Articles | Volume 10, issue 12
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-4307-2017
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-4307-2017
Model evaluation paper
 | 
29 Nov 2017
Model evaluation paper |  | 29 Nov 2017

Evaluation of integrated assessment model hindcast experiments: a case study of the GCAM 3.0 land use module

Abigail C. Snyder, Robert P. Link, and Katherine V. Calvin

Download

Interactive discussion

Status: closed
Status: closed
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision
AR by Abigail Snyder on behalf of the Authors (01 Sep 2017)  Author's response   Manuscript 
ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (26 Sep 2017) by David Lawrence
RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (10 Oct 2017)
RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (11 Oct 2017)
ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (Editor review) (12 Oct 2017) by David Lawrence
AR by Abigail Snyder on behalf of the Authors (13 Oct 2017)  Author's response   Manuscript 
ED: Publish as is (16 Oct 2017) by David Lawrence
AR by Abigail Snyder on behalf of the Authors (26 Oct 2017)  Manuscript 
Download
Short summary
Experiments conducting a model forecast for a period in which observational data are available are rarely undertaken in the integrated assessment model (IAM) community. When undertaken, results are often evaluated using global aggregates that mask deficiencies. Comparing land allocation simulations in GCAM with FAO observational data from 1990 to 2010, we find quantitative evidence that global aggregates alone are not sufficient for evaluating IAMs with global supply constraints similar to GCAM.