Sentences with phrase «geoengineering research as»

Risk prevention and minimization The literature identifies the prevention and minimization of the risk of harm caused by geoengineering research as a key function of governance.

The first is a call for more solar geoengineering research as a means to shed light on the distributional outcomes of envisioned futures with and without solar geoengineering.

Not exact matches

But judging by the reaction to the pilot experiment, geoengineers will need to employ a delicate public relations strategy as they pursue their research.

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.

To research his latest book, How to Cool the Planet: Geoengineering and the Audacious Quest to Fix Earth's Climate, he spent several years with some of the world's top climate modelers, as well as Cold War physicists, philosophers, politicians, and crackpot entrepreneurs, all of whom are involved with the development of new technologies that might someday be used to manipulate the earth's climate to reduce the risks associated with global warming.

Therefore, the American Meteorological Society recommends: 1) Enhanced research on the scientific and technological potential for geoengineering the climate system, including research on the unintended as well as intended environmental responses.

Here are two fresh statements, on geoengineering and on the choices being made by Congress — at least so far — in regard to financing for basic energy research as a component of federal legislation on climate:

Jane A. Flegal and Aarti Gupta — Evoking equity as a rationale for solar geoengineering research?

In 2009, climate scientists met to try and figure out a system of voluntary standards to guide geoengineering research, much as molecular biologists met in 1975 to assess the potential risks of biotechnology.

The prospects and pitfalls of «geoengineering» have also been explored in Issues, with authors offering such pragmatic advice as convening a government advisory committee to guide projects from research to implementation, and making sure that public interests dominate the decision - making process.

First, modification of individual hurricanes would fall under the topic of weather modification, rather than climate geoengineering; and second, there is not nearly as much research on [hurricane modification] as on the possible effects of climate geoengineering on slowing the melting of ice sheets.

To imagine that some kinds of geoengineering research can be quarantined from societal concern and demands for regulation, as Parson and Keith do, requires a belief that pure research can somehow be precipitated out of a social solution using the power of «objectivity» as the precipitant.

If a research program normalizes geoengineering as a solution to climate change then it may reduce the incentives to abate greenhouse gas emissions (2, 15, 17).

I don't think, however, that this result suggests the advent of geoengineering as subject of research and as an issue for public discussion will be a zero sum game for public engagement with climate science.

• If the international community embraces geoengineering as a means for addressing climate change, who will fund, direct and provide oversight for research, development and implementation?

As researchers concluded in a new study published in Geophysical Research Letters, ocean iron fertilization can only prove successful as a climate geoengineering approach if, in addition to phytoplankton bloom stimulation, «a proportion of the particulate organic carbon (POC) produced must sink down the water column and reach the main thermocline or deeper before being remineralized... and the third phase is long - term sequestration of the carbon at depth out of contact with the atmosphere.&raquAs researchers concluded in a new study published in Geophysical Research Letters, ocean iron fertilization can only prove successful as a climate geoengineering approach if, in addition to phytoplankton bloom stimulation, «a proportion of the particulate organic carbon (POC) produced must sink down the water column and reach the main thermocline or deeper before being remineralized... and the third phase is long - term sequestration of the carbon at depth out of contact with the atmosphere.&raquas a climate geoengineering approach if, in addition to phytoplankton bloom stimulation, «a proportion of the particulate organic carbon (POC) produced must sink down the water column and reach the main thermocline or deeper before being remineralized... and the third phase is long - term sequestration of the carbon at depth out of contact with the atmosphere.»

Indeed, some argued that rather than see the poor as being victimized by geoengineering efforts, it is in fact the most vulnerable who have the most to gain from geoengineering research and potential deployment.

My marriage counsellor, who I know as RC, always seems to have an answer, backed by intensive research, and sometimes he seems plausible in his urgent recommendations of mitigation rather than adaptation, and I enjoy his suggestions of geoengineering.

Before joining the IASS he spent two years as research fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School and four years as a Senior Policy Adviser at the Royal Society, where he led the production of the 2009 report «Geoengineering the climate» and the development of the Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative (SRMGI).

Geoengineering research proponent Ken Caldeira has said «the vision of Lomborg's Climate Consensus is «a dystopic world out of a science fiction story... Geoengineering is not an alternative to carbon emissions reductions... If emissions keep going up and up, and you use geoengineering as a way to deal with it, it's pretty clear the endgame of that process is pretty ugly&Geoengineering research proponent Ken Caldeira has said «the vision of Lomborg's Climate Consensus is «a dystopic world out of a science fiction story... Geoengineering is not an alternative to carbon emissions reductions... If emissions keep going up and up, and you use geoengineering as a way to deal with it, it's pretty clear the endgame of that process is pretty ugly&Geoengineering is not an alternative to carbon emissions reductions... If emissions keep going up and up, and you use geoengineering as a way to deal with it, it's pretty clear the endgame of that process is pretty ugly&geoengineering as a way to deal with it, it's pretty clear the endgame of that process is pretty ugly».»

Leading researchers and campaigners express concern that geoengineering research could be used as an excuse not to reduce CO2 emissions

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.

Surprisingly (to us at least), geoengineering research was identified as the number one priority in the list of most efficient climate policy options while policies to put a price on carbon appeared dead last.

The freedom of scientific research is often cited as an argument against robust governance of geoengineering research.

While we support continued research into geoengineering (as well as into fusion) we believe the prospects for such research to result in solutions to accumulating carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to be vastly overstated by the Copenhagen Consensus.

The two of us were among a group of international experts asked to propose and critique a number of policy options, such as avoiding methane emissions, improving forestry practices, increased spending for energy technology innovation and researching solar radiation management, a form of geoengineering.

Earlier this month, MacMartin, Keith and Prof Katharine Ricke, a climate scientist from the University of California, San Diego, published a research paper exploring how solar geoengineering — via releasing aerosols into the stratosphere — could be used as part of an «overall strategy» for limiting global warming to 1.5 C, which is the aspirational target of the Paris Agreement.

It's good to see so many people willing to speak out on line, as they continue researching the chemtrail / geoengineering issue and educating others who care about what's happening.

As I've said before, desperate governments are likely to use geoengineering whether or not it's safe, so we should do as much research as possible ahead of time to find the safest form of implementatioAs I've said before, desperate governments are likely to use geoengineering whether or not it's safe, so we should do as much research as possible ahead of time to find the safest form of implementatioas much research as possible ahead of time to find the safest form of implementatioas possible ahead of time to find the safest form of implementation.

It's too late to stuff the genie back in the bottle, and (as I have argued previously) research into geoengineering is clearly justified.

At the outset, Broecker develops the theme that drives most of the support for geoengineering research in contemporary society, despair over feckless climate policymaking, or as Broecker characterizes it «nibbles by developed countries... swamped by increased energy demand in traditionally poor countries.»

In a two - volume report, the council is recommending that the federal government fund a research program into geoengineering as a response to a warming globe.

Even if an extensive research program proves that geoengineering is an inferior substitute for cutting emissions, its availability as an option may result in its implementation all the same.

«Ice911 Research: Preserving and Rebuilding Reflective Ice», presented as part of Strategies for Cooling Earth: Solar Geoengineering and Carbon Dioxide Removal I Posters, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San Francisco, CA, December 2014.

Kahan's own research has shown that people who might be identified as technophiles are more likely to concede that climate change is a problem if they are given information about possible technological fixes, such as geoengineering.