"The view that some scientists have that we need to manipulate the planet in order to fix it is another one that bothers me. We need to be wary of false solutions like geoengineering. I’ve just read a paper that outlines plans to pump cold water into the Arctic to try and refreeze the ice-cap. It’s totally mad! This old style of thinking believes the Earth operates like a machine, but that’s not how natural systems operate."

10 Things You’ve Always Wanted to Ask an Environmental Scientist -- https://medium.com/greenpeace/10-things-youve-always-wanted-...

Not researching geoengineering is at least as dangerous as attempting it. Geoengineering is definitely going to be attempted--nay, ordered--long before Manhattan, Mumbai, Shanghai, etc. are under a foot of water. Whatever we've managed to figure out, no matter how stupid a solution it might be, is what's going to get tossed at this problem by the same ignorant politicians that got us into this mess. So we might as well make it a good one.

That seems unlikely. Nukes are pretty small on the scale of the earth. Things like plutonium concentration went up significantly because the natural level is so low, but I doubt they did much for aerosols.

A clean nuke detonated over the ocean would do nothing. The whole point would be to produce vast amounts of dust i.e. be dirty.

These geoengineering ideas sound more dangerous every time I read them... At some point, if it hasn't happened already, this is going to become a dangerous cult that threatens our species.

You really believe this? We should blow up nuclear bombs in the ocean every few months to avoid a possible temperature rise an order of magnitude smaller than experienced during the yearly cycle.

The era of nuclear testing did significantly increase the amount of background radiation in the world. There is not a form of above-ground nuclear explosion that will not have worldwide environmental impacts.