Sentences with phrase «how geoengineering research»

Another question concerns how geoengineering research ought to be funded.

Not exact matches

Rasch addressed the Subcommittees on Energy and Environment about the need for a research program to study geoengineering and how such a program might be designed.

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.

It may be that an understanding of the geobiology of ant - mineral interactions might offer a line of research on how to «geoengineer» accelerated carbon dioxide consumption by Ca - Mg silicates.

This week's front page New York Times story on geoengineering highlights the need for inclusive and informed discussion on how to responsibly manage research into emerging geoengineering technologies.

Henry Fountain writes «The panel said the research could include small - scale outdoor experiments, which many scientists say are necessary to better understand whether and how geoengineering would work.»

After all, climatologists themselves have barely begun to research it, and there are many scientific uncertainties regarding how different geoengineering techniques would impact natural and human systems.

Solar geoengineering is now at a critical point where assessment by the climate impacts research community is urgently required to advance any discussion of how solar geoengineering could contribute to reducing climate risks.

First, to suggest that geoengineering research has a high potential payoff is no different than saying that research into fusion energy has a potential high payoff, or for that matter, so too would research into how to turn atmospheric carbon into diamonds.

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.

One issue looming over solar geoengineering research is how — if at all — it will be used by society.

What will truly shape the future of geoengineering technology is whether and how countries like China, India, Russia, and Brazil decide to approach climate engineering research, or not.

How the ledger is likely to balance out globally, and particularly for the global South, is unknown, yet that is precisely the reason why more research on solar geoengineering is so urgently needed.

But in any case, I am interested in how are we going to get the funding for research and implementing geoengineering efforts?

In practice, any realistic assessment of how the world works, including the politics of climate change, must conclude that geoengineering research is virtually certain to reduce mitigation incentives.

Reporting in Geophysical Research Letters, researchers looked at how the impacts caused by different strengths of geoengineering differed from region to region, using a comprehensive climate model developed by the UK Met Office, which replicates all the important aspects of the climate system, including the atmospheric, ocean and land processes, and their interactions.

Anyway - I'm surprised that in that article, you seem to be focusing the conclusion from the study towards whether to research geoengineering or not - rather than the underlying lessons to be gained about how to make science communication less polarizing.

This year it includes a contest where participants can propose a solution to the question: «How can research into geoengineering be governed to limit its environmental and political risks?»

So, no one is saying you can't do basic research on any geoengineering method, no matter how potentially risky or benign, effective or ineffective it might be, but if you want to take that research beyond that small - scale you have to be able to prove you're not going to radically screw up the environment that previous human activity is already screwing up.

By contrast, our research uses a more systematic approach to understand how geoengineering might be used to limit a specific impact.