A short note on integrated assessment modeling approaches: rejoinder to the review of "Making or breaking climate targets - the AMPERE study on staged accession scenarios for climate policy"

Elmar Kriegler; Keywan Riahi; Nico Bauer; Valeria Jana Schwanitz; Nils Petermann; Valentina Bosetti; Adriana Marcucci; Sander Otto; Leonidas Paroussos; Shilpa Rao-Skirbekk; Tabaré Arroyo Currás; Shuichi Ashina; Johannes Bollen; Jiyong Eom; Meriem Hamdi-Cherif; Thomas Longden; Alban Kitous; Aurélie Méjean; Fuminori Sano; Michiel Schaeffer; Kenichi Wada; Pantelis Capros; Detlef P. van Vuuren; Ottmar Edenhofer; Christoph Bertram; Ruben Bibas; Jae Edmonds; Nils Johnson; Volker Krey; Gunnar Luderer; David McCollum; Kejun Jiang

doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2015.07.011

A short note on integrated assessment modeling approaches: rejoinder to the review of "Making or breaking climate targets - the AMPERE study on staged accession scenarios for climate policy"

Elmar Kriegler, Keywan Riahi, Nico Bauer, Valeria Jana Schwanitz, Nils Petermann, Valentina Bosetti, Adriana Marcucci, Sander Otto, Leonidas Paroussos, Shilpa Rao-Skirbekk, Tabaré Arroyo Currás, Shuichi Ashina, Johannes Bollen, Jiyong Eom, Meriem Hamdi-Cherif, Thomas Longden, Alban Kitous, Aurélie Méjean, Fuminori Sano, Michiel SchaefferKenichi Wada, Pantelis Capros, Detlef P. van Vuuren, Ottmar Edenhofer, Christoph Bertram, Ruben Bibas, Jae Edmonds, Nils Johnson, Volker Krey, Gunnar Luderer, David McCollum, Kejun Jiang

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	273-276
Number of pages	4
Journal	Technological Forecasting and Social Change
Volume	99
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.07.011
Publication status	Published - 1 Oct 2015
Externally published	Yes

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 Elsevier Inc.

Keywords

Integrated assessment modeling
Mitigation costs
Model comparison
Model documentation
Peer review

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1016/j.techfore.2015.07.011

https://ezproxy.uws.edu.au/login?url=https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.07.011

Cite this

Kriegler, E., Riahi, K., Bauer, N., Schwanitz, V. J., Petermann, N., Bosetti, V., Marcucci, A., Otto, S., Paroussos, L., Rao-Skirbekk, S., Currás, T. A., Ashina, S., Bollen, J., Eom, J., Hamdi-Cherif, M., Longden, T., Kitous, A., Méjean, A., Sano, F., ... Jiang, K. (2015). A short note on integrated assessment modeling approaches: rejoinder to the review of "Making or breaking climate targets - the AMPERE study on staged accession scenarios for climate policy". Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 99, 273-276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.07.011

@article{dc264d5436a546e3a63ce97f162b0642,

title = "A short note on integrated assessment modeling approaches: rejoinder to the review of {"}Making or breaking climate targets - the AMPERE study on staged accession scenarios for climate policy{"}",

abstract = "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.",

keywords = "Integrated assessment modeling, Mitigation costs, Model comparison, Model documentation, Peer review",

author = "Elmar Kriegler and Keywan Riahi and Nico Bauer and Schwanitz, {Valeria Jana} and Nils Petermann and Valentina Bosetti and Adriana Marcucci and Sander Otto and Leonidas Paroussos and Shilpa Rao-Skirbekk and Curr{\'a}s, {Tabar{\'e} Arroyo} and Shuichi Ashina and Johannes Bollen and Jiyong Eom and Meriem Hamdi-Cherif and Thomas Longden and Alban Kitous and Aur{\'e}lie M{\'e}jean and Fuminori Sano and Michiel Schaeffer and Kenichi Wada and Pantelis Capros and {van Vuuren}, {Detlef P.} and Ottmar Edenhofer and Christoph Bertram and Ruben Bibas and Jae Edmonds and Nils Johnson and Volker Krey and Gunnar Luderer and David McCollum and Kejun Jiang",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2015 Elsevier Inc.",

year = "2015",

month = oct,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1016/j.techfore.2015.07.011",

language = "English",

volume = "99",

pages = "273--276",

journal = "Technological Forecasting and Social Change",

issn = "0040-1625",

publisher = "Elsevier",

}

Kriegler, E, Riahi, K, Bauer, N, Schwanitz, VJ, Petermann, N, Bosetti, V, Marcucci, A, Otto, S, Paroussos, L, Rao-Skirbekk, S, Currás, TA, Ashina, S, Bollen, J, Eom, J, Hamdi-Cherif, M, Longden, T, Kitous, A, Méjean, A, Sano, F, Schaeffer, M, Wada, K, Capros, P, van Vuuren, DP, Edenhofer, O, Bertram, C, Bibas, R, Edmonds, J, Johnson, N, Krey, V, Luderer, G, McCollum, D & Jiang, K 2015, 'A short note on integrated assessment modeling approaches: rejoinder to the review of "Making or breaking climate targets - the AMPERE study on staged accession scenarios for climate policy"', Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 99, pp. 273-276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.07.011

A short note on integrated assessment modeling approaches: rejoinder to the review of "Making or breaking climate targets - the AMPERE study on staged accession scenarios for climate policy". / Kriegler, Elmar; Riahi, Keywan; Bauer, Nico et al.
In: Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 99, 01.10.2015, p. 273-276.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article

TY - JOUR

T1 - A short note on integrated assessment modeling approaches

T2 - rejoinder to the review of "Making or breaking climate targets - the AMPERE study on staged accession scenarios for climate policy"

AU - Kriegler, Elmar

AU - Riahi, Keywan

AU - Bauer, Nico

AU - Schwanitz, Valeria Jana

AU - Petermann, Nils

AU - Bosetti, Valentina

AU - Marcucci, Adriana

AU - Otto, Sander

AU - Paroussos, Leonidas

AU - Rao-Skirbekk, Shilpa

AU - Currás, Tabaré Arroyo

AU - Ashina, Shuichi

AU - Bollen, Johannes

AU - Eom, Jiyong

AU - Hamdi-Cherif, Meriem

AU - Longden, Thomas

AU - Kitous, Alban

AU - Méjean, Aurélie

AU - Sano, Fuminori

AU - Schaeffer, Michiel

AU - Wada, Kenichi

AU - Capros, Pantelis

AU - van Vuuren, Detlef P.

AU - Edenhofer, Ottmar

AU - Bertram, Christoph

AU - Bibas, Ruben

AU - Edmonds, Jae

AU - Johnson, Nils

AU - Krey, Volker

AU - Luderer, Gunnar

AU - McCollum, David

AU - Jiang, Kejun

PY - 2015/10/1

Y1 - 2015/10/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Integrated assessment modeling

KW - Mitigation costs

KW - Model comparison

KW - Model documentation

KW - Peer review

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84947047251&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.techfore.2015.07.011

DO - 10.1016/j.techfore.2015.07.011

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84947047251

SN - 0040-1625

VL - 99

SP - 273

EP - 276

JO - Technological Forecasting and Social Change

JF - Technological Forecasting and Social Change

ER -

A short note on integrated assessment modeling approaches: rejoinder to the review of "Making or breaking climate targets - the AMPERE study on staged accession scenarios for climate policy"

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this