Animation of the AECB Slides integrating these key-trends here. Still image comparing IGBP UKCA & Hansen Budget-in-CHINA here

No-one knows the extent and the rate that climate-feedback emissions/effects can or will occur, as no-one yet knows the extent and the rate that the human 'budget-emissions' triggering these can or will or won't be controlled. Consequently, renewable zero-energy replacement (conversion) rates and climate-damage rates are unpredictable too.

However, the animation above is based on assuming a range of rates of human budget-emissions and feedback emissions with conversion and damage rates adjusting proportional to the range shown. Despite the unknowns, the overall algorithm behind the overall 'trend-field' (of keeping or losing control) shown, makes a simple & obvious point: -

• faster contraction > lower concentrations > lower temperature > lower damages > needs faster conversion to renewables (i.e. an effort to be Doing Enough, Soon Enough)
• slower contraction > higher concentrations > higher temperature > higher damages> and slower conversion to renewables (i.e. Doing Too Little Too Late, so why bother?).

In extreme case one (war economy?) there's still enough capital to spend on Contraction & Conversion to make it worth the effort, but its a real race against the damage slope.
In extreme case two (Business-as-Usual?) capital that would have been spent on conversion is swallowed in 'adaptation' and also losing the race against the damages curve.
This may appear to challenge 'consent' . . . but consent to what? Consent to 'extinction rates' needs to be challenged in a focused way.

This algorithm of the overall 'trend-field' is necessary as both radar and rudder.

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

Nice reaction to CBAT Mk-2 Mock-Up from Dave Hampton, the Carbon Coach

"Pure Guinness! a 'carbon budget analysis tool' - the future - "you can't get there from here?" - not without CBAT -
exactly what we need to unite around for a Paris 2015 climate peace deal . . . . "

"So says my dear friend, genius and Nobel Prize nominee Aubrey Meyer - And I agree." 

How nice is that!

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

Here's just a crude mock-up of CBAT Mk II here

This simple model . . . it is simple, but it is 'deceptively simple' as Prof Brendan Mackey at Griffiths cc once said.
Growth & Growth-minus-Climate-Damages are hooked up here so there's a little progress with CBAT Mk 2.

All in the 'musical cause' of 'measuring' 'doing enough soon enough' to avoid runaway rates of climate change (i.e. in-time, in-tune).
As with CBAT Mk I, when finished Vertical Sliders will control the 81 positions from Low to High . . . .

1. Domain One Budgets (Contraction & Concentrations) & Feedback-Trends completely separated out now ( better than CBAT Mk I).
2. Domain Two Budgets (Contraction & Convergence) are set proportional to population only (for this mock-up)
3. Domain Three (Contraction & Conversion) Renewables Growth is proportional to what is judged 'safe' in Domain I
4 Domain Four (Damages & Growth) shows Growth net of Climate Damages (NB current trend average for climate-related damages is about 6%/year - that's twice the rate of growth per se).

In these projections, acceleration is the killer, that bankrupts the global economy within 50 years!).

The algorithm of the overall 'trend-field' is very simple: -

1. * faster contraction > lower concentrations > lower temperature > lower damages> needs faster conversion to renewables
(i.e. a coordinated effort to be Doing Enough, Soon Enough)

2. * slower contraction > higher concentrations > higher temperature > higher damages> and slower conversion to renewables
(i.e. Doing Too Little Too Late, so why bother?).

* In extreme case 1 (war economy?) there's still enough capital to spend on Contraction & Conversion to make it worth the effort, but its a real race against the damage slope.

* In extreme case 2 (Business-as-Usual?) capital that would have been spent on conversion is swallowed in 'adaptation' and also losing the race against the damages curve.

This may appear to challenge 'consent' . . . but consent to what? Consent to 'extinction rates' needs to be challenged in a focused way. I think this algorithm of the overall 'trend-field' is necessary as both radar and rudder. It is both shield and spear.

Twam Eva Mata
Mama Deva Deva"