Sentences with phrase «about geoengineering there»

Although many of them seem to know about geoengineering there does not seem to be an urgency to make it a part of the narrative of the climate change movement in more poignant ways.

Not exact matches

Keith is miffed that many policymakers see geoengineering as a «completely crazy, risky, way - out - there thing we shouldn't talk about» while remaining sanguine about massive reliance on negative emissions.

(This is about the Thermosphere — very thin up there, not many molecules involved — so I doubt a geoengineering control knob would be possible here.)

There was never a thermostat issue; there was an issue about whether geoengineering is usThere was never a thermostat issue; there was an issue about whether geoengineering is usthere was an issue about whether geoengineering is useful.

Rough calculations show if you drill about a dozen mine shafts as deep as possible into the thing, and plunk megaton nuclear bombs down there, and then fire them off simultaneously, you'll get a repeat of the Long Valley Caldera explosion of about 800,000 years ago — which coated everything east of it with miles of ash and injected a giant aerosol cloud into the stratosphere — the ash layer alone formed a triangle stretching from the caldera to Louisiana to North Dakota, including all of Arizona and most of Idaho and everything in between — I bet that would have a cooling factor of at least -30 W / m ^ 2 — and you could go and do the Yellowstone Plateau at the same time — geoengineering at its finest.

The problem is not just whether to think about geoengineering or not — the problem is that there are very few institutions or actors capable of imagining how we would manage climate change and energy production in, say, 2050.

Though there are likely a number of factors contributing to the toxic cabin fumes, is there any reasonable doubt about the contamination posed by the constant atmospheric spraying which is the major component of global geoengineering?

Oliver Morton: Well, there's a way of talking about geoengineering that's too large for me.

Prior to the pivotal 2006 intervention by Paul Crutzen (22), which «opened the floodgates» (15), there prevailed a near - unanimous taboo against geoengineering research precisely because of anxieties about the political uses to which it could be put.

There have long been strong doubts about this claim and it has now been shown that global warming in recent decades can be explained entirely by natural factors that humans and their governments have no influence over except possibly by highly speculative and controversial geoengineering.

The U.S. hasn't deployed geoengineering projects yet — and there are real concerns about messing with the Earth in these ways.

There is an urgency that is required of the environmental movement to talk about what failure to win on mitigation or adaptation on a large scale, in meaningful ways, could likely result in — geoengineering / climate engineering of the environment as the only option.

There are many reports on the facts about geoengineering efforts.

While teaching about this I got excited about doing more research and ultimately, at John Hopkins, Simon Nicholson from American University and I decided that there should be a think tank that would try to ensure that if we do decide to look at climate geoengineering as a society, that we include all of the stakeholders... That was one of the fears we had, so the purpose of these kind of forums are to ensure that other stakeholders like NGOs and the general public — who would be affected by these technologies — are a part of the conversation.

In other words, in the face of poor progress on mitigation, let's not be caught with our pants down again, and start talking about (and researching and testing) geoengineering while there is still time.

There is growing dissatisfaction and dismay about established efforts to tackle climate change, even as some geoengineering proposals are gaining in credibility.

Maybe I just wasn't aware all this time, I've only known about geoengineering for under two years, but still I feel it's recently gotten worse with people (climate skeptics) in this cause ranting about the «carbon credits», «Co2 is not a threat», «there's less Co2 than they say», «it's not manmade», «it's a natural cycle» blah blah blah.

Indeed, in the community of scientists and scholars and wonks that thinks about geoengineering, there is a persistent worry that some changes in mindset might come terribly quickly: Specifically, they fear that a significant part of the political class, especially in America, might move with Necker - cube instaneity from «climate change does not exist / is not man made and thus is not a problem to address» to «climate change can be easily sorted out by geoengineering and is not a problem to address any further.»