Sunspot Cycle appears broken at 24-cycles

There are some geoengineering options discussed on the table like ocean iron fertilization, stratospheric sulfur dioxide spraying, etc. Problem is they require large scale commitments with unpredictable side affects. Basically at least SO2 you need an annual equivalent of mnt Pinatubo.

Iron fertilization looks more realistic but needs further studying: 11.2.2 Ocean fertilization and other geo-engineering options - AR4 WGIII Chapter 11: Mitigation from a cross-sectoral perspective

 

I am not quite sure who broke the sun, but I think we ought to string them up

It is not as if this has not happened before. I don't think there is much data at all on how many cycles will provide less radiation. In any case this is a great opportunity to measure actual solar radiation versus sun spots. Current climate models would not send us into a cooling comparable to the little ice age even if the number of spots remains low.

A little ice age seems like another alarmist sensationalist idea to sell copy and hair brained schemes. Hey we are cooling, so we need to burn more coal to warm Thanks china, that's exactly what you are doing. Oh and for those So2 proponents china is also pumping out that. The data seems to indicate we are still warming, and this lack of sunspots is unlikely to change that trend.

 

The SO2 needs to be in the stratosphere, however, not the troposphere correct? in that case, the SO2 they're belching out isn't helping anybody. I'm sure it's not adding to any cooling effect.

 

Either place.
Wikipedia seems to have it right:
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfur_aerosols"]Stratospheric sulfur aerosols - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

But you have to consider the total package of soot, C02, and S02. Two are short-lived, 30% of the C02 will still be hanging around centuries from now.

Here's an article that changed my mind on short-term fixes like methane, controlling soot, or changing urban albedo ("white roofs"). Using short-term fixes to allow continued release of C02 is not smart, given the atmospheric lifetime of additional C02 emissions. It's just kicking a bigger can down the road.

Seriously, this one is worth the read. The upshot is that in the long run, it's the C02 that's going to screw things up, because the excess C02 is so long lived. Focusing on items with a short atmospheric lifetime, instead of C02, as opposed to focusing on C02 now, just means more warming in the long run.

RealClimate: Losing time, not buying time

 

Problem is that for SO2 to work it has to be alot of it.

Mnt Pinatubo eruption through 20 million tons of SO2 in atmosphere. THen if you start doing it you can't stop it will be dispersed in a few month. And then there is issue with ozone depletion and acid rains as there were rain recorded with pH in 2.0-4.0 range (normal water has pH 7.0+ and rain water is 5.5))

Think of it as chemotherapy; yeah it kills you but maybe it will kill cancer first.

More targeted approach with SO2 (adding it to fertilizer, etc) may be better option.

On other hand iron fertilization seems to be less intrusive, as long as water temps are low enough not to cause red tides
o

 

Sorry I forgot the sarcastic smiley. The theories vary, and to me the science is rather in dispute. Some including hanson claim part of the current warming is lowering of polluting so2 in europe and america. I don't think anyone really knows, but ... we know the problems with smoke stacks putting out SO2, and its a very cynical person that claims that ignores that harm and claims the forcing help the environment. There is some possibility of sucess of releasing so2 higher up, but again our models are not very good, and it may cause negative or positive changes in rainfall. I can just see the climate wars with Europe launching upper atmosphere so2 to help its climate while causing cold in russia and drought in china. Just one possible side effect.