-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
bugfix in Penn World Table unit conversion #67
Conversation
@@ -1,796 +0,0 @@ | |||
# Default calcOutput Population calls |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No idea why buildLibrary deleted this file…
Anybody made new input data to
|
Lavinia started input generation yesterday and we will check the results. |
Looks good.
|
Oli, can you double check. For REF I see these input numbers, which are higher than what we have before: |
Well, this was the change from 6.316 to 6.324, reflecting the difference between Nov-26 and Dec-03 AMT runs:
So we are basically back to the old results, which I think is fine. I don't understand where the small difference to 6.47 comes from, but the difference is less than 1%. |
How are these numbers related to what I would get when I plot from the fulldata.gdx (which also correpond to your plots in the macro group chat): 1 SSP2EU-AMT-Base_2022-11-26 REF 2005 3.54 kap quantity |
My suspicion: MER vs PPP, done in this conversion here, where the capital factor from the input data is multiplied with 0.384747 for REF to get the data used by REMIND. And |
Thanks Oli. Right, input data are in PPP and REMIND data in MER... |
cfg$inputRevision <- "6.316"
to"6.324"
as visible in this comparisoncalcInternalGDPPastPWT()
the following line:PENN World Table data is read from this file called
/p/projects/rd3mod/inputdata/sources/PWT/pwt80.xlsx
, which states:rgdpna
: Real GDP at constant 2005 national prices (in mil. 2005US$)I think this data must not be converted from 2017 to 2005 data, and the PR description does not provide a rationale why this change was intended. Therefore, I suggest to revert this change.