[geo] Survey - meaningful baselines for SRM scenarios

[Claudia Wieners]

Dear colleagues,

For a review paper on SRM scenario framing, we would like to study how
experts think about commonly used baselines to which to compare SRM
simulations.

Two frequently used baselines are as follows:

A) “Same Global Mean Surface Temperature” framing
Comparing a “moderate / high greenhouse gas with SRM” scenario to a
scenario with lower greenhouse gas concentrations and no SRM, but the same
GMST
B) “Same Greenhouse Gas” framing:
Comparing a  “moderate / high greenhouse gas with SRM” scenario to a
scenario with the same greenhouse gas concentrations and no SRM, hence
higher GMST

We would like to hear from SRM researchers which of these two baselines -
or others - you perceive as being dominant, and most useful.
If you would like to contribute, please fill in our short survey below. It
should only take a few minutes.

https://forms.office.com/e/xMRgJ7jz9k


Best regards
Claudia Wieners (Utrecht University, https://www.uu.nl/medewerkers/CEWieners
)
Colleen Golja (Imperial Colledge, London)

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJUUK5dK6yvYBqnByPP7y%2BXF%2Bgtmg%3DwDttY3jadinyd6n%3D0tug%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] reminder: Special issue risk-risk balancing of SRM

[Claudia Wieners]

Dear all,

as many of you may have reard, Oxford Open Climate Change plans to publish
a Special Collection titled "Towards a Risk-Risk-Assessment of Solar
Radiation Modification: Effectiveness, Feasibility, Side effects,
Governance".

OOCC is a new journal that aims to give a home to a broad range of research
on climate change, including controversial topics, and recently published
Hansen et al's article "Global warming in the Pipeline". This Special
Collection will focus on (physical, societal and political) risks that SRM
may either cause, or reduce, and methods to assess and weigh these risks.

This way we hope to make a contribution towards a balanced assessment of
SRM.

The (official) deadline is May 31st. Articles will be published as soon as
review and typesetting are completed.

We are still accepting contributions. If you are interested in
contributing, please send me of my co-editor Fabian Hoffmann a tentative
title and very brief summary of your potential paper.

More information can be found here:
https://academic.oup.com/oocc/pages/solar-radiation-modification
Of course we will also be happy to answer questions.

Kind regards
Claudia Wieners and Fabian Hoffmann, guest editors



Claudia E. Wieners
Assistant professor
Institute for Marine and Atmospheric research, Utrecht
Utrecht University, Netherlands
https://www.uu.nl/staff/CEWieners
c.e.wien...@uu.nl

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJUUK5fi4M29u%3D7hq03%2BgpA9UqKtSefJ3jz13DZsgzb9KMZExA%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Special Collection "Towards a Risk-Risk-Assessment of Solar Radiation Modification"

[Claudia Wieners]

Dear all,

Oxford Open Climate Change just opened a Special Collection titled "Towards
a Risk-Risk-Assessment of Solar Radiation Modification: Effectiveness,
Feasibility, Side effects, Governance".

OOCC is a new journal that aims to give a home to a broad range of research
on climate change, including controversial topics, and recently published
Hansen et al's article "Global warming in the Pipeline". This Special
Collection will focus on (physical, societal and political) risks that SRM
may either cause, or reduce, and methods to assess and weigh these risks.
This way we hope to make a contribution towards a balanced assessment of
SRM.

The link is here:
https://academic.oup.com/oocc/pages/solar-radiation-modification

Kind regards
Claudia Wieners and Fabian Hoffmann, guest editors

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJUUK5cQamyt9JBuO9uNzOdCK9uQcRXvvkv6yTbsfp97SkUL2Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] podcast with opponents and proponents of SRM (research) on Climate Now

[Claudia Wieners]

dear all,

Climate Now did a podcast on SRM with proponents and opponents of SRM (or
research thereof):
https://climatenow.com/podcast/climate-now-debates-solar-radiation-management-srm/

feel free to share if you like :-)

Best
Claudia

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJUUK5enLEMxnBSFhJC7z-hwsuqKy7nydg4KGRPrD851BZ6hhQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] (grudging) support for SRM research....

[Claudia Wieners]

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/risks-and-benefits-of-geoengineering-to-fight-climate-change-by-peter-singer-2023-04

Piece by ethicist Peter Singer on why he changed his mind over the need for
SRM research over the past 10 years.

Brief quote: "I changed my view because today we are in a more desperate
situation than we were a decade ago. Climate change is occurring more
rapidly than previously predicted, with temperature records broken, more
severe droughts and floods, and more intense storms."

Kind regards

Claudia Wieners

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJUUK5c21w7ZKSJJBjDuEotb-qNfxut7pQRysFdW8ZHwtiWp9A%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] open letter: call for balanced research on SRM

[Claudia Wieners]

Dear colleagues,

Concerned by the course the debate on SRM research is taking, a small group
of us have joined in writing a letter, trying to express a measured and
reflected position, arguing for a balanced consideration of various types
of risk in decisions on SRM research and assessment. We hope and think that
this letter takes a responsible, nuanced perspective on SRM research which
will be supported by a large audience that is concerned about how humanity
will manage climate change and its impacts.

We will officially launch this call on Tuesday February 28th at 16.00 CET,
with a press briefing (details below). Until then, however, we kindly
invite you to have a look at the letter, and sign if you so wish, on this
webpage: https://www.call-for-balance.com. We also invite you to spread the
letter to interested colleagues.
All climate experts - from climate physicists to economists and social
scientists - are welcome to sign, including those who do not have SRM
research as their main field but judge from their expertise that SRM
research is needed.

We are aware of another letter in support of SRM research, with a slightly
more technical angle, launched today, and are happy to see different
independent initiatives making similar statements. Please do have a look at
this letter as well (https://climate-intervention-research-letter.org/).

Best,
Claudia Wieners, on behalf of all authors


Zoom details:

Topic: Press briefing - Call for balanced research and assessment of SRM

Time: Feb 28, 2023 04:00 PM Amsterdam, Berlin, Rome, Stockholm, Vienna,
Tunis, Lagos

https://ethz.zoom.us/j/62796570938

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJUUK5fMLhqkYTL9QRp53339hSqrsL5obSOznD5n-En11ag-oQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [geo] why SRM is necessary

[Claudia Wieners]

Dear Phil,

I wouldn't phrase it as drastically. If
-- emission reductions are implemented "with gusto"
-- CDR works fairly well
-- climate sensitivity is not on the higher end of current estimates
the 1.5 degrees goal is still within reach (see the most ambitious
scenarios of the recent IPCC AR6 WG1, e.g. SRM fig 4). If furthermore
-- tipping points and other nastiness is indeed limited below 1.5 degrees
there is some hope that even without SRM earth remains liveable, though we
would still have serious problems with e.g. sea level rise.

The question is, do we dare to bet on all these conditions? If not, then we
should seriously consider SRM but meanwhile keep reducing emissions as much
as we can.
It is a bit frightening that the only scenario in IPCC AR6 WG1 SPM fig 4
that has a* chance* to stay below 1.5deg (depends on climate sensitivity)
assumes we will have massive net negative emissions from ca 2055, while we
still don't know whether such negative emissions are feasible at the
required scale: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05938-3.

Best
Claudia

ps: I've tried to word these thoughts in a simple way here:
https://www.uu.nl/en/news/chemotherapy-for-the-climate-the-need-for-risk-risk-balancing-in-assessing-solar-geoengineering



Op vr 6 mei 2022 om 16:55 schreef Phil M :

> Hi, I've heard that SRM is necessary because neither emissions reductions
> nor GHG removal strategies, even if enacted globally with gusto, can
> possibly impact rising temperatures before we won't have an ecosystem left
> that can support human life, or most other life for that matter. So it's
> really about not having enough time left to NOT turn to SRM, which also
> voids the moral hazard argument as well. But I haven't been able to find
> any hard research confirming this. Has anyone found such research?
>
> --
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/be5b2788-05b7-43cd-bf48-42266cbfcfa9n%40googlegroups.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.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJUUK5fuzXLp-foY0C31DBYqoG9YhuVSHwErGYhsuXhhVbdu3w%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Campaign for Non-use agreement: First draft of a response

[Claudia Wieners]

Dear all,

last month there was some discussion on whether to prepare a response to
Biermann et al's call for a non-use agreement on solar geoengineering, but
the mailing thread became quiet thereafter. Is anyone indeed working on
this?

I've spent the weekend looking through and updating some thoughts that I
had written down as reaction to a previous Biermann paper. A first, still
rough draft is below.

If some of my ideas can be useful to existing groups working on a reply,
I'd be happy to join your efforts if I can be of help.
If however there is no (sufficiently similar) effort ongoing, I'd be glad
for anyone who wants to join mine. My aim would be to develop the text into
an opinion piece that could be sent, for example, to WIRES review.
Since I'm not too much into governance and equality issues, expertise from
that corner would be particularly useful, but engagement form all
disciplines surrounding SG is welcome!
Anyone who is interested to join: contact me (claudia.wien...@gmail.com)
and I'll send you the link to my google drive document.

I think it would be great if we could pull together a thorough response
with an interdisciplinary group of real SG researchers!

Best regards
Claudia Wieners (assistant professor climate science, Utrecht/Netherlands)

--  DRAFT TEXT -


Call for Solar Geoengineering (SG) research


*Intro [to be provided later]*

*– what is solar geo, etc*

*– why it is controversial *

*– remarks about recent campaign by Biermann et al *

We currently do not advocate the eventual use of SG - too little is yet
known about its benefits, costs and risks - both physical and governmental.

We do call for sound, transparent, and critical research of SG. This is for
two reasons, which will be elaborated on further below:

   1.

   From what we know, there is a chance that SG, if properly handled, might
   be able to alleviate climate-induced suffering that could not be averted
   otherwise. It would be irresponsible to deprive ourselves and future
   generations of this tool prematurely.
   2.

   Even if (certain schemes of) SG are not viable strategies, they might be
   falsely viewed as such, especially in a future scenario in which global
   warming turns out to inflict serious suffering and puts governments under
   pressure for quick action. In such a scenario, critical research conducted
   before climate-induced pressure becomes too high, might help to eliminate
   ineffective or dangerous SG options in time.


Whether solar geoengineering will be, or will seem to be, viable in the
future is hard to predict, as it depends on future greenhouse gas
emissions, the (still uncertain) sensitivity of global warming to
greenhouse gas concentrations, and the sensitivity of relevant components
of the climate and ecosystems on global warming (e.g. the vulnerability of
ice sheets). We cannot predict whether future generations will consider SG
necessary. However, we can help them to take a wise decision by developing
a sound knowledge base, including both natural and social science
questions.


Opponents raise several arguments against SG and even research thereof.
While these points deserve attention and careful deliberation, in our view
they do not justify an effective ban on SG research. However, the
underlying concerns should be taken into account when performing and
regulating SG research.


SG opponents’ view

Our view

Environmental Risk

– SG has environmental risks, and is therefore unacceptable.

– SG is not needed.

Risks of SG must be weighed against the risk of global warming without SG.
We must not prematurely reject options of fighting global warming.

“Slippery slope” to deployment?

SG research will lead to normalisation and eventual deployment of SG.

SG research must be transparent and properly regulated, including
mechanisms to avoid “lock-in”.

The “moral hazard” problem

SG only distracts us from the true solution, namely decarbonisation.

The role of  SG’s must be restricted to an auxiliary component of climate
policy.

Governance

SG cannot be governed in a fair and inclusive manner.

Governmental questions must be part of SG research from the outset to
maximise fairness and inclusiveness.

“The Genie must remain in the Bottle”

We must ban SG before it is too late.

The genie is already out of the bottle. We must give future generations the
knowledge base to manage it wisely.



Risks of solar geoengineering must be balanced against the risk of global
warming without solar geoengineering.

SG has been suggested to pose environmental risks, to be “messing with
nature”. Deliberately intervening in a system we do not fully understand
can be seen as irresponsible, even smaller-scale human interventions in
natural systems have brought about undesired and /or unforeseen
consequences which may be hard to remedy afterwards, e.g. the environmental
impacts of the Dutch Delta Works, or in fact global warming.

These are valid concerns

Re: [geo] Climate Expert: Stop Talking About "Geoengineering"

[Claudia Wieners]

... speaking of clear communication: we plainly should admit that climate
sensitivity (how much warming per doubling CO2) is still uncertain, so the
"2.7º", probably calculated with a best estimate value, could be
considerably higher if we are unlucky with climate sensitivity.
In my view it would be better to say something like "expected 2.7 degree
but 5% chance of exceeding 4.5º" (or similar, I didn't double-check the
numbers).

Best
Claudia

Op ma 22 nov. 2021 om 08:33 schreef Dr. Maiken Winter <
cont...@maikenwinter.de>:

> Thanks for this very interesting interview that finally convinces me that
> we truly really need to accept climate intervention as a very important
> method to avoid catastrpohe.
>
> One question: Everywhere I read about 2,4 or 2,7 Degree celsius of warming
> by 2100. Would it not be important to talk about warming past 2100?
>
> We will have way more than "jus"  2,7 degrees warming, right?
>
> I think it´s time to communicate that clearly.
>
> Best,
>
> Maiken
>
>
> Am 21.11.2021 um 20:46 schrieb Geoeng Info:
>
> https://spectrum.ieee.org/geoengineering-climate-change
>
> Climate Expert: Stop Talking About "Geoengineering"
> 
>
> Term is a distraction from crucial research on climate interventions
>
> The leaders of the world have just returned from the UN's latest climate
> change summit, COP26 , in which the countries that
> have signed on to the Paris Agreement upped their commitments to fight
> climate change. Everyone solemnly agreed, again, to follow the science,
> which has shown in exhaustive detail that humanity will suffer from heat,
> fire, floods, and droughts
> 
>  if
> the world warms beyond 1.5° C
> 
>  above
> pre-industrial levels.
>
> Yet if countries continue on their present course, the world will likely
> have warmed by 2.7° C by the year 2100
> ,
> according to Climate Action Tracker .
> If they meet all the pledges they've made for emission reductions by 2030,
> global temperature rise will be at 2.4° C by then. Hardly the breakthroughs
> we need to stave off disaster.
>
> In light of this situation, there's increasing talk
>  of
> actions that governments can take beyond reducing greenhouse gas
> emissions—actions that could either remove existing greenhouse gases from
> the atmosphere or reduce the amount of sunlight
> 
>  coming
> into the atmosphere. Nobody's proposing relying solely on such tactics, but
> they could potentially help the planet in the short-term.
>
> Such approaches are usually called geoengineering
> , and they're
> controversial: Many people worry about the unintended consequences of
> interfering with nature on a global scale. But Kelly Wanser
> , the executive director
> of the non-profit Silver Lining , argues
> that humanity is already interfering with nature on a global scale; that's
> what climate change is all about. She spoke with *IEEE Spectrum* about
> her work in encouraging basic scientific research on climate interventions.
>
> *IEEE Spectrum: What role does Silver Lining play in climate research or
> advocacy?*
>
> *Kelly Wanser: *Silver Lining's focus is on near-term climate risk: the
> exposure that we have to climate change between now and the middle of the
> century. The IPCC report  released
> this past August said that in all of the realistic scenarios that they look
> at for climate change, warming continues to increase between now and 2050.
> And right now, we don't have enough ways to significantly reduce that
> warming.
>
>
> * Wanser:* It's partly a play on words. One approach to reducing warming
> has to do with brightening clouds with salt from seawater. But it's also a
> way of indicating that there is hope and possibility in navigating the
> dangerous part of the climate change situation.*Spectrum: Where does the
> name of the organization come from?*
>
> *Spectrum: I've been reporting on this topic recently, and I think I
> irritated a few researchers by using the term "geoengineering." Do you
> object to that term, and if so, what term do you prefer?*
>
> *Wanser: *We do object to it, because we don't think it's a good
> reflection of what is being proposed in these rapid responses to climate
> change. In 2015, the U.S. National Academy of 

Re: [geo] Exploration of a novel geoengineering solution: lighting up tropical forests at night

[Claudia Wieners]

Original idea, but apart from worrying about unwanted side effects for the
ecosystem and technical questions about the maintenance of all these lamps,
cables etc, I wonder whether 16 years is on the short side. Would it not
take longer than that for the forest to equilibrate, i.e. reach a state
where the extra uptake is compensated by an extra emission of CO2 from
rotting biomass? I.e. maybe negative feedbacks kick in only after the 16
years?
Of course, the new forest would have a bigger reservoir of carbon, but in
equilibrium it would maybe stop being a sink. Yet one would have to
continue lighting the forest forever or at least a long time to keep the
carbon in the forest because after termination the carbon is released
again. So some form of direct air capture might have the advantage of
storing the carbon more safely without constant energy input (for a ton
already stored).
Finally, note that Keller et al 2015 did an experiment - admittedly in an
intermediate complexity model - where they assumed they could afforest the
whole Sahara (let's just assume for a moment that it could be done
somehow...). They found significant carbon uptake during the growth of the
forest but after about 50 years the forest equilibrated, acting as a
storage but no longer as a sink. And the storage thus created was far, far
smaller than anthropogenic emissions till now, though of course one might
argue that there is no silver bullet and one shouldn't dismiss any
carbon-reducing measure *purely *on the ground that it alone cannot fully
solve the problem.

Are there any biosphere experts here who can confirm or contradict my
concerns? Am I mistaken?

Op wo 10 nov. 2021 om 07:54 schreef Geoeng Info :

> https://esd.copernicus.org/preprints/esd-2021-85/
>
> Exploration of a novel geoengineering solution: lighting up tropical
> forests at night
>
>
> Xueyuan Gao, Shunlin Liang, Dongdong Wang, Yan Li, Bin He, Aolin Jia
>
> Abstract.
>
> Plants primarily conduct photosynthesis in the daytime, offering an
> opportunity to increase photosynthesis and carbon sink by providing light
> at night. We used a fully coupled Earth System Model to quantify the carbon
> sequestration and climate effects of a novel carbon removal proposal:
> lighting up tropical forests at night via lamp networks above the forest
> canopy. Simulation results show that additional light increased tropical
> forest carbon sink by 10.4 ± 0.05 petagrams of carbon per year during a
> 16-year lighting experiment, resulting in a decrease in atmospheric CO2 and
> suppression of global warming. In addition, local temperature and
> precipitation increased. The energy requirement for capturing one ton of
> carbon is lower than that of Direct Air Carbon Capture. When the lighting
> experiment was terminated, tropical forests started to release carbon
> slowly. This study suggests that lighting up tropical forests at night
> could be an emergency solution to climate change, and carbon removal
> actions focused on enhancing ecosystem productivity by altering
> environmental factors in the short term could induce post-action CO2
>  outgassing.
>
> --
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKSzgpY%2BwsJV%2BoDydH9fcXOdgPX5UEheUqkpZ5io2MfLozoQDw%40mail.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.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJUUK5cAzC0F%3D%3DhBEjWRomu9WUz3dp7WSEmsa66jS7HQ4p7AoA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [geo] Greens who object to geoengineering put planet at risk

[Claudia Wieners]

Well, I heartily disagree with the "maddening" environmentalists opposing
SRM research, but I would nonetheless plead to be careful with formulations
such as: "even if that is effectively impossible because the world’s two
most populous nations, China and India, embrace coal-burning power plants
as essential to future economic growth"
Should solar power (including storage) become cheaper than fuel-based, then
this will eventually trigger a shift - albeit maybe too late to reach 2
degree, so some geoengineering may be much needed. But I think we all agree
that a transition away from fossils, even if not in time for 2 degrees,
would be most welcome (the fewer emissions, the less geoengineering we
need); and the best way to achieve a transition away from fossils is by
pushing it, even if starting with only a few countries. The (seemingly
ridiculously expensive) roll-out of solar and wind in a few countries like
Germany and Denmark greatly reduced the prices of these technologies
through learning-by-doing; same could happen with storage once it is pushed
for. Energy transition is more dynamic (and chaotic) than often
acknowledged (*), so let's not give up on it verbally - but let's of course
also keep investigating geoengineering as a complementary strategy.

(*) e.g. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wcc.698

Best
Claudia

Op ma 15 feb. 2021 om 13:51 schreef Andrew Lockley :

>
> https://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/2021/02/14/opinion/greens-who-object-to-geoengineering-put-planet-at-risk/
>
> Extract
>
> ...a new controversy in Sweden shows once again the maddening nature of
> modern environmentalism. The same green groups that warn that climate
> change will worsen or ruin the lives of billions of people are opposed to
> using advanced technology to reduce the effects of greenhouse gas
> emissions. Instead, they insist the main solutions must be 1) a planetary
> abandonment of dirty fuels — even if that is effectively impossible because
> the world’s two most populous nations, China and India, embrace
> coal-burning power plants as essential to future economic growth — and 2)
> dramatic changes in how humans lead lives and consume natural resources
>
> --
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-04Z-s3TMx3ps42QeEwWJdk1goWdd1pOHfOjzp16pGChEg%40mail.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.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJUUK5dmo7Cjut47MpyuS6NqPqomZFPVds8x8qp%3D0Z91COcYxQ%40mail.gmail.com.