2015Climatic ChangeOpen access

How well do integrated assessment models represent non-CO2 radiative forcing?

Mathijs Harmsen, Detlef P. van Vuuren, Maarten van den Berg, Andries F. Hof, Chris Hope, Volker Krey, Jean‐François Lamarque, Adriana Marcucci, Drew Shindell, Michiel Schaeffer

Open full text 20 citations

Abstract

This study aims to create insight in how Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) perform in describing the climate forcing by non-CO 2 gases and aerosols. The simple climate models (SCMs) included in IAMs have been run with the same prescribed anthropogenic emission pathways and compared to analyses with complex earth system models (ESMs) in terms of concentration and radiative forcing levels. In our comparison, particular attention was given to the short-lived forcers' climate effects. In general, SCMs show forcing levels within the expert model ranges. However, the more simple SCMs seem to underestimate forcing differences between baseline and mitigation scenarios because of omission of ozone, black carbon and/or indirect methane forcing effects. Above all, results also show that among IAMs there is a significant spread (0.74 W/m 2 in 2100) in non-CO 2 forcing projections for a 2.6 W/m 2 mitigation scenario, mainly due to uncertainties in the indirect effects of aerosols. This has large implications for determining optimal mitigation strategies among IAMs with regard to required CO 2 forcing targets and policy costs.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

This study aims to create insight in how Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) perform in describing the climate forcing by non-CO 2 gases and aerosols. The simple climate models (SCMs) included in IAMs have been run with the same prescribed anthropogenic emission pathways and compared to analyses with complex earth system models (ESMs) in terms of concentration and radiative forcing levels. In our comparison, particular attention was given to the short-lived forcers' climate effects. In general, SCMs show forcing levels within the expert model ranges. However, the more simple SCMs seem to underestimate forcing differences between baseline and mitigation scenarios because of omission of ozone, black carbon and/or indirect methane forcing effects. Above all, results also show that among IAMs there is a significant spread (0.74 W/m 2 in 2100) in non-CO 2 forcing projections for a 2.6 W/m 2 mitigation scenario, mainly due to uncertainties in the indirect effects of aerosols. This has large implications for determining optimal mitigation strategies among IAMs with regard to required CO 2 forcing targets and policy costs.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 20 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

This study aims to create insight in how Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) perform in describing the climate forcing by non-CO 2 gases and aerosols. The simple climate models (SCMs) included in IAMs have been run with the same prescribed anthropogenic emission pathways and compared to analyses with complex earth system models (ESMs) in terms of concentration and radiative forcing levels. In our comparison, particular attention was given to the short-lived forcers' climate effects. In general, SCMs show forcing levels within the expert model ranges. However, the more simple SCMs seem to underestimate forcing differences between baseline and mitigation scenarios because of omission of ozone, black carbon and/or indirect methane forcing effects. Above all, results also show that among IAMs there is a significant spread (0.74 W/m 2 in 2100) in non-CO 2 forcing projections for a 2.6 W/m 2 mitigation scenario, mainly due to uncertainties in the indirect effects of aerosols. This has large implications for determining optimal mitigation strategies among IAMs with regard to required CO 2 forcing targets and policy costs.

Key concepts: Radiative forcing, Forcing (mathematics), Environmental science, Climate model, Climatology, Atmospheric sciences, Baseline (sea), Climate change

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
How well do integrated assessment models represent non-CO2 radiative forcing? — Research Paper | ScholarLens