords of the grid would need to be updated during the run.
The regridRouteHandle (an ESMF object currently created only during initialisation) would also need to be updated during the run.
How bad is the current simplification? Is it good enough that we don't need to implement the third dimension?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Data are currently exchanged between the OM and ISM on a 2d grid/mesh in 2d space. In reality the exchange occurs on a surface (well, leaving aside "mushy" layers...) in 3D space. ESMF is capable of allowing us to use 2D grids/meshes in 3D space, but using this would increase complexity of the regridding operations.
The vertical coords of the grid would need to be updated during the run.
The regridRouteHandle (an ESMF object currently created only during initialisation) would also need to be updated during the run.
How bad is the current simplification? Is it good enough that we don't need to implement the third dimension?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: