Original animation of the above set out at RIBA conference Venice 2006 here
The objective of the UNFCCC is achieving safe and stable GHG concentrations in the global atmosphere.
So Domain One *Contraction and Concentrations* absolutely governs the commitment to UNFCCC-compliance.
In this sense, the C-BAT analysis isn't simply 'outcome-based', it is *outcome-driven*.
C-BAT is an analysis tool. It is also a planning model. This may seem deterministic, but proceeding this way is deliberate. Faced with the posibility of runaway rates of climate change taking hold, there is no point in achieving 'outcomes' that are 'inadvertently' the result of doing too little too late. We are in danger of doing this by simply continuing the inadequate policy discussion that has so far depended on the combination of opaque and inadequate climate models, ideologically confused and contestable policy models and risk-obtuse economic models that are dense with highly contestable economic assumptions and computations.
A crude and temporary mock-up of the C-BAT animation is here A working but incomplete draft of the main mechanism of Domain One is here
A not for publication 'C-BAT development-page' is here
The detail of this work is still in progress. However, the calculating *sequence* goes from One to Four through *FOUR DOMAINS* starting with *and crucially governed by*: -
DOMAIN ONE: - Contraction and Concentrations
This domain is 'global' and deals with the 'Common Good'. It directly addresses the 'objective' of the UNFCCC [the reason why the treaty exists].
Here, the spread of changing concentration possibilities on any given future carbon-budget is mathematized in the light of certainly changing [and probably lessening] future sink-performance.
The carbon-airborne-fractions Retained/Returned' and the changes in Ocean Acidification that result from these rates will be shown as well.
NB *the primary numeraire in Domains One Two Three and Four is one tonne of carbon.*
The carbon in 1 part per million atmospheric
CO2 by volume [ppmv] equals . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 2,13,000,000 tonnes carbon or 2.13 Gigatonnes Carbon
[i.e. Gt C or 2.13 Billion Tonnes Carbon]
Conversely, 1 tonne carbon equals . . .
. . . 0.00000000046948357 ppmv atmospheric CO2
Using this numeraire for both CO2 emissions & concentrations makes Carbon-Budget Analysis easily doable.
Domains Three and Four the *the dollar-numeraire remains subject to this CBAT-numeraire.*
As things stand with CBAT model development so far, 400 different carbon-path-integrals have been computed using this numeraire. These are now being animated in a user-friendly way with all these derived details that have been quantified and this makes risk analysis of all the future rates of change much easier to compare and evaluate.
A static concept-view of the C-BAT User-Interface [Domain One High Budget] is shown here . Overall, there are three Budgets in all [High, Medium & Low] not shown, with two ways of measuring feedbacks [Integrated & Segregated]. The animated version of this gives users 'Budget Control' with the drag up/down slider on the right-hand side.
takes the carbon-emissions budget and concentrations above the budget and concentrations @ CAF-50% in 40 steps up and below the budget and concentrations @ CAF-50% in 40 steps down.
Concentrations, temperature, sea-level rise and ocean CO2 deposition/acidification are 'consequences' of this'Budget Control' and all values [sourced] for these are shown on clocks that will move in synch with the slide use for 'Budget Control'.
Domains two, three and four are governed by user choices made in domain one and these Domains will exchange with the centre-stage of position [here of Domain one] when their icons on the left are touched. Then the Slider over the years becomes active e.g. selecting and measuring and weighing the convergence-rates/weights/dates for the contraction rate chosen from Domain one.
The overall animation in still in preparation. A taster is here [load and re-load this file].
Users are invited to select the Domain One path-integral they feel successfully relates to achieving UNFCCC-compliance and to hold this choice as they then progress through Domains two, three and four.
As twenty years of negotiations at the UNFCCC now clearly show, not proceeding in a manner governed by this sequence generates an increasingly chaotic process that is less and less governed by the demands of UNFCCC-compliance.
DOMAIN TWO: - Contraction and Convergence
This domain is international. It address the 'Common but Differentiated Good' of negotiating to share what is left in the future global carbon budget in a rational manner. For all the contraction rates in Domain One, all convergence rates are being computed and animated, again in a user-friendly way.
Population growth rates and the effect of a population base-year in the C&C accounts are addressed here. Also convergence procedures derived from C&C such as Common But Differentiated Convergence, Cap and Dividend, Cap and Share and Greenhouse Development Rights are compared with C&C.
Users are invited to select the convergence-rate they feel relates to the path-integral already chosen in Domain One and so successfully achieving UNFCCC-compliance and hold this choice through Domains three and four.
DOMAIN THREE: - Contraction and Conversion
This domain is technological and economic and explores the options for sustaining or not sustaining present levels of production and consumption. It is in essence the position where C&C without 'Green Growth' of some kind is useless, but 'Green Growth' without C&C is dangerous.
Users are invited to evaluate in the Domain subject to the choices already made in Domains One and Two.
DOMAIN FOUR: - Damages and Growth
Domain Four is really where economics is relevant. It is the domain of climate-damages versus conventional 'growth' based on Munich Re trends over the last forty years. All rates shown are functions of results and choices made in Domain One.
So users can see whether their efforts have passed the crucial test of doing enough soon enough to achieve UNFCCC-compliance. If not they can go back and re-run their analysis based on different choices being made in Domains One Two and Three.
A crude and temporary mock-up of the C-BAT animation is here
A not for publication 'C-BAT development-page' is here
An example of Domain One related to the UK Climate Act is here
This is a hint of what CBAT model-animation starts looking at source-sink relations -
[budget eg is UK Climate Act as shown above] . . . [mouse-slide little blue rectangle on the right up and down].
Policy Management of Positive to High Risk of Danger
To Avoid High Concentrations Emissions-Contraction must be fast and low . . . [due to strong positive feedback] . . .
Policy Management of Negative to Low Risk of Danger
Avoid fast and Low-Emissions-Contraction, Concentrations can rise . . . [assuming feedback is negative] . . .
DOMAIN ONE - CONTRACTION & CONCENTRATIONS
In this domain, the 'climate-models' used by governments are unrealistically conservative and potentially very misleading.
They have generated a policy debate that assumes it is possible to achieve future 'equilibrium' for CO2 concentration in the atmopshere [UNFCCC-compliance] at values that vastly exceed the deep historic values, showing over a period going back around a million years.
These models promote talk of even achieving equilibrium values of 1,000 Gt C atmospheric carbon or more, against a deep historical average of less than half that value [490 Gt C] around which homeorhetically corrections to equilibrium were apparent over millennia. We've decisively broken that pattern already.
In other words, consideration of everything that follows in the analysis coming here, should be in the context that for 1,000,000 years 'Before The Present' [BTP], ice-core samples of CO2 concentrations show that the average was just 230 PPMV [490 Gt C] as the mid-point between fluctuations of 180 PPMV [383 Gt C] and 280 PPMV [596 Gt C] as ice-ages and interglacials periods alternated - see here second section.
In 2012, the current value is 837 Gt C is already nearly twice that deep-historical average. This is higher than any value in the past 1,000,000 years. Moreover, we drove the concentrations up to that record-high value in the mere 200 years since we started burning oil, coal and gas since the industrial revolution began in 1800. In paleo terms that's the twinkling of an eye, for which there's no 'rate-precedent' anytime, anywhere.
The relationship between source-emissions, atmospheric-concentrations and sink-emissions is like a tap [tap-flow] and bath [rising-stock] and a plug-hole [drain-flow] - see here first section. For UNFCCC-compliance, this can and must be measured. Here, we must demonstrate and emphasize that a tonne of carbon in CO2 emissions is the same tonne by weight of carbon in rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations and the tonne returning to the 'natural sinks'. To have any chance of UNFCCC-compliance, these contraction:concentrations must be accounted for more rigorously than has been the case revealed in the IPCC's recorded modelling efforts so far.
To this end it helps to recognize that concentrations have routinely been measured in parts per million by volume [ppmv] of CO2 while emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere weighs have routinely been measured in tonnes of carbon. This weight:volume ratio has made it quite difficult to functionally relate emissions to concentrations.
However, 1 ppmv CO2 weighs 2,130,000,000 tonnes of carbon [2.13 Gt C]. Using this to convert ppmv to a weight of carbon makes it much easier to relate emissions to concentrations and then to do coherent analysis of the effect of different rates of 'sink failure'.
This is the basis of what follows in DOMAIN ONE of CBAT analysis.
Moreover, rising atmopshere concentrations of CO2 are a function of emissions of CO2 from mostly oil, coal and gas burning buried in mines deep underground as 'fossil-carbon'. Around half these emissions stay in the atmosphere [adding up over time]. This is known as the 'Constant Airborne Fraction' [CAF]. The other half 'return'. This means that the carbon tonnes return from the atmosphere split roughly 50:50 between the biological sinks on the land and in the ocean.
Crucially, these 'returning emissions' don't go back down the coal mines and the oil wells. They accumulate in the theoretically increasing growth of biomass on land and in the oceans, where they accumulate and increasingly lower pH, or raise ocean acidity eons before they may eventually become fossil carbon once more.
4 images follow: -
 500 Gt C budget
 Budget with CAF 50, with an outcome value of 508 PPMV [1082 Gt C] & 100% with 626 PPMV [1332 Gt C].
 Budget + CAF ref + 41 incremental increases of CAF +
 Budget reductions equivalent to 41 incremental decreases in CAF +
Stage  has the effect of significantly decreasing the budget path-integral [the budget added up over time].
An incomplete animation mock-up follows that.
To generate the curves for C-BAT, from code in ActionScript, I think weâďż˝ďż˝ll need an xml page of an example such as a a 100-year budget with a [weight] value for each year with a total weight of e.g. 500 Gt C so its image looks like this -
The annual budget values for this e.g. as follows: -
We then add Constant Airborne Fraction [CAF] at 50% and 100%, giving outcome values of to create a frame of reference. By 2110, CAF @ 50% has an outcome value of 508 PPMV [or 1082 Gt C] & CAF @ 100% has an outcome value of 626 PPMV [or 1332 Gt C] of atmospheric carbon.
On the assumption that CAF will remain constant at 50%, we can assume that this 500 Gt C Carbon Budget can remain constant too, if 508 PPMV [or 1082 Gt C] is the outcome value we are aiming at.
This excercise is not intended to suggest that the value '500 PPMV' atmospheric CO2 concentration is 'safe'. It is more to demonstrate what the 'arithmetic' of carbon-accounting involves since emissions and concentrations are so closely coupled.
However, CAF 100% is added as well to show how quickly slow rates of 'sink-failure' could cause concentrations to rise to and beyond 100% retention, if indeed 'sink-failure' starts to occur.
So now we can add to CAF-50, increasing in 41 paths where an extra 0.05% is added per year in each of the paths, to show just this. We call it 'CAF-50 + x %'].
Finally we subtract the equivalent weight of carbon in each of the the CAF + x% paths from the underlying reference Carbon Budget of 500 Gt C [this is 'Budget - '] to correspond with obviating the real risks of the 'CAF 50 + ' increases above.
There are two examples.
The graphic above, with deep negative emissions for the carbon budgets after 2050, shows what risk aversion would have entailed after the fact, in other words if we had failed to act, as it were.
The graphic that follows shows, if we acted immediately in a risk-averse manner, what the options involving less deeply negative emissions control, still look like.
In other words in this dynamically changing context the timing of 'decision-taking' is crucial. The same decision delayed by ten years for example leads to a worse outcome and vice versa.
The start of a [presently crude] animation of this is shown below. It is an example of where this analysis is going in the first stage.
It will have interactive ' full user controls and complete information about weights/dates/rates of
'Fixed Budget' with 'CAF 50 +' &
'Budget - CAF + '
A very crude mock-up of the eventual ouput-appearance of the Four DOMAINS of CBAT is here
An earlier, less detailed version of DOMAINS ONE & TWO is here
Another version of this from 2007 for DEFRA Minister Hilary Benn is here
When completed, CBAT user-controls and data values will be be consistently and comprehensively visible in the user-interface. All four DOMAINS will be coupled and simultaneously viewable. The purpose is to show that the primary contraction:concentrations relationship of DOMAIN ONE is not 'unknowably chaotic'. It is amenable to quantified curvy-linear analyis for the purpose of risk analysis and for framing and negotiating UNFCCC-compliant policy determinations arising in DOMAINS TWO THREE & FOUR.
Carbon Budget & Atmospheric Concentrations & the UK Climate Act
[Keeping calm and carrying on].
Our CO2 emissions to the atmosphere accumulate as rising concentrations in the atmosphere.
So, because of this and the growing risks of positive feedback effects, [another 1.7 Trillion tonnes of carbon is possible from melting PermaFrost alone], it would be more prudent to contract emissions to stable concentrations at a level pre-agreed as 'safe', than to see concentrations simply result as a vague array of consequences from an indefinite programme of emissions control and the increasingly likely 'runaway' rates of climate change that will result as temperature rise turns sinks and carbon-stocks to sources.
The Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations shown here: -
[a] up in 40 steps of 5 Gt C/Century above CAF 50% &
[b] down in 40 steps of 5 Gt C/Century below CAF 50%
The Carbon Budget [CB] of UKCA correspondingly goes: -
[c] down in 40 steps of 5 Gt C/Century below CB to offset [a] above &/or
[d] up in 40 steps of 5 Gt C/Century above CB to allow for [b] above.
Feedbacks mean that: - [a] is much more probable than [b] and consequently [c] is much more prudent than [d].
"As [a] is more probable than [b], [c] is more prudent than [d]."
This simple phrase barely hides the terrifying truth of its reciprocal, that [b] is assumed and [d] is the policy default, which is the model that we are still operating on after 20 years of negotiations at the UNCCC [COP 18].
You can easily draw this conclusion from the numerical analysis in the pdf file here and linked to the image below.
This analytical framework is the basis of Carbon Budgetting Analysis Tool C-BAT development: -
Future work in DOMAIN ONE involves principally three things: -
The use of different sizes of carbon-budgets. This means basing this analysis on carbon-budgets that are bigger [heavier & slower] as well as ones that are smaller [lighter & faster].
Different rates of accumulation over these, where CAF is not constant but accelerates through 0.05% 0.1% 0.15% as a single accumulation paths, the carbon weights also being deducted from the budget.
The point here is that 'runaway-change-rates' pose a very real risk [especially the bigger the budget] and these 'acceleration curves' are not at all impossible
and will look like this . . . .
The generic comparion of these approaches showing the increasing phenomenon of 'risk-lock', or the increasing dangers of inescapable runaway rates that are generated by 'delaying' a C&C agreement.
In due course, modelling the DOMAINS TWO THREE & FOUR will be generated, but governed by DOMAIN ONE as the primary domain of numeracy for UNFCCC compliance.
DOMAIN TWO will model all Contraction Convergence rates for all the Contraction Concentration curves developed above. It will updated from the earlier exercise along these lines, see here
This approach to calculating the Rates/Weights/Dates of C&C needed for UNFCCC-compliance has been developed and presented over many years, see here
The UK Climate Act however, uses climate models from the UK Meteorological Office [UKMO] that fix the carbon budget as 480Gt C [as in the '2016 4% Low' budget] and simply project concentrations as a range of outcome values above this. In the instance they describe as 'most likely', they also assume achieving more than 100% 'sink-efficiency after 2050. This is not probable or risk-averse or supported by any evidence.
When GCI presented this animation to them, their response was to ask, "How did you do that?" This was then explained and they then agreed that it showed what they had said, which they also said was 'entirely reasonable'. In other words however, proceeding as though concentrations might rise and even accelerate against a fixed carbon-budget, as opposed to budgets perhaps needing to fall against a fixed concentration path [as above] is what they were [and still are] doing.
GCI's view is that doing this is not helpfully policy relevant to a process that is supposedly committed to UNFCCC-compliance. It simply helps to continue the inadequate policy discussion that has depended on the combination of opaque and inadequate climate models, ideologically confused and contestable policy models and economic models that are dense with highly contestable economic assumptions and computations.
Moreover, UKMO asserted that 'all known feedbacks had been included in their modelling'. Examination of all the contraction:concentration analysis in the spreadsheets from DECC supporting the UK Climate Act, also show that all concentrations curves shown for all contraction budgets shown [and some are much heavier and slower than '2016 4% Low'] are 'deceleration-curves' [in other words they show concave or downward curvature].
This feature is the clearest demonstration possible that 'all the known feedbacks' had not been included in the UKMO's modelling, as they claimed they had been. The possibility of runaway rates of climate change developing is a widely acknowledged possibility. This is simply not addressed in this UKMO modelling.
If this were to happen, 'uncontrollable' acceleration curves for concentrations would manifest showing convex or upward curvature. But nowhere is that shown in whole the suite of results generated by UKMO for the UK Climate Act. On the contrary, deceleration curves are uniformly shown. This means that for UKMO all the feedback effects included are proportionately the same, whether the carbon budget chosen is relative small-&- fast or larger-&-slower.