Actually John this aerosol phenomenon has already been talked about for 
years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPPbmXSI1ZM

The entire issue of 'Global Dimming' as it was called way back when it 
was first noted has been cited as the cause for a lot more than just 
climate change mitigation by holding back the main effects of climate 
temperature rises. The additional changing weather patterns should at 
least alert you to the fact that to use aerosols as you suggest will 
only serve to change weather patterns to devastating effect elsewhere 
around the planet by interfering with natural local weather patterns and 
cycles (as has been shown in the video linked below).
So if you put aerosols into the atmosphere over the Arctic you think 
they will stay there? Not a chance in hell actually. The jet stream will 
see to that.
Regards
K C

On 30/10/2011 12:19, John Nissen wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This is an interesting article [1] about the unexpected large 
> influence of sulphate aerosols in masking the effects of greenhouse 
> gases on global warming.  It suggests that removal of aerosols, as an 
> attempt to clean up the atmosphere, caused a spurt in global warming 
> during 90s, and that aerosol emissions from coal fired generators have 
> been a major factor in the apparent pause in global warming since 
> 1998, but with minor volcanoes also contributing.
>
> This news is good and bad.  It is bad news while the Chinese are 
> trying to clean up the pollution from power stations and while there 
> are also efforts to reduce pollution from ships.  But it is good news 
> in that it supports the idea to deliberate inject aerosols into the 
> atmosphere to cool the Arctic.  In removing sulphate aerosols from one 
> place, we could put them in another place where they might could 
> prevent polar meltdown while not being a risk to human health.
>
> So we've been inadvertently geoengineering with aerosols to offset 
> global warming for decades, and now we need to do it deliberately and 
> sensibly such as to prevent a global catastrophe from Arctic 
> meltdown.  But we probably only have two years to halt the retreat of 
> sea ice [2].  That is the challenge which governments need to 
> recognise.  This is a global emergency which warrants a determined 
> effort, with the resolve and intensity of the Manhatten Project [3] 
> but a benign outcome, including the saving of an entire polar ecosystem.
>
> If we can crack the Arctic nut, then that buys time for solving all 
> the other global crises that are looming around us, like ocean 
> acidification, the dying off of the Amazon rainforest and the feeding 
> of 7-10 billion people as the planet heats [4].
>
> Cheers,
>
> John
>
> P.S.  We should also use cloud brightening and other techniques to 
> help cool the Arctic - pulling out all the stops because failure is 
> not an option.
>
> [1] http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2011/10/25/1
> "Provoked scientists try to explain lag in global warming"
>
> [2] Report from the Chiswick "Arctic methane workshop", October 2011, 
> as yet unpublished.
> Ref to PIOMAS model of sea ice volume, with trend shown in:
> http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2011/09/piomas-august-2011.html
>
> [3] 
> http://geo-engineering.blogspot.com/2010/06/sea-ice-loss-stuns-scientists.html 
>
> Open letter to Dr Holdren.
>
> [4] http://planetark.org/wen/63680
> "Crop scientists now fret about heat not just water"
>

-- 
"Wisdom is what's left after we've run out of personal opinions." Cullen 
Hightower