Could geoengineering be a best solution for global warming?

Question

have you heard about geoengineering? i have once read an article that states that geoengineering could be one of the ways that we can use to fight and lessen the effects of global warming. my question is how is it effective? is it really suitable to use geoengineering to resolve our problems in global warming? here is the article i have read

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1720049_1720050_1721653,00.html

could it be? i hope the answers could explain it to me.

have a nice day

Answer 1

This sounds like the poor man's version of terraforming.  I'd say if anything could possibly make the problems worse it would be things like this.  It's like forcing yourself to vomit so you can continue drinking alcohol, or eating too much food.  Not really a solution.

Answer 2

Geoengineering can be a solution. Our only source of heat is the sun. If you reflect the short wave radiation without letting the earth absorb it and emitt long wave radiation, you receive less energy from the sun. But of course considering the vast scale of oceans and land itself, you'd need a LOT of area covered, and who would agreeably fund it?

However, there is a catch. No one with sense denies that the climate changes naturally over certain periods of time, from ice ages to interglacial (warm) periods. An ice age will happen some time in the future (but no one can be sure how much longer warming will continue), and when it does, the geoengineering tactics would have to be reversed, or it could make the ice age even more severe. Yeah, you could destry it, but that makes it a very unstainable approach, and hence the difficulty in funding.

Its quite unreliable trying to play with the balanced climate system of Earth. The best solution is to begin living sustainably, in a way which we can cope with severe warming and cooling. The climate will change whether we like it or not, so its best to do everything we can to ensure we don't get caught out.

Booted, from what I can see, the scientific opinion appears to lean far more towards the warming side (see the source article), especially from large non-profit organisations like AAAS. If you can provide a list of opposers to it, I'd be happy to view it. There's a high chance that greenhouse gases (especially CH4 and CO2 which are currently increasing) do contribute to the heating, solar cycles or not, so there's no reason not to reduce them and find something more sustainable.

Answer 3

"Geoengineering has long been the province of kooks"

There is a good reason they included this statement in that article.  It applies.  This article is just another scare tactic.  There is no legitimate reason to believe the Arctic Ocean will be void of ice in as little as 5 years.  

Why would they make it up?  Well, a great many of these climatologists get grants to do their research.  They have to keep coming up with these theories, note the word "theories", to keep getting these grants.  Talk to some meteorologists.  They have no financial reason to use these scare tactics.  They also have a much better understanding about the atmosphere and all the variants that affect temperature.  All of the ones I have heard speak on the subject agree that, not only is global warming not the imminent threat it is made out to be, a few of them are actually more concerned about global cooling.

Answer 4

Global warming is mainly natural and will most likely go away by itself.

Answer 5

Anything could be a solution. It can't much get much worse. When you hit bottom, the only way out is up. I hope this helps.

Answer 6

Geoengineering is probably the worst possible "solution." It would be overly easy to completely s***w things up.