Evidence for significant cooling from wildfire smoke lofted miles high
Ron Baiman
Dear Colleagues,
From the popular article, this seems to suggest that tropospheric aerosols may be able to provide significant local/regional cooling:
Li et al. 2025. Enhanced radiative cooling by large aerosol particles from wildfire-driven thunderstorms. Science: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adw6526
--
Jan Umsonst
Hi folks,
important here that this issue is far from resolved - smoke layers e.g. above clouds evaporate clouds (observational studies and discussion). Hence, wildfire smoke could lead to a reduction in cloud cover - so its far from clear what the net effect is.
Further, its hard to imagine how higher loads of black carbon in the atmosphere will lead to an overall cooling effect. BC warms the layers where it concentrates and if circulation is added this heat should also reach the surface, like e.g. El Nino do it via warming the upper troposphere from where the signal is mixed downward across the tropics by downdrafts besides convective cells causing a surface warming signal of El Ninos.
BC had been discussed as a strong warming effect all the time till smoke became important. I'm a little bit confused by these similar but different discussed science clusters - fossil fuel BC and wildfire BC...
Further, in 2023 we had massive fire emissions (e.g. Northern Hemisphere), but still a full on blown warming signal. So these 0.5 - 0.9 °C cooling of the Northern Hemisphere by wildfire smoke from Canada in 2023 are hard to believe (nonsense)... (1)
Also the now discussed cooling of the Pinatubo eruption by –0.5°C in 2021 is hard to explain if one looks at the warming graph of the 90s. Likely, its about 0.2°C as the drop in global temperatures during that time had been 0.2°C so why did it not drop by 0.5°C - what produced a 0.3°C warming signal masking the 0.5°C cooling in the early 90s???. At most Pinatubo cooled the climate by ~0.3°C (moderate warming of ~0.1 °C by the weak El Nino state from 1990-1995 masked some of the cooling from Pinatubo) as otherwise it should have to be explained where the 0.5°C cooling are hiding in the warming graph. Further, if Pinatubo cooled the climate during some 2-3 years by 0.5°C a warming signal has to emerge in later years, but this had been driven by the El Nino in 1997/98 or did it not have any effect?
I would not trust current model results on the discussed aerosol cooling or warming, as they can't simulate the impact on clouds and circulation related warming redistribution. And more model studies won't help till we can actually simulate the impact of aerosols which is highly complex. Just the observed aerosol drying effect of clouds evaporating them from 9 o'clock onward in heavily polluted areas over the oceans even high resolution models can't simulate at all...
Just this result a nice example of being out of reality:
(1) We find that the modelled temperature anomalies between the two ensembles caused by the wildfire-generated aerosols can be as intense as -5.44 °C locally, while the modelled average hemispheric temperature anomaly is equal to -0.91 °C.
"Large-scale impacts of the 2023 Canadian wildfires on the Northern Hemisphere atmosphere"; https://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU25/EGU25-10833.html
IMO a real problem that model studies are often not anymore discussing in how far their results fit with reality as it would jeopardize the relevance of the findings while it would be highly relevant that we better understand in how far model results on important developments and their impacts can be trusted...
All the 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/CAPhUB9C-DiTsg%3DjOn%3Dk_ZvyRB2cEtAeH7dMnFg5ir4HhN_8z6A%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/
Oeste
Hi Jan
Thank you for these convincing explanations.
Franz
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/0aed7225-de9c-4e6e-b5ff-769e10613b4c%40gmail.com.
Ron Baiman
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/7037dc6c-2e72-450a-b818-d338e19ce910%40gm-ingenieurbuero.com.
--
Ron Baiman
Jan Umsonst
Hi all, here some recent observational results:
This one on the drying effect of soot and dust aerosols of cloud layers if they exist over the clouds - so low marine clouds seem to be highly vulnerable from an observations perspective:
- "Dust and smoke layers over the Atlantic Ocean weaken the underlying low-level cloud-top radiative cooling through different pathways"; https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-7168935/v1
Then this observation is important - aerosol drying effect of soot emissions over the Southeast Atlantic:
The Twomey effect brightens clouds by increasing aerosol concentrations, which activates more droplets and decreases cloud supersaturation in response to more competition for water vapor. To quantify this competition response, we used marine low cloud observations in clean and smoky conditions at Ascension Island in the tropical South Atlantic during the Layered Aerosol Smoke Interactions with Cloud (LASIC) campaign. [...]Decomposing aerosol-related changes in cloud albedo and optical depth shows the calculated competition response accounts for dampening the activation response by 12 to 35%, explaining the diminished Twomey effect at high aerosol concentrations observed for smoky conditions at LASIC and previously around the world.
- "Competition response of cloud supersaturation explains diminished Twomey effect for smoky aerosol in the tropical Atlantic"; https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2412247122
Another one on the drying effect of low marine clouds by too high numbers of small cloud droplets - LWP - liquid water path:
This suggests that the presence of aerosols has a more pronounced effect on cloud properties within the rain grids. The non-rain grids over the cloud edge can have lower LWP because smaller cloud droplets are easy to evaporate.
Our study further elucidates the intricate feedback mechanisms governing aerosol–cloud interactions and aerosol properties. In both the post-trough and weak-trough regimes, we observe a pronounced tendency for the cloud structure to develop more open-cell stratocumulus clouds. At the peripheries of these clouds, the perturbed cases demonstrate a significant increase in the presence of small cloud droplets. This heightened abundance of smaller droplets promotes evaporation, thereby leading to a marked reduction in the LWP.
- "Numerical case study of the aerosol–cloud interactions in warm boundary layer clouds over the eastern North Atlantic with an interactive chemistry module"; https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/25/6069/2025/
This one is on high resolution models trying to simulate the aerosol drying effect of low marine clouds by aerosols under higher aerosol loads - total fail to reproduce observations where clouds dissipitate from 9 o'clock in the Eastern North Atlantic:
- "Reconciling Satellite–Model Discrepancies in Aerosol–Cloud Interactions Using Near-LES Simulations of Marine Boundary Layer Clouds"; https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-3465/
This one shows where clouds increased and decreased due to wildfire smoke in 2019:
In this study, the atmospheric and snow radiative forcing of BC in the Arctic due to the extreme fires in summer 2019 were investigated based on numerical simulations, and the effects on meteorological variables and snow albedo were explored. Biomass burning BC in summer 2019 caused negative radiative forcing at the bottom of the atmosphere in Greenland and the central Arctic Ocean, and it caused positive radiative forcing in Europe, central Siberia, and northern Canada, with values that can reach −9 W/m2 and 18 W/m2, respectively. The radiative forcing was spatially heterogeneous, which was mainly induced by the dominant role of semi-direct and indirect radiative effects of BC related to cloud changes.
- "Radiative effects of black carbon in the Arctic due to recent extreme summer fires"; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674927825000772?via%3Dihub
Last here an observation which I find highly interesting - here where the Canadian wildfire smoke went to:
https://berkeleyearth.org/global-temperature-report-for-2023/
And here the marine heatwave that developed in that area end of July 2023, a truly massive one - I do not see there any cooling effect of aerosols over the oceans, if the surface warms and starts to evaporate clouds - another possibility is that the soot got transported to the surface under the high pressure system in this area or a massive phytoplankton bloom triggered by soot deposition darkening the surface ocean (wait here for a study that explains me this signal):
Sadly, it seems that low, non-precipitable cloud cover is highly vulnerable towards higher aerosol loads as the upward emitted longwave from surface oceans evaporates low level clouds even faster.
So if e.g. marine cloud brightening would be done over marine heatwaves, cloud cover could be destroyed...
I always go with observations, and then I go with study results - here two opposing ones:
This model result will likely be wrong I would say:
- Reduced aerosol pollution diminished cloud reflectivity over the North Atlantic and Northeast Pacific (2025)
Here we show that the marine cloud reflectivity decreased on average by 2.8 ± 1.2% per decade in the combined North Atlantic and Northeast Pacific regions between 2003 and 2022. The majority of the Earth System Models we analyzed simulated a significantly weaker cloud reflectivity decrease and warming of the sea surface in these regions than observed. In contrast, our simulations using an improved aerosol-climate model reproduce the spatial extent and magnitude of the observed cloud reflectivity decrease. We show that reductions in sulfur dioxide and other aerosol precursors accounted for 69% (range 55−85%) of the cloud reflectivity decrease through aerosol-cloud interactions, consistent with the observed aerosol and cloud trends.
- "Reduced aerosol pollution diminished cloud reflectivity over the North Atlantic and Northeast Pacific"; https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-65127-x#ref-CR40
And this model result will likely be correct as it goes with observations over the oceans:
- Change from aerosol-driven to cloud-feedback-driven trend in short-wave radiative flux over the North Atlantic (2023)
Coupled atmosphere–ocean simulations from the UK Earth System Model (UKESM1) and the Hadley Centre General Environment Model (HadGEM3-GC3.1) show a positive FSW↑ trend between 1850 and 1970 (increasing SW reflection) and a negative trend between 1970 and 2014. We find that the 1850–1970 positive FSW↑ trend is mainly driven by an increase in cloud droplet number concentration due to increases in aerosol, while the 1970–2014 trend is mainly driven by a decrease in cloud fraction, which we attribute mainly to cloud feedbacks caused by greenhouse gas-induced warming. In the 1850–1970 period, aerosol-induced cooling and greenhouse gas warming roughly counteract each other, so the temperature-driven cloud feedback effect on the FSW↑ trend is weak (contributing to only 23 % of the ΔFSW↑), and aerosol forcing is the dominant effect (77 % of ΔFSW↑). However, in the 1970–2014 period the warming from greenhouse gases intensifies, and the cooling from aerosol radiative forcing reduces, resulting in a large overall warming and a reduction in FSW↑ that is mainly driven by cloud feedbacks (87 % of ΔFSW↑). The results suggest that it is difficult to use satellite observations in the post-1970 period to evaluate and constrain the magnitude of the aerosol–cloud interaction forcing but that cloud feedbacks might be evaluated.
- "Change from aerosol-driven to cloud-feedback-driven trend in short-wave radiative flux over the North Atlantic"; https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/23/6743/2023/acp-23-6743-2023.html
In short when it comes to clouds I have not much confidence in model studies anymore while observational and mechanistic studies point towards a massive cloud feedback we are triggering here - SST pattern effect also seems to trigger a strong cloud feedback - study number is increasing fast here also...
This is the main problem of the cloud feedback we observe: decrease in cloud fraction which is not a SOx signal (under warmer SSTs in non-convective environments aerosols even seem to support cloud evaporation), but a SST and circulation signal while SOx reductions mainly reduced cloud brightness...
All the best
Jan
Bruce Melton -- Austin, Texas
Friend, Colleagues, and 2025 Survivors,
This content could be a very nice addition to our new website. Would a group of you all consider creating content for a page that I can produce?
It needs a narrative, but there are lot's of good papers here that can describe the science, along with a number of others on tropospheric ocean aerosols - Hansen's work on clear air ship fuels aerosols comes to mind.
Thanks for the work Jan and all. The graphics provided would add to the page content. I can also add photos from my archives: ship's trails, pyrocumulus convection and general wildfire smoke.
Here's a similar fire paper that supports significant changes to our climate system caused by wildfire smoke:
Zhang et al., Notable impact of wildfires in the western United
States on weather hazards in the central United States, PNAS,
October 17, 2022.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/epdf/10.1073/pnas.2207329119
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/914c9129-0dcb-40b8-92a3-fca354d1f781%40gmail.com.
Ron Baiman
On Jan 2, 2026, at 11:22 AM, Bruce Melton -- Austin, Texas <bme...@earthlink.net> wrote:
<9454.png>
- "Reconciling Satellite–Model Discrepancies in Aerosol–Cloud Interactions Using Near-LES Simulations of Marine Boundary Layer Clouds"; https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-3465/
This one shows where clouds increased and decreased due to wildfire smoke in 2019:
In this study, the atmospheric and snow radiative forcing of BC in the Arctic due to the extreme fires in summer 2019 were investigated based on numerical simulations, and the effects on meteorological variables and snow albedo were explored. Biomass burning BC in summer 2019 caused negative radiative forcing at the bottom of the atmosphere in Greenland and the central Arctic Ocean, and it caused positive radiative forcing in Europe, central Siberia, and northern Canada, with values that can reach −9 W/m2 and 18 W/m2, respectively. The radiative forcing was spatially heterogeneous, which was mainly induced by the dominant role of semi-direct and indirect radiative effects of BC related to cloud changes.
<9453.png>
- "Radiative effects of black carbon in the Arctic due to recent extreme summer fires"; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674927825000772?via%3Dihub
Last here an observation which I find highly interesting - here where the Canadian wildfire smoke went to:
<9455.png>
https://berkeleyearth.org/global-temperature-report-for-2023/
And here the marine heatwave that developed in that area end of July 2023, a truly massive one - I do not see there any cooling effect of aerosols over the oceans, if the surface warms and starts to evaporate clouds - another possibility is that the soot got transported to the surface under the high pressure system in this area or a massive phytoplankton bloom triggered by soot deposition darkening the surface ocean (wait here for a study that explains me this signal):
<9456.png>
Tom Goreau
Shouldn’t you refer to the complexity these data show and the uncertainty in the models, rather than oversimplify by omission? They suggest the urgency of better models based on better experimental data rather than more assumptions.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/84D5E4C7-D293-4281-A4D2-47B9E8378FDE%40gmail.com.
Ron Baiman
John Nissen
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/0aed7225-de9c-4e6e-b5ff-769e10613b4c%40gmail.com.
Jan Umsonst
Hi all,
one more graph on the Northern Hemisphere temperature anomalies in 2023:
If the smoke from Canadian wildfires would have had a large cooling effect on the NH temperatures in 2023 the warming signal in 2023 would have to have been much more massive than it already had been...
Point is that it is just not clear what the net effect of more smoke in the atmosphere is in terms of surface temperatures...
I would bet a large cooling signal of surface air temperatures (besides of a regional one) e.g. across a Hemisphere can be ruled out but further studies will show...
But it could be that with rising BC levels in the atmosphere the cloud drying effect could become large as BC can accumulate in the atmosphere as these particles are to an extent self lofting and persist longer in the atmosphere. Also the new class of large wildfires pumps the smoke high up into the stratosphere from where it descends onto cloud top layers. Guess, we will also see here surprises the moment the "stratospheric soot feedback" starts for real...
Important: its a new function of wildfires as in the past large wildfires could not reach such extents and spread so fast which is the precondition of smoke being pumped high into the stratosphere - not per see large wild fires, but large wildfires that expand fast (seems to be a function of spread but science is just organizing around these fires so lets see...). E.g. Australian wildfires most of the soot had been pumped into the stratosphere over the course of some 5 days in two pulses when wildfires suddenly made whoosh...
Here a nice animation - the moment it makes whoosh in Southeast Australia had been the time when most of the soot had been injected into the stratosphere - Dec. 29 to Jan. 4 (1):
https://x.com/SatelliteSci/status/1228193770379730947
All the best
Jan
(1) "How the extreme 2019–2020 Australian wildfires affected global circulation and adjustments"; https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/23/8939/2023/
Tom Goreau
Temperatures are around 25 C above average right now in the Davis Strait between Greenland and Baffin Island, a mini iceberg flotilla must be underway…….
The droughts and PM2.5 and aerosols were minimal this year from both Siberia and Canada, but fires seem to continue underground in northern Alberta from the carbon monoxide.
Oeste
Ron and Jan
I will try to give some comments from my point of view. At the end of my journey into an extended wildfire event I come to the conclusion that the wildfire pollution will end in a measurable warming even then when the BC and PAH aerosols will not have not touched the stratosphere.
You know about our activities to find out economic methods to use the ship traffic on the ocean as a mean to restore climate and ocean environment by cloud brightening, greenhouse gas depletion and acid neutralization. For this purpose we use only the traffic cruising on the high seas far away from the shores. We are rather sure that our method will become accepted by IMO and Marpol because our emission from the ships is simple neutral salt aerosol which is produced also by natural processes in the ocean's photic zone. The salt aerosol produced by our method acts as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) aerosol and produces well reflective cumulus (CC) or stratocumulus clouds (SCC) within tropospheric areas of sufficient humidity. Within dry regions it leaves a long lasting salt aerosol haze. Next to an albedo increase both types of salt aerosol, reflective clouds and reflective haze, have the property to act as methane and tropospheric ozone depletion photo catalysts. Once washed out by rain or snow into the ocean some their ingredients can act as feed for the phytoplankton and help to restore the photic zone ecosystem activity. This again would also activate the natural emission of vaporous CCN precursors as like as DMS and ammonia.
Hence we are very interested in the reaction of polluting ingredients from natural and anthropogene sources on our produced cloud cover. We are convinced that strong sun radiation absorbers such as like black soot (BC) but also polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) smoke particles will have the largest influence on CC and SCC. Both are combustion products.
As long as BC and PAH are below the clouds they will have no influence on them. Fresh BC and PAH are water repelling substances. During aging in the atmosphere BC and PAH surfaces become decorated with oxygen containing functional groups such as hydroxyl, carboxyl and carbonyl. This change is accompanied by a change from water repelling to water affinity and from a low chemical reactivity to a high chemical reactivity. This has the consequence that the aged BC/PAH particles become CCNs and act also as cloud generating. Clouds interior is moved by convection. Hence the water-covered BC/PAH particles entrance the clouds within from their bottom side. Thus the strong radiation absorbing BC/PAH containing droplets arrive also at the sun-lit upper cloud surface, warm up and get rid of their water cover by evaporation. Thus high levels of BC particles in clouds may easy evaporate the water content of clouds and make them disappear. According to their short wave absorption (at least visible and UV light) the BC/PAH aerosol has the tendency to warm up its gaseous immediate surrounding and rise up within the atmosphere.
According to the increasing polarity and chemical reactivity of BC/PAH particles during aging increases their growth by coagulation and chemical reaction. Dispite particle diameter growing the aged BC/PAH particle aerosol keeps its radiation absorption property and may keep on rising in the atmosphere. This rising effect increases above the clouds because the clouds reflection light acts as an additional fuel for the BC/PAH particle aerosol warming up.
Any BC/PAH particle aerosol layer in the troposphere or in the stratosphere above the cloud cover produces a sun shine dimming to the atmosphere below and also to the cloud cover below. This has three consequences. 1: cloud convection decreases and even may come to a stop and the cloud cover disappears. This effect is well known from partial solar eclipses. Even at low dimmings the cumulus clouds disappear. 2: The sun radiation dimming decreases the generation of UV induced OH radicals and increases by this effect the content of methane and VOC in the atmosphere. That has the consequence that additional to the warming of the atmosphere by the BC/PAH particle aerosol also an accelerating greenhouse gas warming will add. During weeks of permanent wild fire activity this methane depletion effect should be measurable. 3: The dimming effect induces a cooling at the surface according to the reduced absorption of sun radiation.
After the wildfire activity has been stopped and the dimming effect has disappeared the elevated methane and carbon monoxide levels get only slowly reduced by the decreased atmospheric OH radical levels. The consequence is the well-known termination shock: this means a sudden increase of the average Temperatures at the surface; stronger effect on continental surfaces, less on the sea surface. The higher the BC/PAH particle aerosol layer has climbed up in the atmosphere, the larger is the atmospheric volume with a weakened oxidation ability and the stronger will be the termination shock heating.
According to our complex environment and its numerous influences of physical, chemical and biological activities my comments paint a very incomplete picture. So I have the hope that Jan will find out some points I have described wrong.
Franz
Ron Baiman
Ron Baiman
Ron Baiman
Oeste
Hi Ron
Please give me a weeks time for production of a short report on our simple ship flue gas dry scrubbing system which has an extraordinary economic attractivity for ship owners because the sulfate salt produced by our dry scrubbing system during the coast-far journey on the high seas is emitted in the form of a CCN aerosol for bright cloud production. Hence the ship needs no storage and avoids a lot of diposal costs for most of the scrubber residues. Thus, next to its economic advantage this scrubbing systems helps to restore climate and environment.
Franz
Tom Goreau
Looking forward to your successful field data!
Apparently the Great Barrier Reef mistifiers found their aerosols less bright than predicted, awaiting reports…….
Real world experiments are worth more than any model, no matter how shiny they seem.
From:
healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Oeste <oe...@gm-ingenieurbuero.com>
Date: Saturday, January 3, 2026 at 14:33
To: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [HPAC] Evidence for significant cooling from wildfire smoke lofted miles high
Ron Baiman
Jan Umsonst
Hi Franz, thx a lot and highly interesting.
Its like you said, highly complex and I have more questions than answers...
Guess, the main question will be what happens if BC concentrations start to climb in the atmosphere for decades, as fires increase too much - especially the Arctic i'm worried about and all these permafrost soils which can burn just nicely all year round.
Only issue is see in this sentence: "As long as BC and PAH are below the clouds they will have no influence on them." in terms of cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) evaporating, latent heat loss from the oceans surface (e.g. marine heatwaves) is quite strong in evaporating CCN's of marine low clouds. So maybe BC could enhance it over the oceans where marine heatwaves form???
Some aspects, open questions I have:
1: How strong is the effect be of black particles inside cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) making them vulnerable to be evaporated by sunlight and upward emitted longwave radiation from the oceans surface? I really wonder if it could become highly important when the pyrocene starts for real?
2: The effect on circulation patters if less sunlight reaches lower levels of the atmosphere? Could be also become quite strong?
3: Then the thermal radiative perspective.
Increasing levels of outgoing longwave radiation is equalized by increases in precipitation (brings up heat into the atmosphere thereby replenishing the heat loss to space). Normally, we should have quite substantial increases in global precipitation by now. But as clouds also decline the energy loss of the atmosphere in the form of outgoing longwave radiation is negated by stronger heating of the atmosphere by more incoming sunlight and global precipitation levels increased only marginally (the EEI/radiative feedback parameter community discusses it so).
So if black carbon levels would increase in the atmosphere OLR to space should increase as well - I don't know a study here.
But if BC increases OLR, such an increase could be negated in two ways: more precipitation and/or less clouds. Thing is, that higher BC aerosol loads can support both. E.g. across the tropics higher BC loads are discussed to increase precipitation (depending on the regional setting they increase or decrease precipitation levels, mostly depending on humidity levels). But like you sad, if BC increases too much in the tropical atmosphere by year round fires of peat soils and rainforests, pumping soot high up into the atmosphere being distributed by the quasi biennial oscillation (wind bands in the tropical stratosphere) and walker (along the equator) and hadley cells (north/south circulation cells near the equator) even precipitation across the tropics could be reduced (but if evaporation from the oceans decreases, they should warm stronger at the surface, feeding back on precipitation??? Could that be an issue???).
So if rising BC levels would have a significant effect on OLR the system is forced to substitude the heat loss to space one way or another. Not sure here how it is discussed...
4: Also it is a question of fire patterns. Where burns what. E.g. rainforest fires could become the largest fires pumping soot high into the stratosphere. Can Arctic wildfires/permafrost soil fires pump smoke into the stratosphere? Also BC levels should be more persistent in the atmosphere than SOx. So how fast does a termination shock happens as long as this will be possible? Further, photo bleaching is important as it alters the radiative effects of BC classes. If I remember right the really burned stuff is not bleaching too much - so also fire type and intensify important here...
So sorry Franz could only contribute to the confusion - this whole topic is highly fascinating and hope for more clarity on these questions and others...
I think the whole issue is a black carton with many surprises, of which I think several will be really bad if Earth's biosphere starts to burn for real...
All the best
Jan
p.s. If I make my deep dive on the subject I will make a reader. Just focus on the radiative balance of Earth and what is discussed as I think it will be another main topic. Will the efficiency of the system increase to radiate OLR to space or not? And how will the spatial pattern evolve in either case?
Oeste
Jan
I will respond as soon as possible to your questions. But please wait until I have done the report on our simple ship flue gas dry scrubbing system. It has priority. Probably this report will also find your interest.
Franz