Global Dimming, Global Warming, and Bad Reporting

We need to note this because there will doubtless be a lot of ill-informed and worng conclusions drwan from a report just released that particulates in the air may offset global warming by reducing the heat that reaches the planet and getting trapped by global warming gases. The truth of the matter is that in the short term this is likely to be true: reducing partiuclates will increase wwarming initially. However in the long term this doesn;t mean we can say 'well let's not bother with all this CO2 reduction -it may make things worse...'. The fallacy lies in that this is not a zero-sum thing: the particulate reflection doesn't match the warming effect and the particulate effect is pretty immediate whereas the warming effect is a slow build. What this means is that if we left particulates as they are we would still be seeing global warming And furthermore, we would be making the matter worse because to maintain particulate levels would mean even more greenhouse gases. If we reduce particulates [which is a necessary concomitant of reducing greenhouse gases under present conditions] there will be a short-term rise is warming which would even out longer-term. The message, as this article points out is: not that efforts to reduce fossil fuel use are pointless, but that we need to redouble our efforts to mitigate greenhouse effects. These efforts take three key paths: methane (CH4) emission reduction, to slow shorter-term (3-10 year) greenhouse effects; carbon sequestration to reduce the amount of atmospheric CO2 in the short-to-medium-term; and CO2 emission reduction, to slow and stop medium-term (50-100 year) warming. You'll see plenty of commentary over the next few days arguing that we should abandon efforts to move away from fossil fuels; such self-appointed pundits are wrong. We need to move faster, not slower.
WorldChanging: Another World Is Here: Global Dimming, Global Warming, and Bad Reporting