There have been various proposals for climate engineering over the years but there are major objections.

1) we want to be sure that first global warming is occurring on a scale large enough to be a problem, before we do anything. Economies and societies will adapt readily enough if its just one or two degrees (assuming anything happens at all), but 5 or 6 might be an issue. At present, despite all the screaming from activists there is every indication that any increase that does occur will be in the 1-2 ranges.

2) If human activity is going to warm the earth to an unacceptable degree then adopting another industrial solution to counter it might well be asking for trouble with all sorts of unintended consequences.

All in all, not a good idea.

Yes the unintended consequences could turn out to be horrific, especially as everything is interconnected.

Have you ever seen how fractals emerge?
They spontaneously create ever expanding patterns of both seeming order and unpredicatble chaos.
Try Fractals Unleashed

AGW is a failed theory; it has always been a scam scientifically but the real loons have occupied the social engineering and energy replacement areas which have sprung up like toadstools due to the necessity of doing something about the non-existent AGW.

Another loon area is geoengineering. As a basic concept I have no problem with humanity shaping the environment to better suit our needs; only a green/gaia nutter would object on the basis of the sanctity of nature and mother Earth. But when the geoengineering is proposed to mitigate AGW and not to directly benefit humans than it is merely another manifestation of the misanthropy which underpins AGW.

If the clowns who wrote this article want to geoenegineer anything let them go to another planet and terraform it to suit humanity, rather than geoengineer Earth to disadvantage humanity.

An exceedingly dangerous interference in the natural climate cycle like this is sheer megalomaniacal lunacy. The obsession with imaginary Climate Change has clearly gone too far. Now we are going to take drastic steps to fix a non-existent problem. The climate system is complex and the outcome is unpredictable. These lawyers must be rubbing their hands together in anticipation of the the lawsuits to follow something like this.

Can someone show me absolute proof that the 0.8-0.9 degree temp increase in the last 150 yrs has caused a catastrophe somewhere on the planet? Sea levels have been rising since well before the industrial revolution and there has been no significant av Global temp increase in the last 15 yrs.

The recent leak of IPCC AR5 confirms no warming in 16 yrs, meanwhile some are planning a Dr Strangelove intervention.

It really is frightening that a law lecturer & a PhD candidate can talk such garbage. 6 degrees C by the end of the century, it had better start warming up damn soon kids, if it's going to happen

If you are going to write these works of fiction, & have anyone pay any attention, first start to give your story some basis in fact.

All the best, or even moderately good science fiction writers at least try to present some reasonable hypothesis to set their scene.

I suggest you go back & try that, before developing your story line. Oh, & try to put more than 5 minutes into developing the idea, before you start typing.

Dear Kerryn and Jeffrey,

“The latest climate science released by the Global Carbon Project for the Doha conference indicates the planet is currently on track for a rise in temperature of between 4 and 6 degrees later this century”.

Rubbish. This is nothing to do with science; it is a predication that is contradicted by science and like all the other “predications” produced by the warmertariat, unsubstantiated. If you want to know just how far off the mark you are, try reading the draft IPPC report AR5.

It is to be hoped that the two of you perform better in Law than you do in geo-physics. As my Grand pappy used to say, as a brain surgeon you would make a great plumber

Seems like the climate change sceptics have mobilised again, just as they do every time someone tries to write something sensible about the dangers which global warming poses for life on this planet. The sceptics who leaked the draft of the fifth International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report are misrepresenting what is in the draft. Have a look at last Friday's PM interview with Professor Steve Sherwood from UNSW who is the lead author of chapter seven of the IPCC report. Sherwood makes it clear there is no way the findings documented in that chapter are consistent with what sceptics are claiming about the chapter. See http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2012/s3654926.htm . It is time to stop denying the science and start trying to work out what we can do about the dangers we face.

The more I think about this article the angrier I get; a couple of ivory-towers haven't done their research and accept the gibberish of the IPCC holus bolus. Subsequently their opinion is junk.

For instance they parrot the nonsense about seeding the atmosphere with aerosols to cause cooling; aerosols can have a warming effect as even Hansen has noted:

http://www.pnas.org/content/101/2/423.long

http://www.pnas.org/content/97/18/9875.abstract

See also:

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/VI/nature.pdf

Aerosols, like every part of the climate jigsaw are complex and probably chaotic in their effect.

One gets weary of academics spreading agitprop under the imprimateur of their academic status.

Sherwood's drivel is critiqued by Alec Rawls:

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/alec-rawls-responds-to-steven-sherwood-the-bad-professor-is-inverting-the-scientific-method/

Sherwood is responsible for 2 of the most egregious papers written by alarmists:

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n6/abs/ngeo208.html

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/21/9552

There is no real science there.

"A rapid reduction in greenhouse gas emissions over coming decades is crucial for us to provide our children and grandchildren with a safe climate in which to live well."

Well, there's been no reduction in greenhouse gases during the last decade and the half, and my children are living just as well as they were in 1997 -- somewhat better, in fact. Seriously, just how much longer are you going to continue working yourself into a screaming hysteria about something that's not actually happening? Not that it matters, provided you don't get your grasping hands on anyone else's money as a result.

" A rapid reduction in greenhouse gas emissions over coming decades is crucial for us to provide our children and grandchildren with a safe climate in which to live well."

Oh puleez! The last 16 years indicates a sure bet that we're all gunna fry and die reel soon!

Try to stick with the science guys ok?

The further away we get from God's simple truths the more extreme the science fiction relating to climate soothsaying becomes.

The author concludes

'A rapid reduction in greenhouse gas emissions over coming decades is crucial for us to provide our children and grandchildren with a safe climate in which to live well. '

To assume man holds the future climatic conditions in his hands is sheer stupidity.

I would like to welcome a number of posters to the George Orwell 1984 version of science. In this crazy world you can make any claim you like provided it meets you political goals. All data is rewritten or cherry picked to reflect the current political ideology.

The is no question that the globe has continued to warm over the last decade and a half anyone trying to claim anything else is simply trying to deceive or is seriously delusional.

For some 40 years we have known that human emissions of green house gases were sufficient to increase global surface temperatures. We have been able to show that surface temperatures have risen steadily since about 1970. We have been able to make a clear statistical link between rising temperatures and human GHG emissions since the early 1990s. We have even be able to measure the reduction in the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere caused by burning fossil fuels.

Now could somebody explain to me why it is necessary to deny the flaming obvious. I refuse to believe that the majority of people are so dumb, that they are unable to understand that pouring gases into the atmosphere that restrict the rate at which the earth cools is not going to have serious consequences.

As regards the idea of geoengineering, this should only be attempted as a last resort if the human race is really so stupid, that it would rather wreck the planet, than pay just a little more for its energy. According to the IPCC the action required to gives a reasonable chance of avoiding a temperature increase of no more than 2 Deg C would set us back by about one year, by 2100.

'cohenite says Sherwood's drivel is critiqued by Alec Rawls:'

And you want to listen to an economist who could not predict the GFC and no expertise in climate science.
It is like asking a dentist about your stomach ache, I will pull a tooth out and your stomach ache will disappear.

Again we are seeing denialists making statements that have no substance and to claim to know about science when they have no education!!

Or refer to debunked unreliable sources like WUWT (WeUseWishfulThinking).

Out of nearly 14000 pear reviewed papers on climate science supporting AGW only 24 were in denial and they have been debunked and no one cites them except them selves.

So where is your evidence to show that AGW is not occurring?

PeterA, great analysis! One reference to the fallacy of consensus wrapped in another of authority. Well done! And as well you attack the man, not what he says which is incontrovertible proof that Sherwood is ignoring evidence.

The denialist here is you mate.

Sherwood is an alarmist of the lowest order; his papers which I have linked to show that; Rawls' evidence shows that. This paper by Sherwood is drivel and contradicted by basic physical principles and Paleoclimate history:

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/21/9552

The basic physical principle he ignores is enthalpy; that is, evaporated water cannot both heat and be evaporated; the energy can only be used once.

He also ignores the phase changes of water and the negative feedback of those water states.

The paleoclimatic evidence he ignores is the fact the never in the history of the Earth have temperatures been 12C above current levels, even when CO2 levels were 20 times today's levels:

http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/8615/allpaleotemp.png

In fact the highest ever temperature on Earth was 250 million years ago when it was 9C above current levels; at that time CO2 levels were no where near their highest point:

http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/755/paleoco2all.png

I don't know where you get your 24 papers disproving AGW compared to 14000 papers supporting it and don't care; you've got nothing to say, just like all the AGW nutters.

You only have to google chemtrails to quickly learn that they are experimenting with geo-engineering.This also includes Russia and China.

They are pouring millions of tonnes of nano sized particles of aluminium and barium into the atmosphere to see if they can reflect the energy from the Sun.In parts of the USA this is detroying soils and people' health much like the coal seam gas industry.

Some say that this is being used in conjuction with the the US Military HAARP program in which a billion watts of power can act a catalyst to change local weather.This HAARP project is part of Ronald Reagan's Star Wars Program.

If the Russians in 1961 could produce a 100 megaton bomb which was scaled down by half for safety reasons,what new weapons have they now developed? The Russian Tsar Bomb of 50 mega tonnes gave 3rd degree burns in a 100 km radious and broke windows 900 km away.

The lunatics are incharge of the Nukes but our Govts want to disarm the people?

Warmair. You state "
"The is no question that the globe has continued to warm over the last decade and a half anyone trying to claim anything else is simply trying to deceive or is seriously delusional"

Would you care to give us the actual temperature figure there? Perhaps you could quote the figure from NOAA. Perhaps from IPCC AR5? It would support your contention wonderfully.

"We have been able to make a clear statistical link between rising temperatures and human GHG emissions since the early 1990s"

Again, could you perhaps provide some data supporting the above with particular reference to the correlation between anthropogenic Co2 emissions and temperature over the past decade and a half?

Regards.

At least I do not deny science it just that deniers such as cohenite never provide evidence other than cherry picked information that has been debunked or provide links to sites that have no science creditability.

cohenite may not like to know (and shut his eyes to the real world) but other might so the web site on peer reviewed papers from 14000 climate scientists is at.

http://desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart

Okay, NOAA’s State of the Climate Report for November isn’t the Mayan meteorological forecast. And the Apocalypse isn’t quite “now.” But this part of the NOAA report is kind of ominous:

Including this November, the 10 warmest Novembers have occurred in the past 12 years. The 10 coolest Novembers on record all occurred prior to 1920. November 2012 also marks the 36th consecutive November and 333rd consecutive month with global temperature higher than the long-term average. The last month with a below average temperature was February 1985, nearly 28 years ago.

And you are still denying that the world is warming.

And no denilist has given any reason why it is doing so other than saying it is not CO2

Prompete says
Warmair. You state "
"The is no question that the globe has continued to warm over the last decade and a half anyone trying to claim anything else is simply trying to deceive or is seriously delusional"

Would you care to give us the actual temperature figure there? Perhaps you could quote the figure from NOAA. Perhaps from IPCC AR5? It would support your contention wonderfully.
______________________________________________________________

I would refer you to page 69 figure one of ARF5 (First Order Draft Technical Summary IPCC WGI Fifth Assessment Report). This clearly shows from multiple lines of evidence and sources that surface temperatures are rising and have continued to do so over the last decade and half. The diagrams for temperature anomalies are on page 77 which include observations from HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, and 5 NOAA NCDC, JMA, temperature sets.

____________________________________________________________
I said
"We have been able to make a clear statistical link between rising temperatures and human GHG emissions since the early 1990s"

Prompete says
Again, could you perhaps provide some data supporting the above with particular reference to the correlation between anthropogenic Co2 emissions and temperature over the past decade and a half?
___________________________________________
From here we have a diagram illustrating the the relationship between temperature and CO2 emissions over the last 130 years
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_concentrations_and_global_annual_average_temperatures_over_the_years_1880_to_2009.png

More specifically in AR4 they assign a probability of 90% that rising Greenhouse gases are the dominant factor in the current warming.

PeterA, you’re a bit of a caricature with your ‘denialist’ insults and regurgitation of untruths like hottest years and summers and ½ past 10s on a Friday night ever gibberish.

For a complete explanation of why AGW is a failed theory see the papers listed at Jo’s:

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/man-made-global-warming-disproved/

This link shows the basic flaws in AGW science and lists dozens of papers which show these flaws.

Some of these papers are described in more detail here:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/has-man-made-global-warming-been.html

And here:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/has-global-warming-been-disproved-part-2.html

The 5th paper discussed shows the lie of the claims that the last years have been the hottest.

Any one of these papers shows the lie that AGW is; and there is ample evidence that AGW ‘scientists’ are prepared to lie, manipulate and distort to sell their product; for instance the emails.

The supporters of AGW are naive, arrogant and wrong; and that explains their anger when the lie of their belief is revealed. Too bad PeterA, you’ve been a sucker and supported a scam and a lie which has cost the world $billions and stymied real research into the environment and other worthwhile projects. I hope you’re proud.

One good thing though, the AGW lie has revealed the greens for the misanthropes they are.

You actually believe this stuff don't you warmair?

You poor sod.

Warmair, you’re an AGW sucker too; the AR5 clearly shows that the IPCC’s temperature projections have been greatly exaggerated as these comparisons between the predictions in 1990 and the observed trends show:

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/model-trend/1990.gif

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ipcc_fig1-4_models_obs.png

As for temperature increase from 1998 both the satellite and ground based temperatures show falls:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1998/trend

The importance of 1998 is that it is the highest temperature in the modern satellite era, and if AGW were real it would be exceeded; it hasn’t been and trends have been down since 1998 consistent with a –ve PDO phase change around that time.

In other words it’s all natural.

Cohenite says

The importance of 1998 is that it is the highest temperature in the modern satellite era, and if AGW were real it would be exceeded; it hasn’t been and trends have been down since 1998 consistent with a –ve PDO phase change around that time.
_______________________________________________________________________________________

Cherries are now in season and very good they are too, but is it really necessary to use them to make a total erroneous point. Every body should know by now that 1998 was one of the strongest El Nino events of the last century. The El Nino of 1998 spiked temperatures but as much as 0.8 of Deg C during the peek period, whereas GHGs are increasing temperatures at rate of about 0.018 C per Year. Nevertheless 2005 and 2010 were warmer using data taken from the WMO average of HADCRUT, NASA and NOAA temperature datasets .

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f9/Enso-global-temp-anomalies.png/800px-Enso-global-temp-anomalies.png

"Nevertheless 2005 and 2010 were warmer using data taken from the WMO average of HADCRUT, NASA and NOAA temperature datasets."

Gibberish; only GISS shows 2010 higher than 1998:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1998/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1998/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1998/mean:12

GISS is an outlier, adjusted to show AGW:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/16/is-hansens-recent-temperature-data-consistent/#more-23539

Just another AGW lie

cohenite
Well lets start with NOAA this is what they have to say re 2010
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2010/13
Methinks you pay too much attention to some very dodgy sources for your information.

Warmair. Mate..... If you are going to call me names and others liken me to someone approving of pedophelia because the globe may or may not have increased in average temperature by less than 1 tenth of a degree over the past 16 years, and I positively refuse to get into a sweat and panick over it, then I suggest you get to a doctor and have a pill.

I mean, the temperature changes 10 times more than this when a bloody cloud goes over for heavens sake.

As the world continues to recover from an ice age, I am somewhat surprised that there has not been a far more noticeable rise in temperature really.

Considerably more surprised when, If you consider man induced Co2 emissions have a driving influence on temperatures, the correspondence seems to work in the opposite direction.

If this is what terrifies you and the others so much, as I say, take a pill old boy.

"Methinks you pay too much attention to some very dodgy sources for your information"

Says warmair using GISS and NOAA; as my earlier comparative graph of GISS, HadCRut and RSS and UAH showed, GISS is the outlier with exaggerated temperature trends since 1998. Both GISS and NOAA share NOAA's GHCN and while Hansen's adjustments to GISS temperature are notorious NOAA are just as bad.

Hansen:

http://www.real-science.com/corruption-temperature-record

NOAA:

http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/12/noaa-ncdc-pursue-goal-of-warmest-year-ever-for-2010-release-newly-fabricated-global-temperatures.html

This is scandalous. In the meantime the 2 satellite temperature records, RSS and UAH, the most accurate since 1979, and the most reliable land based temperature record [which is not saying much], HadCrut, clearly show 2010 NOT the warmest but 1998 and a downward trend since.

Another approach to this is to correlate temperature change with natural events; 1998 was the year of a super El Nino, but as well was also the year in which the +ve PDO phase peaked and changed to a -ve phase.

Other than the discredited theory of AGW, which relies on fake adjustments, there is no mechanism to explain the 2010 hottest year canard.

cohenite,

After 1998, Jan 2000 to Dec 2009 was the warmest decade on record.

The "long-term trend" is still up.

2012 is set to be the warmest for the US.

http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/video/2012/the-making-of-the-hottest-year-on-record-usa-temperature-update

(sorry it's from NOAA...I know you prefer your info from blogs by people who aren't climate scientists)

Poirot, GISS and NOAA have corrupted their data. I get my info from reliable sources which are transparent.

Anyway, you'll never get it; temperatures down since 1998 despite increasing CO2. That's a fact no matter where you get it from.

cohenite,

You're another one who doesn't understand the term "long-term trend".

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

"Long term trend":

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/hologisp2.png

"Long term trend"

http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators

Poirot, your NASA link requires a temporary disabling of my anti-virus software; since I regard NASA as a virus you can understand my reluctance to download their enabler.

Anyway, in regard to your previous post about NOAA and 2012 being on track to being the hottest La Nina year [something you excluded or missed], that's another lie:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/21/noaa-mixing-their-ninos/#more-76074

The guest post by Dr Paul Homewood simply points out that 2012 is NOT a La Nina year but an El Nino one which are typically warm; despite that, 2012, as measured by the satellites, RSS and UAH, and HadCrut, the only reliable land-based temperature indice, will not be a warm year and will continue the downward trend began in 1998, a El Nino year.

You're a sucker.

cohenite,

After 1998, can you tell me what were the next nine warmest years on record?

Were they all in the 21st century?

Even 2008, the coldest year of the 21st century, is still the 13th warmest year of the record.

That shows a long-term warming trend.

"That shows a long-term warming trend."

No, it shows a declining trend; it's basic running numbers fallacy; the data after a high spot in a trend can still be higher than data before the high spot but that does not change a declining trend.

And data has to be correlated with real and relevant phenomena, in this case the increase in CO2 and the PDO shift around 1998.

The conclusion is that if AGW is real and caused by increased CO2, natural variation must dominate it.

Even the AGW scientists [sic] have conceded this:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/full/nature06921.html

Do some reading for a change.

cohenite,

http://skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008.htm

"...'skeptics' cherrypick short periods of time, usually 10 years or less."

Do some reading for a change.
Posted by cohenite, Sunday, 23 December 2012 9:01:16 AM
______________________________________________________

Cohenite
By the way Giss, and NCDC use nearly twice as many data points as HadCRUT3, also HadCRUT3 uses fewer data points in the high latitudes. This is an issue because the effect of GHGs is likely to greatest in those locations. Nevertheless the difference between 1998 and 2005, and 2010 is pretty small.

A problem you seem to be unaware of is that natural fluctuations can be bigger by an order of magnitude over the short term, but in the long term the underlying trend dominates, for example the waves on the beach go up and down much more than the tide in the short term, but in the end it is the tide which is dominant.

Sites such as wattsupwiththat and many others are just plain junk, I strongly suggest you broaden your horizons, and do some serious reading of the real science.

I suggest you start here
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/26/new-theory-proves-agw-wrong/

"The conclusion is that if AGW is real and caused by increased CO2, natural variation must dominate it."

Well der, glad to see you catching up with what the actual climate scientists have been trying to explain for more than a decade.

What's next in the great wave of scientific discovery?

I can't wait.

Bugsy says:

"Well der, glad to see you catching up with what the actual climate scientists have been trying to explain for more than a decade."

Tell that to Foster et al, you nasty little man:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009JD012960.shtml

warmair, I am a frequent visitor and commentator at SOD; I am not interested in being told what to read by supercilious devotees of the scam of AGW; you present your evidence to me and we'll go from there.

You say GISS uses twice as many data points as HadCrut; it also discards more too, particularly ocean areas with seasonal ice such as the Pacific oceans and the Arctic and covers for that by extending land data to the deleted ocean data.

This creates a a false warming as GISS shows in the Arctic and Antarctic, which is contradicted by the satellites. This explains why GISS is the outlier amongst the main global temperature indices, and the choice by devotees of the AGW scam.

"Tell that to Foster et al, you nasty little man"

Oh, ouch! You cut me deep with your ad homs Mr lawyer man.

Anyway I don't have to, they already know.
But you don't seem to know that they know, or indeed know what they know, you know?

Of course the climate forcing effects are dominated (but not driven) by natural variability, if it were the other way around we would not be having this little friendly exchange on the interwebs.

"But you don't seem to know that they know, or indeed know what they know, you know?"

I think I know:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.1828v1.pdf

The issue is whether natural variation which can cause warming in a +ve phase can also produce trend beyond a complete natural cycle.
The WHOLE of AGW is based on the assumption that natural variation cannot produce a trend and the complete natural cycle sums to zero.

An heroic assumption, and a stupid one; but then AGW devotees generally sum to zero so anything is possible.

Yeah, Bugsy!

Those "skeptics" are busy delving into cutting-edge stuff while you're waffling on about climate science.

See this for instance:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/22/too-funny-i-send-mike-mann-a-free-wuwt-calendar-as-a-christmas-gift-and-he-goes-full-conspiracy-theory/#more=76172

Well, obviously the editors and reviewers at the Journal of Geophysical Research disagree Mr Cox.

Do you think they would like you using their name on a manuscript they rejected?

"Do you think they would like you using their name on a manuscript they rejected?"

I couldn't care less; and typically that is all you have to say; pathetic, nasty little man.

Yes, well I think that amply demonstrates your lack of scientific credentials and ethics.

Have a nice day, I know I will.

"Have a nice day, I know I will."

Ignorance IS bliss, as they say.

Poirot, not that anything of this has anything to do with the thread, but;
Bugsy's on the button and Anthony Cox's (cohenite) ignorance is ideologically motivated - nothing new.
bm sends his best wishes, as do I.
B

qanda,

You've made my day :)

Send my best wishes to bm (miss him around here)....and have yourself a great Christmas, B:)

Here's a few late arrivals for Christmas...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Powerpoint-friendly-Christmas-cartoon.html

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/12/the-heat-is-on-in-west-antarctica/

http://www.popsci.com.au/section-undetermined/what-does-a-climate-scientist-think-of-glenn-beck-s-environmental-conspiracy-novel

Although to be "fair and balanced", I should hand the soapbox over to Lord Monckton whose commentary is a tad mind-bending for a Boxing Day morning, but concludes with the spine-tingling assertion that:

"Sandy ad Bopha, and the hot summer in the U.S. could not have been caused by global warming for the blindingly obvious reason that for 16 years there has not been any."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012-12-25/bethlehem-and-the-rat-hole-problem/#more-76314

(Have to say the Lord Monckton is an industrious chap - having so comprehensively socked it to Doha and been deported for impersonating a delegate, he still finds time to mangle the science...to the sound of trumpets!)

Not entirely on topic... but not off-topic either.

And an amusing antidote for any who had a less than adequate Christmas.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01mhnnm/Archive_on_4_A_Brief_History_of_Blame/

After reading all the posts so far, my favourite is still Cohenite's first:

“If the clowns who wrote this article want to geoenegineer anything let them go to another planet and terraform it to suit humanity, rather than geoengineer Earth to disadvantage humanity.”

I couldn't agree more with this sentiment.
For more than a hundred years we've been digging fossil fuels from deep under the ground and -currently- turning them into 21.3 billion tonnes of CO2 a year, only about half of which can be absorbed by natural processes.
I too think this experiment would be better conducted on another planet; but then this isn't “geoengineering” at all, is it?
It's just “normal” (and convenient), therefore it must be alright.
Incidentally, it's curious those who have made such a big deal about increasing sea ice cover in the Antarctic haven't mentioned that the increase has been caused by northerly winds blowing continental ice into the sea, so total (land and sea) ice in the Antarctic is about the same or slightly diminishing. Or that Arctic sea ice is diminishing about 5 times faster than Antarctic sea ice is growing. Or that parts of the Antarctic have seen an average increase in temps of around 2.5 degrees since 1950.
Also the claim that the world has been “cooling for the past 16 years” is mystifying, when 9 out of the 10 hottest years have been in the last decade. Surely we can all appreciate the difference between a “spike” and a “trend”?
I'll concede it may be possible that the decade is a spike in a longer frame, but only history will be able to determine that. In the meantime should we not show a little more intelligence than the legendary frog in a pot?