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