search

JGuetschow / PRIMAP-hist

The PRIMAP-hist issue tracker repository
6 stars 2 forks source link

1.C Emissions as Kyoto GHG #82

Closed rgieseke closed 6 months ago

rgieseke commented 6 months ago

1.C emissions (see #61) are also included as Kyoto GHG, isn't that redundant? Or is it for consistency with other 1.* categories which are also included as Kyoto GHG?

"PRIMAP-hist_v2.5.1_final","HISTTP","derived","WSM","KYOTOGHG (AR6GWP100)","CO2 * gigagram / a","1.C",-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,-0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0

JGuetschow commented 6 months ago

It's just for completeness. So if you look at KyotoGHG you have all categories. In theory all KyotoGHG values are redundant as they are always summed from individual gases and gas groups.

rgieseke commented 6 months ago

Thanks! Why -0.0 though? ;)

JGuetschow commented 6 months ago

I don't have a clue. Especially as I check for negative values outside LULUCF.

rgieseke commented 6 months ago

Well, it's not < 0 depending on how you check.