Miles default domains to include lat=0 #1626
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
bouweandela
approved these changes
Apr 25, 2020
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks, looks good to me! @mattiarighi Could you please test and do scientific review?
mattiarighi
approved these changes
Apr 27, 2020
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is a minor maintenance PR extending the default NH domain used by all miles recipes (blocking regimes and eofs) to include also lat=0 (before it started at 2.5N).
For blocking this is essential for the computation of the "ExtraBlock" indices (based on constraint (A4) in Davini et al. 2012). Without lat=0 the code currently accesses an array at position 0 (not valid in R) but keeps running. Actually this has no significant impact on the scientific results of the recipes.
While the user should not change the domain specified in the preprocessor part of the recipe, I still added a check in the blocking calculation to avoid this possibility.