Geo-engeneering sea ice not an option,

[anonymous]

the math doesn't work out. According to this model - predicting an ice free Arctic end of the century - study, 180W/m2 of dimming North of 60° are needed to keep the ice close to the current state. Plus there are nasty side effects and how one dims in winter...?

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL058731/pdf

[ritter]

the math doesn't work out. According to this model - predicting an ice free Arctic end of the century - study, 180W/m2 of dimming North of 60° are needed to keep the ice close to the current state. Plus there are nasty side effects and how one dims in winter...?

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL058731/pdf

Sometimes, you just have to say "duh." 

[idunno]

Geo-engeneering sea ice not an option,

And a separate study shows that geo-engineering could cause severe tropical drought:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/08/geoengineering-drought-tropics-climate-change-volcano

I think the AMEG group desperately dent their credibility by their advocacy of geo-engineering.

[jdallen]

Geo-engeneering sea ice not an option,

And a separate study shows that geo-engineering could cause severe tropical drought:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/08/geoengineering-drought-tropics-climate-change-volcano

I think the AMEG group desperately dent their credibility by their advocacy of geo-engineering.

There are exactly two things which could be safely engineered - carbon sequestration and preservation of habitat.  Unfortuntely, the turnaround for those is measured in decades if not centuries. QED the first engineering will have to be to cope with the havoc and move to a sustainable system of energy and resource use.