Sorry I did not read the entire thread, perhaps this has been stated already.
This might be a tad outside the box but
more pollution may be the solution.
As it turns out, pollution is having a secondary effect that is mitigating the greenhouse effect by about 30%.
Soot particles from combustion are much smaller then the dust particles that normally seed clouds. When clouds are seeded with these smaller particles, they are more reflective and as a result have caused significant global dimming downwind of areas that create them.
As most manmade greenhouse gas emissions are due to one form of combustion or another, creation of soot particles tend to go hand in hand with creation of the greenhouse gas. This is likely the reason that most estimates and models of greenhouse effect are having difficulty creating accurate predictions.
Two problems fall out of this realization (that I can see). First is that the effects of soot particles for global cooling is a short lived phenomena (they are soon washed out of the atmosphere) compared to the effects of greenhouse gasses (that remain until consumed in a process).
Secondly most efforts seem to be in the direction of reducing particulate and not greenhouse gasses themselves as one is a visible problem that also causes acid rain and the other is an invisible problem much easier to ignore. With this trend we are likely to end up shooting ourselves in our other foot as well by hastening the Global Warming trend.
As I see it, what we will need is
time to come up with a permanent solution to global warming. At a guess, we will need as much as 25-75 years before we have all the technologies (and the global social will) required to a) not create any more greenhouse gasses, and b) remove/mitigate existing greenhouse effects.
To buy that time, we need to offset the existing greenhouse effects as much as possible, and soot particulate may very well be the intermediate term answer. It will bring its own issues to be certain. Not the least of which is what will be the effect of a 10-20% drop in sunlight reaching the surface on plant/animal life? What will be the long term effect of breathing these soot particles? Is the cure worse then the disease?
Personally, I suspect that global warming is a vastly more significant process then these effects.
Global delivery system? We already have one. The very vehicles we drive every day. If an additive can be created that makes cars create more pure carbon particulate without increasing greenhouse gasses or reactive particulate then we are set. The amount of additive can be set regionally to try to ensure as even a coverage as possible. The net result is a global system of controlled delivery of an agent that can partially counteract the effects of global warming. Since the effects are continuously removed from the atmosphere through rainfall it allows for greater control of the current global levels on an ongoing basis.
While this entire system seems quite clear in my head, I am having difficulty articulating it. Much of what I have spewn out here is just shorthand
On the plus side, racing might just the most environmentally sound thing you could do
Give a hoot... please pollute.
Re: D.I.Y Planet Cooling
I can't find anywhere that I said 'drivel'. Not that I wouldn't use the word mind you. 
Which post/idea exactly is too harsh? 
semantics is not always just pedantic quibbling. ~ douglas r. hofstadter
Re: D.I.Y Planet Cooling
