FamousDrScanlon wrote:"This shows how a rapid change in global RF from aerosols still takes a while to drive a change in global surface temperatures, with only ~20% of the total potential impact occurring within a year and ~60% in around 10 years. It’s important to note that this is the global RF and temperature change — a drop in localised aerosol emissions would have a much more rapid regional impact with noticeable effects within only weeks, but it’d take much longer for the whole of the global climate system to catch up."
Seems to me a confusing presentation of the significance of Global Dimming.
First off, of course, it impacts land temperatures much more than global temperatures over shorter timespans, because the ocean is a huge heat sink, but the land's surface isn't. So, it's basically as if the Sun's rays are all of a sudden felt much stronger. So, just maybe, it's effects on land are just amplified. That's not much comfort.
Regardless of the amount of it's contribution, it seems like maybe a sufficient explanation (together with land use practices) for the higher temps recorded during the dust bowl years, making their outlier case entirely tractable within how global warming works and, therefore, that's a poor case for thinking that our current warming may be only temporary (as I'm sure few of you think so except for vision, maybe).