Variation in the climatic response to SRES emissions scenarios in integrated assessment models
- 349 Downloads
Integrated assessment models (IAMs) have commonly been used to understand the relationship between the economy, the earth’s climate system and climate impacts. We compare the IPCC simulations of CO2 concentration, radiative forcing, and global mean temperature changes associated with five SRES ‘marker’ emissions scenarios with the responses of three IAMs—DICE, FUND and PAGE—to these same emission scenarios. We also compare differences in simulated temperature increase resulting from moving from a high to a low emissions scenario. These IAMs offer a range of climate outcomes, some of which are inconsistent with those of IPCC, due to differing treatments of the carbon cycle and of the temperature response to radiative forcing. In particular, in FUND temperatures up until 2100 are relatively similar for the four emissions scenarios, and temperature reductions upon switching to lower emissions scenarios are small. PAGE incorporates strong carbon cycle feedbacks, leading to higher CO2 concentrations in the twenty-second century than other models. Such IAMs are frequently applied to determine ‘optimal’ climate policy in a cost–benefit approach. Models such as FUND which show smaller temperature responses to reducing emissions than IPCC simulations on comparable timescales will underestimate the benefits of emission reductions and hence the calculated ‘optimal’ level of investment in mitigation.
KeywordsEmission Scenario Climate Policy Integrate Assessment Model Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity Carbon Cycle Feedback
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Anthoff D, Tol RSJ (2009) Fund technical description. Available at http://www.fnu.zmaw.de/fileadmin/fnu-files/staff/tol/FundTechnicalDescription.pdf
- Hope C (2006) The marginal impact of CO2 from PAGE2002: an integrated assessment model incorporating the IPCC’s five reasons for concern. Integrated Assessment 6:19–56Google Scholar
- Houghton JT, Ding Y, Griggs DJ, Noguer M, van der Linden PJ, Dai X, Maskell K, Johnson CA (eds) (2001) Climate change 2001: the scientific basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
- Nakicenovich et al (2000) Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES) Cambridge University Press, 2000. ISBN 0 521 80493 0Google Scholar
- Nordhaus WD (2008) A question of balance: weighing the options on global warming policies. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
- Nordhaus WD, Boyer M (2000) Warming the world: economic models of global warming. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Ramaswamy V, Boucher O, Haigh J, Hauglustaine D, Haywood J, Myhre G, Nakajima T, Shi GY, Solomon S (2001) Radiative forcing of climate change. In: Houghton JT, Ding Y (eds) Climate change 2001: the scientific basis—contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 349–416Google Scholar
- Shine KP, Derwent RG, Wuebbles DJ, Morcrette J-J (1990) Radiative forcing of climate. In: Houghton JT, Jenkins GJ, Ephraums JJ (eds) Climate change—the IPCC scientific assessment, vol 1, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 41–68Google Scholar
- Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Marquis M, Averyt K, Tignor MMB, Le Roy Miller H Jr, Chen Z (eds) (2007) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
- Stern N (2007) The economics of climate change: the Stern review. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Tol RSJ (2009) Climate feedbacks on the terrestrial biosphere and the economics of climate policy: an application of FUND. ESRI Working Paper 288Google Scholar