Ron- Pardon me for asking, but: 1. What exactly do you mean by “all hands on deck”? Who? Where? Why? When? 2. If you were successful, what outcome would we see?
Nevermind the how. We know a heck of a lot about SAI, MCB, and other techniques. Please explain the who, what, when, where, and why for your call to action. Again, I apologize for asking—it must be annoying. I hope you agree that getting this clarity is the only way success is possible. Peter From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Ron Baiman <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 12:01 PM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: Ye Tao <[email protected]>, Tom Goreau <[email protected]>, Robert Chris <[email protected]>, Douglas Grandt <[email protected]>, peter jenkins <[email protected]>, 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings <[email protected]>, Healthy Climate Alliance <[email protected]>, Planetary Restoration <[email protected]>, geoengineering <[email protected]>, healthy-planet-action-coalition <[email protected]> Subject: [HCA-list] Re: Make Sunsets stimulates more debate over "Geoengineering"- PT Barnum further vindicated! Thank you Robert, Achim and Paul, Needless to say, I agree. As expressed in my Make Sunsets blog, I believe that we need “all hands on deck” on cooling. Public, private, non-profit initiatives all have I think have different strengths that can help move direct climate cooling forward at speed and scope as with CDR and emissions reduction. On the cooling credits issue, as I’ve noted in earlier threads, its a bit more complicated than GHG credits as, depending on method, cooling is not generally a pure public good as GHG reduction is. Where, how, and how much is done makes more of a difference. And (as I believe we all agree) there are major risk issues for (effective) high leverage cooling initiatives that need to be carefully studied, monitored and adjusted for gradual ramp up (or down) that clearly require public implementation or very stringent public monitoring and regulation. But in my view, for now politically provocative private initiatives (that don’t cause any physical harm) like Make Sunsets can be helpful, and carbon credits allow for larger groups of citizens/customers to make their voices heard that direct climate cooling needs to be Implemented now! Best, Ron Sent from my iPhone On Mar 2, 2023, at 4:05 AM, [email protected] wrote: Ron We had some discussion on Radiative Forcing Credits at https://groups.google.com/g/planetary-restoration/c/02nphUdUtjU. This thread includes a link to the ISO 2019 Draft Document ISO/NP 14082 GHG management – Guidance for the quantification and reporting of radiative forcing based climate footprints and mitigation efforts. This was intended to develop a Standard on Radiative Forcing, but was abandoned. My discussion note https://planetaryrestoration.net/f/radiative-forcing-credits explores some broad parameters for pricing cooling credits. I was surprised the recent letter supporting SRM Research from 60 scientists<https://climate-intervention-research-letter.org/> claimed that SRM “likely will never be an appropriate candidate for an open market system of credits”. I disagree with this assertion. I have not seen any scientific or economic literature to back up this claim, which looks like a political reaction to Making Sunsets. Regards Robert Tulip From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Ron Baiman Sent: Wednesday, 1 March 2023 3:59 AM To: Ye Tao <[email protected]> Cc: Tom Goreau <[email protected]>; Robert Chris <[email protected]>; Douglas Grandt <[email protected]>; peter jenkins <[email protected]>; 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings <[email protected]>; Healthy Climate Alliance <[email protected]>; Planetary Restoration <[email protected]>; geoengineering <[email protected]>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [prag] [HCA-list] Make Sunsets stimulates more debate over "Geoengineering"- PT Barnum further vindicated! BTW, my impetus for launching this thread was to try to avoid making a factual error in this Make Sunsets guest blog post (https://makesunsets.com/blogs/news/pricing-cooling-credits ) and this discussion did indeed (I hope!) lead me to correct the sentence and avoid egg on face! This is the (edited) sentence in question: "And even more alarmingly, a recent draft paper by James Hansen (the climate scientist who warned the US Senate<https://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-begun-expert-tells-senate.html> in 1988 that climate change was happening) and coauthors suggests that 7-10 degrees C may already be in the pipeline<https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2212/2212.04474.pdf> even if we were to achieve net-zero today." Best, Ron On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 10:43 AM Ron Baiman <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Thank you all! This has been a good discussion. A copy of Tom's paper is attached below. Best, Ron On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 5:50 AM Ye Tao <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: That is way real scientists need to be in the field, at least one day per week;) Cheers, Ye On 2/28/2023 6:17 AM, Tom Goreau wrote: That paper, based on empirical climate data was ignored by model-oriented physicists because it showed their models did not describe the real world changes. IPCC attacked it because it disagreed with their low consensus values based on models that missed most of the feedbacks that we know must operate in the Earth climate system from the paleo-climate data. Eelco Rohling’s later independent analysis had much more data, and the conclusions were very robust. In the 33 years since then the models have gotten much better, especially Hansen’s, but they still can’t incorporate biological feedbacks that physicists don’t understand well enough to model. Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD President, Global Coral Reef Alliance Chief Scientist, Blue Regeneration SL President, Biorock Technology Inc. Technical Advisor, Blue Guardians Programme, SIDS DOCK 37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> www.globalcoral.org<http://www.globalcoral.org> Skype: tomgoreau Tel: (1) 617-864-4226 (leave message) Books: Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration, Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392 Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734 No one can change the past, everybody can change the future It’s much later than we think, especially if we don’t think Those with their heads in the sand will see the light when global warming and sea level rise wash the beach away Geotherapy: Regenerating ecosystem services to reverse climate change From: Ye Tao <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 7:34 AM To: Tom Goreau <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>, Robert Chris <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>, Douglas Grandt <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>, Ron Baiman <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> Cc: peter jenkins <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>, 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>, Healthy Climate Alliance <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>, Planetary Restoration <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>, geoengineering <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>, healthy-planet-action-coalition <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [prag] [HCA-list] Make Sunsets stimulates more debate over "Geoengineering"- PT Barnum further vindicated! Dear Tom, Thank you for sharing your 1990 paper<https://www.jstor.org/stable/4313702>. It is inspiring to see how relevant its contents remain 32 years later. In the paper, you highlight a fitted slope of 0.094C per ppm CO2 (200-280ppm data range). Linear extrapolation leads to 26C per doubling of CO2. You correctly pointed out that the extrapolation is not linear, but concave down, as shown also in this more recent piece.<https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo3036#:~:text=A%20doubling%20of%20CO2%20is%20estimated%20by%20the%20IPCC,of%203.7%20W%20m%E2%88%922.> Visual inspection suggests roughly a difference in slow of X2. So your results are consistent with a ESS, from 280-560 ppm eCO2, of ~10C per doubling. Your analyses thus appear consistent with those of Hansen et al. And Hansen's results are not only for short or intermediate timescales. The 10C per doubling for ESS they advance is for multi-millennia time scales as well. >From human and engineering intervention perspectives, the long-term ESS stops >being relevant beyond ESS>8C per doubling, this is because there is no way for >civilization to survive past 3-4C. What is needed is to achieve the capacity >to bring EEI<0 within a time frame of years to decades, well before 2.5C is >reached. Within this period, ECS remains relevant for describing reality. Best, Ye On 2/27/2023 1:42 PM, Tom Goreau wrote: No confusion Ye, the climate record that Eelco and I analyzed reflects the LONG-TERM response, not the short one or intermediate ones which Hansen and IPCC do, as it integrates over the 1.5 thousand year time lag intrinsically caused by ocean mixing. The long term prospect is more frightening, and should not be discounted away by short sighted analyses. Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD President, Global Coral Reef Alliance Chief Scientist, Blue Regeneration SL President, Biorock Technology Inc. Technical Advisor, Blue Guardians Programme, SIDS DOCK 37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> www.globalcoral.org<http://www.globalcoral.org> Skype: tomgoreau Tel: (1) 617-864-4226 (leave message) Books: Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration, Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392 Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734 No one can change the past, everybody can change the future It’s much later than we think, especially if we don’t think Those with their heads in the sand will see the light when global warming and sea level rise wash the beach away Geotherapy: Regenerating ecosystem services to reverse climate change From: Ye Tao <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> Date: Monday, February 27, 2023 at 3:36 PM To: Robert Chris <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>, Douglas Grandt <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>, Ron Baiman <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>, Tom Goreau <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> Cc: peter jenkins <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>, 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>, Healthy Climate Alliance <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>, Planetary Restoration <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>, geoengineering <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>, healthy-planet-action-coalition <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [prag] [HCA-list] Make Sunsets stimulates more debate over "Geoengineering"- PT Barnum further vindicated! Dear Ron and Tom, I think you have misunderstood my comments; they are entirely consistent with Hansen's results. I simply added some details that Hansen probably did not realize could help avoid confusing people outside of the simulation field. I suspect some of you were in shock because of the number 10C for ESS in the abstract. But this doesn't mean heating of 10C anytime soon. The critical element is time. ESS applies for thousands of years later. What this group had been discussing before I chipped in was about what happens by 2100. By the way, results in Hansen's paper are nothing new, save minor tweaks to numbers. It is simply the first time that the author group has collected key pieces of the climate puzzle in a comprehensive and cogent fashion. The fact that ECS could be up to 5C per W/m2 was known, for example, based on results reviewed by Sherwood et al 2020 (ref 28). I myself, through plotting historical data, was able to reproduce, back in 2019, the result of ESS ~ 7.5C (assuming aerosol was held constant at some average, ill-defined value during 2000-2019). Compare the following graph I made to Hansen's recent writing: "Today’s level of particulate air pollution reduces equilibrium warming to about 7°C" <image001.png> <image002.png> @Robert C., please feel free to forward any of my comments to Hansen, though they are basically rephrasing results in his paper. Perhaps the above figure could help them making the message clearer, that ESS=10C per W/m2 does not imply order 10C warming in our or our children's lifetimes. It is also worthwhile citing Snyder's work that I included in my previous comments. Best, Ye On 2/27/2023 11:36 AM, Ron Baiman wrote: Thank you Ye! I’m going to have to go over this in more detail and try to understand it but for now I think I’m going to stick with the direct quote from Hansen on p. 31 that I referenced and avoid prognosticating on timing until (or if and when) it appears that you and other experts in the field whom I respect have sorted this out more. For policy purposes it’s enough to point out that we’re very likely going to be in deep s**t even if get to net-zero GHG (natural and human) very quickly (which appears highly unlikely at this point) so that direct climate cooling is urgent now as Hansen el al. point out on p. 37 of the paper! Best, Ron Sent from my iPhone On Feb 27, 2023, at 8:17 AM, Ye Tao <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> wrote: On 2/27/2023 10:22 AM, Robert Chris wrote: Hi Ye Thanks for these comments. The Hansen et al paper is a prepublication draft and I know he is reworking it for final publication. Would you mind if I shared some of your comments with him as it would be hugely valuable to have him address some of the points you raise, if he is minded to do that. One of my problems with this paper is my lack of formation in the underlying climate science and modelling to be able to undertake a proper critical analysis. Like most others, I am obliged to assume that if Hansen is saying it, it must be true. But I'm sure that even Hansen would recognise that that's not necessarily a wise move! Regards Robert On 27/02/2023 14:17, Ye Tao wrote: Dear all, Thank you for a fascinating discussion. I believe there is a bit of confusion, which arises from the differing definitions for ECS (Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity, see p4 of article) vs ESS (Earth System Sensitivity, also p4). Bottom line: we will most likely NOT have a 6C increase in global average temperature by the end of the century by holding constant the current level of GHG. A highly probable range is 2.3C-4C. This is explained below. ECS is an artificial concept defined to enable computer model development and computational thought experiments. Its assessment requires holding constant slow-response components (forests and ice cover). These artificial constraints, which greatly simplify code and speed up calculations, cannot be strictly true in nature; we have seen forests burning up (cut down increasing quickly due to feedbacks in the human system) and we have witness dramatic arctic melting, all within decadal time scales. Therefore, ECS cannot be used directly to predict reality on and beyond the time scale on which these processes occur. Hence, Fig. 4 is not a surrogate for reality. In spite of its artificialness, projections based on a chosen ECS value is useful for describing a range of times (year to a few decades) when the simplifying assumptions of unchanging land surface types can be taken as approximately acceptable. This is also because some of these changes, when they do happen, can have mutually cancelling effects at the level of radiative forcing. For example, darkening arctic oceans could be partially compensated for by brighter barren landscape emerging out of clear-cut forests and burnt boreal forests. Within this short time scale, we can use ECS and the temperature response function of your (favorite) model to semi-quantitatively project future temperature trends. See Fig. 4 of paper for examples based on the GISS models. For all intents and purposes, you can trust Fig. 4, at the very most, to Year = 100 on the X axis. Beyond Year = 100, Fig. 4 is no longer useful for future projections. All we can say is that paleoclimate data potentially provides a constraint on how bad things could get thereafter. This is done by Hansen et al in Figure 7. Reality is most likely between Figures 4 and a scaled version (ESS/ECS). Regarding ESS, there is one caveat to keep in mind. The caveat is that the ESS value provided in the paper (10C per doubling of eCO2) is based on historical data at temperature ranges cooler than that of the present and near-future. And we are obviously heading to hotter, unprecedentedly warm territories for which paleoclimate data do not exist. In other words, ESS is itself a function of the temperature at which it is evaluated (taking the slope of the tangent point along the temperature axis, theoretically speaking. Linear fitting to a range of temperature data in practice.). There is evidence that ESS is a positive function of temperature: SNYDER, C. W. Revised estimates of paleoclimate sensitivity over the past 800,000 years. 2019. Climatic Change<https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-019-02536-0>. 156. 121–138<https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-019-02536-0>. The implication would be that going forward, ESS could well be larger than the 10C per doubling of eCO2 Hansen suggests. Oops! Luckily for us mortals, or unluckily since you are a curious person, no one on this list would live long enough, which requires waiting several thousand years, to see experimental verification of the actual value of ESS valid for the hotter end of the temperature range. Practically, in thinking about a real-world trajectory, one can consider the effective, realized climate sensitivity to morph towards larger values as time passes, from the small Transient climate response (TCR = 2C per doubling), to ECS (4C per doubling), and then to ESS (>10C per doubling). Discussions about what happens by the end of the century therefore could use values intermediate between ECS and ESS, i.e. somewhere between 4C per doubling of CO2 and somewhat larger than 10C per doubling of CO2. The implication of the discussion above is that your previous understanding of global warming by the end of the century is still valid. At the current level of GHG, with a rapidly successful decarbonization program that eliminated fossil fuel aerosols, we will likely see warming somewhere between 2.3C (as indicated by Figure 4, and the fact that a ECS of 3.5 was used in its making, in stead of a more likely 4) and 6C (scaled by the ESS/ECS=3 ratio). The actual value is more likely to be on the lower end of this range, i.e. between 2.3C and 4C. Note, importantly, that assumptions also include immediate carbon neutrality and holding constant current GHG levels, which for those of us who really thought deeply and understood the impossibility of meaningful CO2 capture, can readily accept as being compatible with a voluntary or involuntary contraction of the human enterprise, constrained by primary productivity projections and the inevitably increasing cost of energy production (declining EROI) going forward. Cheers, Ye On 2/27/2023 8:22 AM, Robert Chris wrote: Doug and Ron Here's how I arrived at my conclusions. >From the extracts below, I conclude, given that by 2020 (or thereabouts) we >had already doubled atmospheric GHGs from pre-industrial including non-CO2 >GHGs, that we will eventually warm the surface by 10oC with a climate response >e-folding time of ~100 years provided the offsetting cooling from >anthropogenic aerosols continues to decline and is eventually largely >eliminated. That means that by 2050 the warming would be ~2.4oC less the >residual aerosol cooling of, say 0.4oC, giving their estimate of 2oC. • When all feedbacks, including ice sheets, are allowed to respond to the climate forcing, the equilibrium response is approximately doubled, i.e., ESS is ~ 10°C. • Yet the time required for the [improved] model to achieve 63% of its equilibrium response remains about 100 years. (See Fig 4b – note log x-axis.) • With all trace gases included, the increase of GHG effective forcing between 1750 and 2021 is 4.09W/m2, which is equivalent to increasing the 1750 CO2 amount (278 ppm) to 561 ppm (formulae in Supporting Material). We have already reached the GHG climate forcing level of doubled CO2. [Note that they develop a scaling factor of 2.4oC per W/m2 which corresponds to 10oC for the 4W/m2 of current GHG forcing.] • Declining aerosol amount implies acceleration of global warming above the 1970-2010 rate. • Global temperature responds reliably to climate forcing on decadal time scales, with about 50% of the response in the first decade, with about 15% more in the next 100 years • we expect some [aerosol] reduction and a forcing increase of at least +0.1 W/m2 per decade [between 2010 and 2050]. • we estimate that the global warming rate in 2010-2040 will be at least 50% greater than in 1970-2010, i.e., at least 0.27°C per decade. • The poster child for warming in the pipeline is Fig. 7, showing that equilibrium warming for today’s GHG level, including slow feedbacks, is about 10°C. Today’s level of particulate air pollution reduces equilibrium warming to about 7°C. • The 7-10°C global warming is the eventual response if today’s level of GHGs is fixed and the aerosol amount is somewhere between its year 2000 amount and preindustrial amount. (emphasis added) [Note that the assumptions here are that ‘today’s level of GHGs is fixed’, which I take to mean that future emissions are ignored, and aerosols are currently lower than they were in 2000.] Here's a simple graph showing the realisation of 10oC of warming with an e-folding time of 100 years. Assume it starts in 2020 or thereabouts (when atmospheric CO2e reached 556ppmv.). <image003.png> Regards Robert On 27/02/2023 03:50, Douglas Grandt wrote: Ron and Robert, Visually, the shape of the curve is something like this … more or less … as best I can fathom. This is my interpretation of Hansen's assumptions and conclusions, but I very well could be wrong … Perhaps somebody has chart generating software that would be more precise than my eyeball. Doug On Feb 26, 2023, at 8:58 PM, Ron Baiman <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: *6.3 C (63% of 10) by 2020* On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 7:56 PM Ron Baiman <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Robert, Do you have a page number or an explanation of how you arrived at your figures? In the paper(https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.04474) on p. 31 I'm finding: "The 7-10 C global warming is the eventual response if today's level of GHGs is fixed and the aerosol amount is somewhere between its year 2000 amount and preindustrial amount." but the key temp Figure 7 on p. 18 doesn't extend beyond 2025. In the section on Climate response times (p. 32) the paper states that the in 2020 GISS GCM: "...the time required for the model to achieve 63% of its equilibrium response remains about 100 years" which would put the expected temp based on forcing estimated in the paper at 6.3 C (63% or 10) by 2023. Is this where you're getting your 6.3 C by 2120 from? Unfortunately, I have not had the time (and probably not the background) to go through the entire paper and understand it well! Best, Ron On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 7:09 PM Ron Baiman <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Thanks for the correction Robert! Sent from my iPhone On Feb 26, 2023, at 6:41 PM, Robert Chris <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Ron Hansen et al say that the 10degC is based on 'today's GHG level' and that it has an e-folding time of 100 years. That implies 6.3degC by 2120 and a bit less by 2100. Regards Robert On 26/02/2023 23:43, Ron Baiman wrote: Jim Hansen et al (https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.04474 ) believe that existing legacy GHG's have put us in "in the pipeline" for 10 degrees C warming by 2100! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAPhUB9A%3D%3D7ReMcX972gAa21YTb%2B4a%2BmkHDgqFvo2d0adZJWydg%40mail.gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAPhUB9A%3D%3D7ReMcX972gAa21YTb%2B4a%2BmkHDgqFvo2d0adZJWydg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/2e9fce17-12d2-31c1-d31c-0dfc48ea3737%40gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/2e9fce17-12d2-31c1-d31c-0dfc48ea3737%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/b09db825-6075-04fc-f205-8cfdd0c3a7de%40gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/b09db825-6075-04fc-f205-8cfdd0c3a7de%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/D7AF1344-EBF3-4016-B0DA-C549BA4F0F0B%40globalcoral.org<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/D7AF1344-EBF3-4016-B0DA-C549BA4F0F0B%40globalcoral.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NOAC Meetings" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/CAPhUB9CZawwYP9vYz7te%3DUe060LE1brqNOL3irDJRZy6jRzPjg%40mail.gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/CAPhUB9CZawwYP9vYz7te%3DUe060LE1brqNOL3irDJRZy6jRzPjg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/1e8001d94cee%248bcc74e0%24a3655ea0%24%40rtulip.net<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/1e8001d94cee%248bcc74e0%24a3655ea0%24%40rtulip.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Climate Alliance" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-climate-alliance/9B2104A9-323E-4537-9E17-43A055F7B10E%40gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-climate-alliance/9B2104A9-323E-4537-9E17-43A055F7B10E%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/BY3PR19MB5076F03E8F9FC1E2B5A8C149FFB29%40BY3PR19MB5076.namprd19.prod.outlook.com.
