The theory of abrupt climate change is the most modern – and powerful – in climate science and has profound implications for the evolution of climate this century and beyond. A mechanical analogy might set the scene. The finger pushing the balance below can be likened to changes in greenhouse gases, solar intensity or orbital eccentricity. The climate response is internally generated – with changes in cloud, ice, dust and biology – and proceeds at a pace determined by the system itself. Thus the balance below is pushed past a point at which stage a new equilibrium spontaneously emerges.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/mechanalogy.jpg.html?sort=3&o=214
Many simple systems exhibit abrupt change. The balance above consists of a curved track on a fulcrum. The arms are curved so that there are two stable states where a ball may rest. ‘A ball is placed on the track and is free to roll until it reaches its point of rest. This system has three equilibria denoted (a), (b) and (c) in the top row of the figure. The middle equilibrium (b) is unstable: if the ball is displaced ever so slightly to one side or another, the displacement will accelerate until the system is in a state far from its original position. In contrast, if the ball in state (a) or (c) is displaced, the balance will merely rock a bit back and forth, and the ball will roll slightly within its cup until friction restores it to its original equilibrium.’ US NAS
Unlike the simple system above – climate has many equilibria. The old theory of climate suggests that warming is inevitable. The new theory suggests that global warming is not guaranteed and that climate surprises are inevitable.
The question is then – what do we do about it? The complexity of climate may be a problem that is far more intractable than many imagine – but the essential solutions to social needs and to human changes to the atmosphere and the environment may be reduced to a human scale.
To that end my new project is based on the UN Millenium Development Goals in the context of rigorous cost benefit analysis such as is undertaken by the Copenhagen Consensus as well as analysis of our technological capacity to produce objectives suitable for implementation by either top down aid provision or bottom up polycentric development strategies.
The new theory of climate change suggests that the system is unlikely to shift again for decades – although the timing and scope of change is unknowable with current science. It comes with a certain instability – but what we really need to get ahead of is uncritical anti-business rants.
The short term solutions are simple enough in principle.
e.g. http://watertechbyrie.com/2014/06/26/food-for-people-conserving-and-restoring-soils/
and, http://watertechbyrie.com/2014/06/30/black-carbon-a-health-and-environment-issue/
I think I will do a post on how to address population issues through development, health, education and resilience. The CO2 question is best addressed through population pressure reduction and technological innovation.
This problem has gone so far off the tracks of rational discourse – that I am thinking that attributing rational motives to progressives was the first mistake.