This is interesting:
Cooling aerosols and changes in albedo counteract warming from CO2 and black carbon from forest bioenergy in Norway
... Here, we present a national-level climate impact analysis of stationary bioenergy systems in Norway based on wood-burning stoves and wood biomass-based district heating. We find that cooling aerosols and albedo offset 60–70% of total warming ...
If I read this right, the recent terrible forest fires in California were actually quite good
for global warming reduction, as the emitted particulates really help cool things off. If the fires weren't so otherwise damaging, it would be kind of amusing.
So, a very nice environmentally friendly fuel is wood, as you get aerosols + it's renewable.
You read that right, but were those who wrote that right?
"Changes in surface albedo occur after forest harvest, when the solar reflective property of the surface is perturbed and the surface masking effects of trees is reduced82
. Open land usually has higher albedo (i.e., higher reflectivity of incoming solar radiation) than forested land, and the difference is amplified in regions affected by seasonal snow cover12,15
. When the forest regrows the surface albedo change gradually declines and returns to the pre-harvest level. This temporary perturbation causes a cooling contribution that can be of the same order of magnitude of the impacts associated with carbon fluxes24,83
The argument they used to arrive to the final conclusion is from Ref 12, an article Pseudo-Science magazine. It reads:
"Tropical forests mitigate warming through evaporative cooling, but the low albedo of boreal forests is a positive climate forcing. The evaporative effect of temperate forests is unclear. The net climate forcing from these and other processes is not known."
So, all forests are not the same. I believe Norwegian forests are mostly boreal - am I correct, Prof. Bearish? This is what they write about them:
"Climate model simulations show that the low surface albedo during the snow season, evident in local flux measurements (21) and satellite-derived surface albedo (Fig. 1D), warms climate compared to when there is an absence of trees (SOM). Consequently, the boreal forest has the greatest biogeophysical effect of all biomes on annual mean global temperature (7). Loss of boreal forest provides a positive feedback for glaciation (22), whereas forest expansion during the mid-Holocene 6000 years ago amplified warming (23)."
Where do I begin... Sss-sss-sss-sss... The last sentence relates climate changes (complicated and non-linear as they are) that we experience on a industrialised, polluted and overpopulated planet with extensively agriculture to those in other archaeological periods, say Holocene. What is more, the authors must be able to travel in time (multiple times) to move back to Holocene and perform a proper counterfactual study, from which they infer that the direction of the causal dependence goes from the forest expansion event to the Holocene climate warming, and isn't related to any other events accompanying or preceding events (brings to mind the popular jocular example every statistician thinks about reading such revelations: the causal relation between the barometer's indication and the onset of storm). Finally, this source doesn't say that deforestation of the whole planet leads to climate cooling or even that cutting down boreal forests can have any cooling net effect. It just says that the surface albedo of snow is lower than that of a boreal forest (why only boreal? - because there's no snow in tropics). Hence the Norwegian study is a hypothesis based on hypotheses and a very daring causal interpretations of possibly accidental dependencies.
It looks like boreal forests warm up the Norwegian climate which is good for Norwegian cats, but Californian cats are a different story...