• Energy Research

AbstractWe apply belief functions to an analysis of future climate change. It is shown that the lower envelope of a set of probabilities bounded by cumulative probability distributions is a belief function. The large uncertainty about natural and socio-economic factors influencing estimates of future climate change is quantified in terms of bounds on cumulative probability. This information is used to construct a belief function for a simple climate change model, which then is projected onto an estimate of global mean warming in the 21st century. Results show that warming estimates on this basis can generate very imprecise uncertainty models.

AbstractWe apply belief functions to an analysis of future climate change. It is shown that the lower envelope of a set of probabilities bounded by cumulative probability distributions is a belief function. The large uncertainty about natural and socio-economic factors influencing estimates of future climate change is quantified in terms of bounds on cumulative probability. This information is used to construct a belief function for a simple climate change model, which then is projected onto an estimate of global mean warming in the 21st century. Results show that warming estimates on this basis can generate very imprecise uncertainty models.

Based on a large number of energy-economic and integrated assessment models, the Energy Modeling Forum (EMF) 27 study systematically explores the implications of technology cost and availability for feasibility and macroeconomic costs of energy system transformations toward climate stabilization. At the highest level, the technology strategy articulated in all the scenarios in EMF27 includes three elements: decarbonization of energy supply, increasing the use of low-carbon energy carriers in end-use, and reduction of energy use. The way that the scenarios differ is in the degree to which these different elements of strategy are implemented, the timing of those implementations, and the associated macroeconomic costs. The study also discusses the value of individual technologies for achieving climate stabilization. A robust finding is that the unavailability of carbon capture and storage and limited availability of bioenergy have the largest impact on feasibility and macroeconomic costs for stabilizing atmospheric concentrations at low levels, mostly because of their combined ability to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Constraining options in the electric sector such as nuclear power, wind and solar energy in contrast has a much smaller impact on the cost of mitigation.

Based on a large number of energy-economic and integrated assessment models, the Energy Modeling Forum (EMF) 27 study systematically explores the implications of technology cost and availability for feasibility and macroeconomic costs of energy system transformations toward climate stabilization. At the highest level, the technology strategy articulated in all the scenarios in EMF27 includes three elements: decarbonization of energy supply, increasing the use of low-carbon energy carriers in end-use, and reduction of energy use. The way that the scenarios differ is in the degree to which these different elements of strategy are implemented, the timing of those implementations, and the associated macroeconomic costs. The study also discusses the value of individual technologies for achieving climate stabilization. A robust finding is that the unavailability of carbon capture and storage and limited availability of bioenergy have the largest impact on feasibility and macroeconomic costs for stabilizing atmospheric concentrations at low levels, mostly because of their combined ability to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Constraining options in the electric sector such as nuclear power, wind and solar energy in contrast has a much smaller impact on the cost of mitigation.

We provide a rejoinder to a review (Rosen, 2015) of our original article "Making or breaking climate targets - the AMPERE study on staged accession scenarios for climate policy" (Kriegler et al., 2015a). We have a substantial disagreement with the content of the review, and feel that it is plagued by a number of misconceptions about the nature of the AMPERE study and the integrated assessment modeling approach employed by it. We therefore see this rejoinder as an opportunity to clarify these misconceptions and advance the debate by providing a clearer understanding of the strengths, weaknesses, and ultimately the value of integrated assessment.

We provide a rejoinder to a review (Rosen, 2015) of our original article "Making or breaking climate targets - the AMPERE study on staged accession scenarios for climate policy" (Kriegler et al., 2015a). We have a substantial disagreement with the content of the review, and feel that it is plagued by a number of misconceptions about the nature of the AMPERE study and the integrated assessment modeling approach employed by it. We therefore see this rejoinder as an opportunity to clarify these misconceptions and advance the debate by providing a clearer understanding of the strengths, weaknesses, and ultimately the value of integrated assessment.