Eliminating contrails from flying could be cheap

But the warming started already back then. Contrails contributed. So less contrails, less warming in the last 40 years.

"Without those clouds the alien mind control rays from space will get you more often. You think it's deja vu don't you? Better get your tinfoil hat prepped."

Numbers don't add up.

If you take a 8K camera with a standard 50 mm lens, its angular resolution is about 20" / pixel.

A 50 mm lens has a FOV of about 40°. It covers a cone of about 0.38 strad. A full hemisphere has 2·pi = 6.28 strad, so we need at least 16.5 such cones to cover the whole area; actually we need likely 20-25 because of imperfect geometry and some safety margins at intersections. We can, of course, mount fewer and scan.

If we take a plane like A320 (larger than a typical fighter jet), and remove it 25 km from us, its angular size would be about about 5', or 300". Our A320 would be 15 pixels wide, assuming very good optics, and very clear skies. This is not much to determine what craft is approaching us. At the cruise speed of 800 km/h, or 220 m/s, the plane will reach us in 122 s, or less than 2 minutes. Not a lot of warning. A fighter jet making 500 m/s would be there in 50 s.

This is, of course, without any clouds. Even very light clouds or haze would conceal the aircraft at 25 km. To say nothing of the night time.

We could of course take in IR camera, but I don't remember 8K IR cameras being cheap, or even available. A stealth aircraft like B-2 does a lot to make its thermal signature very faint, including the exhaust.

Super resolution is a thing but I think they mean to just take the differences and track based on the motions in that data directly. Any deltas which appear to move in a certain way are likely to be aircraft, especially if the same deltas show up on a 2nd camera, even if they aren't clear enough to directly identify. Basically the motion vector estimation step of video encode but tuned really tight and ignoring motions that don't look like aircraft motions.

I'm not sure this is really all that perfect/foolproof though, especially with 8k visible light cameras. For one, clouds can be quite the problem (even at non-visible wavelengths). Atmospheric turbulence can also be annoying and the air can be plain hazy depending on the day - both limit detection accuracy at a given range. When night comes the detection ability is greatly hampered even with additional wavelengths (and IR has lower resolution anyways).

It worked well enough in a weekend project many years back to use computer vision (the craze at the time) and compare to an ADS-B make by using a 4k 1 FPS image feed in a weekend project to mess with computer vision a decade back. I definitely see it as a valid addition to a detection system... but I would stop short of writing a "Military Dumbfounded at This One Simple Trick" article about it.