In the few years that I have been following ice and warming, the blogspace has changed a lot. I don't bother (much) arguing with deniers anymore because the battle seems moot - ish. The arctic seaice either is doomed this year or the next, or we are all wrong. So the question is, are the denialists like Comical Ali?, just scraping their last few years of revenue from sites and shill funding? What is the dark side's plan for post icial arctic?

I don't think you can dismiss geo-engineering based on historical data. In fact, i'd suggest the opposite: if it gets as bad as some of the projection indicate, geo-engineering is going to happen and the best choice is to prepare for it. Why will it happen? Because historically we don't do diddly until we have to. But the time 'have to' comes, what are the world leaders going to do? panic and geo-engineer. So discount it all you want from some intellectual perch but if you want to be productive, start coming up with plans and trying to sort it out in advance. As far as plastics go, wouldn't sheets of cellulose work just as well but be biodegradable?

Fuck the Planet, North Pole first or variations: Fuck the Planet in its ice hole Sorry, for the crudity but visceral and readable, I think, at 70 mph

I'd like to second the comment above about PermaFrost. I'd love to see a chart/graphic similar to the seaice ones that could be used to document the loss of PermaFrost. Along with escaping methane? I think the public in general needs quick simple 'infographics' that can be splashed around. Put "tons of CH4" on a CNN screen and people's eyes will skip it automatically. Put two maps to compare and people will at least understand something is going on.

I won't disagree that maybe this idea of silvered balloons doesn't work. There are a host of practical problems. There are also a lot of ways to make the idea more effective, for example, solar cells that generate hyrogen from atmospheric water or simple black paint to heat the balloons with the idea that the heat is sufficient to elevate the balloons... My only point (and not about you) was that i hate outright dismissal of ideas without valid criticism. To me that is denialist territory. I recognize that the proponent of an idea bears the burden of proof but just ignore me if you can't be bothered with a valid criticism.. But dismissal with a snort and a pithy comment is banal.

Quickly: Weather balloons can go up 40,000 meters or about 130,000 feet. There is no energy required for launch other than generation of hydrogen. SOurce: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_balloon If surface albedo is assumed to work, high altitude albedo should work as well. I do understand the reflective problem but on the other hand it is cooler under the shade of a tree than not under it. If someone technical wants to debate this, I would be happy to be corrected. As to cost of bags: "It has been estimated that around 500 billion plastic bags are used worldwide every year. Only about one in 200 of these is recycled." Source: http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/nrem/staff/downloads/20091006_Formatted.pdf Or perhaps it is only 100 billion each year. Source: http://www.thomasnet.com/articles/plastics-rubber/designing-plastic-bags Or maybe as high as 1 trillion. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_shopping_bag The cost per shopping bag is given in various sources as $.001 to $.0022. I didn't do sources because I didn't find any source that seemed credible and I am assuming there is a huge difference in quality of shopping bags and silvered bags capable of reaching the heights required via hydrogen and lasting for a significant amount of time. Cost and subsequent pollution via bag disintegration are two significant effects. There are a host of other problems that are less significant. But assuming, for a moment, that costs of more bags that function are of a similar cost on similar scales of production, assume that hydrogen at 1 atm is 192.0 ft3/lb or approx 420 ft3/kg, that hydrogen costs $6 per kg, the cost of hydrogen to fill the bags is $.014 per bag. (Source: http://www.lindeus.com/internet.lg.lg.usa/en/images/high_purity_hydrogen138_28073.pdf) This gives a rough total of $.015 per bag to produce and fill to cover an area the size of Texas is per foot sq: $112,500,000. Split that cost among countries based on CO2 production and the US has to bear a cost of $20,553,750. (source of CO2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions) This seems in the range of feasible solutions.. or at least it doesn't seem like something we would have to hire aliens to do for us, no matter how clever they sound.

Thanks Mike. So from what I understand from your answer, assuming we use helium, our problem is reduced to finding a way to not lose helium, at least for this particular solution. Suppose we solved that, the rest is viable? I am not, nor ever will, argue against efficiency or solving the root problem. But I don't understand the generic argument against stop gap measures. Suppose your radiator was leaking water because your car was over heating. Would you abandon the car in the middle of nowhere because it makes no sense to fill the radiator constantly? Or would you keep refilling it until you can make it to a garage? Ok, bad example, but without figures to back up your claims about 'too expensive' or 'consume more than it saves' are just words without a model. I just don't buy it. I take your point about helium, it is a valid one and maybe the one that would end up crashing this idea.

Thanks for the reply Werther. I still don't see the defined relationship between silver balloons (or any other scheme), capital, and other solutions. I grant that there is some relationship but it isn't defined. To take the logical extreme, suppose balloons cost $5 and push the heating effects off by 5 years. That is would be $5 well spent, no? In other words, until there is some ball park figure at least for capital, effects, time and so on, this line of argument is weak at best. I am not trying to say that the idea can't be criticized, just that the sparse capital or generic 'doomed scheme' line are contentless, to me at least. Suppose, for example, that all sopping bags were converted to silvered microballoons. I realize there are technical difficulties, but bear with me. Cost? Not much more than what we do today + everyone has to recycle. Effect: maybe .1% reduction in solar radiation. How does this compare to 'eliminating carbon generating processes' in terms of likelyhood and effectiveness? I guess I am saying, give me a model to debate, not just a string of words referencing nothing that I know. Or tell me the references at least. But finally, why not advocate sabatoge of all coal and oil works? Technically, that is the only solution that is cost effective and likely to work in reducing carbon. If it could be done without loss of life, rationing and electric vehicles would increase. Why are not you advocating that? (Seriously, not trying to be argumentative.)

"Less energy => slower cycle => Failed scheme. AND the seas are still acidic, AND it's still too hot..." Sorry, can you be more specific? I agree it doesn't solve the root problem but sometimes treating the symptoms buys you time. I don't understand the comment: "They CAN however waste resources and time, if pursued. These schemes are the siren song of Greek GeoE tragedy." Again, can you be more specific? I don't see the reasoning.

So why not high altitude silverized weatherr balloons. They require almost no energy to reach a sufficient height, reflect close to 100% of light, are reversable and mostly cost effective? I realize the ammount of balloons required but it is something that is within mankind's capability. Further, it is quick to start and incremental. Probably screws up air travel and some satellite transmissions but who cares relatively speaking??

Billions of silvered weather balloons.

Superman, Now you sound like a denialist re finding a radical spokesman: a lot of blah blah blah rhetoric and then the conclusion that it won't work. To hell with that, someone needs to step forward and be the alarmist whip. This passivity is just cowardice if we believe the threat is real.

The problem with the poll is that there should be at least one more category, probably three more, below what you have listed. Personally, I think you're going to list 'above 6 million', I think at least down to 3.0 million.