Sentences with phrase «thinking about geoengineering»

All of us writing or thinking about geoengineering would do well to keep the «four Fs» in mind; many of them emerge on both sides of the debate.

Andersen: People often get caught up in thinking about geoengineering strictly in the context of human - caused climate change.

Erin Biba's Newsweek article on geoengineering commits one of the classic blunders in thinking about geoengineering: treating it as if it might be a silver bullet capable of «solving» climate change.

What do you really think about geoengineering?

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.

In the end, how we think about geoengineering depends on how we understand climate disruption.

What do you think about geoengineering (like emulating volcano induced freezing) approaches for mitigating Global Warming?

That's what I really think about geoengineering.

Some thoughts about geoengineering ideas...... they are endless and limited only by our imagination; the most far - out can qualify for entry into the discussion if the sponsor cares to offer it.

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.»

Not exact matches

Geoengineers have begun thinking about sending sulfur aerosols high into the air to mimic those volcanoes.

I don't want to see this thread get hung up on geoengineering but the device Hank describes offers some nice opportunities for thinking about infrared radiative transfer and the greenhouse effect, so let's all give it a go.

(That's one of the reasons I think that the talk about geoengineering is essential, and even more essential than bloviation on that front is practical research, testing and efforts to build management systems.

Conservative think tanks that once championed geoengineering as easier and cheaper than cutting emissions have now all aligned with the view that the human impact on climate is so small that we don't even have to worry about it.

For the past 6 years, Oliver Morton, a longtime editor at The Economist, has been following their work, testing their ideas, thinking about the practical implications of geoengineering — and the philosophical implications, too.

It just seems to me that if you really don't think the climate should get more than 2 degrees warmer, then you kind of have to be talking about geoengineering in one way or another.

But in thinking about those policies, we must always remember one thing: geoengineering is not now and never will be an alternative to dramatic reductions in our greenhouse gas emissions.

I'm slightly surprised that it doesn't come up in a conversation with Bill Gates in The Atlantic, because both you and he think more widely about these things — and indeed Bill Gates has funded some work on geoengineering.

I've been thinking about this since I did an interview with Dane Wigington of Geoengineering Watch.

Douglas, the truth about the global climate engineering / geoengineering / solar radiation management programs will soon be known by the masses, how do you think they will react to those who did their best to cover - up the highly toxic and environmentally devastating climate engineering crimes?

It is not the first time geoengineering thinking has been stretched to target the nastier bits of our climate: we wrote about modifying El Niños and La Niñas in January.

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.

Still, the matter of geoengineering is too important to reduce to assumed storylines about how the world works, and the humanitarian implications are too important not to think through.

Some scholars associated with conservative think tanks like the Hoover Institution and the Hudson Institute have written optimistically about geoengineering.

I think the poorly - phrased question might be asking «what we really think about future, intentional geoengineering as proposed in IPCC plans to limit global warming?

I think this is a valid concern and raises a problem with the entire debate about geoengineering.

I don't think any glaring lie about the ongoing global geoengineering programs has enraged me so much as the criminal lies contained in the total propaganda site posted below put out by NASA.