It'd be worth it just to shut the chemtrail nuts up.
Eliminating contrails from flying could be cheap
31–40 of 206 posts
Re: Eliminating contrails from flying could be cheap
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
It links to this post which has a little more technical explanation: https://notebook.contrails.org/comparing-contrails-and-co2/ And also this paper which is a very in-depth technical explanation: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135223102... I understand why you're reminded of chemtrails, but it is not crazy or conspiratorial to look at these giant lines in the sky and think "those things must be d…
Where I'm from, contrails are so small and irrelevant compared to the giant cumulonimbus clouds that form in the high heat and humidity. It's like tears in the rain in comparison.
I don't know what to tell you, they are not irrelevant even if they visually look irrelevant from where you are. Small things can have a big impact, CO2 is only ~0.04% of the atmosphere (compared to the ideal level of ~0.03%) and it's causing us major problems.
Re: Eliminating contrails from flying could be cheap
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The proposed detours typically result in a 1% shift (and again, this is only for a small percentage of flights). That means increasing fuel use and flight time by around 1%. So if your flight is three hours long, it’s only adding an extra two minutes. For a 10-hour flight, six minutes. This seems socially acceptable to me; most people would barely notice.
Airlines will certainly notice a 1% fuel cost increase however. But, they'll just add it to ticket prices.
They'll all need to do it at once though, or people will just pick the cheaper flight that doesn't go around the contrail-forming region, basically every time.
Of course it's a coordination problem. It probably needs to be a regulation before it will actually happen.
Re: Eliminating contrails from flying could be cheap
#34"Why aren’t we doing more to eliminate contrails?" I'm just having a hard time groking that contrails are really that impacting. TFA just quotes a bunch of numbers, but does not actually discuss how the numbers were derived. Maybe I've just been around too many people into Chemtrails, but this just reads to me as an offshoot of that type of thinking.
Wikipedia[1] states it very clearly: > It is considered that the largest contribution of aviation to climate change comes from contrails. In general, aircraft contrails trap outgoing longwave radiation emitted by the Earth and atmosphere more than they reflect incoming solar radiation, resulting in a net increase in radiative forcing. In 1992, this warming effect was estimated between 3.5 mW/m2 and 17 mW/m2. In 2009,…
> Contrail cirrus may be air traffic's largest radiative forcing component, larger than all CO2 accumulated from aviation, and could triple from a 2006 baseline to 160–180 mW/m2 by 2050 without intervention.
Okay, but how does this compare to the forcing of the overall anthropogenic CO2 accumulation?
Re: Eliminating contrails from flying could be cheap
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
It links to this post which has a little more technical explanation: https://notebook.contrails.org/comparing-contrails-and-co2/ And also this paper which is a very in-depth technical explanation: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135223102... I understand why you're reminded of chemtrails, but it is not crazy or conspiratorial to look at these giant lines in the sky and think "those things must be d…
Where I'm from, contrails are so small and irrelevant compared to the giant cumulonimbus clouds that form in the high heat and humidity. It's like tears in the rain in comparison.
Right there is local climate too that has different effects.
Imagine a large city in an area that is always cloudy versus one in a sunny desert. They are both the same size, but the one in the desert is going to have an absolutely massive amount of evening heat release due to the urban heatsink effect.
Re: Eliminating contrails from flying could be cheap
#36This is something the military, e.g. fighter jets worry about. The altitudes (in a given airspace) that form contrails are briefed as part of "tactical weather". You try to avoid them if able, because no matter how stealthy you are, you are lit up for all to see if you fly at those altitudes.
Re: Eliminating contrails from flying could be cheap
#37"Why aren’t we doing more to eliminate contrails?" I'm just having a hard time groking that contrails are really that impacting. TFA just quotes a bunch of numbers, but does not actually discuss how the numbers were derived. Maybe I've just been around too many people into Chemtrails, but this just reads to me as an offshoot of that type of thinking.
Well some of us are doing things to eliminate contrails ... (Shameless self promotion of my employer)
[flagged]
Re: Eliminating contrails from flying could be cheap
#38It'd be worth it just to shut the chemtrail nuts up.
You don’t understand conspiracy loon logic. By the very act of hiding the chemtrails you are demonstrating that you are doing something nefarious.
Re: Eliminating contrails from flying could be cheap
#39I can't imagine that contrails are a significant percentage of cloud cover.
Less than 1% globally, so you're right.
Re: Eliminating contrails from flying could be cheap
#40I can't imagine that contrails are a significant percentage of cloud cover.
[deleted]