1. The “Pangaea” Simulator -- An Decision-Maker-Oriented International Climate Simulator
Drew Jones
Sustainability Institute
Working with Ventana Systems
and MIT System Dynamics Group
September 2008

2. Simulation Creation Team
Lead Modeler
Dr. Tom Fiddaman, Ventana Systems
Modeling, Framing, and Presentation Design
Andrew Jones, Sustainability Institute
Dr. Lori Siegel, contractor to SI
Modeling and Framing
Dr. John Sterman, MIT

3. “Climate Interactive” is a growing coalition of business, academic, & nonprofit organizations
Creating a portfolio of fast, accessible, robust, transparent simulations to help address climate change

4. Climate Interactive Senior Team Members
Dr. John Sterman, MIT Sloan School of Management
Director, System Dynamics Group
Author, Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World
Dr. Peter Senge, MIT
Senior Lecturer, Sloan School of Management
Founding Chairman, Society for Organizational Learning
Author, The Fifth Discipline
Dr. Michelle Erickson, Citigroup
Director, Sustainable Information Technology Program
Dr. Bill Moomaw, The Fletcher School, Tufts University
Director of the Center for International Environment & Resource Policy
Lead author, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2003 (IPCC)

5. Purpose of Simulator is to Help Decision Makers Understand Dynamics of Climate Mitigation
Inputs
Outputs
Fossil fuel emissions by countries or “economy group”
Land use emissions
Additional sequestration from aforestation
Other greenhouse gas emissions
CO2 in the atmosphere
Global temperature
Total emissions
Total removals to oceans, biomass etc.
Sea level rise
Emissions from Developed Major Economies
And Developing Major Economies
One goal
And Non-Major Economies
CO2 in the atmosphere

6. Simulator Helps Users Conduct Customized Tests: What If…..?
(all graphs fossil fuel emissions)
Business as usual
All reduced 80% by 2050?
Or by 2030?
Developed
Developing
Non Major
Some by 2030 and others 2060?
Developed acts but undeveloped doesn’t?
Starting in 2018?

7. What Would Be the Effect on CO2 Concentrations in the Atmosphere Over Time?

8. (fossil fuel emissions)
What Would Total Emissions Looks Like, Divided by Economy Group, since 1900?
(fossil fuel emissions)
NonME
Developing
Developed MEs

9. How About for Specific Countries?
(fossil fuel emissions)
India
China
Japan
Russia EU US

10. Or Cumulative Fossil Fuel Emissions?
India
China
Japan
Russia EU US

11. Or Global Temperature?

12. What If We Boost Removals With Sequestration Through Aforestation?C O 2 i n t h e A t m o s p h e r e S o u r c e s o f T o t a l R e m o v a l s 8 6 B 4 . 4 7 5 B 7
TonC/year
oceans 2 . 9 5 B 6
seq.
ppm 1 . 4 2 5 B 5
Goal
biomass - 1 M 1 9 1 9 3 1 9 6 1 9 9 2 2 2 5 2 8 4 T i m e ( y e a r ) 3 2 2 2 2 4 2 6 2 8 2 1
Results with 80% reduction in fossil fuel emissions plus 1.6 GTC/year in additional sequestration by 2050

13. Users Move Sliders to Select “What If” Experiments Using the Prototype Control Panel

14. Historical Fit Results

15. Exploring Implications of Uncertainty in Parameters Through Sensitivity Testing

16. Overview of Model Structure
Specific country
emissions
Developing
major economies
Other
GHGs
Specific country
emissions
Total fossil fuel CO2 emissions
Developed
major
economies
Carbon
cycle
Climate
Temp
GHGs
in atm
Specific country
emissions
Land use
CO2 emissions
Non
major
economies
CO2
Sequestration
Changes to:
Aforestation
Deforestation
Forests 16

17. The Core of the Carbon Cycle Sector
(7 layers)
(7 layers)

18. The Core of the Climate Sector

19. We Use Metaphors to Help Explain Model Behavior: Think of CO2 in the Atmosphere as a Bathtub
The tub is filled by emissions and drained by net removals into oceans and biomass.
The inflow is roughly double the outflow
Emissions
CO2 in the atmosphere
Net Removals
The “flat path” caps emissions above removals. More is still flowing into the bathtub than is flowing out. So the level of water in the bathtub continues to rise.

20. For Example: 80% Reduction Brings Emissions Down to Meet Removals2 4 B
Emissions
CO2 in the atmosphere 1 8 B
TonC/year 1 2 B
Emissions 6 B
Net Removals
Net Removals 2 2 2 2 4 2 6 2 8 2 1
So levels of CO2 in the atmosphere stabilize.

21. Our Simulator Use Philosophy
Runs fast for high-iteration model testing
Model simulates 500 years in less than .1 second
Allows for practical analysis in areas such as uncertainty, trade-offs, optimization, and robustness
Hands-on use by policy-makers
Simulators designed to be used easily on a laptop by non-modelers
Transparency
We share model equations
No black box models
Understanding causes of dynamics
We take the time to ensure users understand why the model is doing what it is doing. We don’t say, “because the model says so”.

22. Simulator to Benefit From and Supplement Other Models
Pangaea uses data, structure and insights from other, larger, more disaggregated and detailed models
EG, the Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs)
Nations model generates internally consistent scenarios that could be tested and refined and verified in larger models
Our purpose is to create a small model and make it useful to policy setting and learning about complex dynamics

23. Sources of Structure and Data
Carbon Cycle and Temperature
Bolin, B
Fiddaman. T.S
Nordhaus, W. D. 1992, 1994, 2000
Goudriaan, J. and P. Ketner
Oeschger, H., U. Siegenthaler, et al
Rotmans, J
Schwartz, S.E
Schneider, S.H., and S.L. Thompson
Socolow, R.H. And S.H. Lam
Wullschleger, S. D., W. M. Post, et al
Sea Level Rise
Rahmstorf, S

24. Sources of Historical Data
Historical FF CO2
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center.
Historical Population
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. Calculated by dividing FF emissions by FF emissions per capita
Historical GDP
Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration.
Historical CO2 atmospheric concentrations
Mauna Loa – National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
Siple Ice - Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center Historical CO2 Record from the Siple Station Ice Core
Historical Temperature Changes
HADCRUT3, Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office. National Climatic Data Center, NCDC.
CFC Forcing
Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).
Other Forcings
GISS.

25. Sources of Projected Data
Projected FF CO2 emissions, atmospheric concentrations, and temperature
BAU:
US MiniCAM EMF Standard Reference
Europe AIM96 Standard Reference
China MiniCAM EMF Standard Reference
India MERGE 3.0 Ref
World MiniCAM EMF14 Standard Reference
World CETA EMF14 Standard Reference
World AIM EMF14 Standard Reference
World ASF SRES A1 Scenario
Reduction:
World MiniCAM EMF14 Accelerated Technology
World CETA EMF14 Accelerated Technology
Projected N2O and CH4 atmospheric concentrations
IPCC Third Assessment Report Chapter 6. Radiative Forcing of Climate Change. P.358.

26. We Have Calibrated Our Future Global Fossil Fuel Emissions to Track MiniCAM Most Closely
tonsC/year
20 B
10 B
1990
2010
2030
2050
2070
2090
Time (year)
World CO2 FF emissions : BAU
MiniCAM EMF14 Standard Reference
CETA EMF14 Standard Reference
AIM96 Standard Standard Reference
ASF SRES A1 Data

27. We Have Calibrated Our Country-Level Fossil Fuel Emissions to Track MiniCAM, AIM, and MERGE
US Emissions Calibration
4 B
3 B
2 B
1 B
1990
2010
2030
2050
2070
2090
Time (year)
tonsC/year
CO2 FF emissions[US] : BAU
USA MiniCAM EMF Stnd Ref
US Emissions AIM EMF16 Mod Ref
EU Emissions Calibration
4 B
3 B
2 B
1 B
1990
2010
2030
2050
2070
2090
Time (year)
tonsC/year
CO2 FF emissions[EU] : BAU
EU Emissions AIM EMF16 Mod Ref
China Emissions Calibration
8 B
6 B
4 B
2 B
1990
2010
2030
2050
2070
2090
Time (year)
tonsC/year
CO2 FF emissions[China] : BAU
China MiniCAM EMF Stnd Ref
China AIM96 Standard Scenario
India Emissions Calibration
4 B
3 B
2 B
1 B
1990
2010
2030
2050
2070
2090
Time (year)
tonsC/year
CO2 FF emissions[India] : BAU
India MERGE3 Ref

28. We Compared Our Model’s Business as Usual Scenario for CO2 Concentrations to Other Models
IPCC CO2 Atm Conc Models vs Nations Model
1,000
750
ppm
500
250
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070
2080
2090
2100
Time (year)
ppm CO2 in Atmosphere : BAU
MiniCAM Stnd Ref
CETA EMF14 Stnd Ref
RICE EMF14

29. Result when our carbon cycle is fed by MiniCAM’s emissions
We Compared Our Model’s Response to the MiniCAM Business as Usual Fossil Fuel Emissions Scenario
CO2 concentration in the atmosphere
Result when our carbon cycle is fed by MiniCAM’s emissions
800
400
ppm
1990
2010
2030
2050
2070
2090
Time (year)
Our Model
MiniCAM

30. Result when our carbon cycle is fed by MiniCAM’s emissions
We Compared Our Model’s Response to the MiniCAM “Accelerated Tech” Reduction Fossil Fuel Emissions Scenario
CO2 concentration in the atmosphere
600
Result when our carbon cycle is fed by MiniCAM’s emissions
400
ppm
200
1990
2020
2050
2080
Time (year)
Our Model
MiniCAM

31. We Plan to Post the Sim Online for Global Use

32. More information
Models on which the model that created these runs were based
Interactive version covering some of these ideas
Video version
Other related simulations \
Project blog
For an interactive, online demonstration, contact