Are there other sites that can suggest how much of an issue it is, and how much flight plan tweaking could improve this.
Remember kids a 1° C rise in temperature can mean 7% more water vapour in the air, and with water vapour being a greenhouse gas itself this can cause heating and holding yet more water.
Water vapour absorbs the thermal radiation (heat trying to escape earth) better than it absorbs sunlight (heat trying to enter earth). Therefore, the more water vapour in the atmosphere, the stronger the greenhouse effect.
They don’t cause net warming, it’s transient. If we stopped flying tomorrow it would go away quickly. But we keep flying.
But even with that the amount of warming this continuous effect creates is quite small and negligible compared to greenhouse gas warming and isn’t really worth talking about.
I think this link hit HN in part due to the new Simon Clark video on contrails which mentioned it. Simon discusses the claim that contrails can be avoided for a small fuel penalty, reducing the overall effect on climate change a given flight would have. Apparently some airlines are already exploring this and Google includes contrail impact estimates on their flight search. So maybe it is worth talking about.
Yes, also a mushroom cloud from a nuclear blast blocks light from passing through which reduces heating on the ground whereas contrails are thin which lets light through but still retains heat below them.
Would be great for shiptracks, too— which used to mitigate 1/3 of the warming impact of maritime shipping — until the 2022 clean fuel standards were implemented.
Amazing visualisation, an excellent tool.
Are there other sites that can suggest how much of an issue it is, and how much flight plan tweaking could improve this.
Remember kids a 1° C rise in temperature can mean 7% more water vapour in the air, and with water vapour being a greenhouse gas itself this can cause heating and holding yet more water.
The site itself has more information. https://contrails.org/
I guess the map is posted today due to this recent video (worth a watch): https://youtu.be/QoOVqQ5sa08?si=sGK9Q9tUoFOW1QZg
I was expecting this to be a gag about chemtrails. I am glad I was wrong.
I'm not following the logic why contrails cause net warming.
Why nuclear blasts - that also introduce lots of particles in atmosphere cause a cooling effect - "nuclear winter"?
Water vapour absorbs the thermal radiation (heat trying to escape earth) better than it absorbs sunlight (heat trying to enter earth). Therefore, the more water vapour in the atmosphere, the stronger the greenhouse effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_absorption_by_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
They don’t cause net warming, it’s transient. If we stopped flying tomorrow it would go away quickly. But we keep flying.
But even with that the amount of warming this continuous effect creates is quite small and negligible compared to greenhouse gas warming and isn’t really worth talking about.
I think this link hit HN in part due to the new Simon Clark video on contrails which mentioned it. Simon discusses the claim that contrails can be avoided for a small fuel penalty, reducing the overall effect on climate change a given flight would have. Apparently some airlines are already exploring this and Google includes contrail impact estimates on their flight search. So maybe it is worth talking about.
https://youtu.be/QoOVqQ5sa08
The difference is that water vapour is a greenhouse gas. IIRC the net warming effect of clouds is a function of altitude.
Yes, also a mushroom cloud from a nuclear blast blocks light from passing through which reduces heating on the ground whereas contrails are thin which lets light through but still retains heat below them.
Would be great for shiptracks, too— which used to mitigate 1/3 of the warming impact of maritime shipping — until the 2022 clean fuel standards were implemented.