Long term temperature memory dominates over instantaneous forcing

[Tom Goreau]

Many proponents of CDR seem to believe that global warming has no memory, so achieving instantaneous net zero will end temperature increases, even though the 1500 year circulation time of the ocean causes an intrinsic temperature time lag behind GHG forcing of 1-2 thousand years.

 

This paper re-evaluates long term temperature memory effects and find that they dominate over immediate forcing, even when the time delay caused by ocean turnover is completely ignored!

 

[Jim Baird]

Thus the need to extend the 1500 year circulation time by short-circuiting the movement of the global warming component of  ocean heat towards the poles.

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/BY3PR13MB4994E09722BA48A9FB3C686ADD549%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.

[Douglas MacMartin]

But zero emissions does not mean constant concentrations; CO2 concentrations would also decay over those thousand years even without CDR, in part due to the same processes, so indeed it is not unreasonable to expect to first order that net-zero emissions would indeed roughly end temperature increases (and on the millennial time-scale, you wouldn’t need a huge CDR effort to ensure that the CO2 drops a little more rapidly to offset residual warming from disequilibrium of temperature with concentrations).  So I don’t see why the 1000-2000 year timescales you note are relevant to current policy?

 

From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Tom Goreau
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2022 5:05 AM
To: CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com> <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [CDR] Long term temperature memory dominates over instantaneous forcing

 

Many proponents of CDR seem to believe that global warming has no memory, so achieving instantaneous net zero will end temperature increases, even though the 1500 year circulation time of the ocean causes an intrinsic temperature time lag behind GHG forcing of 1-2 thousand years.

 

This paper re-evaluates long term temperature memory effects and find that they dominate over immediate forcing, even when the time delay caused by ocean turnover is completely ignored!

 

--

[Tom Goreau]

The cumulative impacts over the long term will be large, so we need to prepare for them.

[Douglas MacMartin]

Yes, but not for the reason that you wrote… it isn’t because the global mean temperature itself will continue to rise, but rather lots of other things (sea level rise in particular, perhaps) will continue to evolve even if global mean temperature were held constant.

[Tom Goreau]

Yes, to be sure, sea level rise, the doppelganger of global warming, will continue for millenia and at the moment our policymakers have their heads in the sand, and refuse to open them until sea level rise and increasing storm strength washes the beach away!

 

Most beaches will vanish in the next few decades, especially where a living coral reef had grown and protected them.

 

Billions of people will sooner or later be forced to move as a result of these long term climate responses.

[Eelco Rohling]

It is because slow feedbacks will continue. These have been pulled out of equilibrium and will continue to adjust over many centuries to millennia. 

Also delayed warming of the ocean plays a big role. It takes a long time to warm up the ocean. Especially the deep ocean; it lags centuries to a millennium behind radiative forcing change; this is core to the radiative unbalance Jim Hansen has been pointing out for decades now. It is also core to the concept of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), which is achieved only after the ocean (surface ocean in that definition) warming has caught up. Typically, ECS is 1.5 times higher than the transient response seen within decades.

Eelco

Sent from my iPhone

On 29 Sep 2022, at 07:55, Douglas MacMartin <dgm...@cornell.edu> wrote:



Yes, but not for the reason that you wrote… it isn’t because the global mean temperature itself will continue to rise, but rather lots of other things (sea level rise in particular, perhaps) will continue to evolve even if global mean temperature were held constant.

 

 

From: Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2022 2:14 PM
To: Douglas MacMartin <dgm...@cornell.edu>; CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com> <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Long term temperature memory dominates over instantaneous forcing

 

The cumulative impacts over the long term will be large, so we need to prepare for them.

 

From: Douglas MacMartin <dgm...@cornell.edu>
Date: Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 12:54 PM
To: Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>, CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: Long term temperature memory dominates over instantaneous forcing

But zero emissions does not mean constant concentrations; CO2 concentrations would also decay over those thousand years even without CDR, in part due to the same processes, so indeed it is not unreasonable to expect to first order that net-zero emissions would indeed roughly end temperature increases (and on the millennial time-scale, you wouldn’t need a huge CDR effort to ensure that the CO2 drops a little more rapidly to offset residual warming from disequilibrium of temperature with concentrations).  So I don’t see why the 1000-2000 year timescales you note are relevant to current policy?

 

From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Tom Goreau
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2022 5:05 AM
To: CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com> <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [CDR] Long term temperature memory dominates over instantaneous forcing

 

Many proponents of CDR seem to believe that global warming has no memory, so achieving instantaneous net zero will end temperature increases, even though the 1500 year circulation time of the ocean causes an intrinsic temperature time lag behind GHG forcing of 1-2 thousand years.

 

This paper re-evaluates long term temperature memory effects and find that they dominate over immediate forcing, even when the time delay caused by ocean turnover is completely ignored!

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/BY3PR13MB4994E09722BA48A9FB3C686ADD549%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CH2PR04MB69361A9C9308C736D97919668F549%40CH2PR04MB6936.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.

[Douglas MacMartin]

ECS describes what happens with constant-concentrations.

 

Constant concentrations is not relevant to what happens with net-zero emissions, which is what I was pushing back on (that is, my complaint was that Tom was implicitly conflating constant concentration commitment with zero-emission commitment).  So how much higher ECS is doesn’t directly affect what happens with net-zero emissions.

 

Agree that things will continue to change for a very long time, but need to be more careful in simply asserting that the climate is not yet in equilibrium with current CO2 concentrations, because those concentrations don’t stay constant… modulo destabilized carbon cycle stocks (permafrost etc), concentrations decay because the ocean is ALSO not in equilibrium with atmospheric CO2 and will continue to absorb it on the same timescales as are responsible for the delay in reaching thermal equilibrium

[Eelco Rohling]

You wish that the ocean keeps absorbing it. As warming takes place, ocean CO2 absorption reduces. Meanwhile dropping CO2 (through which process? - won’t be rapid if natural processes alone are considered) will turn around the ocean disequilibrium, and it will the start to turn into net outgassing into the atmosphere.

You are making assertions based on wishful thinking, methinks. Any natural CO2 reduction will be very slow (carbon removal is essential), and that is under the assumption that no tipping points get crossed.

Most of the complex-model projections in the literature don’t have the slow feedbacks and responses in them, which makes them stabilise upon reaching net zero.

E



[Eelco Rohling]

All, 

I was too hasty (and not reading emails carefully enough). As a consequence, I too fell into the trap of “constant CO2 levels to the present” vs. “net zero emission”. So I withdraw my earlier comments on the net zero situation, as I confused it with the “constant CO2” scenario (in which there are residual emissions from different sources).

Thanks Doug for privately pointing this out.

Cheers

Eelco

===

Prof. Eelco J. Rohling
(Ocean & Climate Change)
- 2012 Australian Laureate Fellow
- editor, Reviews of Geophysics
Research School of Earth Sciences
The Australian National University
Canberra, ACT 2601
Australia

Mobile: (+61) 434 667441
Tel. Office: (+61) 2 612 53857
e-mail: eelco....@anu.edu.au

personal WebURL: http://www.highstand.org/erohling/ejrhome.htm

secondary email: eelco_...@me.com

This paper re-evaluates long term temperature memory effects and find that they dominate over immediate forcing,even when the time delay caused by ocean turnover is completely ignored!

 

<image002.png>

[Michael MacCracken]

However, my understanding is that the IPCC definition refers only to direct human emissions (from fossil fuels and land cover change). All the changes in the global carbon cycle being caused by human-induced changes in climate (so thawing permafrost and hydrates/clathrates, wildfires and resulting ecosystem shifts, etc.) are not included in net-zero. That the Arctic is now a source of CO2 instead of a sink and the Amazon basin is also no longer a strong sink--and more changes in carbon sinks are coming. So, while the perturbation of atmospheric concentrations by direct human activities may lead to slowly decreasing CO2 contribution from human based emissions, the changes in the natural carbon cycle will be countering these trends. Thus, given climate-induced changes in the natural cycle, the need to deal with the issue will extend well into the future, especially as the goal really needs to be to quickly get the CO2 concentration back toward 350 ppm, or even lower to slow ice sheet loss.

So, net zero emissions (as defined by IPCC) is not really the policy goal that we need.

Mike MacCracken

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CH2PR04MB69364E6942F289CE3D5370B28F549%40CH2PR04MB6936.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.

[Wil Burns]

As a non-scientist, I’m fascinated how this appears to be a highly contestable construct. wil

 

WIL BURNS Visiting Professor Environmental Policy & Culture Program Northwestern University   Email: william...@northwestern.edu   Mobile: 312.550.3079   1808 Chicago Ave. #110 Evanston, IL 60208 Wil Burns – Faculty Website (northwestern.edu)   Want to schedule a call? Click on one of the following scheduling links:  60-minute phone call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/phone-call 30-minute phone call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/30min 15-minute phone call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/15min 60-minute Zoom session: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/60min 30-minute Zoom session: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/30-minute-zoom-call 15-minute Zoom session: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/15-minute-zoom-call   I acknowledge and honor the Ojibwe, Potawatomi, and Odawa, as well as the Menominee, Miami, and Ho-Chunk nations, upon whose traditional homelands Northwestern University stands, and the Indigenous people who remain on this land today.

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/a200cc31-d465-ce14-ebae-c5ddd28dc639%40comcast.net.

[Michael Hayes]

Tom, 

Connecting CDR technologies with vast scale water cooling tech likely needs to be explored and there is likely more than one CDR method that can be expanded to do so. 

For example, Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement, that uses electrochemistry to generate alkiline seawater and H2, can use the H2 to create sea ice. That would take away the profit potential of selling the H2 yet sea ice production generates super cooled brine as well as ice. Sending vasts amounts of cooled brine to the benthic zone has a natural analogy in the polar regions. 

Moreover, the OTEC-based CDR methodology may also have a chance at cooling water yet I'll let those that champion that method speak for themselves. As a side note, the super cooled brine tends to drag dissolved CO2 to the bottom.

I've been watching the Arctic sea ice pick up volume heading S into the Atlantic and it looks like a Heinrich event may be underway. If such a devastating event is extant, the production of sea ice on the same vast scale as oceanic CDR likely needs to be deployed needs serious high level exploration. A carbon negative sea ice, technically speaking, is likely possible with today's marine tech. The associated economics and international policies likely are the toughest nuts to crack not the tech.

Thanks for your time, Tom

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/BY3PR13MB499457E280A6640A1CB5CF07DD549%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.

[Jim Baird]

 

Food for thought as well as the paper from which is taken, It’s time to move beyond “carbon tunnel vision”.

 

From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com On Behalf Of Michael MacCracken

Sent: September 28, 2022 5:20 PM
To: Douglas MacMartin <dgm...@cornell.edu>; Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>; CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/a200cc31-d465-ce14-ebae-c5ddd28dc639%40comcast.net.

[Robert Chris]

Is it contested, or is it more a case of the distinction between net zero and constant CO2 concentration not being sufficiently well communicated so that people, including many who do understand the difference, too easily confusing the two?

Regards

Robert

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/BL0PR04MB4705BAC9CB3AFDFC6556460FA4579%40BL0PR04MB4705.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.

[Robert Chris]

Following my earlier comment:

I'm not a scientist either but my understanding of the difference is that net zero is about flow and concentration is about stock.  The two are conceptually different and it oughtn't be that challenging to distinguish between them.

Scientists, have I got that right?

Regards

Robert

[Robert Chris]

Following my earlier comment:

I'm not a scientist either but my understanding of the difference is that net zero is about flow and concentration is about stock.  The two are conceptually different and it oughtn't be that challenging to distinguish between them.

Scientists, have I got that right?

Regards

Robert

On 29/09/2022 11:13, Robert Chris wrote:

[Rickels, Wilfried]

The net-zero targets cover anthropogenic CO2 emissions, hence delta pCO2 atmos is zero before emissions are net-zero and once emissions are net-zero, delta pCO2 atmos is already negative; delta pCO2 slows in pace since the gradient shrinks, however, delta delta pCO2 depends on the various equilibriation processes and associated time-scales (see email from Douglas).

 

At least this is my non-scientific understanding.

Wilfried

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/94487372-d70d-aae2-ea07-47470ab59a56%40gmail.com.

[Andrew Lockley]

I have regularly seen constant concentrations and net zero emissions conflated - most recently in an Oxford net zero webinar (can't remember who by 100pc, but I think I know...). It's a sloppy mistake that creates barriers to educating policy makers and the public. We can't throw chalk at undergrads for this kind of thing when even thought leaders keep doing it.  (I assume that still happens; I certainly got pelted at university). 

A

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/BE1P281MB27724E50FD9246F8FF824DA8C2579%40BE1P281MB2772.DEUP281.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

[Paul Behrens]

Hi all, first time poster here, thank you for the interesting discussions. I wanted to recap a point and add further discussion on the Zero-Emissions Commitment (ZEC, though different papers define ZEC in different ways depending on the inclusion of non-CO2 emissions, aerosols etc.):

1) It can be simultaneously true that getting to net-zero means further warming is roughly zero according to models, but that the various ecological and climate systems will continue to shift.

2) While best estimates suggest close-to-zero ZEC warming there are still large uncertainties IMHO. See the figure below from the IPCC SR1.5 Chapter 1. Some of these uncertainties were narrowed in subsequent work: https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/17/2987/2020/ but as far as I know not all the scenarios below were explored. Worth remembering that CO2 and aerosols are related (not perfectly), and that other GHGs predominant in agriculture are generally less coupled to aerosols. This Damon Matthews paper does a good job of exploring the implications for budgets from Zero-Emission Commitment uncertainty if of interest: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-00064-9#Sec11 

In general, although it's very interesting scientifically, I'm not 100% sure how helpful the ZEC is in public discussions so I tend to focus on other findings and responses to climate change.

Very best,

Paul

Dr Paul Behrens

Associate Professor of Environmental Change 

Leiden University - Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML)

Contact: @drpaulbehrens | LinkedIn | Google Scholar 

The Best of Times, The Worst of Times: Futures from the Frontiers of Climate Science is available from independent bookshops

Our introductory textbook Food and Sustainability from Oxford University Press 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAJ3C-04ocPJzPY8_nzWTONQ%2B%2BC4vq08APwxwShwmUY0VeazzHA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bruce Melton -- Austin, Texas]

I thought many (or some) feedback emissions were definitely in the models, to different extents, and very likely less than actual. Hansen's modeling definitely considers some them, and he admits likely less than actual (Hansen 2018).

Observed impacts are far in advance of findings though, at least the consensus on findings, also considering individual findings are behind and likely reticent to some extent. I have been working on (filming) observation since 2007. Here is a link to our latest Instagram logs of filming the sequoia burn, where 13,000 of 75,000 known mature sequoias were killed by fire in 2020 and 2021, where only a few hundred died in all of record keeping, and most of these simply fell over. https://www.instagram.com/bruce.c.melton/

The big challenge with feedback emissions from collapsing natural systems is science keeping up with reality. Thoughtful interpretation is required. Bauman 2022 said tropical forests in Australia have seen a doubling of mortality, meaning a halving of C storage, and because forest sequestration is only modest, they say their study forests are likely now emitting. But the really interesting part of these findings said Australian tropical forests are likely analog to southeast Asian tropical forests. When I wrote Bauman to confirm his wording which was a bit cryptic, he said in hindsight what he would rather have said was, "What makes the results of a marked increase in background mortality likely generalizable, to some extent, to other moist tropical regions, is the mechanism highlighted (atmospheric evaporative demand is increasing worldwide); the physiology of atmospheric water stress response is the same across tree species irrespective of their region of origin."

Now I will go this one further. After Bauman replied to my query, I went back and looked at McDowell 2015. They show forest mortality (mostly through about 2010, early teens) across western North America, and Western and Eastern Canada (Figure 1a), has nearly doubled to quadrupled with an emphasis on significantly greater than doubling. This would mean that those North American forests too, are now emitting and not sequestering.

On the Amazon, Gatti says 1 Gt CO2eq emissions annually averaged from 2010 to 2018 (from drought, drought-induced fires and human degradation); so if the trend was linear and the Amazon was stable in 2010, the linear trend is likely 2 Gt CO2eq annually, and the trend is likely anything but linear. Gatti is based on air sampling.

Qin 2021 says 2.45 Gt CO2eq 2010 to 2019 based on satellite canopy measurement, with the same consideration of trend where the average is likely understated.

Both Gatti and Qin say emissions significantly water stress related, with a minor influence from human degradation.

Combine all this with Canadian Forest Service 2020 and 250 Mt CO2eq emissions from Canadian forests from mostly beetle kill (where beetle attack is enhanced in an unprecedented way by water stress), and Natali 2019 with a net of 2.3 Gt CO2eq emissions from northern permafrost which includes lots of drowned forests, and then consider that globally all forests similar to these tropical, high altitude and high latitude forests are likely behaving similarly, we have big trouble with feedback emissions today.

Because by definition, once a system collapse begins, that system cannot self-restore unless the perturbation that created the collapse is removed, our fundamental climate pollution challenge has radically changed. To stabilize these emissions, removal of far in excess of 10 Gt CO2 is required, with similar emphasis on non-CO2 pollutants and forcings. And removals must occur much faster than end of century because time is crucial to stopping collapses before they become irreversible, or as Hansen put it I believe for the first time in 2008, we need to return atmospheric CO2 to within the boundaries of our old climate (less than 350 ppm CO2) so tipping can stabilize before "the point of no return."

MeltOn

Hansen 2017...
Hansen et al., Young peoples burden-requirement of negative CO2 emissions, Earth Syst. Dynam., July 18, 2017.
https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/8/577/2017/

Bauman 2022...
Bauman et al., Tropical tree mortality has increased with rising atmospheric water stress, Nature, May 17, 2022.
(Researchgate, free account required) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360691427_Tropical_tree_mortality_has_increased_with_rising_atmospheric_water_stress

McDowell 2015...
McDowell et al., Multi-scale predictions of massive conifer mortality due to chronic temperature rise, Los Alamos National lab, nature Climate Change, December 21, 2015.pdf
https://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~dsmackay/mackay/pubs/pdfs/nclimate2873.pdf

Gatti 2021, Amazon emitting more CO2 than it absorbs…
Guardian - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/14/amazon-rainforest-now-emitting-more-co2-than-it-absorbs
Gatti et al., Amazonia as a carbon source linked to deforestation and climate change, Nature, July14, 2021.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03629-6.epdf?sharing_token=lsfPlVRsW05dUMB_VD-zItRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NILaci0q8CXtVe4JKM-xF0Z0ZQpmJpnpSclAjJeIV-vCjviXK_Mb9hvvU5C3CiJVgu82-RGuHR01gFiQZAVMzDCCxiRyvlh0MBQxTvGN2oHmf2jIOC7MEEGXrOPGIblsh57v9qXkkZbM7U0OH8zbdQ4jnVO1zD9R1jeDcUVBS22YVLkjWEvC5vrNMdQ416fmEBL9kIHYs2ptVibFKXLxEuh-TQ08w-QGSFzN6221KgguYTe0Q9FoZ1J-Wksf4tWXrjv-xu34UpgYqxQWwLTTbTgHYTuglT_tSVd4WaweL9fg%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.theguardian.com

Amazon emissions of 0.67 Pg C (2.45 Gt CO2eq) from 2010 to 2019 based on satellite canopy density, with forest degradation 3X the loss of deforestation… "During 2010-2019, the Brazilian Amazon had a cumulative gross loss of 4.45 Pg C against a gross gain of 3.78 Pg C, resulting in net AGB loss of 0.67 Pg C. Forest  degradation (73%) contributed three times more to the gross AGB loss than deforestation (27%), given that the areal extent of degradation exceeds deforestation. This indicates that forest degradation has become the largest process driving carbon loss and should be come a

higher policy priority."

Qin et al., Carbon loss from forest degradation exceeds that from deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon, Nature Climate Change, April 29, 2021.
preprint - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361323731_Carbon_loss_from_forest_degradation_exceeds_that_from_deforestation_in_the_Brazilian_Amazon

Paywall - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01026-5

Canadian Forests...

The State of Canadas Forests, Canadas Forests, Adapting to Change, Canadian Forest

Service, 2020.
https://d1ied5g1xfgpx8.cloudfront.net/pdfs/40219.pdf

Natali 2019...

Natali et al., Large loss of CO2 in winter observed across the northern permafrost region, Nature Climate Change, October 21, 2019.
https://www.uarctic.org/media/1600119/natali_et_al_2019_nature_climate_change_s41558-019-0592-8.pdf

Hansen 2008, The Point Of No Return...
Hansen et. al., Target Atmospheric CO2, Where should humanity aim?, Open Atmospheric Science Journal, August 2008.
https://openatmosphericsciencejournal.com/contents/volumes/V2/TOASCJ-2-217/TOASCJ-2-217.pdf#:~:text=If%20humanity%20wishes%20to%20preserve,but%20likely%20less%20than%20that.

Bruce Melton PE
Director, Climate Change Now Initiative, 501c3
President, Melton Engineering Services Austin
8103 Kirkham Drive
Austin, Texas 78736
(512)799-7998
ClimateDiscovery.org
ClimateChangePhoto.org
MeltonEngineering.com
Face...@Bruce.Melton.395
Inst...@Bruce.C.Melton
The Band Climate Change
Twitter - BruceCMelton1

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/a200cc31-d465-ce14-ebae-c5ddd28dc639%40comcast.net.

[Bruce Melton -- Austin, Texas]

Oh, that is so good!

Bruce Melton PE
Director, Climate Change Now Initiative, 501c3
President, Melton Engineering Services Austin
8103 Kirkham Drive
Austin, Texas 78736
(512)799-7998
ClimateDiscovery.org
ClimateChangePhoto.org
MeltonEngineering.com
Face...@Bruce.Melton.395
Inst...@Bruce.C.Melton
The Band Climate Change
Twitter - BruceCMelton1

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/003201d8d3c5%2422a2eaf0%2467e8c0d0%24%40gwmitigation.com.