Re: [geo] Washington Post op ed
As argued in 1955: Present awful possibilities of nuclear warfare may give way to others even more awful. After global climate control becomes possible, perhaps all our present involvements will seem simple. We should not deceive ourselves: once such possibilities become actual, they will be exploited. -- John von Neumann, “Can We Survive Technology?” Fortune, June 1955, 106–108. James R. Fleming Professor of Science, Technology, and Society, Colby College Research Associate, Columbia University Series Editor, Palgrave Studies in the History of Science and Technology, bit.ly/THQMcd Profile: http://www.colby.edu/directory/profile/jfleming/ On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Olaf Corry toco...@gmail.com wrote: I agree with the basic idea that the politics of this will be likely to be very tricky (although - and partly for that reason - I remain unconvinced by the other premise of the article that SPI has been overwhelmingly shown to have net life-saving potential). Andrew, why the incredulity at a conflict scenario? The thing about international relations is that outcomes do not always reflect intentions or desired collective outcomes. History is full of consensus processes breaking down and collectively sub-optimal (to put it mildly) outcomes. Presumably everybody had an incentive to avoid the chaos of WW1 and stick to a consensus process... So the authors are right in my opinion to raise this problem regarding SRM. I would add that by complicating/souring the international diplomatic situation SRM could easily affect the ability to agree and cooperate internationally on mitigation and adaptation too, which we agree would still need to happen as fast as possible. If we are consistently outcome-ethical about it we probably shouldn't put the politics in one compartment and the evaluation of the technology in another one. Best regards Olaf Corry On Friday, 30 January 2015 09:18:54 UTC, andrewjlockley wrote: I disagree fundamentally with the premise of this article. A decision on climate has to be made. Everyone knows it. Everyone has an incentive to avoid chaos. Therefore, people have a very large incentive to stick to a consensus process, because anyone who doesn't stick will instantly break that consensus and cause chaos - which is a guaranteed loser for all. Same reason villagers don't burgle their neighbours when police are busy elsewhere dealing with a major incident. A On 30 Jan 2015 08:54, Andy Parker apar...@gmail.com wrote: Hey folks, the Washington Post just published an op ed on the messy politics of solar geoengineering, written by David Keith and me: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/whats-the-right- temperature-for-the-earth/2015/01/29/b2dda53a-7c05-11e4- 84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html -- 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 post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [geo] Washington Post op ed
I agree with the basic idea that the politics of this will be likely to be very tricky (although - and partly for that reason - I remain unconvinced by the other premise of the article that SPI has been overwhelmingly shown to have net life-saving potential). Andrew, why the incredulity at a conflict scenario? The thing about international relations is that outcomes do not always reflect intentions or desired collective outcomes. History is full of consensus processes breaking down and collectively sub-optimal (to put it mildly) outcomes. Presumably everybody had an incentive to avoid the chaos of WW1 and stick to a consensus process... So the authors are right in my opinion to raise this problem regarding SRM. I would add that by complicating/souring the international diplomatic situation SRM could easily affect the ability to agree and cooperate internationally on mitigation and adaptation too, which we agree would still need to happen as fast as possible. If we are consistently outcome-ethical about it we probably shouldn't put the politics in one compartment and the evaluation of the technology in another one. Best regards Olaf Corry On Friday, 30 January 2015 09:18:54 UTC, andrewjlockley wrote: I disagree fundamentally with the premise of this article. A decision on climate has to be made. Everyone knows it. Everyone has an incentive to avoid chaos. Therefore, people have a very large incentive to stick to a consensus process, because anyone who doesn't stick will instantly break that consensus and cause chaos - which is a guaranteed loser for all. Same reason villagers don't burgle their neighbours when police are busy elsewhere dealing with a major incident. A On 30 Jan 2015 08:54, Andy Parker apar...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: Hey folks, the Washington Post just published an op ed on the messy politics of solar geoengineering, written by David Keith and me: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/whats-the-right-temperature-for-the-earth/2015/01/29/b2dda53a-7c05-11e4-84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html -- 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 javascript:. To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com javascript:. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [geo] Washington Post op ed
See my book Fixing the Sky (2010), chapter 7. Jim James R. Fleming Professor of Science, Technology, and Society, Colby College Research Associate, Columbia University Series Editor, Palgrave Studies in the History of Science and Technology, bit.ly/THQMcd Profile: http://www.colby.edu/directory/profile/jfleming/ On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Jim Fleming jflem...@colby.edu wrote: As argued in 1955: Present awful possibilities of nuclear warfare may give way to others even more awful. After global climate control becomes possible, perhaps all our present involvements will seem simple. We should not deceive ourselves: once such possibilities become actual, they will be exploited. -- John von Neumann, “Can We Survive Technology?” Fortune, June 1955, 106–108. James R. Fleming Professor of Science, Technology, and Society, Colby College Research Associate, Columbia University Series Editor, Palgrave Studies in the History of Science and Technology, bit.ly/THQMcd Profile: http://www.colby.edu/directory/profile/jfleming/ On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Olaf Corry toco...@gmail.com wrote: I agree with the basic idea that the politics of this will be likely to be very tricky (although - and partly for that reason - I remain unconvinced by the other premise of the article that SPI has been overwhelmingly shown to have net life-saving potential). Andrew, why the incredulity at a conflict scenario? The thing about international relations is that outcomes do not always reflect intentions or desired collective outcomes. History is full of consensus processes breaking down and collectively sub-optimal (to put it mildly) outcomes. Presumably everybody had an incentive to avoid the chaos of WW1 and stick to a consensus process... So the authors are right in my opinion to raise this problem regarding SRM. I would add that by complicating/souring the international diplomatic situation SRM could easily affect the ability to agree and cooperate internationally on mitigation and adaptation too, which we agree would still need to happen as fast as possible. If we are consistently outcome-ethical about it we probably shouldn't put the politics in one compartment and the evaluation of the technology in another one. Best regards Olaf Corry On Friday, 30 January 2015 09:18:54 UTC, andrewjlockley wrote: I disagree fundamentally with the premise of this article. A decision on climate has to be made. Everyone knows it. Everyone has an incentive to avoid chaos. Therefore, people have a very large incentive to stick to a consensus process, because anyone who doesn't stick will instantly break that consensus and cause chaos - which is a guaranteed loser for all. Same reason villagers don't burgle their neighbours when police are busy elsewhere dealing with a major incident. A On 30 Jan 2015 08:54, Andy Parker apar...@gmail.com wrote: Hey folks, the Washington Post just published an op ed on the messy politics of solar geoengineering, written by David Keith and me: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/whats-the-right- temperature-for-the-earth/2015/01/29/b2dda53a-7c05-11e4- 84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html -- 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 post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[geo] Re: A graphic to help map the Carbon Dioxide Removal (“CDR”) field | Deich
Noah, The statement that ...biochar can be burned to create electricity instead of applied to soils as a carbon sink. is questionable as biochar 'fuel' is charcoal. Only that which is buried is 'biochar'. Yet, I believe Ron Larson (IBI) can best express this point. Also, your mission objective of map the most prominent aspects of CDR would seem to open up the effort to listing the many important 'prominent aspect' of the biotic approach such as the production of food, feed, fuel, fertilizer, polymers and fresh water (etc.). In short, the biotic can pay for itself while the non-biotic can not. This is a profoundly important aspect which many authors in this field ignore. We must ask ourselves if we wish climate change mitigation to be at the whims of the political purse sting or financially independent and based solely on the science...not the thin ice of political popularity. Best, Michael On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 10:53:49 AM UTC-8, andrewjlockley wrote: https://carbonremoval.wordpress.com/2015/01/22/a-graphic-to-help-map-the-carbon-dioxide-removal-cdr-field/ Everything and the Carbon Sink Noah Deich's blog on all things Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) A graphic to help map the Carbon Dioxide Removal (“CDR”) field JANUARY 22, 2015 For the carbon dioxide removal (“CDR”) field, breadth is simultaneously a blessing and a curse. On the bright side, the numerous approaches to CDR suggest the potential for deploying a diverse portfolio of CDR projects that reduces both the risks and costs of preventing climate change. But the down side of breadth is complexity, which makes the CDR field difficult to explain and envision, and can lead to confusion about how to catalyze development of CDR approaches as a result. In the graphic below, I’ve attempted to categorize and map the most prominent aspects of CDR in as comprehensive and clear a manner as possible:It is critical to note that not all of the elements of this graphic are exclusive to CDR. For example, direct air capture (“DAC”) machines can be used to create hydrocarbon fuels (instead of for carbon sequestration purposes). In a similar manner, biochar can be burned to create electricity instead of applied to soils as a carbon sink. Even more broadly, compressed CO2 can come from many places, including from fossil-fueled power plants with carbon capture and sequestration (“CCS”) systems. Unpacking how each of the elements for various CDR processes fit into wider industrial systems is critical for designing effective strategies for developing various CDR approaches — hopefully this visualization of the field can help with that process -- 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 post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [geo] Washington Post op ed
Well, yes, but despite the Cold War era fears, nuclear war has not yet happened in 70 years, not just because of Andrew's common interest argument, but because politicians and military men apparently reached the conclusion that nuclear bombs were an ineffective way of coercing other nations to do things. The same may be true for climate engineering. I would not commit myself to great optimism here, but I would propose that the history of nuclear weapons does not offer an evidentiary basis to say Von Neumann was right and possibilities once actual .. will be exploited. ᐧ On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Jim Fleming jflem...@colby.edu wrote: As argued in 1955: Present awful possibilities of nuclear warfare may give way to others even more awful. After global climate control becomes possible, perhaps all our present involvements will seem simple. We should not deceive ourselves: once such possibilities become actual, they will be exploited. -- John von Neumann, “Can We Survive Technology?” Fortune, June 1955, 106–108. James R. Fleming Professor of Science, Technology, and Society, Colby College Research Associate, Columbia University Series Editor, Palgrave Studies in the History of Science and Technology, bit.ly/THQMcd Profile: http://www.colby.edu/directory/profile/jfleming/ On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Olaf Corry toco...@gmail.com wrote: I agree with the basic idea that the politics of this will be likely to be very tricky (although - and partly for that reason - I remain unconvinced by the other premise of the article that SPI has been overwhelmingly shown to have net life-saving potential). Andrew, why the incredulity at a conflict scenario? The thing about international relations is that outcomes do not always reflect intentions or desired collective outcomes. History is full of consensus processes breaking down and collectively sub-optimal (to put it mildly) outcomes. Presumably everybody had an incentive to avoid the chaos of WW1 and stick to a consensus process... So the authors are right in my opinion to raise this problem regarding SRM. I would add that by complicating/souring the international diplomatic situation SRM could easily affect the ability to agree and cooperate internationally on mitigation and adaptation too, which we agree would still need to happen as fast as possible. If we are consistently outcome-ethical about it we probably shouldn't put the politics in one compartment and the evaluation of the technology in another one. Best regards Olaf Corry On Friday, 30 January 2015 09:18:54 UTC, andrewjlockley wrote: I disagree fundamentally with the premise of this article. A decision on climate has to be made. Everyone knows it. Everyone has an incentive to avoid chaos. Therefore, people have a very large incentive to stick to a consensus process, because anyone who doesn't stick will instantly break that consensus and cause chaos - which is a guaranteed loser for all. Same reason villagers don't burgle their neighbours when police are busy elsewhere dealing with a major incident. A On 30 Jan 2015 08:54, Andy Parker apar...@gmail.com wrote: Hey folks, the Washington Post just published an op ed on the messy politics of solar geoengineering, written by David Keith and me: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/whats-the-right- temperature-for-the-earth/2015/01/29/b2dda53a-7c05-11e4- 84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html -- 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 post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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.
RE: [geo]_Re:_A_graphic_to_help_map_the_Carbon_Dioxide_Removal_(“CDR”)_field_|_Deich
Noah,Nice clear graphic. Love it.Please add "C from N separation" within your Transformation approach.C (carbon) from N (plant nutrients, a big one being nitrogen as ammonia or nitrate) separation can be a fermentation or a chemical process. The most common fermentation is anaerobic digestion (AD). An up and coming chemical process is hydrothermal liquefaction (HL). Both processes economically produce energy in the form of CH4 and longer chain hydrocarbons. Both have a by-product of CO2 at about 40% of the biogas produced. (The HL biogas production is at 200 atm and 350C, which allows for very inexpensive production of pure CH4 separate from the pure CO2.)You should show both separation processes because they each scale much larger than any of the three (Biomass burial, Pyrolysis, or BECCS) you show currently. They scale larger because the plant nutrients are not sequestered with the carbon and they are both economically viable on the energy alone with wet biomass such as seaweed forests: as low as 1% solids for AD and as low as 10% solids for HL.Include an arrow over to "Pure compressed CO2" from each separation process.Your chart will be much more complete and accurate.Thank youMark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org Original Message Subject: [geo]_Re:_A_graphic_to_help_map_the_Carbon_Dioxide_Removal_(“CDR”)_field_|_Deich From: Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.com Date: Fri, January 30, 2015 10:49 am To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Noah,The statement that "...biochar can be burned to create electricity instead of applied to soils as a carbon sink." is questionable as biochar 'fuel' is charcoal. Only that which is buried is 'biochar'.Yet, I believe Ron Larson (IBI) can best express this point.Also, your mission objective of "map the most prominent aspects of CDR" would seem to open up the effort to listing the many important 'prominent aspect' of the biotic approach such as the production of food, feed, fuel, fertilizer, polymers and fresh water (etc.). In short, the biotic can pay for itself while the non-biotic can not.This is a profoundly important aspect which many authors in this field ignore. We must ask ourselves if we wish climate change mitigation to be at the whims of the political purse sting or financially independent and based solely on the science...not the thin ice of political popularity.Best,Michael On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 10:53:49 AM UTC-8, andrewjlockley wrote:https://carbonremoval.wordpress.com/2015/01/22/a-graphic-to-help-map-the-carbon-dioxide-removal-cdr-field/ Everything and the Carbon Sink Noah Deich's blog on all things Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) A graphic to help map the Carbon Dioxide Removal (“CDR”) field JANUARY 22, 2015 For the carbon dioxide removal (“CDR”) field, breadth is simultaneously ablessing and a curse.On the bright side, the numerous approaches to CDR suggest the potential for deployinga diverse portfolio of CDR projects thatreduces both the risks and costs of preventing climate change. But the down side of breadth is complexity, which makes the CDR field difficult to explain and envision, and can lead to confusion about how to catalyze development of CDR approaches as a result. In the graphic below, I’ve attempted tocategorize and map the most prominent aspects ofCDR in as comprehensive and cleara manner as possible:It is critical to notethat not all of the elements of this graphic are exclusive to CDR. For example, direct air capture (“DAC”) machines can be used to create hydrocarbon fuels (instead of for carbon sequestration purposes). In a similar manner, biochar can be burned to create electricity instead of applied to soils as a carbon sink. Even more broadly, compressed CO2 can come from many places, including from fossil-fueled power plants with carbon capture and sequestration (“CCS”) systems. Unpacking how each of the elements for various CDR processes fit into wider industrial systems is critical for designing effective strategies for developing various CDR approaches — hopefully this visualization of the field can help with that process -- 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 post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [geo] Washington Post op ed
I disagree fundamentally with the premise of this article. A decision on climate has to be made. Everyone knows it. Everyone has an incentive to avoid chaos. Therefore, people have a very large incentive to stick to a consensus process, because anyone who doesn't stick will instantly break that consensus and cause chaos - which is a guaranteed loser for all. Same reason villagers don't burgle their neighbours when police are busy elsewhere dealing with a major incident. A On 30 Jan 2015 08:54, Andy Parker apark...@gmail.com wrote: Hey folks, the Washington Post just published an op ed on the messy politics of solar geoengineering, written by David Keith and me: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/whats-the-right-temperature-for-the-earth/2015/01/29/b2dda53a-7c05-11e4-84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html -- 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 post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[geo] Washington Post op ed
Hey folks, the Washington Post just published an op ed on the messy politics of solar geoengineering, written by David Keith and me: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/whats-the-right-temperature-for-the-earth/2015/01/29/b2dda53a-7c05-11e4-84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html -- 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 post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [geo] Washington Post op ed
Hi All Andy Parker's concerns about international disputes over geoengineering might be reduced if only there was a technique which allowed a greater degree of local control and the chance of tactical adjustments based on day-to-day observations. It is the prospect of being stuck with an unwanted outcome for the next two years which must be alarming. Stephen Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering. University of Edinburgh. Mayfield Road. Edinburgh EH9 3JL. Scotland s.sal...@ed.ac.uk Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704 Cell 07795 203 195 WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change On 30/01/2015 09:18, Andrew Lockley wrote: I disagree fundamentally with the premise of this article. A decision on climate has to be made. Everyone knows it. Everyone has an incentive to avoid chaos. Therefore, people have a very large incentive to stick to a consensus process, because anyone who doesn't stick will instantly break that consensus and cause chaos - which is a guaranteed loser for all. Same reason villagers don't burgle their neighbours when police are busy elsewhere dealing with a major incident. A On 30 Jan 2015 08:54, Andy Parker apark...@gmail.com mailto:apark...@gmail.com wrote: Hey folks, the Washington Post just published an op ed on the messy politics of solar geoengineering, written by David Keith and me: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/whats-the-right-temperature-for-the-earth/2015/01/29/b2dda53a-7c05-11e4-84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html -- 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 mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number 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 to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
