[geo] Molecular Diversity of Sea Spray Aerosol Particles: Impact of Ocean Biology on Particle Composition and Hygroscopicity — ScienceDirect

[Andrew Lockley]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451929417301201?via%3Dihub

Chem 

11 May 2017, Vol.2(5)
:655–667, doi:
10.1016/j.chempr.2017.03.007

Article
Molecular Diversity of Sea Spray Aerosol Particles: Impact of Ocean Biology
on Particle Composition and Hygroscopicity

   - Richard E. Cochran
   - Olga Laskina
   - Vicki H. Grassian

Show more

--
Highlights

   - •

   The molecular composition of individual nascent SSA particles is diverse
   - •

   Molecular diversity of individual SSA particles is controlled by the
   microbial loop
   - •

   Changes in hygroscopicity of SSA are driven by shifts in particle
   composition

The Bigger Picture

Sea spray aerosol (SSA) particles are an important component of Earth’s
atmosphere in that they serve as a critical link between the ocean and
climate. The key to understanding how SSA affects climate is to unravel the
chemical composition and the molecular diversity among individual SSA
particles and determine how this influences their climate properties,
including particle hygroscopicity. Here, we measured the molecular
composition and hygroscopicity of individual SSA particles that were
produced in a unique wave-flume facility during periods of dynamic
biological activity in seawater. With respect to molecular composition, the
number distribution of SSA particle types was seen to be influenced by
these biological processes within the seawater. Shifts in the distribution
of different particles types led to changes in the average particle
hygroscopicity; these changes were further explored via evaluation of the
hygroscopicity of model systems containing mixtures of organic compounds
and salts.
Summary

The impact of sea spray aerosol (SSA) on climate depends on the size and
chemical composition of individual particles that make up the total SSA
ensemble. There remains a lack of understanding as to the composition
of individual particles within the SSA ensemble and how it changes in
response to dynamic ocean biology. Here, we characterize the classes of
organic compounds as well as specific molecules within individual SSA
particles. The diversity of molecules within the organic fraction was
observed to vary between submicrometer- and supermicrometer-sized particles
and included contributions from fatty acids, monosaccharides,
polysaccharides, and siliceous material. Significant changes in this
molecular diversity were observed to coincide with the rise and fall of
phytoplankton and heterotrophic bacteria populations within the seawater.
Furthermore, the water uptake of individual particles was affected, as
learned from studying the hygroscopicity of model systems composed of
representative mixtures of salts and organic compounds.
Graphical AbstractKeywords

   - sea spray aerosol
   - molecular composition
   - single-particle analysis
   - particle hygroscopicity
   - phytoplankton bloom
   - selective enrichment
   - bacteria
   - marine chemistry

UN Sustainable Development Goals

   - SDG13: Climate action

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] "Alaska's thawing soils are unleashing a crapload of CO2"

[Greg Rau]

http://www.sciencealert.com/alaska-s-thawing-soils-are-now-pouring-carbon-dioxide-into-the-air?

"The study, based on aircraft measurements of carbon dioxide and methane and 
tower measurements from Barrow, Alaska, found that from 2012 through 2014, the 
state emitted the equivalent of 220 million tons of carbon dioxide gas into the 
atmosphere from biological sources (the figure excludes fossil fuel burning and 
wildfires).

That's an amount comparable to all the emissions from the US commercial sector 
in a single year.

The chief reason for the greater CO2 release was that as Alaska has warmed up, 
emissions from once frozen tundra in winter are increasing - presumably because 
the ground is not refreezing as quickly."

GR Now what? Sit in a circle and hold hands, or get to work to find what (if 
any) options we've got? 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] etc_hbf_geobriefing_may2017.pdf

[Jonathan Marshall]

​I like to hope that the fossil fuel era is ending. One question is whether it 
is ending soon enough.

There is also the question of whether political resistance will slow down the 
end, or attempt to continue the era.

There is also the question as to whether the social-political-economic system 
will continue to produce ecological devastation and planet alteration, 
irrespective of whether fossil fuel ends or not - if that system is not changed.

There is another question of whether without political and social change, 
geoengineering will simply prolong the problem and add complications to any 
solution

I still say if we really want to solve the problem we have to think of social 
change. We may need geoengineering,  recycling, and energy efficient light 
bulbs, but they are probably not enough by themselves
​

jon



From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Andrew Lockley 
Sent: Friday, 12 May 2017 9:56 AM
To: Jonathan Marshall
Cc: geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] etc_hbf_geobriefing_may2017.pdf

The fossil era is ending, regardless of what happens with geoengineering. The 
only question is whether we attempt to limit the damage and clean up the mess.

A

On 12 May 2017 00:52, "Jonathan Marshall" 
> wrote:


Unfortunately the only real solution is probably social, political and 
psychological change.

If we keep the current social system then people will keep gaming any solutions 
put forward to keep that social system, and its power and wealth distribution, 
going - probably one reason why you can get support for Geoengineering from 
people who loudly declaim that climate change is not real.

Geoengineering will simply allow the powerful to continue to pollute, plus it 
will likely add dangers of uncontrollable ecological feedbacks, catastrophic 
collapse in financial crisis, and weather warfare - or blaming people for that 
warfare.

This is the case if we don't do geoengineering as well, although the 
catastrophe may come sooner and force some social change earlier

jon





From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
> on 
behalf of Adam Dorr >
Sent: Friday, 12 May 2017 9:33 AM
To: Greg Rau
Cc: s.h.sal...@ed.ac.uk; 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com; 
f...@boell.de; 
schnei...@boell.de; 
n...@etcgroup.org
Subject: Re: [geo] etc_hbf_geobriefing_may2017.pdf

I'm sympathetic to some of the criticisms of technofixes, but only when other 
plausible fixes are available.

In the case of climate change, it seems that the notion of solving the problem 
with interventions like recycling, energy-efficient lightbulbs, organic food 
and the rest of the "locally adapted ecologically and socially sound solutions" 
folks typically have in mind is every bit "speculative and distracting" (if not 
just plain delusional) as CDR climate engineering.


On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Greg Rau 
> wrote:
Yes, this seems to stem from a fear of technology as summarized in their 
closing statement:

"Because of the geopolitical high-stakes, risk of weaponization,
and intergenerational implications of geoengineering, the
global community should first and foremost debate these
aspects, before allowing the development of tools that a
climate-denying government or “a coalition of the willing”
could use, even if all other governments would conclude it is
too risky and unfair to use. Geoengineering can never be
confined to a technical discussion, a matter of “developing
tools, just in case” or confined just to a climate perspective.
Geoengineering research should – in line with the CBD
decision – be focused on socio-political, ecological, ethical
questions and potential impacts and contribute to a debate
about whether democratic governance of geoengineering is
ever possible, and how. And even more important: funding
and research on climate change needs to urgently be scaled
up to support implementation of proven and locally
adapted ecologically and socially sound solutions to the
climate crisis – not speculative and distracting technofixes."

While I'm all for debating the various actions before deciding when/if to use 
them, it would seem important to fully understand the benefits as well as the 
risks and impacts of these, and that requires research and testing. Or shall we 
continue to base our decisions on speculation? Case in point, while BECCS, DAC, 
enhanced weathering, biochar and the others on ETCs s&*t list might be risky 
(e.g., they don't work as advertised, too expensive, 

Re: [geo] etc_hbf_geobriefing_may2017.pdf

[Andrew Lockley]

The fossil era is ending, regardless of what happens with geoengineering.
The only question is whether we attempt to limit the damage and clean up
the mess.

A

On 12 May 2017 00:52, "Jonathan Marshall" 
wrote:

>
> Unfortunately the only real solution is probably social, political and
> psychological change.
>
> If we keep the current social system then people will keep gaming any
> solutions put forward to keep that social system, and its power and wealth
> distribution, going - probably one reason why you can get support for
> Geoengineering from people who loudly declaim that climate change is not
> real.
>
> Geoengineering will simply allow the powerful to continue to pollute, plus
> it will likely add dangers of uncontrollable ecological feedbacks,
> catastrophic collapse in financial crisis, and weather warfare - or blaming
> people for that warfare.
>
> This is the case if we don't do geoengineering as well, although the
> catastrophe may come sooner and force some social change earlier
>
> jon
>
>
> --
>
> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
> on behalf of Adam Dorr 
> *Sent:* Friday, 12 May 2017 9:33 AM
> *To:* Greg Rau
> *Cc:* s.h.sal...@ed.ac.uk; geoengineering@googlegroups.com; f...@boell.de;
> schnei...@boell.de; n...@etcgroup.org
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] etc_hbf_geobriefing_may2017.pdf
>
> I'm sympathetic to some of the criticisms of technofixes, but only when
> other plausible fixes are available.
>
> In the case of climate change, it seems that the notion of solving the
> problem with interventions like recycling, energy-efficient lightbulbs,
> organic food and the rest of the "locally adapted ecologically and socially
> sound solutions" folks typically have in mind is every bit "speculative and
> distracting" (if not just plain delusional) as CDR climate engineering.
>
>
> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Greg Rau  wrote:
>
>> Yes, this seems to stem from a fear of technology as summarized in their
>> closing statement:
>>
>> "Because of the geopolitical high-stakes, risk of weaponization,
>> and intergenerational implications of geoengineering, the
>> global community should first and foremost debate these
>> aspects, before allowing the development of tools that a
>> climate-denying government or “a coalition of the willing”
>> could use, even if all other governments would conclude it is
>> too risky and unfair to use. Geoengineering can never be
>> confined to a technical discussion, a matter of “developing
>> tools, just in case” or confined just to a climate perspective.
>> Geoengineering research should – in line with the CBD
>> decision – be focused on socio-political, ecological, ethical
>> questions and potential impacts and contribute to a debate
>> about whether democratic governance of geoengineering is
>> ever possible, and how. And even more important: funding
>> and research on climate change needs to urgently be scaled
>> up to support implementation of proven and locally
>> adapted ecologically and socially sound solutions to the
>> climate crisis – not speculative and distracting technofixes."
>>
>> While I'm all for debating the various actions before deciding when/if to
>> use them, it would seem important to fully understand the benefits as well
>> as the risks and impacts of these, and that requires research and testing.
>> Or shall we continue to base our decisions on speculation? Case in point,
>> while BECCS, DAC, enhanced weathering, biochar and the others on ETCs s&*t
>> list might be risky (e.g., they don't work as advertised, too expensive,
>> etc, -let's find out for sure), how could these be "weaponized"and
>> "unfair"? Interestingly I see that a-/re- forestation is not on their s&*t
>> list, despite serious concerns from ecologists (though weaponization is
>> still not mentioned):
>> https://ecopreservationsociety.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/
>> does-reforestation-contribute-to-global-warming-part-1/
>> https://news.mongabay.com/2016/02/in-the-rush-to-reforest-
>> are-the-worlds-old-growth-grasslands-losing-out/
>> https://cereo.wsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/95/2016/03/
>> Joppa_Science_IPBES_2016.pdf
>>
>> Then there is this curious statement: "funding
>> and research on climate change needs to urgently be scaled
>> up to support implementation of proven and locally
>> adapted ecologically and socially sound solutions to the
>> climate crisis – not speculative and distracting technofixes."
>>
>> Am all for more funding of climate change research, but there seems to be
>> enough scary knowledge already to warrant greatly expanded R funding
>> specifically on a broad and deep search for solutions. Locally adapted
>> ecological ones certainly are preferred, but with 7+B of us now on the
>> planet is it likely that these solutions alone will solve the problem in
>> the time required,  while they also continue to (so how) 

Re: [geo] etc_hbf_geobriefing_may2017.pdf

[Jonathan Marshall]

Unfortunately the only real solution is probably social, political and 
psychological change.

If we keep the current social system then people will keep gaming any solutions 
put forward to keep that social system, and its power and wealth distribution, 
going - probably one reason why you can get support for Geoengineering from 
people who loudly declaim that climate change is not real.

Geoengineering will simply allow the powerful to continue to pollute, plus it 
will likely add dangers of uncontrollable ecological feedbacks, catastrophic 
collapse in financial crisis, and weather warfare - or blaming people for that 
warfare.

This is the case if we don't do geoengineering as well, although the 
catastrophe may come sooner and force some social change earlier

jon





From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Adam Dorr 
Sent: Friday, 12 May 2017 9:33 AM
To: Greg Rau
Cc: s.h.sal...@ed.ac.uk; geoengineering@googlegroups.com; f...@boell.de; 
schnei...@boell.de; n...@etcgroup.org
Subject: Re: [geo] etc_hbf_geobriefing_may2017.pdf

I'm sympathetic to some of the criticisms of technofixes, but only when other 
plausible fixes are available.

In the case of climate change, it seems that the notion of solving the problem 
with interventions like recycling, energy-efficient lightbulbs, organic food 
and the rest of the "locally adapted ecologically and socially sound solutions" 
folks typically have in mind is every bit "speculative and distracting" (if not 
just plain delusional) as CDR climate engineering.


On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Greg Rau 
> wrote:
Yes, this seems to stem from a fear of technology as summarized in their 
closing statement:

"Because of the geopolitical high-stakes, risk of weaponization,
and intergenerational implications of geoengineering, the
global community should first and foremost debate these
aspects, before allowing the development of tools that a
climate-denying government or “a coalition of the willing”
could use, even if all other governments would conclude it is
too risky and unfair to use. Geoengineering can never be
confined to a technical discussion, a matter of “developing
tools, just in case” or confined just to a climate perspective.
Geoengineering research should – in line with the CBD
decision – be focused on socio-political, ecological, ethical
questions and potential impacts and contribute to a debate
about whether democratic governance of geoengineering is
ever possible, and how. And even more important: funding
and research on climate change needs to urgently be scaled
up to support implementation of proven and locally
adapted ecologically and socially sound solutions to the
climate crisis – not speculative and distracting technofixes."

While I'm all for debating the various actions before deciding when/if to use 
them, it would seem important to fully understand the benefits as well as the 
risks and impacts of these, and that requires research and testing. Or shall we 
continue to base our decisions on speculation? Case in point, while BECCS, DAC, 
enhanced weathering, biochar and the others on ETCs s&*t list might be risky 
(e.g., they don't work as advertised, too expensive, etc, -let's find out for 
sure), how could these be "weaponized"and "unfair"? Interestingly I see that 
a-/re- forestation is not on their s&*t list, despite serious concerns from 
ecologists (though weaponization is still not mentioned):
https://ecopreservationsociety.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/does-reforestation-contribute-to-global-warming-part-1/
https://news.mongabay.com/2016/02/in-the-rush-to-reforest-are-the-worlds-old-growth-grasslands-losing-out/
https://cereo.wsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/95/2016/03/Joppa_Science_IPBES_2016.pdf

Then there is this curious statement: "funding
and research on climate change needs to urgently be scaled
up to support implementation of proven and locally
adapted ecologically and socially sound solutions to the
climate crisis – not speculative and distracting technofixes."

Am all for more funding of climate change research, but there seems to be 
enough scary knowledge already to warrant greatly expanded R funding 
specifically on a broad and deep search for solutions. Locally adapted 
ecological ones certainly are preferred, but with 7+B of us now on the planet 
is it likely that these solutions alone will solve the problem in the time 
required,  while they also continue to (so how) feed, house and clothe us?? For 
the sake of ecology, might it be wise and less risky to also search for 
solutions that don't ask more from Earth's already overtaxed ecosystems?

Anyway, I'll cc the ETC authors to see if we can elicit a response as to why 
and how we have the luxury of ignoring/castigating technology/new ideas without 
having a better understanding of their actual risks and benefits.

Greg

Re: [geo] etc_hbf_geobriefing_may2017.pdf

[Adam Dorr]

I'm sympathetic to some of the criticisms of technofixes, but only when
other plausible fixes are available.

In the case of climate change, it seems that the notion of solving the
problem with interventions like recycling, energy-efficient lightbulbs,
organic food and the rest of the "locally adapted ecologically and socially
sound solutions" folks typically have in mind is every bit "speculative and
distracting" (if not just plain delusional) as CDR climate engineering.


On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Greg Rau  wrote:

> Yes, this seems to stem from a fear of technology as summarized in their
> closing statement:
>
> "Because of the geopolitical high-stakes, risk of weaponization,
> and intergenerational implications of geoengineering, the
> global community should first and foremost debate these
> aspects, before allowing the development of tools that a
> climate-denying government or “a coalition of the willing”
> could use, even if all other governments would conclude it is
> too risky and unfair to use. Geoengineering can never be
> confined to a technical discussion, a matter of “developing
> tools, just in case” or confined just to a climate perspective.
> Geoengineering research should – in line with the CBD
> decision – be focused on socio-political, ecological, ethical
> questions and potential impacts and contribute to a debate
> about whether democratic governance of geoengineering is
> ever possible, and how. And even more important: funding
> and research on climate change needs to urgently be scaled
> up to support implementation of proven and locally
> adapted ecologically and socially sound solutions to the
> climate crisis – not speculative and distracting technofixes."
>
> While I'm all for debating the various actions before deciding when/if to
> use them, it would seem important to fully understand the benefits as well
> as the risks and impacts of these, and that requires research and testing.
> Or shall we continue to base our decisions on speculation? Case in point,
> while BECCS, DAC, enhanced weathering, biochar and the others on ETCs s&*t
> list might be risky (e.g., they don't work as advertised, too expensive,
> etc, -let's find out for sure), how could these be "weaponized"and
> "unfair"? Interestingly I see that a-/re- forestation is not on their s&*t
> list, despite serious concerns from ecologists (though weaponization is
> still not mentioned):
> https://ecopreservationsociety.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/does-
> reforestation-contribute-to-global-warming-part-1/
> https://news.mongabay.com/2016/02/in-the-rush-to-
> reforest-are-the-worlds-old-growth-grasslands-losing-out/
> https://cereo.wsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/95/2016/
> 03/Joppa_Science_IPBES_2016.pdf
>
> Then there is this curious statement: "funding
> and research on climate change needs to urgently be scaled
> up to support implementation of proven and locally
> adapted ecologically and socially sound solutions to the
> climate crisis – not speculative and distracting technofixes."
>
> Am all for more funding of climate change research, but there seems to be
> enough scary knowledge already to warrant greatly expanded R funding
> specifically on a broad and deep search for solutions. Locally adapted
> ecological ones certainly are preferred, but with 7+B of us now on the
> planet is it likely that these solutions alone will solve the problem in
> the time required,  while they also continue to (so how) feed, house and
> clothe us?? For the sake of ecology, might it be wise and less risky to
> also search for solutions that don't ask more from Earth's already
> overtaxed ecosystems?
>
> Anyway, I'll cc the ETC authors to see if we can elicit a response as to
> why and how we have the luxury of ignoring/castigating technology/new ideas
> without having a better understanding of their actual risks and benefits.
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
> --
> *From:* Stephen Salter 
> *To:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 11, 2017 12:40 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] etc_hbf_geobriefing_may2017.pdf
>
> Hi all
> It would help if the ETC people could give more detail about why putting
> sea surface temperatures back to where we liked to have them in the good
> old days should be criminal. We may be able to do this by changing the size
> distribution of 0.5% of the mass of a natural material, shown to help
> asthmatic children, which is now being produced from breaking waves. We may
> be able to do this with energy coming from the wind at a cost below the
> climate conference budget.
> ETC, please explain, if possible with some numbers.
> Stephen
> On 11/05/2017 19:42, Adam Dorr wrote:
>
> While several of the concerns expressed in the document bear some
> consideration, I must say I'm discouraged by the overall thinking behind a
> priori opposition to climate engineering technology. By analogy, it would
> be like opposing the development of 

Re: [geo] etc_hbf_geobriefing_may2017.pdf

[Greg Rau]

Yes, this seems to stem from a fear of technology as summarized in their 
closing statement:
"Because of the geopolitical high-stakes, risk of weaponization,and 
intergenerational implications of geoengineering, theglobal community should 
first and foremost debate theseaspects, before allowing the development of 
tools that aclimate-denying government or “a coalition of the willing”could 
use, even if all other governments would conclude it istoo risky and unfair to 
use. Geoengineering can never beconfined to a technical discussion, a matter of 
“developingtools, just in case” or confined just to a climate 
perspective.Geoengineering research should – in line with the CBDdecision – be 
focused on socio-political, ecological, ethicalquestions and potential impacts 
and contribute to a debateabout whether democratic governance of geoengineering 
isever possible, and how. And even more important: fundingand research on 
climate change needs to urgently be scaledup to support implementation of 
proven and locallyadapted ecologically and socially sound solutions to 
theclimate crisis – not speculative and distracting technofixes."
While I'm all for debating the various actions before deciding when/if to use 
them, it would seem important to fully understand the benefits as well as the 
risks and impacts of these, and that requires research and testing. Or shall we 
continue to base our decisions on speculation? Case in point, while BECCS, DAC, 
enhanced weathering, biochar and the others on ETCs s&*t list might be risky 
(e.g., they don't work as advertised, too expensive, etc, -let's find out for 
sure), how could these be "weaponized"and "unfair"? Interestingly I see that 
a-/re- forestation is not on their s&*t list, despite serious concerns from 
ecologists (though weaponization is still not mentioned): 
https://ecopreservationsociety.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/does-reforestation-contribute-to-global-warming-part-1/https://news.mongabay.com/2016/02/in-the-rush-to-reforest-are-the-worlds-old-growth-grasslands-losing-out/
https://cereo.wsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/95/2016/03/Joppa_Science_IPBES_2016.pdf

Then there is this curious statement: "fundingand research on climate change 
needs to urgently be scaledup to support implementation of proven and 
locallyadapted ecologically and socially sound solutions to theclimate crisis – 
not speculative and distracting technofixes."
Am all for more funding of climate change research, but there seems to be 
enough scary knowledge already to warrant greatly expanded R funding 
specifically on a broad and deep search for solutions. Locally adapted 
ecological ones certainly are preferred, but with 7+B of us now on the planet 
is it likely that these solutions alone will solve the problem in the time 
required,  while they also continue to (so how) feed, house and clothe us?? For 
the sake of ecology, might it be wise and less risky to also search for 
solutions that don't ask more from Earth's already overtaxed ecosystems? 
Anyway, I'll cc the ETC authors to see if we can elicit a response as to why 
and how we have the luxury of ignoring/castigating technology/new ideas without 
having a better understanding of their actual risks and benefits.
Greg



  From: Stephen Salter 
 To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
 Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 12:40 PM
 Subject: Re: [geo] etc_hbf_geobriefing_may2017.pdf
   
 Hi all It would help if the ETC people could give more detail about why 
putting sea surface temperatures back to where we liked to have them in the 
good old days should be criminal. We may be able to do this by changing the 
size distribution of 0.5% of the mass of a natural material, shown to help 
asthmatic children, which is now being produced from breaking waves. We may be 
able to do this with energy coming from the wind at a cost below the climate 
conference budget. ETC, please explain, if possible with some numbers. Stephen
  On 11/05/2017 19:42, Adam Dorr wrote:
  
 
While several of the concerns expressed in the document bear some 
consideration, I must say I'm discouraged by the overall thinking behind a 
priori opposition to climate engineering technology. By analogy, it would be 
like opposing the development of dentistry technologies because they might 
allow you to continue eating sugar without damaging your teeth.  
  The thinking seems to be rooted in the notion that actions with negative side 
effects are morally depraved (irrespective of their concomitant benefits), and 
that remedying those side effects only serves to *worsen* the depravity rather 
than alleviate it. I suspect a psychology that valorizes self-deprivation and 
self-flaggelation is at work here, but that isn't my field. 
  Regardless of whatever psychology is involved, I think it is clear that this 
orientation toward any specific technology cannot withstand any scrutiny since 
countless examples of its hypocrisy (e.g. the benefits of dentistry and 

[geo] Climate Engineering Governance Project

[Andrew Lockley]

https://law.ucla.edu/centers/environmental-law/emmett-institute-on-climate-change-and-the-environment/projects/climate-engineering-governance-project/

Climate Engineering Governance Project

The Emmett Institute announces a new project to study the governance of
climate engineering (CE) technologies. The three-year project, funded by a
grant from the Open Philanthropy Project, will be directed by Professor
Edward A. (Ted) Parson, Dan and Rae Emmett Professor of Environmental Law
and Emmett Institute faculty co-director.

"Climate engineering" (CE) describes various intentional interventions that
would modify the global climate system, aiming to offset some of the harms
from elevated greenhouse gases and resultant climate change. Several CE
approaches have been proposed, which modify either the Earth’s carbon cycle
or its radiation balance. The strong global temperature targets stated at
Copenhagen (2009) and Paris (2015) - holding global heating to 1.5 or 2
degrees C above the pre-industrial levels - will very likely require some
form of CE to be achievable, either carbon removal (often called "negative
emissions"), reducing incoming sunlight, or both. Some CE interventions
appear potentially able to substantially reduce climate-change risks, in
ways that mitigation and adaptation alone - even if pursued with greatly
increased urgency - cannot. But CE cannot offset all impacts of elevated
greenhouse gases. It thus is not, and cannot be, a complete response to
climate change, and must be considered a supplement, not a replacement, for
the essential activities of cutting emissions and adapting to unavoidable
climate changes. Whether CE capabilities on balance reduce climate-related
risks or make them worse (and introduce serious new risks) depends on how
they are used, to what ends, by whom. If used competently, prudently, and
legitimately, they may help a lot; if used incompetently, recklessly,
rivalrously, or relied on too much, they may make matters worse. Which of
these outcomes happens will depend on how these potential interventions are
governed.

Given the sharp tension between potential large benefits and risks, and the
unavoidably global impact, CE technologies pose novel and severe challenges
to governance, particularly at the international level. While these
challenges are most obvious for the prospect of future global-scale
implementation, proposals to research potential CE methods, effects, and
risks - including small-scale field experiments with negligible direct
environmental impact - have also raised controversy, based on concerns
about public acceptance, the controllability of capabilities once
developed, and the prospect of undermining support for essential mitigation
and adaptation. CE research has consequently also seen sharp debates over
its governance, in addition to the distinct but connected questions of
governance of potential future deployment.

This new Emmett Institute project will examine governance challenges posed
by CE technologies and potential responses. Examples of questions to be
addressed include:

   - What risks are posed by small-scale CE research? How severe are these,
   and how can programs, policies, and oversight methods be designed to
   control them?
   - At what point would CE research projects become matters of
   international concern, and what international coordination, oversight, or
   other governance would they require?
   - How will CE interact with other parts of climate policy? How can
   institutions or decision processes help make these interactions strengthen,
   rather than weaken, mitigation effort?
   - What capabilities will be needed for peaceful, competent, prudent
   control of future proposals for CE deployment? What feasible early steps
   can build such capabilities?
   - What role can an early moratorium play in the development of such
   capabilities?
   - What are the implications of potential regional variation in CE
   effects? Under what conditions might such variations pose security threats,
   and how can these be mitigated?
   - What governance challenges are posed by the imperfect observability of
   CE interventions and effects? What monitoring, attribution, or governance
   advances might address these?
   - What feasible early steps might reduce the resultant risks if, at some
   future time, a major state proposes or announces a CE intervention, or
   charges that someone has done one?
   - How might a high-level consultative body like a World Commission help
   build understanding and norms, and so support early development of
   governance capacity?

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For 

Re: [geo] Viable and convivial technologies: Considerations on Climate Engineering from a degrowth perspective

[Adam Dorr]

Another interesting opposition article, thanks Andrew.

Unfortunately, the foundational assumption of the degrowth discourse (i.e.
that technological capacities and their impacts on the human condition may
be held constant for the indefinite future) is fatally flawed.

--
Adam Dorr
PhD Candidate
University of California Los Angeles School of Public Affairs
adamd...@ucla.edu
adamd...@gmail.com
www.adamdorr.com

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Andrew Lockley 
wrote:

>
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652617308983
>
> Journal of Cleaner Production
> 
>
> Available online 2 May 2017
> , doi:
> 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.159
> 
>
> In Press, Accepted Manuscript — Note to users
> 
> Viable and convivial technologies: Considerations on Climate Engineering
> from a degrowth perspective
>
>- Barbara Muraca
>- Frederike Neuber
>
> Show more
> 
> --
> Check for full text access
> 
> Purchase
> Get
> Full Text Elsewhere
> 
> Highlights
>
>- •
>
>Critique of technology based on degrowth is applied to Climate
>Engineering.
>- •
>
>Biophysical (*viability*) and socio-cultural (*conviviality*) criteria
>are presented.
>- •
>
>Via formalized arguments a critique of Climate Engineering
>Technologies is discussed.
>- •
>
>Sulfate Aerosol Inj., Bio-energy w. Carbon Capture & Storage,
>Afforestation analyzed.
>
> Abstract
>
> Faced with the urgency of climate change, Climate Engineering has been
> framed as a fast and feasible technological solution. At the same time,
> however, critique against it is getting increasingly louder. This paper
> articulates a critical analysis of Climate Engineering technologies from a
> point of view situated within the degrowth discourse. In the first part two
> approaches discussed within the degrowth debate are presented: the concept
> of *viability* based on a biophysical perspective and the concept of
> *conviviality* based on a socio-cultural approach. In a second step
> formalized arguments from the point of view of applied ethics are
> articulated and applied to three Climate Engineering Technologies: Sulfate
> Aerosol Injection, Bio-energy with Carbon Capture and Storage, and
> Afforestation. In a third step, an extended version of the trade-off
> argument about mitigation versus Climate Engineering solution is discussed
> from a degrowth perspective: accordingly, within the current dominant
> growth paradigm, climate engineering technologies might lead to reduced
> mitigation efforts. The paper follows the argumentative turn in applied
> ethics and displays a formalization of arguments that can help clarify
> decision-making and identify the different dimensions at stake. The paper
> articulates arguments against the deployment of CE technologies and
> advances a new version of the trade-off-argument based on a degrowth
> perspective. From the point of view of a degrowth-based critique of
> technology, the only type of Climate Engineering Technology ethically
> acceptable would be afforestation under specific conditions
>
> --
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] etc_hbf_geobriefing_may2017.pdf

[Stephen Salter]

Hi all

It would help if the ETC people could give more detail about why putting 
sea surface temperatures back to where we liked to have them in the good 
old days should be criminal. We may be able to do this by changing the 
size distribution of 0.5% of the mass of a natural material, shown to 
help asthmatic children, which is now being produced from breaking 
waves. We may be able to do this with energy coming from the wind at a 
cost below the climate conference budget.


ETC, please explain, if possible with some numbers.

Stephen

On 11/05/2017 19:42, Adam Dorr wrote:
While several of the concerns expressed in the document bear some 
consideration, I must say I'm discouraged by the overall thinking 
behind a priori opposition to climate engineering technology. By 
analogy, it would be like opposing the development of dentistry 
technologies because they might allow you to continue eating sugar 
without damaging your teeth.


The thinking seems to be rooted in the notion that actions with 
negative side effects are morally depraved (irrespective of their 
concomitant benefits), and that remedying those side effects only 
serves to *worsen* the depravity rather than alleviate it. I suspect a 
psychology that valorizes self-deprivation and self-flaggelation is at 
work here, but that isn't my field.


Regardless of whatever psychology is involved, I think it is clear 
that this orientation toward any specific technology cannot withstand 
any scrutiny since countless examples of its hypocrisy (e.g. the 
benefits of dentistry and all the other accouterments of modernity) 
immediately emerge.




--
Adam Dorr
PhD Candidate
University of California Los Angeles School of Public Affairs
adamd...@ucla.edu 
adamd...@gmail.com 
www.adamdorr.com 

On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Andrew Lockley 
> wrote:


Climate change, smoke and mirrors

Latest missive from etc group.

A
-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Viable and convivial technologies: Considerations on Climate Engineering from a degrowth perspective

[Andrew Lockley]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652617308983

Journal of Cleaner Production


Available online 2 May 2017
, doi:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.159


In Press, Accepted Manuscript — Note to users

Viable and convivial technologies: Considerations on Climate Engineering
from a degrowth perspective

   - Barbara Muraca
   - Frederike Neuber

Show more

--
Check for full text access
Purchase
Get
Full Text Elsewhere

Highlights

   - •

   Critique of technology based on degrowth is applied to Climate
   Engineering.
   - •

   Biophysical (*viability*) and socio-cultural (*conviviality*) criteria
   are presented.
   - •

   Via formalized arguments a critique of Climate Engineering Technologies
   is discussed.
   - •

   Sulfate Aerosol Inj., Bio-energy w. Carbon Capture & Storage,
   Afforestation analyzed.

Abstract

Faced with the urgency of climate change, Climate Engineering has been
framed as a fast and feasible technological solution. At the same time,
however, critique against it is getting increasingly louder. This paper
articulates a critical analysis of Climate Engineering technologies from a
point of view situated within the degrowth discourse. In the first part two
approaches discussed within the degrowth debate are presented: the concept
of *viability* based on a biophysical perspective and the concept of
*conviviality* based on a socio-cultural approach. In a second step
formalized arguments from the point of view of applied ethics are
articulated and applied to three Climate Engineering Technologies: Sulfate
Aerosol Injection, Bio-energy with Carbon Capture and Storage, and
Afforestation. In a third step, an extended version of the trade-off
argument about mitigation versus Climate Engineering solution is discussed
from a degrowth perspective: accordingly, within the current dominant
growth paradigm, climate engineering technologies might lead to reduced
mitigation efforts. The paper follows the argumentative turn in applied
ethics and displays a formalization of arguments that can help clarify
decision-making and identify the different dimensions at stake. The paper
articulates arguments against the deployment of CE technologies and
advances a new version of the trade-off-argument based on a degrowth
perspective. From the point of view of a degrowth-based critique of
technology, the only type of Climate Engineering Technology ethically
acceptable would be afforestation under specific conditions

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Webinar, May 16 2017: Briefing and Discussion on Solar Geoengineering: Science, Ethics, and Governance

[Andrew Lockley]

https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/news/announcements/2017-05-11-a-briefing-and-discussion-on-solar-geoengineering-science-ethics-and-governance

Webinar, May 16 2017: Briefing and Discussion on Solar Geoengineering:
Science, Ethics, and Governance

May 11, 2017

[image: CCEIA] [image: FCEA logo]

Title: "*A briefing and discussion on solar geoengineering: science, ethics
and governance"*

Date: 16 May 2017

Time: 12:00 UTC/GMT  (8:00 EDT New York, 13:00 BST London, 14:00 CEST
Geneva, 17:30 IST New Delhi)

Registration link:
https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/6986072965093789186

*Please note that for technical reasons this webinar limited to 500
attendees**. The event will be recorded and made available later for public
view*

Description:

In response to stakeholder requests, the Forum on Climate Engineering
Assessment  (FCEA) and the Carnegie Climate
Geoengineering Governance Initiative
 (C2G2) are pleased to
jointly convene this webinar which will present an overview of the current
state of research and understanding around key issues pertaining to
proposed solar geoengineering technologies, in the context of global
climate policy. The goal is to enable increased engagement by stakeholders
from all interested sectors in the rapidly evolving global conversation
about if, and how to conduct research and consider possible deployment of
solar geoengineering technologies.

The briefing will be organized as follows:

*Introduction *(10 minutes)

   - *Janos **Pasztor*, Executive Director, C2G2
   - *Simon Nicholson*, Co-Executive Director, FCEA

*Solar Geoengineering Science *(35 minutes presentation + 30 minutes Q)

This section of the webinar, convened and facilitated by the FCEA, will
include an overview of physical science research & current state of
understanding, an outline of socio-economic, ecological and human impacts
and risks to be considered, and a discussion of the potential role of
proposed solar geoengineering technologies in managing global climate
risks.

Presenters:

   - *Douglas **MacMartin*, Research Professor, Computing & Mathematical
   Sciences, Cornell University
   - *Thomas Ackerman*, Director, Joint Institute for the Study of the
   Atmosphere and Ocean, University of Washington
   - *Pablo Suarez*, Associate Director for Research and Innovation, Red
   Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre

*Governance of Solar Geoengineering *(40 minutes presentation + 30 minutes
Q)

This section of the webinar, convened by C2G2, will include discussion of
major ethical and social considerations surrounding solar geoengineering
research, experimentation and potential deployment, as well as likely
governance challenges and potential pathways, in the international context.


Presenters:

   - *Holly J**ean Buck, *Cornell University College of Agriculture and
   Life Sciences
   - *David Morrow, *Faculty Fellow, Forum for Climate Engineering
   Assessment, American University
   - *Arunabha Ghosh, *Chief Executive Officer, Council on Energy,
   Environment and Water
   - *Ted Parson*, Dan and Rae Emmett Professor of Environmental Law,
   University of California Los Angeles Law School

*Wrap-up *(5 minutes)
[image: Janos Pasztor]


Janos Pasztor Senior
Fellow and Executive Director, Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance
Initiative (C2G2)VIEW BIO

[image: Simon Nicholson]


Simon Nicholson Forum
for Climate Engineering Assessment (FCEA)VIEW BIO


-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Re: Stratospheric aerosol

[Andrew Lockley]

It will be particularly interesting to see what effect no-till agriculture,
etc. have on this aerosol loading. There may be a trade-off between carbon
farming and incidental SRM.

Furthermore, CCN effect also needs to be considered

Andrew Lockley

On 11 May 2017 19:28, "Adrian Tuck" 
wrote:

> This paper seems relevant:
> Radiative forcing from anthropogenic sulfur and organic emissions reaching
> the stratosphere
>
> By:Yu, PF
> 
>  (Yu,
> Pengfei)*[ 1
> ,2
> 
>  ] *
> ; Murphy, DM
> 
>  (Murphy,
> Daniel M.)*[ 1
> 
>  ] *
> ; Portmann, RW
> 
>  (Portmann,
> Robert W.)*[ 1
> 
>  ] *
> ; Toon, OB
> 
>  (Toon,
> Owen B.)*[ 3
> ,4
> 
>  ] *
> ; Froyd, KD
> 
>  (Froyd,
> Karl D.)*[ 1
> ,2
> 
>  ] *
> ; Rollins, AW
> 
>  (Rollins,
> Andrew W.)*[ 1
> ,2
> 
>  ] *
> ; Gao, RS
> 
>  (Gao,
> Ru-Shan)*[ 1
> 
>  ] *
> ; Rosenlof, KH
> 
>  (Rosenlof,
> Karen H.)*[ 1
> 
>  ]*
> View ResearcherID and ORCID
>
> GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS
>
> Volume: 43
>
>
> Issue: 17
>
>
> Pages: 9361-9367
>
> DOI: 10.1002/2016GL070153
>
> Published: SEP 2016
> View Journal Information
> Abstract
>
> Stratospheric aerosols cool the Earth by scattering sunlight. Although
> sulfuric acid dominates the stratospheric aerosol, this study finds that
> organic material in the lowermost stratosphere contributes 30-40% of the
> nonvolcanic stratospheric aerosol optical depth (sAOD). Simulations
> indicate that nonvolcanic sAOD has increased 77% since 1850. Stratospheric
> aerosol accounts for 21% of the total direct aerosol radiative forcing
> (which is negative) and 12% of the total aerosol optical depth (AOD)
> increase from organics and sulfate. There is a larger stratospheric
> influence on 

Re: [geo] etc_hbf_geobriefing_may2017.pdf

[Adam Dorr]

While several of the concerns expressed in the document bear some
consideration, I must say I'm discouraged by the overall thinking behind a
priori opposition to climate engineering technology. By analogy, it would
be like opposing the development of dentistry technologies because they
might allow you to continue eating sugar without damaging your teeth.

The thinking seems to be rooted in the notion that actions with negative
side effects are morally depraved (irrespective of their concomitant
benefits), and that remedying those side effects only serves to *worsen*
the depravity rather than alleviate it. I suspect a psychology that
valorizes self-deprivation and self-flaggelation is at work here, but that
isn't my field.

Regardless of whatever psychology is involved, I think it is clear that
this orientation toward any specific technology cannot withstand any
scrutiny since countless examples of its hypocrisy (e.g. the benefits of
dentistry and all the other accouterments of modernity) immediately emerge.



--
Adam Dorr
PhD Candidate
University of California Los Angeles School of Public Affairs
adamd...@ucla.edu
adamd...@gmail.com
www.adamdorr.com

On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Andrew Lockley 
wrote:

> Climate change, smoke and mirrors
>
> Latest missive from etc group.
>
> A
>
> --
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Stratospheric aerosol

[Adrian Tuck]

This paper seems relevant:
Radiative forcing from anthropogenic sulfur and organic emissions reaching the 
stratosphere
By:Yu, PF (Yu, Pengfei)[ 1,2 ] ; Murphy, DM (Murphy, Daniel M.)[ 1 ] ; 
Portmann, RW (Portmann, Robert W.)[ 1 ] ; Toon, OB (Toon, Owen B.)[ 3,4 ] ; 
Froyd, KD (Froyd, Karl D.)[ 1,2 ] ; Rollins, AW (Rollins, Andrew W.)[ 1,2 ] ; 
Gao, RS (Gao, Ru-Shan)[ 1 ] ; Rosenlof, KH (Rosenlof, Karen H.)[ 1 ]
View ResearcherID and ORCID
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS
Volume: 43 Issue: 17 Pages: 9361-9367
DOI: 10.1002/2016GL070153
Published: SEP 2016
View Journal Information
Abstract
Stratospheric aerosols cool the Earth by scattering sunlight. Although sulfuric 
acid dominates the stratospheric aerosol, this study finds that organic 
material in the lowermost stratosphere contributes 30-40% of the nonvolcanic 
stratospheric aerosol optical depth (sAOD). Simulations indicate that 
nonvolcanic sAOD has increased 77% since 1850. Stratospheric aerosol accounts 
for 21% of the total direct aerosol radiative forcing (which is negative) and 
12% of the total aerosol optical depth (AOD) increase from organics and 
sulfate. There is a larger stratospheric influence on radiative forcing (i.e., 
21%) relative to AOD (i.e., 12%) because an increase of tropospheric black 
carbon warms the planet while stratospheric aerosols (including black carbon) 
cool the planet. Radiative forcing from nonvolcanic stratospheric aerosol mass 
of anthropogenic origin, including organics, has not been widely considered as 
a significant influence on the climate system.

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] smoke and mirrors

[David Sevier]

I read and skimmed the publication. If these people had their way we would
still be huddling in caves cold afraid to try that new invention called
fire. Too many incorrect facts to count in this publication and marked raw
stupidity.  Deeply flawed thinking.

 

Dave 

 

 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Re: etc_hbf_geobriefing_may2017.pdf

[Andrew Lockley]

Jesse has a good twitter thread debunking etc's latest batch of alternative
facts

https://twitter.com/JesseLReynolds/status/862566843088859138

(sent in a personal capacity)

On 10 May 2017 21:08, "Andrew Lockley"  wrote:

> Climate change, smoke and mirrors
>
> Latest missive from etc group.
>
> A
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.