TY  - JOUR
A1  - Harmsen, Mathijs
A1  - Kriegler, Elmar
A1  - van Vuuren, Detlef P.
A1  - van der Wijst, Kaj-Ivar
A1  - Luderer, Gunnar
A1  - Cui, Ryna
A1  - Dessens, Olivier
A1  - Drouet, Laurent
A1  - Emmerling, Johannes
A1  - Morris, Jennifer Faye
A1  - Fosse, Florian
A1  - Fragkiadakis, Dimitris
A1  - Fragkiadakis, Kostas
A1  - Fragkos, Panagiotis
A1  - Fricko, Oliver
A1  - Fujimori, Shinichiro
A1  - Gernaat, David
A1  - Guivarch, Céline
A1  - Iyer, Gokul
A1  - Karkatsoulis, Panagiotis
A1  - Keppo, Ilkka
A1  - Keramidas, Kimon
A1  - Köberle, Alexandre
A1  - Kolp, Peter
A1  - Krey, Volker
A1  - Krüger, Christoph
A1  - Leblanc, Florian
A1  - Mittal, Shivika
A1  - Paltsev, Sergey
A1  - Rochedo, Pedro
A1  - van Ruijven, Bas J.
A1  - Sands, Ronald D.
A1  - Sano, Fuminori
A1  - Strefler, Jessica
A1  - Arroyo, Eveline Vasquez
A1  - Wada, Kenichi
A1  - Zakeri, Behnam
T1  - Integrated assessment model diagnostics
BT  - key indicators and model evolution
JF  - Environmental research letters
N2  - 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.
KW  - diagnostics
KW  - integrated assessment models
KW  - climate policy
KW  - Assessment Report IPCC
KW  - renewable energy
KW  - migration
KW  - AR6
Y1  - 2021
U6  - https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abf964
SN  - 1748-9326
VL  - 16
IS  - 5
PB  - IOP Publishing
CY  - Bristol
ER  - 
TY  - JOUR
A1  - Wilson, Charlie
A1  - Guivarch, Céline
A1  - Kriegler, Elmar
A1  - van Ruijven, Bas
A1  - van Vuuren, Detlef P.
A1  - Krey, Volker
A1  - Schwanitz, Valeria Jana
A1  - Thompson, Erica L.
T1  - Evaluating process-based integrated assessment models of climate change mitigation
JF  - Climatic change
N2  - Process-based integrated assessment models (IAMs) project long-term transformation pathways in energy and land-use systems under what-if assumptions. IAM evaluation is necessary to improve the models’ usefulness as scientific tools applicable in the complex and contested domain of climate change mitigation. We contribute the first comprehensive synthesis of process-based IAM evaluation research, drawing on a wide range of examples across six different evaluation methods including historical simulations, stylised facts, and model diagnostics. For each evaluation method, we identify progress and milestones to date, and draw out lessons learnt as well as challenges remaining. We find that each evaluation method has distinctive strengths, as well as constraints on its application. We use these insights to propose a systematic evaluation framework combining multiple methods to establish the appropriateness, interpretability, credibility, and relevance of process-based IAMs as useful scientific tools for informing climate policy. We also set out a programme of evaluation research to be mainstreamed both within and outside the IAM community.
KW  - process-based integrated assessment model
KW  - IAM
KW  - evaluation
KW  - climate mitigation
Y1  - 2021
U6  - https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03099-9
SN  - 0165-0009
SN  - 1573-1480
VL  - 166
IS  - 1-2
PB  - Springer Science + Business Media B.V.
CY  - Dordrecht
ER  -