State of Carbon Dioxide Removal Report, 2026
Paul Zeitz
Jan Umsonst
Hi all,
it's so said all these reports are now full fantasy as they leave out reality...
Here the graphs which methods of CDR have which share:
While in reality plantations and forest go up in smoke alike...
Just one example of the magnitude we reach now in single bioms:
"But the CTNA also says nearly a tenth of Canada's forests were destroyed by wildfires between 2023 and 2025, and that it would take 7.3 billion seedlings to replace just 15 per cent of that."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/wildfires-tree-planting-canada-9.7215528
Here the drought of the Amazon in 2023/24 - its from a study - the next peak which will come will likely see the Amazon burn large scale:
It's like reality does not play any role anymore...
Our main hope will be that humanity freeing its full potential can ramp up DACCS fast with all we've got - direct air carbon capture and storage.
The next years will show how bad the vicious feedback cycle we are just now triggering really is...
Here the carbon signal in 2024 as a reminder:
Fun fact here: intensifies microbial respiration in shrub and grass lands under anomalous wet and hot conditions could have been one main reason...
If you go at the systems level important carbon sinks are already switching into sources - the Arctic landscapes, the Amazon the Forests of Africa, parts of the US, parts of Australia's forests.
This sign I found highly fascinating:
"We find that a transition from sink (0.62 ± 0.04 Mg C ha−1 yr−1: 1971–2000) to source (−0.93 ± 0.11 Mg C ha−1 yr−1: 2010–2019) has occurred for the aboveground woody biomass of these forests, with sink capacity declining at a rate of 0.041 ± 0.032 Mg C ha−1 yr−1. The transition was driven by increasingly extreme temperature and other climate anomalies, which have increased tree mortality and associated biomass losses4"
It did not just switch its signal it totally reversed it. What is important that extreme weather events are driving it as we see it now in most systems. And in terms of continental extremes its marine heatwaves being the ultimative extreme event multiplier which intensify and spread now highly non-linear...
In 2016 the term "marine heatwave" had been defined in a meeting of oceanographers discussion the new phenomenon which emerged in the North Atlantic in 2012 and in the eastern Pacific in the winter of 2014. Now just ten years later we reached that - you see this massive jump in persistence? The largest and most extreme marine heatwaves are the most persisting as they stabilize their persistence via reinforcing the drivers that caused them:
The signal in 2023:
From an El Nino perspective:
Best
Jan
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAPaitbtFFkeNj9sE9mf8k%2Bur_Lj%3D3a4_2HQq8ywA7TA76x8iEw%40mail.gmail.com.
-- Jan Umsonst Wallauer Str. 6D, 30326 Frankfurt am Main Tele: 0176 41114523 E-Mail: j.o.u...@gmail.com Performing Vitality: https://performingvitality.wordpress.com/
Bruce Melton -- Austin, Texas
Incomplete too. They left out Oxy's Stratos in the Permian and Linde's 5 mt/year ammonia facility in Louisiana. Avoidance counts, another thing this report does not deal well with, but Stratos will go beyond avoidance because of IRS 45Q. They are also very light on discussion of 45Q, though they did briefly mention that instead of being eliminated with the rest of climate science, it was enhanced by the great science denier. What they also did not say is extremely important; that U.S. government incentives in these vested times are favored and will never be eliminated, because these are huge revenue sources for industry - their favorite kind of money (ours).
To me it seems there is a science reticence thing going on here. If it's not peer review, it's not in the report.
Same goes for degrading Earth systems (tipping activation), except there two understating biases that are involved: time and consensus. Time is because natural systems carbon flux are highly variable, requiring long term data acquisition to create robustness. This is reflected in consensus reporting that caveats the carbon failure of systems we have been seeing in academic work for a decade now.
The Amazon drought graphic (Ferriera 2025) seems to downplay the earliest 2 of the 5, 100-year+ droughts in the Amazon since 2005, but they are all there, and demonstrably increasing in intensity. Work on the topic is showing 1 Gt+ annual CO2e emissions and there is a lot of work showing this. Paddison 2023 - CNN report on the 2024 drought severity, Costa and Morengo's UN statement on the droughts 2023, Clarke 2024 - World Weather Atribution Network, Espinoiza 2024 - Nature, Boulton 2022 - Nature Climate Change, Qin 2021 - Nature Climate Change, Gatti 2021 - Nature, Lovejoy and Nobre 2018, Yang 2018 - Nature, Erfanian 2017 - Nature, Feldpausch 2016 - Global Biogeochemical Cycles, Lewis 2011 - Science.
Friedlingstein 2025 shows that Asian and South American tropical
forests have flipped.
Friedlingstein et al., Emerging climate impact on carbon sinks in
a consolidated carbon budget, Nature, January 1, 2026.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09802-5.pdf
~ ~ ~ Jan - where did you get this quote? I think I have seen it before, but can't find it.
"We find that a transition from sink (0.62 ± 0.04 Mg C ha−1 yr−1: 1971–2000) to source (−0.93 ± 0.11 Mg C ha−1 yr−1: 2010–2019) has occurred for the aboveground woody biomass of these forests, with sink capacity declining at a rate of 0.041 ± 0.032 Mg C ha−1 yr−1. The transition was driven by increasingly extreme temperature and other climate anomalies, which have increased tree mortality and associated biomass losses4"
Zhuang et al., Anthropogenic warming has ushered in an era of temperature-dominated droughts in the western United States, Science Advances, November 6, 2024.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adn9389
If y'all have never seen our Instagram; there are over 1,000 posts, almost all of filming logs across North America, each one with a description.
https://www.instagram.com/bruce.c.melton/
https://climatediscovery.org/History_of_Carbon_Dioxide_Removal_Draft.docx
Director, Climate Change Now Initiative, 501c3
President, Melton Engineering Services Austin
8103 Kirkham Drive
Austin, Texas 78736
(512)799-7998
ClimateDiscovery.org
ClimateChangePhoto.org
MeltonEngineering.com
Face...@Bruce.Melton.395
Inst...@Bruce.C.Melton
The Band Climate Change
Twitter - BruceCMelton1
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/94f72bb6-fdd0-482c-ae53-4d0e4f2e2243%40gmail.com.
John Nissen
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/2bf41c7a-7377-41b8-83f9-e8636e0628b4%40earthlink.net.
Jan Umsonst
Bruce Melton -- Austin, Texas
Aye, thanks for the Carle and Bauman et al., 2025 link. That's what it looked like, I just couldn't find the words in their paper. I have been talking with Bauman since their first Australian tropical paper said theirs had flipped and likely the rest of tropical forests across the globe due to the same water stress. Now they have quantified, but I have not had the time yet to work their gms/hectare into usable numbers.
It also sounds like you are familiar with Arnsheidt and Rothman 2022 and rate-induced tipping. Do you have any other cites for similar?
Rate Induced Collapse of Evolutionary systems… (Abstract) “Recent work has highlighted the possibility of ‘rate-induced tipping’, in which a system undergoes an abrupt transition when a perturbation exceeds a critical rate of change. Here, we argue that this is widely applicable to evolutionary systems: collapse, or extinction, may occur when external changes occur too fast for evolutionary adaptation to keep up. To bridge existing theoretical frameworks, we develop a minimal evolutionary–ecological model showing that rate-induced extinction and the established notion of ‘evolutionary rescue’ are fundamentally two sides of the same coin: the failure of one implies the other, and vice versa. We compare the minimal model’s behaviour with that of a more complex model in which the large-scale dynamics emerge from the interactions of many individual agents; in both cases, there is a well-defined threshold rate to induce extinction, and a consistent scaling law for that rate as a function of timescale. Due to the fundamental nature of the underlying mechanism, we suggest that a vast range of evolutionary systems should in principle be susceptible to rate-induced collapse. This would include ecosystems on all scales as well as human societies; further research is warranted.”
Arnscheidt
and
Rothman, Rate-induced collapse in evolutionary systems. Royal
Society, May 9,
2022.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9156909/pdf/rsif.2022.0182.pdf
Our filmwork uniquely captures rate-induced and catastrophic tipping. In 2024-5, we made 3 trips to the US Northeast, 20,000 miles worth, and were very surprised at the mortality as very little is being made of it in the literature yet.
I heard a long-ago used comparison of life to climate change yesterday that needs to be repeated more. This is the "fever" analogy, but we must not say "Earth" or "our climate" has a fever. The comparison is how bad we feel when we have a temperature of a few degrees F. The boundaries of health are very narrow, regardless of the system. Exceed these boundaries and the systems is degraded. Continue the degradation long enough and the system fails. Tipping is abstract, but we as a culture know what degradation is, and we know that if it continues long enough, failure results.
The rest of the story is that, the popular press is dominated by the illegitimate ones and there is very little room for the most important things that affect all life on Earth. The Climate Change Countermovement has done their job well.
Case in point: 13,000 of 75,000 mature sequoias were killed (mostly) in the the fires of 2020 and 2021, where only several hundred have died for any reason since a few to several thousand years before European colonialists. Because of the great stability of this species' ecology, this is likely the most meaningful tipping element known, or at least the one that enough people on this planet know about to make a difference. The transition to heat driving drought tells all. Excess fuels are but a minor enhancement today.
Steep trails,
B
Image: A giant sequoia in the Freeman Creek Grove, killed by the Castle Fire in 2020.
(One of my articles on the topic went nuts on Truthout - https://truthout.org/articles/mass-death-of-sequoias-is-the-harbinger-of-earth-systems-collapse/)
Director, Climate Change Now Initiative, 501c3
President, Melton Engineering Services Austin
8103 Kirkham Drive
Austin, Texas 78736
(512)799-7998
ClimateDiscovery.org
ClimateChangePhoto.org
MeltonEngineering.com
Face...@Bruce.Melton.395
Inst...@Bruce.C.Melton
The Band Climate Change
Twitter - BruceCMelton1
Jan Umsonst
Hi Bruce, thx for this paper - yes absolutely rate dependent tipping of ecosystem is at the forefront but it also applies for many physical systems.
Actually I follow the tipping point/tipping cascade discussion closely via the abstracts and some expert voices - I waited for years that rate induced tipping or rate dependent feedbacks move into the center of the debate about Earths stability and strengths of the feedback's and the overall feedback parameter.
One in one expert summary of the science - COP20 cryosphere initiative - she mentioned that rate induced tipping is an emerging topic in the discussion. Now I found several on the topic but went not too deep, as for me it is clear that the speed of the warming controls the feedbacks or how fast system tip.
E.g. rate dependent studies on the AMOC exist - positive findings and for other systems as well - but not too many studies on systems I found till now. But this will change fast.
We have now so many subsystems and processes inside the system that develop a sudden trend acceleration behavior, sudden peaks, shifts, slow downs, break downs, speed ups, spread, persistence, frequency - the non-linearity increases now fast inside the system.
The main reason is the speed of warming as it leads to systems that are still existing but moved already past the climate in which they can persist. And the faster you warm the climate the further subsystems are pushed into a disequilibrium which then forces them to make larger jumps to adjust to the new warming level or their fast changing environment.
Take sea ice, one of many examples - you warm it slowly, sea ice gradually declines with some ups and down movements. But if you warm the Arctic very fast surface heating and subsurface melting becomes so fast so strong over the whole ice area that summer ice becomes very thin while still existing while water vapor levels, latent heat release etc. already reach levels to produce massive warming events over the central Arctic, while at one point a series of extremes happens that the whole can suddenly dissolve with only marginal left overs - oops suddenly the Arctic is sea ice free <1Mkm.
Further if you warm the climate too fast feedbacks that would normally occur at different stages with larger times inbetween the different regime shifts to occur more simultaneously. If this principle would hold in reality this would imply that with the speed of warming not only more abrupt regime shifts happen but also in closer temporal vicinity.
Hence, if you warm Earth's steam engine too fast breaching thresholds you force a chain reaction of sudden Earth system shifts in ever more systems operating from the local to the planetary level. The main variable or metric to understand how close we are could be to track the increase in non-linear shifts.
How to do it?
Difficult!
It's not just drought or heat, it's also persistence, frequency, extent, regional hydroclimatic regime shifts - lots of now - current intensifications, slow downs, current shifts, current break downs, large scale circulation regime changes (e.g, a sudden jump of sudden stratospheric warming events in both Hemispheres since some years), increases in blocking events, intensifications of iconic lows and highs, shifts in climate modes, sea ice changes, sudden regime shifts in saltiness and gradients, intensifying shifts and variations in ocean heat uptake patterns, mode water formations shifts and breakdowns, sudden shifts in the stratosphere (e.g. suddenly happening abnormal reversals of the quasi biennial oscillation, larger shifts of the EEI, frequency of temperature jumps, sudden expansion and persistence of marine heatwaves, sudden shifts in cloud cover, shortwave absorption peaks, sudden peaks in storm series...
It's in a way to measure in how far the variability in the system increases operating from the regional to the planetary...
If we breach thresholds here, this system can change fast driven by it's dynamical components going into mutual amplification mode - e.g. between extreme events we see it already to happen...
And that is the point where another Super El Nino - Earth are you kidding me? - becomes so worrisome as if we get another temperature jump so soon after the last one. We do not breach warming thresholds, we warp them...
I mean what would it be? A degree in 12 years if a super EL Nino happens?? It's not anymore part of natural variability but forced variability. El Nino component included it would be a warming rate a hundred times faster than the PETM warming event? But higher than 10x for sure....
Sorry for my rant - it's just helps me to think over it - hence I think rate dependent tipping is the thing and we missed the main feedback cascade which is already on its way working its way upward to the planetary level - AMOC collapse is just a part of it in the later stage...
Best
Jan
p.s. have to look somewhere I collected rate dependent tipping studies - not too many as I'm tracking it more via the subsystem shifts and new findings on how systems behave or will behave...
Bruce Melton -- Austin, Texas
Jan,
In the US Northeast, chronic forests degradation is widespread with pockets of acute mortality from acute events. In the West, the same is true except the acute events are far larger in extents. This introduces an acute cascade in surrounding areas from loss of the precipitation machine, that feeds back into degraded regeneration. Interesting though, the mortality agents in the Northeast are almost all non-native. In the West; almost all native. This is probably associated with human population density, but I have never seen any work on "why."
I suspect a fair portion of the acceleration of warming is coming from degraded Earth systems that are now emitting carbon, but I do not know of anyone in the lit that is directly saying so. Emissions from systems are stated, but nothing about what fraction of the increase those emissions represent. Mostly the chatter is about the IMO Regs with a few talking China and India, which I believe also are bigger players than identified, and nothing on ultrafine particles from multipoint fuel injection (sulfate aerosols far smaller and far more potent than traditional sulfur particles from burning fossil fuels). The big question then becomes, why are atmospherics concentrations of greenhouse gases not increasing even greater? The answer is ocean absorption is stronger than expected, and the CO2 effect is certainly happening in places, like the boreal in places where acute thaw and fire have not made an impact, and... ultrafine particulate cooling.
What our climate culture does not yet acknowledge though, is that further warming matters naught, once degradation begins. Almost any system will eventually collapse if degradation is allowed to proceed unchallenged. Even our tipping culture does not complete this simple addition problem correctly, because feedbacks are understated in the models, and our climate culture is model-based.
The biggest challenge to implementing restoration is perception of effects. Our climate culture has been compromised by the Climate Change Countermovement (CCCM), and to some extent, by our climate culture itself. The CCCM tells us it is all a part of our climate's natural cycles, and our climate culture reinforces this with probability discussions. Take event attribution for example. If climate change makes an event "more likely," it was going to happen anyway and climate change is moot. The other shortfalling of attribution is that a 60 percent probability that the event is climate change related, means a 40 percent probability that climate change is bunk. And of course tipping is very poorly represented in the climate science consensus. All this means that our climate culture believes, on very credible grounds, that climate change is no big deal. The answer is in the middle, right?
Even our wording for climate change events creates an understating bias. If climate change only enhances events, the events would still be there, just slightly less extreme. This may be the worst of all biases because of catastrophism. This is not the geologic or biologic catastrophism, but the concept of thresholds with extreme events: a hundred-year flood doesn't do anything but muss up the 100-year floodplain where development is not allowed. A 500-year flood crosses the threshold into developed area and creates massive mayhem to the built environment. Six inches of rain in four days creates river flooding and threatens, but six inches in four hours creates the Kerrville flood tragedy.
This effect is not an enhancement caused by warming effects. In the absence of warming effects, the catastrophe would not have happened, therefor the event was "caused by" warming.
Below is an interesting article on how our skeptical climate culture has negatively influenced climate science itself. These relationships are widespread in our climate culture like I have shown in the previous paragraph or three. They are reticence machines that serve to self-limit the aggressiveness of projections of effects. The removal of the worst-case scenario is yet another example. This scenario family does not appear feasible today - based on our current climate culture that is significantly understated in so many ways because of so many different things; the biggest probably being that the amount of warming doesn't matter - it's the responses that count.
Steep trails,
MeltOn
Seepage - Climate change denial and its effect on the scientific community… (From the abstract) " Vested interests and political agents have long opposed political or regulatory action in response to climate change by appealing to scientific uncertainty. Here we examine the effect of such contrarian talking points on the scientific community itself. We show that although scientists are trained in dealing with uncertainty, there are several psychological reasons why scientists may nevertheless be susceptible to uncertainty-based argumentation, even when scientists recognize those arguments as false and are actively rebutting them. Specifically, we show that prolonged stereotype threat, pluralistic ignorance, and a form of projection (the third-person effect) may cause scientists to take positions that they would be less likely to take in the absence of outspoken public opposition."
Lewandowsky et al., Seepage - Climate change
denial and its
effect on the scientific community, Global Environmental Change,
May 15, 2015.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378015000515/pdfft?md5=f4cd6a454f36b9cc53da69ea8397ac91&pid=1-s2.0-S0959378015000515-main.pdf
Image: The root ball of a thousand-year old cypress came to rest against an electrical transmission tower in the Guadalupe River Valley after the Kerrville flood tragedy. Six inches of rain in four hours on the Guadalupe created a geologically significant flood event. It was about a 3,000 years storm, but the flood elevation was similar to a 100-year flood. The reason is that the power of the flood was so great, it stripped vegetation from its bed. This radically decreases friction, allowing more water to flow faster, with a lower flood elevation than what would be expected if trees still lined the river. See more at https://www.instagram.com/bruce.c.melton/ Pictured is a cutoff channel that shortcuts a big bend in the river channel. This area was moderately to heavily forested before the flood.
Director, Climate Change Now Initiative, 501c3
President, Melton Engineering Services Austin
8103 Kirkham Drive
Austin, Texas 78736
(512)799-7998
ClimateDiscovery.org
ClimateChangePhoto.org
MeltonEngineering.com
Face...@Bruce.Melton.395
Inst...@Bruce.C.Melton
The Band Climate Change
Twitter - BruceCMelton1
Jan Umsonst
Hi Bruce,
we are in the non-quantifiable worst case now - so many signs that we get a massive carbon feedback already rolling on with a vicious cycle in the oceans now becoming operational. It's like you wrote it - it's not the warming per se, but how the system responds and it seems to be much more sensitive to GHG changes than we thought - several discussions/observations emerge now which really do not look good...
I found it surprising that the sink numbers are so heavily discussed - the terrestrial carbon sink could be way weaker than modeled this would make the oceans the main sink - but all not certain but recently a new paper came out substantiating the weaker terrestrial carbon sink position - some 0.6 Gt C if I'm not mistaken - let's see how it will further evolve the discussion.
With ulrafine aerosols you are also spot on - they go up, likely steeply in a warmer climate - extreme weather pushes particle formation - oops!
The discussion is starting since some years - fossil fuel ultra fine aerosol emissions could have doubled the last decades - unfortunately the intricacies are often overlooked in the SOx cooling debate. Ultra fine aerosols are very effective at creating cloud nucleus (later I copied & pasted where our knowledge stands). Hence, it's not just about the SOx total emissions numbers but also composition changes...
Here what they write on the increase in ultrafine particles:
Ultrafine particles (UFP) acting as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) are the driving force behind changing rainfall patterns. Recently observed weather extremes like floods and drought might be due to changing anthropogenic UFP emissions. However, the sources and budgets of anthropogenic primary and secondary particles are not well known. Based on airborne measurements we identified as a major contribution modern fossil fuel flue gas cleaning techniques to cause a doubling of global primary UFP number emissions. The subsequent enhancement of CCN numbers has several side effects. It’s changing the size of the cloud droplets and delays raindrop formation, suppressing certain types of rainfall and increasing the residence time of water vapour in the atmosphere. This additional latent energy reservoir is directly available for invigoration of rainfall extremes. Additionally it’s a further contribution to the column density of water vapour as a greenhouse gas and important for the infrared radiation budget. The localized but ubiquitous fossil fuel related UFP emissions and their role in the hydrological cycle, may thus contribute to regional or continental climate trends, such as increasing drought and flooding, observed within recent decades. " Unprecedented levels of ultrafine particles, major sources, and the hydrological cycle"; https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-11500-5
This is highly relevant:
"increasing drought and flooding" - the former leads to hot and dry conditions under which clouds vanish while the later produces heat that fuels heatwaves.
Here you have the cloud condensation nuclei effects of UFP's from a recent review on the matter:
NFP - new particle formation
Climate modulation
The interactions of UFP with other members of the climate system are complex (Fig. 6). UFP can reflect, scatter and absorb solar radiation (Luo et al., 2019; McFiggans et al., 2004; Peng et al., 2002). Some studies have pointed out that BC constitutes a considerable part of UFPs, which can strongly absorb electromagnetic radiation in the visible and infrared spectra, thereby affecting global warming (Bond et al., 2013).
The simulation results of aerosol radiative forcing based on numerical model show that the aerosol radiative forcing significantly increases when nucleation process is considered (Makkonen et al., 2012). Meanwhile, solar radiation directly affects radiation-dominated NPF events, which further affects the number of UFP in the atmosphere (Brines et al., 2015; Lee et al., 2003). As the climate warms, the occurrence of extreme events will also enhance various plant stressors, which will affect NPF events by affecting the emission of precursors (Zhao et al., 2017).
The emissions of UFP may affect cloud property changes to further alter rainfall patterns, which may lead to uneven regional precipitation, thereby increasing the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events and leading to significant natural disaster losses (Facchini et al., 1999; Junkermann and Hacker, 2022; Junkermann et al., 2011; Kwon et al., 2020). This process is a kind of indirect climate effect of aerosols. Because reproducing the various environmental elements involved in aerosol-cloud interactions is hard, it's difficult to derive a clear causality for the hydrological cycle. The precipitation can accelerate the wet deposition of particulate matter. While clouds increase water mist-dominated NPF events, affecting the amount of UFP in the atmosphere.
NPF is a major source of global tropospheric total particle number concentration and an important contributor to the cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) budget (Bangert et al., 2013; Fan et al., 2018; Jathar et al., 2020; Junkermann and Hacker, 2022; Kerminen et al., 2018; Kwon et al., 2020; Lee et al., 2003; Nair et al., 2020; Pierce and Adams, 2007; Yin et al., 2022). In the general atmosphere, the ability of particles to become CCN is largely determined by aerosol particle size rather than composition (Dusek et al., 2006).
In terms of aerosol particle size, particulate matter with a diameter of about 50–150 nm can directly participate in cloud droplet activation and particles smaller than 50 nm can be activated at unusually high water vapor saturation ratios such as when located in a deep convective cloud system (Kerminen et al., 2012, 2018). Whether UFP can grow into CCN depends on the ability of the particle to grow rapidly into the CCN size range (Johnston et al., 2013). The growth rate of the particle must exceed the loss rate due to clearance in order for the particle to reach the size range of the CCN (Pennington et al., 2013; Westervelt et al., 2014). In terms of chemical composition, normally, the particles in the atmosphere are mainly a mixture of secondary inorganic ions and organic matter. In different regions, the total concentration and proportion of particulate matter are different, but on the whole, the crystal structure is not different, and the influence on becoming a condensation nucleus is not very big. While in the case of artificial rainfall, chemical composition is more important than particle size. The role of silver iodide catalysts in artificial rainfall was taken as an example. As the most widely used catalyst in weather modification field experiments and operations, the hexagonal structure of AgI is similar to that of natural ice crystals (Lou et al., 2021). Due to its special crystal structure, silver iodide is far more likely to become ice core than other substances, and has a more significant effect on CCN (Lou et al., 2021).
Source: "Review on main sources and impacts of urban ultrafine particles: Traffic emissions, nucleation, and climate modulation"; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590162123000217?via%3Dihub
Hence, in terms of the net aerosol cooling effect of the whole composition because of reduced SOx emissions nothing is certain. New results leaving likely out UFP's even see no net radiative effect of aerosol concentration changes - Northern Hemisphere they decrease while in the Southern Hemisphere they increased - but here exists a dataset problem - so not clear yet how robust.
Best
Jan
the biggest probably being that the amount of warming doesn't matter - it's the responses that count.
-- Jan Umsonst Wallauer Str. 6D, 30326 Frankfurt am Main Tele: 0176 41114523 E-Mail: j.o.u...@gmail.com Performing Vitality: https://performingvitality.wordpress.com/
John Nissen
Cheers, John
Tom Goreau
These photos I took a few hours ago near Great Bear Lake, Nunavut, Canadian Arctic, simultaneously show very clearly the albedo differences between Ice, Water, Tundra, Aerosol Haze, and clouds. Albedo change follows melting ice!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to