here and here) -- that is, the concept of engineering a better climate. Kind of fighting fire with fire. If we messed up the climate by our industry, we can use our industry, perhaps, to fix it up, or mitigate the effects of our mess up.
The critics are understandably concerned: fighting fire with fire might just enflame the fire. There are unintended consequences, it might take our eye off the ball -- the need, they see, to reduce carbon dioxide output. [photo: courtesy Economist]
On the side of the geoengineers:
you wouldn't hold back hosing down the fire on your house, just because you wanted to get to the bottom of what caused it. The proposals are reversible: eg sulphuric acid in the stratosphere (yes!), dissipates, and not into acid rain, when not continually renewed.
The article below (and here) in the Economist, covers all these issues, and notes that there's an increasing interest in the concept, evidenced by a sharp increase in the number of academic papers published on geoengineering.
They downplay the Intellectual Ventures idea of putting a pipe into the stratosphere pump sulphur dioxide into the high sky, but I'm not sure why.
Anyway, it's fascinating. The world may not -- or need not? -- END....