| 1 |
|
\begin{rawhtml}MITGCM_INSERT_FIGURE_BEGIN hs_zave_u\end{rawhtml} |
| 2 |
\begin{figure} |
\begin{figure} |
| 3 |
\begin{center} |
\begin{center} |
| 4 |
\resizebox{5.0in}{2.5in}{ |
\includegraphics*[width=.9\textwidth]{s_overview/figs/u_cube.ps} |
| 5 |
\rotatebox{90}{ |
\includegraphics*[width=.9\textwidth]{s_overview/figs/u_latlon.ps} |
|
\includegraphics*[1.2in,0.5in][7.2in,10in]{part1/u_cube.ps} |
|
|
} |
|
|
} |
|
|
%%% \caption{} |
|
|
%%% \label{fig:hs_zave_u} |
|
|
%%% \end{figure} |
|
|
%%% \begin{figure} |
|
|
\resizebox{5.0in}{2.5in}{ |
|
|
\rotatebox{90}{ |
|
|
\includegraphics*[1.2in,0.5in][7.2in,10in]{part1/u_latlon.ps} |
|
|
} |
|
|
} |
|
| 6 |
\end{center} |
\end{center} |
| 7 |
\caption{} |
\caption{ |
| 8 |
|
Five year mean, zonally averaged zonal flow for |
| 9 |
|
latitude-longitude simulation (bottom) and cube-sphere simulation(top) using |
| 10 |
|
Held-Suarez forcing. Note the difference in the solutions over the pole - |
| 11 |
|
the cubed sphere is superior. |
| 12 |
|
} |
| 13 |
\label{fig:hs_zave_u} |
\label{fig:hs_zave_u} |
| 14 |
\end{figure} |
\end{figure} |
| 15 |
|
\begin{rawhtml}MITGCM_INSERT_FIGURE_END \end{rawhtml} |
Parent Directory
| 
Revision Log
| 
Revision Graph
| 
Patch