GT - FL USA
Last update March 5, 2015 for formatting, clarity and new content re. NAS webinar.
The academic debate on Geoengineering is precisely that.. academic; but at times this 'debate' seems would be more appropriately venued in a kabuki theater.
'Unintended', wink wink, Geoengineering  has been a fact of life for so long that some have argued it would be counterproductive to stop.  Never mind that consequences such as global droughts, ocean fertilization leading to increased acidification, ozone layer destruction and acid rain are too, part of the equation; each of these with their own set of consequences further down the line. And beyond that, the possibility that SRM and cloud brightening and ocean fertilization may not be as efficient or may in fact, in some cases, do the opposite of what the stated purpose of GE has been.
Even so, I find that some proponents of GE are or have been at some times more forthcoming on the realities of unintended GE  where, to date, I fail to hear a call for investigation into unintended GE from the 'against' crowd whom with this silence, perhaps unwittingly, may have issued their tacit approval to the intentional kind.
Undermining the efforts against GE
To this moment, academic arguments against research into GE have been erroneously premised on the possibility of future deployment when in truth this deployment already happened, even if in an unintended way.
It apparently does not matter that for all intends and purposes some of the effects and look of these contrails, much as the ocean ship tracks, match the descriptions of what SRM would look like and do, maybe down to the dire consequences.
So perhaps those in the GE community who are genuinely opposed to Geoengineering should revise their premises and call for research into GE with the purpose of ending this'unintended', but failed and still ongoing experiment.
Update Aug 23, 2014
Andrew Lockley from the 'geoengineering google group' commented about this post (Goengineering's self fulfilling prophesies) on twitter via geoengineernig1: 'that article is utter claptrap'. Then he proceeded to post this on the google group:
"The scary tipping point nobody talks about here
A personal view :
Solar costs are falling precipitously. And this makes geoengineering more urgent, not less. To quote from the article linked below
"Citigroup said solar already competes in the growing regions of the world on "pure economics" without subsidies. It has reached grid parity with residential electricity prices in Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Australia and the US southwest. Japan will cross this year, Korea in 2018. It forecast that even Britain will achieve grid parity by 2020, a remarkable thought for this wet isle at 51 or 52 degrees latitude."
Solar power is not only cheap, it's available everywhere (if not everywhen).
After years of fruitless negotiations, we're about to see technology hand decarbonisation to us on a plate.
When the transition comes, it will be frighteningly fast. I suggest that we'll see large scale grid decarbonisation within a decade of the crossover, and this will take vehicles with it. Only winter heat and air travel will be stubbornly resistant, as EV batteries buffer demand through the day.
Herein lies a problem. The tropospheric aerosols are going to go away, and fast. They're shielding us from a substantial fraction of present warming.
We have until around 2030 to decide what to do about this. Nothing anyone can say or do will defer this day of reckoning. We'll need to be deployed on adapted by then, and I don't think adaptation will happen.
What's your view?"
Given the risk of lock-in to albedo modification [geoengineering]. Why the lack of urgency on ascertaining effects of 'un-intended' [climate intervention] [with sulfur dioxide]?
#ClimateIntervention Where can spanish speaking lay people in the global south, learn about and weigh the consequences of proposed CI?
Update Aug. 22, 2014:
Two articles refer to the 'global warming hiatus' and point to the effects of aerosols on climate. One from 2011 and the most recent from Aug 2014. I think it is important to acknowledge the beneficial or desired effects of SO2 such as cooling, but also to point the undesired ones too. Such as droughts, biodiversity loss, and deleterious human health effects of for example SO2. Witch may be the cause of up to 400,000 yearly deaths, but let us not forget the non fatal health effects and the costs of prolonged illness. (see article)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/business/worldbusiness/11chinacoal.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&) The previous article also points to how the burning of coal has lifted some of populations out of poverty. Energy poverty is one of the many facets that makes the issue highly complex. But I think there are better 'feasible' alternatives to the burning of coal. (See article) https://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140821192526-258664-sorry-bill-gates-but-you-re-wrong-on-this-issue "Ending energy poverty requires the right tool for the job: Distributed energy".
A question that should not be forgotten is: why then Arctic ice loss continues to accelerate as it is being reported?
The articles about aerosols and climate:
NOAA study: Increase in particles high in Earth’s atmosphere has offset some recent climate warming
In the stratosphere, miles above Earth’s surface, small, airborne particles reflect sunlight back into space, which leads to a cooling influence at the ground. These particles are also called “aerosols," and the new paper explores their recent climate effects -- the reasons behind their increase remain the subject of ongoing research.
Global warming slowdown 'could last another decade'
Video from The Met Office via Laboratory Equipment.
Added Nov 13, 2014
Sulfur Dioxide: Its Role in Climate Change
Attribution of the United States “warming hole”: Aerosol indirect effect and precipitable water vapor
Shaocai Yu, Kiran Alapaty, Rohit Mathur, Jonathan Pleim, Yuanhang Zhang, Chris Nolte, Brian Eder, Kristen Foley & Tatsuya Nagashima
Aerosols can influence the climate indirectly by acting as cloud condensation nuclei and/or ice nuclei, thereby modifying cloud optical properties. In contrast to the widespread global warming, the central and south central United States display a noteworthy overall cooling trend during the 20th century, with an especially striking cooling trend in summertime daily maximum temperature (Tmax) (termed the U.S. “warming hole”). Here we used observations of temperature, shortwave cloud forcing (SWCF), longwave cloud forcing (LWCF), aerosol optical depth and precipitable water vapor as well as global coupled climate models to explore the attribution of the “warming hole”. We find that the observed cooling trend in summer Tmax can be attributed mainly to SWCF due to aerosols with offset from the greenhouse effect of precipitable water vapor. A global coupled climate model reveals that the observed “warming hole” can be produced only when the aerosol fields are simulated with a reasonable degree of accuracy as this is necessary for accurate simulation of SWCF over the region. These results provide compelling evidence of the role of the aerosol indirect effect in cooling regional climate on the Earth. Our results reaffirm that LWCF can warm both winter Tmax and Tmin.
 Geoengineering takes a ride in shipping lanes
 THE INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANISATION’S PLANS TO WARM THE WORLD
Other resources (Updated July, 2013):
Africa's Worst Drought Tied to West's Pollution. June 2013
Sooty ships may be geoengineering by accident. Feb 2013
Dr. James R. LeeAssociate Director for Technical Support and TrainingCenter for Teaching Excellence and Adjunct Professor, School of International ServiceAmerican UniversityWashington, DC (2009)