[dang]

This title is breaking HN's guidelines by being linkbait. ("Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait" - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

Can anyone suggest a less baity title? I looked through the text trying to find an accurate, neutral, representative phrase and couldn't find one. That's unusual and probably a bad sign.

[throwaway290]

"On the likelihood of unilateral solar geoengineering"?

The article itself edges on mongering to be fair.

[dang]

Ok, let's try that. Thanks to everyone for all the suggestions!

[dkarras]

I don't think it is baity? Just creative and interesting. Meshes perfectly with its content too, as the main argument of the article is that someone is going to do it without any general consensus as it is possible to do with some billionaire or small nation level cash.

[justinclift]

Maybe:

    Solar Radiation Management (SRM) as a temporary climate change solution

[quadcore]

That's unusual and probably a bad sign.

It's a bad, bad sign I agree. That said Id propose "someone may decide to pour sulphur in the stratosphere"

[justinator]

Still link bait-y and but infinitely better. You have my vote!

[twiss]

I think the last part of the conclusion is relatively representative:

> people are starting to take geoengineering seriously

It could be made more objective by prepending "Some" :) Though the author does give a bunch of references under #2 and #3 so perhaps it's unnecessary.

[dang]

I thought of something like that too, but decided that it's not specific enough since the post is not about geoengineering in general.

[andrewmcwatters]

> Modifying the earth like this is called geoengineering, and blocking out the sun with particles is called Solar Radiation Management (SRM).

"Solar Radiation Management (SRM)" alone is probably succinct and neither misleading or linkbait.