AI on realistic policy options

[John Nissen]

Hi all,

Doug Grandt did some interesting interrogation of Claude, presenting the cases for and against rapid decarbonisation to find out the AI response.  The conclusion on realistic policy options was stark:

9. The Four Real Options

1. Radical acceleration — compress decarbonization to 15-25 years; necessary but not sufficient; does not restore livable climate on human timescales
2. Adaptation-first realism — accept 2.7°C+ is largely locked in; invest massively in migration management, conflict prevention, adaptation
3. Emergency geoengineering — stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) buys time but carries profound governance and termination shock risks
4. Civilizational triage — the unstated default; wealthy nations wall off; majority of humanity bears consequences

Claude then pointed out that option 1 would probably result in option 4, because of the slowness and insufficiency of the former.  

Option 2 is understated by AI, since the rate of global warming has been increasing, and, at the current rate, 3C would be reached by 2070 and 4C by 2100.  Migration management, conflict prevention and adaptation would eventually prove impossible, however much was invested, since the target stability would be forever moving further out of reach, especially with accelerated sea level rise and looming tipping point catastrophe.

Option 4 is morally unacceptable though it is the most likely outcome ("the unstated default") under the current climate policies of wealthy nations, the IPCC and the UN.  But it is unacceptable to wealthy as well as less wealthy nations. Claude has not mentioned the reliance of wealthy nations (and everyone else) on supplies of basic food crops, with global warming likely to produce simultaneous crop failure around the world.   Flood risk would rise inexorably for everyone, making matters worse.  Also global security would be threatened from the rise in conflict promoted by global warming and the unfairness of its impact.  

This leaves option 3 as the only acceptable way forward, with its two main risks.

The risk of termination shock can be minimised by combining SAI with decarbonisation and aggressive CDR to lower the level of CO2e, e.g. to below 380 ppm, while phasing out SRM deployment gradually.

The governance risk can be minimised by drawing together a consensus of countries to promote a sensible deployment of SAI, starting with injection designed to start lowering the temperature of the Arctic where several critical tipping processes are underway.  Since the US and Russia are adamant about exploiting the Arctic, they cannot be trusted with promoting SAI to cool the Arctic.  Actual deployment has to involve other countries with territory close to the Arctic, such as Canada, China and some countries in Northern Europe.  The peoples of the Arctic, Iceland, the other countries in Europe, India, and the rest of the Global South can support SAI deployment or remain neutral.  Because of the urgency, it would be problematic to allow any country to veto deployment, but compensation could be arranged for countries if they suffer serious adverse consequences of SAI deployment.

There is no time to lose, because those tipping processes in the Arctic are rapidly approaching the point of no return when lowering the Arctic temperature becomes impossible with SAI, even at full strength.

Cheers, John

[Douglas Grandt]

John,

Excellent summarization of dozens of step-wise interaction with Claude, testing for bias and factual understanding if the conundrums I’ve been wrestling with for a decade, my personal learning and synthesizing the overwhelming complex n-dimensional interdependence of physics, chemistry, social and economic demands and constraints, mega linear programming global logistics optimization … 

You’ve captured the bottom line. The rest of Claude’s able assistance organizing and articulating* my myriad bits-and-pieces and intentionally vague and misstated suggestions could well be a small tome. BRAVO!!

Cheers,

Doug 

* if anybody is inclined to delve deep into the strategic guided Claude Q & A, these four queries evolved and each builds on its predecessors. If you read between the lines, you may detect my underlying objective which Claude independently validated:

1. https://claude.ai/share/3f2b2736-e7b2-4ed3-902c-1d5a85c628c7

2. https://claude.ai/share/7d7595d0-19cc-4add-a5ae-c4459f986066

3. https://claude.ai/share/1d44b2ec-605a-439f-a7f4-db81a88b427d

4. https://claude.ai/share/4ab0225e-081f-462f-921d-53b8e1ee9e03

Sent from my iPhone (audio texting)

On Jul 1, 2026, at 7:21 AM, John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com> wrote:



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CACS_Fxrvd2D_qFaRX%3D%3DqZdiopbVUwTZ4_Cu1Hvm6UVYw4jzFYQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jan Umsonst]

Hi all, 

we are now locked in a runaway warming - just Artic fire caused GHG emissions sufficient.

We have now from all major bioms and systems new upscaled number which do not incorporate the acceleration of warming.

As ocean heat starts now to drive warming rate acceleration which in turn pushes all other feedbacks via SST cloud feedbacks and marine heatwave intensification of all kinds of extremes while mutual amplifications start now to drive Earth system changes this system will undergo a transition towards non-linearity which already pops now up in ever more subsystems.

The next temperature jumps are already locked in and will happen, doesn't matter our emission reductions - ocean heat the driving factor.

Seems like we will end up as a species to reduce GHG levels with all we've got while hoping that SRM gives us some more time.

Problem is that too many still think models principal correct while we missed that feedbacks are non-linear related to feedback strength.

Acceleration of sea surface temperatures best example driven by non-linear MHW expansion and persistence. 

That SST increases are now driven by persistent MHW state fast further strengthening models did not see coming.

Sadly, all the above can only be proven via Earth showing it to us as models do not show it as all comes down to non-linear interactions of circulations on the time scales weather operates...

But in some years when we will realize that acceleration of warming does not stop then maybe the social coherence will exist that humanity acts with all we've got...

Adaptation is non-sense as the most non-linear reaction is the intensification of extremes.

We are now outside of model range in so many regards - just amazing...

Just for a starter Earth's energy imbalance acceleration missed by half, while the planck feedback seems to weaken, and the terrestrial carbon sink not far away from tipping...

Hence, in some years we will realize that we are in an all in or nothing situation...

The only thing that could save us:

Innovation!

Best

Jan

E.g. the warnings are now out from several teams that the polar regions are carbon bombs - geologic methane is the problem. With recent observations from both polar regions I would not bet on it that it is a slow feedback...

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/55AAB41A-5E32-44CE-8B26-422E98BCE047%40mac.com.

[Bru Pearce]

Thank you, Jan. That looks like a good summary of our current situation.

 

As I read it, it makes me think of the work of David Wasdell, who was a great mentor of mine when I entered this space, and I'm attaching here his paper from 2014, which predicts pretty much what you're identifying.

 

 Bru Pearce

 

E-mail   b...@envisionation.org  

Mobile  +44 7740 854713

Web      www.envisionation.org  

The Biosphere Restoration Plan enabled by Empathy Economics

Partisipate with Empathy Coin options

Information contained in this email and any files attached to it is confidential to the intended recipient and may be covered by legal professional privilege.  If you receive this email in error, please advise by return email before deleting it; you should not retain the email or disclose its contents to anyone.  Envisionation Ltd has taken reasonable precautions to minimise the risk of software viruses, but we recommend that any attachments are virus checked before they are opened.  Thank you for your cooperation.

 



1.       Radical acceleration — compress decarbonization to 15-25 years; necessary but not sufficient; does not restore livable climate on human timescales

2.       Adaptation-first realism — accept 2.7°C+ is largely locked in; invest massively in migration management, conflict prevention, adaptation

3.       Emergency geoengineering — stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) buys time but carries profound governance and termination shock risks

4.       Civilizational triage — the unstated default; wealthy nations wall off; majority of humanity bears consequences

 

Claude then pointed out that option 1 would probably result in option 4, because of the slowness and insufficiency of the former.  

 

Option 2 is understated by AI, since the rate of global warming has been increasing, and, at the current rate, 3C would be reached by 2070 and 4C by 2100.  Migration management, conflict prevention and adaptation would eventually prove impossible, however much was invested, since the target stability would be forever moving further out of reach, especially with accelerated sea level rise and looming tipping point catastrophe.

 

Option 4 is morally unacceptable though it is the most likely outcome ("the unstated default") under the current climate policies of wealthy nations, the IPCC and the UN.  But it is unacceptable to wealthy as well as less wealthy nations. Claude has not mentioned the reliance of wealthy nations (and everyone else) on supplies of basic food crops, with global warming likely to produce simultaneous crop failure around the world.   Flood risk would rise inexorably for everyone, making matters worse.  Also global security would be threatened from the rise in conflict promoted by global warming and the unfairness of its impact.  

 

This leaves option 3 as the only acceptable way forward, with its two main risks.

 

The risk of termination shock can be minimised by combining SAI with decarbonisation and aggressive CDR to lower the level of CO2e, e.g. to below 380 ppm, while phasing out SRM deployment gradually.

 

The governance risk can be minimised by drawing together a consensus of countries to promote a sensible deployment of SAI, starting with injection designed to start lowering the temperature of the Arctic where several critical tipping processes are underway.  Since the US and Russia are adamant about exploiting the Arctic, they cannot be trusted with promoting SAI to cool the Arctic.  Actual deployment has to involve other countries with territory close to the Arctic, such as Canada, China and some countries in Northern Europe.  The peoples of the Arctic, Iceland, the other countries in Europe, India, and the rest of the Global South can support SAI deployment or remain neutral.  Because of the urgency, it would be problematic to allow any country to veto deployment, but compensation could be arranged for countries if they suffer serious adverse consequences of SAI deployment.

 

There is no time to lose, because those tipping processes in the Arctic are rapidly approaching the point of no return when lowering the Arctic temperature becomes impossible with SAI, even at full strength.

 

Cheers, John

 

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CACS_Fxrvd2D_qFaRX%3D%3DqZdiopbVUwTZ4_Cu1Hvm6UVYw4jzFYQ%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/55AAB41A-5E32-44CE-8B26-422E98BCE047%40mac.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAB4R-6cLhHsWvWg_KzzOQs7gKO-CLQrs0P093KV0BpWkTH%2By2w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Douglas Grandt]

Bru, frustrating that preeminent thought leaders and influencers Al Gore, Bernie Sanders, Bill McKibben, Katharine Hayhoe, Mark Hertsgaard—and last but certainly not least—Michael Mann and their ilk persist in denying reality, leading humanity down the path to … OH SHUCKS!

🫪

Sent from my iPhone (audio texting)

On Jul 1, 2026, at 9:19 AM, Jan Umsonst <j.o.u...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAB4R-6cLhHsWvWg_KzzOQs7gKO-CLQrs0P093KV0BpWkTH%2By2w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dr Tom Harris]

Hi,

This interview from Nick Breeze with Roger Hallam is worth a worth with Jan’s comments in mind:

Tom

Dr Tom Harris
Ross-on-Wye UK
Born at 318 ppm CO2 - 26% less than today

HPAC Member

https://drtomharris.substack.com

Any views or opinions expressed in this email are entirely my own and do not represent the views of my previous clients including InnovateUK or any projects I was involved in professionally.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/7A896DFD-FB2E-4FB8-94BB-62FCB5626464%40mac.com.

[John Nissen]

Thanks for that, Bru.

Peter Wadhams and I were also informed by the work of David Wasdell, with whom Peter worked closely.  I attended a joint presentation at Tomorrow's Company in February 2008.

I'd like to quote from David's paper that you attached, because it summarises many of the things we have been saying about the Arctic situation since 2008, and which have been born out by events.  Do please read it in full.

This situation has been totally ignored by the self-styled climate experts on whom governments call for climate change advice (see Doug's comment)

As a sub-system of the global dynamic, the Arctic is showing the most extreme form of sensitivity to small changes in average surface temperature.  While the global average has increased by 0.85°C, the Arctic temperature has risen by about 3°C. Area and volume of end-of-summer floating sea-ice are collapsing. Resulting change in reflectivity has already contributed to global heating at a level of some 25% of the impact of rising CO2 concentrations. Local effects are much stronger. Raised Arctic temperatures drive increased water-vapour concentration, a strong greenhouse gas feedback. Warmer run-off from northward flowing rivers enhances [the] rate of ice-melt. As floating sea-ice gives way to open water in the shallow coastal seas, heat is transmitted down to the ocean floor, melting submarine permafrost. Previously trapped methane is released to the atmosphere, adding to that already emanating from thawing land-based permafrost and accelerating the local greenhouse effect. As air and ocean surface temperature increases, the surface melt and mass-loss from the Greenland ice-cap accelerate their contribution to rising sea-level. Arctic pressure systems and weather patterns are disrupted.

The Arctic acts as the canary in the coal-mine of the Global Climate system. The canary just died. It is time to get out of the coal-mine! (And you can take that comment in several different
ways!)

Another unexpected consequence of Arctic warming is the disruption of the circum-polar jet stream. As the difference between polar and mid-latitude temperature shrinks, so the jet-stream
relaxes, its meanders become more and more pronounced and they progress more slowly round the globe. At times the pattern blocks, giving rise to long periods of intensely cold Arctic
weather carried on the south-bound air-stream, alternating with patterns of warmer weather and intense rainfall as mid-latitude air-masses are driven northward. The energy-exchange
enhances Arctic warming and accelerates the system disturbance. The southern loops of the meanders disrupt the mid-latitude jet-stream with knock-on effects for monsoon-patterns
across Asia. (For extended treatment see: http://www.apollo-gaia.org/ArcticDynamics.html)

David goes on to point out the inadequacy of the 2C limit set in the Paris Agreement:

So we see that the Global Climate System is extremely sensitive to small changes in average surface temperature, much more so than had been understood when the policy target of not exceeding a rise of 2°C was proposed and accepted by the international community. Dangerous climate change is already with us as a consequence of a change of only 0.85°C. Treating the 2°C target as the boundary of “safe climate change” is an illusion which must now be abandoned and replaced with a more realistic ceiling of not more than 1°C above the pre-industrial level.

Since the IPCC was set up to avoid dangerous climate change, they have singularly failed!

Now our last and only resort is using the most powerful technique available for (i) lowering the Arctic temperature by at least 4C, and (ii) lowering the global temperature by at least 1C.  This, coupled with lowering CO2e to below 380 ppm, gives us a chance of returning to late Holocene climate norms, as of around 1980: the moral imperative of a healthy climate in the future.

Bring on Stratospheric Aerosol Injection - ASAP

The question now is: how do we tell the world and make it happen - fast?

Cheers, John

P.S. I'm sorry, Glenn, your business plan based on decarbonisation will simply not work.

[Jan Umsonst]

Hi all, here another study this time from Grasslands, 4 times higher emissions if the single drivers are analyzed how the interact - synergistic...

This one seems to be a central problem - we assumed the simplest of base assumptions as only these could be simulated by models:

"Until now, it has been assumed that the effects of individual climate factors on ecosystems can largely be summed, meaning the combined effect of increased CO₂ and warming approximately equals the sum of the individual effects. This assumption is practical for climate research because it simplifies model calculations." From an article on the study: https://phys.org/news/2026-06-grasslands-carbon-uptake-future-drought.html

This principle we have with all feedbacks that could not be quantified - they had not been included in models or to a minor degree. 

And now we observe how all interacts synergistic hence all these models errors that pop now up will become massive with time. The below should not include microbial feedbacks of hot/moist and dry/hot conditions which are being discussed to have caused the large CO2 jump in 2024 by 3.7 ppm. Will be interesting in how far the "super" El Nino will reproduce such a signal. Also to terminate the highest emission scenario while atmospheric GHG increases skyrock, what an insane move by the IPCC... 

Synergistic effects of warming and elevated CO2 intensify drought impacts on grassland carbon and water fluxes (2026)

Understanding how rising carbon dioxide (CO2), climate warming, and drought interact to alter ecosystem functioning is critical for predicting future ecosystem resilience and land-atmosphere feedbacks. Using a long-term grassland experiment, we tested the individual and combined effects of elevated CO2 (eCO2), warming, and drought on ecosystem functional properties, including water vapor and CO2 fluxes, and water- and carbon-use efficiency (WUE and CUE, respectively). While eCO2 and warming had limited effects individually, their interaction synergistically amplified ecosystem respiration and drought impacts on most properties. Under ambient rainfall, this interaction did not reduce net ecosystem productivity (NEP), as higher respiration was counterbalanced by periodic increases in CO2 uptake. However, combined eCO2 and warming worsened the negative drought effects on CO2 fluxes and WUE and on postdrought evapotranspiration and CUE. This produced the lowest seasonal NEP, involving a fourfold stronger decline than under ambient drought. Our findings highlight that future climate conditions may decrease the capacity of drought-exposed ecosystems for water use and net carbon uptake.

"Synergistic effects of warming and elevated CO2 intensify drought impacts on grassland carbon and water fluxes"; https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aea8988

Best

Jan

-- 
Jan Umsonst
Wallauer Str. 6D, 30326 Frankfurt am Main
Tele: 0176 41114523
E-Mail: j.o.u...@gmail.com
Performing Vitality: https://performingvitality.wordpress.com/

[Jan Umsonst]

Hi all,

and here two highly relevant papers on the recent changes in the EEI and a weakening Planck Feedback...

One expert meeting that current EEI measurements taken at face value could even indicate a runaway warming. Important here, that they do not think it possible - paleontological constraints - but can we be certain as we have a much higher warming rates than in the past being now 4-10 times faster or more? Further, recent measurements at least would point to a much higher climate sensitivity. It's by far not clear if it's solely aerosols - maybe even not by too much as aerosols could have increased in the Southern Hemisphere - but here a dataset issue exist - not clear which one correct. (1)

(1) "Earth’s net incoming energy-flux imbalance (and its implications for understanding climate change)"; https://pure.mpg.de/view/item_3711842

Then we have the first study that is now out that the Planck Feedback has been weakening since 2010s - only cooling mechanism of Earth - so highly worrisome...

Planck Feedback = λ

We confirm that λ
 varied substantially throughout the twentieth century (Figure 1a). Estimates from the CNN and AGCM experiments show a maximum λ
 in the early-to-mid twentieth century (−1 Wm−2/K) and a minimum in the late twentieth to early twenty-first century, although the exact maximum and minimum periods differ.

"Recent Weakening of the Global Radiative Feedback"; https://doi.org/10.1029/2026GL122980

Is now all open of what we trigger here...

Best

Jan

On 7/1/26 17:53, Dr Tom Harris wrote:

[Glenn Weinreb]

Getting too hot? Consider setting up an International Climate Laboratory, tasked with solving the entire problem. Yet what might they do? The below video has some ideas.

 

Do We Need a $10B Climate Moonshot? [#20]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihTGiOEKrns                 

 

Yet where is the business plan? Oh, we have one:

 

Climate Lab Business Plan (90-page draft)

https://www.ma2life.org/g/Decarbonization_Lab_Biz_Plan.pdf

 

Yet how might they get started? Consider a conference or a film, an example of which is below.

 

Climate Moonshot Conference (3-page draft)

https://www.ma2life.org/g/moonshot/Climate_Moonshot_Conference.pdf

The Climate Kids (docudrama film draft manuscript)

https://www.ma2life.org/g/film/The_Climate_Kids.pdf

 

Best Regards, Glenn Weinreb

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/LO0P123MB421808F77F42521C378AC127B9F62%40LO0P123MB4218.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.