> These clouds trap heat in the Earth’s atmosphere
Wait, that's the problem with them? Naïvely I would think on an average day they are absolutely dwarfed by actual (by which I suppose I mean natural) clouds? Even without but especially accounting for longevity, the contrail evaporating vs. the cloud sitting there all day.
What am I missing, or how big of a contributor actually is it? Or is it just 'well we're a bit stuck on jet fuel, what else can we do' even if the impact is minimal?
TFA calls it 'low-hanging fruit' and 'the equivalent of removing carbon from the atmosphere at a cost of 10 dollars per ton or less' - fair enough, but I suppose I'm thinking how sweet is the fruit; equivalent of removing how much carbon at that cost? (It also says aviation accounts for 3.5% of warming, but not how much of that is contrails.)
To be a bit pithy/facetious about it: I can go and turn off some light bulbs right now, 'the equivalent of removing carbon from the atmosphere at a cost of nothing per tonne'. But I can't do very much of it!
There was a significant impact on the weather in the week following 9/11. This was documented and studied by NASA. In some areas we saw this again during Covid lockdowns.
This is also a topic I mention here from time to time, knowing it will get down voted into oblivion. Even HN suffers from group think on certain things.
You can't just focus on CO2 when water is a far more powerful greenhouse gas, and we've seen contrails have large short term effects on the weather.
I think the problem might be that in the wrong hands the issue is used to muddy rather than enhance the discussion. Generally the problem with focusing on water as "a greenhouse gas" is that there is limited scope for doing anything about it. Indeed, it's likely part of various feedback systems so acts as a confounder rather than an independent variable.
Of course we should consider the impact of dumping lots of high altitude water into the atmosphere, but we should primarily consider the impact of dumping lots of co2 and methane since those are a much bigger slice of the anthropogenic delta.
>> but we should primarily consider the impact of dumping lots of co2 and methane since those are a much bigger slice of the anthropogenic delta.
Honestly, I doubt it. I've seen the effects of stopping air travel with my own eyes. What if it really is the dominant driver, and all the CO2 fighting is for nothing? What if? And the reason we can't do anything about the water vapor is.... the economy and convenience. What if that's the case?
> Last year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimated that contrails represent about 35% of the aviation industry’s contribution to global warming.
Wait, that's the problem with them? Naïvely I would think on an average day they are absolutely dwarfed by actual (by which I suppose I mean natural) clouds? Even without but especially accounting for longevity, the contrail evaporating vs. the cloud sitting there all day.
What am I missing, or how big of a contributor actually is it? Or is it just 'well we're a bit stuck on jet fuel, what else can we do' even if the impact is minimal?
TFA calls it 'low-hanging fruit' and 'the equivalent of removing carbon from the atmosphere at a cost of 10 dollars per ton or less' - fair enough, but I suppose I'm thinking how sweet is the fruit; equivalent of removing how much carbon at that cost? (It also says aviation accounts for 3.5% of warming, but not how much of that is contrails.)
To be a bit pithy/facetious about it: I can go and turn off some light bulbs right now, 'the equivalent of removing carbon from the atmosphere at a cost of nothing per tonne'. But I can't do very much of it!