Yes, but it doesn’t mean carbon capture. The Netherlands cannot exist without geoengineering and more and more places are going to have to be building dikes and sea walls as flooding becomes a problem.
Desalination would become more and more prevalent as we are dealing with droughts and we will likely have to engineer forests to be more resilient to forest fires by creating more and more clearings and other barriers to serve as firebreaks as well as planting new forests that may be less inducive to forest fires.
Those examples are more conventionally considered "engineering" or "forest management." They are smaller-scale projects typically involving regional adaptation to adverse weather/climate.
Geoengineering is a bit different, typically on a larger scale:
> Climate engineering or commonly geoengineering, is the deliberate and large-scale intervention in the Earth's climate system.[1] The main categories of climate engineering are solar geoengineering and carbon dioxide removal.
When you’ll need to do things on a global scale such as a sea wall that would say protect the eastern coast of the US it would definitely fit into geoengineering.
By this definition a small scale carbon capture process that is borderline effective is considered climate engineering but managing 1000’s of km of dams and dikes isn’t.
I am just asking whether geoengineering has been demonstrated as a feasible solution to reverse trends of global warming and anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.
Geoengineering proposals typically aim to reduce the global greenhouse effect through several hypothetical means (like increasing cloud albedo.)
Dykes and dams that curtail flooding of coastal regions can be monumental undertakings but aren't typically referred to as "geoengineering." Hydropower from a dam could be a good way to reduce carbon emissions, but again wouldn't be considered geoengineering.
