I think the chances of doing that now are zero.
To get the corrective action right would pre-suppose that we knew exactly what caused the problem and what all the related processes were. I don't think climate science has all the answers yet.
It is rather like an oceanographer who notices that water is pouring into the oceans from the rivers. He then calculates how long it will take at that rate to flood the world completely while being oblivious to the fact that the oceans have a way of emptying themselves.
Climate science is concentrating on the filling mechanism but not the "emptying mechanism". If they understood the emptying mechanism their models would be closer to showing temperature rises that occur in practice and not higher ones.
The, admittedly hypothetical, oceanographer, might hatch a plan to sequester river water by sending it to the moon. How much damage would that do?
What kind of person thinks they can solve a problem before they understand it?
Dook is a Dork without a clue. The science has been manipulated since before the beginning of the IPCC in 1988. A 0.012% change in our atmosphere is neither catastrophic nor a cause for alarm. It's a purely political issue. People love drama and the environmental journalism ("urinalism" is a better word IMO) feeds the drama.
Geo-engineering has been degrading the food source for years and it will continue to degrade the human condition with any attempt at "fixing" non-problems. Manipulating nature has caused more problems than what it fixes (adding too much chlorine and fluoride to water has caused major health problems to humans, but the United Nations will continue to forward "guidelines" in administering the "toxic" solid chemicals into our water systems).
Genetically modifying plants in order to feed more people has a degrading effect on the nutritional value. That's been proven over and again. They do it without any regards to the human condition and only with regards to higher yields. They think they are doing something to help people, when in fact they are only increasing the profit side of their profit/loss statement.
Bottom line is that the environmental, Governmental, and financial ELITES are pushing the entire agenda of Geo-engineering. Creating more chaos in the world is their greatest achievement!
Hmmm.... fixing a non-existent problem with geo-engineering....
I think that's a brilliant idea. Let's give billions of dollars to a company owned by a prominent Democratic fund raiser to "stop" global warming. The company fires particles in the air, or seeds the ocean with iron, or something. Global warming stops. The world is saved. And some democratic toady gets filthy rich in the process.
How realistic does this sound?
Can we argue unarguable points? Can we destroy indestructible structures? Just wondering.... large scale geo-engineering to fix a non-existent problem is about as smart as Obama fixing our medical system except you could argue there were actually problems with our system. There was too much government interference, too many special interests, too much money going to trial lawyers, and too much government control before and the solution was more of the same and the result is a catastrophe. Imagine what would happen if these geniuses set their sights on geo-engineering.
It's probably theoretically possible to reverse 'irreversible" climate change through geo-engineering, but it would probably be both less safe, and more costly, than preventing that degree of climate change in the first place. Unintended consequences would almost certainly abound.
Skeptics point out that computer models of climate are, at best, questionable. That is a poor reason not to switch to zero emission energy sources, because the warming could just as easily be worse than what is projected by models as it could be not as bad. But, it is an extremely good reason not to rely on geoengineering.
It is worth looking in to. But then, we would still have the problem with the ph of the Oceans.
no
Courtesy of Hey Dook, posted so all can answer.
