carboocean, solstrand october 8 2009, erling moxnes
TRANSCRIPT
CARBOOCEAN, Solstrand October 8 2009, Erling Moxnes
Misperceptions of climate change dynamics
Erling Moxnes
Professor in System Dynamics
University of Bergen
Outline
Mental models– Non-communicated assumptions
1. Misperceptions of CO2 accumulation– Laboratory experiments– Information
2. Misperceptions of saturation in absorption– Laboratory experiments– Information
3. Misperceptions of delays– Laboratory experiments– Information
Mental models
• Using 6 matches you should form 4 triangles with equal sides. All triangles should have the same size as the triangle below.
Solution
• Mental model or “theory-in-use”: 2 dimensions• Not communicated: 3 dimensions• Dynamics represent a non-communicated ”third
dimension”
1. Misperceptions of CO2 accumulation
Sketch needed CO2 emissions from 2000 to 2050to reach each of the three desired developments of
anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere
Emissions
0
5
10
15
20
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
?Historical
CO2 in atmosphere
0
100
200
300
400
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Historical
Desired 1
Desired 3
Desired 2
Illustrate graphically the relationship between emissions and amount of CO2 in atmospheric
?
Typical emission paths in CO2 tasks
• Pattern matching or
• Correlation
CO2 in atmosphere
0
100
200
300
400
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Historical
Desired 1
Desired 3
Desired 2
Typical graphical illustration
Emissions
CO
2 co
ncen
trat
ion
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
CO2 concentration versus emissions, data from 1900 to 1998, correlation coeff.=0.98
“The more emissions the higher concentration and vice versa”
Test of linear instantaneous relationship
Stock=a*Emissions+b
Time
Historical_stock_of_CO21
Correlated_CO2_stock2
1,940 1,950 1,960 1,970 1,980 1,990 2,000
0
50
100
150
200
1 2 1 21 2
1 2
1
2
1
2
1
2
CO2-stock as non-linear function of emissions
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Emissions
Test of nonlinear instantaneous relationship
Time
Historical_stock_of_CO21
Auxiliary_hypothesis2
1,940 1,950 1,960 1,970 1,980 1,990 2,000
0
50
100
150
200
12
1 2
1 2
1 2
12
12
1
Stock and flow model
dS/dt = E - S/T
Emissions
Stock of CO2
Residency time
Absorption
1. Explicit about absorption 2. Explicit about accumulation
Time
Simulated_stock_of_CO21
Historical_stock_of_CO22
1,940 1,950 1,960 1,970 1,980 1,990 2,0000
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
1 2 1 21 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1
Time
Absorption1
Emissions2
1,940 1,950 1,960 1,970 1,980 1,990 2,0000
2
4
6
8
12
1
21
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
Residency time = 40 years
Test of dynamic model
Important insights
• The instantaneous model is not consistent with the real system
• A simple dynamic model explains history very well
• Absorption is the sum over land and ocean – and is difficult to measure (?)
• Historical absorption can be estimated with high accuracy
A= S/40 years
Policy implications are very different from what most people expect!
Emission paths from dynamic modelCO2 in atmosphere
0
100
200
300
400
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Historical
Desired 1
Desired 3
Desired 2
Emissions
0
5
10
15
20
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Historical
Absorption? Desired 2
Desired 1
Desired 3
Experiment: design and results
Max.emissions
Desired amount
Results of experiments
• Sterman & Sweeney (2002, 2007)– Little effect of IPCC summary– Little use for information about absorption
• Moxnes & Saysel (2009)– No effect of phase diagram– No effect of balloon analogy– Little use for information about absorption– Effect of “cognitive conflict” and analogy
Cognitive conflict
320
330
340
350
1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
CO2 Emissions
ppm Gtons/year
Anthropogenic emissions do not matter?Need for explanation
CO2 Concentration in atmosphere
CO2 emissions
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
Gtons C/year
Analogy
Absorption
?
CO2 concentration
320
325
330
335
340
345
350
355
360
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
Not sufficient to reduce growth in emissionsNot sufficient to stabilize emissions
Conclusion on accumulation
• Information needed– emissions versus– absorption!
• Conceptual change for effect– Challenge instantaneous model– Analogies to explain dynamic model
• Future absorption?
2.Misperceptions of non-linearity in absorption? (or saturation)
Emissions
Stock of CO2
Absorption
f(S)
Example case: Reindeer St.Paul Alaska
0
500
1000
1500
2000
1910 1920 1930 1940 1950
Number of reindeer
Population
Killing
No “tragedy of the commons”
Historical experiences: Canada
The American Society of Mammalogists:
“... urges that the Canadian Government not undertake the introduction of reindeer into Ungava. Before any introduction is seriously considered, those persons involved in any planning are urged to make a thorough study beforehand of the problems of integrating lichen ecology, reindeer biology, and native culture - serious problems that have not been solved to date on any workable scale on the North American continent.''
Example: Reindeer grazing
Grazing per animal
Growth
Number of reindeer
Lichen Grazing
f(L)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Herd and lichen grow th [annual takeouts per year]
Lichen density [g/m2]
Median subject in experiment
Source: Moxnes 2004
History
No “tragedy of the commons”
The case of Snøhetta district
Source: Moxnes et al. 2002
Grazing
Growth0
5000
10000
15000
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Herd and lichen growth [annual takeouts per year]
Lichen density [g/m2]
Snøhetta1944-1997
Experts warning
No “tragedy of the commons”
Conclusion non-linearity
• Non-linearity (or saturation)– Accelerating growth in CO2
• Forecasts of absorption needed– IPCC 75 years residency time
• Conceptual change for effect– Challenge instantaneous model– Analogies to explain dynamic model
3.Misperceptions of delays
- and loss of personal welfare even when the “tragedy of the commons” is not present
Simple strategy – no delay
Goal: fullglass
Feedbackcontrol
Simple strategy – with delay
Goal: fullglass
Feedbackcontrol
Nearly perfect analogy for alcohol
Goal: a little drunk
Nearly perfect analogy for alcohol
Goal: a little sober
Mental model: Few think of the stomach as a funnel for alcohol
Experimental results - high school students
Goal
Long delay
Short delay
Verbal in-formation
Cognitiveconflict and analogy
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
Average BAC, g/L
0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 815 minute period
Source: Moxnes and Jensen (2009)
Stock and flow diagram
Feedbackcontrol
Alcohol in stomach
Drinking rate
Alcohol in blood
Absorption rate Metabolic rate
Desired alcoholin blood
Simple strategy explains results
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
BAC, g/L
15 minute period
Source: Moxnes and Jensen (2009)
Long delay
Short delay
People dealing with delays
• underestimate lengths of delays (sum)• do not adjust policies for delays• do not learn quickly
– wrong mental model (external factors)– lack of data– infrequent experiences
GHG in atmosphere Heat in atmosphere
Emissions
Emission capacity
In-radiation Out-radiation
InvestmentDiscarding
Absorption
Climate policy
Change in policy
Climate
Desired policy
Acceptable climate
Delays in climate change
Feedback control?
Long delays in stopping growth in GHGs
Challenges caused by delays
• science and expert advice
• awareness of delays
• conceptual change– from events to behaviour to structure
Thank you
References• Moxnes, Erling, 2004. Misperceptions of basic dynamics, the case of
renewable resource management. System Dynamics Review, 20(2), 139-162.
• Moxnes, Erling and Jensen, Lene C., 2009. Drunker than intended; misperceptions and information treatments. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 105, 63-70.
• Moxnes, Erling and Saysel, Ali Kerem, 2009. Misperceptions of global climate change: information policies. Climatic Change, 93(1-2), 15-37.
• Sterman, J. D., 2008. Economics - Risk communication on climate: Mental models and mass balance. Science, 322(5901), 532-533.
• Sterman, J. D. and Booth Sweeney, L., 2002. Cloudy skies: assessing public understanding of global warming. System Dynamics Review, 18(2), 207-240.
• Sterman, J. D. and Sweeney, L. B., 2007. Understanding public complacency about climate change: adults' mental models of climate change violate conservation of matter. Climatic Change, 80(3-4), 213-238.
More “invisible hands”
Invisible hand takes care of profits (=normal profits)Cost reductions reduce price and structural change
Demand-
-
Emissions-
Other“taxes”
-+
Transport efficiency
- Oil prices-
+
+Green tax
Costs totruckers
Profits totruckers
-+
+Investmentsin new trucks
+
Price of transportation
+
-
Competition
Trucks+
Normalprofits
-
Alternative energy technology policy
Current profit margin is misleadingMust think of technology development as investment
Green tax
Profitmargin
Production+
+
+
Accumulatedproduction
+
Scale+
-
Productioncosts
Learning
Price
Competitorcosts
R&D+
--
-
Example: Photovoltaics
Price of electricity given by competitor costs
Photovoltaic costs drop over time (path dependence)
Source SEMI: http://www.semi.org/en/P039751
Investment perspective
Time before earning money depends on policiesEarly customers with special needsReduce risk by developing many technologies
Cash flow
Time