[Article] SLCF emissions line charts from IPCC AR6

[rolyp]

A Fluid port of (part of) Figure 6.19 from Chapter 6 of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) from WG1.

• Implement one facet of the plot, with subset of dataset in question (see below)
• Show breakdown of methane emissions by source, initially in same plot
• Reimplement as facet plot + main plot with total, with linking between facets and main plot

Initial facet

Methane (CH₄) emissions for the region of Africa and Middle East, using just the REMIND model and the MAGPIE-SSP5-8.5 scenario, i.e. maroon line here:

See also:

• Repo/CI setup for IPCC article #47
• Sample text to accompany SLCF emissions charts #49
• Facet plot fluid#1068

---

Publication title

IPCC Sixth Assessment Report

Link to publication

https://ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/

Name of journal/magazine/publisher

IPCC

Year of publication

2021

Licence for publication

Unknown

Link to data used in the publication

https://github.com/IPCC-WG1/Chapter-6_Fig19
Achintya’s fork: https://github.com/RaoOfPhysics/IPCC-AR6-WG1-Ch6-Fig19.

@RaoOfPhysics played with the .csv files in R and (using GitHub Pages and symlinks) managed to get it up on the web: https://raoofphysics.github.io/IPCC-AR6-WG1-Ch6-Fig19/

Data availability

Available publicly under an open-access licence

Contact for data

[email protected]

Dataset topic(s)

Anthropogenic and biomass burning short-lived climate forcer (SLCF) emissions from 1850 to 2100

Data format(s)

CSV

Dataset size

(Small) Less than 1 MB

Link to code used for the publication

https://github.com/IPCC-WG1/Chapter-6_Fig19

Code availability

Unknown

Programming language

Python

Summary of visualisation(s)

Line charts with interval plots

New features required by Fluid

explorable-viz/fluid#987

Any other comments?

• Also look at Fig. 6.23 in the same chapter (or alternatives).
  • Figure in question: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/figures/chapter-6/figure-6-23 (in https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-6/)
  • Data source: https://catalogue.ceda.ac.uk/uuid/a1f46ad9f2644e60a87591c6b4537fef
    • The data (https://data.ceda.ac.uk/badc/ar6_wg1/data/ch_06/ch6_fig23/v20220928) appear to be in NetCDF/.nc format
  • Code source: https://github.com/IPCC-WG1/Chapter-6_Fig23/
    • The code (https://github.com/IPCC-WG1/Chapter-6_Fig23/blob/main/fig6.23_FGDfinal_dTscenarios_allcomp.pro) appears to be in IDL Source Code File format
  • My immediate assessment is that I don’t know enough to quickly tackle this. File under someday?

[rolyp]

Extracted from #20

[rolyp]

IPCC have reorganised their website in way that breaks links to AR6 🤦‍♂️

[RaoOfPhysics]

Absolutely lovely. Persistent links are a pipe dream. We can track them down via archive.org and link to snapshot’d versions. Will do that!

[RaoOfPhysics]

Added info under “Any other comments” on Fig. 6.23.

[rolyp]

@RaoOfPhysics Let’s start adding some subtasks to this issue (assuming this is where we want to track progress on the overall article). One thing that doesn’t seem to be captured in the metadata is the actual figure (or figures) that we intend to adapt. That’s crucial since we won’t generally be adapting entire articles or chapters! (I think that information is somewhere in comments attached to #20.)

[rolyp]

Hi @RaoOfPhysics. I’m going to suggest an approach to subtask tracking in GH issues – I’ve adapted the content you put there yesterday to give you a sense of how I approach this and have moved some of the content (about faceting/aggregation) to relevant new/existing issues.

The approach I use can be summarised as follows:

• Restrict subtasks to the most minimal version of the task at hand. If necessary spin things out into new issues but generally I try to avoid this too. If my first attempt at “most minimal” proves to be not minimal enough, I split the issue into two at the point at which I want to consider an initial iteration as completed.
• Keep subtasks actionable and concise.
• The sequence of subtasks should read like an action plan. We should expect the plan to be revised during the execution of the plan to reflect our evolving understanding of the problem/goal.

I hope you don’t mind my revising the issue description along these lines as an example, and hopefully you agree that it’s worth the effort of structuring things in this more pared back style.

[RaoOfPhysics]

Don't mind at all. Thank you for updating it and explaining your thinking.