Sentences with phrase «not iron fertilization»

Not exact matches

If I did, I'd drop $ 200 million on Bussard (I'm sure he'd enjoy that); $ 200 million on kickstarting a vertical farming industry, the same on ocean iron - fertilization studies, another chunk on developing an agrichar infrastructure, and the rest on various projects that can't get funding because they have a low probability of success, but massive payoff if they do work.

Note 1: the NAS study includes ocean iron fertilization, which I haven't included in the above graphic because «previous studies nearly all agree that deploying ocean iron fertilization at climatically relevant levels poses risks that outweigh potential benefits.»

Eli suspects the most viable engineering solution to be iron fertilization, which itself is not problem free, but eliminates leakage and ocean acidification issues.

From recent article «Iron fertilization enhanced net community production but not downward particle flux during the Southern Ocean iron fertilization experiment LOHAFEX», by P. Martin, M. Rutgers van der Loeff, N. Cassar, P. Vandromme, F. d'Ovidio, L. Stemmann, R. Rengarajan,... Continue readiIron fertilization enhanced net community production but not downward particle flux during the Southern Ocean iron fertilization experiment LOHAFEX», by P. Martin, M. Rutgers van der Loeff, N. Cassar, P. Vandromme, F. d'Ovidio, L. Stemmann, R. Rengarajan,... Continue readiiron fertilization experiment LOHAFEX», by P. Martin, M. Rutgers van der Loeff, N. Cassar, P. Vandromme, F. d'Ovidio, L. Stemmann, R. Rengarajan,... Continue reading →

Nevertheless, in view of the serious risks we are presently taking with our global climate, I feel that considering iron fertilization as a possible means for purposeful co2 sequestration can not be entirely dismissed at this point.»

The Planet Remade covers all the main proposed geoengineering techniques --(not just SAI, but also ocean iron fertilization (OIF), marine cloud brightening (MCB), bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and direct air capture (DAC)-RRB-, outlining their history, the current state of knowledge, and expected risks and benefits (and impressively, without descending into the alphabet soup of all these acronyms).

Still, that doesn't mean it's due to iron fertilization, or even to the volcanic eruption, because many things can influence the April - to - July difference in atmospheric CO2.

Therefore it's my opinion that the not - so - extreme decline from April to July 2010, coupled with the higher - than - usual April value, coupled with the changes (both trend and fluctuation) in both the size of and the timing of the annual cycle, are such that there's insufficient evidence to conclude that the Eyjafjallajökull eruption caused a noticeable change in atmospheric CO2, whether by emissions from the eruption, the lack of emissions from air traffic, or iron fertilization of the oceans.

Since plankton account for 50 % or so of the carbon recycling on the planet (plus permanent carbon sequestration if the iron fertilization hypothesis is right) doesn't this mean that CO2 - induced acidification would accelerate the rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere, which would then accelerate the rate of acidification?

Those CDR techniques with the least potential: Biochar («significant doubts» about scope, effectiveness and safety - «substantial research» required to prove effectiveness) and ocean iron fertilization (not proven to be effective and «high potential for unintended and undesirable ecological side effects»).

We should not risk iron fertilization on the scale needed to affect global CO2 levels or animal populations.

We do not know the possible side - effects of large - scale iron fertilization.