*doublepromote someone else finally noticing global dimming as a significant factor in global warming.

Global dimming from excess sulfur dioxide may be responsible for cutting the current excess anthropogenic heat in the system by between 15% to 50% depending on the study.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/13/what-is-solar-geoengineering-sunlight-reflection-risks-and-benefits.html
What this means is, if we stop polluting tomorrow, the CO2 and other greenhouse gases will continue to warm us at the same rate for decades to centuries, but the sulfur dioxide that has blocked between .25 to 2 degrees Celsius temperature rise will be gone almost immediately, and a significant sudden rise in temp will be the result kicking off or feeding more feedback loops.

While it may seem he’s onto some global warming solution…just put more sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere…that ignores the lower growth rates and lost solar production it causes by deflecting a significant percentage of sunlight, both adding to net CO2 added to the system.
The incredibly scary part is the whitehouse and other international governments are actively researching ways to inject sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere despite knowing it has so many issues.

There’s no easy fix.

Congratulations! Your video, Geoengineering: A Horrible Idea We Might Have to Do, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 61 Badge!

Your video, Geoengineering: A Horrible Idea We Might Have to Do, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Carefully

None of the endothermic reactions in this video have been suggested as methods to regulate global temperature, because even if they could be scaled up enough to make a global difference they don't address the systems which regulate the earth's temperature.

Some things which have affected global temperatures either up or down are:

• Volcanic eruptions can cause global cooling, for example the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption released around 20 million tons of sulphur dioxide causing global cooling of approx 0.5°C over the following three years (ref: https://earthdata.nasa.gov/learn/sensing-our-planet/volcanoes-and-climate-change and https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs113-97/ )
  
• Increased rates of erosion of the right type of rocks can increase CO₂ absorption and reduce global temperatures that way, https://earth.stanford.edu/news/how-weathering-rocks-cooled-earth#gs.cmy3h0
  
• Cyanobacteria, https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/evolutionary-accident-probably-caused-worst-snowball-earth-episode-study-shows-1026
  

Some people have proposed geoengineering to use those same mechanisms, for instance injecting sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07533-4 or seeding the ocean with iron to fertilise algae https://phys.org/news/2016-03-seeding-iron-pacific-carbon-air.html although there are some concerns about both approaches.

Nothing but fuckin loons. I'm actually surprised that it's taken them this long to realize that tying in geoengineering might give them a bit of legitimacy. But they don't -ever- supply any evidence.

I think the most amazing feature of this crowd is that they seem to find it believable that our government could somehow keep secret an operation that requires THOUSANDS of people taking part. Our government couldn't keep a secret, if three people knew about it. Which is one of the only good things I can say about it. In spite of all the decades of trying, they've never managed to be good at secrecy.

I really enjoyed Freakonomics, but I haven't read SuperFreakonomics yet, so I can't say much on the chapter about global warming. The title however suggest something about global cooling. A recent article says: Statistics experts reject global cooling claims. But he doesn't seem to be denying global warming in this interview. So I definitely have to read the book.
Maybe he means global cooling in terms of doing it through geoengineering, then I'm a strong supporter for it as a midterm solution though.
Bjorn Lomborg, the Skeptical Environmentalist, is also a strong supporter of geoengineering:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Skeptical-Environmentalist-s-Solutions-for-Global-Warming

>> ^notarobot:
I appreciate Brand's appeal for rational global-problem solving as well as his research and his organization of information, but I share almost none of his enthusiasm for the topics he discussed.
Genetic engineering presumes that humans, in our 50-70 year life span know better than nature. Nature has been at the game of shaping genes, of us and every living thing on the Earth, for a long time. Once a gene has been modified it can stay way for eternity. There is no undo. It is arrogant for any human to believe that even the knowledge of how to meddle with genes should be the same as carrying the wisdom to wield that knowledge without error.

If you think something shouldn't be done, because nature knows best, you could carry that same argument to all aspects of our technology, and I doubt you want us to live in pre-stoneage time again. I don't see how nature knows anything, or cares about anything. Nature just functions through mutation and selection. At any time an invasive or disruptive species could evolve. The only safeguard on nature is that evolution moves quite slow.
We have been genetically modifying animals since the first wolf was domesticated. Just look at what kind of freaky dogs we have created since. Or highly productive farm animals that couldn't function in the wild, a dairy cow for example. Now we have the ability to speed up and improve this process. And granted, there is a difference, because now we can move genes into an organism that never were there before, like jellyfish genes in a mammal.
Most if not all species that we engineer have no competitive advantage in nature and will only thrive in our carefully managed farmlands. For potentially more dangerous applications, we need to take adequate precautions and thoroughly test species or build in kill genes that we could trigger. Or just make them infertile.

Though it is true that warheads can be dismantled (with significant effort) for use in nuclear power stations, the fact that the bi-product of fission reactors is weapons-grade material remains lost on most people.

This fact is not lost on many engineers. Many modern reactor designs cannot make weapons grade materials. The reason that many old nuclear plants can do this is because they were specifically designed to make the bomb material and produce energy in the process.
Weapons grade material can also be made without reactors by extracting the fissile component of natural uranium.

Geo engineering is the product of similar arrogance of as genetic engineering. It is fueled by a desire for a static environment. The fact is that the Earth has never stood still, and will never do so (except for that one time in film..).

Of course the Earth doesn't care what we do, it and life will go on no matter what we do, even after a full out nuclear war. The point could be made that we have been geoengineering for a long time now. Just look at our cities, farmland and pollution. The only problem is that some of our geoengineering is potentially harmful to us and nature. Therefore deliberate geoengineering is proposed to mitigate these problems. From a humanitarian view one would want to mitigate these problems to relieve human suffering, just like we try to eradicate horrible diseases.

How can you say that without letting me in on what your thinking?

In reply to this comment by choggie:
horse-shit