Dear Colleagues, My apologies! It's been pointed out to me that I sent out the wrong IMO MEPC committee representatives and advisors link. This is the correct one:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wlKHNs3jwXIKFEn_GD0DSaLT-Luvscrq/view?usp=drivesdk Best, Ron On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 3:57 PM Ron Baiman <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > Alan's post has reminded me that while we're on the topic of the urgent > need for near-term climate cooling, it would be good to ask if any of you > have any contacts with any International Maritime Organization (IMO) > representatives or advisors in this document: > https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Z1qaOARNFTpvkGKKhlABrsr8UB9FhqDx > who might be open to getting their delegations to support our open letter > to the IMO: > https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/4/1/kgae008/7706251?searchresult=1? > > The lead staff scientist at the IMO has encouraged us to find a country(s) > or NGO(s) with IMO standing that would submit this to the IMO's Marine > Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) of which she is the Secretary, but > so far no luck! Note that as the IMO office is in London some of the Reps > are based there (UK based HPAC members have tried valiantly to get in touch > with the UK Rep but also no luck). > > Any help that any of you might be able to offer on this would be greatly > appreciated! > > Best, > Ron > > > > On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 3:27 PM Alan Gadian <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Jim, >> >> I still argue water vapour 51% (62% no clouds ) and 19% ( 25%) >> contributes to IR warming and co2 increases now no longer dominate the >> rises. With es(T) at 7% for each degree rise in surface air temperatures, >> then by 2-3 C rise gives a huge positive feedback , clouds or no clouds. A >> plot on a Elsaser diagram shows this. The radiative models don’t include >> it properly. Bignell’s water vapour continuum paper shows it works. Study >> of the planets mars and venus shows it. >> >> Thus in my opinion ECS is bigger than 5 ( may be 8) C. Look at the >> steepness of the current temperature curve increase. If ECS was say 4 the >> hysterisis would start to flatten off and it’s not. >> >> Thus I do think lovelock ( re verge of gaia, 2009) is correct , >> catastrophic weather events start by 2035 and martyn rees ( astronomer >> royal’s ) prediction for the end of the century are in the right ball park. >> Best wishes >> Alan >> >> T --- >> Alan Gadian, UK. >> Tel: +44 / 0 775 451 9009 >> T --- >> >> On 20 May 2025, at 20:57, James Hansen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Thanks, Dan. >> >> It's a similar story with ECS implied by comparison of glacial and >> interglacial states. >> >> The forcings that maintain the glacial-interglacial temperature change >> are almost entirely: >> (1) Atmosphere: GHG change, >> (2) Surface: change of ice sheet size >> >> Vegetation change also affects surface albedo, but it's a small effect >> and an estimate for it is included, even in our 1984 paper. >> Biology affects aerosols, but glacial-interglacial aerosol change is a >> climate feedback, part of the cloud-aerosol feedback (not a forcing); the >> biology effect is included in the empirical global temperature change. >> [Why is the biology effect (change of surface albedo due to change of >> vegetation distribution) included as a forcing, while the biology effect on >> aerosols is bookkept as a feedback? Because we have knowledge of the change >> of surface vegetation distribution, while the N aerosol types are unknown, >> especially their main effect, which would be via impact on clouds. So, the >> only choice is to leave it in the feedback category. These arbitrary >> forcing/feedback designations for vegetation and aerosols are small >> potatoes compared with GHG and ice sheet albedo changes.] >> >> Biology was sure a BFD in maintaining the fiction of 3C sensitivity for >> several decades. CLIMAP and MARGO estimated that LGM cooling was only about >> 3.6C based on their assumption that the microscopic marine biology would >> migrate to stay in the same temperature range where they exist today. >> Actual LGM cooling was almost a factor of two larger. >> >> Jim >> >> On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 12:52 PM Dan Miller <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Herb: >>> >>> I read Dr. Mararieva’s comments and I don’t believe she understood Jim’s >>> recent communication fully. I explain Jim’s latest communication it in my >>> recent Climate Chat program <https://youtube.com/live/NxV1IbHt7fU>. In >>> a nutshell, the Earth dimmed by 0.5% in the past 25 years. There are 3 >>> main causes: 1) Less sea ice, 2) changes to aerosols, and 3) could >>> feedbacks. We know (1) well from direct observation. The IPCC thinks (2) >>> is less than Jim does, but if that it true then (3) is even bigger than Jim >>> says. The bottom line is that there are large cloud feedbacks (less clouds >>> as the planet warms) which implies a large ECS (4.5ºC). See my interview >>> with George Tselioudis for more on cloud feedback: >>> >>> Global Warming➔Fewer Clouds➔More Warming! with *George Tselioudis* >>> >>> https://youtube.com/live/suFZb2ViHoA >>> >>> While biological processes of course play a role in climate change, it’s >>> hard to see how a biological process played a role in changing the Earth’s >>> albedo by 0.5% in the past 25 years, unless such process plays a major role >>> in short-term cloud cover. Even if it did, it does not change Jim’s >>> conclusions since he doesn’t say why the cloud feedback is so large, just >>> that it is. >>> >>> Dan >>> >>> >>> On May 19, 2025, at 6:09 PM, H simmens <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Jim, >>> >>> I know that your time is short but if you have a few moments I’d love to >>> get your response to Dr Anastassia Mararieva’s (who has a PhD in >>> atmospheric physics and formulated the concept of the biotic pump ) article >>> on Substack published today. >>> >>> She argues that the biosphere is neglected in both your work and the >>> work of most mainstream climate modelers and scientists (I’m >>> oversimplifying her argument of course but it touches on ECS, aerosols, >>> clouds and much more.) >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Herb >>> >>> >>> <824ddf00-4ae0-486f-8adc-ed98368ab92b_610x728.png> >>> >>> On the scientific essence of Dr. James Hansen's recent appeal >>> <https://open.substack.com/pub/bioticregulation/p/on-the-scientific-essense-of-dr-james?r=1o7sd&utm_medium=ios> >>> open.substack.com >>> <https://open.substack.com/pub/bioticregulation/p/on-the-scientific-essense-of-dr-james?r=1o7sd&utm_medium=ios> >>> >>> <https://open.substack.com/pub/bioticregulation/p/on-the-scientific-essense-of-dr-james?r=1o7sd&utm_medium=ios> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Herb >>> >>> >>> Herb Simmens >>> Author of *A Climate Vocabulary of the Future* >>> “A SciencePoem and an Inspiration.” Kim Stanley Robinson >>> @herbsimmens >>> HerbSimmens.com >>> >>> >>> On May 19, 2025, at 8:39 PM, James Hansen <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> o.k., well-taken -- I just wanted to make the point that, if you start >>> out accepting IPCC's best estimate for aerosol forcing, there is a human >>> tendency, given the choice of many models/parameters, to choose the >>> model/parameters that yield realistic global warming -- and this is a way >>> to "bake in" the ECS (3C for doubled CO2) that agrees with the assumed >>> (IPCC) aerosol forcing. >>> Jim >>> >>> On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 8:20 PM Michael MacCracken <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Jim--No need for a back and forth. I did not mean to dismiss your >>>> calculation of sensitivity possibly being 4.5 C and don't disagree that the >>>> set of parameters used in models now do tend toward yielding a 3 C >>>> sensitivity. Indeed, I found your latest results very interesting, high as >>>> the sensitivity seems if one goes back to when the CO2 concentration is >>>> thought to be 4 or more times preindustrial. >>>> >>>> In my interactions with Ron and others, I was interpreting their >>>> remarks to be saying that the climate sensitivity was directly specified as >>>> 3 C in the models independent of how the processes work and come together, >>>> and I wanted to say that that is not the case. At least that was what I was >>>> intending to say. I should perhaps have made more clear your point that >>>> some of the parameters in the existing model should, based on the time >>>> history of observations and seeking to match the model results to them >>>> could well be indicating that different parameters regarding cloud feedback >>>> are likely the case and this could lead to the higher sensitivity and >>>> improved the match to the multiple types of observations that you consider. >>>> >>>> Good luck for your move back to New York City. >>>> >>>> Best, Mike >>>> On 5/19/25 8:00 PM, James Hansen wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Mike et al., >>>> >>>> I can't get involved in a back-and-forth -- we are in the process of >>>> moving back to NYC, to live in a Columbia apartment to avoid time wasted in >>>> commuting and taking care of a house/property. However, I'm surprised by >>>> your comment, Mike. Most GCM groups make hundreds, if not more, GCM runs >>>> between one IPCC report and the next, and there are hundreds, if not more, >>>> model parameters. There is a widespread, if not universal, tendency to >>>> prefer those model configurations that yield a magnitude of warming in the >>>> past 200 years that is consistent with observations. In this way, wittingly >>>> or not, the 3C sensitivity is "baked into" the models -- because, as we >>>> showed in our "Acceleration" the usual aerosol forcing employed is close to >>>> the IPCC best estimate for aerosol forcing. As shown by a graph in the >>>> Supplementary Information of our paper, the change of the IPCC aerosol >>>> forcing during the period of rapid warming is negligible. In such case, the >>>> climate sensitivity required to match the observed warming rate is ~3C for >>>> 2xCO2. However, if the aerosol forcing increased by ~0.5 W/m2 (became more >>>> negative) during 1970-2005, as simulated by Bauer et al. and as >>>> independently inferred in our paper, then a climate sensitivity of ~4.5C is >>>> required to match the observed warming. >>>> >>>> However, the temperature change in the last 200 years is only one of >>>> the three independent ways that we obtain the 4.5C sensitivity, and the >>>> other two are much cleaner, independent of the GCM issues. >>>> >>>> High climate sensitivity demanded by large cloud feedback, clearly >>>> shown by Earth's darkening in the past 25 years, is summarized in the >>>> recent communication to my email list. >>>> >>>> The third method is described in our "Global warming in the pipeline" >>>> paper: comparison of equilibrium glacial and interglacial climates. For >>>> several decades, based largely on CLIMAP and "confirmed" by MARGO, it was >>>> believed that the LGM was only 3-4C colder than the Holocene. Thanks >>>> especially to Alan Seltzer, we now know that the LGM was 6-7C colder, which >>>> demands the higher ECS -- several new paleo studies confirm the high ECS. >>>> >>>> Best, Jim >>>> >>>> On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 3:39 PM 'Michael MacCracken' via geoengineering >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Ron et al.--Just a note that the 3 C sensitivity is not "embedded" in >>>>> the climate models. That is the value that emerges from the >>>>> representations >>>>> of the various physical processes that play out against each other. So, >>>>> assuming the observations and resulting analyses are accurate, for there >>>>> to >>>>> be a higher sensitivity, it might be that some of the processes are not >>>>> parameterized in a way that fully represents possibilities and realities >>>>> (observations to calibrate parameterizations can be drawn from only >>>>> the conditions we are experiencing), some processes are not >>>>> represented at all (viewed as long-term such as isostatic rebound, etc.), >>>>> the resolution of the models is not fine enough to treat aspects of the >>>>> processes, etc. In any case, however, the 3 C sensitivity is not built >>>>> into >>>>> the models. >>>>> >>>>> Mike >>>>> On 5/19/25 1:49 PM, Ron Baiman wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Thank you LDM and Dan, >>>>> >>>>> @LDM: >>>>> >>>>> (IMO) Thanks for sharing! IMO this recent Hansen and Kharecha >>>>> Newsletter with further evidence supporting a climate sensitivity of 4.5 >>>>> rather than the established IPCC value of 3.0 that is (as I understand it) >>>>> embedded in most current climate models, is excellent and should be widely >>>>> distributed, per these last two paragraphs: >>>>> >>>>> "Criticisms of the Acceleration paper in the media did not address the >>>>> physics in our three assessments of >>>>> climate sensitivity. Instead, criticisms were largely ad hoc opinions, >>>>> even ad hominem attacks. How can >>>>> science reporting have descended to this level? Climate science is now >>>>> so complex, with many sub- >>>>> disciplines, that the media must rely on opinions of climate experts. >>>>> Although there are thousands of >>>>> capable scientists in these disciplines, the media have come to depend >>>>> on a handful of scientists, a clique >>>>> of climate scientists who are willing, or even eager, to be the voice >>>>> of the climate science community. >>>>> But are they representative of the total community, of capable >>>>> scientists who focus on climate science? >>>>> We have lamented9 the absence of scientists with the breadth of >>>>> understanding of say Jule Charney or >>>>> Francis Bretherton,10 or our beloved, sometimes crotchety, former >>>>> colleague, Wally Broecker. However, >>>>> the truth is that there are many scientists out there with a depth of >>>>> understanding at least as great as the >>>>> clique of scientists that the media rely on. Given the success of this >>>>> clique in painting us as outliers, we >>>>> are dependent on the larger community being willing to help educate >>>>> the media about the current climate >>>>> situation. For that purpose, we will discuss – one-by-one in upcoming >>>>> communications – several of the >>>>> matters that are raised in our papers. Thanks for your attention." >>>>> >>>>> @Dan: Thanks for sharing! I will definitely give this a listen! >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Ron >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 4:04 PM LDM <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2025/CloudFeedback.13May2025.pdf >>>>>> >>>>>> Large Cloud Feedback Confirms High Climate Sensitivity >>>>>> James Hansen and Pushker Kharecha >>>>>> 13 May 2025 >>>>>> >>>>>> Abstract. >>>>>> >>>>>> Earth’s albedo (reflectivity) declined over the 25 years of precise >>>>>> satellite data, with the decline so large that this change must be mainly >>>>>> reduced reflection of sunlight by clouds. Part of the cloud change is >>>>>> caused by reduction of human-made atmospheric aerosols, which act as >>>>>> condensation nuclei for cloud formation, but most of the cloud change is >>>>>> cloud feedback that occurs with global warming. The observed albedo >>>>>> change >>>>>> proves that clouds provide a large, amplifying, climate feedback. This >>>>>> large cloud feedback confirms high climate sensitivity, consistent with >>>>>> paleoclimate data and with the rate of global warming in the past >>>>>> century. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://youtu.be/NxV1IbHt7fU >>>>>> >>>>>> When Will We Go Over 2ºC? & Hansen's Cloud Update >>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/@climatechat> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 9:09 PM Ron Baiman <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Wow! Thanks for sharing Renaud. I haven't read it but from the >>>>>>> abstract it (very unfortunate for all of us humans and most other >>>>>>> species, >>>>>>> but not really surprising for many of us humans) looks like forecasts of >>>>>>> Hansen et al. 2024 are being vindicated! >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> Ron >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 9:51 AM Renaud de RICHTER < >>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Earth's Energy Imbalance More Than Doubled in Recent Decades >>>>>>>> https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024AV001636 >>>>>>>> Abstract >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Global warming results from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions >>>>>>>> which upset the delicate balance between the incoming sunlight, and the >>>>>>>> reflected and emitted radiation from Earth. The imbalance leads to >>>>>>>> energy >>>>>>>> accumulation in the atmosphere, oceans and land, and melting of the >>>>>>>> cryosphere, resulting in increasing temperatures, rising sea levels, >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> more extreme weather around the globe. Despite the fundamental role of >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> energy imbalance in regulating the climate system, as known to >>>>>>>> humanity for >>>>>>>> more than two centuries, our capacity to observe it is rapidly >>>>>>>> deteriorating as satellites are being decommissioned. >>>>>>>> Key Points >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Earth's energy imbalance more than doubled in recent decades >>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The large trend has taken us by surprise, and as a community we >>>>>>>> should strive to understand the underlying causes >>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Our capability to observe the Earth's energy imbalance and >>>>>>>> budget terms is threatened as satellites are decommissioned >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Plain Language Summary >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Global warming is caused by the imbalance between the incoming >>>>>>>> radiation from the Sun and the reflected and outgoing infrared >>>>>>>> radiation >>>>>>>> from the Earth. The imbalance leads to energy accumulation in the >>>>>>>> atmosphere, oceans and land, and melting of the cryosphere, resulting >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> increasing temperatures, rising sea levels, and more extreme weather >>>>>>>> around >>>>>>>> the globe according the the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on >>>>>>>> Climate Change (IPCC). Observations from space of the energy imbalance >>>>>>>> shows that it is rising much faster than expected, and in 2023 it >>>>>>>> reached >>>>>>>> values two times higher than the best estimate from IPCC. We argue >>>>>>>> that we >>>>>>>> must strive to better understand this fundamental change in Earth's >>>>>>>> climate >>>>>>>> state, and ensure our capacity to monitor it in the future. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> 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 visit >>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAHodn9-e2iCfiPJYDRnv2TTcjgCueetUw9Fs83Tp48B2gA0jJA%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAHodn9-e2iCfiPJYDRnv2TTcjgCueetUw9Fs83Tp48B2gA0jJA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Healthy Planet Action Coalition >>>>>>> <http://www.healthyplanetaction.org/> >>>>>>> YouTube Channel >>>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdt5vatByfyg-Pm9Vu6ahZg> >>>>>>> @HPACoalition (Bluesky and Twitter/X) >>>>>>> Addressing the Urgent Need for Direct Climate Cooling: Rationale >>>>>>> and Options >>>>>>> <https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/4/1/kgae014/7731760> >>>>>>> Baiman et al. 2024. *Oxford Open Climate Change* >>>>>>> An Open Letter to the IMO Supporting Maritime Transport that Cools >>>>>>> the Atmosphere While Preserving Air Quality Benefits >>>>>>> <https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/4/1/kgae008/7706251>. Baiman >>>>>>> et al. 2024. *Oxford Open Climate Change* >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Healthy Planet Action Coalition <http://www.healthyplanetaction.org/> >>>>> YouTube Channel >>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdt5vatByfyg-Pm9Vu6ahZg> >>>>> @HPACoalition (Bluesky and Twitter/X) >>>>> Addressing the Urgent Need for Direct Climate Cooling: Rationale and >>>>> Options <https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/4/1/kgae014/7731760> >>>>> Baiman et al. 2024. *Oxford Open Climate Change* >>>>> An Open Letter to the IMO Supporting Maritime Transport that Cools the >>>>> Atmosphere While Preserving Air Quality Benefits >>>>> <https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/4/1/kgae008/7706251>. Baiman >>>>> et al. 2024. *Oxford Open Climate Change* >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 visit >>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAPhUB9CnQHnNxxw0m238XK9mxSatsHedxndUf7vO0KoQkVeiXQ%40mail.gmail.com >>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAPhUB9CnQHnNxxw0m238XK9mxSatsHedxndUf7vO0KoQkVeiXQ%40mail.gmail.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 visit >>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/4e23a031-1d90-429f-b962-a428e82fc7ac%40comcast.net >>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/4e23a031-1d90-429f-b962-a428e82fc7ac%40comcast.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>> . >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Jim Hansen, Director >>>> Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions Program >>>> Columbia University Earth Institute >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAEL%2B3vM1eBgxrNdGNjtUOKv75kMx43UgfVnEu-T06SL7wOhYDQ%40mail.gmail.com >>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAEL%2B3vM1eBgxrNdGNjtUOKv75kMx43UgfVnEu-T06SL7wOhYDQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>> . >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Jim Hansen, Director >>> Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions Program >>> Columbia University Earth Institute >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAEL%2B3vO5E93xpZ7AMjTnj2ZAW-eatojgqdgaHCe0MNaVqG7dOw%40mail.gmail.com >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAEL%2B3vO5E93xpZ7AMjTnj2ZAW-eatojgqdgaHCe0MNaVqG7dOw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> To view this discussion visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CB437C74-6612-4B50-8265-C1AE6E70E98C%40gmail.com >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CB437C74-6612-4B50-8265-C1AE6E70E98C%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Jim Hansen, Director >> Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions Program >> Columbia University Earth Institute >> >> -- >> 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 visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAEL%2B3vMiZP8F10jcFOhDVnrZH8XOZqp1DKitmpyE%2BYgwsGi8Pw%40mail.gmail.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAEL%2B3vMiZP8F10jcFOhDVnrZH8XOZqp1DKitmpyE%2BYgwsGi8Pw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> >> > > -- > Healthy Planet Action Coalition <http://www.healthyplanetaction.org> > YouTube Channel <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdt5vatByfyg-Pm9Vu6ahZg> > @HPACoalition (Bluesky and Twitter/X) > Addressing the Urgent Need for Direct Climate Cooling: Rationale and > Options <https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/4/1/kgae014/7731760> > Baiman et al. 2024. *Oxford Open Climate Change* > An Open Letter to the IMO Supporting Maritime Transport that Cools the > Atmosphere While Preserving Air Quality Benefits > <https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/4/1/kgae008/7706251>. Baiman et > al. 2024. *Oxford Open Climate Change* > -- Healthy Planet Action Coalition <http://www.healthyplanetaction.org> YouTube Channel <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdt5vatByfyg-Pm9Vu6ahZg> @HPACoalition (Bluesky and Twitter/X) Addressing the Urgent Need for Direct Climate Cooling: Rationale and Options <https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/4/1/kgae014/7731760> Baiman et al. 2024. *Oxford Open Climate Change* An Open Letter to the IMO Supporting Maritime Transport that Cools the Atmosphere While Preserving Air Quality Benefits <https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/4/1/kgae008/7706251>. Baiman et al. 2024. *Oxford Open Climate Change* -- 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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAPhUB9D3g5tBcgaWDiXUGkvxS1YrW3hP5jLhwbYapCH-WF%3DxhA%40mail.gmail.com.
