Integrated MAGICC7/AR6 climate assessments between REMIND iterations

[tonnrueter]

Purpose of this PR

The 15_climate REMIND module now offers the ar6 option. This runs a single scenario MAGICC7 climate emulation via IIASA's climate-assessment to obtain the global mean temperature based on REMIND generated emission data. Previously we used the same simple climate model integration for AR6 Climate assessment on reporting

Type of change

(Make sure to delete from the Type-of-change list the items not relevant to your PR)

• Bug fix
• Refactoring
• New feature
• Minor change (default scenarios show only small differences)
• Fundamental change
• This change requires a documentation update

Checklist:

• My code follows the coding etiquette
• I performed a self-review of my own code
• I explained my changes within the PR, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I checked that the in-code documentation is up-to-date
• I adjusted the reporting in remind2 where it was needed
• I adjusted forbiddenColumnNames in readCheckScenarioConfig.R in case the PR leads to deprecated switches
• All automated model tests pass (FAIL 0 in the output of make test)
• The changelog CHANGELOG.md has been updated correctly

Further information (optional):

• Test runs are here:
• Comparison of results (what changes by this PR?):

[gabriel-abrahao]

I disagree with this one. The only thing that is really MAGICC7 specific in this realization is the parameter sets we currently use, but even that would take just new files, no changes in the interface, to use another OpenSCM-available model such as FAIR. RIght now, using FAIR instead of MAGICC would just be a matter of adding a flag to one of the Python calls. So I really think MAGICC7 should not be in the name of the new realization.

[tonnrueter]

I disagree with this one. The only thing that is really MAGICC7 specific in this realization is the parameter sets we currently use, but even that would take just new files, no changes in the interface, to use another OpenSCM-available model such as FAIR. RIght now, using FAIR instead of MAGICC would just be a matter of adding a flag to one of the Python calls. So I really think MAGICC7 should not be in the name of the new realization.

I think it'd be beneficial to have separate module realizations for different SCMs. I see your point here, however currently MAGICC is the de-facto standard for SCM integration in REMIND. Also there's more to come regarding climate assessment integration: I'm working on a PIAM pacakage remindClimateAssessment that will interface REMIND with SCMs more broadly. Once we have that adding further realizations, e.g. with FAIR as SCM should be easy, yet it makes sense to me to keep them in dedicated climate module realization e.g. modules/15_climate/FAIR

[LaviniaBaumstark]

I disagree with this one. The only thing that is really MAGICC7 specific in this realization is the parameter sets we currently use, but even that would take just new files, no changes in the interface, to use another OpenSCM-available model such as FAIR. RIght now, using FAIR instead of MAGICC would just be a matter of adding a flag to one of the Python calls. So I really think MAGICC7 should not be in the name of the new realization.

I think it'd be beneficial to have separate module realizations for different SCMs. I see your point here, however currently MAGICC is the de-facto standard for SCM integration in REMIND. Also there's more to come regarding climate assessment integration: I'm working on a PIAM pacakage remindClimateAssessment that will interface REMIND with SCMs more broadly. Once we have that adding further realizations, e.g. with FAIR as SCM should be easy, yet it makes sense to me to keep them in dedicated climate module realization e.g. modules/15_climate/FAIR

I see Gabriel's point. But that would also mean, that ar6 is no better name. Than the moduel should be caled climate_assessmant or openSCM, etc.

[gabriel-abrahao]

I agree, I'm in favor of openSCM.

[gabriel-abrahao]

There was a mistake on the call to the TIRF script, which I fixed but is untested since the cluster is down. As the old implementation is very likely to stop working on the new cluster, I'm approving this PR anyway so the people who need the TIRF (@fpiontek @orichters ?) can at least try. Me and Tonn will be testing this as soon as the cluster is back.