>> simply a matter of engineering.
>Remember that these are hypothetical, untried mitigations.
They are based on well-understood science. Two that would clearly work are orbital sunshades (adjustable as needed via various techniques) and CO2 sequestration (great, but tons of energy is required).
>> Humans should also aggressively colonize elsewhere in the solar system
>Another idea that requires decades or centuries of continued technological progress - which in turn depends heavily on stable societies and supporting ecosystems.
Which has nothing to do with anything. My comment on space colonization wasn't intended to present it as a "solution" to catastrophic warming - instead, to present it as a reason for long-term optimism.
>I'm a bright green environmentalist, too - I think that the convergence of technological change and social innovation provides the most successful path to sustainable development - but you're being a bit overly optimistic here, I think.
LOL...if the two alternatives are global catastrophe, or aggressive geoengineering, do you really think geoengineering won't happen?
At this time, global warming is not understood well enough for accurate prediction, especially over longer timescales. As that changes, the best course of future action will become clear. In the meantime, the best focus is as outlined in the "In the shorter term" paragraph in the parent...