Should be easy, considering they don't exist to begin with.
Shush. We're this close to getting them to tax contrails, which would effectively be a tax on jet fuel.
No, you can fly to avoid the creation of contrails. Ironically, would actually be a boon for the environment, since contrail clouds are massive greenhouse generators https://youtube.com/shorts/qBPwloCdRKw
I thought they were just condensation?
Yes, but the phenomenon occurs at specific altitudes, so you just fly slightly higher or lower.
Gonna call BS on that short. Clouds cool the atmosphere because they reflect incoming visible light. Clouds also absorb infrared light, causing a greenhouse effect, but they also do that when they're not condensed into clouds. Their infrared absorption depends primarily on their composition, which doesn't change. Contrails are basically equivalent to cloud seeding, which is a method of cooling the atmosphere by increasing cloud cover.
This isn't someone guessing, man. He's citing research on the topic.
Essentially, these clouds are 50% opacity to visible light, but nearly 100% in infrared. So they block some incoming light, but reflect almost all infrared from the surface. It's a net warming effect at these altitudes.
until they decide enforcement means no contrails at all and suddenly they've found a new and exciting way to economically ruin the country.
Contrails are mostly water vapour that's condensed due to the hot exhaust of airplane engines.
They are certainly not completely avoidable, they are likely inescapable without sacrificing significant fuel efficiencies (eg: all methods stealth fighters use to suppress or mask their exhaust heat signature).. which would negate any benefits to global warming.
P. s. I'm not going to watch a YouTube video that could be a few paragraphs of textual explanation, because it'll no doubt be eight times longer than it needs to be for the benefit of more ad money or promotion in the almighty algorithm.
That YouTube Short seems to be a valid one. It's by someone who (according to his own words) has a PhD in atmospheric physics. Basically, he says that contrails causes global warming by preventing heat from escaping from Earth, and that contrails are mostly only formed when a plane flies through a cold humid patch. By simply re-routing planes around these cold patches, the contrails could be reduced.
By simply re-routing planes around these cold patches, the contrails could be reduced.
And routes now are generally chosen to be the most fuel-efficient, subject to regulatory constraints such as avoiding overflight of areas of high population density. So any alternate path will be longer and burn more fuel.
As said in the video everyone refused to watch, it doesn’t require all new routes but occasional 1-2% course deviations or altitude changes for a minority of flights. It’s also claimed that contrails have far, far more warming effect than any additional carbon that might be emitted by this. But hey, he posted it in a video so FUCK HIM, RITE?
I'm not going to watch a YouTube video that could be a few paragraphs of textual explanation, because it'll no doubt be eight times longer than it needs to be for the benefit of more ad money or promotion in the almighty algorithm.
The linked one is a short video with a duration of 02:37. There's no padding in this one. Naturally, you can't actually get all of the nuances of the full-duration video, which also can't cover the full nuances of the study itself that it's based on (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2634-4505/ad310c).
Pop science videos making studies accessible to the general public are good, actually. I recommend that you stop being dismissive of them. Had you actually put in the time, you wouldn't have posted things that are in direct contradiction with the latest science on the subject, spreading misinformation in the process.
I've got no interest in watching even 2.5 minute YouTube videos when I can read the text of the same content in 45 seconds. Instructional videos can be great and valuable, but that's not what we're talking about here. There are a wealth of crap pop science videos on YouTube that misrepresent studies.
The study is interesting, but it's a feasibility study data utilizing a theoretical models - there are a lot of assumptions here. If they or other researchers go on to perform trials using their proposed flight adjustments to the autopilot software and validate it works, great! Until then, it's very far from settled science. Here is another recent study that proposes the main problem is incompletely-burned fuel which causes soot particles that sustain the contrails in the atmosphere for much longer than contrails from low-soot contrails, which quickly diaperse. This is an emerging field of study with few published studies and varying ideas on how to resolve issues.
Maybe if people want to share emerging scientific information that's important to them on a written forum they should put in the time to look to more valuable text sources, instead of dropping YouTube links with overconfident assertions that will put off people from watching them, eg, "contrails are completely avoidable".
You have remarkable audacity for continuing to argue the point while also boasting about how you’ll ignore any information that isn’t spoon fed to you in your format of choice. Sooner or later, you’re going to miss something that way and make an ass of yourself, if that didn’t already just happen in front of our eyes.
God forbid I actually read sources, and prefer reading to taking heads on a video platform that is designed to waste people's time in endless content crawls.
You call me audacious yet here you are stepping into a discussion to try your best to belittle and chastise an internet stranger with a different opinion.
I went to college for English Lit so please don’t lecture me on the virtues of reading. God forbid you stoop to get all the information you can. You are acting like an ass and I’m letting you know. I didn’t get up this morning to chastise you.
If there’s any doubt in your mind what you did:
1: “this video says you’re wrong” 2: “well I don’t watch videos dahling.” (flips hair, draws on cigarette)
See we’re not strangers anymore. You’re that fucking guy who did that fucking thing.
Pretty sad that your comment gets so much attention while dismissing a huge breakthrough in research.
Maybe we shouldn’t have to SMASH THAT LIKE BUTTON to have a discussion on the internet, or sit through an ad read for Brilliant or whatever
Do we seriously have to listen to people air their gripes about internet video anytime a link is shared? Jesus Christ.
It’s a 2:35 short , btw. Quite dense and to the point. And one of the points is that you’re wrong about it not offsetting the extra fuel to avoid contrail zones.
Alabama State House. Not the U.S. House.
Red State voters living in abject poverty: "Republicans is gittin important stuff done!"
Should be easy for the airlines to comply with, since they don't leave chemtrails, they leave contrails.
How do you think the conspiracy nuts will react if this bill becomes law and then there are just as many contrails in the sky as before?
We live in the stupidest timeline.
Hell yeah, brother. People have elevated the presumed sanctity of their beliefs, no matter how stupid, to be the most sacred of liberties. Even over life and health.
How are we this stupid?
3-4 decades of purposefully undermining public education
More like 5-7 decades.. "anti-nerd" culture has been popular since about the 50's
Republicans are in control
So clouds are illegal?
Well, it's impossible to ban natural clouds but planes could avoid making contrails by just not flying in the zone where their exhaust would cause them. Source: I was a weatherman in the Air Force and would tell military pilots where to fly to not have a shiny line pointing to their exact location if such information could be a concern.
Well that could be problematic.
So I’m curious now… what conditions cause the contrails? Certain temps, humidity, wind speed? I would think very humid cold air but that’s just a guess.
In answer to your question: yes. Humid cold pure air. By pure, I mean no contaminates until the hyrdrocarbons from the jet fuel are emitted into that pure, moist air. To form a droplet, a nucleus is needed. The hydrocarbons of the jet engine exhaust provide that nuclueus.
The House needs a bill to prevent idiots from entering politics.
We, uh, could just fund secular public education.
And yeah, I’m kinda pissed I have to add “secular” to that.
I used to be all for religion as a way to give people's lives meaning, then I realized that religion is just science denial.
God is dead, he died when humans started measuring shit, it's time to stop parading around his corpse.
I don’t disagree, really.
But just a friendly reminder that secular and atheist are two different things.
Secularism is just a separation of religious affairs and government/state/public affairs.
All I’m saying by adding secular to public schools is that Christian charter schools shouldn’t be funded with public funds; and that creationism/intelligent design/other things of that sort should be key out of the classroom. (And abstinence-only shouldn’t be taught in sex ed for fucks sake.)
Indeed, we need to go with what the evidence says works.
These "Voucher Programs" for Christian Schools is a huge problem. I have a cousin who flunked out of public school and is now in a Christian Private School. His overly religious father and Church have completely ruined the boy's perception of reality.
A big reason why he flunked public school is he'd refuse any assignment that acknowledged the big bang, existence of dinosaurs, existence of evolution, or the idea that the Earth is older than 6000 years.
So Science was a big no.
I'm geniunely worried the kid is going to end up trying to pray his way through life and fail to understand why it's not working.
And for fuck's sake, I'm with you on "Absitnence-Only" being a failure. Hell I remember my Sex-Ed, it wasn't Absistence only, they told us about condoms and stuff... It's just they kept using so many awkward euphemisms and beating around the bush, that when it was done I thought sex was when a guy peed in a girl's butt.
Thank God porn exists, so I was able to figure out the real story.
And for fuck’s sake, I’m with you on “Absitnence-Only” being a failure. Hell I remember my Sex-Ed, it wasn’t Absistence only, they told us about condoms and stuff… It’s just they kept using so many awkward euphemisms and beating around the bush, that when it was done I thought sex was when a guy peed in a girl’s butt.
I find it deeply disturbing that the states with the highest level of teen pregnancies and STDs happens in the same states that do abstinence-only education. Additionally, education and free and easy access to condoms is the single best way to reduce abortions.
A big reason why he flunked public school is he’d refuse any assignment that acknowledged the big bang, existence of dinosaurs, existence of evolution, or the idea that the Earth is older than 6000 years.
Like... you could have a lot of fun with that. Chickens are dinosaurs (avians are technically extant theropoda dinosaurs.)
The problem with faith and believers in general. Be they believers in psychics, ghosts, aliens, Jesus, Xenu, etc.
Is that they have already decided what they want to be true and no evidence can convince them otherwise. Anyone who deals in the evidence must be either close-minded or naive at best or outright lying at worst.
Which is why scientists are either "Stuck believing the religion of Darwin and Scientism" or "On the payroll of big academia, silencing the truth about PSI and Nephilim!"
It doesn't matter that the evidence says comprehensive sex education prevents abortions and STDs. The "truth" is that safe sex is evil and cannot be taught without encouraging children to have it, because the truth was invented by "liberal pedophiles" who want to turn your children trans.
This is why skeptics beat the believers everytime. Skeptics follow the evidence and believers do not.
It's why MAGA will never turn on Trump, what Trump says is the "truth", evidence was created by the Deep State.
It doesn't matter that Trump is in the epstein files because Trump says he isn't.
It doesn't matter that Evolution is one of the most successful theories in biology, the pastor says it's a "theory in crisis"
A common lie from believers is the idea that the institutions are "slowly turning to" whatever their idea is.
As a former New Age I used to hear that Academia was slowly giving up on Materialism.. that a few stubborn higher ups were just too attached to their pet hypotheses. I didn't realize it was a scam till I realized creationists were told that "Real Scientists" find Evolution a little sus.
Why ban them? What's in them?
cHeMiCaLss5ss!
The sad thing is that there is a huge amount that could be done for global warming with some basic legislation around contrails. Clouds that high in the atmosphere are quite bad in terms of greenhouse effect. By avoiding flying through areas that they'd be generated there's a surprisingly large environmental benefit for minimal cost. A good explainer: https://youtu.be/QoOVqQ5sa08
I never thought it about as a green house thing before though I do remember reading an article many years ago that contrails do contribute when they spread out into cirrostratus clouds.
I was a meteorologist in the Air Force and did make forecasts telling pilots at what levels to fly to avoid making contrails since having a long silver line pointing to your exact location makes sneak attacks a little difficult. Perhaps commercial airlines should make use of that information. It's usually just a few thousand foot difference. Fly a little higher or lower and problem solved.
So we banned ...water vapor. Well done, house committee.
So we banned ...water vapor
No. A chemical compound, a substance, or an apparatus into the atmosphere within or above this state for the purpose of affecting the weather, including temperature, climate, and intensity of sunlight.
Di hydrogen monoxide fits the definition of a chemical...
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
Posts must be:
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!