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.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Anthoff D, Tol RSJ (2009) Fund technical description. Available at http://www.fnu.zmaw.de/fileadmin/fnu-files/staff/tol/FundTechnicalDescription.pdf
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 19:3337–3353
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 4:145–171
Hammitt JK, Lempert RJ, Schlesinger ME (1992) A sequential-decision strategy for abating climate change. Nature 357:315–318
Hope C (2006) The marginal impact of CO2 from PAGE2002: an integrated assessment model incorporating the IPCC’s five reasons for concern. Integrated Assessment 6:19–56
Hope C (2009) How deep should the deep cuts be? Optimal CO2 emissions over time under uncertainty. Climate Policy 9:3–8
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, UK
Maier-Reimer E, Hasselmann K (1987) Transport & storage of CO2 in the ocean—an inorganic ocean-circulation carbon cycle model. Clim Dyn 2:63–90
Nakicenovich et al (2000) Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES) Cambridge University Press, 2000. ISBN 0 521 80493 0
Nordhaus WD (1991) To slow or not to slow: the economics of the greenhouse effect. Econ J 101:920–937
Nordhaus WD (2006) Geography and macroeconomics: new data and new findings. Proc Natl Acad Sci 103:3510–3517
Nordhaus WD (2008) A question of balance: weighing the options on global warming policies. Yale University Press, New Haven
Nordhaus WD, Boyer M (2000) Warming the world: economic models of global warming. MIT, Cambridge
Plambeck E, Hope C (1997) The PAGE model: integrating the science ad economics of global warming. Energy Econ 19:77–101
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 349–416
Schneider SH, Thompson SL (1981) Atmospheric CO2 and climate: importance of the transient response. J Geophys Res 86:3135–3147
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 41–68
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, UK
Stern N (2007) The economics of climate change: the Stern review. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Tol RSJ (1999) Spatial and temporal efficiency in climate policy: applications of FUND. Environ Resour Econ 14:33–49
Tol RSJ (2001) Equitable cost-benefit analysis of climate change’. Ecol Econ 36:71–85
Tol RSJ (2002) Welfare specification and optimal control of climate change: an application of FUND. Energy Econ 24:367–376
Tol RSJ (2005) Adaptation and mitigation: trade-offs in substance and methods. Environ Sci Policy 8:572–578
Tol RSJ (2009) Climate feedbacks on the terrestrial biosphere and the economics of climate policy: an application of FUND. ESRI Working Paper 288
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Warren, R., Mastrandrea, M.D., Hope, C. et al. Variation in the climatic response to SRES emissions scenarios in integrated assessment models. Climatic Change 102, 671–685 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-009-9769-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-009-9769-x