Contrails are mostly water vapour that’s condensed due to the hot exhaust of airplane engines.
They are certainly not completely avoidable, they are likely inescapable without sacrificing significant fuel efficiencies (eg: all methods stealth fighters use to suppress or mask their exhaust heat signature)… which would negate any benefits to global warming.
P. s. I’m not going to watch a YouTube video that could be a few paragraphs of textual explanation, because it’ll no doubt be eight times longer than it needs to be for the benefit of more ad money or promotion in the almighty algorithm.
I’m not going to watch a YouTube video that could be a few paragraphs of textual explanation, because it’ll no doubt be eight times longer than it needs to be for the benefit of more ad money or promotion in the almighty algorithm.
The linked one is a short video with a duration of 02:37. There’s no padding in this one. Naturally, you can’t actually get all of the nuances of the full-duration video, which also can’t cover the full nuances of the study itself that it’s based on (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2634-4505/ad310c).
Pop science videos making studies accessible to the general public are good, actually. I recommend that you stop being dismissive of them. Had you actually put in the time, you wouldn’t have posted things that are in direct contradiction with the latest science on the subject, spreading misinformation in the process.
I’ve got no interest in watching even 2.5 minute YouTube videos when I can read the text of the same content in 45 seconds. Instructional videos can be great and valuable, but that’s not what we’re talking about here. There are a wealth of crap pop science videos on YouTube that misrepresent studies.
The study is interesting, but it’s a feasibility study data utilizing a theoretical models - there are a lot of assumptions here. If they or other researchers go on to perform trials using their proposed flight adjustments to the autopilot software and validate it works, great! Until then, it’s very far from settled science. Here is another recent study that proposes the main problem is incompletely-burned fuel which causes soot particles that sustain the contrails in the atmosphere for much longer than contrails from low-soot contrails, which quickly diaperse. This is an emerging field of study with few published studies and varying ideas on how to resolve issues.
Maybe if people want to share emerging scientific information that’s important to them on a written forum they should put in the time to look to more valuable text sources, instead of dropping YouTube links with overconfident assertions that will put off people from watching them, eg, “contrails are completely avoidable”.
You have remarkable audacity for continuing to argue the point while also boasting about how you’ll ignore any information that isn’t spoon fed to you in your format of choice. Sooner or later, you’re going to miss something that way and make an ass of yourself, if that didn’t already just happen in front of our eyes.
God forbid I actually read sources, and prefer reading to taking heads on a video platform that is designed to waste people’s time in endless content crawls.
You call me audacious yet here you are stepping into a discussion to try your best to belittle and chastise an internet stranger with a different opinion.
I went to college for English Lit so please don’t lecture me on the virtues of reading. God forbid you stoop to get all the information you can. You are acting like an ass and I’m letting you know. I didn’t get up this morning to chastise you.
If there’s any doubt in your mind what you did:
1: “this video says you’re wrong”
2: “well I don’t watch videos dahling.” (flips hair, draws on cigarette)
See we’re not strangers anymore. You’re that fucking guy who did that fucking thing.
I gave MY preferences for reading, note the use of the phrase “I prefer”. I did not extoll the virtues of reading. It’s a shame your English Lit exposure in college didn’t extend to education on logical fallacies, because you use them a lot.
1: “this video says you’re wrong” 2: “well I don’t watch videos dahling.” (flips hair, draws on cigarette)
1: User actually said “contrails are completely avoidable”. 2: I said that’s factually untrue. My disdain for a youtube link on a comment thread discussion was literally my post scriptum.
You have a massive chip on your shoulder about people who don’t want to watch videos for science news, that’s clear - but I don’t care to hear any more about it. Maybe take a breath and reflect on context. We’re in the comments section on a ‘nottheonion’ news post about goddamn JFK banning chemtrails because he thinks DARPA is secretly impregnating them with experimetnal chemicals. Y’know… wackadoo shit.
Have a great weekend & life, I will no longer respond.
Nah. Let’s note what you actually said, not this attempt at softening it. Someone posted a video link, and you said:
I’m not going to watch a YouTube video that could be a few paragraphs of textual explanation, because it’ll no doubt be eight times longer than it needs to be for the benefit of more ad money or promotion in the almighty algorithm.
You haughtily and wrongly dismissed it. It was short. It was highly informational. It did not drag on or exhort you to smash the like button. You made an assumption, you were confidently wrong, and thanks to me you now know it.
You tell me to educate myself about logical fallacies while misusing “ad hominem.” I didn’t try to discredit your argument about contrails by attacking its source. I’ve really not engaged you at all about contrails. I said you were acting like an ass. That your behavior, right here, right in front of me, was haughty and foolish. It was. A rebuke is not by necessity an ad hominem logical fallacy.
School’s out. Thank god you’ve promised not to post more haughty, foolish, confidently wrong nonsense.
Its not a huge breakthrough in research, mate - its a feasibility study. Its claims are promising, but until its tested in the real world it’s just interesting, not a breakthrough.
Upvotes don’t mean much, they don’t change the ranking of comments like on worse social media like Facebook or Reddit. Don’t worry about them. I’ve seen very useful and valuable comments downvoted to heck and vice-versa.
Its been tested by now, Ive looked into it a little. Seems like 90% of the time contrails form inside clouds and there is no benefit in avoiding them there. So simply avoiding contrails altogether is not recommended, but avoiding the ones forming in a clear sky would be pretty easy and extremely efficient warming-wise.
Upvotes matter in the sense that comments with negative upvotes get dismissed more easily without thinking about them. Less people would watch a video from a comment with -5 votes than one with +100.
It’s a 2:35 short , btw. Quite dense and to the point. And one of the points is that you’re wrong about it not offsetting the extra fuel to avoid contrail zones.
Contrails contribute to global warming and are completely avoidable.
Contrails are mostly water vapour that’s condensed due to the hot exhaust of airplane engines.
They are certainly not completely avoidable, they are likely inescapable without sacrificing significant fuel efficiencies (eg: all methods stealth fighters use to suppress or mask their exhaust heat signature)… which would negate any benefits to global warming.
P. s. I’m not going to watch a YouTube video that could be a few paragraphs of textual explanation, because it’ll no doubt be eight times longer than it needs to be for the benefit of more ad money or promotion in the almighty algorithm.
The linked one is a short video with a duration of 02:37. There’s no padding in this one. Naturally, you can’t actually get all of the nuances of the full-duration video, which also can’t cover the full nuances of the study itself that it’s based on (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2634-4505/ad310c).
Pop science videos making studies accessible to the general public are good, actually. I recommend that you stop being dismissive of them. Had you actually put in the time, you wouldn’t have posted things that are in direct contradiction with the latest science on the subject, spreading misinformation in the process.
I’ve got no interest in watching even 2.5 minute YouTube videos when I can read the text of the same content in 45 seconds. Instructional videos can be great and valuable, but that’s not what we’re talking about here. There are a wealth of crap pop science videos on YouTube that misrepresent studies.
The study is interesting, but it’s a feasibility study data utilizing a theoretical models - there are a lot of assumptions here. If they or other researchers go on to perform trials using their proposed flight adjustments to the autopilot software and validate it works, great! Until then, it’s very far from settled science. Here is another recent study that proposes the main problem is incompletely-burned fuel which causes soot particles that sustain the contrails in the atmosphere for much longer than contrails from low-soot contrails, which quickly diaperse. This is an emerging field of study with few published studies and varying ideas on how to resolve issues.
Maybe if people want to share emerging scientific information that’s important to them on a written forum they should put in the time to look to more valuable text sources, instead of dropping YouTube links with overconfident assertions that will put off people from watching them, eg, “contrails are completely avoidable”.
You have remarkable audacity for continuing to argue the point while also boasting about how you’ll ignore any information that isn’t spoon fed to you in your format of choice. Sooner or later, you’re going to miss something that way and make an ass of yourself, if that didn’t already just happen in front of our eyes.
God forbid I actually read sources, and prefer reading to taking heads on a video platform that is designed to waste people’s time in endless content crawls.
You call me audacious yet here you are stepping into a discussion to try your best to belittle and chastise an internet stranger with a different opinion.
I went to college for English Lit so please don’t lecture me on the virtues of reading. God forbid you stoop to get all the information you can. You are acting like an ass and I’m letting you know. I didn’t get up this morning to chastise you.
If there’s any doubt in your mind what you did:
1: “this video says you’re wrong” 2: “well I don’t watch videos dahling.” (flips hair, draws on cigarette)
See we’re not strangers anymore. You’re that fucking guy who did that fucking thing.
I gave MY preferences for reading, note the use of the phrase “I prefer”. I did not extoll the virtues of reading. It’s a shame your English Lit exposure in college didn’t extend to education on logical fallacies, because you use them a lot.
1: User actually said “contrails are completely avoidable”. 2: I said that’s factually untrue. My disdain for a youtube link on a comment thread discussion was literally my post scriptum.
You have a massive chip on your shoulder about people who don’t want to watch videos for science news, that’s clear - but I don’t care to hear any more about it. Maybe take a breath and reflect on context. We’re in the comments section on a ‘nottheonion’ news post about goddamn JFK banning chemtrails because he thinks DARPA is secretly impregnating them with experimetnal chemicals. Y’know… wackadoo shit.
Have a great weekend & life, I will no longer respond.
Nah. Let’s note what you actually said, not this attempt at softening it. Someone posted a video link, and you said:
You haughtily and wrongly dismissed it. It was short. It was highly informational. It did not drag on or exhort you to smash the like button. You made an assumption, you were confidently wrong, and thanks to me you now know it.
You tell me to educate myself about logical fallacies while misusing “ad hominem.” I didn’t try to discredit your argument about contrails by attacking its source. I’ve really not engaged you at all about contrails. I said you were acting like an ass. That your behavior, right here, right in front of me, was haughty and foolish. It was. A rebuke is not by necessity an ad hominem logical fallacy.
School’s out. Thank god you’ve promised not to post more haughty, foolish, confidently wrong nonsense.
Pretty sad that your comment gets so much attention while dismissing a huge breakthrough in research.
Its not a huge breakthrough in research, mate - its a feasibility study. Its claims are promising, but until its tested in the real world it’s just interesting, not a breakthrough.
Upvotes don’t mean much, they don’t change the ranking of comments like on worse social media like Facebook or Reddit. Don’t worry about them. I’ve seen very useful and valuable comments downvoted to heck and vice-versa.
Its been tested by now, Ive looked into it a little. Seems like 90% of the time contrails form inside clouds and there is no benefit in avoiding them there. So simply avoiding contrails altogether is not recommended, but avoiding the ones forming in a clear sky would be pretty easy and extremely efficient warming-wise.
Upvotes matter in the sense that comments with negative upvotes get dismissed more easily without thinking about them. Less people would watch a video from a comment with -5 votes than one with +100.
It’s a 2:35 short , btw. Quite dense and to the point. And one of the points is that you’re wrong about it not offsetting the extra fuel to avoid contrail zones.
This is a very important piece of info that people who care about reducing flight emissions should know.