Great forum.
Yes, it is all breaking up very soon.
No question about it.
...
In fact, there is a question about it. Not about "breaking up" - this is certain indeed, - but one about how soon is "very soon".
Recently, i've seen ( youtube.com/watch?v=ceGJTCF5tyY ) David Keith talking the tough talk related to Arctic melt. Be adviced, David is definitely a smart fella, and as nearly all smart fellas do, he doesn't say everything he knows, and sometimes he lies, with or sometimes without respectable reason to do so. But this here talk, as far as i can tell, he doesn't lie any much; i feel he's convinced in what he's saying, at least most of the time. It takes some careful consideration to properly understand his points for people not much familiar with the subject, though. And of course, he doesn't tell everything he knows.
Now to my point. Some time near 10 minutes mark, David mentions that if the solar management would be tried, then he'd start with "very small" amount of it at first. Sounds alright? Well, not after he clarifies right next that this "very small" amount would in fact produce an effect less than a large volcano. So you see, to him, "very small" is something slightly less weaker than Pinatubo, which spat out enough sulphur to drop global average temperature for ~0,5C for ~3 years after its eruption.
Now if that's "very small" to mr. Keith, what you think is "average" or "large" solar management effect, eh? And who can guarantee that powers that be wouldn't in fact ask prof. Keith to do his thing, if Arctic finally goes blue - or shortly before it does?
In fact, how do we know some "very small" applications of solar management were not already made? Patents for sulphur-based and aluminium-based Welsbach seeding exist since early 1990s, Hughes company have some, for example - not some silly inventor, i mean; Hughes is serious bunch. They do high-tech which tends to work, and work well. And there are some hints to possible applications in Arctic late July and August 2013 and 2014 which i know about. Nothing certain, though.
Further, David Keith is not alone, of course. One of illustrations to
this good article mentions MIT conference on the subject in 2013 (and it's August at that; but no, that's not one of hints i meant above - those were some things in ASI data). The fact MIT has such conferences without any much fanfare - is quite good indication that most capable and serious scientific institutions in the world do consider the option seriously.
Now ask yourself: given well known negative public opinion towards the method, plus all the opposing political interests which prof. Keith mentions so often (including during the talk above), - will we have (or, _did_ we have) any mass media messages (or even, humble public scientific messages) about some cases of "very small" applications of solar radiation management, if and when such applications will (and/or, already were) done? To me, the answer is obvious: nope, it's best not to let public know about it for those who would be doing it.
If all the above sounds quite reasonable to you, then you probably will come to same conclusion i came to: while not very likely, it still might be that "very soon" will not be "in a very few years from now", something like Vieslaw Maslovski modelled (2016 +-3 years for 1st ice-free Arctic ocean event), - but quite a bit later, perhaps middle 2020s or even some time in 2030s.
However, the more significant solar management applications would be, the easier it'll be to see the melt mode change in the data. Hints to it which not many see will increasingly become obvious and large anomalies during any given melt season, possibly including this one if the thing is indeed happening since 2013 or about to start this year. Can't hide it from public which has access to satellite imagery, if the application gets any larger than "extremely very small" in David's terms. So keep your eyes open for strange things like long and hardly explainaible halts of melting during this and next few melt seasons. If you'll see them and get puzzled how and why they happen - well, the probable answer is just above.
P.S. Is it good or bad? David says, it might be good as a stopgap measure. I disagree with this. Stopgap measure only makes sense if there will in fact be a better permanent solution. But in this case, there won't be, for rather long time. I see core drivers of ongoing increase of GHG rise, and those are too stay as long as human nature would remain largely the same. I.e. at least for few human generations, but most likely - for centuries onwards. Which is why solar management can't be effective as "stopgap". It will only be effective as a "short-term continuation of business as usual, means more profit short-term to powers that be". I am not sure whether David knows this (but lies about it), or honestly believes in his opinion. But i am sure that some other convinced solar management "adepts" are well aware. For example, few years ago, there was a public copy of White House talk between few "conservative" scientists and officials, discussing solar management, in which Lowell Wood said that using much of aluminium-based solar management, which he then said is ~4 times more effective than sulpur-based, - is "not a moral dilemma", but "simply a ride on our grandkids' necks". No wonder this recording is nowhere public to be found today, eh.
P.P.S. And if you think "they" "must" tell the world before they would start even "very small" applications of solar management, - well, no. I've been recently informed by my country's non-internet source that various weather modification programs are now running in at least 34 different countries around the world. For example, China _already_ spent over 1 billion USD to modify weather, mainly to cause extra rain in some of its provinces (like this: youtube.com/watch?v=bmSuBiOQhyM ). They didn't "tell" about 1+ billion USD until after they spent it and planned to spend much more to intensify artificial rains they are getting by 2020, about which Chinese givernment made
official statement ~6 months ago. China and other countries manipulating weather for local needs unavoidably alter whole Earth climate, - perhaps not dramatically now (yet), but increasingly as time go by and such programs intensify. I never heard about anything like "UN weather modification approval group" - my current assumption is, while specialists are well aware that doing "better weather" for thier own country will certainly produce some negative impacts for other countries, - they couldn't care less, basically. They just go on with their projects, earning their paychecks and completing tasks they are assigned to complete. So why exactly Arctic has to be any different? Just the same, most involved and interested parties will "modify", or already are modifying, "weather" in Arctic at certain most important (for them) points, and since there are so few people in Arctic (especially central basin), it would only be easier to keep it low profile, eh. While some of us here would wonder again and again: "what gives? things should melt like crazy, but they don't".
