BBC - Longer flights to curb vapour trails

[David Fraser]

Disagree!

No, in the context of anthropomorphic climate change, water vapour is not a pollutant in the same way that CO2 is.
We (human civilisation) are not tapping into a vast and ancient reservoir of water, that has been locked out of the water cycle for millennia, and introducing it into the current water cycle. That is not what's happening.

Water vapour just happens to be one of the 3 important greenhouse gases.
Water has a relatively short life time in the in the atmosphere - 9 days, whereas CO2's life time is estimated at 30 to 95 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Atmospheric_lifetime

Are we not introducing water that was not in the cycle and consistently increasing the levels?

The EPA even tried to have water vapour classifed as a pollutant back in 2007 or so.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/comments/volume9.html

It was rejected but not without objections.

Comment (9-29):
A number of commenters (e.g., 2885, 3509.1, 3577.1, 3702.1, 3747.1) question the exclusion of water vapor from the definition of air pollution because it is the most important GHG responsible for the natural, background greenhouse effect.

Many commenters argue that water vapor has a greater contribution to the greenhouse effect than any other substance. Several commenters (e.g., 1924, 0639.1) note that water vapor is produced by combustion, and question its exclusion (one commenter noted that it constitutes 26% to 45% of the products of combustion).

Similarly, a commenter (3397) objects to the categorization of anthropogenic water vapor emissions as insignificant, and contends that they are the same percentage as CO2 emissions. The commenter indicates that EPA provides no reference for the implication that water vapor is not “long-lived” in the atmosphere. Furthermore, the commenter notes that the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment has estimated that 750 cubic kilometers (750 billion meter tons) of water vapor are released annually by human activities, or 6% of the global total. The commenter notes that one-third of this annual amount is fossil water that is not recharged to the ground water. The commenter requests that EPA at least explain why anthropogenic emissions of water vapor should be considered insignificant.

One commenter states that this exclusion demonstrates that the finding is arbitrary and capricious, because water vapor is the most abundant GHG and therefore the CAA compels the inclusion of water vapor in the definition of air pollution. The commenter claims that the inclusion of non-202(a) compounds SF6 and perfluorocarbons (PFCs) weakens the argument that direct water emissions from motor vehicles are negligible. The commenter requests more discussion of water vapor, including localized variations due to irrigation and contrails. Furthermore, the commenter states that if direct emissions of water vapor are excluded from the endangerment finding, then it is inconsistent to include water vapor from feedbacks for the other GHGs.

Content from External Source

As far as I understand it much of the evidence was based on the IPCC exclusion.

 

[George B]

OK...gotcha (an American idiom).

When the "TOTAL" volume of the Earth's atmosphere....the (breathable part) is taken into account....yeah, it looks bad. BUT, this planet that we live on is a self-sustaining biosphere....has been that way for 3 BILLION (+) years....at least. Maybe longer.

There may be some HORRIFIC events in the next century, RE: the effects of Human activity on the planet's climate. But....I always keep in mind the FACT that most events occur WELL beyond the lifespan on any individual...which is what, now? About 80 years?

This planet has been here for 3.8 BILLION years....and many species have come and gone.

IF we as a Human species, wish to survive and thrive, then we MUST explore away from this one planet. We are vulnerable, here.

I agree the ultimate survival of the human species requires us to eventually leave this planet. But until we are able, we must not foul the nest so badly as to prematurely exterminate ourselves. I don't agree that simply because the biosphere is resilient and life on earth has existed for billions of years we have a get-out-of-jail-free card. I truly believe we are very capable of killing ourselves off or at least making a major step toward self initiated extinction.

 

[WeedWhacker]

But until we are able, we must not foul the nest so badly as to prematurely exterminate ourselves.

I doubt this will happen. Humans are quite...shall we say...adaptable?

There is an archaeological "guess" that at one point (in the past) our species was on the brink of extinction...yet we survived (obviously) from perhaps only a few tens of thousands individuals (perhaps less) to over 7 BILLION today.

This planet's biosphere WILL change. Species' will adapt...as always.

BUT, we HUMANS want to have "control"....so, it's time to TAKE CONTROL!!!!

 

[George B]

I doubt this will happen. Humans are quite...shall we say...adaptable?

There is an archaeological "guess" that at one point (in the past) our species was on the brink of extinction...yet we survived (obviously) from perhaps only a few tens of thousands individuals (perhaps less) to over 7 BILLION today.

This planet's biosphere WILL change. Species' will adapt...as always.

BUT, we HUMANS want to have "control"....so, it's time to TAKE CONTROL!!!!

By-the-way, while I think persistent contrails are basically not esthetically pleasing and should be mitigated they are low on the list of immediate considerations when discussing human survival. I believe eventually they will be reduced when new and improved computerized flight controls are in place. Not unlike driverless or auto piloted autos that will reduce accidents and increase fuel efficiencies, etc. Sorry, the one pilot and the dog thing may really happen. The pilot is needed to take care of the dog and the dog is to keep the pilot from touching anything in the aircraft.

 

[WeedWhacker]

I believe eventually they will be reduced when new and improved computerized flight controls are in place. Not unlike driverless or auto piloted autos that will reduce accidents and increase fuel efficiencies, etc. Sorry, the one pilot and the dog thing may really happen. The pilot is needed to take care of the dog and the dog is to keep the pilot from touching anything in the aircraft.

That's hilarious....but implausible, sorry.


(The "dog" story, I mean...as "hilarious". ) The rest, well....Google is working on cars. SCARY stuff....but, NO...won't happen in airplanes).

 

[Ross Marsden]

Are we not introducing water that was not in the cycle and consistently increasing the levels?

The EPA even tried to have water vapour classifed as a pollutant back in 2007 or so.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/comments/volume9.html

It was rejected but not without objections.

Comment (9-29):
A number of commenters (e.g., 2885, 3509.1, 3577.1, 3702.1, 3747.1) question the exclusion of water vapor from the definition of air pollution because it is the most important GHG responsible for the natural, background greenhouse effect.

Many commenters argue that water vapor has a greater contribution to the greenhouse effect than any other substance. Several commenters (e.g., 1924, 0639.1) note that water vapor is produced by combustion, and question its exclusion (one commenter noted that it constitutes 26% to 45% of the products of combustion).

Similarly, a commenter (3397) objects to the categorization of anthropogenic water vapor emissions as insignificant, and contends that they are the same percentage as CO2 emissions. The commenter indicates that EPA provides no reference for the implication that water vapor is not “long-lived” in the atmosphere. Furthermore, the commenter notes that the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment has estimated that 750 cubic kilometers (750 billion meter tons) of water vapor are released annually by human activities, or 6% of the global total. The commenter notes that one-third of this annual amount is fossil water that is not recharged to the ground water. The commenter requests that EPA at least explain why anthropogenic emissions of water vapor should be considered insignificant.

One commenter states that this exclusion demonstrates that the finding is arbitrary and capricious, because water vapor is the most abundant GHG and therefore the CAA compels the inclusion of water vapor in the definition of air pollution. The commenter claims that the inclusion of non-202(a) compounds SF6 and perfluorocarbons (PFCs) weakens the argument that direct water emissions from motor vehicles are negligible. The commenter requests more discussion of water vapor, including localized variations due to irrigation and contrails. Furthermore, the commenter states that if direct emissions of water vapor are excluded from the endangerment finding, then it is inconsistent to include water vapor from feedbacks for the other GHGs.

Content from External Source

As far as I understand it much of the evidence was based on the IPCC exclusion.

OK, I think I'm going to have to concede that one. Anthropogenic water vapour IS a pollutant.
Today I learned ...

Thanks David!

 

[cloudspotter]

This story has been picked up and mangled by Look Up. He seems to be thinking that the routes have already been extended to target populated areas and this a cover up after he exposed the plot. No wonder it makes no sense to him.

 

[Mick West]

This story has been picked up and mangled by Look Up. He seems to be thinking that the routes have already been extended to target populated areas and this a cover up after he exposed the plot. No wonder it makes no sense to him.

Where is his expose of the NAT tracks? The NAT tracks are modified daily based on winds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Tracks

The primary purpose of these routes is to provide a Minimum Time Route (MTR). They are aligned in such a way as to minimize any head winds and maximize tail winds impact on the aircraft. This results in much more efficiency by reducing fuel burn and flight time. To make such efficiencies possible, the routes are created twice daily to take account of the shifting of the winds aloft and the principal traffic flow, eastward in North America evening and westward twelve hours later.

Content from External Source

 

[cloudspotter]

Where is his expose of the NAT tracks?

Absolutely no idea. Unless he means the Bay of Guinea hypersonic airliners debacle. Who knows.

 

[MikeC]

And likewise, the increase in aviation and a higher probability of cirrus clouds do not disappear -they continue to exist; unless, of course, aviation is curtailed or mitigation practices are engaged in.

cirrus clouds do disappear tho.

 

[George B]

cirrus clouds do disappear tho.

There is no argument there.

 

[JDubyah]

Here's a question, and my apologies if it was covered elsewhere.

If there's a consideration to change flight paths to avoid making as many contrails as there are now, was there ever a general change in flight plans that might have made them more frequent? Say, better calculations to avoid fuel costs and improve flight times that took planes more frequently through air spaces or altitudes that were more conducive to contrail formation?

I had always assumed that it was just an increase in air traffic over the decades, and maybe a change in sizes and types of engines that led to more trails. More planes, more trails. Or even growth in cities around airports, the increase in cameras in phones, etc, that just made them contrails more reported. But I hadn't thought that maybe something as simple as sky-rocketing fuel costs could have changed flight plans and thus changed the frequency of contrail formation.

 

[KC-10FE]

Here's a question, and my apologies if it was covered elsewhere.

If there's a consideration to change flight paths to avoid making as many contrails as there are now, was there ever a general change in flight plans that might have made them more frequent? Say, better calculations to avoid fuel costs and improve flight times that took planes more frequently through air spaces or altitudes that were more conducive to contrail formation?

I had always assumed that it was just an increase in air traffic over the decades, and maybe a change in sizes and types of engines that led to more trails. More planes, more trails. Or even growth in cities around airports, the increase in cameras in phones, etc, that just made them contrails more reported. But I hadn't thought that maybe something as simple as sky-rocketing fuel costs could have changed flight plans and thus changed the frequency of contrail formation.

Our flight plans are always based on best fuel savings, jet fuel costs money, contrails don't You are correct, newer and more efficient jet engines are constantly being developed and built.

1) Engine manufacturers are constantly seeking to make their engines lighter and more fuel efficient.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/04/130423-reshaping-flight-for-fuel-efficiency/

2) Airlines have even been making their passenger seats thinner to reduce weight.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2009-05-11-airlines-modify-seats_N.htm

In the case of the 787, Boeing even used a much lighter lithium-ion battery, which was infamous for the 787 battery issues for some jets.

3) In Iberia came up with an endeavor to reduce fuel burn while taxiing, by shutting down an engine or more, depending on the model of aircraft.

http://www.aviationpros.com/article...i-program-will-reduce-emissions-and-save-fuel

Modern high bypass turbofan engines especially, create a lot of contrails. The use of these engines have resulted in cooler exhaust temperatures, making it easier for the contrails to form, since the majority of the air passing through the engine is fan air, or "bypass" air since it flows around the core, through the fan, not being used in the actual combustion.

Bottom line: more weight = lower altitude capability = more fuel burned = more $$$$

 

[WeedWhacker]

3) In Iberia came up with an endeavor to reduce fuel burn while taxiing, by shutting down an engine...

Many airlines have been doing this for many decades already.

 

[KC-10FE]

Many airlines have been doing this for many decades already.

Good call, I guess I was just looking for an example. We start our tail engine on taxi unless we are heavy.

 

[Jason]

Worldwide, and that's 57,000 a day. FR24 is currently tracking 8,000 (not all jets), but if you do 8,000 flights, average length 3 hours (just making up numbers here) that's 8000*24/3, 64,000 flights a day based on the FR24.

Does anyone know if there is any research done on contrails with respect to their impact on the environment due to 21 million flights per year? Not saying it in a negative way, but we study automobiles and their exhaust, and I was just wondering if there have been similar studies with airliners. Not to mention that this statistic only takes into account commercial and private flights, but it doesn't encompass military airliners and jets in the world. Why isn't there an emphasis on airliner pollution in the same way there is with automobiles? Some sites like;
http://www.flyingclean.com/impacts_airplane_pollution_climate_change_and_health discuss the impact of airplane emissions, but also state that planes are "only" responsible for 5% of the worlds global climate pollution. Why do people strictly discuss contrails as being chemtrails but never discuss the fact that it's contributing to global warming? I rarely ever see that discussed on contrail or chemtrail websites.

 

[deirdre]

Does anyone know if there is any research done on contrails with respect to their impact on the environment due to 21 million flights per year? Not saying it in a negative way, but we study automobiles and their exhaust, and I was just wondering if there have been similar studies with airliners. Not to mention that this statistic only takes into account commercial and private flights, but it doesn't encompass military airliners and jets in the world. Why isn't there an emphasis on airliner pollution in the same way there is with automobiles? Some sites like;
http://www.flyingclean.com/impacts_airplane_pollution_climate_change_and_health discuss the impact of airplane emissions, but also state that planes are "only" responsible for 5% of the worlds global climate pollution. Why do people strictly discuss contrails as being chemtrails but never discuss the fact that it's contributing to global warming? I rarely ever see that discussed on contrail or chemtrail websites.

its been discussed multiple times here. reports on airplane emissions given etc. maybe search "emissions"?

 

[Mick West]

Does anyone know if there is any research done on contrails with respect to their impact on the environment due to 21 million flights per year? Not saying it in a negative way, but we study automobiles and their exhaust, and I was just wondering if there have been similar studies with airliners. Not to mention that this statistic only takes into account commercial and private flights, but it doesn't encompass military airliners and jets in the world. Why isn't there an emphasis on airliner pollution in the same way there is with automobiles? Some sites like;
http://www.flyingclean.com/impacts_airplane_pollution_climate_change_and_health discuss the impact of airplane emissions, but also state that planes are "only" responsible for 5% of the worlds global climate pollution. Why do people strictly discuss contrails as being chemtrails but never discuss the fact that it's contributing to global warming? I rarely ever see that discussed on contrail or chemtrail websites.

There's a vast amount of research done on this topic. It gets discussed here from time to time, often in response to similar questions. See:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=contrails+climate&btnG=&as_sdt=1,5&as_sdtp=

Example MB discussion (most are mid-thread)
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/co...hats-the-effect-of-contrails-on-climate.2783/

 

[WeedWhacker]

Not to mention that this statistic only takes into account commercial and private flights, but it doesn't encompass military airliners and jets in the world.

Thanks for the question.

Already answered, above....BUT as I often tend to add to those who believe in "chem"trails....(THAT is, those "lines in the sky" many miles above us)...what about the CARS and TRUCKS down here on the SURFACE....where you BREATHE in the FUMES????

(Toyota "Prius" and Chevrolet "Volt"....excepted. OH!!! And Tesla cars.....cool........!!!!)

 

[JDubyah]

Thanks for the question.

Already answered, above....BUT as I often tend to add to those who believe in "chem"trails....(THAT is, those "lines in the sky" many miles above us)...what about the CARS and TRUCKS down here on the SURFACE....where you BREATHE in the FUMES????

(Toyota "Prius" and Chevrolet "Volt"....excepted. OH!!! And Tesla cars.....cool........!!!!)

Considering folks commit suicide by redirecting their car's exhaust inside the car and 'fall asleep', or that babies die when left in a car whose exhaust pipe becomes blocked, say by snow, I'm not sure why all the attention is on these 'deadly' contrails. I guess if most people owned planes and not cars, they'd probably be suspicious of cars, or rockets, or boats, or whatever the 'other' thing is that they don't understand.

 

[WeedWhacker]

Considering folks commit suicide by redirecting their car's exhaust inside the car and 'fall asleep'...

THAT is carbon monoxide poisoning. CO (carbon monoxide) will enter the red blood corpuscles, as IF it were oxygen. The body's defenses cannot differentiate. Of course, the CO molecule cannot be metabolized as an O2 molecule, and eventually the organism dies.

Babies left in cars usually succumb to heat exhaustion illness. Tragic, in any case......

 

[JDubyah]

THAT is carbon monoxide poisoning. CO (carbon monoxide) will enter the red blood corpuscles, as IF it were oxygen. The body's defenses cannot differentiate. Of course, the CO molecule cannot be metabolized as an O2 molecule, and eventually the organism dies.

Babies left in cars usually succumb to heat exhaustion illness. Tragic, in any case......

Up where I am in Canada, we've had some heavy, heavy snow falls that left cars buried in snow, and/or plowed-in. It happened a couple of times that parents put their kids in the car seat, started the car, then went out to shovel the car out.. but didn't notice the exhaust pipe was buried too, and the kids died. Sad, but true. And still no chance of that happening with a plane.

 

[WeedWhacker]

And still no chance of that happening with a plane.

Actually, in small planes this CAN happen. In winter (or when it's cold at higher altitudes) cabin heating is from the exhaust manifold. (Depends on the airplane, and WHICH system is used for cabin heat).

IF the exhaust gases leak into the cabin via *the heater* then, CO poisoning can be induced.

 

[MikeC]

Some small aircraft use fuel burners to heat the cabin - the fuel is burned in a container and heated air is passed over the container - again if their is a leak in the container wall CO can enter the cabin.

The trade name "Janitrol" has become descriptive of such heaters....but he 'net is playing up for me ATM and I can't get into google to provide a link.

you can also find CO detectors on the 'net - even for sale on Amazon - they are small discs - usually white - and a central spot turns black when exposed to CO. these are a requirement in some countries to be affixed where they are obviously visible to the pilot.

 

[WeedWhacker]

Some small aircraft use fuel burners to heat the cabin - the fuel is burned in a container and heated air is passed over the container - again if their is a leak in the container wall CO can enter the cabin.

The trade name "Janitrol" has become descriptive of such heaters....but he 'net is playing up for me ATM and I can't get into google to provide a link.

you can also find CO detectors on the 'net - even for sale on Amazon - they are small discs - usually white - and a central spot turns black when exposed to CO. these are a requirement in some countries to be affixed where they are obviously visible to the pilot.

Here:
http://www.hartzellenginetech.com/aircraft-parts/aircraft-cabin-heater.html