Integrated assessment model diagnostics: key indicators and model evolution
-
Published:2021-05-01
Issue:5
Volume:16
Page:054046
-
ISSN:1748-9326
-
Container-title:Environmental Research Letters
-
language:
-
Short-container-title:Environ. Res. Lett.
Author:
Harmsen MathijsORCID, Kriegler ElmarORCID, van Vuuren Detlef PORCID, van der Wijst Kaj-IvarORCID, Luderer GunnarORCID, Cui RynaORCID, Dessens Olivier, Drouet LaurentORCID, Emmerling JohannesORCID, Morris Jennifer FayeORCID, Fosse FlorianORCID, Fragkiadakis Dimitris, Fragkiadakis KostasORCID, Fragkos PanagiotisORCID, Fricko OliverORCID, Fujimori ShinichiroORCID, Gernaat DavidORCID, Guivarch CélineORCID, Iyer GokulORCID, Karkatsoulis Panagiotis, Keppo IlkkaORCID, Keramidas KimonORCID, Köberle AlexandreORCID, Kolp PeterORCID, Krey VolkerORCID, Krüger Christoph, Leblanc FlorianORCID, Mittal ShivikaORCID, Paltsev SergeyORCID, Rochedo PedroORCID, van Ruijven Bas JORCID, Sands Ronald DORCID, Sano FuminoriORCID, Strefler JessicaORCID, Arroyo Eveline VasquezORCID, Wada Kenichi, Zakeri BehnamORCID
Abstract
Abstract
Integrated assessment models (IAMs) form a prime tool in informing about climate mitigation strategies. Diagnostic indicators that allow comparison across these models can help describe and explain differences in model projections. This increases transparency and comparability. Earlier, the IAM community has developed an approach to diagnose models (Kriegler (2015 Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change
90 45–61)). Here we build on this, by proposing a selected set of well-defined indicators as a community standard, to systematically and routinely assess IAM behaviour, similar to metrics used for other modeling communities such as climate models. These indicators are the relative abatement index, emission reduction type index, inertia timescale, fossil fuel reduction, transformation index and cost per abatement value. We apply the approach to 17 IAMs, assessing both older as well as their latest versions, as applied in the IPCC 6th Assessment Report. The study shows that the approach can be easily applied and used to indentify key differences between models and model versions. Moreover, we demonstrate that this comparison helps to link model behavior to model characteristics and assumptions. We show that together, the set of six indicators can provide useful indication of the main traits of the model and can roughly indicate the general model behavior. The results also show that there is often a considerable spread across the models. Interestingly, the diagnostic values often change for different model versions, but there does not seem to be a distinct trend.
Funder
Horizon 2020 Framework Programme Seventh Framework Programme
Subject
Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,General Environmental Science,Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment
Reference16 articles.
1. Forcing, feedbacks and climate sensitivity in CMIP5 coupled atmosphere-ocean climate models;Andrews;Geophys. Res. Lett.,2012 2. Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization;Eyring;Geosci. Model Dev.,2016 3. Model comparisons of the costs of reducing CO2 emissions;Gaskins;Am. Econ. Rev.,1993 4. Summary report of IPCC expert meeting on stabilisation and mitigation scenarios: copenhagen;Halsnæs,2000
Cited by
47 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|