Peter, Thank you for the question.
Sometimes political provocations are important to stimulate public action (as I expect you well know!). I also believe that Make Sunsets could morph into a useful and effective private direct climate cooling initiative, either within a carefully publicly regulated SAI regime, or using some other "cloud making" method. As I said none of us has a crystal ball but we need to support all possible methods and systems (including ownership and institutional within existing economic frameworks) to move cooling forward. Time is fleeting as I probably don't need to remind anyone on these lists! Best, Ron On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 3:42 PM Peter Fiekowsky <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> 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]> 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]* <[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]> <[email protected]> > *Date: *Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 7:34 AM > *To: *Tom Goreau <[email protected]> <[email protected]>, > Robert Chris <[email protected]> <[email protected]>, Douglas > Grandt <[email protected]> <[email protected]>, Ron Baiman > <[email protected]> <[email protected]> > *Cc: *peter jenkins <[email protected]> > <[email protected]>, 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings > <[email protected]> <[email protected]>, > Healthy Climate Alliance <[email protected]> > <[email protected]>, Planetary Restoration > <[email protected]> > <[email protected]>, geoengineering > <[email protected]> <[email protected]>, > healthy-planet-action-coalition > <[email protected]> > <[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]* <[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]> <[email protected]> > *Date: *Monday, February 27, 2023 at 3:36 PM > *To: *Robert Chris <[email protected]> <[email protected]>, > Douglas Grandt <[email protected]> <[email protected]>, Ron > Baiman <[email protected]> <[email protected]>, Tom Goreau > <[email protected]> <[email protected]> > *Cc: *peter jenkins <[email protected]> > <[email protected]>, 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings > <[email protected]> <[email protected]>, > Healthy Climate Alliance <[email protected]> > <[email protected]>, Planetary Restoration > <[email protected]> > <[email protected]>, geoengineering > <[email protected]> <[email protected]>, > healthy-planet-action-coalition > <[email protected]> > <[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]> > <[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-CO > 2 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]> wrote: > > > > *6.3 C (63% of 10) by 2020* > > > > On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 7:56 PM Ron Baiman <[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]> wrote: > > Thanks for the correction Robert! > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > On Feb 26, 2023, at 6:41 PM, Robert Chris <[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]. > 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]. > 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]. > 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]. > 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]. > 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]. > 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]. > 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/CAPhUB9Dm8V7mguygAq5fimQ1A3mpXovR8JBcAiNMzkRCa8Weqg%40mail.gmail.com.
