Timeline for Convert ERA5 data to WGS84
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 4 at 19:47 | comment | added | mathieu | This ECMWF docs says "use a 6367.47km sphere for all data if possible. This GRIB1 sphere does not have an EPSG code". This is confusing. | |
| S Aug 21, 2023 at 9:00 | history | edited | GforGIS | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
add non-dead link
|
| S Aug 21, 2023 at 9:00 | history | suggested | Thomas | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
add non-dead link
|
| Aug 21, 2023 at 8:35 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Aug 21, 2023 at 9:00 | |||||
| May 11, 2021 at 7:14 | comment | added | red | I struggle to follow what you mean but I suspect we mean different things by horizontal and vertical. As far as I understand horizontal refers to longitude and latitude and vertical roughly refers to height above ocean. When you say vertical, do you mean latitude? | |
| May 10, 2021 at 6:50 | comment | added | Giacomo | I need to plot the data in a web map in Folium and projection needs to be EPSG3857 (pseudo mercator). EPSG3857 uses wgs84 for both ellipsoid and geodetic CRS however the ERA5 data uses wgs84 for ellipsoid while for the vertical uses EGM96. I think the ERA5 data is essentially a compound of 2 different projections, one horizontal and one vertical. If I treat ERA5 as it was all in WGS84 when I transform it in EPSG3857 the pixels will align well horizontally but not vertically. I opened here: gis.stackexchange.com/questions/395603/… | |
| May 9, 2021 at 17:21 | comment | added | red | As far as I can tell the data is fine for the latitudes I use it (~0-50N). Have you tried looking at the data in another projection that's better suited for plots around the poles? | |
| May 8, 2021 at 15:39 | comment | added | Giacomo | But when I try to plot the data on a web mercator map the data looks squashed around the poles. Have you noticed this effect on your data? | |
| May 7, 2021 at 5:07 | history | edited | red | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 35 characters in body
|
| May 7, 2021 at 5:04 | comment | added | red | Yes, the solution is in this answer. The latitude and longitude coordinates of the ERA5 data are already referenced with respect to the WGS84, so there's no need to convert anything if you're using this reference. Edited my answer to clarify. | |
| May 4, 2021 at 5:16 | comment | added | Giacomo | Did you find a solution? I am facing the same problem | |
| Nov 26, 2020 at 5:57 | vote | accept | red | ||
| Nov 26, 2020 at 5:57 | history | answered | red | CC BY-SA 4.0 |