Good article. In general though, I think it's a bad idea. I have a degree in atmoshperic science and have studied global warming at length. The major problem is that we cannot be 100% certain of how our climate will react to any of our interferences. Right now we are experiencing a very significant warming trend that precisely correlates to our CO2 emissions. This part is not news and the scientific community has been screaming about it for more than 20 years now. It is quite possible that we have crossed the point of no return (I believe this to be true), but we cannot say whether our human impact on the climate will ultimately lead to further warming or possible cooling. Sure we believe that our computer models integrate all of the significant variables, but we can't know for sure. The feedback possibilities are almost endless. Ice melts and water rises but then what? Does the increase in water lead to more evaporation causing greater cloud cover which increases Earth's albedo (reflectivity) ultimately reducing global mean temperature? Could the increase in oceanic volume cause the plates to shift thereby increasing volcanic activity and ultimately reduce our insolation? Can the shift in animal and insect populations have an additional effect on climate? It's all rather mind blowing when you begin to contemplate all of the what if's.
Geo-engineering is not the sort of thing that you can adequately test in a lab. It's effects might only exacerbate our problems, or they may be nearly innefective like cloud seeding. It is sad to think that as time moves on we very well may have to consider attempting some sort of intervention, but I agree that it should only be used as a last resort.
18 Sep 2009, 11:34 am
