Sentences with phrase «albedo modification»

Given resource constraints, he concludes this might require the simultaneous use of albedo modification approaches in a time of climatic crisis.

In other words, don't let the perception or possibility of «moral hazard» stop you from doing the research on albedo modification in the first place.

The committee said it would be «irrational and irresponsible» to implement sustained albedo modification without also pursuing emissions mitigation, carbon dioxide removal, or both.

[I] t would be «irrational and irresponsible» to implement sustained albedo modification without also pursuing emissions mitigation, carbon dioxide removal, or both.

Something similar goes for carbon dioxide removal and, perhaps most obviously, for research into albedo modification.

In addition, albedo modification introduces secondary effects on the ozone layer, precipitation patterns, terrestrial and marine ecosystems, and human health, with unknown social, political, and economic outcomes.

Scientists lack even the observational tools to measure the effects of albedo modification, the report states.

The report clearly states that the first - best option for preventing climate change is stopping GHG emissions, and that neither the development of CDR approaches nor the development of Albedo Modification approaches will change this finding.

Even if albedo modification won't work, the research would pay big dividends, Penner predicts.

«All told, the report concludes that «there is significant potential for unanticipated, unmanageable, and regrettable consequences in multiple human dimensions from albedo modification at climate altering scales.»

In contrast, even the best albedo modification strategies are currently limited by unfamiliar and unquantifiable risks and governance issues rather than direct costs.

The recommendation that «Albedo modification at scales sufficient to alter climate should not be deployed at this time» (my emphasis) is hardly reassuring.

After portraying albedo modification geoengineering approaches as only a «band aid» that could help ameliorate climatic impacts until we found permanent solutions, Broecker focuses on air capture as such a potential permanent solution.

Mengis, Nadine; et al. (2016): Assessing climate impacts and risks of ocean albedo modification in the Arctic.

For decades studying albedo modification has been taboo in the United States, Keith says, for fear that it would distract from the ultimate goal of zeroing out carbon emissions.

Nicholson says that even if research agencies under Trump avoid research into geoengineering techniques such as albedo modification, the U.S. intelligence community might remain interested, especially in whether other countries are pursuing their own planetary cooling technologies, which could affect many nations.

When Douglas MacMartin of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena approached the National Science Foundation for support on a modeling effort on [albedo modification], officials told him the work was too theoretical for the engineering division and too applied for the atmospheric science program.

«There is a potential risk that if you cool the planet by albedo modification, it could provide less incentive to reduce reliance on fossil fuels,» says Marcia McNutt, a geophysicist, current editor - in - chief of Science and chair of a committee that evaluated climate intervention techniques for the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

However, the NAS report also noted that the potential effects of albedo modification remain poorly understood and quantified.

Keith adds, however, that the few existing studies suggest albedo modification could help ameliorate some effects of global warming.

So the real choice is between exploring albedo modification openly or in relative secrecy, he says: «I believe in sunshine and democracy, and I really think this should be done by the U.S. government and in a transparent way.»

We talk through some of the most pressing issues in modern climate science: our chances of staying below 1.5 °C of warming without climate engineering, climate engineering with land - based albedo modifications, and the kinds of societal transformations needed for radical mitigation.

Although the authors caution that their results are approximations intended to guide future modeling efforts, this study provides fundamental information regarding the relative difficulty of achieving desired albedo modification effects and is an important starting point for understanding the limits of what is widely considered one of the most viable solar geoengineering techniques.

Conversely, any future decision about albedo modification will be judged primarily on questions of risk, and there are many opportunities to conduct research that furthers basic understanding of the climate system and its human dimensions — without imposing the risks of large - scale deployment — that would better inform societal considerations.

The deployment of CDR techniques is limited by their cost, not by their riskiness or likely effectiveness (as is the case for Albedo Modification approaches).

The below table from the NAS report highlights a number of key differences between CDR and Albedo Modification proposals.

The main negative sign is that many media outlets are still conflating CDR as «geoengineering» alongside Albedo Modification («AM»)-- despite the fact that the NAS report specifically fought against this this confusion:

The report on albedo modification draws from Long and Scott's (2013) work on vested interests in geoengineering research, identifying «the four Fs», or factors that should be considered in research design and execution.

I'd say the perception / communications question goes to the very core of this debate, whether it's carbon dioxide removal or albedo modification aka «solar geoengineering».

I fear that the defining issue of the latter part of the twenty - first century will be the application of geoengineering, particularly albedo modification.

While the second option, also called albedo modification, is relatively inexpensive and could quickly lower the planet's temperature, it could have unwanted effects on the Earth's weather pattern, which could potentially bring drought to some regions or be used as a weapon by governments or certain individuals.

I might even want to know if albedo modification could be used to overcome those problems of hysteresis, and if so how much of it would be needed for how long.

The Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment's Academic Working Group (AWG) on International Governance of Climate Engineering is an international group of senior academics that have been assembled to formulate perspectives on the international governance of climate engineering research and potential deployment, with a focus on proposed solar radiation management / albedo modification technologies.

So there is a contradiction buried in the report: it recommends the initiation of a federal research program into albedo modification but does not give a plausible analysis of the circumstances in which the solar shield might be deployed.

The committee has a touching faith in the power of reason and holds it up as a kind of crucifix, declaring that «it considers it to be irrational and irresponsible to implement sustained albedo modification without also pursuing emissions mitigation, carbon removal, or both.»

First, the NAS released two distinct reports — one on CDR and the other on Albedo Modification — with language explicitly stating that these two categories of «climate interventions» should not be analyzed together.

Separating CDR from Albedo Modification has been in the works for a long time — and I am hopeful that this report will definitively end the discussion of whether CDR falls under the geoengineering umbrella.

Still, climate researchers say they should find out what its potential of albedo modification might be.

And albedo modification to grow and thicken Arctic sea ice still lets Siberian and North American permafrost thaw, releasing greenhouse gases that would enhance global warming, computer modeling suggests.

To make up for those shortcomings, the report called for a research program, including smaller scale field trials, whose goal «should be to improve understanding of the range of climate and other environmental effects of albedo modification, as well as understanding of unintended impacts.»

Critics argue that albedo modification and other «geoengineering» schemes are risky and would discourage nations from trying to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide, the heat - trapping gas that comes from the burning of fossil fuels and that is causing global warming by absorbing increasing amounts of energy from sunlight.

Albedo modification would work by lacing the atmosphere with tiny particles or aerosols that would reflect sunlight and mimic natural processes.

Among the most uncertain elements in climate models are the effects of aerosols and their interactions with clouds — just the things involved in albedo modification — she says.

Earth's reflectivity is known as its albedo, and the request to study «albedo modification» comes in the details of a proposed spending bill passed by the Senate appropriations committee to fund DOE, the Army Corps of Engineers, and related agencies for fiscal year 2017, which begins 1 October.

Albedo modification «is not a solution to global warming, it is only a way to avoid, perhaps, a tipping point in the climate.»