GCAM (v7.0) -forcing a target temperature about gcam-core HOT 5 OPEN

The file policy_target_1p9_spa1.xml is really intended to be bundled with others; it is operating on a market called CO2_LTG (where LTG stands for long-term global) which hasn't been otherwise defined. If you look at the file exe/batch_SSP_SPA1.xml, that should give you a better template to start from. It will also be using the SSP1 socio-economic and technological background which I assume is what is wanted here.
The way I'd recommend doing this is to start from configuration_ssp.xml, assign the BatchFileName to batch_SSP_SPA1.xml, save it as configuration.xml, and then within batch_SSP_SPA1.xml, delete all of the rows in the policy-target-runner section that correspond to scenarios that you don't want (i.e., keep only the 1.9 scenario).
Note that 1.9 is a hard target; this might not be the end of your difficulties, but at least it should be the correct set-up!

from gcam-core.

The file policy_target_1p9_spa1.xml is really intended to be bundled with others; it is operating on a market called CO2_LTG (where LTG stands for long-term global) which hasn't been otherwise defined. If you look at the file exe/batch_SSP_SPA1.xml, that should give you a better template to start from. It will also be using the SSP1 socio-economic and technological background which I assume is what is wanted here. The way I'd recommend doing this is to start from configuration_ssp.xml, assign the BatchFileName to batch_SSP_SPA1.xml, save it as configuration.xml, and then within batch_SSP_SPA1.xml, delete all of the rows in the policy-target-runner section that correspond to scenarios that you don't want (i.e., keep only the 1.9 scenario). Note that 1.9 is a hard target; this might not be the end of your difficulties, but at least it should be the correct set-up!

Thank you very much! I followed your suggestion and started a batch run last night. So far my laptop (not a bad one) is running for more than 14 hours. what I am missing from the exe environment is the total number of scenario dispatches (now its at #62) to estimate when the model can stop. It is really because of a lack of comprehensive understanding of how the batch run was determined. Before I hit run, I was simply thinking of using the results to understand what scenarios were generated with my single temperature goal. but now it seems like the (time) cost is indeed high and maybe you can direct me to determine given the specified batch run, how many model runs would there be in total? Cheers!

from gcam-core.

Well, if you're on scenario dispatch number 62, that's about 50 more scenario dispatches than I've ever seen, so I don't think there's anything good happening! There are probably just a lot of solution failures, and each run isn't producing any useful information that helps get closer to the target. I don't know; I haven't ever run a 1.9, and we don't include that scenario in our continuous integration testing. We do include 2.6, so that should work, and perhaps you should just cut off the 1.9 run and try 2.6, and only ratchet up the stringency once you know that the scenario set-up works.

from gcam-core.

Well, if you're on scenario dispatch number 62, that's about 50 more scenario dispatches than I've ever seen, so I don't think there's anything good happening! There are probably just a lot of solution failures, and each run isn't producing any useful information that helps get closer to the target. I don't know; I haven't ever run a 1.9, and we don't include that scenario in our continuous integration testing. We do include 2.6, so that should work, and perhaps you should just cut off the 1.9 run and try 2.6, and only ratchet up the stringency once you know that the scenario set-up works.

Exactly. now after some workout and coming back it is at scenario dispatch #86. I remember last night i did not see any error 'the following model periods did not solve: 21' but today i saw a lot. I guess i should halt the current run and check what you recommended.

I also have a question: does it mean that, given the newly added/modified relationships/data in v7. 1.5 degree as a target is simply not achievable?

from gcam-core.

I don't know; again the 1.9 W/m2 target isn't part of our standard testing suite. Still one thing that might make it harder to solve such an extreme scenario is the assumed negative emissions budget specified in negative_emissions_budget.xml, which can be commented out or deleted from the batch_SSP_REF.xml file. Please post whatever you find, as I don't know that anyone else has tried running this scenario in years!

from gcam-core.