Review of Economic Studies · 2021 · Doris Folini、Aleksandra Friedl、Felix Kübler、Simon Scheidegger
中文摘要
我们为经济学中使用的简化气候模型提出了一种通用且透明的校准策略,目标是选择自由模型参数,使模型输出尽可能贴合耦合模式比较计划(CMIP)中大型地球系统模型在预设排放情景下的输出。我们提议联合使用气候科学文献中被认为至关重要的四种测试情形:两种高度理想化的测试,分别检验碳循环和温度响应;以及两种更接近现实情景的测试,纳入了CO2排放的渐进变化与外生强迫。
为说明该方法的适用性,我们针对三种不同的CMIP5模型响应,重新校准了开创性的DICE-2016模型气候模块中的自由参数:多模型均值,以及两个平衡气候敏感度处于极端但仍属可接受范围的CMIP5模型。作为另一项创新,我们对DICE-2016的校准明确允许模型采用任意时间步长。通过应用这一整套综合测试,我们(i)确认DICE-2016的温度方程和碳循环均存在校准偏误,(ii)表明通过重新校准系数,可以很好地匹配所考察的全部CMIP5目标。
最后,我们将DICE-2016的经济模型与新校准的气候模型相结合,计算碳的社会成本与最优升温幅度。我们发现,碳的社会成本与DICE-2016的结果相近,而最优长期温度则低了近1摄氏度。碳的社会成本对贴现率的敏感度远低于DICE-2016中的敏感度。我们解释了模型的气候模块如何导致这些差异。由于DICE-2016在最优减缓情形下的温度落在CMIP5预测范围之外,我们提醒,对基于DICE-2016得出的政策建议或应持审慎态度。
Abstract
<p>We develop a generic and transparent calibration strategy for simple climate models used in economics. The goal is to choose the free model parameters such as to best match the output of large-scale Earth System Models from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, run on pre-defined emissions scenarios. We propose to jointly use four different test cases that are considered pivotal in the climate science literature: two highly idealized tests to separately examine the carbon cycle and the temperature response, and two tests closer to real scenarios, incorporating gradual changes in CO2 emissions and exogenous forcings.</p><p>To illustrate the applicability of our method, we re-calibrate the free parameters of the climate part of the seminal DICE-2016 model for three different CMIP5 model responses: the multi-model mean as well as two CMIP5 models that exhibit extreme but still permissible equilibrium climate sensitivities. As an additional novelty, our calibrations of DICE-2016 allow for an arbitrary time step in the model explicitly. By applying our comprehensive suite of tests, we i) confirm that both the temperature equations and the carbon cycle in DICE-2016 are miscalibrated and ii) we show that by re-calibrating coefficients all CMIP5 targets considered can be well matched.</p><p>Finally, we apply the economic model from DICE-2016 in combination with the newly calibrated climate model to compute the social cost of carbon and optimal warming. We find the social cost of carbon to be similar to DICE-2016, while the optimal long-run temperature is almost one degree lower. &#160;The social cost of carbon turns out to be much less sensitive to the discount rate than in DICE-2016. We explain how the model's climate part relates to these differences. As the temperature in DICE-2016 under optimal mitigation falls outside the range of CMIP5 projections, we caution that one might want to be skeptical about policy advice based on DICE-2016.</p>