Labelling IPCC sectors in emissions variables

[jkikstra]

Opening this issue to keep track of it.

Would be useful to have IPCC sector labelling in the emissions variables.

I would suggest to have this as a (i.e., one) meta column, with IPCC categories specified as a string.
This is not perfectly machine-readable, but a step forward from only having it in the variable definition string.
Perhaps best done following EDGAR reporting style, to enable string matching, like:

ipcc_code_2006_for_standard_report	ipcc_code_2006_for_standard_report_name
1.A.1.a	Main Activity Electricity and Heat Production
1.A.1.bc	Petroleum Refining - Manufacture of Solid Fuels and Other Energy Industries
1.A.2	Manufacturing Industries and Construction
1.A.3.a	Civil Aviation
1.A.3.b_noRES	Road Transportation no resuspension
1.A.3.c	Railways
1.A.3.d	Water-borne Navigation
1.A.3.e	Other Transportation
1.A.4	Residential and other sectors
1.A.5	Non-Specified
1.B.1	Solid Fuels
1.B.2	Oil and Natural Gas
2.A.1	Cement production
2.A.2	Lime production
2.A.3	Glass Production
2.A.4	Other Process Uses of Carbonates
2.B	Chemical Industry
2.C	Metal Industry
2.D	Non-Energy Products from Fuels and Solvent Use
3.C.2	Liming
3.C.3	Urea application
5.B	Fossil fuel fires

h/t @OFR-IIASA

The 2019 refinement to the 2006 reporting guidance that we can base it on is here: https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2019rf/pdf/1_Volume1/19R_V1_Ch08_Reporting_Guidance.pdf

For a quick (but non-authorative?) overview of how to map 1996 to 2006, see slide 17 of: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/1_1996_to_2006_lesotho_march_2016_final_kt.pdf

(please do say so if there's any better source to base it on)

[jkikstra]

Note that #188 already implements a few, but kept it to

Maybe we want multiple labels?

• EDGAR
• IPCC1996
• IPCC2006

Note: also consider labels for:

• "Used for CMIP7 forcings for ESMs"
• "Used for CMIP7 input for climate emulator calculating concentrations"
• "Used in climate emulators in climate-assessment" Labelling default climate-assessment variables #187

N.B. this would be quick an escalation of the column names - not sure how the admins would feel about it. At the same time, it could clarify things quite a bit for the modelers.