Add more emissions data files.

[kdorheim]

@rplzzz here is more emissions driven data!!! This is all I could find on esfg and crea I hope it contains enough data

[kdorheim]

Can do! I'll get to it as soon as I can!

[kdorheim]

We now have emissions data for the following 7 models !! "CanESM2" "CESM1-BGC" "GFDL-ESM2G" "MIROC-ESM" "MPI-ESM-LR" "MRI-ESM1" "NorESM1-ME"

Here are tables summarizing the emissions data that I added...

variable	count
co2	4
heatflux	4
tas	4

model	variable	experiment	ensemble
MIROC-ESM	co2	esmHistorical	r1i1p1
MIROC-ESM	co2	esmHistorical	r2i1p1
MIROC-ESM	co2	esmHistorical	r3i1p1
MIROC-ESM	co2	esmrcp85	r1i1p1
MPI-ESM-LR	co2	esmHistorical	r1i1p1
MPI-ESM-LR	co2	esmHistorical	r2i1p1
MPI-ESM-LR	co2	esmHistorical	r3i1p1
MPI-ESM-LR	co2	esmrcp85	r1i1p1
MRI-ESM1	co2	esmHistorical	r1i1p1
MRI-ESM1	co2	esmrcp85	r1i1p1
NorESM1-ME	co2	esmHistorical	r1i1p1
NorESM1-ME	co2	esmrcp85	r1i1p1
MIROC-ESM	tas	esmHistorical	r1i1p1
MIROC-ESM	tas	esmHistorical	r2i1p1
MIROC-ESM	tas	esmHistorical	r3i1p1
MIROC-ESM	tas	esmrcp85	r1i1p1
MPI-ESM-LR	tas	esmHistorical	r1i1p1
MPI-ESM-LR	tas	esmHistorical	r2i1p1
MPI-ESM-LR	tas	esmHistorical	r3i1p1
MPI-ESM-LR	tas	esmrcp85	r1i1p1
MRI-ESM1	tas	esmHistorical	r1i1p1
MRI-ESM1	tas	esmrcp85	r1i1p1
NorESM1-ME	tas	esmHistorical	r1i1p1
NorESM1-ME	tas	esmrcp85	r1i1p1
MIROC-ESM	heatflux	esmHistorical	r1i1p1
MPI-ESM-LR	heatflux	esmHistorical	r1i1p1
MRI-ESM1	heatflux	esmHistorical	r1i1p1
NorESM1-ME	heatflux	esmHistorical	r1i1p1
MIROC-ESM	heatflux	esmrcp85	r1i1p1
MPI-ESM-LR	heatflux	esmrcp85	r1i1p1
MRI-ESM1	heatflux	esmrcp85	r1i1p1
NorESM1-ME	heatflux	esmrcp85	r1i1p1
MIROC-ESM	heatflux	esmHistorical	r2i1p1
MPI-ESM-LR	heatflux	esmHistorical	r2i1p1
MIROC-ESM	heatflux	esmHistorical	r3i1p1
MPI-ESM-LR	heatflux	esmHistorical	r3i1p1

[kdorheim]

Booooo it looks like MRI-ESM1 is missing 10 years of CO2 data! @rplzzz I am pretty sure that this means that it will have to be removed from the esm comparison data yes?

[rplzzz]

Booooo it looks like MRI-ESM1 is missing 10 years of CO2 data! @rplzzz I am pretty sure that this means that it will have to be removed from the esm comparison data yes?

Maybe, though if it's just 10 years, maybe we can drop those years from the PCA so that we can still use it. Which years are they?

[kdorheim]

Booooo it looks like MRI-ESM1 is missing 10 years of CO2 data! @rplzzz I am pretty sure that this means that it will have to be removed from the esm comparison data yes?

Maybe, though if it's just 10 years, maybe we can drop those years from the PCA so that we can still use it. Which years are they?

It is the last 10 years of the historical run, when I do the single ESM calibration to it the fit looks good for both the historical and future period.

[kdorheim]

[rplzzz]

It is the last 10 years of the historical run,

In that case, I say we just drop CO₂ from the PCA and keep the additional model. The question is, how much of a headache is that going to be? Do we have a separate list of years to use for each, or are we using one list for both? If the latter, then I'll have to do a bit of reworking on the PCA code.

[kdorheim]

In that case, I say we just drop CO2 from the PCA and keep the additional model. The question is, how much of a headache is that going to be. Do we have a separate list of years to use for each, or are we using one list for both? If the latter, then I'll have to do a bit of reworking on the PCA code.

I am not sure what you are saying here, I think that it would be as simple as removing the CO2 data from the cmip_individual data frame before running the PCA. But can we still use is in the multi-model mean the consensus region for the mcmc?

[rplzzz]

In that case, I say we just drop CO2 from the PCA and keep the additional model. The question is, how much of a headache is that going to be. Do we have a separate list of years to use for each, or are we using one list for both? If the latter, then I'll have to do a bit of reworking on the PCA code.

I am not sure what you are saying here, I think that it would be as simple as removing the CO2 data from the cmip_individual data frame before running the PCA. But can we still use is in the multi-model mean the consensus region for the mcmc?

I believe it's not necessary to remove the data for the years we're not using. The PCA calculation takes a vector of years to use for the historical and future years: https://github.com/kdorheim/hectorcal/blob/f7363109e19256f994e29e1152ceb92092655eb9/R/pca.R#L149 So, it will already use only the years that are mentioned in histyears or years. For purposes of computing projections, these vectors are stored in the PCA object, and once again, the projection will ignore any years it isn't supposed to be including. (Both of those functions will also throw an error if any of the years mentioned in the list are not present in the data.)

Where the problem happens is, there isn't an option to provide one histyears vector for temperature and another for CO₂. So, we would either have to add such an option, or we would have to drop the last 10 years of temperature (in addition to CO₂ from the historical scenario.

As for using the data in the multi-model envelope, I'm not sure, but I'm leaning toward not including those years. The problem is that with so few models, dropping one of them for a 10 year period could potentially result in a much narrower envelope for those 10 years. The Hector parameters would be constrained to fit into that envelope, and because of the serial correlation in CO₂ outputs, that means we would pretty much be constraining them to fit into a reduced envelope for at least a few decades on either side. Because of that, it seems like we shouldn't include those 10 years, even in the calculations that don't use PCA.