BBC - Longer flights to curb vapour trails
- Thread starter MyMatesBrainwashed
- Start date
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
Perhaps "slightly" in the sense that IF I am in bed, and have a sheet over me to start, and THEN I kick off the bottom of the sheet so that my feet are exposed....well, a PART of my body might feel a bit "warm" but not the rest of me.
Our planet is like that.
deirdre
Senior Member.
sounds like you have the air conditioning set way too low. (which is probably contributing more to global warming then contrails
No need for flowery analogies. Just something analogous to "about 2%, +/-3%". Slightly, probably, it's complicated.
MikeC
Closed Account
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
OK....my feet, up to a portion of my ankle(s) is "how much" of my body surface?
David Fraser
Senior Member.
Are you saying the Earth is flat like a bed?
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
No.....my body is round like a planet.
(Not really)...just thinking of surface area, and "blanketing"....
(EDIT): Of course, in my simplistic example, there is no additional involvement with solar radiation, nor the overall HUGE orb that IS our planet, and its axial tilt, and the seasonal variations......ETC, ETC, ETC...
Steve Funk
Senior Member.
The B2 can reach 50,000 ft, according to its Wikipedia page. How often to you get contrails that high? Don't you have insufficient water vapor? Maybe 50,000 isn't really a cruising altitude.
MikeC
Closed Account
The total amount of water vapour is not all that important - it is the RELATIVE humidity that matters - how much is there compared to how much the air could possibly hold.
So yes there isn't much water in the air at 50,000 feet - heck there isn't much air for that matter - but that's not the deciding factor.
There probably aren't many contrails at 50,000 feet because there aren't many aircraft that fly that high....
[edit: don't seem to be able to post an image - see this link....or this one]
...any more!
So yes there isn't much water in the air at 50,000 feet - heck there isn't much air for that matter - but that's not the deciding factor.
There probably aren't many contrails at 50,000 feet because there aren't many aircraft that fly that high....
[edit: don't seem to be able to post an image - see this link....or this one]
...any more!
Trailspotter
Senior Member.
The total amount of water vapour is not all that important - it is the RELATIVE humidity that matters - how much is there compared to how much the air could possibly hold.
So yes there isn't much water in the air at 50,000 feet - heck there isn't much air for that matter - but that's not the deciding factor.
There probably aren't many contrails at 50,000 feet because there aren't many aircraft that fly that high....
[edit: don't seem to be able to post an image - see this link....or this one]
...any more!
Sure, Concorde did leave contrails at 50,000 feet, but did these contrails persist?
Not that I'm sceptical about it, as I've seen a contrail left by Sentinel R1 at 42,000 feet that persisted for hours.
http://moorpeak.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/path-on-axe-edge-moor.html
I have my own picture of this racetrack contrail from a very different viewpoint but it is not so spectacular
David Fraser
Senior Member.
Not really. I have read figures of anywhere between 2 & 4% for an effect of contrails and similar for aircraft emmissions. On the grand scheme of things that is not insignificant especially when one thinks that air traffic to due to increase year on year.
Every little helps - especially if it's cheap. And there are plenty of proposed methods (and many implemented methods) of mitigating the problems of industry and power.
Trailspotter
Senior Member.
It is known that almost all of the persistent contrail mass comes from atmospheric water vapour. The plane just injects a small amount of ice nuclei into a supersaturated parcel of air and triggers the cloud formation. What bothers me is the supposition that no cloud would ever be formed in that parcel if no plane passes through it, which is probably incorrect.
They specifically identify regions that are ice supersaturated, but well below water saturation. No cloud would form there. Although eventually the conditions change as the air masses move around, and there's the diurnal heating and cooling.
KC-10FE
Senior Member.
Business jets such as the Gulfstream 5 and 550 models have a cruise ceiling of 51,000 feet.
http://www.gulfstream.com/products/g550/specifications.htm
As far as contrails forming at 50,000 feet.
http://aviationsafetywiki.org/index.php/Contrail
TEEJ
Senior Member.
It is quite staggering how members of the Chemtrail Community pick up on these things and actually believe that they had an influence! The mind boggles as to what correspondence the Met Office actually receives from chemtrail believers?
https://www.facebook.com/len.duggan.1
Len has the camera gear. No doubt it will only be a matter of time before he gets the 'evidence'
https://www.facebook.com/len.duggan.1
Len has the camera gear. No doubt it will only be a matter of time before he gets the 'evidence'
cloudspotter
Senior Member.
Len has the camera gear. No doubt it will only be a matter of time before he gets the 'evidence'
I very much doubt it. He photographed a plane flying east at 35000ft thinking he was photographing a plane flying south at 11000ft
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
It is quite staggering how members of the Chemtrail Community pick up on these things and actually believe that they had an influence! The mind boggles as to what correspondence the Met Office actually receives from chemtrail believers?
https://www.facebook.com/len.duggan.1
Len has the camera gear. No doubt it will only be a matter of time before he gets the 'evidence'
This guy "Len" shares my last name (although I expect he pronounces it differently).
It would be interesting if I could actually educate him (is it worth the effort?).
cloudspotter
Senior Member.
Stock up on headache pills for all the banging your head on brick walls you'll need to do
TEEJ
Senior Member.
I don't think that you will actually get through to him. You can catch up with some of Len's postings on Jacob Wycoff's FB page.
https://www.facebook.com/4cast4you
I would give it a go WW. You'll certainly be amazed and amused by his replies!
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
I really, really HATE FaceBook. I hate all that it "stands" for.
About being "amused"? That might happen after I've had a time to just reflect, and wish that I could interact with the person face-to-face....to properly explain what I try to convey.
Unfortunately, this online/verbal medium doesn't always do it justice....the "explanation" aspect. But, nice thought in your post, and many thanks.
EDIT: Not to seem weird but....say I wanted to go to a bar, and...well "hook up" with someone. Certainly my "opening line" would not be something about a fringe "conspiracy theory", such as "chem"trails.
Sadly, though, there are some people who are OBSESSED with this myth, this Urban Legend. This I find troubling, only because it so very easy to show these people science, and also to (now and then) teach them to fly...which helps in their learning, and continued understanding.
Last edited:
TEEJ
Senior Member.
I very much doubt it. He photographed a plane flying east at 35000ft thinking he was photographing a plane flying south at 11000ft
I know. His interpretation of Flight Radar 24 is comical. He actually believes that if a track stops or appears then it has taken off or landed at that point. This results in the following.
David Fraser
Senior Member.
I don't think that you will actually get through to him. You can catch up with some of Len's postings on Jacob Wycoff's FB page.
https://www.facebook.com/4cast4you
I would give it a go WW. You'll certainly be amazed and amused by his replies!
I find him incredibly frustrating and just can't be bothered. Anything you produce he warps to suit his belief.
Last edited:
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
I know. His interpretation of Flight Radar 24 is comical. He actually believes that if a track stops or appears then it has taken off or landed at that point. This results in the following.
Again....this is another instance of a person who is a NON-pilot who cannot properly interpret the data.
HOW do we get through to them?? HOW do we (and my sense of 'Instructing' kicks in) help them to learn?
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
Perhaps one of many "Lost Causes"??
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
My two cents on the issue: persistent contrails should be avoided if possible. They are aesthetically ugly just like road trash. We pay people to pick trash up and fine people who litter. We pay fuel taxes to maintain the road infrastructure and pay millions to cut and manicure our road ways. Why should we not pay 1-2% more for long haul flight to reduce clutter and potentially reduce warming.
David Fraser
Senior Member.
As I understand it aviations fuels internationally have not been subjected to the same restrictions as land or marine fuels. Soon there will be a higher CO2 need and a need to desulphurise, with each thing adding a couple of percent to the cost. Pure conjecture but let's say that is all 10% in total. That is a hard hit for the industry and would affect a great many things apart from passengers. For the UK I can imagine many fresh items disappearing from supermarket shelves from green beans to roses. The costs of air mail may even become prohibitive for casual users. Once you vector in the effect on the passenger sector you ate looking at a heavy hit.
Personally that's a good thing. If I had my way I would be heavily taxing air travel. Not enough to make it prohibitively expensive but enough to make people think if they really need that weekend break in Prague. At the same time invest in high speed rail networks.
Off topic but I am a closet green nazi. I like the idea of revitalising Europes canal system for freight and even regressing to a sail/engine combination for the seas. I think we just need to slow down a bit.
Last edited:
JDubyah
Member
Seems these Contrails are causing Global Warming ?
Any emission from a something that burns gas or kerosene will contribute - planes aren't and were never an exception to that. One difference is that, at the altitude they fly, they make clouds as well. While the discussion continues on how to best treat our planet, I don't think plane emissions should be excluded when all other emissions - from cars, factories, etc - are being targeted.
Can plane emissions and the contrails they sometimes form impact climate? Sure.
A lot? Probably not?
Would helping reduce their effects help? Of course.
A lot? Like Mick said, every little bit counts.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I agree with your assessment. Air traffic for much of humanity is a luxury rather than a necessity. If we are going to get serious about environmental protection and all contributions to global warming, no industry should be exempt from the mitigation process. In my opinion, since the size of Air travel is so large and so close to the margin of profitability, they have been treated with kid gloves. It is time to re-evaluate that position.
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
I strongly disagree.
Really, this doesn't help...this stated opinion. Contrails aren't "ugly" at all.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Sorry, it is a personal opinion. I think there are many that would agree/disagree in both directions. I don't consider persistent contrails as a work of art. IMO, it is no different than exhaust from a train, automobile, or stack. It is just at a higher altitude.
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
No, sorry. A train, automobile or stack (chimney) exhaust is (in worst cases) dark and sooty....not so much for automobiles anymore of course, but was true decades past.
POINT is, a contrail is merely an accumulation of WATER ICE. A cloud, basically.
Yes of course, EVERY internal combustion engine that uses fossil fuels makes a noisome exhaust....but most of that is invisible. We (Humans) sense it by smell, mostly.
Burning fossil fuels (in your gasoline/petrol powered lawnmower, or weedwhacker
or leaf blower or lorry or truck or diesel locomotive or auto or motorcycle or moped or....well....you get the gist) is, currently, the most common method to achieve the modern conveniences that we take for granted.And, ALL of those devices and vehicles are causing a LOT more pollution than airplanes....THEY are all being operated at ground level.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Yes, and they (visible ground based pollution) are not pleasant either. Visible pollution is one of the reasons why there are laws, regulations, technology and much money spent to mitigate ground based pollution as much as possible. It is just as possible and as easy to mitigate persistent contrails. I think it is time to limit their presence whether water vapor/ice crystals or anything else. They simply would not be there without long haul aviation. We know how to limit them, we know they have the potential to increase warming. I think we need to agree to disagree.No, sorry. A train, automobile or stack (chimney) exhaust is (in worst cases) dark and sooty....not so much for automobiles anymore of course, but was true decades past.
POINT is, a contrail is merely an accumulation of WATER ICE. A cloud, basically.
Yes of course, EVERY internal combustion engine that uses fossil fuels makes a noisome exhaust....but most of that is invisible. We (Humans) sense it by smell, mostly.
Burning fossil fuels (in your gasoline/petrol powered lawnmower, or weedwhacker
And, ALL of those devices and vehicles are causing a LOT more pollution than airplanes....THEY are all being operated at ground level.
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
Yes, agreed.
But, again....contrails (those white, sometimes fluffy things) that are generally SIX to SEVEN MILES overhead...and that can dissipate, or linger (depending on conditions aloft....at SIX or SEVEN MILES UP) are just.....clouds.
I was recently enjoying a TV show originally aired on SKY1 in the UK (no pun here) called "An Idiot Abroad". Perhaps you've viewed it? Series 2, Episode 4..."Whale Watching".
EDIT: A YT video:
My reason bringing THAT show into the conversation is: In Series Two (the "Bucket List", episode ...please see above.....) the hapless bloke Karl Pilkington is sent to Alaska. During that episode, when he is at or north of the Arctic Circle, in the show there are a large amount of normal CIRRUS clouds, caught on camera. These typical high altitude clouds, the SAME ones usually pointed to and shouted at by "chem"trail believers are seen at the NORTH POLE (or, near the North Pole) of our planet!!! Filmed, just a few years ago by the SKY1 crews. These are simply NATURAL clouds!!!
Last edited:
David Fraser
Senior Member.
Absolute nonsense. In the UK at least our worst polluting diesel train produces around half the amount of CO2 than that of an an aircraft (for a comparable journey), and an electric high speed train considerably less.No, sorry. A train, automobile or stack (chimney) exhaust is (in worst cases) dark and sooty....not so much for automobiles anymore of course, but was true decades past.
POINT is, a contrail is merely an accumulation of WATER ICE. A cloud, basically.
Yes of course, EVERY internal combustion engine that uses fossil fuels makes a noisome exhaust....but most of that is invisible. We (Humans) sense it by smell, mostly.
Burning fossil fuels (in your gasoline/petrol powered lawnmower, or weedwhacker
And, ALL of those devices and vehicles are causing a LOT more pollution than airplanes....THEY are all being operated at ground level.
Figures accessed here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...HlWSmRRckpXZWdSczdoVVBjbHU2dHc&hl=en_GB#gid=085RAILInterCity 125: diesel-electric (national network)50% occupancyInterCity125 high-speed diesel-electric trains are typically operated by First Great Western for inter-city journeys across the network. 14857 CO2 g/km
103FLYShort-haul International (B737-400)100% occupancy (all seats full)Emissions data based on the Boeing 737; the most popular narrow-body commercial passenger jet aircraft currently in service. 26864 CO2 g/km
from this article http://www.theguardian.com/environment/datablog/2009/sep/02/carbon-emissions-per-transport-type
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
I wasn't pointing out CO2 emission comparisons.
Look, a modern railway locomotive burns a form of diesel fuel, yes? It thus makes emissions.
A modern jet uses ANOTHER form of diesel fuel, and thus makes emissions.
THIS is the result of burning fossil fuels. Oh, did I mention the petrol in your automobile (or motorbike)?
David Fraser
Senior Member.
The spreadsheet has a number of examples which are quite interesting. However CO2 is still classed as a pollutant. What about the pollution from the sulphur content? The airline industry has yet to come into line with the land and marine based industries for low-sulphur fuels. While there may well be more cars etc at ground level aircraft stiil give off a higher rate of pollution than them, and there are less polluting ways to travel.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I don't think anyone is arguing that nature can not do what mankind can do as far as visible phenomena. The argument is when do we humans consider something out of place or out of acceptable bounds. Like when are blooming weeds, weeds and when are they wild flowers? When do we call something trash, visible pollution, and so forth as opposed to acceptable side effects of technology, transportation, manufacturing, etc? I would say people have different thresholds for such determinations. I would also say that too many persistent contrails fall above my threshold.
Similar threads
- Sticky
