#276 scenario restoration #297
Conversation
matthew-mizielinski
requested review from
ltroussellier,
wolfiex and
znichollscr
|
P.S. could someone please sanity check that I have renamed correctly. I took JSON files from this point on main |
|
since it is in src-data branch, seems good to me 2 remarks though :
|
znichollscr
left a comment
znichollscr
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @matthew-mizielinski. Unfortunately, given the state of the data in here (not your fault), I don't see how we can merge this. All of the content needs a careful review.
On top of that, given we're going to be refining the data models anyway, and src-data is not in fact the intended source of truth, I would suggest holding off on this until we a) know the esgvoc data model and therefore b) can point the pull request at esgvoc instead. We're not holding anyone up by delaying, but we will avoid creating confusion by not merging information that is very likely wrong and not continuing to use src-data even when it's not intended to be used right now.
the c for concentration driven has been removed, e.g. scen7-hc -> scen7-h
Are we deciding this, or is there a discussion/decision (I assume from ScenarioMIP chairs?) we can point to? (I'm personally fine if we just decide, but figured I should at least ask this question.)
| "id": "esm-scen7-h-aer", | ||
| "validation-key": "esm-scen7-h-Aer", | ||
| "ui-label": "Future scenario esm-scen7-h with high aerosol emissions", | ||
| "description": "1. Detailed experiment configuration Future scenario esm-scen7-h with higher aerosol emissions 2. Required model settings We encourage modelling centres to include as much atmospheric composition capability as possible. As a minimum, models should have prescribed or interactive aerosols. And the experimental setup should be consistent with other scenario experiments. 3. Experiment conditions 4. Links to relevant references Fiedler et al. (in prep.) AerChemMIP2 - Unraveling the role of reactive gases, aerosols, and land use for air quality and climate change in CMIP7 5. Similarities to CMIP6 experiments None 6. Forcing differences from parent experiment Increased aerosol emissions compared to parent.", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(Not your issue @matthew-mizielinski, but) This description is quite vague. I would be tempted to go back to the AerChemMIP chairs to see if they want to quantify what 'higher' means exactly and which forcing dataset modelling teams should use for this before merging.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would you be happy if the description field was blanked out and a separate issue was raised to cover this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm it breaks the idea of freezing the CVs, which Guillaume was very keen on to start to build a sense of stability. I could live with it, but I would lean towards letting the CVs TT decide unless you have strong feelings.
| "aerchemmip" | ||
| ], | ||
| "alias": [], | ||
| "minimum-number-of-years": "104", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Probably assuming a 2125 end, which doesn't work as the scenarios don't go that far so needs checking?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
at one point the scenarios were being specified as running out to 2125 as there was some reason for requiring a minimum 100 year extent.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm ok I guess that's something that would need double checking before locking in
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same comments as for experiment/esm-scen7-h-aer.json
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Extensions haven't been decided yet as far as I know so we can't add any of these extension experiment descriptions yet. If I'm wrong, do we have a link that points to the final extension choices (my understanding was this os idea was being dropped and there would now just be one extension per scenario)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Will wait on a response from ScenarioMIP on this
| "id": "esm-scen7-l", | ||
| "validation-key": "esm-scen7-l", | ||
| "ui-label": "Low Scenario", | ||
| "description": "Scenario consistent with staying likely below 2 degrees C", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These all need to be updated in line with the ScenarioMIP paper. As I understand it, the descriptions are moving away from talking about temperature targets and towards talking about emissions (which is what the scenarios control, the temperature outcomes will be determined by the ESMs)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've asked for an up to date version of the tables in the ScenarioMIP paper so that we can adjust these.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same comments as for experiment/esm-scen7-h-aer.json
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same comments as for experiment/esm-scen7-h-aer.json
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same comments as for experiment/esm-scen7-h-aer.json
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same comments as for experiment/esm-scen7-h-aer.json
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same comments as for experiment/esm-scen7-h-aer.json
Co-authored-by: znichollscr <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: znichollscr <[email protected]>
|
My initial attempt is obviously not quite right -- I'll address the comments and updates when we have more info from ScenarioMIP later this week |
I think the initial source data also isn't helping. I'm also happy to bring this to the CVs TT and take it off your plate if you'd prefer (happy either way) |
|
@znichollscr, If you are happy to pick up and run with this I would be very grateful so that I can get on with the CMOR tables. I'll redirect the information requested from ScenarioMIP to you if that is ok. |
|
Yes perfect thanks (let's see if what you hear from scenariomip matches
what I get told via other channels :) )
…On Wed, Oct 15, 2025, 11:05 Matthew Mizielinski ***@***.***> wrote:
*matthew-mizielinski* left a comment (WCRP-CMIP/CMIP7-CVs#297)
<#297 (comment)>
@znichollscr <https://github.com/znichollscr>, If you are happy to pick
up and run with this I would be very grateful so that I can get on with the
CMOR tables.
I'll redirect the information requested from ScenarioMIP to you if that is
ok.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#297 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/A3KEXH2D2EH2RF43LUQ6QAT3XYE33AVCNFSM6AAAAACJD6IX62VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZTIMBVGM2DGMBQG4>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
wolfiex
added
the
keep-open
This restores the ScenarioMIP experiments and those with similar naming
Changes compared to previous experiment definitions;
cfor concentration driven has been removed, e.g.scen7-hc->scen7-hvlho->lnandvllo->vlas noted hereI think I've caught all the parent experiment information and descriptions here.
Note that experiment json files were copied from an old check out of this repository rather than altering from scratch so any structural changes in the mean time will not have been picked up.