Abstract:Abstract To analyse climate change mitigation strategies, economists rely on simplified climate models—so-called climate emulators—that provide a realistic quantitative link between CO2 emissions and global warming at low computational costs. In this paper, we propose a generic and transparent calibration and evaluation strategy for these climate emulators that are based on freely and easily accessible state-of-the-art benchmark data from climate sciences. We demonstrate that the appropriate choice of the free model parameters can be of key relevance for the predicted social cost of carbon. The key idea we put forward is to calibrate the simplified climate models to benchmark data from comprehensive global climate models that took part in the coupled model intercomparison project, phase 5 (CMIP5). In particular, we propose to use four different test cases that are considered pivotal in the climate science literature: two highly idealized tests to separately calibrate and evaluate the carbon cycle and temperature response, an idealized test to quantify the transient climate response, and a final test to evaluate the performance for scenarios close to those arising from economic models, and that include exogenous forcing. As a concrete example, we re-calibrate the climate part of the widely used DICE-2016, fathoming the CMIP5 uncertainty range of model responses: the multi-model mean as well as extreme, but still permissible climate sensitivities and carbon cycle responses. We demonstrate that the functional form of the climate emulator of the DICE-2016 model is fit for purpose, despite its simplicity, but its carbon cycle and temperature equations are miscalibrated, leading to the conclusion that one may want to be skeptical about predictions derived from DICE-2016. We examine the importance of the calibration for the social cost of carbon in the context of a partial equilibrium setting where interest rates are exogenous, as well as the simple general equilibrium setting from DICE-2016. We find that the model uncertainty from different consistent calibrations of the climate system can change the social cost of carbon by a factor of 4 if one assumes a quadratic damage function. When calibrated to the multi-model mean, our model predicts similar values for the social cost of carbon as the original DICE-2016, but with a strongly reduced sensitivity to the discount rate and about 1 degree less long-term warming. The social cost of carbon in DICE-2016 is oversensitive to the discount rate, leading to extreme comparative statics responses to changes in preferences.

Climate Module Disparities Explain Inconsistent Estimates of the Social Cost of Carbon in Integrated Assessment Models

Social Cost of Carbon: What Do the Numbers Really Mean?

Social cost of carbon: A revisit from a systems analysis perspective

The social cost of carbon dioxide under climate-economy feedbacks and temperature variability

The Social Cost of Carbon with Economic and Climate Risks

Revisiting the social cost of carbon

Climate uncertainty impacts on optimal mitigation pathways and social cost of carbon

The Climate in Climate Economics

The social cost of carbon driven by green behaviors

Country-level social cost of carbon

Social cost of carbon under a carbon-neutral pathway

Progress, Curse, or Mixed Blessing: the Impacts of Multiple Climate Ambiguities on the Optimal Carbon Emission Abatement Policy

Including climate system feedbacks in calculations of the social cost of methane

The Role of Uncertainty in Controlling Climate Change

Modeling myths: On DICE and dynamic realism in integrated assessment models of climate change mitigation

Assessment of climate damage in China based on integrated assessment framework

Economic consequences of the spatial and temporal variability of climate change

The mortality cost of carbon

Global climate damage in 2 °C and 1.5 °C scenarios based on BCC_SESM model in IAM framework

Urban and non-urban contributions to the social cost of carbon

Internalization of the social cost of carbon in each of the countries of the world—An economic assessment of its impacts