The C&C model will calculate any rates of C&C so it can do 80% even 100% cuts globally by 2020 with convergence inside that to any date e.g. 2012 if you like.

This at least creates a rationale with which to actually calcuate the ‘right’ rates as an integral where the ‘differentiated’ emissions-entitlements are the same as the total that’s deemed to be available.

Yes, I understood that.

If there is a debate then it means people are thinking, presumably.

The C&C model will calculate any rates of C&C so it can do 80% even 100% cuts globally by 2020 with convergence inside that to any date e.g. 2012 if you like.

This at least creates a rationale with which to actually calcuate the ‘right’ rates as an integral where the ‘differentiated’ emissions-entitlements are the same as the total that’s deemed to be available.

There’s a big battle breaking out in Parliament here now as to what the ‘right rates’ are. This seems to me to be marginally less futile than the ‘method’ so far which has been like picking numbers out of a hat.

Here’s a taste: -

EAC Enquiry – Coupled/uncoupled models behind climate-act

Dear Liz

Thanks again for drawing attention to this matter on politics.co.uk.

Further to the letter from Jason Lowe of the Hadley Centre arising, which was copied to you et al [below] confirming that he would reply on this matter, three things are relevant: -

1 he hasn’t replied

2 a letter to Adair Turner [below] about this was sent by Colin Challen MP of EAC 15 07 09

3 the matter was debated in parliament and a letter to Ed Miliband [below] was sent 17 07 09

It is not over yet I am sad to see, and won’t be until satisfactory answers have been provided.

I hope you remain interested in this.

With kind regards

Aubrey

Aubrey Meyer
GCI
37 Ravenswood Road
LONDON E17 9LY
Ph 0208 520 4742

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

15th July, 2009

Colin Challen MP
House of Commons
Westiminster

Dear Lord Turner

Climate Models from which Targets and Budgetsare derived in the UK Climate Act

As you know the Environmental Audit Committee is holding an enquiry covering this matter. There appears to have been some difference of understanding in the evidence submitted with respect to the terms ‘coupled’ and ‘uncoupled’.

Use of the term ‘coupled’

This appears to have been used by different parties with different meanings. EAC realize that the term ‘coupled-model’ has been used in the IPCC generically to describe operations of the Atmosphere-Ocean-General-Circulation-Models [AOGCMs] and that these have developed over time.

However, for the purposes of this EAC enquiry, we are taking the use of the word ‘coupled’ to apply as it was applied by the so-called C4 Modelling Intercomparison Programme [C4 MIP], where ‘carbon-cycle-feedbacks’ were linked to the AOGCMs as well, as published in the IPCC Fourth Assessment [AR4] WG1 Chapter 10.

In AR4 WG1 Chapter 10 on page 791, it says: -

“The emission reduction due to this [carbon-cycle] feedback was not quantified in the the IPCC Third Assessment. [However] Similar to the C4MIP protocol, coupled and uncoupled simulations have been recently performed in order to specifically evaluate the impact of climate change on the future.”

C4 MIP numeric results

The C4 MIP’s quantitative work on this was collated and published for the first time in 2007 by the IPCC AR4 Working Group One, Chapter Ten, page 791. Please refer to the attachment here to see exactly what was published. (attachment).

The charted numerical results of these relate to what is clearly called there in print the ‘Hadley SM’ model. Moreover, these are shown regarding the relationship between CO2 concentrations stabilised in the atmosphere at four values [450,550,750 and 1,000 ppmv] and the carbon-emissions contraction-events that are required to achieve these levels in two different versions. These are called ‘uncoupled’ and ‘coupled’ and it is to these two different sets of results that the attention of the EAC has been directed and it is to these specific numerical results that I now direct your attention.

IPCC Fourth Assessment [AR4] Chapter 10 says on page 791: -

“Positive carbon cycle feedbacks (i.e., reduced ocean and terrestrial carbon uptake caused by the warming) reduce the total (cumulative) emissions over the 21st century compatible with a stabilisation of CO2 concentration at 450 ppm by 300 GtC relative to a hypothetical case where the carbon cycle does not respond to temperature.” This figure is in the case of the Hadley SM model.

The emissions control figure that has been adopted by the government is a 50% cut in emissions globally by 2050 to keep within two degrees overall temperature rise.

It seems thereforeto us to be of fundamental importanceto get a clarification on the matter of the quantitative adequacy of this global emissions contraction eventin the light of this information from IPCC AR4 via the Hadley Centre.

In the graphic, in what is tagged as the C4 MIP’Hadley SM’ model with runs for 450 ppmv, it shows very clearly that the runs for: -

[a] ‘uncoupled’ for 450 ppm, require a 50% cut in carbon emissions globally by 2050 and

[b] ‘coupled’ for 450 ppmv, require an 80% cut in carbon emissions globally by 2050.

. . . and the difference in weight between the two contraction events is as published in the order of 300 GTC. This is a 40% reduction of the contraction-event required when as – coupled – ‘positive-carbon-cycle-feedbacks’ are taken into account

To avoid confusion regarding the ‘names’ [i.e. coupled/uncoupled as described above] can you confirm that this is your understanding of the numeric results in that published evidence?

Without a correct understanding and application of these results, the EAC’s task of evaluating the Government’s targets would seem to be at risk.

Yours etc

Colin Challen MP

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

17th July, 2009

The Rt Hon Ed Miliband MP
The Secretary of State,
Department of Energy and Climate Change
3 Whitehall Place
London SW1A 2HD

Dear Mr Miliband

Simple Logic – Do you agree?

Colin Challen MP said to you in the House of Commons debate 16th July: -
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/chan113.pdf

The Committee on Climate Change’s recommended budgets, for example, appear to be based on some modelling that rather ignores the impacts of coupled models, in which the impact of positive feedbacks and carbon sink failures are calculated. The Hadley centre, which contributed evidence to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change, has examined the differences between coupled and uncoupled modelling, and shown that if we followed the coupled model, global carbon emissions would have to be reduced by 80 per cent., not the 50 per cent. that many people are now talking about. That is a radical step change in the budgets thatwe should consider. Should anyone care to look at it, that evidence from our own Hadley centre is repeated authoritatively in the IPCC AR4 work group 1 report, chapter 10, page 791. [See overleaf].

Joan Walley MP subsequently said: -

As my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Colin Challen) said, the science is really important. The important question on some of the modelling that has been done is whether it is coupled or uncoupled. The detail on that point is in some of the evidence that the Committee has received, and I ask my right hon. Friend to look at it urgently, so that we go to Copenhagen with the best and most reliable science.

For your own use, I enclose a copy of the evidence to the EAC to which she refers. It does focus on IPCC AR4 Chapter 10 page 791 and this shows clearly that: -

[a] ‘uncoupled’ for 450 ppm requires a 50% cut in carbon emissions globally by 2050 and

[b] ‘coupled’ for 450 ppmv requires an 80% cut in carbon emissions globally by 2050.

The runs in question come are ‘Hadley SM’ and Dr Lowe [UKMO] told the EAC that: -

“This [image] comes from the C4 MIP study, which to date is the most comprehensive analysis of that particular type of feedback onto the carbon cycle.”

Lord Turner has agreed with the DECC Committee that if the rate of contraction has to be accelerated like this for reasons of urgency then logically the rate of international convergence to equal per capita sharing globally needs to accelerated relative to that.

I feel this simple logic will ease you negotiating challenges at COP-15? Do you agree?

With kind regards

Aubrey Meyer

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

—– Forwarded Message —-
From: Jason Lowe
To: AUBREY MEYER
Cc: BAbrar@wmo.int; Mayer Hillman ; Michael Hutchinson/Tangent Films ; terry.oconnell@blueyonder.co.uk; pearcefred ; julian.rush@itn.co.uk; john.vidal@guardian.co.uk; Richard Black ; david.shukman@bbc.co.uk; “roger.harrabin@bbc.co.uk” ; James Kanter ; Tim YEO ; Colin Challen ; Joan WALLEY ; vicky.pope@metoffice.gov.uk; ruddockj@parliament.uk; Jim Garrison ; jhansen@giss.nasa.gov; Liz Stephens ; clarkeg@parliament.uk; clarkg@parliament.uk; Peter AINSWORTH ; Martin Caton ; bennh@parliament.uk; geofflean@yahoo.com

Sent: Tuesday, 14 July, 2009 8:01:24 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: EAC & IPCC AR4- Hadley Centre Un/Coupled Models

Dear Mr Meyer

Many thanks for your enquiry. I’ve been rather tied up with work on the
AVOID research programme and wasn’t able to respond to your email on
Friday. Please rest assured that the Met Office will return to you with
answers to your questions in a timely manner – but in doing so I’ll
personally need to set some time aside from ongoing commitments to
adequately address the issues you raise.

Given that your questions directly relate to evidence submitted to the
EAC I am keen to ensure that we don’t cut across the focus of that
enquiry in any way and so I’m currently seeking advice on our
obligations before providing a response.

In any case I will be in touch.

Jason Lowe

On Tue, 2009-07-14 at 10:09 +0000, AUBREY MEYER wrote:
> Dear Dr Pachauri
>
> Thanks again so much for the interview in Geneva in June. The film and
> transcript of this has been widely distributed and are very helpful.
> http://www.tangentfilms.com/CandCPachauri.mp4
>
> I am encouraged to report that your comments about IPCC AR4 Chapter 10
> being ignored are being noticed.
>
> I couldn’t help noticing that even UK Secretary General Ban Ki Moon
> condemned the recent G-8 meeting for *under-achievement* with its
> prospectus of a 50% cut in global emissions by 2050 inside which
> Developed Countries would make an 80% cut.
>
> He was right – it is not enough to be safe – and this also ignores
> IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 10. Below is information relating to why this G-8
> prospectus is false and even known to be false and while this is still
> denied, it is being challenged.
>
> I trust that the people copied here will pay proper attention to this
> matter.
>
> With kind regards
>
> Aubrey
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> UK Environmental Audit Committee [EAC] enquiry on carbon-budgets in
> the UK Climate-Act – > Where did the targets come from? Were the models ‘valid’?
>
> No reply has been received to the email [below] sent last Friday to
> Dr. Jason Lowe of the Hadley Centre. It concerned his evidence to
> EAC on the ‘coupled models’ in IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 10 and the fact
> these are being ignored in the UK Climate Act. So, the same letter was
> sent again to him today in the registered post and copied to several
> people, including Lord Adair Turner and Secretary Joan Ruddock.
>
> It is wholly improper for witnesses to the EAC enquiry on carbon-
> budgets, including witnesses from the Hadley Centre, to openly cite
> myself and openly refer to GCI evidence to the EAC: -
> http://www.tangentfilms.com/GCIEAC.pdf
>
> . . . . referring to material published in the IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 10
> [2007] in the evidence on ‘coupled modelling’, and then make evasive,
> erroneous, confused and self-contradictory remarks about the matters
> raised.
>
> It is wholly proper and necessary that clarification is sought and the
> letter attached [and below] seeks that clarification.
>
> Faced with straightforward questions to this end, not to provide
> answers is minima, irresponsible, a failure to exercise a proper duty
> of care in public service and an indication of how public money is
> being wasted.
>
>
>
> Rightly or wrongly, UK Minister Hilary Benn said recently that COP-15
> is ‘the most important meeting in human history’. The whole issue of
> this argument – the Hadley Centre coupled carbon cycle modelling and
> published [fully peer-reviewed] by IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 10 in 2007 -
> was animated and shown at his request for him and DEFRA in 2007 by
> GCI: – http://www.gci.org.uk/Animations/BENN_C&C_Animation.exe
>
> http://www.gci.org.uk/Animations/BENN_C&C_Animation.hqx
>
>
>
> The entire matter was ignored.
>
>
>
> This current EAC enquiry was set up precisely because it was pointed
> out to EAC that the issue feedbacks as per IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 10,
> was still being ignored and that Lord Turner had misled the EAC in
> evidence to them in February on the point of ‘the models used being
> *coupled*’. This misleading continues in evidence from the ICCC and
> now the Hadley Centre. It is quite obvious that this is the case the
> moment the information in the IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 10 is looked at -
> *it could not be clearer*.
>
>
>
> Considering Hilary Benn’s comment and what is actually at stake with
> the danger of runaway rates of global climate change taking hold, it
> is in reality very much more serious than that. So I request the
> people copied here to continue to bring pressure to bear for
> satisfactory answers to be provided to these questions and for this
> whole matter to be properly resolved and reported on: -
>
>
>
> Why is the IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 10 Hadley Centre coupled modelling
> being ignored?
>
>
>
> A knowingly inadequate response to global climate change is a credit
> to no-one and futile. It can be argued that it is no better or even
> worse than no response at all.
>
>
>
> —– Forwarded Message —-
>
> From: AUBREY MEYER
> To: Jason.lowe@metoffice.gov.uk
> Sent: Friday, 10 July, 2009
> Subject: EAC & IPCC AR4- Hadley Centre Un/Coupled Models
>
> Dear Dr Lowe
>
> Your recent evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee
>
> When giving this on the 23rd of June: -
> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmenvaud/uc616-ii/uc61602.htm
>
> you mentioned that you had looked at the evidence to the EAC submitted
> by GCI: -
> http://www.tangentfilms.com/GCIEAC.pdf
> and that “the figure . . . you [Joan Walley MP] refer to comes from
> IPCC in chapter ten . . . “.
>
> I agree and we did indeed make that point in the evidence submitted.
>
> You went on to say: “The curve in question, basically you run the
> model without this effective climate back on to trees and the
> biosphere and you get one number, you run it again with this effect,
> the coupled version, you get a different number and, if you have got
> the same emissions going in, the coupled version leads to typically a
> higher concentration because you are increasing the emissions that
> come back from the biosphere.”
>
> As I pointed out in the written evidence from GCI that you said that
> you looked at, my reading of the figure from IPCC AR4 Chapter 10 [I
> have attached it to this message again as well] is that with
> ‘coupling’ introduced, the image in fact shows the extent of the need
> to reduce the full-term emissions contraction-event associated with a
> given reference curve for concentrations.
>
> Question One: – Can you confirm that that is your understanding
> please?
>
> In the example graphic taken from the IPCC AR4 in what is tagged as
> the C4 MIP ‘Hadley SM’ model with runs for 450 ppmv it shows very
> clearly that what in the IPCC image is called: -
>
> [a] ‘uncoupled’ for 450 ppm requires a 50% cut in carbon
> emissions globally by 2050 and
> [b] ‘coupled’ for 450 ppmv requires an 80% cut in carbon
> emissions globally by 2050.
>
> Question Two: – Can you confirm that that is your understanding of
> this image please?
>
> You went on to say, “The precise values we use to work out the
> magnitude of the coupling comes from elsewhere in IPCC and from a
> study referred to as a C4 MIP study, which to date is the most
> comprehensive analysis of that particular type of feedback onto the
> carbon cycle.”
>
> The runs in question and highlighted in the attached graphic from the
> IPCC AR4 bear the tag ‘Hadley SM’,.
>
> Question Three: – can you as a member of the UKMO Hadley Centre
> please explain to me what ‘elsewhere in the IPCC’ refers to?
>
> Clearing this up would be helpful to this EAC enquiry I believe.
>
>
> With kind regards
>
>
> Aubrey Meyer
> GCI
> 37 Ravenswood Road
> LONDON E17 9LY
> Ph 0208 520 4742
>
>
>
>
–
Dr. Jason A. Lowe
Met Office Hadley Centre (Reading Unit)
Department of Meteorology The University of Reading
Earley Gate Reading RG6 6BB
Tel: +44 (0)118 378 5612 Fax: +44 (0)118 378 5615
Email:jason.lowe@metoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk

I think the key is getting the advanced economies to accept the need for deep cuts by 2020 AND actually doing something about it, PLUS helping the developing countries expand their economies without resort to polluting technology.
Both are extremely important because India for one won’t accept targets until they see the advanced economies take meaningful action on their own emissions and see the colour of their money in assistance to developing countries. They are highly conscious of a 100% record of broken promises in the context of the World Trade Organisation negotiations.

Brown has suggested a fund which will grow to $100 billion by 2020. The developing countries want up to 1% of advanced economies’ GDP. According to the CIA World Fact Book the GDP of the US, the EU and Japan in 2008 was $33.46 trillion. If I haven’t misplaced a decimal point, Brown’s suggestion is less than a third of this. Probably not enough.

Brian – here are some references re C&C that may help allay your concerns: -
http://www.tangentfilms.com/GCIEAC.pdf
http://www.tangentfilms.com/GCIjul6.pdf

The propositions are contraction:concentrations [urgency] and within that contraction:convergence [equity].

Applying the C&C principle at the raight rates is the challenge.

From The Times – 7 July 2009 – Carl Mortished, world business editor of The Times.

“If carbon is a problem, the solution has to be in Asia. Without a commitment from those countries to curb emissions, Copenhagen is a futile gesture. No surprise, however, to learn that in Beijing and Delhi, the message is loud, clear and rising in irritation. There will be no curb, says China. The priority is jobs and wealth creation. Chinese emissions will increase with no date at which growth in carbon output will end. Beijing was in high dudgeon last week over the Waxman-Markey border tariffs and, in response, India and China told us where we could put our climate change treaty. OECD countries emit 11 tonnes of CO2 per capita for China’s 4 tonnes. The Asian duo are demanding cuts in American and European emissions of 40 per cent. Meanwhile, China and India will burn their coal.”

One looming disaster, although further into the future, that you have missed is the breakup of the oceans currents as the sea temperatures rise.

As I said earlier, Quiggin @ 1 was probably close to the mark. I’ve updated the post with two images that show a rather different picture. The first is from the WG1 of the 2007 IPCC report. You can see the original image here.

It refers to the period 2080 to 2099 compared to 1980 to 1999 according to the IPCC A1B scenario.

I think that one would assume about a 3C temperature rise from pre-industrial. It shows the distinct mid-latitude drying that is expected with what is termed the expansion of the tropics. However, I’m not sure that China and India will do so well with rainfall.

I’d ask you to go back and see what I said in this post a few weeks ago. For example, Prof Schellnhuber of Potsdam at Copenhagen in March said the carrying capacity of the planet could fall below 1 billion people with a 5-6C temperature increase, which is what Hansen tells us we should expect with a doubling of atmospheric CO2 if longer term feedbacks are taken into account.

Also Gwynne Dyer tells of a study in India forecasting a 25% reduction in food output with 2C warming, which is quite possible this side of 2050. China found that their food production could reduce by 38% this century.

None of this is certain but we have to go by the best information available at any time. We are talking here of an unacceptable risk of the end of civilisation as we know it.