Framing the climate and sea level crisis through heating and cooling power

[John Nissen]

Hi Herman, 

You suggest supporting the Climate Crisis presentation by Lenton, Mann, et al. in London recently, in preference to the earlier Tipping Point Declaration from the Exeter conference, in which Lenton was also involved.  I suggest supporting neither.

The current fashion they follow is for framing the crisis around emissions reduction.  In that framework SRM is at best a distraction, and at worse harmful.  We have had a suggestion trame it around adaptation, but that does not ring true when we would prefer prevention.  A nice framing idea from Paul Gambill is around stability, but then we want stability at some temperature and with sustainability. Bill Gates says the aim should be to minimise misery, but this does not provide a framework.  

So I am suggesting a framing based on physical evidence, coupled with a plan to restore a healthy planet in 50 years.  And to understand the predicament about tipping elements reaching a point of no return, I propose the framework of heating and cooling power.

Temperature rises as an accumulation of heat energy over time.  Heat energy is the accumulation of heating power over time.  If we keep net heating power constant, the temperature will rise linearly. To halt a temperature rise, the net heating power has to be zero: there has to be an exact balance between heating and cooling power.  For lowering temperature, cooling power has to exceed heating power.

This physics is relevant for the climate situation.  There is more heating power entering the system than leaving it.  So the global temperature is rising.  But worse than that, this imbalance of power is increasing, such that the rate of temperature rise is increasing.  Global heating has doubled in roughly 40 years: from 0.18C per decade to 0.36C per decade.  Hence we can expect 2C by 2040 unless either heating power is reduced, or cooling power is increased, or both.  The heating power mainly comes from greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, currently at around 520 ppm CO2e and increasing.  The cooling power of SO2 has been decreasing.  Everything is going in the wrong direction!

In the Arctic, the situation is worse because, on top of global heating, the heating power from albedo loss and atlantification has risen, without appreciable cooling power to balance this.  Since 1980 the temperature has been rising at around 4 times the global average rate, and along with global warming it has been accelerating.  Tipping processes in the Arctic are driven by temperature.  To bring the Arctic temperature down, the cooling power has to be greater than the heating power.  This demands the powerful cooling intervention of SAI.  This is the only way to halt the Arctic meltdown with its catastrophic consequences for climate and sea level.

This is hugely against what the pundits are saying: both in the tipping point declaration from the Exeter conference and in the recent Climate Crisis presentation in London.  We need to confront them with a new framework in which to view the situation: a framework which is based on physics and evidence of what is happening.  Or rather we ought to confront business leaders, as they will be more inclined to listen and act.

Cheers, John

[John Nissen]

Hi Herman, 

I would love to support a declaration of emergency if I thought the emergency was properly described and I trusted the people putting forward the declaration.  

But these people are not concerned about the reality of the crisis so much as promoting a strategy which will guarantee catastrophe from tipping processes, as they reach a point of no return.

These people claim to be the top experts on climate change yet deny the means (SRM) to prevent catastrophic climate change and sea level rise. If these people continue to be faithfully followed, we are doomed, I'm afraid.

But a new framework could challenge their position and get industry and then governments behind SRM as a necessity for future prosperity.

Cheers, John

On Sun, 7 Dec 2025, 3:55 pm Herman Gyr, <g...@enterprisedevelop.com> wrote:

Hi John,

I greatly appreciate your note and perspective. I fully agree with what you are saying about the active interventions now required.

The request for signing a letter to Starmer et al is about a televised / broadly communicated emergency declaration. To me, this is a step in the right direction and opens a path to the solutions discussed / debated in this illustrious group:

“We therefore ask the Government and all public service broadcasters to hold an urgent televised national emergency briefing for the public, and to run a comprehensive public engagement campaign so that everyone understands the profound risks this crisis poses to themselves and their families.

If delivered urgently and truthfully, with ambition matching the scale of the crisis, this will not only ensure that the public is properly informed but will also offer the protection that knowledge and preparedness bring. Such a campaign will resonate with the public, opening up the political space for the action needed.

We are not safe. This is an emergency. Now is the time for courage and to put trust in the public. The UK has a track record of uniting to face difficult challenges. Now is the time to do this again.”

https://www.nebriefing.org/open-letter-keir

Best,

H.

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 5, 2025, at 3:11 PM, John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com> wrote:



[Herman Gyr]

Hi John,

I greatly appreciate your note and perspective. I fully agree with what you are saying about the active interventions now required.

The request for signing a letter to Starmer et al is about a televised / broadly communicated emergency declaration. To me, this is a step in the right direction and opens a path to the solutions discussed / debated in this illustrious group:

“We therefore ask the Government and all public service broadcasters to hold an urgent televised national emergency briefing for the public, and to run a comprehensive public engagement campaign so that everyone understands the profound risks this crisis poses to themselves and their families.

If delivered urgently and truthfully, with ambition matching the scale of the crisis, this will not only ensure that the public is properly informed but will also offer the protection that knowledge and preparedness bring. Such a campaign will resonate with the public, opening up the political space for the action needed.

We are not safe. This is an emergency. Now is the time for courage and to put trust in the public. The UK has a track record of uniting to face difficult challenges. Now is the time to do this again.”

https://www.nebriefing.org/open-letter-keir

Best,

H.

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 5, 2025, at 3:11 PM, John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com> wrote:



[Douglas Grandt]

What if …

… a group (hundreds) of us were to not only support but insist on having the “televised / broadly communicated emergency declaration” as proposed on the condition there be a proper debate protocol with a counter (rebuttal) session with follow-up iterations—all according to Oxford debate format, protocol and rules

Extended duration, greater impact?

Best regards,

Doug Grandt

Sent from my iPhone (audio texting)

On Dec 8, 2025, at 7:02 AM, Herman Gyr <g...@enterprisedevelop.com> wrote:

Hi John,

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/A4FAFF2C-BD81-48B8-936F-E0931DB6551E%40enterprisedevelop.com.

[John Nissen]

Hi Doug,

I've only just proposed a new framework of thinking about climate change in terms of heating and cooling power.  We need to get a few critical thinkers on side before considering a debate.  And the debate may not make sense if each side is working with a different paradigm and fundamentally different assumptions.  

It would be interesting to see whether Hansen would agree to the reframing.  He accepts an acceleration of global temperature to reach 2C by 2040 and 4C by 2100 if I remember correctly.  He puts a lot of emphasis on loss of SO2 cooling whereas I don't think it's necessary.  And he's somewhat equivocal about SRM, perhaps because it remains deeply unpopular among his followers. 

BTW, did you get any response from Bill McKibben?  Can you get a response?  Does he believe in evidence-based science?  Can he appreciate that the Earth System is a system and subject to the laws of physics?

Cheers, John

[Douglas Grandt]

I get it John and hope Hansen will come around.

As for McKibben, even though I persist in email and poignant comments on his Substack “The Crucial Years” blog, he has ignored me since he requested that I send him links to articles he can link to in his blog (two years ago… we’ve been friends since 2008).

I should probably give up on him, but I have faith he is a critically thinking objective person who just needs time to find an exit ramp from the Mann dogma and protect his ego and reputation as he acknowledges the existential conundrum we face.

Cheers,

Doug

Sent from my iPhone (audio texting)

On Dec 8, 2025, at 9:39 AM, John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CACS_Fxr%2BPj9pRjE%3DPDkjJNYy83zbcCo2WaOvUDRdUWE0249Edw%40mail.gmail.com.