From Billy Suid,
What would be more useful is better understanding the calibrations of the scenarios. One area this could be implemented is via the charts provided in the NGFS details section. This area provides a range of charts for a given scenario, which display the projected pathways, for variables such as carbon emissions, carbon prices, investments in energy efficiency, etc. And additionally for physical hazards, e.g. expected economic damages from river floods, changes in annual expected economic damages from cyclones, or GDP impacts.
The summary analyses are very similar to the NGFS’ own resources, and there is no additional data to that provided from the NGFS either. Therefore, the real value for anyone using this tool would be the ease of obtaining such summaries, rather than additional insight. A helpful additional functionality would be to include details of the exact model output shown for a given chart. As the NGFS provides a total of 45 datasets in the IIASA Scenario Explorer alone, each of which have their own calibrations. Understanding the implications of these different trajectories/calibrations, even only qualitatively, would make this resource more powerful.
Further still, if the tool could provide a second chart comparing all of the output available for the given variable and the given set of scenarios (see below, which shows all of the available Orderly output for global CO2 Emissions, taken from the IIASA Scenario Explorer), with qualitative explanations of the differences across these outputs.
The sector details are well researched, with references attached. However, these sections may benefit from reformatting/consolidating the summary sections, or additional charts. A clearer format, perhaps even in the form of a summary table that provides an overview of the impacts on a given sector, per scenario type (Orderly, Disorderly, etc.) would be more helpful.
The Institutional Report, meanwhile, is much like the sector report, and similar formatting/additional research comments as above apply. Largely an Institutional Report appears to be a concatenation of the various Sector Reports that the user identifies as being exposed to. Details differ primarily in the sector section, where some information on the impacts to financial products is presented, but these are very high-level. Thus from a scenario perspective, the sector report is more useful, as explained.
From Billy Suid, What would be more useful is better understanding the calibrations of the scenarios. One area this could be implemented is via the charts provided in the NGFS details section. This area provides a range of charts for a given scenario, which display the projected pathways, for variables such as carbon emissions, carbon prices, investments in energy efficiency, etc. And additionally for physical hazards, e.g. expected economic damages from river floods, changes in annual expected economic damages from cyclones, or GDP impacts. The summary analyses are very similar to the NGFS’ own resources, and there is no additional data to that provided from the NGFS either. Therefore, the real value for anyone using this tool would be the ease of obtaining such summaries, rather than additional insight. A helpful additional functionality would be to include details of the exact model output shown for a given chart. As the NGFS provides a total of 45 datasets in the IIASA Scenario Explorer alone, each of which have their own calibrations. Understanding the implications of these different trajectories/calibrations, even only qualitatively, would make this resource more powerful. Further still, if the tool could provide a second chart comparing all of the output available for the given variable and the given set of scenarios (see below, which shows all of the available Orderly output for global CO2 Emissions, taken from the IIASA Scenario Explorer), with qualitative explanations of the differences across these outputs.
The sector details are well researched, with references attached. However, these sections may benefit from reformatting/consolidating the summary sections, or additional charts. A clearer format, perhaps even in the form of a summary table that provides an overview of the impacts on a given sector, per scenario type (Orderly, Disorderly, etc.) would be more helpful. The Institutional Report, meanwhile, is much like the sector report, and similar formatting/additional research comments as above apply. Largely an Institutional Report appears to be a concatenation of the various Sector Reports that the user identifies as being exposed to. Details differ primarily in the sector section, where some information on the impacts to financial products is presented, but these are very high-level. Thus from a scenario perspective, the sector report is more useful, as explained.