Evaluating process-based integrated assessment models of climate change 
mitigation

Wilson, Charlie; Guivarch, Céline; Kriegler, Elmar; van Ruijven, Bas; van Vuuren, Detlef P.; Krey, Volker; Schwanitz, Valeria Jana; Thompson, Erica L.

doi:10.1007/s10584-021-03099-9

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Add to Basket

Local TagsRelease HistoryDetailsSummary

Released

Journal Article

Evaluating process-based integrated assessment models of climate change mitigation

Authors

Wilson, Charlie
External Organizations;

Guivarch, Céline
External Organizations;

/persons/resource/Elmar.Kriegler

Kriegler, Elmar
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research;

van Ruijven, Bas
External Organizations;

van Vuuren, Detlef P.
External Organizations;

Krey, Volker
External Organizations;

Schwanitz, Valeria Jana
External Organizations;

Thompson, Erica L.
External Organizations;

External Ressource

No external resources are shared

Fulltext (public)

25627oa.pdf
(Publisher version), 2MB

Supplementary Material (public)

There is no public supplementary material available

Citation

Wilson, C., Guivarch, C., Kriegler, E., van Ruijven, B., van Vuuren, D. P., Krey, V., Schwanitz, V. J., Thompson, E. L. (2021): Evaluating process-based integrated assessment models of climate change mitigation. - Climatic Change, 166, 1-2, 3.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03099-9

Cite as: https://publications.pik-potsdam.de/pubman/item/item_25627

Abstract

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.