  Emissions pathways used in climate policy analysis are often derived from
integrated assessment models. However, such emissions pathways do not typically
include climate feedbacks on socioeconomic systems and by extension do not
consider climate uncertainty in their construction. We use a well-known
cost-benefit integrated assessment model, the Dynamic Integrated
Climate-Economy (DICE) model, with its climate component replaced by the
Finite-amplitude Impulse Response (FaIR) model (v2.1). The climate uncertainty
in FaIR is sampled with an ensemble that is consistent with historically
observed climate and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessed
ranges of key climate variables such as equilibrium climate sensitivity. Three
scenarios are produced: a pathway similar to the "optimal welfare" scenario of
DICE that has similar warming outcomes to current policies, and pathways that
limit warming to "well-below" 2C and 1.5C with low overshoot, in line with
Paris Agreement long-term temperature goals. Climate uncertainty alone is
responsible for a factor of five variation (5-95% range) in the social cost of
carbon in the 1.5C scenario. CO2 emissions trajectories resulting from the
optimal level of emissions abatement in all pathways are also sensitive to
climate uncertainty, with 2050 emissions ranging from -12 to +14 GtCO2/yr in
the 1.5C scenario. Equilibrium climate sensitivity and the strength of
present-day aerosol effective radiative forcing are strong determinants of
social cost of carbon and mid-century CO2 emissions. This shows that narrowing
climate uncertainty leads to more refined estimates for the social cost of
carbon and provides more certainty about the optimal rate of emissions
abatement. Including climate and climate uncertainty in integrated assessment
model derived emissions scenarios would address a key missing feedback in
scenario construction.
