Debunked: Belfort Group "Case Orange" conclusions & recommendations

I am asking these questions, because Mick defends contrails and their effects on the atmosphere at any given chance. If you think my questions are loaded or red herrings, then clearly I am causing much more thought than was intended.

I want to know why Mick has acknowledged a warming effect, and is not opposed to contrail mitigation, yet defends their global effects because the precise measurements are not known.

If that question makes me a troll then so be it.
Where has Mick "defended" the climate effects of contrails? This is what's known as a wife-beating question.
 
Rest assured they ARE. I do not believe that you accidentally came up with that wording. I am remembering your response to your 'sulfur in aviation gas' question.

It seems to me that your overall purpose is to attack and belittle Mick.

It has been explained to you that mitigating them would result in more CO2 being released, thus eliminating any effect from the mitigation. Sort of like getting a spot out of a dress by cutting it out. The 'cure' is worse than the solution.
 
So I am very curious Mick. If you are concerned only with truth and accuracy, why do you allow users like Cairenn to constantly spout misinformation without any recourse from you?

Why do you continue to claim contrails are just ice, yet heres an FAA study showing a young contrail to contain more than just ice.

Figure 27 shows the major components of a young contrail (Kuhn et al., 1998). The
contrail was found to be a mixture of 15% ice particles, 32% ice with black carbon, 24%
black carbon, and 29% unknown aerosols. The ice with black carbon was found to
contain a black carbon volume fraction of 15-20%. Knowledge of the composition is
critical for obtaining accurate refractive indices of ice particles and aerosols in the
contrails. It is also important to know the background atmospheric composition, such as
humidity.
Content from External Source
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...d_modeling/accri/media/ACCRI_SSWP_VI_PING.pdf

So when does the actual debunking occur Mick? Why leave out so many facts?


Exactly what I would expect from a contrail.
 
defends their global effects because the precise measurements are not known
Exactly the point. If they are of lesser degree then there is no warming from them, and we don't know THAT either. You are attacking Mick for something that may not be there. Is Mick defending that?

If that question makes me a troll then so be it.
Only if you understand what you are doing. I don't think you do. Ah, but Mick does. LOL

And for the general interest, I've been in the cooler twice, I think. :cool: It wasn't so bad. "I would like the stuff Mick cuts back so that I can stick it in YouTube" is my biggest complaint.
 
Only if you understand what you are doing. I don't think you do. Ah, but Mick does. LOL

At some point it does not really matter, as the effect is the same. A good troll will pretend they don't understand, and person who refuses to try to understand is essentially trolling. Either way a month off will give some perspective.
 
Comment from "Unregistered" two and a half years ago: "if it [Case Orange] is as claimed, should really just be ignored and surely it will wither and die for its own intrinsic 'wrongness' "

Therein lies the fate of that unattributed and universally ignored document.
 
Back
Top