BCC and INM gcms are missing historical runs

[cmahony]

we have obtained 3 historical simulations for BCC and 9 for INM, but they each only have one historical run in climr. this is not a big deal since they are not in the recommended 8-model ensemble, but for completeness sake it would be nice to have them in there. these extra historical runs are useful for comparison of historical climate change in models and observations.

library(climr)
## a test point
pt <- data.frame(lon = -127.7300, lat = 55.34114, elev = 711, id = 1)

## Check time series data
projected <- climr_downscale(pt, 
                             gcm_models = list_gcm()[c(2,8)],
                             ssp = list_ssp(),
                             max_run = 10,
                             gcm_hist_years = 1851:2014, 
                             gcm_ts_years = 2015:2100
)

gcms <- unique(projected$GCM)[-1]
for(gcm in gcms){
  print(paste(gcm, "simulations:"))
  runs.historical <- unique(projected$RUN[which(projected$GCM==gcm & is.na(projected$SSP))])[-1]
  print(paste("historical:", paste(runs.historical, collapse = " ")))

  ssps <- unique(projected$SSP[which(projected$GCM==gcm)])[-1]
  for(ssp in ssps){
    runs.ssp <- unique(projected$RUN[which(projected$GCM==gcm & projected$SSP==ssp)])[-1]
    print(paste(ssp, ": ", paste(runs.ssp, collapse = " ")))
  }
  print("")
}

[1] "BCC-CSM2-MR simulations:"
[1] "historical: r1i1p1f1"
[1] "ssp126 :  r1i1p1f1"
[1] "ssp245 :  r1i1p1f1"
[1] "ssp370 :  r1i1p1f1"
[1] "ssp585 :  r1i1p1f1"
[1] ""
[1] "INM-CM5-0 simulations:"
[1] "historical: r1i1p1f1"
[1] "ssp126 :  r1i1p1f1"
[1] "ssp245 :  r1i1p1f1"
[1] "ssp370 :  r1i1p1f1"
[1] "ssp585 :  r1i1p1f1"

[cmahony]

note that both of these models have an ensemble mean in climr that seems to be the average of several historical runs.

[cmahony]

discussed with Kiri. historical runs are only included if they have a corresponding ssp run. there are some edge cases where a user would want to use multiple historical runs of these secondary models. however for now this is not a priority for inclusion. we just need to note somewhere in the documentaion that this is the case.