Which is why during the early days of the Obama administration Obama's "Green Science Advisor Czar" was stating we should shoot "pollution particles" into the atmosphere to combat global warming (even though for years all the global warming scientists were saying that we should get rid of pollution particles to prevent global warming).
No offense to Pbartender, but I think this deserves an answer in text to be sure things are clear.
When you shine light on a surface, some of that light is reflected by the surface, and some is absorbed. The fraction of light a surface reflects is called its albedo. Surfaces that reflect a lot of light (typically white surfaces - ice and cloud tops) have an albedo near 1. Surfaces that absorb a lot of light (say, deep, dark oceans) have an albedo near 0.
Reflected light shoots right back out into space. Absorbed light heats up the surface that absorbed it - and part of that heat is re-radiated out as infrared light.
Greenhouse gases are compounds that are transparent to the visible light that comes in, but are extraordinarily good at absorbing infrared light - they let light in, but they don't let heat out. Just like a greenhouse, thus the name.
Not all "pollution particles" are the same. The "pollution particles" that are suggested as a solution to global warming are not greenhouse gases - they are usually particles that tend to increase the albedo of the atmosphere, usually by encouraging cloud formation. The idea is that if we reduce the amount of light that gets absorbed, we cool the atmosphere in general. I have seen some other plans that call for releasing gases that will bind with carbon,and remove it form the atmosphere, but these seem a bit more far-fetched to me.
Sometimes the media just lumps things into "pollution", but you can't blame that on the scientists. Media reports this stuff poorly, at best.
Then again, there has been worse and will be worse bone head, power hungry, and control grabbing, decisions made in the name of "global warming"... like the EPA declaring that Carbon dioxide is a harmful gas and should be eliminated/regulated (even though all life expels it, and plants need it to create oxygen).
Well, again, there's something here to note...
Yes, all life works with Carbon dioxide. Animals exhale it, and plants take it in - not only to make oxygen, but that's how they get carbon to make their bodies as well. Carbon becomes part of living organisms, we die, decompose, and release that carbon back into the environment - this creates what is often called the "carbon cycle". It is perfectly natural, and the Earth has feedback loops to help control it, and to help stabilize the Earth's temperature somewhat.
Here's the thing - every bit of fossil fuel we burn puts carbon itno the atmosphere that hasn't been in the cycle for
tens to hundreds of millions of years. It isn't part of the current budget, and the Earth's feedback system cannot handle it as fast as we release it, especially as we decrease forested land - which is a major place where atmospheric carbon goes to get out of the atmosphere.
This is part of why so many folks like the concept of "biofuels" - fuels that are made out of currently living things. Those fuels use carbon that is already in the cycle, rather than releasing carbon that isn't in the current cycle, and so don't alter the Earth's overall carbon budget. Unfortunately, none of these fuels are at a point technologically where we are sure we can produce them in enough bulk efficiently, so that we get more out of the fuel than we put into making them.
So, in the end, while living things use carbon dioxide, that doesn't make all carbon dioxide tolerable.
