Pangaea Reference Guide V 21

DRAFT – not for citation or distribution Pangaea Model Reference Guide
PANGAEA MODEL REFERENCE GUIDE

DRAFT
November, 2008
Tom Fiddaman1, Lori S. Siegel2, Beth Sawin2, Andrew P. Jones2

1
Ventana Systems
2
Sustainability Institute
Regional Climate Model Reference Guide
Pangaea Model Reference Guide.....................................................................................................i

DRAFT............................................................................................................................................i
1. Background and objectives..........................................................................................................1
2. Model structure overview............................................................................................................2
3. Formulation..................................................................................................................................3
3.1 Regional CO2 Emissions.......................................................................................................4
3.2 Other greenhouse gasses (CH4 and N2O)...........................................................................26
3.3 Land use...............................................................................................................................32
3.4 Carbon cycle .......................................................................................................................35
3.4.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................35
3.4.2 Structure........................................................................................................................35
3.4.3 Behavior........................................................................................................................43
3.5 Climate.................................................................................................................................44
3.5.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................44
3.5.2 Structure........................................................................................................................44
3.5.3 Behavior........................................................................................................................49
4. Sea Level Rise............................................................................................................................51
5. Calibration..................................................................................................................................54
5.1 Historical comparisons.........................................................................................................56
5.1.1 CO2 atmospheric concentrations..................................................................................56
5.1.2 Temperature..................................................................................................................58
5.2 Comparisons to projections..................................................................................................59
5.2.1 Calibration of Emissions...............................................................................................59
5.2.2 Carbon Cycle Test.........................................................................................................61
5.2.3 Temperature Test..........................................................................................................68
5.2.4 Other GHG concentrations...........................................................................................71
6. Population and GDP..................................................................................................................74
7. References..................................................................................................................................80
ii
1. Background and objectives
The Pangaea model was built according to the principles of System Dynamics (SD), which is a
methodology for creation simulation models that help people improve their understanding of
complex situations and how they evolve over time. The method was developed by Jay Forrester
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the 1950s and described in his book Industrial
Dynamics (Forrester, 1961). SD was the methodology used to create the World3 simulation
model that provided the basis for the book The Limits To Growth (Meadows, 1972). System
dynamics has been described more recently by John Sterman in Business Dynamics (Sterman,
2000).
System dynamics models, including Pangaea consist of linked sets of differential equations that
describe a dynamic system in terms of accumulations (stocks) and changes to those stocks
(inflows and outflows). Feedback, delays, and non-linear responses are all included in the model.
System dynamics models help users understand the observed behavior of systems and anticipate
future behavior under a variety of scenarios.
The Pangaea model is the product of many years of effort, beginning as the graduate research of
Tom Fiddaman (Fiddaman, 1997) under the direction of John Sterman and continued by Tom
Fiddaman at Ventana Systems and Lori Siegel for Sustainability Institute. The model has been
used interactively in a workshop called the Copenhagen Climate Exercise and in strategy
sessions on climate change in a variety of settings.
Many nonscientists do not understand the fundamental dynamics of the accumulation of carbon
and heat in the atmosphere (Sterman & Booth Sweeney, 2007; Sterman, 2008) Because of these
misunderstandings, many people’s intuitive predictions of the response of the global climate
system to emissions cuts are not accurate and often underestimate the degree of emissions
reductions need to stabilize atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. These misunderstandings also
often lead people to underestimate the lag time between changes in emissions and changes in
global mean temperature.
Our conversations with stakeholders such as negotiators tasked with reaching global climate
agreements or leaders working to influence those agreements suggest that, even within very
high-level policy-making discussions, the ability to understand the aggregate effects of national,
regional or sectoral mitigation commitments on atmospheric CO2 level and temperature is
limited by the scarcity of simple, real-time decision-support tools. The Pangaea Climate Model
(Pangaea) is a tool intended to close this gap.
Pangaea assesses and communicates the impacts of emissions of greenhouse gases on global
climate change. Model users determine the path of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from
specified regions over the next century. The model then calculates the concentration of CO2 in
the atmosphere, global mean surface temperature, and sea level rise resulting from these
emissions.
Emissions scenarios tested by users represent the possible emissions trajectories of various
regional subsets of the world’s nations. The degree of regional grouping and the composition of
the groupings are flexible; the model tracks emissions from individual countries and/or from
groupings of countries.
Grounded in well-accepted science, as described in the Formulation section of this reference
guide, the model provides a consistent basis for analysis and comparison of policy options. By
visually conveying the projected aggregated impact of numerous national-level commitments to
greenhouse gas emissions reductions the model allows users to see and understand the gap
between anticipated CO2 levels if proposals or commitments are fully realized and the target
CO2 levels they are aiming for. In this way Pangaea offers decision makers a way to determine if
they are on track towards their goals, and to discover – if they are not on track – what additional
measures on what time scale would be sufficient to meet those goals
Pangaea allows for fast-turnaround, hands-on use by decision makers. It emphasizes:
• Transparency: equations are available, easily auditable, and presented graphically.
• Understanding: model behavior can be traced through the chain of causality to origins;
we don’t say “because the model says so.”
• Flexibility: the model supports a wide variety of user-specified scenarios at varying levels
of complexity.
• Consistency: the simulator is consistent with historic data, the structure and insights from
larger models, and the IPCC AR4.
• Accessibility: the model runs with a user-friendly graphical interface on a laptop
computer in real time.
• Robustness: the model captures uncertainty around the climate outcomes associated with
emissions decisions.
Pangaea is not a substitute for larger integrated assessment models (IAMs) or detailed climate
models such as General Circulation Models (GCMs). Instead, it captures some of the key
insights from such models and makes them available for rapid policy experimentation. This is
important for negotiators and other stakeholders who need to appreciate the consequences of
possible emissions reductions commitments quickly and accurately.
2. Model structure overview
Model simulations run from the year 1600 through the year 2100. Model values are updated
every 0.25 years. The model stores and can plot and print the output for every time step or for
other time intervals, as desired.
Pangaea is a synthesis of several sub-models (Figure 1).

-
Regional CO2 Emissions;
- Other greenhouse gasses (CH4 and N2O);
- Land use;
- Carbon cycle;
2
- Global Average Surface Temperature; and

- Sea level rise.
Population and economic sub-models are also integrated into the model.
Figure 1 Overview of Pangaea
Regional CO2 Emissions Land Use
Carbon Cycle
Global average surface

temperature
Other Greenhouse Gases
Sea Level Rise
3. Formulation
(In this section sub-models are written in bold, model views and control panels are underlined,
and model variables are written in italic.)
3
3.1 Regional CO2 Emissions

The Regional CO2 Emissions sub-model ( Figure 3) captures the historical and projected CO2
fossil fuel (FF) emissions for the assigned regions.
In the Regional CO2 Emissions sub-model, change in emissions is calculated according to
IPCC projections, or emissions scenarios chosen by the user for groups of nations according to
the level of aggregation chosen by the user. Change in emissions determines Economic group
CO2 FF emissions, which are CO2 emissions for each group of nations for each simulated time
period. Historical emissions are incorporated into the variable, CO2 FF emissions. CO2 FF
emissions for each regional group are summed to give rise to World CO2 FF emissions. World
CO2 FF emissions provides input into the Carbon Cycle sub-model of Pangaea.
Historical data (1600-2007) for this sub-model are specified for each reported nation in the
Historical Regional FF Emissions data sector. Historical national CO2 FF emissions were
obtained from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center1. Historical global CO2 FF
emissions were also obtained from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center.2
For each regional grouping of nations, Pangaea tracks accumulated CO2 FF emissions in the
Cumulative CO2 Emissions sector starting in model year 1900 (Figure 2 Accumulated CO2
Figure 2 Accumulated CO2 Fossil Fuel Emissions
<World CO2 FF
Fraction of cumulative FF emissions>
Others CO2 FF
emissions
emissions
Cumulative
world FF CO2
<CO2 FF
emissions> Cumulative <Time>
regional CO2
Fossil Fuel Emissions. Prior historical data are not available for many nations, forcing this
approximation.
National Groupings
The model output can be shown in a simplified view that aggregates nations into three classes:
- Developed Major Economies (ME)
1
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/CSV-FILES/nation.1751_2004.csv
2
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/CSV-FILES/global.1751_2004.csv
4
- Developing ME, and Non ME, which includes all other countries not included in
Developed ME and Developing ME.
This simplified output can most easily be seen in the Ctrl-panel main view.
Model output can also be shown as a seven-region grouping:
- US,
- EU,
- China,
- India,
- Other Developed ME,
- Other Developing ME, and
- Non ME.
This level of aggregation can be accessed using Ctrl panel – advanced Policies 1 through 3,
although the output is simplified to show emissions only from the US, EU, India and China.
Users can also test scenarios in more detail using a fourteen-region grouping chosen to reflect the
current negotiating blocs in the UNFCCC process
Table 1 Regions of Interest describes these groupings in detail.
5
Figure 3 Regional CO2 Fossil Fuel Emissions

<POLICY>
<Emissions
World CO2
reference year>
<CO2 FF emissions> emissions at target
<Economic group CO2 FF
CO2 FF emissions> emissions target
<FF change start CO2 FF
year> emissions at
CO2 FF emissions at <Time> reference year
<Regional relative
start year <Relative FF change by allocations>
<Time>
emissions>
Growth rate of B1 Growth rate of <FF change target

emissions A1FI emissions year>
WEO BAU <FF change start
Actual relative change
growth allocations1 <Time> year>
WEO BAU growth Regional growth

IPCC data
allocations2 rates switch
<Change in emissions Time for Change
<Time>
with Policy 1> <FF change start
year>
<Change in emissions <FF change target
with Policy 2> Economic group year>
CO2 FF <Time>
<Change in emissions Change in
emissions
with Policy 3> emissions CO2 FF emissions at
target year
<TIME STEP>
<POLICY <Change in emissions <Emissions
TYPE> with Policy 4> Year to start
<POLICY> reference year>
forecast
<MiniCAM <Time> <POLICY> Ratio to global

pSRES A1FI> CO2 FF emissions emissions at reference
year
<COP historical CO2
Current CO2
FF emissions> <IPCC data Ratio to global
FF emissions
<MiniCAM switch> emissions
SRES B1> <Emissions by
region>
Global reference
Relative input Regional CO2 FF
year
of nation emissions World CO2
<Time>
Aggregated CO2 FF emissions
FF Emissions
Actual world CO2 FF
emissions at target year Global emissions at
<World historical reference year
<FF change target CO2 FF emissions>
<Time> year>
6
Table 1 Regions of Interest

Three Seven Fourteen Individual Nations
Regions Regions Regions
Developed United States United States United States (US)
ME (US) (US)
European European Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech
Union (EU) Union (EU) Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France,
27 (EU27) 27 (EU27) Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia,
Lithuania, Luxemburg, Malta, the Netherlands,
Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia,
Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
Other Russia and Russia, Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia,
Developed parts of Hungary, Poland, Romania, Yugoslavia, USSR,
ME eastern Bosnia & Herzegovinia, Croatia, Macedonia,
Europe Slovenia, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Russian Federation,
Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan
Canada Canada
OECD Pacific Australia
New Zealand
Japan
South Korea
Developing China China China

ME India India India
Other Other Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Burma, Cambodia, Hong
Developing Developing Kong, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nepal,
ME Asia North Korea, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, Sri
Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam
Brazil Brazil
South Africa South Africa
Mexico Mexico
Non ME Non ME Middle East Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon,
Oman, Qatar, South Arabia, Syria, Turkey, United
Arab Emirates, Yemen, Occupied Palestinian
Territory, Egypt
Other Latin Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Peru, Uruguay,
America Venezuela, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican
Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti,
Honduras, Jamaica, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay,
Puerto Rico, Trinidad and Tobago
Other Africa Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso,
7
Three Seven Fourteen Individual Nations

Regions Regions Regions
Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African
Republic, Chad, Comoro Islands, Congo, Côte
d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea and
Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea
Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya,
Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius,
Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria,
Reunion, Rwanda, Sao Tome & Principe, Senegal,
Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan,
Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zaire,
Zambia, Zimbabwe, Mayotte, Saint Helena, West
Sahara
User Control of Emissions Scenarios

In the Business As Usual base run, emissions for each nation or region grow according to the A1FI
scenario of the IPCC. For all policies, the model relies on historical data through 2004. BAU
projections until a policy’s start year are calibrated to IPCC’s MiniCAM SRES A1FI global FF
emissions with WEO growth allocations between regions.
The user can test alternative scenarios to A1FI by choosing one of six different policy approaches.
Each policy choice influence the method used to calculate Change in emissions, the rate of change
of the variable, Economic Group CO2 Fossil Fuel Emissions (see Figure 3 Regional CO2 Fossil
Fuel Emissions).
Annual Change in Emissions: Policy 1
Under Policy 1 fossil fuel CO2

emissions grow at the Business As Figure 4 Regional CO2 Fossil Fuel Emissions Policy 1
Usual rate (calibrated to the IPCC Inputs
A1FI scenario) until a year South Africa annual
Other Asia annual
reduction
specified by the user when the Brazil annual
reduction
Other Africa annual
growth of emissions stops. reduction EU annual
reduction China annual
India annual
reduction
reduction
reduction
Emissions are then held constant Mexico annual
reduction
<Others independent action>
until a specified year, after which US annual

Other Developed ME
annual reduction
emissions hold constant until reduction FF emissions annual Other Developing ME
reduction
another specified year, when Middle East
annual reduction Developed ME
annual reduction
annual reduction Non ME annual

emissions are reduced at an annual Developing ME
reduction
rate designated by the user. This annual reduction AGGREGATE

SWITCH
policy allows for the testing of Other Latin America
annual reduction
OECD Pacific Russia annual
annual reduction reduction
Canada annual
reduction
simple scenarios in which the Change in emissions

with Policy 1
growth, peak, and decline of <Regional growth
rates>
regional emissions is controlled by <Time>
8
the user. Policy 1 tests are accessed using the control panel, Ctrl panel – advanced Policies 1
through 3. The model structure underlying Policy 1 is shown in Figure 4 Regional CO2 Fossil Fuel
Emissions Policy 1 Inputs. Policy 1 is chosen by the user by setting POLICY TYPE to “1.”
9
Relative Change in Emissions by a Target Year Relative to a Reference Year: Policy 2
Policy 2 allows users to specify the desired emissions level in a given target year for each region by
choosing the Relative FF emissions for that region. The level is specified as a proportion of
emissions levels in a reference year which is also specified by the user. Decreases in emissions are
signified by a Relative FF emissions of less than one; increases by a Relative FF emissions of more
than 1. Policy 2 calculates uniform annual increase sufficient to bring emissions from the current
level to the specified level by the target year. In scenarios where emissions are falling each year in
order to reach the specified emissions level in the target year, Policy 2 freezes emissions at the
specified level in every year after the target year. In scenarios where emissions are not falling in the
lead up to the target year, the specified emissions growth rate and or the BAU emissions growth rate
for the target year applies for each year following the target year. The model structure underlying
Policy 2 is shown in Figure 5 Regional CO2 Fossil Fuel Emissions Policy 2 Inputs.
Cntrl panel - advanced Policies 1 through 4, Ctrl panel - moderate Policy 2, and Ctrl panel - COP
Proposals Control Panel can be used for testing scenarios under Policy 2. Policy 2 is chosen by
setting Policy Type to “2.”
Figure 5 Regional CO2 Fossil Fuel Emissions Policy 2 Inputs
AGGREGATE <CO2 FF emissions at

Relative Brazil Relative Russia Relative Other Developed SWITCH reference year>
FF emissions FF emissions ME FF emissions <Time unit <Time for Change>
conversion>
Relative Other Developing Relative Middle <CO2 FF emissions
ME FF emissions East FF emissions
Annual rate of at start year>
change <Regional growth
Relative Mexico
Relative South Africa rates>
FF emissions <FF change start
FF emissions
<Time> year>
Relative Canada <FF change target
FF emissions Relative Developed ME
Relative FF year>
FF emissions
emissions
Relative US Change in emissions
FF emissions Relative Developing ME with Policy 2
FF emissions
Relative Other Latin
America FF emissions
Relative Non ME
Relative China FF emissions
Relative India
Relative EU FF emissions
FF emissions Others
FF emissions
Relative Other Asia independent action
FF emissions
Relative Other Relative OECD
Africa FF emissions Pacific FF emissions
10
Changes in Emissions Intensity by a Target Year: Policy 3
Policy 3 is based on emissions intensity, i.e., annual emissions per unit of GDP. When emissions
and GDP change at the same rate, the emissions intensity remains constant. Emissions intensity can
decrease as a result of reduced annual emissions and/or increased GDP. Therefore, a reduction of
emissions intensity does not necessarily translate to a reduction of emissions, and under many
scenarios, decreasing emissions intensity in some regions does give rise to emissions growth. The
user sets both the target year, the year by which the desired change in emissions intensity is fully
accomplished, and the reference year, the year whose emissions intensity is used to determine the
fractional change in emissions intensity.
Historical data on GDP for each nation or region were based the Conference Board and Groningen
Growth and Development Centre, Total Economy Database, January 20083 and projections were
based upon trends in that data for the period from 2000 to 2004
The control panels, Cntrl panel - advanced Policies 1 through 4 and Ctrl panel - COP Proposals
Control Panel can be used for testing scenarios under Policy 3. Policy 3 is chosen by setting Policy
Type to “3.”
Canada intensity Russia intensity Other Asia

US intensity intensity change
change change change
Other Developing ME EU intensity Developed ME
intensity change change intensity change
<FF change start China intensity Developing ME
year> Other Latin America change intensity change
<Emissions per
intensity change India intensity
<Time> GDP>
change
South Africa Middle East
Intensity at start intensity change Relative intensity
year intensity change
Mexico intensity
Intensity at Other Developed ME change
reference year <Time> intensity change <Others OECD Pacific
independent action> intensity change
Brazil intensity Other Africa Non ME intensity
<Emissions Annual change in change intensity change change
reference year> emissions per GDP <FF change target
Intensity change year> <AGGREGATE
time SWITCH>
<Time unit
conversion> <FF change start
year> <GDP growth
rate>
<Emissions per <Time>
GDP>
Emissions Annual rate of change <Regional growth
intensity with Policy 3 rates>
Change in
emissions intensity
<FF change target <FF change start <FF change target
year> year> year>
Year
<Annual change in
<GDP growth <Time>
emissions per GDP> <Time> Change in emissions
rate>
with Policy 3
3
<http://www.conference-board.org/economics>http://www.conference-board.org/economics>
11
Relative Change in Emissions by a Target Year Relative to a Reference Year With Emissions
Allocated For Equity: Policy 4
Policy 4 allows for the testing of scenarios focused on the achievement of both reductions in global
fossil fuel CO2 emissions and equity among nations or regions. This policy approach strives for
equity defined as annual emissions per capita, annual emissions per GDP, cumulative emissions, or
cumulative emissions per capita. By inputting World Relative change in emissions the user sets an
overall emissions level for the world in 2050 relative to the emissions in a reference year (2005).
Each year this total amount of CO2 fossil fuel emissions are allocation among nations based on the
equity scheme chosen by the user via the Allocation Method slider.
- Allocation Method 1 allocates emissions by pathways that converge on per capita
emissions equity in 2050. After 2050 annual emissions for each nation or region are held
constant. As projected population continues to change throughout the simulation, per
capita emissions equity doesn’t not always continue after 2050. Population projections
used to calculate per capita emissions are based on historical national population data
obtained from calculations using CO2 emissions from FF and CO2 emissions from FF
per capita4. Yearly value for each economic region are the sum of yearly values for
individual nations. Trends from 1990-2004 were projected into the future. It is important
<Annual rate based

on inputs>
<Annual rate
based on cum> <Time unit <CO2 emissions at target
<Time for Change> conversion> for equal per capita>
<Time>
<TIME STEP>
Allocated annual <FF change start change to achieve equal per

rate of change year> capita from equal target cum
Change in emissions
with Policy 4 <CO2 FF
Regional relative Allocation method
change by allocations emissions>
<Annual rate based <FF change target

on annual emissions> year> <CO2 FF emissions at
<Regional growth
rates> target year>
<CO2 FF emissions at <CO2 FF emissions
reference year> at start year>
for users to recognize that this scenario makes the simplifying assumption that annual
emissions and population are not causally linked. Using Allocation Method 1 population
continues to grow at the same projected rate even in scenarios where emissions are
falling quickly. Because of this simplifying assumption, the usefulness of this allocation
method lies in its ability to help users develop an understanding of the differing
outcomes from scenarios that divide emissions on a per capita (as opposed to national)
basis, not as a nuanced guided to the equitable allocation of emissions at the end of the
century.
4
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, downloaded at <http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/CSV-
FILES/nation.1751_2004.csv>http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/CSV-FILES/nation.1751_2004.csv
12
- Allocation Method 2 allocates emissions by pathways that converge on equity of

emissions per unit of GDP in 2050. GDP projections used to calculate emissions per unit
of GDP are based upon5. Using Allocation Method 2, after 2050 annual emissions for
each nation or region are held constant. Because projected GDP continues to change
throughout the remainder of the simulation, emissions per unit of GDP are not
constrained to be equal in the period after 2050. A similar caution to the one described
for Allocation Method 1 pertains to Allocation Method 2 as well. In these scenarios the
growth of GDP is not influenced by changes in emissions.
- Allocation Method 3 allocates emissions by pathways that converge on equity of

cumulative emissions (calculated from 1970) at 2050.
- Allocation Method 4 allows the user to identify an emissions target in 2050 and allocates
emissions to each nation or region so that, in 2050, cumulative emissions per capita are
equal. Cumulative emissions per capita are calculated each year by dividing total
cumulative emissions for the nation or region by the population of the nation or region at
that year.
Policy 4 can be accessed using the control panels, Control Panel Policy 4 which shows world fossil
fuel emissions and C02 concentration in the atmosphere, Control Panel Policy 4 per detail which
show regional and national CO2 emissions per capita and per unit of GDP, Control Panel Policy 4
cum detail, which shows regional cumulative emissions and regional cumulative emissions per
capita.
5
<http://www.conference-board.org/economics>http://www.conference-board.org/economics>
13
Annual Change in Emissions, With Emissions Sub-divided by Energy Sector: Policy 5

Under Policy 5 fossil fuel CO2 emissions grow at the Business As Usual rate (calibrated to the
IPCC A1FI scenario) until a year specified by the user when the growth of emissions stops.
Emissions are then held constant until a specified year, after which emissions hold constant until
another specified year, when emissions are reduced at an annual rate designated by the user. In
addition, under this policy the user is able to control the rate of growth of emissions from specific
sectors, such as coal, oil, and gas.
Relative Change in Emissions by a Target Year Relative to a Reference Year, With Emissions
Dived by Energy Sector: Policy 6
Policy 6 allows users to specify the desired emissions level in a given target year for each region by
choosing the Relative FF emissions for that region. The level is specified as a proportion of
emissions levels in a reference year which is also specified by the user. Policies 6 is similar to
Policy 2 but emissions arec further divided by sector (power, total final consumption, and others)
and fuel types (coal, oil, gas).
14
This table summarizes the inputs to the Regional FF CO2 Emissions sub-model that allow the user
to control the degree of aggregation of groupings of nations and to select among policy alternatives.
Table 2 Aggregate and Policy Inputs
Parameter Definition Range BAU Values Units Source

Aggregates nations
Aggregate
according to user 0-2 0 Dmnl
Switch
needs.
If set to 0 (default), then inputs are set for 14 regions as in Table 1
If set to 1, then inputs set for 7 regions as in this table, Table 1
If set to 2 then, then inputs set for 3 regions as in Table 1
Defines policy
Policy approach for each 0-6 2 Dmnl
region
Policy 1 allows users to specify an emissions growth rate for each region, which holds until
a specified year, after which emissions hold constant until another specified year, when
emissions are reduced at an annual rate designated by the user.
Policy 2 allows users to specify the desired emissions level to be reached by a target year as
a fraction of a reference year emissions level.
Policy 3 is based on emissions intensity, i.e., annual emissions per GDP.
Policy 4 facilitates the achievement of equity among negotiation blocs.

Policy 5 specifies emissions growth rates by sector (power, total final consumption, and
others) and fuel types (coal, oil, gas).
Policy 6 specifies the emissions level in a given year by sector (power, total final
consumption, and others) and fuel types (coal, oil, gas).
Sets all regions to
Policy switch go by same policy 0-1 1 Dmnl
approach.
1 specifies that all regions use the same policy.
Test Sets Policy input to the current proposal being put forth for each region. Parametric inputs
Proposals for the given policy must still be specified.
Allows for Other
Developed ME,
Other Developing
Others ME, and Non ME
independent negotiation blocs to 0-1 1 Dmnl
action follow inputs for
US, China, and
Non ME,
respectively
0 specifies that other members of negotiating blocks follow the “lead” nation. 1 specifies
that their emissions pathways are independent.
15
Table 3 Regional FF CO2 Emissions Parameter Inputs
Definition Range BAU Values Units Source

Parameter
year when the FF
FF Stop
emissions increase 2008-
Growth 2100 Year
stops. (Policy 1 2100
Year[COP]
only)
year when the FF
FF reduction
emissions start to 2008-
start 2100 Year
decrease (Policy 1 2100
year[COP]
only)
annual rate at
FF emissions which each
annual economic region
0-0.1 0 1/year
reduction[COP decreases
] emissions(Policy 1
only)
ratio of target year calibrated to
emissions to IPCC’s
reference year MiniCAM SRES
Relative FF emissions, to be A1FI global FF
emissions[COP] achieved by equal emissions with
annual percentage WEO growth
changes (Policy 2 allocations
only) between regions
14-Regions OECD US 0–5 1.889
OECD EU27 0–5 1.641
OECD Russia et al 0–5 2.037
OECD Canada 0–5 1.979
OECD Pacific 0–5 1.674
OECD Mexico 0–5 1.979
G77 China 0–5 4.576
G77 India 0–8 8.001
G77 Other Asia 0–5 1.745
G77 Brazil 0-5 3.523
G77 Other Latin
0-5
America 1.383
G77 Middle East 0-5 3.361
G77 South Africa 0-5 3.017
G77 Other Africa 0-5 2.436
7-Regions US 0-5 1.889

EU 0-5 1.641
China 0-5 4.576
India 0-5 8.001
Other Developed
0-5
ME2 1.895
Other Developing 0-5 3.499
16
Definition Range BAU Values Units Source

Parameter
ME2
Non ME 0-5 3.443
3-Regions Developed ME 0-5 1.818 Dmnl

Developing ME 0-5 4.619 Dmnl
Non ME 0-5 3.443 Dmnl
Year whose CO2
FF emissions are
used to calculate
Emissions future emissions
1990-
reference based on the 2008 Year
2010
year[COP] proportionality
specified by the
user using Policy 2
or 3.
Year when the FF
FF change start 2008-
emissions begin to 2008 Year
year [COP] 2100
change.
Year when the
FF emissions
desired change in 2008-
change target 2050 Year
emissions will be 2100
year [COP]
completed.
17
Table 4 defines the key parameters that are calculated by the Regional FF CO2 Emissions sub-
model.
Table 4 Regional FF CO2 Emissions Calculated Parameters
Parameter Definition Units
Economic group CO2 FF
Annual fossil fuel CO2 emissions from each group Tons C/year
emissions[COP]
The duration over which the change occurs for each
Time for change[COP] Year
region
CO2 FF emissions at
CO2 emissions for each region at the year to which the
reference year [COP] = Tons C/year
target year concentrations are to be compared
CO2reference year
CO2 FF emissions at start CO2 emissions for each region at the year when the FF
Tons C/year
year [COP] = CO2start year emissions begin to change
CO2 FF emissions at target CO2 emissions for each region at the year when the FF
Tons C/year
year[COP] = CO2target year emissions are to be reached
Current CO2 FF CO2 emissions for each region at the year when the
Tons C/year
emissions[COP] forecasting begins
The annual rate at which each region changes
emissions. Calculated from the relative change over the
duration of change. Before the start year the rate is the
regional growth rate. Between the start and target
years, the rate for each region is calculated by solving
Annual rate of
algebraically for the annual rate of change. CO2reference 1/year
change[COP]
year∙Relative FF emissions = CO2start year∙(1-Annual
change)Regional change time), such that annual rate =
[(CO2reference year/CO2start year)∙Relative FF emissions]1/ Time
for change
-1. After the target year, the rate is the lesser of
the regional growth rate and the calculated annual rate.
The change in annual emissions with each time step,
calculated to reflect zero growth until the current year;
Change in emissions[COP] then brings the current CO2 for each nation into stock Tons C/year/year
as pulse; then changes at an annual rate for each region
as determined by the chosen policy.
The annual rate for each region is the BAU growth rate
Change in emissions with until the stop growth year, at which time the rate is
Tons C/year/year
Policy 1[COP] zero until the start reduction year, when the annual rate
is the annual reduction for the region.
Until the target year, this is the Annual rate of change
for each region. If the annual rate is negative, i.e.,
Change in emissions with
reduction, then the emissions remains constant after the Tons C/year/year
Policy 2[COP]
target year. Otherwise, the annual rate continues until
the final time (year = 2100).
Similar to the Change in emissions with Policy 2, the
Change in emissions with annual rate is determined by annual rates of intensity
Tons C/year/year
Policy 3[COP] change, where those rates are calculated similarly to
the annual rate of change.
Change in emissions with Similar to the Change in emissions with Policy 2 for
Tons C/year/year
Policy 4[COP] each region, the relative rates are calculated to achieve
18

equity by the target year and achieve the global target
relative emissions.
For Policies 5 and 6, calculated similarly to Policies 1 tonsC/year
Emissions by detail [COP] and 2, respectively, but for specific sectors and fuel
types.
Brings historical and predicted CO2 into one variable
CO2 FF emissions[COP] Tons C/year
for each of 14 negotiation blocs
Converts historical data for each of 14 negotiation
COP historical CO2 FF blocs as Ktons/year to Tons C/year and brings those
Tons C/year
emissions[COP] data into an array but only up to the year when
forecasted data starts
World CO2 FF Emissions The sum of emissions from all blocs Tons C/year
Brings historical and predicted CO2 into one variable
CO2 FF emissions[COP] Tons C/year
for each of 14 negotiation blocs
Regional CO2 FF Tons C/year
Aggregates CO2 FF emissions[COP] of 14 blocs into 7
emissions[Economic
regions
regions]
Aggregated CO2 FF Tons C/year
Aggregates CO2 FF emissions[Economic regions] of 7
emissions[Aggregated
blocs into 3 regions
regions]
Cumulative CO2 FF Values before 1900 not included in accumulation
emissions[COP] because not all nations have data earlier than this. In
Tons C
fact, some nations used trends to calculate the
estimated emissions to get back to 1900.
Regional Cumulative CO2 Tons C
Aggregates Cumulative CO2 FF emissions[COP] of 14
FF emissions[Economic
blocs into 7 regions
regions]
Aggregated CO2 FF Tons C
Aggregates Cumulative CO2 FF emissions[Economic
emissions[Aggregated
regions] of 7 blocs into 3 regions
regions]
19
Regional CO2 FF Emissions Sub-Model Behavior s

Historical emissions behavior is driven by datasets incorporated in the Historical FF CO2
Emissions as described on page 4 and shown in following figures.
Under the Business As Usual scenario emissions for nations and regional groupings of nations
are calibrated to the A1FI scenario of the IPCC. Illustrative output for various regional groupings
is shown below in Figure 8.
Figure 8
20
Figure 9 shows the Business As Usual behavior of CO2 fossil fuel emissions using Pangaea’s
most aggregated regional groupings, which shows three classes of nations, Developed ME,
Developing, ME, and Non-
Figure 9 ME as defined in Table 1
Regions of Interest. Figure
10 shows the same
CO2 FF Emissions by Economic Group information as a stacked
20 B plot, showing the relative
contribution of each region
15 B to total emissions over
time.
10 B
tonsC/year
5B
0
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
Time (year)
Developed ME CO2 Fossil Fuel Emissions
Developing ME CO2 Fossil Fuel Emissions
Non ME CO2 Fossil Fuel Emissions
Figure 10
Fossil Fuel Annual Emissions - 3 Regions

40 B
30 B
20 B
tonsC/year
10 B
0
1900 1930 1960 1990 2020 2050 2080
Time (year)
Developed ME CO2 FF Emisions
Developing ME CO2 FF Emisions
Non ME CO2 FF Emisions
21
Figure 11 presents the same data for the 7-region grouping as described in Table 1 Regions of
Figure 11
CO2 FF Emissions by Regions

10 B
7.5 B
5B
2.5 B
0
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
Time (year)
Regional CO2 FF emissions[US] : BAU
Regional CO2 FF emissions[EU] : BAU
Regional CO2 FF emissions[China] : BAU
Regional CO2 FF emissions[India] : BAU
Regional CO2 FF emissions[Other Developed ME] : BAU
Interest. Stacked plotting for the seven-region grouping of aggregation is shown in
Regional
Regional
CO2
CO2
FF
FF
emissions[Other Developing ME] : BAU
emissions[Non ME] : BAU
Figure 12
Fossil Fuel Annual Emissions - 7 Regions
40 B
30 B
20 B
10 B
0
1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
Time (year)
Regional CO2 FF emissions[US] : BAU
Regional CO2 FF emissions[EU] : BAU
Regional CO2 FF emissions[China] : BAU
Regional CO2 FF emissions[India] : BAU
Regional CO2 FF emissions[Other Developed ME] : BAU
Regional CO2 FF emissions[Other Developing ME] : BAU
Regional CO2 FF emissions[Non ME] : BAU
22
Cumulative emissions under the Business As Usual scenario are presented for the 3-, 7-, and 14-
region groupings in Figure 13 through Figure 15.
Figure 13
Cumulative Emissions - 3 Regions
4e+012
3e+012
2e+012
tonsC
1e+012
0
1900 1950 2000 2050 2100
Time (year)
Developed ME Cumulative CO2
Developing ME Cumulative CO2
Non ME Cumulative CO2
Figure 14

4e+012
3e+012
2e+012
tonsC
1e+012
0
2000 2025 2050 2075 2100
Time (year)
Regional cumulative CO2[US] : BAU
Regional cumulative CO2[EU] : BAU
Regional cumulative CO2[China] : BAU
Regional cumulative CO2[India] : BAU
Regional cumulative CO2[Other Developed ME] : BAU
Regional cumulative CO2[Other Developing ME] : BAU
Regional cumulative CO2[Non ME] : BAU
23
24
Figure 15
4e+012
3e+012
2e+012
tonsC
1e+012
0
2000 2025 2050 2075 2100
Time (year)
Cumulative CO2[OECD US] : BAU
Cumulative CO2[OECD EU27] : BAU
Cumulative CO2[OECD Russia et al] : BAU
Cumulative CO2[OECD Canada] : BAU
Cumulative CO2[OECD Pacific] : BAU
Cumulative CO2[OECD Mexico] : BAU
Cumulative CO2[G77 China] : BAU
Cumulative CO2[G77 India] : BAU
Cumulative CO2[G77 Other Asia] : BAU
Cumulative CO2[G77 Brazil] : BAU
Cumulative CO2[G77 Other Latin America] : BAU
Cumulative CO2[G77 Middle East] : BAU
Cumulative CO2[G77 South Africa] : BAU
Cumulative CO2[G77 Other Africa] : BAU
25
3.2 Other greenhouse gasses (CH4 and N2O)

The model incorporates the atmospheric concentrations of CH4 and N2O, two other major
greenhouse gases, and their radiative forcings (RF) (Figure 16). To account for their different
lifetimes and radiative forcing potential compared to CO2 consistently, these GHGs are
represented in terms of their impact on radiative forcing. An explicit model for the mass balance
of other GHGs may be added later. Users specify the changing impact of CH4 and N2O by
setting the Relative GHG Atmospheric Concentrations parameter. When this parameters is 1,
N2O and CH4 concentrations are consistent with those predicted for the BAU scenario. When
this parameters is set to 0, N2O and CH4 concentrations are consistent with a scenario of highly
aggressive reductions compared to BAU. Intermediate values provide intermediate reductions
compared to the BAU case.
26
Figure 16 Other Greenhouse Gases (GHGs)
<N2O concentration at
reference year>
<CH4 atmospheric
concentration>
adjustment for CH4
ref and N2O ref
<CH4 concentration at
adjustment for CH4 reference year>
and N2O ref
<N2O atmospheric
concentration>
unit adjustment
CH4 and N2O adjustment for CH4

N2O RF Coef ref and N2O
Radiative Forcing
CH4 RF Coef
N2O concentration at
reference year CH4 concentration at
<GHG change N2O concentration
reference year
time> at start year
N2O atmospheric
concentration CH4 atmospheric
<GHG start year> concentration
N2O annual <Time>
change
change in N2O change in CH4

conc conc
CH4 concentration
at start year
GHG start year
<GHG start year>
Relative N2O GHG reduction
<GHG start year>
Atmospheric start year <Time>
Concentrations GHG change time
GHG target year
Target CH4 Relative CH4

and N2O Atmospheric
CH4 annual
Concentrations Concentrations
change
27
Table 5 Other Greenhouse Gases Parameter Inputs

Parameter Definition Range BAU Units Source
Values
Target GHG Standardized relative change in concentrations, such 0-1 1 dmnl
Atmospheric that if set to 1, the N2O and CH4 concentrations are
Concentrations consistent with those predicted for BAU scenarios and
if set to 0, the N2O and CH4 concentrations are
consistent with the predicted most intervention
scenarios.
GHG start year The year when CH4 and N2O relative change begins for 2008- 2010 year
each economic group. 2100
GHG target year The year when CH4 and N2O relative change should be 2008- 2050 Year
reached for each nation. 2100
N2O Preind slope a preindustrial annual increase up from 1750 to 1900 0.04 Ppb/year Assumed to be
CH4 Preind a preindustrial annual increase up from 1750 to 1900 1.5 Ppb/year consistent with
slope values for 1750
N2O interim slope annual increase up from 1900 to GHG start year 0.45 Ppb/year and 1998 in TAR,
CH4 interim slope annual increase up from 1900 to GHG start year 8.5 Ppb/year Chapter 6.
N2O concentration assumes reference year of 1600 and no annual increase 270 Ppb Radiative Forcing
at reference year to get up to preindustrial (PI) year 1750 of 270 ppm. of Climate
CH4 concentration assumes reference year of 1600 and no annual increase 700 Ppb Change. P.358
at reference year to get up to preindustrial (PI) year 1750 of 700 ppm
N2O RF Coef Coefficient of Radiative Forcing from N2O 0.12 watt/ TAR, Chapter 6.
(meter*me Radiative Forcing
ter) of Climate
CH4 RF Coef Coefficient of Radiative Forcing from CH4 0.036 watt/ Change. P.358
(meter*me
ter)
GHG RF Switch Test to compare GHG RF calculations with RF from 0 dmnl
IPCC table.
Unit adjustment adjusts units for unit check to avoid dimensioned 1 1/ppb
variable in exponent
28
Table 6 Other Greenhouse Gases Parameter Calculated Parameters

Parameter Definition Units Source
assumes reference year of 1600 with no increase up to
1750, when N2O = 270 ppb, a preindustrial annual increase
up to 1900, and then an interim slope from 1900 to GHG
N2O atmospheric concentration Ppb
start year such that N2O = 314 ppb in 1998 as noted in
TAR. The annual change thereafter determined by N2O TAR, Chapter 6.
annual change. Radiative Forcing of
assumes reference year of 1600 with no increase up to Climate Change.
1750, when CH4 = 700 ppb, a preindustrial annual increase p.358.
up to 1900, and then an interim slope from 1900 to GHG
CH4 atmospheric concentration ppb
start year such that CH4 = 1745 ppb in 1998 as noted in
TAR. The annual change thereafter determined by CH4
annual change.
Ratio of target year N2O atmospheric concentration to
reference year N2O atmospheric concentration, to be
Relative N2O Atmospheric
achieved by equal annual percentage changes. dmnl
Concentrations
Equals 1.07 if Relative GHG Atmospheric Concentrations
=1
Ratio of target year CH4 atmospheric concentration to
reference year CH4 atmospheric concentration, to be
Relative CH4 Atmospheric
achieved by equal annual percentage changes. dmnl
Concentrations
Equals 1.45 if Relative GHG Atmospheric Concentrations
=1
N2O atmospheric concentration at the year when the
N2O concentration at start year Parts per billion (ppb)
concentrations start to change
CH4 atmospheric concentration at the year when the
CH4 concentration at start year ppb
concentrations start to change
The annual rate at which the N2O concentrations change to
N2O annual change reach the relative concentrations during the time of 1/year
greenhouse gas concentration changes
The annual rate at which the CH4 concentrations change to
CH4 annual change reach the relative concentrations during the time of 1/year
greenhouse gas concentration changes
29

CH4 and N2O Radiative Forcing The unit change in temperature due to CH4 and N2O watt/(meter*meter)
N2O RF Coef Coefficient of Radiative Forcing from N2O watt/(meter*meter)
TAR, Chapter 6.
CH4 RF Coef Coefficient of Radiative Forcing from CH4 watt/(meter*meter)
Radiative Forcing of
adjustment for CH4 ref and N2O watt/(meter*meter)
Adjusts total RF from CH4 and N2O to be less than the sum Climate Change.
adjustment for CH4 ref and N2O
of RF from each individually to account for interactions watt/(meter*meter) p.358.
ref
between both gases.
adjustment for CH4 and N2O ref watt/(meter*meter)
Calculations taken
from TAR, Chapter 6.
Radiative Forcing of
Climate Change.
p.358; Lookup table
if GHG RF switch = 0, then GHG rad forcing calculated taken from IPCC
CH4 and N2O RF input according to TAR; if GHG RF switch = 1, the GHG rad watt/(meter*meter) assumptions cited in
forcing from lookup table. Nordhaus (Managing
the Global Commons,
1994). Apparently
neglects other gases
and cooling effects of
aerosols
30
The model defines the Relative N2O Atmospheric Concentrations to reflect data consistent with
BAU scenarios of other IPCC models (presented in Section 4.3) when the Target CH4 and N2O
Concentrations = 1. When this target is set to equal 0, the relative N2O Atmospheric
Concentrations are consistent with the least concentrations predicted. Accordingly,
Relative N2O Atmospheric Concentrations = 0.09∙Target CH4 and N2O Concentrations+1.07.
Consequently, if Target CH4 and N2O Concentrations = 0, the Relative N2O Atmospheric
Concentrations = 1.07, with an annual rate of change of 0.0019 or 0.19% increase. If Relative
GHG Atmospheric Concentrations =1, the Relative N2O Atmospheric Concentrations = 1.16,
with an annual rate of change of 0.0042 or 0.42% increase.
Likewise, the Relative CH4 Atmospheric Concentrations are defined as
Relative CH4 Atmospheric Concentrations = 0.6∙Target CH4 and N2O Concentrations+0.85.
If Target CH4 and N2O Concentrations Relative GHG Atmospheric Concentrations = 0, the
Relative CH4 Atmospheric Concentrations = 0.85, with an annual rate of change of -0.0046 or
0.46% decrease. This decrease, however, starts circa 2050, resulting in an overall relative
change of 0.92. If Target CH4 and N2O Concentrations Relative GHG Atmospheric
Concentrations = 1, the Relative CH4 Atmospheric Concentrations = 1.45, with an annual rate of
change of 0.0106 or 1.06% increase.
31
3.3 Land use

Historical land use emissions data, where changes in CO2 emissions derive from deforestation
and burning of trees to clear agricultural land are based on data from the Carbon Dioxide
Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) (1850 through 2004) and Houghton (1751-1850).
Projected emissions are calibrated to be consistent with IPCC projections for various scenarios.
Specifically, if the future land use emissions cut rate is 0, then land use reduction rate is 100% of
the possible reduction. If, however, the land use reduction rate is 1, then the future land use
emissions is the business as usual scenario. The default value is 0.635 to reflect a constant
emissions in the future of approximately 1.6e9 tonsC/year. Figure 18 illustrates this user defined
curve, as well as the IPCC’s A1FI and B1 scenario predictions.
32
Figure 17
Marland Sampled
Data
<Time> Marland Last

Point
Future Fossil Emissions
Marland Fossil <Time> Trend Adjustment
Emissions MMTC
BAU Fossil
Emissions Initial Fossil Trend
<Marland Fossil Marland Fossil
Emissions MMTC
Emissions
Data> <Trend Time>
Marland Sampled
Trend
<Houghton Land Use
Total Emissions
Emissions MMTC Data> TonC per MMTC Data Houghton <Time>
Sampled Data
Houghton Land Use
Emissions MMTC Houghton Land Use
Emissions Houghton Last <Time>
A1FI Land Use Point
<Time>
Historical Land
Use
B1 Land Use <Time>
Land Use <Time> CDIAC Land Use
Emissions
<Time> Emissions Cut
IPCC Data Land Start Year
Use switch Future Land Use
Emissions Land use emissions
Land use emissions target year
annual change
Land use emissions

Relative Future change time
Land Use BAU Land Use
Emissions Emissions Trend
Land use
emissions
LU slope
change
33
Figure 18
Land use emissions

2B
1.5 B
1B
TonC/year
500 M
0
1900 1930 1960 1990 2020 2050
Time (year)
Land Use Emissions
A1FI Land Use Emissions
B1 Land Use Emissions
34
3.4 Carbon cycle

3.4.1 Introduction
The carbon cycle sub-model is adapted from the FREE model (Fiddaman, 1997). While the
original FREE structure is based on primary sources that are now somewhat dated, we find that
they hold up well against recent data. Calibration experiments against recent data and other
models do not provide compelling reasons to adjust the model structure or parameters, though in
the future we will likely do so.
Other models in current use include simple carbon cycle representations. Nordhaus’ DICE
models, for example, use simple first- and third-order linear models (Nordhaus 1994, 2000). The
first-order model is usefully simple, but does not capture nonlinearities (e.g., sink saturation) or
explicitly conserve carbon. The third-order model conserves carbon but is still linear and thus not
robust to high emissions scenarios. More importantly for education and decision support, neither
model provides a recognizable carbon flow structure, particularly for biomass.
Socolow and Lam (2007) explore a set of simple linear carbon cycle models to characterize
possible emissions trajectories, including the effect of procrastination. The spirit of their analysis
is similar to ours, except that the models are linear (sensibly, for tractability) and the calibration
approach differs. Socolow and Lam calibrate to Green’s function (convolution integral)
approximations of the 2xCO2 response of larger models; this yields a calibration for lower-order
variants that emphasizes long term dynamics. Our calibration is weighted towards recent data,
which is truncated, and thus likely emphasizes faster dynamics. Nonlinearities in the Pangaea
carbon uptake mechanisms mean that the 4xCO2 response will not be strictly double the 2xCO2
response.
3.4.2 Structure
The adapted FREE carbon cycle (Figure 18) is an eddy diffusion model with stocks of carbon in
the atmosphere, biosphere, mixed ocean layer, and 10 deep ocean layers. The model couples the
atmosphere-mixed ocean layer interactions and net primary production of the Goudriaan and
Kettner and IMAGE 1.0 models (Goudriaan and Ketner 1984; Rotmans 1990) with an 11-layer
eddy diffusion ocean based on (Oeschger, Siegenthaler et al. 1975) and a 2-box biosphere based
on (Goudriaan and Ketner 1984).
In the FREE model, all emissions initially accumulate in the atmosphere. As the atmospheric
concentration of CO2 rises, the uptake of CO2 by the ocean and biosphere increases, and carbon
is gradually stored. The atmospheric flux to the biosphere consists of net primary production. Net
primary production grows logarithmically as the atmospheric concentration of CO2 increases
(Wullschleger, Post et al. 1995), according to:
æ
ç æ
ç C ö÷ö÷ Eq. 1
a ÷÷
NPP = NPP 1 + b lnç
ç
0 ç b ç C ÷÷
çè çè a, 0 ÷
ø÷
ø
NPP = net primary production Ca = CO2 in atmosphere
NPP0 = reference net primary Ca,0 = reference CO2 in atmosphere
production
35
β b = biostimulation coefficient
Because the relationship is logarithmic, the uptake of CO2 by the biosphere is less than
proportional to the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Effects of the current biomass
stock, temperature, and human disturbance are neglected.
It is worth noting that this formulation, though commonly used, is not robust to large deviations
in the atmospheric concentration of CO2. As the atmospheric concentration of CO2 approaches
zero, net primary production approaches minus infinity, which is not possible given the finite
positive stock of biomass. As the concentration of CO2 becomes very high, net primary
production can grow arbitrarily large, which is also not possible in reality. Neither of these
constraints is a problem for reasonable model trajectories, though.
The Goudriaan and Ketner and IMAGE models (Goudriaan and Ketner 1984; Rotmans 1990)
have detailed biospheres, partitioned into leaves, branches, stems, roots, litter, humus, and
charcoal. To simplify the model, these categories are aggregated into stocks of biomass (leaves,
branches, stems, roots) and humus (litter, humus). Aggregate first-order time constants were
calculated for each category on the basis of their equilibrium stock-flow relationships. Charcoal
is neglected due to its long lifetime. The results are reasonably consistent with other partitionings
of the biosphere and with the one-box biosphere of the Oeschger model (Oeschger, Siegenthaler
et al. 1975; Bolin 1986).
ó
ô Eq. 2
ô C ( t)
b
C ( t ) = ô NPP ( t ) - dt
b ô t
ô b
õ
Cb = carbon in biomass τ b = biomass residence time
ó
ô Eq. 3
ô f C ( t) C ( t)
b h
C ( t) = ô - dt
h ô t t
ô b h
õ
Ch = carbon in humus φ = humification fraction
τ h = humus residence time
The interaction between the atmosphere and mixed ocean layer involves a shift in chemical
equilibria (Goudriaan and Ketner 1984). CO2 in the ocean reacts to produce HCO3– and CO3=.
In equilibrium,
çæ1 ÷ ö Eq. 4
çè z ÷
ø
çæ C ÷ ö
C =C ç a ÷
m m, 0 ç C ÷
çè a, 0 ÷
ø
36
Cm = CO2 in mixed ocean layer Ca = CO2 in atmosphere
Cm,0 = reference CO2 in mixed ocean Ca,0 = reference CO2 in atmosphere
layer ζ = buffer factor
The atmosphere and mixed ocean adjust to this equilibrium with a time constant of 9.5 years.
The buffer or Revelle factor, ζ , is typically about 10. As a result, the partial pressure of CO2 in
the ocean rises about 10 times faster than the total concentration of carbon (Fung 1991). This
means that the ocean, while it initially contains about 60 times as much carbon as the
preindustrial atmosphere, behaves as if it were only 6 times as large.
The buffer factor itself rises with the atmospheric concentration of CO2 (Goudriaan and Ketner
1984; Rotmans 1990) and temperature (Fung 1991). This means that the ocean’s capacity to
absorb CO2 diminishes as the atmospheric concentration rises. The temperature effect (which is
omitted in this model) is one of several possible feedback mechanism between the climate and
carbon cycle.
çæ C ÷ ö Eq. 5
ç a ÷
ζ = ζ + d ln
0 b çC ÷
èç a, 0 ÷
ø
ζ = buffer factor Ca = CO2 in atmosphere
ζ 0 = reference buffer factor Ca,0 = reference CO2 in atmosphere
δ b = buffer CO2 coefficient
The deep ocean is represented by a simple eddy-diffusion structure similar to that in the
Oeschger model, but with fewer layers (Oeschger, Siegenthaler et al. 1975). Effects of ocean
circulation and carbon precipitation, present in more complex models (Goudriaan and Ketner
1984; Björkstrom 1986; Rotmans 1990; Keller and Goldstein 1995), are neglected. Within the
ocean, transport of carbon among ocean layers operates linearly. The flux of carbon between two
layers of identical thickness is expressed by:
çæC - C ÷öe Eq. 6
è m nø
F =
m, n d2
Fm,n = carbon flux from layer m to e = eddy diffusion coefficient
layer n d = depth of layers
Ck = carbon in layer k
The effective time constant for this interaction, e/d2, varies with d, the thickness of the ocean
layers. Table 7 summarizes time constants for the interaction between identical layers. This
model employs a 75 meter mixed layer, five 200 meter middle layers, and five 560 meter deep
ocean layers. Models with fewer ocean layers underestimate the short term participation of the
ocean in carbon uptake (Oeschger, Siegenthaler et al. 1975) and must increase uptake by other
means to compensate.
Table 7: Time Constants for Ocean Carbon Transport
Layer Thickness Time Constant
37
75 meters 1.4 years
200 meters 10.0 years
560 meters 78.4 years
.
38
Figure 19 Carbon Cycle
+ Net Emissions from

Deforestation <Init CO2 in
- Fractional Loss of Humus>
<Extrapolated Land
Use Emissions> Aforestation Biomass
CO2 in
CO2
Humus Flux Biomass to Humus <Init CO2 in
Sequestered Humus Res Time
Emiss from Biomass>
Max Sequestration Storage Biomass Res Time
Humification Fraction
Sequestration Flux Humus to Atmosphere CO2 in
Net
Target Start Year Flux Biomass to Atmosphere Biomass
Sequestration
Sequestration
Init NPP
Sequestration rate
CO2 in Biostim Coeff
Carbon Atmosphere Flux Atm to Biomass
<Time> Sequestration <Preindustrial CO2>
Sequestration
Target Year
<init co2 in atm> Buffer Factor Buff CO2 Coeff
Afforestation Phase <TIME STEP> CO2 Emissions
Ref Buffer Factor
in Time
Flux Atm to Ocean Ref Buff CO2
Equil CO2 in Mixed Layer
<CO2 FF <Extrapolated Land
Emissions Input> Use Emissions> Preind CO2 in Mixed Layer
Mixing Time
<Init CO2 in Mixed <Preindustrial CO2>
CO2 in
Mixed Layer Ocean>
Mixed Depth
Diffusion Flux Eddy Diff Coeff
Thickness
Concentration
CO2 in Deep
Ocean
Init CO2 in Deep
Ocean
39
Table 8 Carbon Cycle Parameter Inputs

Biomass Average residence time of carbon in biomass. 10.6 year Adapted from
Residence Goudriaan,
Time 1984
Biostim coeff Coefficient for response of primary production to 0.2 – 0.6 0.42 Dmnl Goudriaan
CO2 concentration. and Ketner
1984;
Rotmans,
1990
Humification Fraction of carbon outflow from biomass that 0.428 Dmnl Adapted from
Fraction enters humus stock. Goudriaan,
1984
Humus Res Time Average carbon residence time in humus. 27.8 Year Adapted from
Goudriaan,
1984
Buff CO2 Coeff Coefficient of CO2 concentration influence on 4.05 Dmnl Goudriaan
buffer factor. and Ketner,
1984
Ref buffer factor. Normal buffer factor. 10 Dmnl Goudriaan
and Ketner,
1984
Ref Buff CO2 CO2 in atmosphere at normal buffer factor. 7.6e+011 Tons C
Mixing Time Atmosphere - mixed ocean layer mixing time. 1 year
Eddy diff coeff Eddy diffusion coefficient. 3400-4600 4000 meter*meter/year Oeschger,
Siegenthaler
et al., 1975
Mixed depth Mixed ocean layer depth. 75 Meters Oeschger,
Siegenthaler
et al., 1975
Preind CO2 in Initial carbon content of mixed ocean layer. 7.678e+011 Tons C
Mixed Layer
Thickness Deep ocean layer thicknesses. Goudriaan
Top 5 layers 200 meters and Ketner,
Bottom 5 layers 500 meters 1984
Init NPP Initial primary production 8.51771e+010 Tons C/year Adapted from
Goudriaan,
40

1984
Ppm CO2 per Restated per CDIAC, 4.695e-010 ppm/Tons C CDIAC
Tons C http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/convert.html , that
reports:
1 ppm by volume of atmosphere CO2 = 2.13 Gt C
Afforestation The time period over which aforrestation policies 10 Years
Phase in Time phase in. Yields a realistic smooth curve for the
increase in CO2 removal from aforrestation
programs.
Goal for CO2 in Assumed threshold of CO2 in atmosphere above 250-600 450 Ppm
the atmosphere which irreversible climate changes may occur
Emissions to atm 0 if no calibration test, 1 if testing BAU scenario 0-1 0 dmnl
test switch (using Emissions World MiniCAM EMF14
Standard Reference), 2 if test reduction (using
Emissions World MiniCAM EMF14 Accel Tech)
41
Table 9 Carbon Cycle Calculated Parameters

Ppm CO2 in Atmosphere Converts weight of CO2 in atmosphere (Tons C) to concentration (ppm CO2) Ppm
Flux Atm to Biomass Carbon flux from atmosphere to biosphere (from primary production) Tons C/year
Flux Biomass to Atmosphere Carbon flux from biomass to atmosphere Tons C/year
Flux Biomass to Humus Carbon flux from biomass to humus. Tons C/year
Flux Humus to Atmosphere Carbon flux from humus to atmosphere Tons C/year
CO2 Emissions Sum of extrapolated land use emissons and World FF emissions, where the latter Tons C/year
is either calculated by this model (if emissions to atm test switch is 0), the World
MiniCAM EMF14 Stnd Ref emissions (if the emissions to atm test switch is 1 to
calibrate for BAU scenario), or the World MiniCAM EMF14 Accel Tech if the
emissions to atm test switch is 2 to calibrate for reduced emissions scenario).
Carbon in atmosphere Mass of carbon in the atmosphere Tons C
Carbon in Humus Carbon in humus. Tons C
CO2 in Biomass Carbon in the biosphere (biomass, litter, and humus) Tons C
Carbon in mixed layer. Carbon in the mixed layer. Tons C
Carbon in deep ocean[upper]. Carbon in deep ocean. Tons C
Concentration of carbon in ocean Concentration of carbon in each ocean layer. Tons C/meter
layers[layers].
Buffer Factor Buffer factor for atmosphere/mixed ocean carbon equilibration.
Diffusion Flux[layer1] Diffusion flux between ocean layers. Tons C/year
Carbon Sequestration Sequestration via aforrestation (and other sources, e.g. CCS) takes time to Tons C/year
implement. The SMOOTH3 delay produces a realistic phase in rate once
sequestration is triggered.
If Target sequestration = 1, then 1.6 Billion Tons C/year is sequestered, i.e., the
maximum possible.
If Target sequestration = 0, then no carbon is sequestered.
Net sequestration Difference between sequestration and emissions released from storage. Tons C/year
CO2 Sequestered Accumulated net sequestered. Tons C
Emiss from Storage Loss of CO2 from sequestered storage back into atmosphere. Tons C/year
Fractional Loss of Aforestation 1% loss of CO2 with aforestation biomass back into atmosphere Tons C
Biomass
Net Emissions from Deforestation Emissions from land use (deforestation, gross) less net sequestration from Tons C/year
aforestation.
42
3.4.3 Behavior
Figure 20 and Figure 21 reflect the simulation output for the business as usual scenario.
Figure 20
CO2 concentration in the atmosphere

900
700
ppm
500
300
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
Time (year)
ppm CO2 in Atmosphere : BAU
43
Figure 21
Total Emissions and Removals

40 B
30 B
20 B
TonC/year
10 B
0
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
Time (year)
Net Uptake and Net Sequestration
CO2 Emissions
3.5 Climate
3.5.1 Introduction
Like the carbon cycle, the climate sector is also adapted from the FREE model, which used the
DICE climate sector without modification (Nordhaus 1994). The DICE structure in turn closely
followed Schneider and Thompson (1981).
The model has been recast in terms of stocks and flows of heat, rather than temperature, in order
to take a more physical view of the earth system. However, the current model is analytically
equivalent to the FREE and DICE versions. FREE and DICE used exogenous trajectories for
non-CO2 radiative forcings. This version adds explicit forcings from CH4 and N2O.
Recent experiments with calibration against the instrumental temperature record and ocean heat,
in the spirit of Schwartz (2007), suggests that the calibration most closely aligned with data
would involve lower climate sensitivity (ca. 1.6 degrees C) and short time constant (i.e. a thin
mixed ocean layer; ca. 14m vs. 100m in use). However, it is unclear whether such a result would
remain consistent with data with a more complex ocean specification. For consistency with IPCC
projections we have retained the original model specification with 2xCO2 sensitivity ca. 3
degrees C.
3.5.2 Structure
This is a second-order, linear system, with three negative feedback loops. Two loops govern the
transport of heat from the atmosphere and surface ocean, while the third represents warming of
the deep ocean. Deep ocean warming is a slow process, because the ocean has such a large heat
44
capacity. If the deep ocean temperature is held constant, the response of the atmosphere and
surface ocean to warming is first-order.
Temperature change is a function of radiative forcing (RF) from greenhouse gases and other
factors, feedback cooling, and heat transfer from the atmosphere and surface ocean to the deep
ocean layer (Figure 23). Radiative forcing from CO2 is a logarithmic function of the atmospheric
CO2 concentration. Forcing from CH4 and N2O is less than the sum of RF from each individually
to account for interactions between both gases. Forcing from other factors is exogenous, using
Hansen (200X).
The equilibrium temperature response to a change in radiative forcing is determined by the
radiative forcing coefficient, κ , and the climate feedback parameter, λ .
çæ C ÷ ö Eq. 7
ç a ÷
k ln
çC ÷
çè a, 0 ÷
ø
T =
equil l ln( 2 )

Tequil = equilibrium temperature κ = radiative forcing coefficient
Ca = atmospheric CO2 concentration λ = climate feedback parameter
Ca,o = preindustrial atmospheric CO2
concentration
Figure 22 Equilibrium Temperature Response
4
Equilibrium Temperature Change
3
(Degrees C)
2
01 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

CO2 in Atmosphere
Preindustrial CO2 in Atmosphere
45
Figure 23 Climate
<Preindustrial
Climate Sensitivity to 2x CO2 CO2 Rad Force Coeff CO2>
<CO2 Atm
<Heat in Atmosphere Climate Feedback Param Conc input>
and Upper Ocean> Atm and Upper Ocean Heat Cap CO2 Radiative Forcing
Equilibrium Mixed GHG

Feedback Cooling Temperature Forcing
Relative
<CH4 and N2O
Temperature RF input>
Relative Atmosphere
Radiative Forcing
and Upper Ocean
Temperature Less Cooling
Heat transfer and
loss Heat in
CFC Forcing
Atmosphere and
Model Adj Temp Radiative Forcing
Upper Ocean <Time>
Anomaly Heat Transfer Other Forcings
Deterministic <Init Atmos
UOcean Temp>
Model Anomaly
Heat Transfer
Adjustment
Temp Diff Heat Transfer Rate
GHG RF switch
Init Deep Ocean
Temp
Deep Ocean Heat Cap CO2 RF test
Goal for switch
Temperature Heat in Deep
Ocean
Relative Deep
Ocean Temp
46
Table 10 Temperature Parameter Inputs

Parameter Definition Range BAU Units
Climate Sensitivity to 2x Equilibrium temperature change in response to a 2xCO2 1.5-6.2 2.71 Degrees C
CO2 equivalent change in radiative forcing
CO2 Rad Force Coeff Coefficient of Radiative Forcing from CO2 2.32 watt/
(meter*meter)
Preindustrial CO2 Preindustrial CO2 content of atmosphere. 5.9e+011 Tons C
Init Atmos UOcean Initial Temperature of the Atmosphere and Upper Ocean 0 Degrees C
Temp
Model Anomaly Adjusts temperature to compensate for different effective 0-1 0.1 Degrees C
Adjustment reference period in model and data.
Goal for Temperature Assumed threshold of temperature change above which 1-3 2 Degrees C
irreversible climate changes may occur
CO2 RF test switch 0 if no calibration test, 1 if testing BAU scenario (using CO2 0-1 0 dmnl
Atm Conc from either World MiniCAM EMF14 Standard
Reference or World CETA EMF14 Standard Reference), 2 if test
reduction (using CO2 Atm Conc from either World MiniCAM
EMF14 Accel Tech or CETA EMF14 Accel Tech)
Model Switch If testing model inputs, set to: 0-1 1 dmnl
1 if MiniCAM EMF14
2 if CETA EMF14
47
Table 11 Temperature Calculated Parameters

Heat in Atmosphere and Upper
Temperature of the Atmosphere and Upper Ocean year*watt/(meter*meter)
Ocean
Radiative Forcing Total Radiative Forcing from All GHGs watt/(meter*meter)
Radiative Forcing Less Cooling Difference between the Radiative Forcing and the Feedback watt/(meter*meter)
Equilibrium Temperature Ratio of Radiative Forcing to the Climate Feedback Parameter Degrees C
Feedback cooling of atmosphere/upper ocean system due to
Feedback Cooling watt/(meter*meter)
blackbody radiation.
Climate Feedback Parameter - determines feedback effect from
Climate Feedback Param (watt/(meter*meter))/Degrees C
temperature increase.
Equilibrium temperature change in response to a 2xCO2
Climate Sensitivity Degrees C
equivalent change in radiative forcing
CO2 Radiative Forcing Radiative forcing from accumulation of CO2.
Adjusts total RF from CH4 and N2O to be less than the sum of
CH4 and N2O Radiative Forcing RF from each individually to account for interactions between
both gases.
Radiative forcing due to CFCs, based on Lookup function with
CFC Forcing
time, from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ghgases/ watt/(meter*meter)
Forcings for all components except well-mixed GHGs,
including O3, StratH2O, Solar, LandUse, SnowAlb, StratAer,
Other Forcings BC, ReflAer, AIE,
Lookup function with time, from
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/
Relative Atmosphere and Upper Temperature of the Atmosphere and Upper Ocean, relative to a
Degrees C
Ocean Temperature reference period
Heat Transfer from the Atmosphere & Upper Ocean to the
Heat Transfer watt/(meter*meter)
Deep Ocean
Deep Ocean Heat Cap Deep Ocean Heat Capacity per Unit Area watt*year/Degrees C/meter/meter
Adjustment to temperature anomaly to compensate for
Model Adj Temp Anomaly Degrees C
different effective reference period in model and data.
48
3.5.3 Behavior
Figure 24 presents the temperature increases for BAU conditions. Figure 25 illustrates the same
dynamic global temperature change with the uncertainty associated with the temperature
sensitivity to changes in CO2 concentrations.
Figure 24
Global Temperature Increase

4
2
DegreesC
0
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
Time (year)
49
Figure 25
Global Temperature Increase

4
2
DegreesC
0
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
Time (year)
Model Adj Temp Anomaly : 2xCO2=3
Model Adj Temp Anomaly : 2xCO2=min
Model Adj Temp Anomaly : 2xCO2=max
Goal for Temperature
50
4. Sea Level Rise
Figure 26 Sea Level Rise
Sea Level Rise

from 2000
SLR in 2000
+
Sea Level
Sea Level Sensitivity Change in Sea Rise
from Ice Sheet Melting Level
+
Sensitivity of Sea Level

Rise to Temperature
Adjusted Model
Temp Anomaly
Rahmstorf Sensitivity of +
Sea Level Rise to +
Temperature Temp Adjustment
for SLR
<Model Adj Temp

Anomaly>
51
Table 12 Sea Level Rise Parameter Inputs

Parameter Definition BAU Units Source
SLR in 2000 Sea level rise in the year 2000 230.37 Mm
User specified parameter from 0 to 1 to capture change in rate
of sea level rise above or below the value of 3.4
mm/year/degree C estimated by Rahmstorf from data 1880-
Sea Level Sensitivity 2000; Positive values capture accelerated SLR from rates of ice
from Ice Sheet sheet melt higher than those reflected in the data Rahmstorf 0 dmnl
Rahmstorf, S.
Melting used. =0 mm/(year*degC).
Science 315, 368.
Negative values would capture lower rates of melting. Does
not affect the historic period; impact only from 2000 on. A
value of 1 yields a doubling of the Rahmstorf rate constant.
Rahmstorf Sensitivity
(mm/year)/degrees
of Sea Level Rise to Sensitivity of sea level rise to temperature anomaly. 3.4
C
Temperature
Set to match data
in Rahmstorf,
figure 3, showing
approximately
Adjustment to model generated average global surface
Temp Adjustment for 0.75 mm/year
temperature used in calculation of sea level rise from the 0.1 Degrees C
SLR SLR in 1880 and
Rahmstorf model
approximately
150 mm of SLR
between 1880
and 1990
52
Table 13 Sea Level Rise Calculated Parameters

Sea Level Rise Estimated Sea Level Rise (from initial level) is the accumulation of the Mm Rahmstorf, S.
rate of sea level rise. 2007. Science,
315, 368
Sea Level Rise from 2000 Level Rise indexed to zero in the year 2000. Mm
Change in Sea Level proportional to the temperature difference (around a base year, defined mm/year Rahmstorf, S.
here to be 1800). 2007. Science,
315, 368
Adjusted Model Temp Adjustment to temperature anomaly to compensate for different effective Degrees C
Anomaly reference period in model and data.
Model Adj Temp Adjustment to temperature anomaly to compensate for different effective Degrees C
Anomaly reference period in model and data
Temp Adjustment for Adjustment to model generated average global surface temperature used Degrees C
SLR in calculation of sea level rise from the Rahmstorf model. Set to match
data in Rahmstorf, figure 3, showing approximately 0.75 mm/year SLR
in 1880 and approximately 150 mm of SLR between 1880 and 1990.
53
Figure 27 depicts the sea level rise for BAU Conditions.
Figure 27
Sea Level Rise from Year 2000

800
600
400
mm
200
0
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
Time (year)
5. Calibration
The model can be compared with data and the output of other models easily, and it makes sense
to do so in order to ensure that the approximations and simplifications used do not introduce
systematic biases.
With that in mind, we conducted a series of model simulations and comparisons against
historical data as well as against the output by other models used in the IPCC process and
elsewhere. The purpose is to a) validate the carbon cycle and temperature associations within the
54
model and b) confirm consistency with published IPCC projections. Of particular interest is
whether the model’s response to policies (e.g., a specified emissions reduction) is consistent with
other models.
In general, we find that the Pangaea Climate Model’s performance is a reasonable
characterization of both history and other models, and that differences in particular trajectories
are likely to be dwarfed by the general uncertainty about climate sensitivity and uncertainties in
the carbon cycle.
55
5.1 Historical comparisons

5.1.1 CO2 atmospheric concentrations
Figure 28 presents the Mauna Loa and Siple Ice databases with the modeled data with the mean
biostimulation coefficient, i.e., 0.4172, and the lower and upper 95% confidence values (mean +
2σ ), i.e., 0.2 and 0.6, respectively. The former includes data for 1959 through 2004 (NOAA,
2007), whereas the latter includes data for 1744 through 1953 (CDIAC, 1994). Together, these
two sources offer a nearly complete dataset to which to compare the modeled data from 1744
through 2004. The comparison indicates that the model closely agrees with these sources,
particularly with the mean biostimulation coefficient.
Figure 28
Temperature -- Model vs Data

1
0.5
0
DegreesC
-0.5
-1
1850 1890 1929 1969 2008
Time (year)
Model Adj Temp Anomaly : Biostim coeff=mean
Model Adj Temp Anomaly : Biostim coeff=min
Model Adj Temp Anomaly : Biostim coeff=max
Hadley data
56
Figure 29 presents the same historical and modeled data as Figure 28 except that the
biostimulation coefficient is kept constant while the eddy diffusion coefficient is varied between
the mean, i.e., 4000, and the lower and upper 95% confidence values (mean + 2*σ ), i.e., 3400
and 4600, respectively. The former includes data for 1959 through 2004, whereas the latter
includes data for 1744 through 1953. Together, these two sources offer a nearly complete
dataset to which to compare the modeled data from 1744 through 2004. The comparison
indicates that the model closely agrees with these sources, regardless of the eddy diffusion
coefficient.
Figure 29

1
0.5
0
DegreesC
-0.5
-1
1850 1890 1929 1969 2008
Time (year)
Model Adj Temp Anomaly : Eddy Diff coeff=mean
Model Adj Temp Anomaly : Eddy Diff coeff=min
Model Adj Temp Anomaly : Eddy Diff coeff=max
Hadley data
57
5.1.2 Temperature
The Hadley database of historical temperatures tests the model’s temperature response to
historical CO2 emissions (Figure 30). A correction constant added to those data aligns the
historical temperature series with the same mean over the period from 1960-1990. The
comparisons indicate that the model roughly agrees with history, though naturally it does not
endogenously generate climate variability.
Figure 30

1
0.5
0
DegreesC
-0.5
-1
1850 1890 1929 1969 2008
Time (year)
Model Adj Temp Anomaly : Base
Model Adj Temp Anomaly : 2xCO2=max
Model Adj Temp Anomaly : 2xCO2=min
Hadley data
58
5.2 Comparisons to projections

The source of projections from other models for calibration is the IPCC SRES Database Version
3.0. National Institute for Environmental Studies. Center for Global Environmental Research.
Tsuneyuki Morita (1999) Emission Scenario Database prepared for IPCC Special Report on
Emission Scenarios convened by Dr. Nebosja Nakicenovic. These data were used to calibrate
the business as usual (BAU) emissions, CO2 atmospheric concentrations, N2O and CH4
concentrations, and temperature changes, assuming reference, start, and target years are 2005,
2015, and 2050, respectively.
An assumed temperature correction of 0.427 degrees C is added to the IPCC model temperature
data to account for differences in reference periods. It is also assumed that the chosen IPCC
models’ CO2 emissions only includes the FF emissions. Accordingly, the flux of CO2 emissions
into CO2 in atmosphere also adds the Land use emissions to the IPCC model data for better
comparison of CO2 atmospheric concentrations and temperature results.
In an effort to test the parametric values for BAU and reduction scenarios, and to test the carbon
cycle and temperature effects, it was important for the chosen models to have simulations for
BAU and reduction scenarios and for the output to include FF CO2 emissions, CO2 atmospheric
concentrations, and temperature changes. Both the World MiniCAM EMF14 and CETA EMF14
models satisfy these criteria.
5.2.1 Calibration of Emissions
BAU inputs emissions were calibrated to IPCC’s MiniCAM SRES A1FI global FF emissions
with WEO growth allocations for each region.
59
Figure 31
RCM BAU vs A1FI

40 B
20 B
tonsC/year
0
1990 2020 2050 2080
Time (year)
World CO2 FF emissions : BAU
MiniCAM pSRES A1FI
60
5.2.2 Carbon Cycle Test

To test the carbon cycle, emissions from both the BAU and reduction extremes of modeling
simulations were inputted as the CO2 emissions for the carbon cycle sub-model instead of the
emissions output from Regional Climate Model. A model switch sets the test with the MiniCAM
EMF14 if set to 1 and with CETA EMF14 if set to 2.
Inputting the World MiniCAM EMF14 Standard Reference CO2 FF emissions directly into the
model instead of the modeled emissions yields CO2 Atmospheric concentrations that are on
average -0.7% (min -2.5%, max 4.2%) different from those of the IPCC models’ data. Likewise,
the Pangaea CO2 atmospheric concentrations are on average -0.2% (min -2.7%, max 6.9%)
different from those of CETA EMF14 when the CETA EMF14 BAU emissions are inputted
directly into the Pangaea.
For reduction scenarios, both MiniCAM EMF14 and CETA EMF14 reduction emissions inputs
were tested in the Pangaea. When the land use emissions switch is also set to reduction, i.e.,
Land Use Change = 0, the model yields CO2 atmospheric concentrations within 3% of those
models’ atmospheric concentrations for the given reduction scenarios. For the MiniCAM test,
the result differences average -2.0% (min -2.8%, max -0.3%) relative to the IPCC’s output. For
the CETA test, the result differences average -4.3% (min -5.2%, max -1.6%) relative to the
IPCC’s output. Considering the better agreement with the BAU scenarios, it is assumed that the
other models also modify other factors in the reduction scenarios, such as land use emissions.
61
Figure 32
62
CO2 atm conc Calibration BAU

800
400
ppm
0
1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2090
Time (year)
World MiniCAM Stnd Ref
CO2 atm conc Calibration Reductions

600
ppm 400
200
1990 2020 2050 2080
Time (year) 63
ppm CO2 in Atmosphere : Reductions
World MiniCAM Accel Tech

600
ppm 400
200
1990 2020 2050 2080
Time (year)
World MiniCAM Accel Tech
64
Figure 33
65
CO2 atm conc Calibration BAU

1,000
ppm 500
0
1990 2020 2050 2080
Time (year)
CO2 Atm Conc World CETA EMF14 Stnd Ref

600
ppm 400
200
1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2090
Time (year) 66
CO2 Atm Conc World CETA EMF14 Accel Tech MOD

600
ppm 400
200
1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2090
Time (year)
CO2 Atm Conc World CETA EMF14 Accel Tech MOD
67
5.2.3 Temperature Test
To test the temperature effects of CO2 radiative forcing, CO2 atmospheric concentrations
from both the BAU and reduction extremes of modeling simulations were inputted as the
CO2 atmospheric concentrations for the temperature sub-model instead of the output
from Regional Climate Model. Inputting the World MiniCAM EMF14 Standard
Reference CO2 atmospheric concentrations, converted to atmospheric concentrations in
ppm, directly into the model instead of the Pangaea determined values yields relative
temperatures that are on average 18% (min -1%, max 60%) different from those of the
IPCC models’ data. Likewise, the Pangaea temperature changes are on average 24%
(min -5%, max 58%) different from those of CETA EMF14 when the CETA EMF14 CO2
atmospheric concentrations are inputted directly into the Pangaea. However, World
MiniCAM EMF14 Accel Tech CO2 atmospheric concentrations inputted into model
instead of the Pangaea output yields temperature changes that are on average 29% (min
-7%, max 58%) different from those of the IPCC model for the reduction scenario.
Likewise, agreement is observed between Pangaea temperature changes and those of the
CETA EMF14 modeled data for both BAU and reduction scenarios, with differences on
average of 32% (min -17%, max 60%). These percentage differences are all well within
an order of magnitude.
68
Figure 34
Temperature Calibration BAU Temperature Calibration Reductions

4 4
2 2
degrees C DegreesC
0 0
1990 2020 2050 2080 1990 2020 2050 2080
Time (year) Time (year)
Adjusted Model Temp Anomaly : BAU Relative Temperature : Reductions
World MiniCAM Stnd Ref World MiniCAM Accel Tech
69
Figure 35
Temperature Calibration BAU Temperature Calibration Reductions

4 4
2 2
DegreesC DegreesC
0 0
1990 2020 2050 2080 1990 2020 2050 2080
Time (year) Time (year)
Relative Temperature : BAU Relative Temperature : Reductions
Temp World CETA EMF14 Stnd Ref Corrected Temp World CETA EMF14 Accel Tech MOD
70
5.2.4 Other GHG concentrations
IPCC models seem to reflect the intervention affecting CH4 concentrations at

approximately year 2050. Accordingly, the model uses a reduction start year for the
annual change for CH4, set at 2050, instead of the regular start year of 2015.
Figure 36
IPCC N2O Atm Conc Models vs Nations Model

600
500
400
ppb
300
200
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Time (year)
N2O atmospheric concentration : BAU
Image2 Baseline C N2O Atm Conc
71
Figure 37
IPCC CH4 Atm Conc Models vs Nations Model

6,000
4,500
3,000
ppb
1,500
0
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Time (year)
CH4 atmospheric concentration : BAU
AIM96 Standard Scenario CH4 Atm Conc
72
Figure 38 illustrates the sea level rise calculated with the temperature change projected by
MiniCAM EMF14 Stnd Ref. The exceedance of the Pangaea projections is likely due to
Rahmstorf’s better incorporation of feedback mechanisms of ice melting on sea level rise,
thereby providing more accurate results.
Figure 38
Sea Level Rise from Year 2000

800
600
mm 400
200
0
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
Time (year)
Sea Level Rise from 2000 : BAU
Sea Level Rise World MiniCAM Stnd Ref : BAU
73
6. Population and GDP
The model also incorporates historical population (Figure 39) and gross domestic product (GDP)
data (Figure 40) with projections based on historical trends (1990-2004 for population and 1990-
2003 for GDP). The Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center provided the yearly CO2 FF
emissions (used for the historical CO2 data) and the CO2 FF emissions per capita. Dividing the
former by the latter yields the yearly population. Historical population was calculated in this
way because gathering these data directly challenged consistency of regions. The Conference
Board and Groningen Growth and Development Centre (Total Economy Database, January
2008, http://www.conference-board.org/economics) provided historical GDP data.
Figure 39 Historical Population
Historical national Pop data obtained from calculations using CO2

emissions from FF and CO2 emissions from FF per capita. Carbon
Dioxide Information Analysis Center, downloaded at
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/CSV-FILES/nation.1751_2004.csv;
yearly value for each economic region is the sum of yearly values for
individual nations
Historical US Pop
<Year to start
Historical EU Pop <Time> forecast>
Historical Other
Historical China Pop Regional historical Asia Pop
Pop
Historical India Pop Historical Japan Pop
Historical Other
Africa Pop Historical Russia Historical Brazil
Pop Pop
Historical South Historical Historical

Korea Pop Middle East Pop Historical Mexico Canada Pop
Pop
Historical South
Historical Other Latin Africa Pop
Historical Australiza America Pop
and New Zealand Pop
74
Figure 40 Historical GDP
The Conference Board and Groningen Growth

and Development Centre, Total Economy
Database, January 2008,
http://www.conference-board.org/economics.
<Year to start GDP

Historical South Historical South
forecast>
Korea GDP Data Africa GDP Data
Historical US
GDP Data Historical Brazil
GDP Data
Historical EU
GDP Data Regional historical Historical Mexico
GDP GDP Data
Historical China
GDP Data
Historical Middle
Historical India <Time> East GDP Data
GDP Data
Historical Other
Historical Other Latin
Historical Canada Asia GDP Data
America GDP Data Historical Australia and
GDP Data
Historical Other New Zealand GDP Data
Africa GDP Data
Historical Russia Historical Japan

GDP Data GDP Data
75
Figure 41 Historical and Projected Population
<FF change start

year>
<Time>
Population in start
<Time> year
<TIME STEP>
Projected
Pop growth rate
Change in pop population Cumulative
Population
Year to start pop <Time>
forecast
Current Pop Population
Projected population Regional
in target year <Regional population
historical Pop>
<Time>
World Population Aggregated
<FF change target population
year> Cumulative
World
<Population> Population Regional emissions
per capita
Global emissions <Regional CO2 FF
<CO2 FF Emissions per per capita
<Time> emissions>
emissions> capita
<World CO2 FF
Aggregated emissions>
<Aggregated emissions per capita
population> <Aggregated CO2
FF Emissions>
76
Figure 42 Historical and Projected GDP
<TIME STEP> Cumulative <Time>

<Time>
GDP
<FF change target GDP growth rate Projected GDP <CO2 FF

year> Change in GDP Emissions per emissions>
GDP
Year to start
Projected GDP in
GDP forecast
target year Regional Emissions
GDP per GDP
<Regional <Time>
historical GDP>
Current GDP Regional GDP <Regional CO2 FF
emissions>
<Time> World GDP
Cumulative Aggregated
GDP per capita Aggregated GDP Emissions per GDP
World GDP
<Population>
Global emissions
per GDP Aggregated GDP <Aggregated CO2
per capita FF Emissions>
<World CO2 FF <Aggregated
<Time> emissions> population>
77
Calculations of emissions per capita and emissions per GDP yield Figure 43 and Figure 44,
respectively. These are consistent with emissions per capita provided by the Department of
Energy’s Energy Information Administration, downloaded at
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1cco2.xls.
Figure 43
Emissions per capita

6
tonsC/(year*person)
0
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Time (year)
Emissions per capita[US] : BAU
Emissions per capita[EU] : BAU
Emissions per capita[China] : BAU
Emissions per capita[India] : BAU
Global emissions per capita : BAU
78
Figure 44
Emissions per GDP

0.0006
0.0003
tonsC/dollar
0
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Time (year)
Emissions per GDP[US] : BAU
Emissions per GDP[EU] : BAU
Emissions per GDP[China] : BAU
Emissions per GDP[India] : BAU
Global emissions per GDP : BAU
79
7. References
Björkstrom, A. 1986. One-Dimensional and Two-Dimensional Ocean Models for Predicting the
Distribution of CO2 Between the Ocean and the Atmosphere. in The Changing Carbon
Cycle: A Global Analysis, ed. J. R. Trabalka and D. E. Reichle. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Bolin, B. 1986. Requirements for a Satisfactory Model of the Global Carbon Cycle and Current
Status of Modeling Efforts. In The Changing Carbon Cycle: A Global Analysis, ed. J.
R. Trabalka and D. E. Reichle. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC). 2004. By nation:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/CSV-FILES/nation.1751_2004.csv. Globally:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/CSV-FILES/global.1751_2004.csv. Last updated 2004.
CDIAC. 1994. Historical CO2 Record from the Siple Station Ice Core
http://cdiac.ESD.ORNL.GOV/trends/co2/siple.htm.
Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2007.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1cco2.xls.
Fiddaman. T.S. 1997. Feedback Complexity in Integrated Climate-Economy Models.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Doctoral Dissertation reporting FREE (Feedback Rich
Energy-Economy) model.
Forrester, J. W. Industrial Dynamics. 1961. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA
Fung, I. 1991. Models of Oceanic and Terrestrial Sinks of Anthropogenic CO2:
A Review of the Contemporary Carbon Cycle. In Biogeochemistry of Global
Change, ed. R. S. Oremland. New York: Chapman & Hall.
Goudriaan, J. and P. Ketner. 1984. A Simulation Study for the Global Carbon Cycle, including
Man's Impact on the Biosphere. Climatic Change 6: 167-192.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001. Third Assessment Report (TAR),
Chapter 6. Radiative Forcing of Climate Change. P.358.
Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L. Randers, J. Behrens, W. W.. The Limits To Growth. Universe
Books: New York, New York
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2007. Trends in Atmospheric
Carbon Dioxide – Mauna Lao. Earth System Research Laboratory, Global Monitoring Division.
Last updated 2007.
Nordhaus, W. and G. Yohe. 1983. Future Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Fossil Fuels. In
Changing Climate: Report of the Carbon Dioxide Assessment Committee, ed. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
Nordhaus, W. D. 1992. The "DICE" Model: Background and Structure of a Dynamic Integrated
Climate-Economy Model of the Economics of Global Warming. Cowles Foundation for
Research in Economics at Yale University, Discussion Paper No. 1009.
Nordhaus, W. D. 1994. Managing the Global Commons. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
80
Nordhaus W.D. and Boyer, 2000. Warming the World: Economic Models of Global Warming
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Oeschger, H., U. Siegenthaler, et al. 1975. A Box Diffusion Model to Study the Carbon Dioxide
Exchange in Nature. Tellus XXVII(2): 167-192.
Rahmstorf, S. 2007. Sea-Level Rise A Semi-Empirical Approach to Projecting Future Sea
Level Rise. Science. 315:368-370.
Rotmans, J. 1990. IMAGE: An Integrated Model to Assess the Greenhouse Effect.
Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Schwartz, S.E. 2007. Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth's Climate System.
Journal of Geophysical Research.
Schneider, S.H., and S.L. Thompson. 1981. Atmospheric CO2 and Climate: Importance of the
Transient Response. Journal of Geophysical Research 86: 3135-3147.
Socolow, R.H. And S.H. Lam. 2007. Good Enough Tools for Global Warming Policy Making
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2007) 365, 897–934.
Sterman, J. S. Business Dynamics. 2000. Irwin McGraw Hill: Boston, MA.
Sterman J. & Booth Sweeney L.. (2007) Understanding Public Complacency About Climate
Change: Adults' Mental Models of Climate Change Violate Conservation of Matter. Climatic
Change, 80, 213-238.
Sterman, J. (2008) Risk Communication on Climate: Mental Models and Mass Balance.
Science, 322, 532
World Energy Forum (WEO).
Wullschleger, S. D., W. M. Post, et al. 1995. On the Potential for a CO2 Fertilization Effect in
Forests: Estimates of the Biotic Growth Factor Based on 58 Controlled-Exposure Studies. In
Biotic Feedbacks in the Global Climatic System, ed. G. M.
81

Pangaea Reference Guide V 21

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Pangaea Reference Guide V 21

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

DRAFT – not for citation or distribution Pangaea Model Reference Guide

PANGAEA MODEL REFERENCE GUIDE

Tom Fiddaman1, Lori S. Siegel2, Beth Sawin2, Andrew P. Jones2

Pangaea Model Reference Guide.....................................................................................................i

1. Background and objectives

2. Model structure overview

Pangaea is a synthesis of several sub-models (Figure 1).

- Global Average Surface Temperature; and

Figure 1 Overview of Pangaea

Regional CO2 Emissions Land Use

Global average surface

Sea Level Rise

3.1 Regional CO2 Emissions

Figure 2 Accumulated CO2 Fossil Fuel Emissions

Figure 3 Regional CO2 Fossil Fuel Emissions

Growth rate of B1 Growth rate of <FF change target

WEO BAU growth Regional growth

<MiniCAM <Time> <POLICY> Ratio to global

Table 1 Regions of Interest

Developing China China China

Other Africa Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso,

Three Seven Fourteen Individual Nations

User Control of Emissions Scenarios

Annual Change in Emissions: Policy 1

Under Policy 1 fossil fuel CO2

until a specified year, after which US annual

annual reduction Non ME annual

rate designated by the user. This annual reduction AGGREGATE

simple scenarios in which the Change in emissions

regional emissions is controlled by <Time>

Relative Change in Emissions by a Target Year Relative to a Reference Year: Policy 2

Figure 5 Regional CO2 Fossil Fuel Emissions Policy 2 Inputs

AGGREGATE <CO2 FF emissions at

Changes in Emissions Intensity by a Target Year: Policy 3

Figure 6 Regional CO2 Fossil Fuel Emissions Policy 3 Inputs

Canada intensity Russia intensity Other Asia

Figure 7 Regional CO2 Fossil Fuel Emissions Policy 4 Inputs

<Annual rate based

Allocated annual <FF change start change to achieve equal per

<Annual rate based <FF change target

- Allocation Method 2 allocates emissions by pathways that converge on equity of

- Allocation Method 3 allocates emissions by pathways that converge on equity of

Annual Change in Emissions, With Emissions Sub-divided by Energy Sector: Policy 5

Parameter Definition Range BAU Values Units Source

Policy 3 is based on emissions intensity, i.e., annual emissions per GDP.

Policy 4 facilitates the achievement of equity among negotiation blocs.

Table 3 Regional FF CO2 Emissions Parameter Inputs

Definition Range BAU Values Units Source

7-Regions US 0-5 1.889

Definition Range BAU Values Units Source

3-Regions Developed ME 0-5 1.818 Dmnl

Parameter Definition Units

Regional CO2 FF Emissions Sub-Model Behavior s

Fossil Fuel Annual Emissions - 3 Regions

CO2 FF Emissions by Regions

Cumulative Emissions - 7 Regions

3.2 Other greenhouse gasses (CH4 and N2O)

Figure 16 Other Greenhouse Gases (GHGs)

CH4 and N2O adjustment for CH4

change in N2O change in CH4

GHG target year

Target CH4 Relative CH4

Table 5 Other Greenhouse Gases Parameter Inputs