An article in New Scientist raises concerns that pollutants have been artificially masking the effects of greenhouse emissions, and, ironically, the reduction of airborne particle pollution will result in even faster warming.
The first thing that comes to mind (well my sick mind anyway) when reading that, is that maybe we should just keep spewing. The article goes on to say, however, that particles fall out quickly, while greenhouse gasses tend to hang out, so pollution (in a traditional sense anyway) is, on the whole, a warming force (according to this model).
Still, it does beg the question, is there a way to reduce warming by introducing reflective particles into the atmosphere on purpose?
I'm no friend to big energy, and I certainly feel that GWB and Co. are not doing the world any favors with their environmental policies, but. . . Let's be really honest here for a second. Mother Nature is not exactly guaranteed to be kind to us, even if we stop treating her like crap. While I certainly don't advocate killing her, a restraining order might be nice.
To put this another way: Kyoto (and its ilk) or no, the future looks warm. The ability to reduce insolation in a controllable fashion seems highly desirable. Since we really don't fully understand the carbon cycle anyway, I find the notion that we can control the temperature purely by regulating human CO2 emissions to be sketchy at best. Sunlight, on the other hand, is easy to understand, and easier to control in a shorter timeframe.