Continued denial may make something like that the only option, though.
When you say "increasing atmospheric aerosols" I'm going to interpret that as on purpose which can then be classified as geoengineering. So I think all of the pros and cons of geoengineering would apply in general.
For aerosols specifically, I gather they don't have long residence time (a few years) so it would obviously have to be an ongoing effort. Geoengineering worries me in general and in the specific example of aerosols if we had one or more major volcanic eruptions we couldn't control that (i.e we lose control over aerosol concentrations). This would introduce a major amount of natural aerosols and would likely cause global cooling for a few years which is usually very detrimental. It's not like geoengineering human aerosols could be reversed (we could turn if off obviously). But it doesn't work like a thermostat.
Besides, Chinese aerosols being linked to the recent pause in warming is one theory and frankly many are skeptical that they could have that much of a global forcing.
So to me, the most important factor in this is a con which is the fact that we just don't have enough definitive data and theory to accurately predict the precise effect of intentional atmospheric aerosol injection. If I have time, I might find some scientific evidence to back that up.
Edit: I did find one recent paper which seems to indicate the IPCC has seriously underestimated the forcing of aerosols. So I stand by my assertion that it's dangerous to mess with global systems with such little understanding: http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/1...
(And yes I do note that this paper counters the skepticism of the global effect of Chinese aerosols.)
Well CFCs, HCFCs and relatives actually attack the Ozone Layer and they are also greenhouse gases that contribute to GW. The solutions to GW are alternative fuels, higher MPG, conserving gas and turning off lights along with the development of more efficient windmills and solar systems. A quick move to alternative power is the answer to a cleaner atmosphere. Elimination of the burning of coal is another first step.
Aerosols are in no way an answer Your time would have been better well spent turning off light and electronics not in use
Ottawa Mike has an interesting and surprisingly persuasive answer about why caution and healthy skepticism applies to geo-engineering. How utterly NONsurprisingly hypocritical too, however, since he wastes such a large fraction of his life posting anti-science crap about climate change, in the form of fake questions here, in a paranoid effort to help support the massively idiotic denial that is torpedoing even sensible win-win action to reduce CO2 emissions, and thus doing his minuscule yet frantic part to help make geo-engineering a major reality of human civilization for centuries to come (after it's too late for any other remedy thanks in part to irrational denial of there even being a problem).
It was suggested years ago by Tim Flannery (and probably others) that putting more aerosols in the atmosphere will offset global warming. This seems to have been proven over the last decade as the increase in aerosols from the massive expansion of industry in China and India has been linked to an increase in global dimming.
Aside from reacting to form acid rain, what are potential problems from this? Are there aerosol species which are benign in the atmosphere? How much global dimming is required before there are significant impacts on productivity?
What are possible benefits? Do aerosols absorb UV as well as visible light (thus reducing skin cancer risk)? Do the pros outweigh the cons in terms of offsetting the enhanced greenhouse effect?
