[geo] Re: Manifesto for Geoengineering
Dear Alan, I don't think it's so ridiculous. There is a lot of agreement about the seriousness of the situation, and that just reducing emissions is not the whole solution. Kind regards, John Alan Robock wrote: Dear John, Don't be ridiculous. There is no consensus among readers of this group. A few of you are completely gung ho, with no interest in evaluating the risks as well as the benefits of any policy recommendation, but that does not represent the views of very many. Of course, you are free to write any sort of manifesto that you want, but don't claim that it represents a consensus of more than the individuals that end up signing it. Alan Alan Robock, Professor II Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction Department of Environmental SciencesPhone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222 Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 14 College Farm Road E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock On Tue, 22 Sep 2009, John Nissen wrote: Hi everybody, I have been subscribed to this group for well over a year, and have seen a great deal of valuable information produced. I have seen discussions and consensus reached. We have a great deal of expertise among us. But I fear much of our understanding of how to tackle the global environment crisis is being lost in the blogosphere. So I propose that we, as a geoengineering group, should work together to produce a manifesto for geoengineering. This would: describe the state of the Earth's climate system, identify critical risks, put the case for geoengineering, consider how side-effects can be avoided or minimised, and suggest when is the best time for geoengineering action. Otherwise we will finding ourselves saying the same things again and again over the coming months and years. And we need a reasonably solid position statement on which to peg further developments of ideas, which may be more speculative. A manifesto would allow particular members to contribute their particular expertise, and have it scrutinised by others from different viewpoints. I would be will to help in preparing such a manifesto, which would be an open document, but subject to editing control, perhaps on the lines of wikipedia. (Andrew might advise on this, with his wikipedia experience.) However it should be open to the latest thinking (and it would not be sensored in the way that sometimes happens on wikipedia re geoengineering). Cheers, John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: Manifesto for Geoengineering
Alan, I would not want to be alligned with any gung-ho brigade, but I do think it is foolish to emphasize the risks of geoengineering to the neglect of the risks of relying solely on emissions reductions. I think selected technologies that pass the test of scale, of reversibility, of timeliness and of cost should be implemented within a framework of ongoing risk assessment (if safe, or developed to be ready for quick implementation as needs be if they carry significant safety concerns) Key technologies seem to be: Carbon stock management [effectiveness cumulates with build up of stock shift from atmosphere to terrestrial storage] a.. Sustainable afforestation [low cost, scaleable up to the point of land availability, start tomorrow, burn it down again if not wanted] b.. CCS [moderate cost, scaleable up to availability of geological storages, start in a year or so, let it out again if not wanted] c.. Artificial trees [moderate cost, scaleable as needed, start in 2020 [?], as safe as CCS, let it out again if not wanted] d.. Biochar [low cost given side benefits, scaleable as needed but rate of take up limited by raw material supply, safe (despite Royal Society nonsense based apparently on a submission from a scientifically ill-qualified NGO - Ron may care to comment) but not reversible (can't take it out of the soil)] Solar radiation management [effectiveness immediate - likely only way if polar catastrophe tipping point imminent] a.. Stratospheric aerosols [very cheap, reversible in a few months (weeks?), scaleable as needed, start soon if needed, tele-climatic dangers (monsoons etc.)] b.. Ocean cloud albedo enhancement [fairly cheap, scaleable up to availability of suitably located ocean clouds, start in 2020 [?], likely safe (more Royal Society nonsense) and possibly locatable to counter teleclimatic effects of other technologies. c.. Artic ocean floating plastic islands (the ICE911 project - very little info available) Harvard economic guru Martin Weitzman has recently noted the complete failure of the economics profession and policy community to address the threat of climatic disaster or catastrophe, demonstrating that their likelihood is sufficiently great for them to be of similar concern to the likely impact of gradual climate change. He called for 'some semblance of a game plan to be ready for what may be coming down the road', in response to which I have written (not with any intent it should become a manifesto, but comments welcome on this material in draft) The semblance of a game plan which is proposed here is that: 1. it be recognized that threats of serious or irreversible damage are sufficiently evident for cost effective precautionary action to be taken under Article 3.3 of the Rio Treaty, without delay on account of any remaining scientific uncertainty. 2. such action must go beyond the tradition of commitments to emissions reductions established under Article 4.2 of the Treaty, and continued through the Berlin Mandate, the Kyoto Protocol, the Marrakesh Accords, the Bali Roadmap and to be the main focus of the Copenhagen COP15 negotiations, including that: a. rapid reductions in CO2 levels be initiated through biotic carbon stock management, inter alia linking land use improvement driven carbon removals from atmosphere with fossil fuel emissions reductions, through substituting biofuels for fossil fuels. b. the deployment of both CO2 capture and storage (CCS) and biochar technologies be accelerated, with ongoing monitoring and learning by doing to enhance effectiveness and safety c. carbon removal by 'artificial trees' be rapidly developed to be available by 2020 and, though more costly, to have a role if rapid land use improvement proves difficult to implement. d. preparations be made for the rapid deployment of stratospheric aerosol solar radiation management in the event that loss of Arctic summer sea-ice is imminent. e. ocean cloud albedo enhancement technology be developed urgently, and modeling work undertaken to determine its optimal regional deployment (and also the optimal regional deployment of afforestation activity) to prevent or at least ameliorate unintended side effects from cooling the earth through rapid reductions in greenhouse gas levels and/or from deployment of aerosol injections into the polar stratosphere. f. carbon stock management be structured so as to secure sustainable rural development in many land rich but otherwise impoverished regions of the world, along with numerous objectives of the multinational environmental agreements. g. funding for such carbon stock management be delivered through policy that secures energy sector investments, initially to secure carbon credits and later to facilitate commercial bioenergy transactions. h. other promising technologies for cooling the earth - e.g. black carbon reductions and
[geo] Re: Manifesto for Geoengineering
Alan's point, I believe, is that the geoengineering group is a listserv, not an organization. Hence a call for a manifesto should make clear that any such document would not be issued on behalf of the geoengineerin group but rather on behalf of those who sign it. References to the geoengineering group would only confuse matters. David - Original Message - From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com geoengineering@googlegroups.com To: Alan Robock rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu Cc: Geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed Sep 23 04:39:36 2009 Subject: [geo] Re: Manifesto for Geoengineering Dear Alan, I don't think it's so ridiculous. There is a lot of agreement about the seriousness of the situation, and that just reducing emissions is not the whole solution. Kind regards, John Alan Robock wrote: Dear John, Don't be ridiculous. There is no consensus among readers of this group. A few of you are completely gung ho, with no interest in evaluating the risks as well as the benefits of any policy recommendation, but that does not represent the views of very many. Of course, you are free to write any sort of manifesto that you want, but don't claim that it represents a consensus of more than the individuals that end up signing it. Alan Alan Robock, Professor II Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction Department of Environmental SciencesPhone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222 Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 14 College Farm Road E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock On Tue, 22 Sep 2009, John Nissen wrote: Hi everybody, I have been subscribed to this group for well over a year, and have seen a great deal of valuable information produced. I have seen discussions and consensus reached. We have a great deal of expertise among us. But I fear much of our understanding of how to tackle the global environment crisis is being lost in the blogosphere. So I propose that we, as a geoengineering group, should work together to produce a manifesto for geoengineering. This would: describe the state of the Earth's climate system, identify critical risks, put the case for geoengineering, consider how side-effects can be avoided or minimised, and suggest when is the best time for geoengineering action. Otherwise we will finding ourselves saying the same things again and again over the coming months and years. And we need a reasonably solid position statement on which to peg further developments of ideas, which may be more speculative. A manifesto would allow particular members to contribute their particular expertise, and have it scrutinised by others from different viewpoints. I would be will to help in preparing such a manifesto, which would be an open document, but subject to editing control, perhaps on the lines of wikipedia. (Andrew might advise on this, with his wikipedia experience.) However it should be open to the latest thinking (and it would not be sensored in the way that sometimes happens on wikipedia re geoengineering). Cheers, John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: Manifesto for Geoengineering
Peter, well done. Emission reduction is not a slam dunk and even if it goes through the hoop the whistle could blow and the points won't count. And as you know my position is that history shows the globe is getting hotter in any case; and the history should not be ignored. Geo will be ultimately needed independent of what the AGW advocates think; and who can prove I am wrong; certainly not people who are bent on emission reductions as the solution, and who ignore history. Who can afford to do that? -gene From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Peter Read Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 8:54 AM To: j...@cloudworld.co.uk; Alan Robock Cc: Geoengineering; Martin Weitzman; Leslie Field; John Shepherd; Ron Larson Subject: [geo] Re: Manifesto for Geoengineering Alan, I would not want to be alligned with any gung-ho brigade, but I do think it is foolish to emphasize the risks of geoengineering to the neglect of the risks of relying solely on emissions reductions. I think selected technologies that pass the test of scale, of reversibility, of timeliness and of cost should be implemented within a framework of ongoing risk assessment (if safe, or developed to be ready for quick implementation as needs be if they carry significant safety concerns) Key technologies seem to be: Carbon stock management [effectiveness cumulates with build up of stock shift from atmosphere to terrestrial storage] * Sustainable afforestation [low cost, scaleable up to the point of land availability, start tomorrow, burn it down again if not wanted] * CCS [moderate cost, scaleable up to availability of geological storages, start in a year or so, let it out again if not wanted] * Artificial trees [moderate cost, scaleable as needed, start in 2020 [?], as safe as CCS, let it out again if not wanted] * Biochar [low cost given side benefits, scaleable as needed but rate of take up limited by raw material supply, safe (despite Royal Society nonsense based apparently on a submission from a scientifically ill-qualified NGO - Ron may care to comment) but not reversible (can't take it out of the soil)] Solar radiation management [effectiveness immediate - likely only way if polar catastrophe tipping point imminent] * Stratospheric aerosols [very cheap, reversible in a few months (weeks?), scaleable as needed, start soon if needed, tele-climatic dangers (monsoons etc.)] * Ocean cloud albedo enhancement [fairly cheap, scaleable up to availability of suitably located ocean clouds, start in 2020 [?], likely safe (more Royal Society nonsense) and possibly locatable to counter teleclimatic effects of other technologies. * Artic ocean floating plastic islands (the ICE911 project - very little info available) Harvard economic guru Martin Weitzman has recently noted the complete failure of the economics profession and policy community to address the threat of climatic disaster or catastrophe, demonstrating that their likelihood is sufficiently great for them to be of similar concern to the likely impact of gradual climate change. He called for 'some semblance of a game plan to be ready for what may be coming down the road', in response to which I have written (not with any intent it should become a manifesto, but comments welcome on this material in draft) The semblance of a game plan which is proposed here is that: 1. it be recognized that threats of serious or irreversible damage are sufficiently evident for cost effective precautionary action to be taken under Article 3.3 of the Rio Treaty, without delay on account of any remaining scientific uncertainty. 2. such action must go beyond the tradition of commitments to emissions reductions established under Article 4.2 of the Treaty, and continued through the Berlin Mandate, the Kyoto Protocol, the Marrakesh Accords, the Bali Roadmap and to be the main focus of the Copenhagen COP15 negotiations, including that: a. rapid reductions in CO2 levels be initiated through biotic carbon stock management, inter alia linking land use improvement driven carbon removals from atmosphere with fossil fuel emissions reductions, through substituting biofuels for fossil fuels. b. the deployment of both CO2 capture and storage (CCS) and biochar technologies be accelerated, with ongoing monitoring and learning by doing to enhance effectiveness and safety c. carbon removal by 'artificial trees' be rapidly developed to be available by 2020 and, though more costly, to have a role if rapid land use improvement proves difficult to implement. d. preparations be made for the rapid deployment of stratospheric aerosol solar radiation management in the event that loss of Arctic summer sea-ice is imminent. e. ocean cloud albedo enhancement technology be developed urgently, and modeling work undertaken to determine its optimal regional deployment (and also
[geo] Re: Manifesto for Geoengineering
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 5:46 AM, Alan Robock rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu wrote: There is no consensus among readers of this group. A few of you are completely gung ho, with no interest in evaluating the risks as well as the benefits of any policy recommendation, but that does not represent the views of very many. I completely agree with Alan's views. My impression is that this is far too nascent a field to actively promote itself. I too suspect that a large majority of group members, and a silent one at that, is skeptical of the gung ho brigade of this group. A lot of what's being professed here is largely personal opinion and research that is long way from getting established. Peter's contention of large-scale sustainable afforestation as a low-cost and feasible course of action for dramatic emission reductions being a case in point. By the way, Peter, I'm happy to see you include artificial trees as part of the equation. I consider Klaus Lackner's artificial trees as the single most attractive geoengineering technology out there. Since cost and viability of large-scale sustainable afforestation is yet to be established, it cannot be said which one's a better option amongst the two carbon stock management choices. Manu --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] SciCitizen on Royal Society Report
I was not expecting my email response to be published verbatim, but here it
is:
http://scitizen.com/stories/climate-change/2009/09/Geoengineering-the-climate--science-governance-and-uncertainty/
Geoengineering the climate : science, governance and uncertainty
23 Sep, 2009 03:17 pm
*Earlier this month, the Royal Society of the UK issued a report entitled
Geoengineering the climate : science, governance and uncertainty. Ken
Caldeira, the director of the Caldeira Lab at the Carnegie Institution in
the U.S. and a member of the working group involved in producing this
report, answers Scitizen's questions.*
*
The report divides geoengineering methods into two basic classes. Can we put
Carbon Dioxide Removal methods (which remove CO2 from the atmosphere) on the
same level as Solar Radiation Management methods (that reflect a small
percentage of the sun's light and heat back into space) yet?
*
No, Carbon Dioxide Removal methods and Solar Radiation Management methods
are two very different kinds of interventions. I was originally arguing that
the Carbon Dioxide Removal methods should not even be in the report because
I do not consider them geoengineering.
Carbon Dioxide Removal methods add no new climate risk (although they can
add other types of new environmental risk). Carbon Dioxide Removal is
basically the reverse of carbon dioxide emissions. In general, these methods
work slowly but address the root cause of the problem.
Solar Radiation Management methods add new climate risk, but hold out the
potential of reducing overall climate risk. Some Solar Radiation Management
methods can work rapidly and thus may be of use in the event of a climate
emergency or climate crisis. I think this climate emergency response
possibility is the most important reason we need to pursue research into
these options.
*
Taking into account the risk of significant side effects, would you call
geoengineering a necessary evil?
*I think that the assortment of options considered in the report are so
diverse that one cannot generalize across all of them. I hope we are smart
or lucky enough to avoid a climate catastrophe that would induce us to want
to put sulfates in the stratosphere or resort to other similar desperate
measures. I think of these as a toolbox full of tools. A powersaw can be
used for evil or for good.
The goal of these proposals is to reduce overall risk and damage. If we have
high confidence that some option would reduce overall risk and damage then
it would probably make sense to deploy that option. Without this confidence,
deployment would likely be unwise.
*Without large-scale field testing, what did you base your evaluation on?
*
Our evaluation was based on paper studies, computer model simulations, and
order-of-magnitude basic calculations.
*How to elude the moral hazard argument, namely the fact that geoengineering
might be used as an excuse not to cut greenhouse gas emissions?
*
I believe that recognition and admission that our greenhouse gas emissions
are increasing the likelihood of a climate crisis that would push us to
consider desperate measures would tend to encourage us to work harder to
diminish emissions. If you are not concerned about a climate crisis, you
neither reduce emissions nor develop plans for what to do should a crisis
occur. If you are concerned about a climate crisis, you both reduce
emissions and develop plans for what to do should a crisis occur.
*According to you, what should thereof be the place of geoengineering at the
Copenhagen Climate Conference in December?
*
I see no reason for the Solar Radiation Management options to be considered
in December. Some Carbon Dioxide Removal methods (such as planting trees)
will be considered in Copenhagen. The ultimate objective of the UNFCCC is
to achieve... stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the
atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system. Carbon Dioxide Removal methods are
relevant to stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations, but Solar Radiation
Management options are not particularly relevant in this context.
Interview by Clementine Fullias
Download the report
http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?tip=0id=8770
*Ken Caldeira is a scientist who works at the Carnegie Institution for
Science's *Department of Global Ecology http://dge.stanford.edu/*. The
Caldeira Lab conducts research to try to improve the science base needed to
allow human civilization to develop while protecting our environmental
endowment. It includes ocean adification, climate and emissions and climate
intervention ('geoengineering').*
___
Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
kcalde...@ciw.edu; kcalde...@stanford.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
+1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this
For info Fw: [geo] Re: Manifesto for Geoengineering
- Original Message - From: Leslie Field To: Peter Read Cc: Leslie Field Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 5:26 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Manifesto for Geoengineering Hi Peter, My email reply to you didn't post to the google group, as I'm not a member. Not sure that's an action item, just wanted to let you know I got a bounce notice from that address. Best regards, Leslie Leslie Field wrote: Hi Peter, Thanks for the cc. One quick clarification is that Ice911 doesn't use floating plastic islands. (Two problems with plastics in general: plastics can have some unwanted eco impacts, and plastics can suppress evaporation.) Our small-scale tests have been very encouraging so far, and we're working on getting some larger-scale tests in place this season. Best regards, Leslie Leslie Field, Ph.D. Ice911 Research Corporation www.ice911.org les...@ice911.org (650) 823-2020 [[Snipped - PR]] --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Discussion on jet-fuel-additive
What effects do sulfuric acid and silica have on the atmosphere and the weather. If I remember correctly sulfuric acid will cause the ozone hole to enlarge. That's a bad idea since scientists and the EPA have worked for years to restore the ozone layer and this is the first year we have seen success in that endeavor. You should choose your substances carefully. What are the aerosols you want supposed to do? Can you get catalysts instead of bulk chemicals? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] enough geoengineering. we just have to engineer ourselves...
For those, like me, who need a break amid the recent burst of news on climate front, please watch this video and report back if you don't chuckle: http://j.mp/dotBall -- Andrew C. Revkin The New York Times / Environment 620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018 Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556 Fax: 509-357-0965 http://www.nytimes.com/revkin --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: Question.
defined as the deliberate large scale intervention in the Earth's climate system, in order to moderate global warming (Royal Society Policy Document 10/09, para 3) visit http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=35151 - Original Message - From: Frank Parry jzboc...@yahoo.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 2:34 PM Subject: [geo] Question. what exactly is geoengineering? No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.112/2391 - Release Date: 09/23/09 18:00:00 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: Bogus names
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Oliver Wingenter oliver.wingen...@gmail.com wrote: I would like see the real names attached to each post associated with this group. I think it fair to know who is contributing to the discussions here. On Green-India http://groups.google.com/group/green-india/?pli=1, a group I manage, we have an explicit policy regarding postinghttp://groups.google.com/group/green-india/web/guidelines-and-tips-for-members so that any moderation intervention is not arbitrary and grounded in transparent guidelines. At #2, it includes the following statement: No anonymous messages: We do not permit messages without a name, with a pseudonym or with just the first name. Messages must contain sender's full real name either in the 'From field' or in signature. Similar guidelines can be adopted on this group. Manu --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: Question.
Sounds interesting! I am looking forward to finding out more information On Sep 23, 11:09 pm, Peter Read pre...@attglobal.net wrote: defined as the deliberate large scale intervention in the Earth's climate system, in order to moderate global warming (Royal Society Policy Document 10/09, para 3) visithttp://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=35151 - Original Message - From: Frank Parry jzboc...@yahoo.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 2:34 PM Subject: [geo] Question. what exactly is geoengineering? No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG -www.avg.com Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.112/2391 - Release Date: 09/23/09 18:00:00 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: Question.
read the download. but note that it is misleading regarding the risks associated with biochar technology and ocean cloud albedo enhancement - Original Message - From: Frank Parry jzboc...@yahoo.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 3:32 PM Subject: [geo] Re: Question. Sounds interesting! I am looking forward to finding out more information On Sep 23, 11:09 pm, Peter Read pre...@attglobal.net wrote: defined as the deliberate large scale intervention in the Earth's climate system, in order to moderate global warming (Royal Society Policy Document 10/09, para 3) visithttp://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=35151 - Original Message - From: Frank Parry jzboc...@yahoo.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 2:34 PM Subject: [geo] Question. what exactly is geoengineering? No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG -www.avg.com Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.112/2391 - Release Date: 09/23/09 18:00:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.112/2391 - Release Date: 09/23/09 18:00:00 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
