American Meteorological Society and the Heinz Center

The C-ROADS Climate Simulation


Assessing Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Reduction Policies: New Science Tools
in the Service of Policy and Negotiation
18 March 2009

Dr. Robert W. Corell

Vice-President of Programs
The H. John Heinz Center

for Science, Economics and the Environment
Washington, DC

Dr. John D. Sterman

Jay W. Forrester Professor of Management
Professor of Engineering Systems
Director MIT System Dynamics Group
MIT Sloan School of Management
 Emissions now exceed the IPCC Worst-case Scenario.
Fossil Fuel Emissions (GtC/yr)

(IPCC Worst-Case)
 Atmospheric CO2 Concentration
Atmospheric CO2 Growth in Atmospheric CO2
Concentration, 2007: 1970-79: 1.3 ppm/year
1980-89: 1.6 ppm/year

385 ppm
37% above pre-industrial
Accelerating
1990-99: 1.5 ppm/year
2000-07: 2.0 ppm/year
2007: 2.2 ppm/year

Data Source: Pieter Tans and Thomas Conway, NOAA/ESRL

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.pdf
 Deliberation with Analysis
is the most appropriate strategy to meet the challenges
of climate change policy development because it
enables continuing learning in a constantly changing
environment. –NAS/NRC Study Released 3.12.09
 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

–  Travis Franck, MIT
–  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
 C-ROADS designed to be:
•  Fast
 Simulates in <1 second
•  Accessible
 Used easily on a laptop by non-modelers
 Flexible, intuitive interface
•  Transparent
 Open-box; assumptions available for review
 Causal tracing permits auditing of behavior
•  Grounded in and consistent with accepted
climate science
 Calibrated to/tested against AR4, other models and data
 Enables rapid and flexible sensitivity analysis
 Reviewed by distinguished panel of scientists
 C-ROADS Model Structure
User Input

(3, 7, or 15 blocs) Other GHGs

Total fossil
Specific
fuel CO2 Carbon Sea
country Climate Temp
emissions cycle GHGs Level rise
emissions
in atm
Net CO2 emissions
Deforestation from forests
Afforestation Forests

User Input
 21st Century Warming Scenarios:

AR4 Ensemble of Models

IPCC AR4 Fig. SPM.5

 C-ROADS Projections

compared to AR4 Ensemble

*
4

3 *
*
DegreesC
*
* *
2

* = C-ROADS
IPCC AR4 Fig. SPM.5
 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
 Conclusion of Scientific Review Panel
The 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.”
•  “Extensions to C-ROADS, from global to regional projections
of climate change, would improve the policy-relevance…and
provide a useful means for examining the societal implications
of particular emission reduction scenarios.”
•  “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
policy makers and the general public.”
Model Demonstration
 What Might We Expect From
“Current Proposals”?

35

Billion
tons
C/
yr

BAU
30

25

20
 ?
15

10

5

0

2000
 2050
 2100


BAU = Business As Usual (A1FI)

Our interpretation of current proposals
Brazil
 Canada
 China
 Europe

 India


Eliminate
 70%
below
 80%
below
 BAU
rate
un9l

deforesta9on
 2006
by
2050

 1990
levels
by
 2035
and
then

by
2050

 2050

 constant

emissions



Middle
East
 Mexico

 OECD
Pacific
 Other
Africa
 Other
Large


50%
below
 60%
below
 Asia

2002
levels
by
 2000
by
2050


2050



Other
La9n
 Other
Small
 Russia/FSU
 South
Africa
 US



Am.
 Asia
 1990
levels
by
 BAU
un9l
2022;
 80%
below

2012

 emissions
 1990
by
2050


constant
un9l

2032,
then
1%

per
year

annual
decline


CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuels

35

Billion
tons
C/
yr

BAU
30

25

20
 Current
Proposals
15

10

5

0

2000
 2050
 2100

Atmospheric CO2 Concentration

1000
 BAU
800

?
ppm


600

400

200

2000
 2050
 2100

Atmospheric CO2 Concentration

1000
 BAU
800
 Current
ppm


Proposals
600

400

200

2000
 2050
 2100

 GHG Emissions Under Current Proposals
Continue to Exceed Removal from Atmosphere

24
Billion Ton C/year

Emissions Emissions
18
12
6 Removals

0 Removals
2000 20 40
60
80 2100
 Fate of Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions (2000-2007)
~ 20%
Atmosphere
~ 46% 4.2 Pg Carbon/yr

(1.5 Pg Carbon /yr)

Land
~ 80% + ~ 29%
2.6 Pg Carbon/yr

Oceans
Down
(7.5 Pg Carbon /yr) ~ 26%
2.3 Pg Carbon/yr ~ 5%
Canadell et al. 2007, PNAS (updated)
Temperature Increase (°C)

5
 BAU
4

Degrees
C


3
 ?
2

1

0

2000
 2050
 2100

Temperature Increase (°C)

5
 BAU
4
 Current
Degrees
C


Proposals
3

2

1

0

2000
 2050
 2100

 CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuels
Leveling
35
 CO2
4.6 %
Billion
tons
C/
yr


BAU emissions
30
 per29%
year
25
 starting
below
20
 Current 2009
now
Proposals
levels by
15
 2040
10

WEO
5

80% Global
0

2000
 2050
 2100


WEO = World Economic Outlook 2008 “450 policy scenario”

80% Global = 80% reduction in FF emissions by 2050 (from 1990) + 

90% reduction in deforestation by 2050 (from today)
Atmospheric CO2 Concentration

1000
 BAU
800
 Current
ppm


Proposals
600

WEO
400
 80% Global

200

2000
 2050
 2100


WEO = World Economic Outlook 2008 “450 policy scenario”

80% Global = 80% reduction in FF emissions by 2050 (from 1990) + 

90% reduction in deforestation by 2050 (from today)
 Temperature Increase (°C)

5
 BAU
4
 Current
Degrees
C


Proposals
3
 WEO
80% Global
2

1

0

2000
 2050
 2100


WEO = World Economic Outlook 2008 “450 policy scenario”

80% Global = 80% reduction in FF emissions by 2050 (from 1990) + 

90% reduction in deforestation by 2050 (from today)
BAU and Current Proposals
•  Business As Usual (BAU)
calibrated to IPCC SRES A1FI
•  Current Proposals include
emissions reductions proposals in
Table 1
•  WEO is the “450 Policy Scenario”
in the World Energy Outlook 2008
report by the International Energy
Association
•  80% is a 80% reduction in global
fossil fuel emissions from 1990
levels by 2050 plus a 90%
reduction in land use emissions
from 2009 levels by 2050.
 C-ROADS Facilitates

“Deliberation With Analysis”
•  Trades off complexity for transparency and
speed
•  Consistent with vetted, peer-reviewed science,
more complex models
•  Aggregates diverse emissions reduction
proposals into a single global emissions
projection
•  Simulates the resulting atmospheric GHG levels,
temp. increase & other impacts
•  Quickly evaluates rapidly changing emissions
policy proposals
Current publicly announced proposals
for emissions reductions:
•  Lead to continued growth in global GHG
emissions
•  Collectively insufficient to stabilize
atmospheric GHG levels or limit
temperature change, sea level rise
•  Emissions remain far above level
required to stabilize atmospheric GHGs
or limit temperature increase to less
than 2°C from preindustrial level.
 What is required?
•  Stabilizing atmospheric GHG levels
requires substantial drop in global GHG
emissions
–  Emissions must fall to rate of GHG removal
from atmosphere
•  Global emission reductions of about 

80% from 1990 rates by 2050, with
substantial reductions in deforestation,
could stabilize GHG concentrations near
450 ppm and slow temperature increase
and sea level rise.
 For More Information

climateinteractive.org
And:
http://jsterman.scripts.mit.edu
Sterman, J. D. (2008). Risk Communication on
Climate: Mental Models and Mass Balance.
Science 322: 532-533.