Contrail Question for Skeptics - What's the Effect of Contrails on Climate?

I would say these measurements show an improving ability to measure particulates and correlate with sources. They have progressed from just noticing major eruptions to correlating minor perturbations with minor eruptions.
Improved . . . possibly . . . they suggested several possible explanations over many months before finally coming up with the most plausible remaining proximate cause for the increased stratospheric particulates . . . and they are still debating about the amount of contribution . . .
 
I pretty much only see two kind of contrails from airplanes; either none at all or persistent contrails that last almost the entire day by spreading out into overcast year round. Here is a picture from my area of some of things I'm seeing that disgust me. This was taken last month around 9:30am.
You are among a group of people who object to in (my opinion) the unnecessary visual litter in our skies . . . I feel the aviation industry is taking advantage of the general public's apathy and ignorance . . . Much more has been required of the trucking and automobile industry . . . they have done much to clean up their mess . . . it is time aviation follows suit . . .
 
You are among a group of people who object to in (my opinion) the unnecessary visual litter in our skies . . . I feel the aviation industry is taking advantage of the general public's apathy and ignorance . . . Much more has been required of the trucking and automobile industry . . . they have done much to clean up their mess . . . it is time aviation follows suit . . .
Evaporative cooling "Death" towers also make clouds of steam. They do this practically non-stop during cooler months. You should try your luck at stopping their steam production first. Controlling one person's steam requires controlling everyone's steam.

death towers.jpg

Geothermal plants condense huge amounts of steam out of their "Death Towers", yet are one of the cleanest possible sources of power and heat. Will we outlaw them if they produce "visual litter", or are they a "necessary evil"?
geothermal Death Tower.jpg




Mountains make lenticular clouds. Good luck stopping them.......
 
Much more has been required of the trucking and automobile industry . . . they have done much to clean up their mess . . . it is time aviation follows suit . . .
Automobiles used to have incomplete combustion, lead in the fuel and bad efficiency. Do you seriously compare that to aesthetical issues of air traffic?

Apples and Oranges.

Besides: what do you suggest should happen to "clean up the mess" in the skies? Using up more fuel to avoid contrail formation? Abandon air traffic alltogether?

(Snide remark: Europe has its network of high-speed trains - how would U.S. citizens cope?)
 
Evaporative cooling "Death" towers also make clouds of steam. They do this practically non-stop during cooler months. You should try your luck at stopping their steam production first. Controlling one person's steam requires controlling everyone's steam.

death towers.jpg

Geothermal plants condense huge amounts of steam out of their "Death Towers", yet are one of the cleanest possible sources of power and heat. Will we outlaw them if they produce "visual litter", or are they a "necessary evil"?
geothermal Death Tower.jpg




Mountains make lenticular clouds. Good luck stopping them.......
A very localized issue . . . simply stated . . . clouds caused by natural processes are not even an issue . . . the average citizen in the US pays more for catalytic converters and unleaded fuel, other pollution controls . . . super low sulfur fuel for trucking than it would ever cost to mitigate persistent contrails by 70% . . . don't be so dramatic . . .
 
Automobiles used to have incomplete combustion, lead in the fuel and bad efficiency. Do you seriously compare that to aesthetical issues of air traffic?

Apples and Oranges.

Besides: what do you suggest should happen to "clean up the mess" in the skies? Using up more fuel to avoid contrail formation? Abandon air traffic alltogether?

(Snide remark: Europe has its network of high-speed trains - how would U.S. citizens cope?)
. . . the average citizen in the US pays more for catalytic converters and unleaded fuel, other pollution controls . . . super low sulfur fuel for trucking than it would ever cost to mitigate persistent contrails by 70% . . .
 
No drama, George. The EPA was able to classify CO2 as a pollutant. It is also caused by natural processes.
In fact, you know quite well that the persistence of contrails is entirely caused by a natural process and the persistent contrail is almost entirely formed by water naturally present in the air.

The problem is how do they classify water as a pollutant, whose water meets the criteria for the regulation, what are the penalties for violation of the regulation, and who will pay for fair and equal treatment for compliance.

Say, for instance, that American Airlines decides to fly in an "contrail free" approved sector, yet weather conditions cause them to create a contrail nevertheless. What fine do they pay? If you fine them, but another airline flies through the same area and doesn't leave a contrail, they don't get fined.
Say in the morning Delta gets to fly a direct route to a destination at any altitude because the forecast is for no contrails, yet 12 hours later Southwest Airlines is required to fly around/ over/or under a persistent contrail area which has moved over the same route.
Should Southwest be required to bear the increased cost for the circuitous route or pay a fine and make the trail anyway.
Do you rate the fine on trail length, persistence, size, spread or what?
Should the passengers be made to change their schedule, miss a connection, or fly through turbulence to stay at an altitude low enough to avoid contrail formation?
What made the difference? What you called "natural processes", yet the two companies are treated differently?
Who chooses winners and losers, and who pays to keep ice crystals from gathering in the sky?
Who determines at which point an airline is in violation, and who judges the extent of the violation?
How do you even record the violation?
Should Russ Tanner or Gnarly Carly be on the jury who judges such things?
Who is qualified to judge compliance and penalty?

How exactly do you propose to regulate/control something which is entirely dependent on a little understood chaotic "natural process", consists of a natural substance already in abundance in the atmosphere, covers 2/3rds of earth's surface and is an essential requirement for the existence of all life itself??

I'd like to see your plan, George. Maybe you can come up with something simple, but it sounds a little more complicated than other forms of "pollution control" which you mention.
 
No drama, George. The EPA was able to classify CO2 as a pollutant. It is also caused by natural processes.
In fact, you know quite well that the persistence of contrails is entirely caused by a natural process and the persistent contrail is almost entirely formed by water naturally present in the air.

The problem is how do they classify water as a pollutant, whose water meets the criteria for the regulation, what are the penalties for violation of the regulation, and who will pay for fair and equal treatment for compliance.

Say, for instance, that American Airlines decides to fly in an "contrail free" approved sector, yet weather conditions cause them to create a contrail nevertheless. What fine do they pay? If you fine them, but another airline flies through the same area and doesn't leave a contrail, they don't get fined.
Say in the morning Delta gets to fly a direct route to a destination at any altitude because the forecast is for no contrails, yet 12 hours later Southwest Airlines is required to fly around/ over/or under a persistent contrail area which has moved over the same route.
Should Southwest be required to bear the increased cost for the circuitous route or pay a fine and make the trail anyway.
Do you rate the fine on trail length, persistence, size, spread or what?
Should the passengers be made to change their schedule, miss a connection, or fly through turbulence to stay at an altitude low enough to avoid contrail formation?
What made the difference? What you called "natural processes", yet the two companies are treated differently?
Who chooses winners and losers, and who pays to keep ice crystals from gathering in the sky?
Who determines at which point an airline is in violation, and who judges the extent of the violation?
How do you even record the violation?
Should Russ Tanner or Gnarly Carly be on the jury who judges such things?
Who is qualified to judge compliance and penalty?

How exactly do you propose to regulate/control something which is entirely dependent on a little understood chaotic "natural process", consists of a natural substance already in abundance in the atmosphere, covers 2/3rds of earth's surface and is an essential requirement for the existence of all life itself??

I'd like to see your plan, George. Maybe you can come up with something simple, but it sounds a little more complicated than other forms of "pollution control" which you mention.
You are making it completely too complicated . . . flight plans are filed and coordinated today just as they would be in a mitigation environment . . . safety being the first consideration, being on schedule second, mitigation and cost optimization last. . . . the same weather forecasts would include icing and likely persistent contrail layers . . . in some research ( if my memory is correct) 70% avoidance costs 1-2% fuel costs. . . . if the forecasts are wrong the aircrew is not responsible . . . the increased costs are passed on evenly to the customer just like unleaded gas and low sulfur costs are today . . . everyone pays, everyone benefits . . .
 
Last edited:
everyone pays, everyone benefits . . .
Using more fuel, creating more CO2, arrive later - what do you mean by "everyone benefits"?

What about people who don't feel that contrails are "unnecessary visual litter"?
 
. . . the average citizen in the US pays more for catalytic converters and unleaded fuel, other pollution controls . . . super low sulfur fuel for trucking than it would ever cost to mitigate persistent contrails by 70% . . .
in some research ( if my memory is correct) 70% avoidance costs 1-2% fuel costs

These are interesting claims. Would you mind linking to these studies or providing some sort of data sets?
 
Using more fuel, creating more CO2, arrive later - what do you mean by "everyone benefits"?

What about people who don't feel that contrails are "unnecessary visual litter"?
Who benefits from aviation now? Rail and water based transportation are more efficient . . . for most people and situations aviation is simply a desire to be somewhere in less time . . . in a world with tighter energy constraints aviation would be much, much less desirable and unnecessary . . . an expensive luxury for the privileged . . . who needs littered skies for the benefit of the rich?
 
Who benefits from aviation now? Rail and water based transportation are more efficient . . . for most people and situations aviation is simply a desire to be somewhere in less time . . . in a world with tighter energy constraints aviation would be much, much less desirable and unnecessary . . . an expensive luxury for the privileged . . . who needs littered skies for the benefit of the rich?
These are interesting claims. Would you mind linking to these studies or providing some sort of data sets?
I have linked them in other threads . . . It will take some time to relocate . . . will do so as time allows . . . I am on the road . . .
 
Who benefits from aviation now?

I can leave my house at 6AM and be in San Francisco by noon, a nine hour trip even with my living 50 miles from the airport and always parking off site and having to wait for a shuttle from the lot to the airport.

for most people and situations aviation is simply a desire to be somewhere in less time . .
.

Pretty much. Or have goods delivered quickly.

who needs littered skies for the benefit of the rich?

The visual impact is not the objection of 99.9% of the chemtrailers.

It isn't just the rich that benefit from rapid transportation.

I don't know anybody in real life that is bothered by contrails.

You say that 70% reduction in contrails burns 1-2% more fuel. I don't know that most people would find that to be a good trade given contrails small real impact on weather.
 
I'm all for efficiency. E.g. expanding rail use for passenger and freight. Flying and driving less.

But contrail mitigation doesn't factor in.
 
You are making it completely too complicated
I think you are making it too easy. Some of your thinking stems fro a lifetime in the USAF where cost is not much of a consideration and people can simply direct something and it is done, a command and control situation. Out here in the real world hings are different. Things only happen if you have a rule that says they must comply, and that means regulations and penalties for non-compliance. Like I said, the chemtrails hoax has set back any hope of achieving anything like what you are hoping for, and probably for another decade after the hoax is mainly defeated. If the hoax results in a recognized incident it might leave a black mark on any contrails concern forever. Good luck, you are going to need it.

Man of La Contrails.JPG
 
"Benefit of the rich", George?

That's straight from the 60s. By far the greatest growth in commercial aviation over the last few decades has been from cut price carriers.

The average price for a Australia-Europe return fare in 1975 was around 2000 dollars. The average price for the same fare almost 40 years later is... 2000 dollars.

Flying is now in the domain of anyone. It's not as glamorous as it was in the 60s, but the average Joe couldn't care less. The same with contrails.
 
I'm all for efficiency. E.g. expanding rail use for passenger and freight. Flying and driving less.

But contrail mitigation doesn't factor in.
If it doesn't bother you that is OK . . . do you like road litter? Do you object to governments paying to clean it up (trash on the roadsides) Do you object to some of your gasoline taxes going to beautify the highway medians?
 
"Benefit of the rich", George?

That's straight from the 60s. By far the greatest growth in commercial aviation over the last few decades has been from cut price carriers.

The average price for a Australia-Europe return fare in 1975 was around 2000 dollars. The average price for the same fare almost 40 years later is... 2000 dollars.

Flying is now in the domain of anyone. It's not as glamorous as it was in the 60s, but the average Joe couldn't care less. The same with contrails.
Hmmmmm . . . if we are talking about the average human . . . $2,000 for one flight is still way beyond the vast majority of humanity . . . wonder what is the percent of humans that fly even once a year???? Me thinks flyers would be considered privileged by most of the earth . . .
 
I think you are making it too easy. Some of your thinking stems fro a lifetime in the USAF where cost is not much of a consideration and people can simply direct something and it is done, a command and control situation. Out here in the real world hings are different. Things only happen if you have a rule that says they must comply, and that means regulations and penalties for non-compliance. Like I said, the chemtrails hoax has set back any hope of achieving anything like what you are hoping for, and probably for another decade after the hoax is mainly defeated. If the hoax results in a recognized incident it might leave a black mark on any contrails concern forever. Good luck, you are going to need it.

Man of La Contrails.JPG
Why would the "Hoax" have anything to do with persistent contrail mitigation?

1) Are you saying since some people are angry about some imaginary crime it absolves the aircraft industry from being good citizens?? Seems if you are concerned about fringe groups threatening flights . . . would you not encourage the industry to show the public including those with misconceptions that they (airlines) are concerned about reducing or eliminating persistent contrails . . . thus proving to all concerned they are in no way connected to any operation to spray the world with anything . . . a win, win situation!!!!

2) NASA alone has spent significant time and research on contrail mitigation . . . why not the airlines implementing the most rudimentary low tech tool like (for example) remote video cameras to visualize contrail formation . . . seems for safety alone they would want to maintain surveillance on the airframe integrity and control surfaces . . . if my van has a video camera to view obstruction behind me so could the aircraft industry . . . killing two birds with one stone. . .

3) If an aircrew knows they are laying down a persistent contrail they could easily climb or descend a couple of hundred feet . . . it has been theorized and experienced by military pilots that the supersaturation layers are sometimes very thin. . .
 
Last edited:
No drama, George. The EPA was able to classify CO2 as a pollutant. It is also caused by natural processes.
In fact, you know quite well that the persistence of contrails is entirely caused by a natural process and the persistent contrail is almost entirely formed by water naturally present in the air.

The problem is how do they classify water as a pollutant, whose water meets the criteria for the regulation, what are the penalties for violation of the regulation, and who will pay for fair and equal treatment for compliance.

Say, for instance, that American Airlines decides to fly in an "contrail free" approved sector, yet weather conditions cause them to create a contrail nevertheless. What fine do they pay? If you fine them, but another airline flies through the same area and doesn't leave a contrail, they don't get fined.
Say in the morning Delta gets to fly a direct route to a destination at any altitude because the forecast is for no contrails, yet 12 hours later Southwest Airlines is required to fly around/ over/or under a persistent contrail area which has moved over the same route.
Should Southwest be required to bear the increased cost for the circuitous route or pay a fine and make the trail anyway.
Do you rate the fine on trail length, persistence, size, spread or what?
Should the passengers be made to change their schedule, miss a connection, or fly through turbulence to stay at an altitude low enough to avoid contrail formation?
What made the difference? What you called "natural processes", yet the two companies are treated differently?
Who chooses winners and losers, and who pays to keep ice crystals from gathering in the sky?
Who determines at which point an airline is in violation, and who judges the extent of the violation?
How do you even record the violation?
Should Russ Tanner or Gnarly Carly be on the jury who judges such things?
Who is qualified to judge compliance and penalty?

How exactly do you propose to regulate/control something which is entirely dependent on a little understood chaotic "natural process", consists of a natural substance already in abundance in the atmosphere, covers 2/3rds of earth's surface and is an essential requirement for the existence of all life itself??

I'd like to see your plan, George. Maybe you can come up with something simple, but it sounds a little more complicated than other forms of "pollution control" which you mention.
The EPA also want to classify water vapor as a pollutant http://www.ecoenquirer.com/EPA-water-vapor.htm
 
...
1) Are you saying since some people are angry about some imaginary crime it absolves the aircraft industry from being good citizens?? .

So an airline, by inadvertently creating contrails = equals bad citizenship?
Your position seems to be that contrail formation is detrimental - why? It's a purely cosmetic effect (more or less in terms of overall physical effect) and a subjective judgement to equate it with road-side pollution.
 
Hmmmmm . . . if we are talking about the average human . . . $2,000 for one flight is still way beyond the vast majority of humanity . . . wonder what is the percent of humans that fly even once a year???? Me thinks flyers would be considered privileged by most of the earth . . .

That 2000 dollars is for a 20000 mile round trip. Australians and Kiwis, due to our location, think nothing of it. US and European passengers generally fly far less distances and hence pay far less for an average trip. Yearly ASKs are around 700 trillion now so a size-able chunk of the earths population flies each year. Trust me, pilots are thought of as bus drivers these days by many.

As far as changing levels for contrail mitigation, you are hampered by the need to fly the most efficient standard Flight level. This means long periods at a particular altitude until sufficient fuel is burnt to make climbing 2000 feet worthwhile. We cannot just climb or descend a couple of hundred feet to clear a contrail region. It can take 2-3 hours cruising at a particular standard level before a climb is possible on most large jets. Climb too heavy and you risk stalling. Cruise to low and you offset any benefits by increased CO2 production. Already we pass opposite direction traffic with a bare 1000 feet separation. This can cause its own issues with wake turbulence and I can't see that separation standard ever being reduced.
 
Last edited:
So an airline, by inadvertently creating contrails = equals bad citizenship?
Your position seems to be that contrail formation is detrimental - why? It's a purely cosmetic effect (more or less in terms of overall physical effect) and a subjective judgement to equate it with road-side pollution.

I didn't say they were BAD citizens . . . they are probably average at best however . . .

It is a personal objection . . . obviously there are some people who like road litter because they are the ones slinging it out there . . . never-the-less we all pay to pick it up . . . also, why pay to plant shrubs, flowers, trees . . . that costs bunches . . . I see no difference in paying for more aesthetically pleasing roadways and the same for our skyways . . .
 
Last edited:
That 2000 dollars is for a 20000 mile round trip. Australians and Kiwis, due to our location, think nothing of it. US and European passengers generally fly far less distances and hence pay far less for an average trip. Yearly ASKs are around 700 trillion now so a size-able chunk of the earths population flies each year. Trust me, pilots are thought of as bus drivers these days by many.

As far as changing levels for contrail mitigation, you are hampered by the need to fly the most efficient standard Flight level. This means long periods at a particular altitude until sufficient fuel is burnt to make climbing 2000 feet worthwhile. We cannot just climb or descend a couple of hundred feet to clear a contrail region. It can take 2-3 hours cruising at a particular standard level before a climb is possible on most large jets. Climb too heavy and you risk stalling. Cruise to low and you offset any benefits by increased CO2 production. Already we pass opposite direction traffic with a bare 1000 feet separation. This can cause its own issues with wake turbulence and I can't see that separation standard ever being reduced.
Seems your ocean locked nations are low density and in general massive in size, making for obviously different strategies and transportation economics . . . also me thinks no matter the size of the airline industry (in dollars) it still only services a tiny percentage of humans . . . many of the few who fly are repeat offenders, as it were . . . LoL!!!

As far as strategies to reduce contrails . . . safety is first, I never said otherwise . . . Most research centers around pre-flight planning and routing . . . however, it would be very advantageous for flight crews to be able to be aware and monitor the effectiveness of avoidance routing . . . thus the cameras . . . not to mention their safety benefits . . .
 
Hmmmmm . . . if we are talking about the average human . . . $2,000 for one flight is still way beyond the vast majority of humanity . . . wonder what is the percent of humans that fly even once a year???? Me thinks flyers would be considered privileged by most of the earth . . .

I think the point was that the cost of flying has not changed much. I know a LOT of people who fly, especially from NY to Florida. There are frequently very low ticket prices between the two. I don't know what the percentage of humans beings on earth who fly is, but judging from the number of flights we see today there are plenty of them who do fly.

1) Are you saying since some people are angry about some imaginary crime it absolves the aircraft industry from being good citizens?? Seems if you are concerned about fringe groups threatening flights . . . would you not encourage the industry to show the public including those with misconceptions that they (airlines) are concerned about reducing or eliminating persistent contrails . . . thus proving to all concerned they are in no way connected to any operation to spray the world with anything . . . a win, win situation!!!!

Don't you think chemtrail believers would then just claim the trails were invisible? Some do already. Personally I don't see anyone complain about contrails unless they think they are chemtrails. Most people know it's water vapor.
 
As far as changing levels for contrail mitigation, you are hampered by the need to fly the most efficient standard Flight level. This means long periods at a particular altitude until sufficient fuel is burnt to make climbing 2000 feet worthwhile. We cannot just climb or descend a couple of hundred feet to clear a contrail region. It can take 2-3 hours cruising at a particular standard level before a climb is possible on most large jets. Climb too heavy and you risk stalling. Cruise to low and you offset any benefits by increased CO2 production. Already we pass opposite direction traffic with a bare 1000 feet separation. This can cause its own issues with wake turbulence and I can't see that separation standard ever being reduced.
Yes, this morning at coffee I was thinking about how I neglected to bring out that point, Mike.

Avoiding a contrails-prone area along an airway would mean squeezing more traffic into less space. The ATC system of airways is divided into lanes separated by altitude. When you start switching lanes or combining two lanes into one to avoid a particular flight level, essentially you are sending planes flying at 1000 mph towards each other in the same lane. As you say, they have already reduced this from 2000 ft to 1000 ft, do we really expect to maintain safety by having traffic fly along the same level in conflict? do we want ATControllers and pilots to be under pressure looking out the back to see if they are making a contrail, worrying if their company gets fined, begging ATC for another flight level to stop making a contrail? Headed up 1000 feet yet finding they are still trailing, headed down a few minutes to find they aren't, then 5 minutes down the road they start up again?

We've all seen the on/off nature of this, Ice Supersaturated Regions are sometimes very small, totally unpredictable, 4 dimensionally chaotic , and we really have no idea how to accurately predict them.

Maybe something a sortie of your F-16's could handle for a few hours in a Military Operations Area, George, where cost is uncontrolled and safety of hundreds of lives isn't at stake. In fact, since you are a USAF guy, why don't you write up a proposal for testing of our concept. Develop a plan.
For example:
Lock up an MOA in a contrail-prone area and send a couple hundred USAF jets circling around squeezed into a hundred square miles 24/7/365 for a year or two avoiding contrails. Test out your idea. See how many crashes, conflicts or near misses come up. Watch the pilots develop ulcers and hemmorhoids as they get squeezed into a smaller and smaller space on a real tough day. Then let's talk reality.

This is what they are dealing with already, choking it down to stop some lines in the sky cause a few people don't like them might be a little more complicated than first appearances:

 
$2,000 for one flight is still way beyond the vast majority of humanity . . . wonder what is the percent of humans that fly even once a year???? Me thinks flyers would be considered privileged by most of the earth . . .

I've averaged under $400 per round trip this year having flown back and forth between Florida and California, Tennessee, Virginia, Connecticutt, Rhode Island. Flying round trip to Virginia for Christmas for $173. Hopefully I'll make contrails over Gainseville Florida for Harold Saive and Hatrick Penry to enjoy.

I'm sure I'm privileged compaired to the worker that made the clothes I'm wearing but I'm pretty average to below in income average among westerners.

I'm apt to be a lot more worried about the externalized pollution costs in manufacturing areas where most of my goods are made than I am the effects of air travel on the atmosphere. Have you seen the smog in China or read up on the water quality there?
 
I didn't say they were BAD citizens . . . they are probably average at best however . . .

It is a personal objection . . . obviously there are some people who like road litter because they are the ones slinging it out there . . . never-the-less we all pay to pick it up . . . also, why pay to plant shrubs, flowers, trees . . . that costs bunches . . . I see no difference in paying for more aesthetically pleasing roadways and the same for our skyways . . .

I don't get the equivalence between road litter and contrails. To say contrails are not aesthetically pleasing is a personal opinion. I live on Long Island and many many planes fly by me, I see nowhere near what some of the photos depict, I wonder how many are photoshopped and passed around. When I was in Raleigh NC I saw more contrails. Maybe if someone doesn't like the way their skies look they can move to someplace where there are fewer contrails, because the only "problem" with them is a visual one.
 
. . . the average citizen in the US pays more for catalytic converters and unleaded fuel, other pollution controls . . . super low sulfur fuel for trucking than it would ever cost to mitigate persistent contrails by 70% . .

Pollution controls on ground transportation directly improve ambient air quality and have direct positive benefits on health. You can't say the same for contrail avoidance.

And throwing leaded fuel into the mix. One unleaded fuel costs more? Two, you are drawing an analogy between avoiding lead contamination and stopping contrails? Lead is a toxic heavy metal. A contrail is a cirrus cloud six miles up off the ground.
 
here's an idea which can be implemented by those who don't enjoy seeing contrails.

It should be effective at preventing the bother of "Sky Litter" and has the added benefit of complete protection against both sunburn and resulting skin cancer:

hat.jpg

The great thing about this is that it is up to the individual to choose what, when,and where he wants to use the device, while avoiding the one-size-fits-all command and control aspects of a regulatory process!
 
Pollution controls on ground transportation directly improve ambient air quality and have direct positive benefits on health. You can't say the same for contrail avoidance.

And throwing leaded fuel into the mix. One unleaded fuel costs more? Two, you are drawing an analogy between avoiding lead contamination and stopping contrails? Lead is a toxic heavy metal. A contrail is a cirrus cloud six miles up off the ground.
So whats up with today's extra heavy contrails in s Florida ? another front ?
 
here's an idea which can be implemented by those who don't enjoy seeing contrails.

It should be effective at preventing the bother of "Sky Litter" and has the added benefit of complete protection against both sunburn and resulting skin cancer:

hat.jpg

The great thing about this is that it is up to the individual to choose what, when,and where he wants to use the device, while avoiding the one-size-fits-all command and control aspects of a regulatory process!
Why don't you just recommend the wear of rose colored glasses . . . it will make all the litter look good . . . on the ground or in the sky. . . . o_O
 
Pollution controls on ground transportation directly improve ambient air quality and have direct positive benefits on health. You can't say the same for contrail avoidance.

And throwing leaded fuel into the mix. One unleaded fuel costs more? Two, you are drawing an analogy between avoiding lead contamination and stopping contrails? Lead is a toxic heavy metal. A contrail is a cirrus cloud six miles up off the ground.
1) I know . . . unleaded gas costs more . . . that is my point . . . the public has to pay for it . . . for their own good . . . they didn't do it by choice however . . . at least most didn't . . .

2) Contrails have shown to not help anyone and they do have some climatic effect along with their ugly appearance . . . why don't you address the issue of why everyone has to pay for beautifying the roadways . . . I might want to use the same money to clean up the skies . . .
 
I don't get the equivalence between road litter and contrails. To say contrails are not aesthetically pleasing is a personal opinion. I live on Long Island and many many planes fly by me, I see nowhere near what some of the photos depict, I wonder how many are photoshopped and passed around. When I was in Raleigh NC I saw more contrails. Maybe if someone doesn't like the way their skies look they can move to someplace where there are fewer contrails, because the only "problem" with them is a visual one.
Where do you suggest they move?
 
New Zealand. There are only a few regions where they are a common sight, and even there they are far from "daily".
Canterbury, Marlborough, Nelson, Taranaki, Waikato, Northland. About a third of the land area, if that.
The most populous area, Auckland, where over a quater of the population lives, seldom sees them.
 
New Zealand. There are only a few regions where they are a common sight, and even there they are far from "daily".
Canterbury, Marlborough, Nelson, Taranaki, Waikato, Northland. About a third of the land area, if that.
The most populous area, Auckland, where over a quater of the population lives, seldom sees them.
Would love to see New Zealand . . . reminds me of Alaska in your southern regions . . . lived in Alaska for five years . . . how difficult is it to get citizenship and make a living . . . I am retired but have decent income . . .
 
Last edited:
Back
Top