Archived copies of the article:

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Aren't contrails like, really bad for climate? And it would be really easy to divert some routes to shave off a significant part of contrail-caused warming?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Yes. Persistent contrails - i.e. aviation-induced cirrus clouds which spread in supersaturated air layers - are indeed bad for the climate, but often their effect is ignored as hard to quantify, while the simpler small effect of short-lived contrails is conveniently cited instead.
    Also, while all high clouds have a warming effect by reflecting infra-red radiation back to earth, there can also be a cooling effect due to reflecting solar radiation, which is greater when the angle of the sun is low. So the net effect is warming in the middle of the day and at night, but cooling in morning and evening.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago

    Yes. Kinda, just a little regulation could reduce them a lot.

    But here's the thing. Congress does not give a shit about the climate. They will never pass anything like you're suggesting because they're for sale. Only a major structural change that eliminates coercion/bribery from regulatory votes will work.

    Congress as we know it fighting climate change is about as realistic as unicorns and Bigfoot.

  • source
  • parent