Geoengineering is being increasingly discussed within climate scientist ranks. IPCC reports have consistently included a section called Mitigation and developed by Working Group III. But while Working Group III did discuss geoengineering, they barely did and I don't think many really felt that this kind of active mitigation effort was something that should be the first tool applied. Instead, most appeared to feel that it should be an attempt of last resort. We just don't know enough to counter the horrible tinkering we've been doing with tinkering that's more powerful than what we've already been doing like idiots.

But lately, in the last few years as it has become increasingly abundantly clear that humans as a political group simply cannot intelligently change their ways, climate scientists are embracing the idea more. It seems that the mitigation of last resort is rapidly being seen as the ONLY viable choice. Humans aren't going to stop having babies, they won't stop seeking comfort and ease, and as it appears most recently, we aren't getting any better at being more carbon efficient in our energy, either. If you get a chance, look up the "Kaya Identity" and some recent reports about it, such as: "Consumption-based accounting of CO? emissions," by Steven Davis and Ken Caldeira, published March 23, 2010 in PNAS. See 1st link below.

Also, get a chance to listen to Dr. Steven Davis discussing the current state of affairs and the Kaya Identity in the 2nd link below (short 10 or 15 minute video produced last month, I think.) It's a very good overview of the state of affairs making climate scientists more willing to discuss geoengineering now. It doesn't cover geoengineering itself, though.

There was a big meeting about geoengineering a few years ago, as the idea of geoengineering increasingly moved from an option of last resort to the only option available to mitigate the worst disasters. Geoengineering is big business and politicians LOVE big business. It makes a lot of money for a few and, sadly, that's exactly the kind of thing that can get done, politically. The rest that we should be doing appears to be politically impossible on timescales that are needed because of contrary wealthy interests. But making some people rich to change climate is politically feasible. So there we are. Anyway, see the 3rd link below. If you want to study some of the options that scientists have considered, that's a place to go. (It's about 100 pages long.) It nicely divides up the general topic into meaningful divisions and then addresses each. You will get a very good idea about the current state of technology and some thoughts about its future.

EDIT: Science magazine as a new special issue on Climate. Most of it behind a paywall, though. But you can access the links below for free (4th, 5th, and 6th links.) The 7th link is to the issue itself. In the 4th link read 2nd to last paragraph:

? ? Unfortunately, I view these predicted outcomes as overly optimistic. We

? ? are not just experiencing increases in greenhouse gas emissions but also

? ? eutrophication, pollution of the air and water, massive land conversion,

? ? and many other insults, all of which will have interacting and accumulating

? ? effects. The real problem we need to solve in order to truly understand

? ? how Earth's environment may change is that of cumulative impacts.

? ? Although the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (about 55 million years

? ? ago) is the time period considered to be a reasonable analog to a higher-

? ? CO2 future, the planet was not experiencing these other stressors and

? ? climate change simultaneously. So terrestrial species that survive a climate

? ? impact alone may face extinction if reduced to a fraction of their natural

? ? range through deforestation and habitat fragmentation. Marine species

? ? that are mildly susceptible to ocean acidification may not be able to

? ? tolerate this condition plus low oxygen levels.

As you can see, it's not ONLY about climate change. But about all the rest that humans impose on the environment. Which is MUCH WORSE, in sum. Climate change is only one of many parts of the human impact story. Developing "tech" for that is easy -- just stop.

The IPCC is a non-scientific, political branch of the UN. Despite there being no recorded increase in temperature for over 17 years, they insist the global warming is real and that the heat is hiding under the see.

On the other side of the debate, 30,000 independent scientists (inc. 9,000+ with PhD's) have applied the scientific model and refute the IPCC's claims.

Check out Climategate I, II and III

I know who my money's on.

The long term effect of AGW stretch out over thousands of years if temperatures stay up then glaciers will melt and eventually they will totally melt, raising sea level by ~65m.

In the shorter term It's now looking likely we will see at least 1m of rise by the end of the century, sea level rise rates have already almost doubled and can be expected to keep rising as we warm further.

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/

As for the reference to Kevin Costner's (presumably the movie Waterworld) sorry, that can't happen there simply isn't enough water for it ever to rise the amount suggested in that film. Unless you mean creating a man with gills, given we can crate animals that glow in the dark and fish twice their normal size that may be possible, but even genetic engineering could not get Kevin to actually act.

Biochar.

The use of gasifiers to produce syngas from a variety of feedstock such as storm debris, agricultural wastes, trash and dried sewage can also leave a byproduct of charcoal which when used as biochar to improve soil fertility, sequesters the carbon. We can actually reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere by using synthetic gasoline and diesel.

The premise in Waterworld is that in 400 years all of the ice caps have melted and sea level as risen above all land -- but in those 400 years, technology never advanced beyond the 1990s. No amount of reality can help Costner now.

To answer your question, America has already voted to not reward technology, and the world follows America. We have already decided to pay for global warming in taxes and insurance rates to re-build after damage and to build sea walls and other adaptations. In every House of Representatives election, we choose massive costs to repair over structural incentives to mitigate. We don't want to reward technology, we want the good old days. That is our choice and that is the American way.

Look around you Kid, what do you see? does your world look much like it always did, because mine does, I am 67yrs old I remember cold winters, warm winters, heat waves, and cold wet summers, no different to now, I have been a keen fisherman all my life and know my local area like the back of my hand, which rock will be exposed at low water, which rock ledge to fish off at high tide, if there is rising sea levels it is so small I cant see it.

even the global warming obsessives have realized there isn't any and it's now called climate change, which seems to be based on the jetstream and pacific currents which cycle through a natural 8-10 year change anyway

What Global Warming?

Top climate scientists say there is no man-made Global Warming.

The Great Global Warming Swindle