"there is still a safe path forward to addressing the climate crisis" say Pierrehumbert and Mann. They sound so certain.
On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 1:15:16 PM UTC-7 David Hawkins wrote: > A provocative, in the good sense, exchange. > > A couple of comments on the pieces by Pierrehumbert and Mann. > > Personally, I feel the arguments against planning for SRM deployment are > numerous and very strong. The arguments against *research *on the > subject are much weaker. The SRM topic is being discussed in policy > circles. Not doing research will not halt the discussion in policy > circles. Rather, it will tend to leave the field open for those who want > to hold out SRM as an easy, effective alternative to cutting emissions. > They can paint a rosy picture without having to be concerned about > contradictory research findings. > > I find no fault with the Pierrehumbert and Mann points about why SRM is > not a substitute for emission cuts (nor with similar points made by Mann in > his more nuanced blog on the NRC report > https://michaelmann.net/content/my-comments-new-national-academy-report-geoengineering > ). > > > > But taking the recent NRC report to task for proposing an SRM research > program seems off-base to me. The NRC report takes pains to state that SRM > can never be a substitute for emission cuts. It goes further and says the > research it recommends should “focus on developing policy-relevant > knowledge, rather than advancing a path for deployment.” The report > recommends SRM be only a minor part of the climate research budget, > suggesting $100-200 million total over five years. The report recommends > off-ramps, providing for an end to research if show-stopper factors emerge. > > > > I would be interested in knowing what specifically in the NRDC report > Pierrehumbert and Mann disagree with. I understand the concern that > spending public money on researching SRM has the potential to “legitimize” > the concept of SRM. There is merit to that concern but barring research > seems to me to be too blunt an instrument to address the concern. The cost > of ignorance is too high. > > > > *From: *Geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Daniele > Visioni <daniele...@gmail.com> > *Reply-To: *"daniele...@gmail.com" <daniele...@gmail.com> > *Date: *Friday, April 23, 2021 at 11:19 AM > *To: *Stephen Salter <s.sa...@ed.ac.uk> > *Cc: *"infog...@gmail.com" <infog...@gmail.com>, Geoengineering < > geoengi...@googlegroups.com> > *Subject: *Re: [geo] Some say we can ‘solar-engineer’ ourselves out of > the climate crisis. Don’t buy it Ray Pierrehumbert and Michael Mann > > > > “Having no skin in the game” only means that whoever is not a white male > emeritus professor (or an NAS member like Michael Mann) > > would probably think twice before writing in a public mailing list that > anyone can read about eugenic proposals that people support for real > without a shed of irony. > > Anybody else in any other more precarious position would probably think > “Mmh, would this horrible opinion (or joking about this horrible opinion) > make me a *persona non grata* everywhere? Maybe I should shut up about > it”. > > > > Please remember that your personal definition of what’s “fun” or “irony” > might not be shared by people who have heard multiple times that their > location/race/skin color/gender needs to be exterminated *for real*. > > Do you think they would feel welcome in writing in this group (or coming > to geoengineering meetings) if they suspected we think the solution to > solving the climate crisis is exterminating them? > > Not to mention the fact that there are probably journalists in this group. > > > > I think profs. Mann and Pierrehumbert (and for that matter, Kevin Surprise > and prof. Jennie Stephens piece in The Hill) opinion is condescending (and > pretty grand in calling other people paternalistic) > > Not to mention conflating researchers with “geoengineering evangelists”, > or claiming that solar geoengineering suppresses BLM. Both things I find > incredibly, personally offensive. > > The solution is not to shock in the other direction, by saying that if > people don’t want to discuss SRM or CDR, then we have to resort to > neo-malthusian bullcrap. > > We can do (as a community) way better than that, and keep our head cool. > > > > I’m not going to discuss your scientific results right now. We can have > that discussion another time, and we most likely agree on the danger of > climate change. But this is not what is being discussed here. > > > > Daniele > > > > On 23 Apr 2021, at 10:14, SALTER Stephen <s.sa...@ed.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > Daniele > > > > I have had Covid myself and so I agree that it is not all funny. My > intention was to shock. > > > > The problem with having only emission reduction by 2050 is means that > typhoons, floods, droughts, bushfires, sea-level rise, Arctic ice loss and > damage to coral will all be worse, perhaps much worse than at present. If > you think that present conditions are not acceptable you have to conclude > that zero emission is not low enough. As well as reducing emissions we > will have to remove greenhouse gases, probably with help from > phytoplankton, and also do direct cooling a soon as we can and then ramp it > down when emissions are under control. > > > > To help inform opinions, the graph below shows estimates of the amount of > salt of all sizes thrown up by sea waves plotted against the date of the > estimate. > > > > <image001.png> > > The small blue circle is the mean at 5.4 gigatonne per year. > > > > The thickening of the black line on the X axis between 1959 and 2020 shows > the mass of sea salt with the mass of 10 ^ -14 grams chosen for a high > Kohler nucleation efficiency which we would need for John Latham’s proposal > for marine cloud brightening. This gives what we hope is enough to cancel > thermal effects since preindustrial times. The size of spray is actually > where there is a gap between the masses of Aitken and accumulation modes of > natural aerosol. > > > > Spraying can be stopped at the click of a mouse and salt will be washed > back into the sea at the next rainfall. If we can forecast wind speed and > direction a few days ahead we can target hot blobs, El Nino events and the > Indian Ocean dipole which sets the balance between floods and bush fires > between Australia and Africa. Over 20 years we could restore sea level. > > > > The results below from Stjern et al. show the mean of nine climate models > for temperature and precipitation if we increase the concentration of the > right size of nuclei in cloudy ocean regions by 50%. Note the blue-green > increased precipitation in drought-stricken regions. > > > > <image002.png> > > > > Perhaps the people who have blocked research into this possibility will > have uncomfortable thoughts in future. > > > > I am too old to understand ‘skin in the game’. Please advise. > > > > Stephen > > > > > > *Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design* > > *School of Engineering* > > *Mayfield Road* > > *Edinburgh EH9 3DW* > > *0131 650 5704* > > *https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBB6WtH_Ni8 > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3DZBB6WtH-5FNi8&d=DwMFaQ&c=AkZ8ntcCwZnm3Hk87-RMDw&r=rLi7_27j-LnJpYKqycRu19O0vsMQcHs-yrSfSMLtlNo&m=rEyTvRBFqyAkFKi61He1ZXrTwNbbUtbkvN-VdRPWqvc&s=Wb1BKt5BVWRh_KIYkcGFP1t3sPuFUjEa3xpNo-7qwt0&e=>* > > > > > > *From:* Daniele Visioni <daniele...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Friday, April 23, 2021 2:07 PM > *To:* SALTER Stephen <s.sa...@ed.ac.uk> > *Cc:* infog...@gmail.com; geoengi...@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* Re: [geo] Some say we can ‘solar-engineer’ ourselves out of > the climate crisis. Don’t buy it Ray Pierrehumbert and Michael Mann > > > > *This email was sent to you by someone outside the University.* > > You should only click on links or attachments if you are certain that the > email is genuine and the content is safe. > > For my own mental sanity I will assume this is really cheap sarcasm (and I > can assure you this is really not funny). > > > > In the same spirit I might suggest that if such a virus was engineered to > prevent old academics with no skin in the game from venting their > uninformed opinions on any subject they can think of on international > newspapers (or elsewhere where they’re not peer reviewed, for that matter), > the world would be way better off than with any form of population control. > > > > Daniele > > > > > > > On 23 Apr 2021, at 08:53, SALTER Stephen <s.sa...@ed.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > Hi All > > > > The root cause of the root cause of the CO2 problem is the excessive > population of humans. The best solution would be genetic engineering of a > virus with high mortality and transmission efficiency. Covid 19 is > pathetically inadequate. We would need to crank up the rate of variant > production, improve the width of age sensitivity and also make it selective > for skin colour, eye shape and perhaps even political attitudes. > > > > Stephen > > > > *Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design* > > *School of Engineering* > > *Mayfield Road* > > *Edinburgh EH9 3DW* > > *0131 650 5704* > > *https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBB6WtH_Ni8 > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3DZBB6WtH-5FNi8&d=DwMFaQ&c=AkZ8ntcCwZnm3Hk87-RMDw&r=rLi7_27j-LnJpYKqycRu19O0vsMQcHs-yrSfSMLtlNo&m=rEyTvRBFqyAkFKi61He1ZXrTwNbbUtbkvN-VdRPWqvc&s=Wb1BKt5BVWRh_KIYkcGFP1t3sPuFUjEa3xpNo-7qwt0&e=>* > > > > > > > > *From:* geoengi...@googlegroups.com <geoengi...@googlegroups.com> *On > Behalf Of *Geoeng Info > *Sent:* Thursday, April 22, 2021 9:20 PM > *To:* geoengi...@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* [geo] Some say we can ‘solar-engineer’ ourselves out of the > climate crisis. Don’t buy it Ray Pierrehumbert and Michael Mann > > > > *This email was sent to you by someone outside the University.* > > You should only click on links or attachments if you are certain that the > email is genuine and the content is safe. > > > https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/22/climate-crisis-emergency-earth-day > > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.theguardian.com_commentisfree_2021_apr_22_climate-2Dcrisis-2Demergency-2Dearth-2Dday&d=DwMFaQ&c=AkZ8ntcCwZnm3Hk87-RMDw&r=rLi7_27j-LnJpYKqycRu19O0vsMQcHs-yrSfSMLtlNo&m=rEyTvRBFqyAkFKi61He1ZXrTwNbbUtbkvN-VdRPWqvc&s=oxkmroIAwMQmySUOoNLpV6d1s7Wqh6KqTf9a7jWNwV0&e=> > > > Some say we can ‘solar-engineer’ ourselves out of the climate crisis. > Don’t buy it > > *Ray Pierrehumbert and Michael Mann > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.theguardian.com_profile_michael-2De-2Dmann&d=DwMFaQ&c=AkZ8ntcCwZnm3Hk87-RMDw&r=rLi7_27j-LnJpYKqycRu19O0vsMQcHs-yrSfSMLtlNo&m=rEyTvRBFqyAkFKi61He1ZXrTwNbbUtbkvN-VdRPWqvc&s=5FntZ3re4A-1hsr4RdGxOPn5YM9HBcNRjsUPMcKD2J0&e=>* > > > > > > What could go wrong with this idea? Well, quite a lot > > <~WRD0000.jpg> > > ‘The heating effect of carbon dioxide persists for ten thousand years or > more, absent unproven technologies for scrubbing carbon dioxide out of the > atmosphere.’ Photograph: Phil Noble/ReutersAs we arrive at Earth Day, > there is renewed hope in the battle to avert catastrophic climate change. > Under newly elected president Joe Biden, the US has reasserted global > leadership > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.theguardian.com_us-2Dnews_2021_mar_31_biden-2Dinfrastructure-2Dplan-2Daddress-2Dclimate-2Dcrisis&d=DwMFaQ&c=AkZ8ntcCwZnm3Hk87-RMDw&r=rLi7_27j-LnJpYKqycRu19O0vsMQcHs-yrSfSMLtlNo&m=rEyTvRBFqyAkFKi61He1ZXrTwNbbUtbkvN-VdRPWqvc&s=hhFFwdoTVIE1cT94ABmaZDuG8xNBH488jqm0r8Z38Sk&e=> > in > this defining challenge of our time, bringing world leaders together in > Washington this week > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.whitehouse.gov_briefing-2Droom_statements-2Dreleases_2021_03_26_president-2Dbiden-2Dinvites-2D40-2Dworld-2Dleaders-2Dto-2Dleaders-2Dsummit-2Don-2Dclimate_&d=DwMFaQ&c=AkZ8ntcCwZnm3Hk87-RMDw&r=rLi7_27j-LnJpYKqycRu19O0vsMQcHs-yrSfSMLtlNo&m=rEyTvRBFqyAkFKi61He1ZXrTwNbbUtbkvN-VdRPWqvc&s=e3ZUzV1-zMFjqAh_oStRgTVgcp95b3_SdCwxt56Nh2k&e=> > to > galvanize the global effort to ramp down carbon emissions in the decade > ahead. > > > > So there is promise. But there is also great peril looming in the > foreground. > > Just as the world, at long last, is getting its act together, an ominous > sun-dimming cloud has appeared on the horizon > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__michaelmann.net_content_my-2Dcomments-2Dnew-2Dnational-2Dacademy-2Dreport-2Dgeoengineering&d=DwMFaQ&c=AkZ8ntcCwZnm3Hk87-RMDw&r=rLi7_27j-LnJpYKqycRu19O0vsMQcHs-yrSfSMLtlNo&m=rEyTvRBFqyAkFKi61He1ZXrTwNbbUtbkvN-VdRPWqvc&s=1kpHeUeJ8tPDvFVuVI2MZHDhZOLfhs4yz81SM_Zqwwk&e=>, > > threatening to derail these nascent efforts. That cloud comes in the form > of technologies whose proponents call – somewhat deceptively – “solar > geoengineering”. > > So-called “solar geoengineering” doesn’t actually modify the sun itself. > Instead, it reduces incoming sunlight by other means, such as putting > chemicals in the atmosphere that reflect sunlight to space. It addresses a > symptom of global heating, rather than the root cause, which is > human-caused increase in the atmosphere’s burden of carbon dioxide. > > While it is certainly true that reducing sunlight can cause cooling (we > know that from massive but episodic volcanic eruptions such as Pinatubo in > 1991), it acts on a very different part of the climate system than carbon > dioxide. And efforts to offset carbon dioxide-caused warming with sunlight > reduction would yield > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__journals.sagepub.com_doi_full_10.2968_064002006&d=DwMFaQ&c=AkZ8ntcCwZnm3Hk87-RMDw&r=rLi7_27j-LnJpYKqycRu19O0vsMQcHs-yrSfSMLtlNo&m=rEyTvRBFqyAkFKi61He1ZXrTwNbbUtbkvN-VdRPWqvc&s=fu3bPPOxQ-w5u7iDwCG1VV3gArTAU3_0f3QjarNFeq8&e=> > a > very different climate, perhaps one unlike any seen before in Earth’s > history, with massive shifts in atmospheric circulation and rainfall > patterns and possible worsening of droughts. > > What could possibly go wrong > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ncse.ngo_preview-2Dmadhouse-2Deffect&d=DwMFaQ&c=AkZ8ntcCwZnm3Hk87-RMDw&r=rLi7_27j-LnJpYKqycRu19O0vsMQcHs-yrSfSMLtlNo&m=rEyTvRBFqyAkFKi61He1ZXrTwNbbUtbkvN-VdRPWqvc&s=DsJ-CMrfyS6AGmtZANaUHxQDwvCpfuooS5g0kPuWjxg&e=>? > > Elizabeth Kolbert’s book Under a White Sky > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.theguardian.com_books_2021_mar_26_under-2Da-2Dwhite-2Dsky-2Dby-2Delizabeth-2Dkolbert-2Dreview-2Dthe-2Dpath-2Dto-2Dcatastrophe&d=DwMFaQ&c=AkZ8ntcCwZnm3Hk87-RMDw&r=rLi7_27j-LnJpYKqycRu19O0vsMQcHs-yrSfSMLtlNo&m=rEyTvRBFqyAkFKi61He1ZXrTwNbbUtbkvN-VdRPWqvc&s=o7T3PFfvZrmYr2ykggPQXKusZN9ukN-A3zStmXfOsBY&e=> > documents > case after case where supposedly benign environmental interventions have > had unintended consequences requiring layer after layer of escalating > further technological interventions to avert disaster. When the impacts are > local, as in Australia’s struggle to deal with consequences of deliberate > introduction of the cane toad, the spread of catastrophe can be contained > (so far, at least). But what happens when the unintended consequences > afflict the entire planet? > > Then there is the mismatch of time scales. The heating effect of carbon > dioxide persists for 10,000 years or more, absent unproven technologies for > scrubbing carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. In contrast, the > sun-dimming particles in question drop out in a year or less, meaning that > if you come to rely on geoengineering for survival, you need to keep it up > essentially forever. Think of it as climate methadone. > > And if we are ever forced to stop, we are hit with dangerous withdrawal > symptoms – a catastrophic “termination shock” wherein a century of pent-up > global heating emerges within a decade. Some proponents insist we can > always stop if we don’t like the result. Well yes, we can stop. Just like > if you’re being kept alive by a ventilator with no hope of a cure, you can > turn it off – and suffer the consequences. > > Geoengineering evangelists > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.theguardian.com_environment_2021_feb_08_solar-2Dgeoengineering-2Dtest-2Dflight-2Dplan-2Dunder-2Dfire-2Dover-2Denvironmental-2Dconcerns-2Daoe&d=DwMFaQ&c=AkZ8ntcCwZnm3Hk87-RMDw&r=rLi7_27j-LnJpYKqycRu19O0vsMQcHs-yrSfSMLtlNo&m=rEyTvRBFqyAkFKi61He1ZXrTwNbbUtbkvN-VdRPWqvc&s=FKyG5Jl1g4JfrqEiPQuCqGL3UssPn5Xjfsa63-5gPQ4&e=> > at > Harvard have pushed for expanded consideration of such technology; as panic > over the climate crisis has grown, so too has support for perilous > geoengineering schemes spread well beyond Cambridge, Massachusetts. And the > lines between basic theoretical research (which is worthwhile – climate > model experiments, for example, have revealed > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__physicsworld.com_a_solar-2Dgeoengineering-2Dcould-2Dcause-2Dunwanted-2Dchanges-2Din-2Dclimate-2Dnew-2Dmodelling-2Dsuggests_&d=DwMFaQ&c=AkZ8ntcCwZnm3Hk87-RMDw&r=rLi7_27j-LnJpYKqycRu19O0vsMQcHs-yrSfSMLtlNo&m=rEyTvRBFqyAkFKi61He1ZXrTwNbbUtbkvN-VdRPWqvc&s=R3TMYRuv3C1KljTJ7dNFCjCyRgIEhsZEALtWVqGlSyQ&e=> > the > potential perils) on the one hand, and field testing and implementation > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__link.springer.com_article_10.1007_s10584-2D020-2D02740-2D3&d=DwMFaQ&c=AkZ8ntcCwZnm3Hk87-RMDw&r=rLi7_27j-LnJpYKqycRu19O0vsMQcHs-yrSfSMLtlNo&m=rEyTvRBFqyAkFKi61He1ZXrTwNbbUtbkvN-VdRPWqvc&s=TkV_n06VFj8Fi_YJ8HwNCQDyi23k6n7ZEVokkvaH9tc&e=> > on > the other, have increasingly been blurred. > > Solar geoengineering has been cited > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rollingstone.com_politics_politics-2Dnews_geoengineering-2Dhouse-2Ddemocrats-2Dclimate-2Dplan-2D2020-2D1023376_&d=DwMFaQ&c=AkZ8ntcCwZnm3Hk87-RMDw&r=rLi7_27j-LnJpYKqycRu19O0vsMQcHs-yrSfSMLtlNo&m=rEyTvRBFqyAkFKi61He1ZXrTwNbbUtbkvN-VdRPWqvc&s=joX8M1wayhNT6Tf7QTRn62AEL3LG5hKoCAD2GKX4CyA&e=> > in > the Democratic Climate Action Plan. MIT’s Maria Zuber, incoming co-chair of > Biden’s president’s council of advisers on science and technology (PCAST) > is on record as favoring > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__issues.org_solar-2Dradiation-2Dmitigation-2Dresearch_&d=DwMFaQ&c=AkZ8ntcCwZnm3Hk87-RMDw&r=rLi7_27j-LnJpYKqycRu19O0vsMQcHs-yrSfSMLtlNo&m=rEyTvRBFqyAkFKi61He1ZXrTwNbbUtbkvN-VdRPWqvc&s=6bo0XHRsAJ69Zs6q0vCjNs0VBAgUe14kdx_EKp_obpI&e=> > an > expanded federal geoengineering research program. And now the other shoe > has dropped – the US National Research Council has recently released a > report going well beyond > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__michaelmann.net_content_my-2Dcomments-2Dnew-2Dnational-2Dacademy-2Dreport-2Dgeoengineering&d=DwMFaQ&c=AkZ8ntcCwZnm3Hk87-RMDw&r=rLi7_27j-LnJpYKqycRu19O0vsMQcHs-yrSfSMLtlNo&m=rEyTvRBFqyAkFKi61He1ZXrTwNbbUtbkvN-VdRPWqvc&s=1kpHeUeJ8tPDvFVuVI2MZHDhZOLfhs4yz81SM_Zqwwk&e=> > the > very cautious, tentative recommendations for continued research in the 2015 > NRC report > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.nap.edu_catalog_18988_climate-2Dintervention-2Dreflecting-2Dsunlight-2Dto-2Dcool-2Dearth&d=DwMFaQ&c=AkZ8ntcCwZnm3Hk87-RMDw&r=rLi7_27j-LnJpYKqycRu19O0vsMQcHs-yrSfSMLtlNo&m=rEyTvRBFqyAkFKi61He1ZXrTwNbbUtbkvN-VdRPWqvc&s=tuRUo_Vg6gpj-An_icv2Hn7LMKvWqcO3R6DN57H1lSs&e=> > one > of us (Pierrehumbert) co-authored. > > The new report > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.nap.edu_catalog_25762_reflecting-2Dsunlight-2Drecommendations-2Dfor-2Dsolar-2Dgeoengineering-2Dresearch-2Dand-2Dresearch-2Dgovernance&d=DwMFaQ&c=AkZ8ntcCwZnm3Hk87-RMDw&r=rLi7_27j-LnJpYKqycRu19O0vsMQcHs-yrSfSMLtlNo&m=rEyTvRBFqyAkFKi61He1ZXrTwNbbUtbkvN-VdRPWqvc&s=WFuCXnXBzWRDeGo44F_VFqnCcatQSFmmSd-9YCKBFWk&e=> > pushes > for a massive $200m five-year funding program. The growing support is based > on a fundamental misconception, captured in the NRC report’s justification > statement: that we likely won’t achieve the necessary decarbonization of > our economy in time to avoid massive climate damages, so this technology > might be needed. > > Such “Plan B” framing is the worst possible justification for developing > solar geoengineering technology. It is laden in moral hazard – providing, > as it does, an excuse for fossil fuel interests and their advocates to > continue with business as usual. Why reduce carbon pollution if there is a > cheap workaround? In The New Climate War, > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__scribepublications.com.au_books-2Dauthors_books_the-2Dnew-2Dclimate-2Dwar&d=DwMFaQ&c=AkZ8ntcCwZnm3Hk87-RMDw&r=rLi7_27j-LnJpYKqycRu19O0vsMQcHs-yrSfSMLtlNo&m=rEyTvRBFqyAkFKi61He1ZXrTwNbbUtbkvN-VdRPWqvc&s=Q2wxAOQThFXv7ooR3SgHBsnO-Nr8aVsChnhLABwamY4&e=> > one > of us (Mann) argues that geoengineering advocacy is indeed one of the key > delay tactics used by polluters. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email togeoengineerin...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKSzgpaJVvgBHf4LSdFxJ9K6dOx%2Bm%3DhK-F14zzMumK9pu43K%3DA%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_msgid_geoengineering_CAKSzgpaJVvgBHf4LSdFxJ9K6dOx-252Bm-253DhK-2DF14zzMumK9pu43K-253DA-2540mail.gmail.com-3Futm-5Fmedium-3Demail-26utm-5Fsource-3Dfooter&d=DwMFaQ&c=AkZ8ntcCwZnm3Hk87-RMDw&r=rLi7_27j-LnJpYKqycRu19O0vsMQcHs-yrSfSMLtlNo&m=rEyTvRBFqyAkFKi61He1ZXrTwNbbUtbkvN-VdRPWqvc&s=_K4Jvap3OXpCWSIuf3IILP1pDg5rPqpK_4Ya0cnwxHk&e=> > . > > The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, > with registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th’ ann an > Oilthigh Dhùn Èideann, clàraichte an Alba, àireamh clàraidh SC005336. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email togeoengineerin...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/AS8PR05MB796059BD92293D61A0D6E04DA7459%40AS8PR05MB7960.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com > > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_msgid_geoengineering_AS8PR05MB796059BD92293D61A0D6E04DA7459-2540AS8PR05MB7960.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com-3Futm-5Fmedium-3Demail-26utm-5Fsource-3Dfooter&d=DwMFaQ&c=AkZ8ntcCwZnm3Hk87-RMDw&r=rLi7_27j-LnJpYKqycRu19O0vsMQcHs-yrSfSMLtlNo&m=rEyTvRBFqyAkFKi61He1ZXrTwNbbUtbkvN-VdRPWqvc&s=1e8OoSVAor46AOmhA-UoeCLSOREL0D9EKRq1kDCtJzM&e=> > . > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com. > > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/627C50AB-A374-48FF-8829-1881A31BCA8D%40gmail.com > > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_msgid_geoengineering_627C50AB-2DA374-2D48FF-2D8829-2D1881A31BCA8D-2540gmail.com-3Futm-5Fmedium-3Demail-26utm-5Fsource-3Dfooter&d=DwMFaQ&c=AkZ8ntcCwZnm3Hk87-RMDw&r=rLi7_27j-LnJpYKqycRu19O0vsMQcHs-yrSfSMLtlNo&m=rEyTvRBFqyAkFKi61He1ZXrTwNbbUtbkvN-VdRPWqvc&s=c5H_nNbFm9KilxRbBXs1x5FrSH1XQkIbkYSbzuluamc&e=> > . > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/a1ccad21-a4c0-470a-9be6-cc500203f6bbn%40googlegroups.com.
