Juerg,
John is correct. WRF would like to move towards CF once the staggered-grid
issues are resolved. Resources permitting, of course.
Tom
John Caron wrote:
> Schmidli Juerg wrote:
>
>> Hi John,
>>
>> I read the "WRF staggered grids and vertical coordinates" thread on
>> CF-metadata
>> (End 2003/Beginning 2004) with great interest, as I would also like to
>> adopt
>> the CF-conventions for the output from our nonhydrostatic model.
>>
>> Do you know, what the current status of the affair is? How are the
>> staggered
>> grids treated in WRF? Have the WRF developers adopted the CF-conventions?
>>
>> Thanks for your help.
>>
>> Juerg
>>
>
> As I understand it, V. Balaji from Princeton / GFDL is proposing
> something for staggered grids that the CF folks like. However, Im not
> sure what the status is, so im posting to the CF mailllist; you might
> want to join and dialog there yourself. Go to the home page to join etc:
>
> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cms/eaton/cf-metadata/
>
> I think the WRF folks would like to adopt CF when the staggered grids
> are solved. Im cc'ing to Tom Henderson (WRF) because Im not sure if hes
> on CF or not, and he can perhaps clarify.
>
>
>
Received on Fri Nov 18 2005 - 14:40:17 GMT
