Add climate data

[odscrachel]

Related issues

Closes #267

Description

Add Climate object to $defs with fields for model, scenario and percentile
Add climate to Resource
Add baseline_period to Resource
Add central_year to Period
Add climate_scenario.csv

Merge checklist

If you added, removed or renamed a field:

• Update the collapse option of the jsonschema directives for dataset, resource, hazard, exposure, vulnerability and loss on reference/schema.md
• Update the diagrams in reference/schema/md
• Update the JSON files in examples

Always:

• Run ./manage.py pre-commit
• Update the changelog (style guide)

Having trouble?

See how to resolve check failures.

[odscrachel]

A few questions @matamadio

• Can you check the new proposed climate_scenario codelist and let me know what you think?
• Are we excluding RCP 3.4 from the codelist, even though it's used in some datasets?
• In [Proposal] Covering climate data #267 it was proposed as a closed codelist, should it be open given some historic scenarios may be used or allowing for updated scenarios?
• Could you check you are happy with the following field descriptions

"title": "Percentile",
"description": "The percentile of the climate model ensemble output represented in this resource, expressed as a number between 0 and 100. For example, 50 indicates the median (50th percentile) of the ensemble."

and

"title": "Climate model",
"description": "The name or identifier of the climate model used to produce this resource"

Thanks

[matamadio]

* Can you check the new proposed climate_scenario codelist and let me know what you think?
* Are we excluding RCP 3.4 from the codelist, even though it's used in some datasets?

The codelist and description are correct; about the 3.4: it's quite exotic (personally never seen it in real datasets) but doesn't hurt to keep it. Note: if added as SSP4-3.4, we should also include SSP5-3.4.

* In [[Proposal] Covering climate data #267](https://github.com/GFDRR/rdl-standard/issues/267) it was proposed as a closed codelist, should it be open given some historic scenarios may be used or allowing for updated scenarios?

The scenarios reflect the standard ones from IPCC, as from picture above: there aren't really "non-ipcc" options around, so 'closed' fits the case. Whenever IPCC adds more, we will update the codelist.
However, there are other ways of expressing the scenarios in terms of warming degrees (usually 1.5, 2, 3, 4 °C).
Maybe we should include those in the codelist? @stufraser1

* Could you check you are happy with the following field descriptions

"title": "Percentile",
"description": "The percentile of the climate model ensemble output represented in this resource, expressed as a number between 0 and 100. For example, 50 indicates the median (50th percentile) of the ensemble."

Pondering if we can say "climate model or model ensemble" output so that the logic can be applied in both cases. @stufraser1

"title": "Climate model",
"description": "The name or identifier of the climate model used to produce this resource"

Correct!

[odscrachel]

Thanks Mattia, I've made the suggested changes. Ready to review @duncandewhurst