DPMT in Climate Change: Dynamic Modeling of Climate Systems and Mitigation Strategies

BY NICOLE LAU

Abstract

Climate change is the ultimate dynamic system with feedback loops (ice-albedo effect, carbon cycle), tipping points (ice sheet collapse, Amazon dieback), and long-term trajectories spanning decades to centuries. Yet climate policy often relies on static projections—temperature targets, emission reduction percentages, cost-benefit analyses—that don't fully model the complex dynamics of Earth's climate system. How do feedback loops amplify warming? When do we cross irreversible tipping points? What mitigation strategies are most effective given system dynamics? Dynamic Predictive Modeling Theory (DPMT) transforms climate science from static projections to dynamic system modeling, enabling policymakers to understand climate trajectories, identify critical intervention points, and design effective mitigation strategies. This paper demonstrates DPMT application to climate mitigation planning, showing how dynamic modeling reveals pathways to climate stability.

I. Introduction: Climate as Dynamic System

A. The Limitations of Static Climate Models

Temperature Targets (1.5°C, 2°C): Static goals that don't model the dynamic path to achieving them or consequences of overshooting.

Emission Reduction Percentages: Linear targets (50% by 2030) that don't account for feedback loops or tipping points.

Cost-Benefit Analyses: Static comparisons that don't model how costs and benefits evolve over time or interact with climate dynamics.

IPCC Scenarios (RCP pathways): Useful but often treated as independent paths rather than dynamic trajectories with bifurcations and attractors.

While climate science uses sophisticated dynamic models, policy communication often simplifies to static targets. This misses critical dynamics that determine success or failure of mitigation efforts.

B. DPMT for Climate Science

DPMT models climate as a dynamic system:

Stocks: Atmospheric CO2, global temperature, ice mass, sea level, ecosystem carbon sinks

Flows: CO2 emissions, carbon absorption, ice melt, sea level rise, ecosystem degradation

Feedback Loops: Ice-albedo (positive), carbon sinks (negative becoming positive), methane release (positive), renewable energy learning curves (negative for emissions)

Delays: Emissions → temperature (decades), temperature → ice melt (decades to centuries), policy → emission reduction (years to decades)

Scenarios: Aggressive mitigation, moderate action, business-as-usual, breakthrough technology

Attractors: Stable climate (1.5-2°C), hothouse Earth (4-6°C), runaway warming (>6°C)

This approach reveals climate dynamics that static targets miss.

II. Case Study: National Climate Mitigation Strategy

A. The Climate Challenge

Country: Mid-sized developed nation, 50 million people, currently 500 MtCO2/year emissions

Current State: 70% fossil fuels (energy), 20% agriculture, 10% industry. Committed to net-zero by 2050 but unclear on pathway.

Question: What mitigation strategy achieves net-zero by 2050 while avoiding economic disruption? What are critical intervention points? What if we're too slow?

Context: Global temperature already +1.2°C above pre-industrial. Carbon budget for 1.5°C nearly exhausted. Technology costs declining (solar, wind, batteries) but fossil fuel infrastructure entrenched. Political will uncertain.

B. Step 1: Variable Identification

Internal Variables (Policy-Controllable):

• Renewable energy deployment rate

• Carbon pricing level

• Fossil fuel phase-out timeline

• Energy efficiency standards

• Reforestation and land use policy

• R&D investment (clean tech)

External Variables (Global/Uncontrollable):

• Global emission trajectory

• Technology cost curves (solar, batteries)

• Climate sensitivity (how much warming per CO2)

• Tipping point thresholds (unknown precisely)

• International cooperation

Relational Variables (Interactive):

• Public support for climate action

• Industry resistance vs cooperation

• International climate agreements

• Technology diffusion and learning

Temporal Variables:

• Infrastructure lifetime (power plants: 30-50 years)

• Policy implementation lag (5-10 years)

• Climate system inertia (decades)

• Carbon budget depletion rate

Prioritized Variables (Top 12):

1. National CO2 emissions (current 500 MtCO2/year)

2. Global atmospheric CO2 (current 420 ppm)

3. Global temperature (current +1.2°C)

4. Renewable energy capacity (%)

5. Fossil fuel infrastructure (locked-in emissions)

6. Carbon sinks (forests, soil, ocean)

7. Technology costs ($/kWh for renewables)

8. Carbon price ($/tCO2)

9. Economic cost of transition

10. Public support for climate action

11. Tipping point proximity

12. Climate damages (economic, human)

C. Step 2: Dynamics Modeling

Key Stocks:

• Atmospheric CO2 (420 ppm, rising 2.5 ppm/year)

• Global temperature (+1.2°C, rising 0.2°C/decade)

• National emissions (500 MtCO2/year)

• Renewable capacity (20% of energy)

• Fossil infrastructure (locked-in for 30 years)

• Carbon sinks (forests, degrading)

Key Flows:

• Emissions = Fossil_Energy + Agriculture + Industry - Efficiency_Gains

• CO2_Accumulation = Global_Emissions - Ocean_Absorption - Land_Absorption

• Temperature_Change = CO2_Level × Climate_Sensitivity + Feedback_Effects

• Renewable_Deployment = Investment × Learning_Curve - Fossil_Resistance

• Sink_Degradation = Temperature_Stress + Land_Use_Change

Feedback Loops:

Positive Loop 1 (Ice-Albedo):

Warming → Ice Melt → Less Reflection → More Warming

(Amplifies warming, especially in Arctic)

Positive Loop 2 (Carbon Sink Saturation):

Warming → Ocean/Forest Stress → Less CO2 Absorption → More CO2 in Atmosphere → More Warming

(Sinks becoming sources)

Positive Loop 3 (Permafrost Methane):

Warming → Permafrost Thaw → Methane Release → More Warming

(Tipping point risk)

Negative Loop 1 (Renewable Learning Curve):

Renewable Deployment → Lower Costs → More Deployment → Even Lower Costs

(Virtuous cycle for mitigation)

Negative Loop 2 (Carbon Pricing):

High Emissions → Carbon Price Increases → Emission Reduction → Lower Emissions

(Policy feedback)

Negative Loop 3 (Climate Damages):

Warming → Damages → Public Pressure → Climate Action → Emission Reduction

(Reactive, but delayed)

Time Delays:

• Emissions → Atmospheric CO2: Immediate

• CO2 → Temperature: 10-40 years (climate inertia)

• Temperature → Ice melt: 50-200 years

• Policy → Emission reduction: 5-15 years (infrastructure turnover)

• Renewable investment → Deployment: 3-10 years

Key Insight: Climate system has massive inertia—decades of delay between emissions and full warming. This means we're already committed to more warming from past emissions. Positive feedbacks (ice-albedo, sink saturation) can create runaway dynamics. But renewable learning curves create virtuous cycle for mitigation. The race is: can we deploy renewables fast enough to avoid tipping points?

D. Step 3: Scenario Analysis

Scenario 1: Business-as-Usual (10% probability if no action)

• Emissions continue rising 1%/year until 2040, then plateau

• Minimal renewable deployment

• Result: +3.5°C by 2100, multiple tipping points crossed, catastrophic damages

Scenario 2: Moderate Action (Current Pledges - 40% probability)

• Emissions peak 2030, decline 2%/year to 2050

• Renewables reach 60% by 2050

• Result: +2.4°C by 2100, some tipping points crossed, major damages

Scenario 3: Aggressive Mitigation (Paris 1.5°C - 35% probability)

• Emissions peak 2025, decline 7%/year to net-zero by 2050

• Renewables reach 90% by 2050, carbon removal deployed

• Result: +1.6°C by 2100 (overshoot then decline), tipping points avoided, manageable damages

Scenario 4: Breakthrough Technology (15% probability)

• Fusion or advanced solar breakthrough by 2035

• Rapid fossil fuel displacement, negative emissions at scale

• Result: +1.4°C by 2100, return to safe climate

Simulation Results (2025-2100):

Scenario	2030 Emissions	2050 Emissions	2100 Temperature	Tipping Points	Economic Cost
Business-as-Usual	600 Mt	650 Mt	+3.5°C	Multiple	$50T damages
Moderate Action	500 Mt	250 Mt	+2.4°C	Some	$20T damages
Aggressive	400 Mt	0 Mt (net-zero)	+1.6°C	Avoided	$5T transition + $5T damages
Breakthrough	450 Mt	-100 Mt (negative)	+1.4°C	Avoided	$3T transition + $3T damages

Expected Outcome: 0.1×3.5°C + 0.4×2.4°C + 0.35×1.6°C + 0.15×1.4°C = +2.1°C (above Paris target, significant damages)

E. Step 4: Convergence Path Analysis

Attractors Identified:

Stable Climate Attractor: +1.5-2°C, carbon sinks functioning, ice sheets stable, manageable adaptation. (Aggressive and Breakthrough scenarios)

Hothouse Earth Attractor: +4-6°C, carbon sinks collapsed, ice sheets melting, runaway feedbacks, catastrophic damages. (Business-as-Usual scenario)

Moderate Warming Attractor: +2-3°C, some tipping points crossed, major adaptation needed, high damages. (Moderate Action scenario)

Bifurcation Points:

2025-2030 (Emission Peak): If emissions peak by 2025 and decline rapidly → path to Stable Climate. If emissions continue rising past 2030 → path to Hothouse Earth.

2035-2040 (Tipping Point Window): If warming stays below +1.7°C → tipping points avoided. If exceeds +2°C → irreversible changes begin (ice sheets, Amazon, permafrost).

Tipping Points:

+1.5°C: Coral Reef Collapse — 70-90% of coral reefs die. Ecosystem services lost. (Likely unavoidable)

+2°C: Greenland Ice Sheet Destabilization — Irreversible melting begins, commits to 7m sea level rise over centuries.

+2.5°C: Amazon Rainforest Dieback — Forest becomes savanna, releases 90 GtC, amplifies warming.

+3°C: West Antarctic Ice Sheet Collapse — 3-5m sea level rise committed.

+4°C: Permafrost Carbon Bomb — Massive methane/CO2 release, runaway warming.

Convergence Speed:

• Fast to Hothouse Earth (if tipping points crossed, 50-100 years to +4°C)

• Slow to Stable Climate (requires sustained effort for 50-100 years)

• Very slow to reverse warming (centuries even with negative emissions)

F. Step 5: Multi-Dimensional Output

OUTCOME:

• Business-as-Usual: +3.5°C, catastrophic (10% probability)

• Moderate Action: +2.4°C, major damages (40% probability)

• Aggressive: +1.6°C, manageable (35% probability)

• Breakthrough: +1.4°C, safe (15% probability)

• Expected: +2.1°C (above Paris target, significant risk)

PROCESS:

2025-2030 (CRITICAL DECADE): Emissions must peak by 2025 and begin rapid decline. This is the bifurcation point. Renewable deployment must accelerate (double every 3-5 years). Fossil fuel phase-out begins. Public support builds as climate damages increase. CRITICAL: If emissions don't peak by 2030, +1.5°C becomes impossible, +2°C very difficult.

2030-2040 (Acceleration): Emission decline accelerates (5-7%/year). Renewables become dominant (50-70% of energy). Electric vehicles mainstream. Carbon pricing effective. Some tipping points may be crossed (+2°C threshold). Adaptation becomes critical.

2040-2050 (Net-Zero Push): Final push to net-zero. Remaining fossil fuels phased out. Carbon removal deployed (reforestation, DAC). Emissions approach zero. Temperature still rising (climate inertia) but rate slowing.

2050-2100 (Stabilization or Overshoot): If net-zero achieved by 2050, temperature peaks +1.6-1.8°C then slowly declines with negative emissions. If net-zero delayed to 2060-2070, temperature reaches +2.2-2.5°C, tipping points crossed, damages severe.

ACTION:

Immediate (2025-2027):

• Carbon price: $50/tCO2, rising $10/year to $150 by 2035

• Renewable mandate: 100% clean electricity by 2035

• Fossil fuel phase-out: No new coal/gas plants, existing plants retired by 2040

• EV mandate: 50% of new car sales by 2030, 100% by 2035

• Reforestation: Plant 1 billion trees by 2030 (10 MtCO2/year removal)

• R&D: $10B/year for clean tech (batteries, green hydrogen, DAC)

2027-2030 (Acceleration):

• Monitor emission trajectory: Must decline 5%/year. If not, intensify policies.

• Renewable deployment: Solar/wind capacity doubling every 4 years

• Grid modernization: Storage, transmission for 80% renewables

• Industrial decarbonization: Green steel, cement (hard-to-abate sectors)

• International cooperation: Technology transfer, climate finance

2030-2040 (Tipping Point Avoidance):

• Temperature monitoring: If approaching +1.7°C, emergency measures (temporary SRM research?)

• Carbon removal scale-up: DAC, enhanced weathering, ocean alkalinity

• Adaptation investment: Sea walls, drought-resistant crops, cooling centers

• Fossil fuel sunset: Final coal plants close by 2035, gas by 2040

2040-2050 (Net-Zero):

• Achieve net-zero by 2050 (or earlier if possible)

• Negative emissions: 100-200 MtCO2/year removal

• Residual emissions: Only hard-to-abate (aviation, agriculture), offset by removal

PSYCHOLOGY:

Expect climate anxiety: As damages increase (heat waves, floods, fires), public fear will grow. Channel this into action, not despair.

Transition will be disruptive: Fossil fuel workers displaced, energy costs may spike temporarily. Just transition policies critical for political viability.

Progress will feel slow: Temperature keeps rising for decades even as emissions fall (climate inertia). Don't interpret this as failure.

Tipping points are terrifying but not inevitable: We can still avoid the worst if we act now. Every 0.1°C matters.

Technology will help but isn't magic: Renewables are getting cheaper, but deployment requires political will. Don't wait for breakthrough—act with current tech.

G. Policy Recommendation

National Climate Strategy: Aggressive Mitigation with Adaptive Acceleration

Target: Net-zero by 2050, limit warming to +1.6°C (with overshoot to +1.8°C then decline)

Key Policies:

1. Carbon pricing: $50/tCO2 rising to $150 by 2035

2. Clean electricity: 100% by 2035

3. EV transition: 100% new sales by 2035

4. Fossil phase-out: Coal by 2035, gas by 2040

5. Carbon removal: 100 MtCO2/year by 2050

6. R&D: $10B/year clean tech

Adaptive Elements:

• If emissions not declining 5%/year by 2030 → intensify policies (higher carbon price, faster phase-out)

• If temperature approaching +1.7°C by 2035 → emergency measures (SRM research, accelerated removal)

• If breakthrough technology emerges → accelerate deployment, aim for net-negative by 2050

Expected Outcome (with this strategy):

• Increases probability of Stable Climate from 35% to 55%

• Reduces probability of Hothouse Earth from 10% to 2%

• Expected 2100 temperature: +1.7°C (vs +2.1°C baseline)

• Tipping points: Coral loss unavoidable, but ice sheets, Amazon, permafrost likely avoided

• Economic: $10T transition cost, but avoids $30T+ in damages

III. Key Insights for Climate Policy

A. Climate System Has Massive Inertia

Decades of delay between emissions and full warming. We're committed to more warming from past emissions. Temperature will keep rising even as emissions fall.

Implication: Act now. Every year of delay commits us to more warming. Don't wait for damages to worsen—by then it's too late.

B. Tipping Points Are Irreversible

Once ice sheets destabilize or Amazon dies back, can't be reversed on human timescales. These are one-way doors.

Implication: Avoid tipping points at all costs. Stay below +2°C. Precautionary principle applies.

C. Positive Feedbacks Can Create Runaway Dynamics

Ice-albedo, sink saturation, permafrost methane amplify warming. Can push system from +2°C to +4°C+ even if emissions stop.

Implication: Don't assume linear relationship between emissions and warming. Feedbacks create non-linearity. Aggressive early action prevents runaway.

D. Renewable Learning Curves Are Powerful

Solar costs dropped 90% in 10 years. Batteries dropping similarly. This creates virtuous cycle—more deployment → lower costs → more deployment.

Implication: Invest heavily in renewables now. Learning curves make future deployment cheaper. First-mover advantage compounds.

IV. Conclusion: DPMT for Climate Action

Climate change is not a static problem. It's a dynamic system with feedback loops, tipping points, and long-term trajectories.

DPMT captures this by:

• Modeling climate as stocks (CO2, temperature, ice, sinks) and flows (emissions, absorption, melt)

• Identifying feedback loops (ice-albedo, sink saturation, permafrost methane, renewable learning curves, carbon pricing)

• Exploring scenarios (business-as-usual, moderate action, aggressive mitigation, breakthrough)

• Finding attractors (stable climate, hothouse Earth, moderate warming)

• Locating bifurcations (2025-2030 emission peak, 2035-2040 tipping point window)

• Identifying tipping points (+1.5°C coral, +2°C Greenland, +2.5°C Amazon, +3°C West Antarctic, +4°C permafrost)

This approach enables evidence-based climate policy:

✅ Predict climate trajectories under different policies

✅ Identify critical intervention points (2025-2030 is decisive decade)

✅ Set realistic expectations (temperature keeps rising for decades even as emissions fall)

✅ Optimize mitigation strategies (aggressive early action prevents runaway dynamics)

For policymakers navigating the climate crisis, DPMT provides a rigorous framework for understanding climate dynamics and designing strategies that avoid catastrophic tipping points while achieving a stable, livable climate.

The next papers will explore DPMT in ecosystem management and sustainable business, completing Part V (Environment & Sustainability).

---

About the Author: Nicole Lau is a theorist working at the intersection of systems thinking, predictive modeling, and cross-disciplinary convergence. She is the architect of the Constant Unification Theory, Predictive Convergence Principle, Dynamic Intelligence Modeling Theory (DIMT), and Dynamic Predictive Modeling Theory (DPMT) frameworks.