It turns out to be a pretty significant difference.....try



image(lon,lat,mcsst)


image(lonr,latr,mcsst, add = T)







On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Barry Rowlingson <
b.rowlingson@lancaster.ac.uk> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Matt Oliver<moliver@udel.edu> wrote:
> > I tried to polygon.....you are right...too  slow
> >
> > I'm not sure how to resample to get a regular grid...using interp or
> interpp
> > would not be wise because of the size of the grid...
>
>  A quick bodge would be to ignore the slight change in lat long
> spacing and create some new lat-long coords that are regularly spaced:
>
>  > lonr=seq(min(lon),max(lon),len=length(lon))
>  > latr=seq(min(lat),max(lat),len=length(lat))
>
>  can you tell the difference between:
>
>  > image(lonr,latr,mcsst)
>
> and:
>
>  > image(lon,lat,mcsst)
>
> ?
>
> I'm sure the difference in longitude isn't worth worrying about:
>
>  > range(diff(lon))
>  [1] 0.01184845 0.01185608
>
>  but the lat difference is possibly significant:
>
>  > range(diff(lat))
>  [1] 0.008270264 0.009750366
>
> I'll see if I can dig up my resampling code - basically it created new
> coordinates for lat and lon (as above) and then mapped those into
> indexes in the array.
>
> Barry
>



-- 
Matthew J. Oliver
Assistant Professor
School of Marine Science and Policy
College of Earth, Ocean and Environment
University of Delaware
700 Pilottown Rd.
Lewes, DE, 19958
302-645-4079
http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/people/profile.aspx?moliver

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

