RE: [geo] Experiment Currently Taking Place in the Arctic?
Hello All, I'm told that it might be an airborne study associated with the SPICE project, but I cant gauge the accuracy of that supposition. Cheers, John. John Latham Address: P.O. Box 3000,MMM,NCAR,Boulder,CO 80307-3000 Email: lat...@ucar.edu or john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk Tel: (US-Work) 303-497-8182 or (US-Home) 303-444-2429 or (US-Cell) 303-882-0724 or (UK) 01928-730-002 http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/latham From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Hawkins, Dave [dhawk...@nrdc.org] Sent: 17 June 2013 01:33 To: joshuahorton...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [geo] Experiment Currently Taking Place in the Arctic? Sounds like a modeling exercise: stimulating should be simulating, I assume. Typed on tiny keyboard. Caveat lector. On Jun 16, 2013, at 6:39 PM, Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.commailto:joshuahorton...@gmail.com wrote: Hi everyone, Near the end of a recent, otherwise unremarkable story about geoengineering at RTCC (link below), Piers Forster from Leeds University is quoted as follows: “There is one experiment we’re currently undertaking – we’re trying to look at rescuing Arctic Ice by stimulating aeroplanes flying from Spitzbergen in Norway – and dump out a lot of Sulphur Dioxide, and we’re trying to look at that as a very short term protection against the loss of Arctic Ice. (http://www.rtcc.org/scientists-warn-earth-cooling-proposals-are-no-climate-silver-bullet/) Does anyone know what he is talking about? Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.commailto:joshuahorton...@gmail.com -- 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.commailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Experiment Currently Taking Place in the Arctic?
Apologies - replied only to John first time. Also, I've changed the link for iagp to correct. It is interesting where iagp.org (my original choice) points... John, Josh et al., Piers Morgan is a modeller at Leeds, who runs the IAGP project - www.iagp.http://www.iagp.org/ ac.uk. It is undoubtedly a modelling effort and a typo if it pertains to his work. To be absolutely clear, SPICE is not involved in any experiment that sprays anything anywhere. Our one effort to investigate pumping technologies (using water) was, as I'm sure you're all aware, called off. If there is an experiment to 'dump out a lot of Sulphur Dioxide' SPICE is (a) not involved and (b) would be extremely alarmed. Matt On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 7:39 AM, John Latham john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk wrote: Hello All, I'm told that it might be an airborne study associated with the SPICE project, but I cant gauge the accuracy of that supposition. Cheers, John. John Latham Address: P.O. Box 3000,MMM,NCAR,Boulder,CO 80307-3000 Email: lat...@ucar.edu or john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk Tel: (US-Work) 303-497-8182 or (US-Home) 303-444-2429 or (US-Cell) 303-882-0724 or (UK) 01928-730-002 http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/latham From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Hawkins, Dave [dhawk...@nrdc.org] Sent: 17 June 2013 01:33 To: joshuahorton...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [geo] Experiment Currently Taking Place in the Arctic? Sounds like a modeling exercise: stimulating should be simulating, I assume. Typed on tiny keyboard. Caveat lector. On Jun 16, 2013, at 6:39 PM, Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com mailto:joshuahorton...@gmail.com wrote: Hi everyone, Near the end of a recent, otherwise unremarkable story about geoengineering at RTCC (link below), Piers Forster from Leeds University is quoted as follows: “There is one experiment we’re currently undertaking – we’re trying to look at rescuing Arctic Ice by stimulating aeroplanes flying from Spitzbergen in Norway – and dump out a lot of Sulphur Dioxide, and we’re trying to look at that as a very short term protection against the loss of Arctic Ice. ( http://www.rtcc.org/scientists-warn-earth-cooling-proposals-are-no-climate-silver-bullet/ ) Does anyone know what he is talking about? Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.commailto:joshuahorton...@gmail.com -- 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.commailto: 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Experiment Currently Taking Place in the Arctic?
OK - I generally have a no email before my second cup of coffee rule, which I broke this morning as I wanted to make sure John's point was quickly dealt with. I did of course mean Piers Forster not Piers Morgan (thanks Simon Driscoll for pointing this out). Another rumour to add to the mill thanks to me... ho hum... Matt On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Matthew Watson matthew.wat...@gmail.comwrote: Apologies - replied only to John first time. Also, I've changed the link for iagp to correct. It is interesting where iagp.org (my original choice) points... John, Josh et al., Piers Morgan is a modeller at Leeds, who runs the IAGP project - www.iagp.http://www.iagp.org/ ac.uk. It is undoubtedly a modelling effort and a typo if it pertains to his work. To be absolutely clear, SPICE is not involved in any experiment that sprays anything anywhere. Our one effort to investigate pumping technologies (using water) was, as I'm sure you're all aware, called off. If there is an experiment to 'dump out a lot of Sulphur Dioxide' SPICE is (a) not involved and (b) would be extremely alarmed. Matt On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 7:39 AM, John Latham john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk wrote: Hello All, I'm told that it might be an airborne study associated with the SPICE project, but I cant gauge the accuracy of that supposition. Cheers, John. John Latham Address: P.O. Box 3000,MMM,NCAR,Boulder,CO 80307-3000 Email: lat...@ucar.edu or john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk Tel: (US-Work) 303-497-8182 or (US-Home) 303-444-2429 or (US-Cell) 303-882-0724 or (UK) 01928-730-002 http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/latham From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Hawkins, Dave [dhawk...@nrdc.org] Sent: 17 June 2013 01:33 To: joshuahorton...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [geo] Experiment Currently Taking Place in the Arctic? Sounds like a modeling exercise: stimulating should be simulating, I assume. Typed on tiny keyboard. Caveat lector. On Jun 16, 2013, at 6:39 PM, Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com mailto:joshuahorton...@gmail.com wrote: Hi everyone, Near the end of a recent, otherwise unremarkable story about geoengineering at RTCC (link below), Piers Forster from Leeds University is quoted as follows: “There is one experiment we’re currently undertaking – we’re trying to look at rescuing Arctic Ice by stimulating aeroplanes flying from Spitzbergen in Norway – and dump out a lot of Sulphur Dioxide, and we’re trying to look at that as a very short term protection against the loss of Arctic Ice. ( http://www.rtcc.org/scientists-warn-earth-cooling-proposals-are-no-climate-silver-bullet/ ) Does anyone know what he is talking about? Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.commailto:joshuahorton...@gmail.com -- 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.commailto: 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Climate talk shifts from curbing CO2 to adapting
I strongly agree. If we fall into the trap of a viewing this situation as a false dichotomy, then we're making it much worse and dramatically reducing our chances of dealing with it as optimally as is still possible, given the current carbon content of the atmosphere, our infrastructure, etc. I can't estimate how many times I've heard the message that we will have no choice but to mitigate and adapt and (very likely; a full-on certainty, IMO) geoengineer. The only questions are how soon we get serious about it, which mixtures of those three elements will still be viable, and how we'll implement it all. Once our climate change challenge is seen as having immense economic, political, and psychological components and not merely the scientific one, it becomes quite clear what a broad range of outcomes is still possible. You can argue, as I have repeatedly for years, that almost none of those paths forward is good, but some are vastly preferable than others. On Sunday, June 16, 2013 11:54:29 AM UTC-4, Mike MacCracken wrote: Hi Greg—Back some years ago, F Scott Fitzgerald wrote in The Crack-Up ( 1936), The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. One might think that we could be considering both mitigation and adaptation (preparedness) together instead of in an opposed manner. Mike On 6/15/13 11:49 PM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu wrote: Note that the President's science advisers have chosen to use the word preparedness rather than adaptation. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_energy_and_climate_3-22-13_final.pdf You have no choice but to adapt, but you can choose to prepare. While you're adapting to what's happening to you, you can try to prepare for what's going to happen to you. On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Greg Rau gh...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Guess it's official: Plan A (= emissions reductions) has failed. So we're jumping directly to Plan C ( = survival mode). Apparently the messaging about Plan B (= SRM and CDR) never got through, or someone's decided we're not going there(?) Best of luck to future generations. Some of us tried to change the outcome. So crank on that XL pipeline. Frack the heck out of those Bakken, Barnett, Montney, Haynesville, Marcellus, Eagle Ford, Niobrara and Utica shales. And if gas supplants king coal in the US, then let's just ship the excess to China. Let's hear it for Plan C, and let's party while we still can(?) Greg http://news.yahoo.com/climate-talk-shifts-curbing-co2-adapting-130423769.html Now officials are merging efforts by emergency managers to prepare for natural disasters with those of officials focused on climate change. That greatly lessens the political debate about human-caused global warming, said University of Colorado science and disaster policy professor Roger Pielke Jr. It also makes the issue more local than national or international. If you keep the discussion focused on impacts ... I think it's pretty easy to get people from all political persuasions, said Pielke, who often has clashed with environmentalists over global warming. It's insurance. The good news is that we know insurance is going to pay off again. Describing these measures as resiliency and changing the way people talk about it make it more palatable than calling it climate change, said Hadi Dowlatabadi, a University of British Columbia climate scientist. It's called a no-regrets strategy, Dowlatabadi said. It's all branding. All that, experts say, is essentially taking some of the heat out of the global warming debate. * Climate talk shifts from curbing CO2 to adapting *By SETH BORENSTEIN | Associated Press – 8 hrs ago WASHINGTON (AP) — Efforts to curb global warming have quietly shifted as greenhouse gases inexorably rise. The conversation is no longer solely about how to save the planet by cutting carbon emissions. It's becoming more about how to save ourselves from the warming planet's wild weather. It was Mayor Michael Bloomberg's announcement last week of an ambitious plan to stave off New York City's rising seas with flood gates, levees and more that brought this transition into full focus. After years of losing the fight against rising global emissions of heat-trapping gases, governments around the world are emphasizing what a U.N. Foundation scientific report calls managing the unavoidable. It's called adaptation and it's about as sexy but as necessary as insurance, experts say. It's also a message that once was taboo among climate activists such as former Vice President Al Gore. In his 1992 book Earth in the Balance, Gore compared talk of adapting to climate change to laziness that would distract from necessary efforts. But in his 2013 book The Future, Gore writes bluntly: I was wrong. He
Re: [geo] Climate talk shifts from curbing CO2 to adapting
I wonder if this emerging preparedness/adaptation consensus is not an alternative to geoengineering but an incremental step toward it. Governments are quantifying their expected costs, which they will eventually weigh against the costs of, for example, high-latitude SRM. Assuming (and I realize that's assuming a lot) that high-latitude SRM more or less works as suggested by some on this list (slowing Greenland icemelt, stopping permafrost melting), How high would its pricetag have to be for it not to be about the highest ROI on money spent imaginable? The preparedness/adaptation pricetag will answer that question. Of course framing it as an investment is odd- does a sailor on a sinking ship think of a lifejacket as an 'investment'? - but those are the terms in which governments must think. On Sunday, June 16, 2013 9:17:26 PM UTC-6, Lou Grinzo wrote: I strongly agree. If we fall into the trap of a viewing this situation as a false dichotomy, then we're making it much worse and dramatically reducing our chances of dealing with it as optimally as is still possible, given the current carbon content of the atmosphere, our infrastructure, etc. I can't estimate how many times I've heard the message that we will have no choice but to mitigate and adapt and (very likely; a full-on certainty, IMO) geoengineer. The only questions are how soon we get serious about it, which mixtures of those three elements will still be viable, and how we'll implement it all. Once our climate change challenge is seen as having immense economic, political, and psychological components and not merely the scientific one, it becomes quite clear what a broad range of outcomes is still possible. You can argue, as I have repeatedly for years, that almost none of those paths forward is good, but some are vastly preferable than others. On Sunday, June 16, 2013 11:54:29 AM UTC-4, Mike MacCracken wrote: Hi Greg—Back some years ago, F Scott Fitzgerald wrote in The Crack-Up ( 1936), The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. One might think that we could be considering both mitigation and adaptation (preparedness) together instead of in an opposed manner. Mike -- 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/groups/opt_out.
[geo] New Book on Climate Change Geoengineering
FYI, upcoming (July 2013) book on climate change geoengineering. wil *Climate Change Geoengineering* Philosophical Perspectives, Legal Issues, and Governance Frameworks Cambridge University Press - Edited by: William C. G. Burns, Johns Hopkins University - Edited by: Andrew L. Strauss, Widener University School of Law, Delaware Ordering information and a list of contributors can be found at: http://www.cambridge.org/us/knowledge/isbn/item7140415/Climate%20Change%20Geoengineering/?site_locale=en_US Dr. Wil Burns, Associate Director Master of Science, Energy Policy Climate Program Johns Hopkins University 1717 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20036 650.281.9126 (Mobile) 202.452.8713 (Fax) http://energy.jhu.edu Skype ID: Wil.Burns Blog: Teaching Climate Energy Law Policy, http://www.teachingclimatelaw.org -- 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/groups/opt_out.
RE: [geo] Climate talk shifts from curbing CO2 to adapting
Well said, Mike! I dont know why yr critical point is so often overlooked. Actually, I think I do know. But it's so hard to accept that we can be so obtuse, and also fail to deliver clearly your crucial message,. All Best, John. John Latham Address: P.O. Box 3000,MMM,NCAR,Boulder,CO 80307-3000 Email: lat...@ucar.edu or john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk Tel: (US-Work) 303-497-8182 or (US-Home) 303-444-2429 or (US-Cell) 303-882-0724 or (UK) 01928-730-002 http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/latham From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Mike MacCracken [mmacc...@comcast.net] Sent: 17 June 2013 19:27 To: gh...@sbcglobal.net; bstah...@gmail.com; Geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] Climate talk shifts from curbing CO2 to adapting Hi Greg—I share all your concerns. I would just note that to fit into the three-option analysis of the problem (mitigation, adaptation, or suffering) used by John Holdren, I count CDR and the second (for reforestation, etc.) and third (for carbon scrubbing) stages of mitigation, and SRM as the second (for regional climate engineering—assuming it is possible) and (for global SRM) third stages of adaptation. I do this because it seems to me continually overlooked in the discussion of geoengineering that what is appropriate is not a risk-benefit analysis of geoengineering (of any type) on its own, but a risk-benefit analysis of global warming with or without geoengineering. Mike On 6/17/13 2:04 PM, Greg Rau gh...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Thanks, all, for your words of wisdom re my original post. However, my feelings of doom are not assuaged. If Bill's emerging preparedness/adaptation consensus is in fact an incremental step toward SRM/CDR then where is this mentioned in NYC's or especially PCAST's and IPCC's roadmaps stating the concensus view, and thus locking in policy, RD, and modes of action for decades? Starting with the Stern Report, the costs and consequences of going down the preparedness/adaptation road are pretty clear and bleak. Yes, we need to consider this path just in case we fail otherwise. But to have this as item #1 in the PCAST report, and then to fail to mention anything about the possibility of post-emissions CO2 management or SRM is what I find very disturbing, especially considering what is at stake and the narrowing time window in which to act. Yes, Mike, we must be able to walk and chew gum at the same time; we must redouble our efforts to reduce emissions while also very actively soliciting and considering all other alternatives. What I find dangerously shortsighted and narrow-minded is the listing of preparedness/adaptation as the only alternative worth supporting, while intentionally ignoring all of the other possibilities that have been voluminously discussed on this list and in many other public, ST and policy venues. I conclude that a decision has been made at very high levels that GE and related technologies are off the table, and we are stuck with failed policies and technologies to reduce CO2 emission (in time) and/or with preparing for the consequences. Any thinking, planning, and RD on alternatives will continue to be relegated to the backwaters of ST and policymaking, insuring that if Plan A and preparedness/adaptation don't go so well, we will be forced to take measures that are poorly tested and whose risks are therefore poorly understood. I welcome any evidence that would allay this concern. Meantime, why not party like it's 1750, because, thanks to PCAST, we are now going to be oh so prepared to live in the aftermath? Greg From: Bill Stahl bstah...@gmail.com To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Cc: Geoengineering Geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 8:41 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Climate talk shifts from curbing CO2 to adapting I wonder if this emerging preparedness/adaptation consensus is not an alternative to geoengineering but an incremental step toward it. Governments are quantifying their expected costs, which they will eventually weigh against the costs of, for example, high-latitude SRM. Assuming (and I realize that's assuming a lot) that high-latitude SRM more or less works as suggested by some on this list (slowing Greenland icemelt, stopping permafrost melting), How high would its pricetag have to be for it not to be about the highest ROI on money spent imaginable? The preparedness/adaptation pricetag will answer that question. Of course framing it as an investment is odd- does a sailor on a sinking ship think of a lifejacket as an 'investment'? - but those are the terms in which governments must think. On Sunday, June 16, 2013 9:17:26 PM UTC-6, Lou Grinzo wrote: I strongly agree. If we fall into the trap of a viewing this situation as a false dichotomy, then we're making it much worse and dramatically reducing our chances of
[geo] Re: Climate talk shifts from curbing CO2 to adapting
I didn't mean to imply that policymakers have a hidden agenda to move towards GE by this route, only that it would be a necessary, clarifying step. I also think that these adaptation measure are at heart uncontroversial, though very dramatic, and so are well-suited to consensus policy-making. In contrast, SRM is very controversial but does not require the degree of consensus that emissions reductions negotiations have conditioned us to expect. In fact it would not require even a majority, just a coalition of sufficient desperate actors that has grown to include countries with the means to try it. I certainly don't see ANY signs of any such a coalition forming. But that's closer to how SRM would come to pass, not by the familiar policy-making process we see unfolding around adaptation/preparedness. (This should hold whether one is for or against it). By saying that I don't want to make light of governance and transparency (let alone imply a yearning for Strong Leader Who Will Take Matters In Hand), just to note that the rules of this game are as different from the rules of the emissions-reduction game as that in turn was different from the CFC-reduction game that preceded it. On Saturday, June 15, 2013 9:42:02 PM UTC-6, Greg Rau wrote: Guess it's official: Plan A (= emissions reductions) has failed. So we're jumping directly to Plan C ( = survival mode). Apparently the messaging about Plan B (= SRM and CDR) never got through, or someone's decided we're not going there(?) Best of luck to future generations. Some of us tried to change the outcome. So crank on that XL pipeline. Frack the heck out of those Bakken, Barnett, Montney, Haynesville, Marcellus, Eagle Ford, Niobrara and Utica shales. And if gas supplants king coal in the US, then let's just ship the excess to China. Let's hear it for Plan C, and let's party while we still can(?) Greg http://news.yahoo.com/climate-talk-shifts-curbing-co2-adapting-130423769.html Now officials are merging efforts by emergency managers to prepare for natural disasters with those of officials focused on climate change. That greatly lessens the political debate about human-caused global warming, said University of Colorado science and disaster policy professor Roger Pielke Jr. It also makes the issue more local than national or international. If you keep the discussion focused on impacts ... I think it's pretty easy to get people from all political persuasions, said Pielke, who often has clashed with environmentalists over global warming. It's insurance. The good news is that we know insurance is going to pay off again. Describing these measures as resiliency and changing the way people talk about it make it more palatable than calling it climate change, said Hadi Dowlatabadi, a University of British Columbia climate scientist. It's called a no-regrets strategy, Dowlatabadi said. It's all branding. All that, experts say, is essentially taking some of the heat out of the global warming debate. *Climate talk shifts from curbing CO2 to adapting* By SETH BORENSTEIN | Associated Press – 8 hrs ago WASHINGTON (AP) — Efforts to curb global warming have quietly shifted as greenhouse gases inexorably rise. The conversation is no longer solely about how to save the planet by cutting carbon emissions. It's becoming more about how to save ourselves from the warming planet's wild weather. It was Mayor Michael Bloomberg's announcement last week of an ambitious plan to stave off New York City's rising seas with flood gates, levees and more that brought this transition into full focus. After years of losing the fight against rising global emissions of heat-trapping gases, governments around the world are emphasizing what a U.N. Foundation scientific report calls managing the unavoidable. It's called adaptation and it's about as sexy but as necessary as insurance, experts say. It's also a message that once was taboo among climate activists such as former Vice President Al Gore. In his 1992 book Earth in the Balance, Gore compared talk of adapting to climate change to laziness that would distract from necessary efforts. But in his 2013 book The Future, Gore writes bluntly: I was wrong. He talks about how coping with rising seas and temperatures is just as important as trying to prevent global warming by cutting emissions. Like Gore, governmental officials across the globe aren't saying everyone should just give up on efforts to reduce pollution. They're saying that as they work on curbing carbon, they also have to deal with a reality that's already here. In March, President Barack Obama's science advisers sent him a list of recommendations on climate change. No. 1 on the list: Focus on national preparedness for climate change. Whether you believe climate change is real or not is beside the point, New York's Bloomberg said in announcing his $20 billion adaptation plans.
[geo] flashcard deck on The Science of Geoengineering
I have created a flashcard deck on the science of geongineering that is available at https://ankiweb.net/shared/info/582330702. Anki is a free, open source flashcard program that is available on the web and on all major platforms including Windows, Linux, Mac, iOs, and Android. if you create a web account at ankiweb.net you can search under shared decks and view it online. I created this deck for my own reference -- I do this when I want to commit things to my active memory -- but am making it available for others as a resource. Since there is probably minimal overlap between the Anki and geoengineering communities, probably best to think of this as a bit of STEM outreach.Some of the propositions in the deck are very basic - it is good to have some easy cards mixed in with hard ones. I will be updating this as time goes on, the Caldeira survey article provided a good way to get started. The content follows Caldeira et al. The Science of Geoengineering and makes a number of direct (and attributed) quotations. Most quotations are only one sentence long and some of them have been paraphrased, snippeted, or rearranged so as to fit the flashcard style of learning. (see http://alexvermeer.com/anki-decks/) I am open to suggestions from domain experts who would like to expand upon or refine the treatment of geoengineering in this deck (I know that a number of people on the list have raised issues about the Caldeira survey article). Please send your suggestions to me offline. I am looking for 1-10 bullet points and factoids per major topic with simple, easy to remember, and ideally quantified findings or key things to know. E.g. the maximum carbon storage capacity of X is Y... (Doe 2013). The CDR technique foo is considered to have two major advantages: A and B. (Roe 2012). Disadvantages of foo include P and Q. (Face of Bo 2012). Cheers, Fred --- Fred Zimmerman Geoengineering IT! Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080 -- 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/groups/opt_out.
[geo] Harvard scientist David Keith fosters the study and discussion of geoengineering | Harvard Magazine Jul-Aug 2013
http://harvardmagazine.com/2013/07/buffering-the-sun DAVID KEITH talks fast and takes stairs two steps at a time, as though impelled by a sense of urgency. The Harvard scholar is interested in both the scientific and the public policy questions that bear on climate change and has a hand in a surprising range of projects related to climate and energy. He co-manages the Fund for Innovative Energy and Climate Research (FICER), established by Microsoft founder Bill Gates ’77, LL.D. ’07, to support innovative climate-change research, and has founded Carbon Engineering, a company that appears on track to build the first industrial-scale plant to capture carbon dioxide from the air for possible commercial use. But Keith is best known for his work on solar geoengineering: strategies to counter rising global temperatures by reducing the amount of sunlight that reaches Earth and its atmosphere. Such work might someday save the planet.As skeptics continue to question whether global warming is real, and worldwide efforts to cut greenhouse gases stall, a small but growing number of scientists believe that humans may need to consider a “Plan B” that takes control of our climate’s future. Solar geoengineering encompasses multiple proposals to adjust the planet’s thermostat, including deflecting sunlight away from the earth with massive space shields or with extra-bright low-altitude clouds over oceans. One suggestion, inspired by sulfur-spewing volcanoes, involves modifying a fleet of jets to spray sulfates into the stratosphere, where they would combine with water vapor to form aerosols. Dispersed by winds, these particles would cover the globe with a haze that would reflect roughly 1 percent of solar radiation away from Earth. (The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which shot some 10 million metric tons of sulfur into the air, reduced global temperatures about 1 degree F for at least a year.)Scientists have discussed such strategies for decades, but (until recently) mostly behind closed doors, in part because they feared that speaking publicly about geoengineering would undermine efforts to cut greenhouse-gas emissions. Keith, who is McKay professor of applied physics in the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) and professor of public policy at Harvard Kennedy School, strongly advocates bringing discussion of geoengineering into the open. He says, “We don’t make good decisions by sweeping things under the rug.”And even as he endeavors to publicize the geoengineering debate, Keith has also sought to move the science itself beyond computer models, toward the possibility of small-scale field-testing. “It is by no means clear what the right answer is, or how much, if any, geoengineering we should use,” he says, “but the balance of evidence from the climate models used to date suggests that doing a little bit would reduce climate risks.” Constructing Consensus BY KEITH’S ACCOUNT, the topic of solar geoengineering has transitioned in the last five years from an obscure area, studied by only a handful of what he calls “geonerds,” to a subject that draws increasing attention from both scientists and the general public. That lends Keith’s own publicizing efforts some of their urgency; he not only sees a need to “broaden the scientific community to avoid the risk of groupthink,” but also wants to help shape the conversation about these strategies and chart the course of related research.He and fellow FICER administrator Ken Caldeira (of the Carnegie Institution for Science’s department of global ecology, at Stanford), have used the fund for projects that assess the risks of a warming planet and the benefits and risks of advanced technologies to address the problem. They’ve also used a small portion of the money to jumpstart the development of new technologies to deal with climate change. Not only are good solutions to the problem currently lacking, Keith says, but there is nothing approaching “a social consensus that it’s worth making serious efforts to solve the problem.”Meanwhile, the world’s nations emitted an estimated 38.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide—the principal greenhouse gas, by volume—into the air in 2011, an increase of 3 percent over the previous year. This rate is expected to accelerate as developing nations such as China and India burn more coal and expand their vehicle fleets. In May, scientists reported that the average daily level of CO2 in the atmosphere surpassed 400 parts per million, a level last seen two to four million years ago. Even if humans miraculously halted allcarbon emissions next week—an impossibility, and an economic catastrophe—the problem of climate change would still loom ahead: most of the heat-trapping gas will linger for decades or centuries. One study found that 40 percent of the peak concentration of CO2 would remain in the atmosphere for a thousand years after the peak is reached—and even then, inertia in the world’s warmed oceans will prevent a quick return to cooler
Re: [geo] Experiment Currently Taking Place in the Arctic?
Dear Peter--I must have missed the paper. I agree that it could help thicken the ice. It seems to me the problems here, however, would be the engineering of it--how does one make it happen without icing up the whole apparatus, and how does one power it efficiently? On powering it, it would be great if it could take advantage of the temperature difference between the water below the ice and the air temperature above the ice, but it would just seem to me that the potential for icing up would be huge, so it would be hard to put out some sort of floating buoy system that just sprayed out a continuing stream in many directions, etc. I'd be interested in hearing about any ideas in this regard. Regards, Mike MacCracken On 6/17/13 4:56 PM, Peter Flynn peter.fl...@ualberta.ca wrote: I remain of the belief that simply creating thicker and more extensive ice by the known and proven technique of pumping or spraying water into cold air in the winter is a cheap, safe (because it can be halted at any time) and already demonstrated process (on both fresh and salt water). If any missed the previous paper on this I am happy to resend. This technique works by increasing the rate of heat transfer: water on top of ice freezes much more quickly than water at the bottom of ice because the ice is both an insulation layer and it prevents convective heat transfer from the water layer to the air. I think this is intuitively safer than atmospheric modification because it can be stopped at once. Peter Flynn Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D. Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Alberta peter.fl...@ualberta.ca cell: 928 451 4455 -Original Message- From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Hawkins, Dave Sent: June-16-13 6:34 PM To: joshuahorton...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [geo] Experiment Currently Taking Place in the Arctic? Sounds like a modeling exercise: stimulating should be simulating, I assume. Typed on tiny keyboard. Caveat lector. On Jun 16, 2013, at 6:39 PM, Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.commailto:joshuahorton...@gmail.com wrote: Hi everyone, Near the end of a recent, otherwise unremarkable story about geoengineering at RTCC (link below), Piers Forster from Leeds University is quoted as follows: There is one experiment we're currently undertaking - we're trying to look at rescuing Arctic Ice by stimulating aeroplanes flying from Spitzbergen in Norway - and dump out a lot of Sulphur Dioxide, and we're trying to look at that as a very short term protection against the loss of Arctic Ice. (http://www.rtcc.org/scientists-warn-earth-cooling-proposals-are-no-climat e-silver-bullet/) Does anyone know what he is talking about? Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.commailto:joshuahorton...@gmail.com -- 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.commailto:geoengineering+unsubscr i...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
RE: [geo] Experiment Currently Taking Place in the Arctic?
I'd suggest wind pumps as used on the prairie to lift groundwater. Just set them up on the windy, seasonal ice sheet, drill a hole, and pump away. They'd have floats so after summer-melt out they could be rounded up by ship, hopefully sail-powered, or they could be permanently anchored to the seafloor. Net carbon/climate cost/benefit? Then there is high altitude wind: tether HAW generators to sea ice or sea floor. Use the electricity to pump seawater and/or run a pipe partway up the tether and spray seawater, making snow/aerosol for albedo effects +- snow/water for ice thickening. Better check with the seals and polar bears for preferred ice thickness. Also, biofouling of pipes, pumps, and nozzles could be a showstopper. Anyway, perhaps we should inform PCAST of this new adaptation strategy before their next definitive report ;-) -Greg From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Hawkins, Dave [dhawk...@nrdc.org] Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 2:17 PM To: Peter Flynn; joshuahorton...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [geo] Experiment Currently Taking Place in the Arctic? What is your energy source for this pumping and spraying? -Original Message- From: Peter Flynn [mailto:peter.fl...@ualberta.ca] Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 4:56 PM To: Hawkins, Dave; joshuahorton...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [geo] Experiment Currently Taking Place in the Arctic? I remain of the belief that simply creating thicker and more extensive ice by the known and proven technique of pumping or spraying water into cold air in the winter is a cheap, safe (because it can be halted at any time) and already demonstrated process (on both fresh and salt water). If any missed the previous paper on this I am happy to resend. This technique works by increasing the rate of heat transfer: water on top of ice freezes much more quickly than water at the bottom of ice because the ice is both an insulation layer and it prevents convective heat transfer from the water layer to the air. I think this is intuitively safer than atmospheric modification because it can be stopped at once. Peter Flynn Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D. Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Alberta peter.fl...@ualberta.ca cell: 928 451 4455 -Original Message- From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Hawkins, Dave Sent: June-16-13 6:34 PM To: joshuahorton...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [geo] Experiment Currently Taking Place in the Arctic? Sounds like a modeling exercise: stimulating should be simulating, I assume. Typed on tiny keyboard. Caveat lector. On Jun 16, 2013, at 6:39 PM, Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.commailto:joshuahorton...@gmail.com wrote: Hi everyone, Near the end of a recent, otherwise unremarkable story about geoengineering at RTCC (link below), Piers Forster from Leeds University is quoted as follows: There is one experiment we're currently undertaking - we're trying to look at rescuing Arctic Ice by stimulating aeroplanes flying from Spitzbergen in Norway - and dump out a lot of Sulphur Dioxide, and we're trying to look at that as a very short term protection against the loss of Arctic Ice. (http://www.rtcc.org/scientists-warn-earth-cooling-proposals-are-no-climat e-silver-bullet/) Does anyone know what he is talking about? Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.commailto:joshuahorton...@gmail.com -- 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.commailto:geoengineering+unsubs geoengineering+cr i...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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
Re: [geo] Experiment Currently Taking Place in the Arctic?
If some material could be added to the ice as it reforms in the winter, could a layer of ice-crete be formed in startegic places to them slow the melt and physical break-up of the ise the following summer, and use this to build multi-year ice again? Especially in the shallow coastal waters off northern Russia where ice loss is severe and methane hydrates perhaps most unstable and in need of the cooling effect if an ice layer. I realise there are scale challenges but I hope this can be overcome when we think about other things done en masse. A local seaweed or grass might make a good substrate to do some lab tests, and then field trials. If anyone has any constructive thoughts, I am keen to hear back. Many thanks, Emily. Sent from my BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Peter Flynn peter.fl...@ualberta.ca Sender: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 14:56:11 To: dhawk...@nrdc.org; joshuahorton...@gmail.com Reply-To: pcfl...@ualberta.ca Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [geo] Experiment Currently Taking Place in the Arctic? I remain of the belief that simply creating thicker and more extensive ice by the known and proven technique of pumping or spraying water into cold air in the winter is a cheap, safe (because it can be halted at any time) and already demonstrated process (on both fresh and salt water). If any missed the previous paper on this I am happy to resend. This technique works by increasing the rate of heat transfer: water on top of ice freezes much more quickly than water at the bottom of ice because the ice is both an insulation layer and it prevents convective heat transfer from the water layer to the air. I think this is intuitively safer than atmospheric modification because it can be stopped at once. Peter Flynn Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D. Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Alberta peter.fl...@ualberta.ca cell: 928 451 4455 -Original Message- From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Hawkins, Dave Sent: June-16-13 6:34 PM To: joshuahorton...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [geo] Experiment Currently Taking Place in the Arctic? Sounds like a modeling exercise: stimulating should be simulating, I assume. Typed on tiny keyboard. Caveat lector. On Jun 16, 2013, at 6:39 PM, Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.commailto:joshuahorton...@gmail.com wrote: Hi everyone, Near the end of a recent, otherwise unremarkable story about geoengineering at RTCC (link below), Piers Forster from Leeds University is quoted as follows: There is one experiment we're currently undertaking - we're trying to look at rescuing Arctic Ice by stimulating aeroplanes flying from Spitzbergen in Norway - and dump out a lot of Sulphur Dioxide, and we're trying to look at that as a very short term protection against the loss of Arctic Ice. (http://www.rtcc.org/scientists-warn-earth-cooling-proposals-are-no-climat e-silver-bullet/) Does anyone know what he is talking about? Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.commailto:joshuahorton...@gmail.com -- 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.commailto:geoengineering+unsubscr i...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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
Re: [geo] Experiment Currently Taking Place in the Arctic?
On energy source, can the temp or pressure difference between deeper and surface water and air be used? The problem I see is keeping the kit working in hostile environemnt. Sent from my BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Hawkins, Dave dhawk...@nrdc.org Sender: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 21:17:59 To: Peter Flynnpeter.fl...@ualberta.ca; joshuahorton...@gmail.comjoshuahorton...@gmail.com Reply-To: dhawk...@nrdc.org Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.comgeoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [geo] Experiment Currently Taking Place in the Arctic? What is your energy source for this pumping and spraying? -Original Message- From: Peter Flynn [mailto:peter.fl...@ualberta.ca] Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 4:56 PM To: Hawkins, Dave; joshuahorton...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [geo] Experiment Currently Taking Place in the Arctic? I remain of the belief that simply creating thicker and more extensive ice by the known and proven technique of pumping or spraying water into cold air in the winter is a cheap, safe (because it can be halted at any time) and already demonstrated process (on both fresh and salt water). If any missed the previous paper on this I am happy to resend. This technique works by increasing the rate of heat transfer: water on top of ice freezes much more quickly than water at the bottom of ice because the ice is both an insulation layer and it prevents convective heat transfer from the water layer to the air. I think this is intuitively safer than atmospheric modification because it can be stopped at once. Peter Flynn Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D. Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Alberta peter.fl...@ualberta.ca cell: 928 451 4455 -Original Message- From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Hawkins, Dave Sent: June-16-13 6:34 PM To: joshuahorton...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [geo] Experiment Currently Taking Place in the Arctic? Sounds like a modeling exercise: stimulating should be simulating, I assume. Typed on tiny keyboard. Caveat lector. On Jun 16, 2013, at 6:39 PM, Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.commailto:joshuahorton...@gmail.com wrote: Hi everyone, Near the end of a recent, otherwise unremarkable story about geoengineering at RTCC (link below), Piers Forster from Leeds University is quoted as follows: There is one experiment we're currently undertaking - we're trying to look at rescuing Arctic Ice by stimulating aeroplanes flying from Spitzbergen in Norway - and dump out a lot of Sulphur Dioxide, and we're trying to look at that as a very short term protection against the loss of Arctic Ice. (http://www.rtcc.org/scientists-warn-earth-cooling-proposals-are-no-climat e-silver-bullet/) Does anyone know what he is talking about? Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.commailto:joshuahorton...@gmail.com -- 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.commailto:geoengineering+unsubs geoengineering+cr i...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
