World Scientific
  • Search
    Quick Search in Journals
    Access type:
    Quick Search anywhere
    Access type:
    Advanced Search
  • My Cart
Skip main navigation
Close Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu

Cookies Notification

We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By continuing to browse the site, you consent to the use of our cookies. Learn More
×
Our website is made possible by displaying certain online content using javascript.
In order to view the full content, please disable your ad blocker or whitelist our website www.worldscientific.com.

System Upgrade on Tue, Oct 25th, 2022 at 2am (EDT)

Existing users will be able to log into the site and access content. However, E-commerce and registration of new users may not be available for up to 12 hours.
For online purchase, please visit us again. Contact us at [email protected] for any enquiries.
No Access

EMPIRICALLY CONSTRAINED CLIMATE SENSITIVITY AND THE SOCIAL COST OF CARBON

    https://doi.org/10.1142/S2010007817500063Cited by:6
    Next

    Abstract

    Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) require parameterization of both economic and climatic processes. The latter includes Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS), or the temperature response to doubling CO2 levels, and Ocean Heat Uptake (OHU) efficiency. ECS distributions in IAMs have been drawn from climate model runs that lack an empirical basis, and in Monte Carlo experiments may not be constrained to consistent OHU values. Empirical ECS estimates are now available, but have not yet been applied in IAMs. We incorporate a new estimate of the ECS distribution conditioned on observed OHU efficiency into two widely used IAMs. The resulting Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) estimates are much lower than those from models based on simulated ECS parameters. In the DICE model, the average SCC falls by approximately 40–50% depending on the discount rate, while in the FUND model the average SCC falls by over 80%. The span of estimates across discount rates also shrinks substantially.

    References

    • Ackerman, F, AA Stanton and R Bueno [2010] Fat tails, exponents, extreme uncertainty: Simulating catastrophe in DICE. Ecological Economics, 69, 1657–1665. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Aldrin, M, M Holden, P Guttorp, RB Skeie, G Myhre and TK Berntsen [2012] Bayesian estimation of climate sensitivity based on a simple climate model fitted to observations of hemispheric temperatures and global ocean heat content. Environmetrics, 23, 253–271. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Crost, B and CP Traeger [2013] Optimal Climate Policy: Uncertainty versus Monte Carlo. Economics Letters, 120, 552–558. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Dayaratna, K and D Kreutzer (2013). Loaded DICE: An EPA model not ready for the big game. Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis Backgrounder No. 2860, Washington DC, 21 November. Available at http://report.heritage.org/bg2860. Google Scholar
    • Dayaratna, K and D Kreutzer (2014). Unfounded FUND: Another EPA model not ready for the big game. Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis Backgrounder No. 2897, Washington DC, 29 April. Available at http://report.heritage.org/bg2897. Google Scholar
    • Hope, C [2006] The marginal impact of CO2 from PAGE2002: An integrated assessment model incorporating the IPCC’s five reasons for concern. The Integrated Assessment Journal, 6 (1), 19–56. Google Scholar
    • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [2013] Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
    • Kelly, DL and CD Kolstad [1999] Bayesian learning, growth, and pollution. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 23 (4), 491–518. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Kiehl, JT [2007] Twentieth century climate model response and climate sensitivity. Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L22710, doi: 10.1029/2007GL031383. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Kummer, JR and AE Dessler [2014] The impact of forcing efficacy on the equilibrium climate sensitivity. Geophysical Research Letters, doi: 10.1002/2014GL060046. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Leach, AJ [2007] The climate change learning curve. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 31 (5), 1728–1752. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Lewis, N and JA Curry [2015] The implications for climate sensitivity of AR5 forcing and heat uptake estimates. Climate Dynamics, doi: 10.1007/s00382-014-2342-y. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Lewis, N [2013] An objective Bayesian, improved approach for applying optimal fingerprint techniques to estimate climate sensitivity. Journal of Climate, 26, 7414–7429. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Lewis, N [2016] Implications of recent multimodel attribution studies for climate sensitivity. Climate Dynamics, 46 (5), 1387–1396. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Marten, AL [2011] Transient temperature response modeling in IAMs: The effects of over simplification on the SCC. Economics E-Journal, 5 (2011-18). Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.5018/economics-ejournal.ja.2011-18. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Marvel, K, GA Schmidt, RL Miller and LS Nazarenko [2015] Implications for climate sensitivity from the response to individual forcings. Nature Climate Change, doi: 10.1038/NCLIMATE2888. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Marvel, K, GA Schmidt, RL Miller and LS Nazarenko [2016] Online correction to: Implications for climate sensitivity from the response to individual forcings. Nature Climate Change. Available at http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2888.html#correction1. Accessed on 14 March 2016. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Nordhaus, W [1993] Optimal greenhouse-gas reductions and tax policy in the ”DICE” model. American Economic Review, 83 (2), 313–317. Google Scholar
    • Nordhaus, W and P Sztorc (2013). DICE 2013R: Introduction and User’s Manual. Yale University. Available at http://aida.wss.yale.edu/∼nordhaus/homepage/documents/DICE_Manual_100413r1.pdf. Google Scholar
    • Otto, A, FEL Otto, MR Allen, O Boucher, J Church, G Hegerl, PM Forster, NP Gillett, J Gregory, GC Johnson, R Knutti, U Lohmann, N Lewis, J Marotzke, B Stevens, G Myhre and D Shindell [2013] Energy budget constraints on climate response. Nature Geoscience, 6, 415–416. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Parson, EA and K Fisher-Vanden [1997] Integrated assessment models of global climate change. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 22, 589—628. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Pindyck, RS [2013] Climate change policy: What do the models tell us?, Journal of Economic Literature, 51 (3), 860–872. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jel.51.3.860. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Ring, MJ, D Lindner, EF Cross and ME Schlesinger [2012] Causes of the global warming observed since the 19th century. Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, 2, 401–415. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Roe, GH and MB Baker [2007] Why is climate sensitivity so unpredictable?, Science, 318 (5850), 629–632. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Roe, GH and Y Bauman [2013] Climate sensitivity: Should the climate tail wag the policy dog?, Climatic Change, 117, 647–662, doi: 10.1007/s10584-012-0582-6. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Schwartz, SE [2012] Determination of Earth’s transient and equilibrium climate sensitivities from observations over the twentieth century: Strong dependence on assumed forcing. Surveys in Geophysics, 33 (3–4), 745–777. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Skeie, RB, T Berntsen, M Aldrin, M Holden and G Myhre [2014] A lower and more constrained estimate of climate sensitivity using updated observations and detailed radiative forcing time series. Earth System Dynamics, 5, 139–175, doi: 10.5194/esd-5-139-2014. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Stanton, E, F Ackerman and S Kartha [2009] Inside the integrated assessment models: Four issues in climate economics. Climate and Development, 1 (2), 166–184. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Tol, RSJ [1997] On the optimal control of carbon dioxide emissions: An application of FUND. Environmental Modeling and Assessment, 2, 151–163. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Traeger, CP [2014] A 4-stated DICE: Quantitatively addressing uncertainty effects in climate change. Environmental and Resource Economics, 59, 1–37. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Urban, NM, PB Holden, NR Edwards, RL Sriver and K Keller [2014] Historical and future learning about climate sensitivity. Geophysical Research Letters, 41, 2543–2552, doi: 10.1002/2014GL059484. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • US Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon (IWG) (2013). Technical Support Document: Technical update of the social cost of carbon for regulatory impact analysis Under Executive Order 12866. United States Government. Google Scholar
    • US Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon (IWG) (2010). Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order 12866. United States Government. Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/for-agencies/Social-Cost-of-Carbon-for-RIA.pdf. Google Scholar
    • van Vuuren, D, J Lowe, E Stehfest, L Gohar, A Hof, C Hope, R Warren, M Meinshausen and G Plattner [2011] How well do integrated assessment models simulate climate change?, Climatic Change, 104 (2), 255–285. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Webster, M, L Jakobovits and J Norton [2008] Learning about climate change and implications for near-term policy. Climatic Change, 89, 67–85, doi: 10.1007/s10584-008-9406-0. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Wouter Botzen, WJ and JCJM van den Bergh [2012] How sensitive is Nordhaus to Weitzman? Climate policy in DICE with an alternative damage function. Economics Letters, 117, 372–374. Crossref, Google Scholar
    Remember to check out the Most Cited Articles!

    Be inspired by these New titles in Energy, Resource & Environmental Economics today.
    Featuring authors from Princeton, Columbia University, Imperial College Business School and many more!