rapid, flexible simulations to aid climate negotiations: the ...web.mit.edu/fens/docs/sterman...
TRANSCRIPT
-
1
Rapid, flexible simulations to aid climate negotiations:
The C-ROADS Climate ModelMITEI External Advisory Board
8 October 2009
John StermanJay W. Forrester Professor of Management
Professor of Engineering SystemsDirector MIT System Dynamics Group
MIT Sloan School of [email protected]
web.mit.edu/jsterman/www617.253.1951
How do people think about climate change?
How do we move beyond delay, denial and despair?
-
2
Emissions now exceed the IPCC Worst-case Scenario.
Foss
il Fu
el E
miss
ions
(GtC
/yr)
(IPCC Worst-Case)
2007: 2.2 ppm/year
Atmospheric CO2 Concentration, 2008:
385 ppm 37% above pre-industrial
Atmospheric CO2 Concentration
Data Source: Pieter Tans and Thomas Conway, NOAA/ESRL
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.pdf
Growth in Atmospheric CO2 1970-79: 1.3 ppm/year 1980-89: 1.6 ppm/year 1990-99: 1.5 ppm/year 2000-07: 2.0 ppm/year 2007: 2.2 ppm/year
2008: 1.7 ppm/year
Acc
eler
atin
g
-
3
Impacts of Projected Warming by 2100
(IPCC AR4)
Mean and 90% confidence interval of Projected
Warming by 2100 under
Business as Usual
(IPCC AR4, A1FI scenario)
1.5 °C2.7 °F
4.0 °C7.2 °F
6.4 °C11.5 °F
-
4
1.5 °C2.7 °F
4.0 °C7.2 °F
6.4 °C11.5 °F
3.5 °C6.3 ° F
5.2 °C9.4 °F
7.4 °C13.3 °F
MIT Joint Program on Global Change
(Sokolov et al. 2009, Journal of Climate)
Projected mean temp increase by 2100
under BAU: 5.2 °C (9.4 °F)
90% range:3.5 – 7.4 °C
(6.3 – 13.3 °F)
Impacts of Projected Warming by 2100
• Technical, economic and social innovation
• Strong, enforceable intʼl agreements and domestic policies to reduce GHG emissions
• Strong public support for intʼl agreements and national policies
• Distributed leadership— Govʼt, Corporate, Civil Society
Meeting the Climate Change Challenge Requires
-
5
• How proposals of individual nations translate into emissions paths at the national level
• How national proposals aggregate to global emissions
• How global emissions affect atmospheric GHG concentrations, global mean surface temperature, sea level, other climate impacts
It is difficult for negotiators and policymakers to understand:
• Peopleʼs understanding of climate dynamics is poor- Even among highly educated with strong STEM training
Sterman, J. (2008) Science 322: 532-533, 24 Oct.�Sterman, J. and L. Booth Sweeney (2007). Climatic Change 80(3-4): 213-238.
• Existing climate models – Unavailable or not fully documented– Expensive– Opaque to policymakers– Cycle time for simulations, sensitivity analysis too long for real-
time use by negotiators
• Proposals for emissions reductions often – Framed in incompatible terms (emissions vs. emissions per
capita vs. emissions intensity of GDP)– Use different metrics (GtC vs. GtCO2 vs. GtCO2e)– Use different projections for population & economic growth
Need for rapid, flexible climate models:
-
6
Policymaker Mental Models“Currently, in the UNFCCC negotiation process, the concrete environmental consequences of the various positions are not clear to all of us. There is a dangerous void of understanding of the short and long term impacts of the espoused …unwillingness to act on behalf of the Parties.”
– Christiana Figueres, UNFCCC negotiator for Costa Rica
Difficulty assessing proposals“...delegates [in Bonn] complained that their heads were spinning as they were trying to understand the science and assumptions underlying the increasing number of proposals tabled for Annex I countries’ emission reduction ranges.
http://www.iisd.ca/vol12/enb12403e.html
“They all seem to use different base years and assumptions…: how can we make any sense of them?” commented one negotiator.”
-
7
Purpose of C-ROADS (Climate Rapid Overview And Decision Support)
Improve understanding of important climate dynamics among Policymakers Educators The public
to help ensure that climate policy is informed by vetted, peer-reviewed science
C-ROADS Development Team (Climate Rapid Overview And Decision Support)
– Dr. Tom Fiddaman, Ventana Systems– Dr. Travis Franck, MIT & Tufts Fletcher School– Andrew Jones, Sustainability Institute– Dr. Phil Rice, Sustainability Institute– Dr. Beth Sawin, Sustainability Institute– Dr. Lori Siegel, Sustainability Institute– Dr. John Sterman, MIT System Dynamics Group
-
8
Partners and Financial Supporters
To meet the challenge, C-ROADS designed to be:
• Fast Simulates in < 1 second
• Accessible and Transparent Used easily on a laptop by non-modelers Open-box; all assumptions easily
examined• Grounded in and consistent with
accepted climate science Explicit carbon cycle, radiative balance Calibrated to and tested against IPCC
AR4, other models and data
-
9
17
(10 layers)
Carbon Cycle• Atmosphere• Two biosphere
compartments• Ocean:
• Mixed layer• 10 deep ocean layers
• Explicit stock/flow structure for other GHGs• CH4• N2O• HFCs, PFCs, SF6, etc.
• Aerosols & Black Carbon
18
(10 layers)
Radiative Balance
OtherForcings
• CO2• CH4• N2O• Other GHGs• Aerosols• Black carbon• Heat transfer to
surface, deep ocean
-
10
Atmospheric CO2 vs. History
1850 1900 1950 2000
ppm
400
350
300
250
200
C-ROADS
Data
C-ROADS vs C4MIP SRES A2, coupled models
C-ROADS
Friedlingstein, P., et al. (2006), Climate–Carbon Cycle Feedback Analysis: Results from the C4MIP Model Intercomparison. Journal of Climate, 19(14), 3337-3353.
-
11
C-ROADS Projections vs. AR4 Ensemble
IPCC AR4 Fig. SPM.5
*
*
* * *
* 43
2
1
0
IPCC AR4 Fig. SPM.5
C-ROADS Projections vs. AR4 Ensemble
-
12
Sea Level HistorySea Level vs Data
40
-70
-180
-290
-4001850 1872 1894 1916 1938 1960 1982 2004
Time (Year)
mm
Tide Gauge v 2000 : sr7m3Sat v 2000 : sr7m3Sea Level Rise[i A1FI] : sr7m3Sea Level Rise[i B1] : sr7m3Sea Level Rise[Committed] : sr7m3
C-ROADS
Tide Gauge
Satellite
mm
1850 1900 1950 2004
40
-70
-180
-290
-400
C-ROADS Scientific Review Panel
• Dr. Robert Watson Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and former chair, IPCC
• Mr. Eric Beinhocker McKinsey Global Institute • Dr. Klaus Hasselmann Max-Planck Institut für Meteorologie • Dr. David Lane London School of Economics • Dr. Jørgen Randers Norwegian School of Management (BI) • Dr. Stephen Schneider Stanford University • Dr. Bert de Vries Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency,
RIVM
-
13
Conclusion of Scientific Review PanelThe C-ROADS model • “reproduces the response properties of state-of-the-art
three dimensional climate models very well.” • “is a sensitivity tool, rather than a tool to provide precise
quantitative estimates of projected emissions, CO2 concentrations, and temperature and sea level responses.”
• “Given the modelʼs capabilities and its close alignment with a range of scenarios published in the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC we support its widespread use among a broad range of users and recommend that it be considered as an official United Nations tool. ”
Model Demonstration
-
14
How is C-ROADS being used?• Policymakers and negotiators:
– Internal capability to use model– Scenario and policy assessment
• US, China, other nations• Media and the public:
– “State of the global deal” reported on climateinteractive.org
• Educators, business, civil society:– Free web version: C-LEARN– “Copenhagen Climate Exercise” (Role-play simulation
of UNFCCC negotiations)– Available at climateinteractive.org
Educational version of C-ROADS:Available free at climateinteractive.org
-
15
Future Development• To enhance the model:
– Additional feedbacks, climate impacts– Additional policies, scenarios– Economic impacts (mitigation and adaptation costs, transition
dynamics)
• To support policymakers and negotiators:– Create a common, transparent platform UNFCCC parties and
others (e.g., US-China bilateral talks) use jointly to evaluate proposed emission reductions goals and policies.
• To support educators, businesses, civil society:– Open source version of C-LEARN anyone can modify, enhance– Train citizens to use the model, run the Copenhagen Climate
Simulation, and embed the model in curricula at all levels (K-12, university, executive, government, public education)
Thank you
For more information:
climateinteractive.org