Agree that this isn't that bad of a result. I find that nearly every article on geo-engineering is unnecessarily negative, always stressing the downsides and trumping up the 'unknown' side-effects.

Is there anyone left who can do a neutral cost-benefit analysis?

From what I've read, it should be welcomed as a miracle that there happens to be a simple, cheap technique that will decrease global temperatures, which has already been tested naturally with volcanoes, has minimal effects other than reflecting sunlight, fades out on its own over time, and can be precisely regulated by the amount of particles injected.

I agree we need to be careful of other effects of deflecting the sunlight, but, come on! The results so far are quite amazing.

It's this human bias against modifying our world (similar to the bias against GMO's or improving IQ by tweaking genes) that has delayed geo-engineering science by decades already. It's finally turning into a real field, and the only mainstream articles are ones that report mostly negative results.