I actually did read the article conclusion from Colorado Uni that you mentioned. Its states very clearly that mineral particles are effective ice nuclei. The paper never once mentions contrails. Carbon soot particles from plane exhausts ARE mineral particles. And are the ice nuclei around which ice crystals form.
Also if you read in detail, soot is largely excluded from cirrus formations, within air traffic corridors (which includes contrails), 65% of the ice nuclei are mineral and Metal, the remainder are largely sulphur based, which in their calculations are underrepresented. Please feel free to message me privately to continue this conversation. Same username as TW on telegram.
Soot is just a term to discribe carbon mineral aerosols. The article doesnt mention carbon mineral particles because they did not study them as part of the research. If the study had included jet contrails, no doubt it would have mentioned them.
Apologies Paul. The paper is in the previous article (this is mentioned towards the bottom of this article). It is behind the paywall but if you like I can email you the paper. Let me know where to send it.
you seem to think I am going to hunt through all your substack articles reading each article you reference until I find the one your are currently referencing.
I thought we were having a constructive , interesting conversation. Its a shame you felt the need to block me on Twitter, because I said something you did not accept.
I actually did read the article conclusion from Colorado Uni that you mentioned. Its states very clearly that mineral particles are effective ice nuclei. The paper never once mentions contrails. Carbon soot particles from plane exhausts ARE mineral particles. And are the ice nuclei around which ice crystals form.
Also if you read in detail, soot is largely excluded from cirrus formations, within air traffic corridors (which includes contrails), 65% of the ice nuclei are mineral and Metal, the remainder are largely sulphur based, which in their calculations are underrepresented. Please feel free to message me privately to continue this conversation. Same username as TW on telegram.
Soot is just a term to discribe carbon mineral aerosols. The article doesnt mention carbon mineral particles because they did not study them as part of the research. If the study had included jet contrails, no doubt it would have mentioned them.
The point we are discussing is contrail. Contrails contain mineral soot particles. The article has nothing to do with contrail formation.
As I said please read the MIT/NOAA paper for the references
I did. But you cannot bother to send me a link to the correct one.
Apologies Paul. The paper is in the previous article (this is mentioned towards the bottom of this article). It is behind the paywall but if you like I can email you the paper. Let me know where to send it.
PsheratonAThotmail.com
It does. You may have the wrong link
you seem to think I am going to hunt through all your substack articles reading each article you reference until I find the one your are currently referencing.
It is the MIT/NOAA paper. If you do a normal search using these two organisations and the terms Ice Nuclei and Mineral Metal you will find it easily
I thought we were having a constructive , interesting conversation. Its a shame you felt the need to block me on Twitter, because I said something you did not accept.
happy to discuss, but you have not read the papers linked to on the article. Let me know when you want to talk