the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
AD-MERGE 2.0: An Integrated Assessment of the Nexus Among Energy Transitions, Climate Impacts, and Adaptation Responses
Abstract. This paper presents AD-MERGE 2.0, an enhanced integrated assessment model that evaluates reactive ('flow') and proactive ('stock') adaptation strategies along with climate mitigation policies. The updated model extends AD-MERGE 1.0 through seven enhancements: i) including a more recent base year, ii) increased regional details, iii) refined energy system modeling, iv) inclusion of variable renewable energy, v) direct air carbon capture and storage, vi) recalibrated damage and adaptation estimates, and vii) alignment with the latest Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP2, version 3.0). Next, this study assesses five distinct scenarios using the enhanced AD-MERGE 2.0 framework: a Baseline (no mitigation or damage consideration) and two mitigation pathways, a Reference scenario (current policy-driven mitigation and climate damages), and an Announced Pledges scenario (emissions aligned with national commitments). Each of the mitigation scenarios is studied with and without adaptation. Collective advancements incorporated in the model refine analytical precision in scenario analysis, thus facilitating a more extensive examination of regional heterogeneity, energy system dynamics, technological innovation, and economic vulnerabilities associated with climate impacts. The results underscore critical trade-offs and synergies between adaptation and mitigation strategies, focusing on region-specific policy design and integration of clean energy technologies.
- Preprint
(4929 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 24 Mar 2026)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-6408', Page Kyle, 20 Feb 2026
reply
This paper is well suited for this journal. It does an excellent job presenting a large number of model developments while still being readable, and not going too far into details. Below I'm listing some things I noticed in the order encountered in the document, using line numbers from the PDF.243 - "PHS [pumped hydro storage] dominates global electricity storage when hydro reservoirs are excluded." I don't know what this means.Figure 7 - please clarify that this refers to anthropogenic emissions only of methane and nitrous oxide.399 - "In the Baseline scenario, primary energy supply reaches 1221 EJ and final energy use reaches 1050 EJ by 2100...By 2100, fossil fuels will account for 75% of the total primary energy supply, with coal leading at 28%, closely followed by oil at 27%"Something seems wrong with the calculation of final or primary energy shown in Figure 8, which explains this very high ratio of final to primary energy in 2100. Globally, final energy is about 2/3 of primary energy, with most of the difference lost in electricity generation, with contributions from transmission and distribution of electricity and gas, and oil refinery energy use. This ratio can increase over time with renewable electricity deployment, but that isn't what is driving this ratio so high here. In the 2015 time period it looks like the final energy is equal to the primary energy, and natural gas final energy exceeds primary energy, which can't be the case, especially as this is a major fuel input to the power sector.Figure 10 - The spread between the scenarios' estimates of climate damages in 2030 seems a bit wide. The baseline is 2% of GDP, and the lowest two are under 1%. This just doesn't seem like it's enough time for the adaptation scenarios to have built the infrastructures necessary to address climate impacts. Can the authors comment on what the timelines are here? Another consideration is that it is 2026 right now, so even though the model base year is 2015, it doesn't make sense to have that level of divergence taking place in years that in the real world are historical. I'm not suggesting re-running or revising the scenarios, but the appropriate caveat should be provided if the scenarios are going to have this level of divergence for a variable that in the real world would take decades of action to achieve. Or perhaps starting the chart in 2040 would address this.The final question that I have pertains to the use of this model for charting out optimal policies that balance the costs of mitigation against the benefits of avoided damages, taking into account the cost of that adaptation. It seems like this model has all of the necessary pieces to do that sort of analysis, but I don't see any commentary about this, and the scenarios weren't constructed so as to estimate it.ReplyCitation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2025-6408-RC1
Data sets
AD-MERGE 2.0 Integrated Assessment Model (Data Sets) Kamyar Amirmoeini, Olivier Bahn, Kelly de Bruin, Kirsten Everett, Hamed Kouchaki-Penchah, and Pierre-Olivier Pineau https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17989841
Model code and software
AD-MERGE 2.0 Integrated Assessment Model (Model Code) Kamyar Amirmoeini, Olivier Bahn, Kelly de Bruin, Kirsten Everett, Hamed Kouchaki-Penchah, and Pierre-Olivier Pineau https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17989841
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 178 | 101 | 19 | 298 | 12 | 14 |
- HTML: 178
- PDF: 101
- XML: 19
- Total: 298
- BibTeX: 12
- EndNote: 14
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1