| 1 |
|
\begin{rawhtml}MITGCM_INSERT_FIGURE_BEGIN hs_zave_u\end{rawhtml} |
| 2 |
\begin{figure} |
\begin{figure} |
| 3 |
\begin{center} |
\begin{center} |
| 4 |
\includegraphics*[width=.9\textwidth]{part1/u_cube.ps} |
\includegraphics*[width=.9\textwidth]{part1/u_cube.ps} |
| 5 |
\includegraphics*[width=.9\textwidth]{part1/u_latlon.ps} |
\includegraphics*[width=.9\textwidth]{part1/u_latlon.ps} |
| 6 |
\end{center} |
\end{center} |
| 7 |
\caption{Five year mean, zonally averaged zonal flow for latitude-longitude |
\caption{ |
| 8 |
simulation (left) and cube-sphere simulation (right) using Held-Suarez |
Five year mean, zonally averaged zonal flow for |
| 9 |
forcing. Both solutions compare favorably with reference solutions.} |
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