I'm replying to Trippy's question at end of his post 38. (This new sciforums reply page does not show that which makes it impossible to know if it will appear in this post - and worse - gives no option to edit his post down to just that final question.) Yes, I think I must have at least skimmed it but not sure what link you refer to. Your post 34 refers to a link but new format does not even show it! I am rapidly losing interest in the Stratosphere that I had when falsely thinking the top of the Hadley cells was there. From some ref you gave, I think, the aerosols in the stratosphere were stated to come from a circulation there, much like the Hadley cell circulation and with time scales of years, as I recall for full loop. No water droplet clouds up there - Those drops of clouds in the troposphere, if clean scatter mainly in the near forward direction dozens of times (as I have explained at least twice) before the random walking in angle space photon is ceasing to go ever deeper into the cloud. Thus a very tiny fraction of black aerosol soot added to the cloud drastically reduces cloud's ability to reflect incident sun light back into space. In the Physics & Math forum, I have new thread telling six not too bad approximations, I think, could be used in Monte Carlo analysis to get a good guestimate of what fraction of black soot (compared to water drops) is required to say cut the reflectivity of the cloud in half - For example drop r from 2/3 down to r =1/3 , which doubles the heating taking place in the cloud. This internal heating shrinks the water droplets mass and density as drops become transparent to visible sunlight, so it is not only the cloud that gets hotter, but the earth below it too and with more of the most powerful GHG (water vapor) above it that hotter earth's IR is better blocked from escaping to space. As I have several times suggested - burning large part of rain forests (which don't now get their needed rain) is probably the fastest path to very serious GW problems. In 2005 the Amazon was dying back so fast and new growth so slow that it was a net source of CO2 release, not a sink as often assumed. If could burn, I think in massive fire lasting some months. - A huge "burp" of CO2 quickly released would be bad, but worse I think, is Hadley cloud tops converting from reflectivity to ~0.67 to 0.17 or so. - more than 250% increase in the heating of the cloud by the sun. BTW in the Climate-gate thread, where I told my invention idea that can help mother nature kill the CH4, and why ceasing patent & promotion efforts. (Not economically profitable now with carbon off-set prices so low than even most exchanges they traded in are now closed) Profit was never for me, but to make a significant difference more than 1000 of my devices would need to be deployed. (I liked the irony that profit motive, which caused the GW problem, might be used to partially solve it.) Any way I plan a post in that thread telling that when things get really bad, my idea may be funded by governments, perhaps even Brazil as a Southern Hemisphere defense - a life boat for small part of humanity.