Yes, barring a citizen's movement on an unprecedented scale, some kind of wacky science miracle is basically our last hope at this point. But given that we're not even able to tinker with small ecosystems without deleterious side effects, the unintended consequences there could make global warming look good by comparison.

In the Kim Stanley Robinson trilogy about global warming, there's one point where the scientists are considering various radical schemes like that, and one of them says (paraphrasing) "But what if we trap too much CO2?" And another responds, "Well, we already know how to add massive quantities of it to the atmosphere if we have to."

One thing: paint every roof, hiway, parking lot and every other horizontal, man-made structure white, to mimic the reflectivity being lost in the diminishment of arctic ice...seems to me a pretty benign approach...

some kind of wacky science miracle is basically our last hope at this point.

The thing about adding sulfur dioxide to the atmosphere is that (unlike the other possibilities) it's not really a wacky miracle. The thing that makes me view it with a slight amount of hope in addition to the terror is that:

(1) Nature has already done something like it before, so we can have SOME idea beforehand of what would happen.
(2) It's temporary -- the sulfur dioxide falls out after a couple of years.
(3) It's merely incredibly expensive, under $100 billion, rather than the insane several trillion price tag for, say, mirrors in space.
(4) It could be done incrementally to see what happens.

Of course, none of that means it wouldn't have horrible unforeseen side effects. In fact, I think we can count on that.

Don't sulfur dioxide and water make sulfuric acid? I'm thinking acid rain isn't the solution WE really want. I like the white paint idea best. Whitewash (quicklime and water) is cheap, last about a year and looks good.

hapa, that rebuttal actually works for me.

I had the distinct impression that Teller was a world class flake based on his SDI ramblings, but just assumed that he underwent some sort of rehabilitation event that I missed. Glad to see that others still hold that view.

And just who would carry out this grand scheme of “engineering” the eco system, the mighty whites? What if just for yucks before we entered into such an endeavor we might wonder if everyone on the planet would agree to such a thing. And if say the majority of so-called backwards third world nations objected to this “engineering” should it be done anyway even if we probably don’t really know what the results would be? Is an unquestioning faith in “science” enough to commit the entire planet to such schemes? Do we have the right to endanger other people on what frankly sounds like hair-brained ideas? Aren’t there some ethical questions that need to be answered here?

actually china and india could also do it. there've been some good articles on the subject of "how can we stop each other." i don't have them on hand but if you hunt for something like "geo-engineering scenario" you should find some.

the harder question mooney doesn't get to is how quickly things would go bad and whether that would defeat our capacity to maintain a project of that magnitude. so you notice what the graphic says would be the source of the SO2 -- coal power plants -- and you have to ask whether their modeling included climate feedbacks, when most pure-climate models don't.

Well, it didn't dawn on me for several seconds after reading your blurb that the Teller being referred to here was Edward Teller, 'father' of the hydrogen bomb and all-around paranoid megalomaniac. Any ideas arising from his fevered brow should be looked upon with a great deal of suspicion.

(Not that I have, a priori, any problem with using advanced technology to solve global problems, but one has to consider the source.)

There is not much evidence that Global Dimming is actually mitigating Global Warming. While it's true that pollutants are reducing the amount of insolation *striking the earth's surface*, many of the pollutants, such as dust and soot, are darker and have a lower albedo than natural clouds. In other words, the solar radiation just gets absorbed in the atmosphere and not at the earth's surface. In either case, that energy is radiated back into the atmosphere (and partially back toward the earth), causing warming. This issue is discussed, though not clearly, on the wikipedia entry.

Sulfur dioxide is suggested because it has a high albedo and would increase the planetary reflectivity.

Though there are some that would tell you that we're already spraying sulfur dioxide into the tropopause, I wouldn't be one of them. I'll just tell you to look up into the sky on a sunny day...

This is the worst idea of the geoengineering possibilities. The difference in temperature between sun and sky is the source of all energy on planet earth - energy that runs plants (and, indirectly, you) but also the source for weather. So since the CO2 is shinier in the infrared, turn down the sun? Take that to the extreme and you get thermal equilibrium, which is another word for death.

In the concrete, Africa would probably be hit the worst, some models say that a fair part of the growth of the Sahara comes from sulphur in the atmosphere already.

The fertilize the oceans idea and the sea spray one are just gigantic question marks. This one is a big no-no.

As long as OUR comfort outweighs needed moves for survival, then ya might as well put on yer tinfoil hat and stand out in the sunshine to reflect that light back into space. (Hell, see if ya can talk yer crazy neighbors into doing it too)

The US Army gave US the answer years ago---INDUSTRIAL in cause and nature.
Say YOU have cirosis from years of drinking. Getting a liver transplant just so YOU can keep on drinking is not a good answer. Sooner more than later YOU'll need another liver. Do YOU keep killing chinese disadents so's YOU can stay drunk?
Same way here, its the INDUSTRY that's killing US. WE are choking and roasting on OUR OWN exhaust, OUR easy living, if one could even call it that.

we can live pretty good without the bad stuff if we build the way. just have to do it in a hurry and get lucky.

first steps are the coal moratorium and a new electrical grid, with HVDC across the country, underground, to link together the clean energy sources and stabilize supply. then get working on home and business energy efficiency, building the clean energy supply, switching domestic long-haul passenger and freight traffic to electric rail, swapping out our dirty cars, rethinking sprawl, rethinking farms.

take us a few years. be fun. shake off a lot of our troubles now at once.

hapa: Good points one and all, but today, who is doing ANY of them? Wind farms are showing up out here, but the are built and serviced from 8 mpg(or less) trucks. 12 billon per month for an OIL war and congressional discussion over more drilling doesn't look green at all. 6 billion people need to change direction for it to all work and the ice caps are melting faster. Other than a few individuals, who's doing anything?

@hapa: what's HVDC?

the sending is of course weirder than that. maybe a better metaphor than the internet or airmail is a river, made of many tributaries of varying flows. you dip your cup into the big river and you don't know where those molecules came from, far upriver or just around the bend, and it doesn't really matter.

current electrical grid has a flood problem because like our levies it relies too much on old-fashioned control ideas without actually meeting necessary standards of safety.

new electrical grid will take the lay of the land (of supply and demand) into account to better protect from floods and manage local electrical watersheds better. letting little streams run free and little houses have their own solar panels and generally giving the army corps of electrical engineers much less (guess)work to do.

we actually have similar hands-and-knees work to do with our real watersheds, right.

Instead of painting all that stuff white, how about making all automobiles white? Call it Henry Ford's revenge, or something like that.