Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 102, Issue 3–4, pp 671–685 | Cite as

Variation in the climatic response to SRES emissions scenarios in integrated assessment models

  • R. Warren
  • M. D. Mastrandrea
  • C. Hope
  • A. F. Hof
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Emission Scenario Climate Policy Integrate Assessment Model Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity Carbon Cycle Feedback 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anthoff D, Tol RSJ (2009) Fund technical description. Available at http://www.fnu.zmaw.de/fileadmin/fnu-files/staff/tol/FundTechnicalDescription.pdf
  2. Friedlingstein P, Cox P, Betts R, Bopp L, von Block W et al (2006) Climate-carbon cycle feedback analysis: results from the C4MIP model intercomparison. J Climate 19:3337–3353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Goodess CM, Hanson C, Hulme M, Osborn TJ (2003) Representing climate and extreme weather events in integrated assessment models: a review of existing methods and options for development. Integrated Assessment 4:145–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hammitt JK, Lempert RJ, Schlesinger ME (1992) A sequential-decision strategy for abating climate change. Nature 357:315–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Hope C (2009) How deep should the deep cuts be? Optimal CO2 emissions over time under uncertainty. Climate Policy 9:3–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Maier-Reimer E, Hasselmann K (1987) Transport & storage of CO2 in the ocean—an inorganic ocean-circulation carbon cycle model. Clim Dyn 2:63–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Nakicenovich et al (2000) Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES) Cambridge University Press, 2000. ISBN 0 521 80493 0Google Scholar
  10. Nordhaus WD (1991) To slow or not to slow: the economics of the greenhouse effect. Econ J 101:920–937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Nordhaus WD (2006) Geography and macroeconomics: new data and new findings. Proc Natl Acad Sci 103:3510–3517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Nordhaus WD (2008) A question of balance: weighing the options on global warming policies. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  13. Nordhaus WD, Boyer M (2000) Warming the world: economic models of global warming. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Plambeck E, Hope C (1997) The PAGE model: integrating the science ad economics of global warming. Energy Econ 19:77–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Schneider SH, Thompson SL (1981) Atmospheric CO2 and climate: importance of the transient response. J Geophys Res 86:3135–3147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. Stern N (2007) The economics of climate change: the Stern review. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Tol RSJ (1999) Spatial and temporal efficiency in climate policy: applications of FUND. Environ Resour Econ 14:33–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tol RSJ (2001) Equitable cost-benefit analysis of climate change’. Ecol Econ 36:71–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tol RSJ (2002) Welfare specification and optimal control of climate change: an application of FUND. Energy Econ 24:367–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tol RSJ (2005) Adaptation and mitigation: trade-offs in substance and methods. Environ Sci Policy 8:572–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tol RSJ (2009) Climate feedbacks on the terrestrial biosphere and the economics of climate policy: an application of FUND. ESRI Working Paper 288Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Warren
    • 1
  • M. D. Mastrandrea
    • 2
  • C. Hope
    • 3
  • A. F. Hof
    • 4
  1. 1.Tyndall Centre, School of Environmental SciencesUniversity of East AngliaNorwichUK
  2. 2.Woods Institute for the EnvironmentStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  3. 3.Judge Business SchoolUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  4. 4.Netherlands Environmental Assessment AgencyBilthovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations