Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Earth Science

Airplane Contrails Will Do Triple the Damage They Do Today By 2050, Study Finds (newscientist.com) 399

An anonymous reader quotes a report from New Scientist: The contrails left by airplanes last only hours. But they are now so widespread that their warming effect is greater than that of all the carbon dioxide emitted by airplanes that has accumulated in the atmosphere since the first flight of the Wright brothers. Worse still, this non-CO2 warming effect is set to triple by 2050, according to a study by Ulrike Burkhardt and colleagues at the Institute of Atmospheric Physics in Germany. Altogether, flying is responsible for around 5 percent of global warming, the team say, so this figure will soar even higher -- and no meaningful actions are being taken to prevent this.

The researchers used a computer model of the atmosphere to estimate how much warming contrails caused in 2006 -- the latest year for which a detailed air traffic inventory is available -- and how much they will cause by 2050, when air traffic is expected to be four times higher. The model takes account of not only of the change in air traffic volume, but also the location and altitude of flights, along with the changing climate. The team conclude that the warming effect of contrails will rise from 50 milliwatts per square meter of the earth's surface in 2006 to 160 mW/m^2 by 2050. In comparison, the warming due to CO2 from aviation will rise from 24 mW/m^2 to 84 mW/m^2 by 2050.
If the airline industry improves fuel efficiency and reduces the number of soot particles by improving fuels and engines, the researchers say the warming from contrails by 2050 will be limited to 140 mW/m^2 and the warming from CO2 to 60 mW/m^2.

The study has been published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Airplane Contrails Will Do Triple the Damage They Do Today By 2050, Study Finds

Comments Filter:
  • Chem Trails (Score:5, Funny)

    by Vandil X ( 636030 ) on Thursday June 27, 2019 @10:32PM (#58838056)
    I always thought it was the Chem trails we were supposed to worry about.
  • High speed rails (Score:5, Interesting)

    by khchung ( 462899 ) on Thursday June 27, 2019 @10:38PM (#58838072) Journal

    If you look outside of US, in the rest of the world, high speed rails is very practical and feasible approach to long distance travel across land. It is already fully electric and do not burn any fossil fuels, its carbon footprint will be reduce as power sources switch to greener options. Avoiding security check lines is an extra bonus.

    If any "environmental" groups is serious about the environment, they would be pushing for high speed rails for continental travel and condemning private jets.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by blindseer ( 891256 )

      It is already fully electric and do not burn any fossil fuels, its carbon footprint will be reduce as power sources switch to greener options.

      Those trains burn fossil fuels. The rate they release CO2 will increase unless these nations can get a viable energy storage system for all those green options or find a green energy option that is reliable enough to keep the trains running on time. Wind, water, and sun will not do without storage, and lots of it.

      Here's just one example of people realizing that getting to zero carbon by 2050 is just a fantasy. ->
      https://business.financialpost... [financialpost.com]

      Growth in "green energy" isn't even keeping pace with grow

      • by khchung ( 462899 )

        It is already fully electric and do not burn any fossil fuels, its carbon footprint will be reduce as power sources switch to greener options.

        Those trains burn fossil fuels.

        Do you even read before you reply? Lots of HSR are fully electric.

        Take, for example, Japan's Shinkansen:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinkansen#Electrical_systems

        "Shinkansen uses a 25 kV AC overhead power supply..."
        "Shinkansen trains are electric multiple units..."

        Here's just one example of people realizing that getting to zero carbon by 2050 is just a fantasy.

        Nice strawman, who said anything about zero carbon?

        • Do you even read before you reply? Lots of HSR are fully electric.

          The power plants producing the electricity are burning carbon. That electricity comes from somewhere, no?

          Nice strawman, who said anything about zero carbon?

          The article did. The planes produce warming from CO2 and contrails, both need to be addressed and they implied 2050 as a deadline. Electric planes (assuming they prove practical) will still leave contrails. Electric planes and trains still produce CO2 if the power plants producing the electricity are burning coal, oil, and gas. Maybe the application of synthesized fuel can address the CO2 problem, t

          • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            Many short haul flights would be better done as train journeys, but the problem with trains is building the line. Lots of land that needs to be bought up, and high speed lines need separation (i.e. no crossings).

            Some countries have been quite successful at building such things. It really seems to depend on how willing the government is to straighten the legal situation out.

          • by q_e_t ( 5104099 )

            The power plants producing the electricity are burning carbon. That electricity comes from somewhere, no?

            Nuclear power plants burn carbon?

            • Nuclear power plants burn carbon?

              Nuclear power plants do not burn carbon. I have yet to see any rail system that does not get any of it's electricity from some fossil fuel, therefore these trains are burning carbon to run. It's certainly possible to run a train system with a zero CO2 emissions, but only with some nuclear power on the grid, and to my knowledge nobody is operating one today.

              Lots of smart people are saying it's impossible to have a zero carbon electrical grid without some nuclear. Here's a sample of them...
              https://www.theg [theguardian.com]

        • Do you even read before you reply? Lots of HSR are fully electric.

          I actually think all of the HSRs are fully electric. Maybe I am wrong.

      • by MrKaos ( 858439 )

        Removing the global warming threat will require some solutions that many will not yet consider. But they will, in time.

        Fortunately most people have a capacity for coming up with solutions that some people cannot see. They can look at things that just don't work and based on those experiences come up with something completely new and radically alter society.

    • If any "environmental" groups is serious about the environment, they would be pushing for high speed rails for continental travel and condemning private jets.

      There's plenty of other things they'd also be doing if they were serious.

      Like maybe the members of Congress not flying back and forth from DC to their districts several times per year. Congress doesn't need to be in session year round. Have a winter session at the beginning of the year, so they don't have to run energy intensive air conditioning. Then go home for the summer. Then maybe go into a short fall session to finish up business before breaking for Thanksgiving, and not come back until the new ye

    • by kenh ( 9056 )

      Avoiding security check lines is an extra bonus.

      You make me laugh - you think the US could put a high-profile, long distance Hi-Speed rail line in that won't have TSA checking bags and screening passengers? Not likely.

      Imagine the PR coup if a terrorist organization got a bomb on a US "bullet train"...

      • by khchung ( 462899 )

        Imagine the PR coup if a terrorist organization got a bomb on a US "bullet train"...

        Imagine a PR of such a bomb on a US subway train. Yep, I don't see any difference between a bullet train or the existing subway. Usually the subway will be much more crowded during peak hours than any HSR train (HSR usually required you to buy tickets for seats, so no standing passengers==no fully packed trains), which makes the subway a much more attractive target for terrorist.

        Worrying about terrorist for HSR is even more of a security theatre than the TSA.

    • by sfcat ( 872532 )

      If you look outside of US, in the rest of the world, high speed rails is very practical and feasible approach to long distance travel across land. It is already fully electric and do not burn any fossil fuels, its carbon footprint will be reduce as power sources switch to greener options. Avoiding security check lines is an extra bonus.

      If any "environmental" groups is serious about the environment, they would be pushing for high speed rails for continental travel and condemning private jets.

      *cough* nuclear *cough*

    • Re:High speed rails (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Friday June 28, 2019 @03:05AM (#58838698)

      To be fair, most of the rest of the world that can afford and cares about speedy travel is FAR smaller than the US in size. Basically the places where such high speed trains are replacing flights are Japan and Europe. Japan, a VERY small country compared to the US and Europe with its fairly small scale structures where a trip of 500 miles is already considered "long distance" and a commute of more than 20 miles is considered unreasonable.

      Personally, I have replaced most flights with overnight trains. Needn't even be "bullet" trains, there's plenty of time while I sleep. The benefits are clear, first, they're by no means more expensive (the price is roughly equal with frequent traveler bonuses), and it's WAY more comfortable. Instead of getting up at 5am to catch a plane at 7 (because it takes about an hour to get through rush hour traffic to the airport and another hour to get stripped of the last shreds of remaining dignity you might still have), flying for two hours and being dumped out of a plane, completely crumpled and squished, you check in around 6pm, have ample time to get comfy in your cabin, work 'til about 10pm (free WiFi included) while you're already traveling towards your destination, get a wake up visit at 6am (or whenever you want), with the morning paper and fresh bread for breakfast, have ample time to suit up for a meeting and as a bonus get to smell like you just showered (because you did) instead of that fat ass you were wedged against who showered last time when GWB was still in office.

      Sadly, this of course only makes sense for trips shorter than 1000 miles. Which is fine in Europe, but probably not really that feasible in the US.

      • Re:High speed rails (Score:4, Interesting)

        by q_e_t ( 5104099 ) on Friday June 28, 2019 @05:18AM (#58839000)

        To be fair, most of the rest of the world that can afford and cares about speedy travel is FAR smaller than the US in size.

        Have you seen how big China is? And whilst a typical long journey in Europe might be no more than 500 miles, that happens a lot, and the last time I did so I took the train and it was just as fast door-to-door and no more expensive, and much more convenient for taking pets.

    • by Misagon ( 1135 )

      If any "environmental" groups is serious about the environment, they would be pushing for high speed rails for continental travel

      Over here in Europe, the environmental groups do this very much.

      A challenge in a densely populated area, is that high-speed trains require tracks that are very straight -- and that land has to be acquired which proper concession. Planning can therefore take decades.
      For extending the range of existing trains, there is a challenge in that different European countries have incompati

  • by LynnwoodRooster ( 966895 ) on Thursday June 27, 2019 @10:54PM (#58838130) Journal
    Water vapor. It dominates the entire thing. CO2 is a tiny little bump on the bottom - water vapor dominates it all, and per the IPCC [archive.ipcc.ch]:

    Despite some advances in the understanding of the physical processes that control the cloud response to climate change and in the evaluation of some components of cloud feedbacks in current models, it is not yet possible to assess which of the model estimates of cloud feedback is the most reliable

    So, it is by far the dominant factor in the climate, but we don't have any clue how good the models are - so we'll fiddle with the CO2 knob in the meantime. Reminds me of this story:

    A police officer sees a drunken man intently searching the ground near a lamppost and asks him the goal of his quest. The inebriate replies that he is looking for his car keys, and the officer helps for a few minutes without success then he asks whether the man is certain that he dropped the keys near the lamppost.

    “No,” is the reply, “I lost the keys somewhere across the street.” “Why look here?” asks the surprised and irritated officer. “The light is much better here,” the intoxicated man responds with aplomb.

    • Water vapor. It dominates the entire thing.

      Water vapor concentration is in a steady state condition, set by temperature. It's CO2 that drives the temperature rise, which then leads to increased water vapor.

      So, it is by far the dominant factor in the climate, but we don't have any clue how good the models are

      You're confused. Water vapor is an important contributor, but isn't particularly hard to model. Clouds, not vapor, are much harder to model, but they are only a small factor in climate change, because they block both IR as well as visible light.

      • Water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas [wikipedia.org]. The IPCC (as I linked above) says it's too hard to model how clouds form or what they do to the climate - and thus the impact on the models is unknown. CO2 doesn't drive it - water vapor does.

        Oh, and water vapor also varies with pressure - not just temperature - meaning it becomes doubly difficult to model as weather patterns will create high and low pressure zones and different levels of water in the air. You know, that whole "pV=nRT" thing...

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Friday June 28, 2019 @02:55AM (#58838678) Homepage Journal

      Most of the water vapour is stuff we can't do anything about, that's why it doesn't get as much attention. Compared to CO2, relatively small amounts of it are emitted by humans. The thought is that water vapour is mostly a natural process and will balance out if we fix the CO2 problem.

      Aircraft are the exception, as they deposit water vapour directly into the place where it does maximum harm.

  • Bull (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kenh ( 9056 ) on Thursday June 27, 2019 @11:16PM (#58838190) Homepage Journal

    The contrails left by airplanes last only hours. But they are now so widespread that their warming effect is greater than that of all the carbon dioxide emitted by airplanes that has accumulated in the atmosphere since the first flight of the Wright brothers.

    Prove it. Don't just assert it, prove it - contrails are fleeting blips on environment, the argument that they are more detrimental than the sum total of every bit of carbon dioxide ever emitted by every plane that has ever flown.

    Get serious.

  • Electric Planes (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MrKaos ( 858439 ) on Thursday June 27, 2019 @11:49PM (#58838300) Journal

    No contrails. Maybe this is an incentive to develop the technology.

    • Re:Electric Planes (Score:5, Informative)

      by blindseer ( 891256 ) <blindseer@noSPAm.earthlink.net> on Friday June 28, 2019 @12:19AM (#58838364)

      Even gliders produce contrails. The wings on jetliner produce contrails too, not just the engines.

      Here's an image of a space shuttle producing contrails as it glides to a landing.
      https://www.metabunk.org/sk/sk... [metabunk.org]

      That's just one image I could find with a minute or two of searching.

      The fuel burning in the engines produce plenty of moisture to condense in the right conditions, but the moisture in the air being disturbed by a wing will produce them too.

      Electric planes are quite likely to reduce the effect but it won't eliminate it.

      Oh, and there's already plenty of incentive to produce electric airplanes, I doubt this new info on contrails changes that by much.

      • by MrKaos ( 858439 )

        Jet engines are really hot and when they hit moisture laden air they produce the steam that produces contrails.

        If you look closely the Space Shuttle [metabunk.org] is creating steam from the hot friction surfaces after doing mach 25+ during reentry. I find you have to look closely at things like that so that you challenge your assumptions and are not misled by oversimplifications.

        There are dozens of scale model electric planes of conventional aircraft that don't produce contrails so I think your theory fails the tes

        • There are dozens of scale model electric planes of conventional aircraft that don't produce contrails so I think your theory fails the test of experimentation because we don't see scaled contrails on electric model aircraft but we do see them on jet powered model aircraft (which are really cool btw).

          Scale model planes are rarely powerful enough to produce the effect. The soot from a model rocket engine is not a contrail. I was going to give other photos of contrails from gliders but I suspected many of them were actually smoke generators. Here's a photo of a contrail coming from the tips of a propeller. This rules out smoke generators, engine exhaust, and whatever you think was happening from the space shuttle photo.

          https://upload.wikimedia.org/w... [wikimedia.org]

          A full scale electric airplane will produce contra

          • by MrKaos ( 858439 )

            Scale model planes are rarely powerful enough to produce the effect. The soot from a model rocket engine is not a contrail. I was going to give other photos of contrails from gliders but I suspected many of them were actually smoke generators.

            Is it possible that the contrails you've seen from gliders are actually from smoke generators?

            Here's a photo of a contrail coming from the tips of a propeller.

            This is a different mechanism called "prop tip vortices". When air is reaching saturation point of humidity, pressure and temperature changes create them. I think they're also called "cloud streamers". This video shows them happening on one side of the aircraft but not the other. [youtube.com]

            Encyclopedia Britannica has an explanation of the contrails [britannica.com] and how they occur.

            This rules out smoke generators, engine exhaust, and whatever you think was happening from the space shuttle photo.

            This is also a different mechanism. Consider that th

            • I'm done trying to educate you. It appears that your arguments are being torn apart by others. I'll let them do the educating.

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • by MrKaos ( 858439 )

            Oh, for fuck's sake.

            I don't understand why people need to emote if they disagree with something.

            Jet engines emit water vapor.

            True, however they don't produce contrails all the time when they are at altitude, mainly in cold humid air as opposed to cold dry air. Encyclopedia Britannica has an explanation of the mechanism. [britannica.com]

            The heat is why it doesn't condense immediately, it's not the cause of the contrail.

            Yes it doesn't condense immediately, whilst it is still a vapor, you can't see it because IIRC a jet engine has an internal temperature of around 1500C, which is more than enough energy to heat the water in the air. Once it starts to cool

            • Comment removed based on user account deletion
              • by MrKaos ( 858439 )

                There simply isn't enough water in jet fuel to produce that much vapor

                Skipped basic chemistry, did you? It's not water IN the fuel, it's water PRODUCED BY the fuel that makes the contrails.

                Which doesn't explain why jet engines don't produce contrails all the time at altitude.

                All of the hydrogen in those hydrocarbons combines with atmospheric oxygen, producing water.

                I didn't dispute that. What I dispute that it is the sole source of contrails because you don't see jet engines producing contrails all the time.

                Is it possible that you slept through your high school science classes?

                -jcr

                I don't mind being wrong but is it possible for you to explain to me why I am wrong without being an asshole about it? Is it possible for you to explain why jet engines don't produce contrails all the time? If you are right, why is that so?

                Well I did, and it turns out we're b

                • plane - not plain.
                  Mr Grandma Nazi
                  You're Grandma was a Nazi?
                  No, he was a faux "netic"
                  What's a "netic" and how can it be faked?
                  It's like when you go to smell something and it's not really what you wrote but the computer corrected it to what you didn't really mean.
                  Gee, that must be annoying
                  Not half as annoying as the one who try to correct the computer!

      • Fuel burning also produces particulates that act as long term condensation nuclei. Pressure induced condensation is a much shorter lived effect.

    • No contrails. Maybe this is an incentive to develop the technology.

      The contrails are not made by the engine. They are made by the body of a plane moving through certain states of air at high speed. A plane with any other engine flying at the same speeds would produce them.

  • We've all heard of global warming, but there's been very little press about global dimming [greenandgrowing.org]. If anything, jet contrails may help to mitigate global warming by increasing the earth's albedo, reflecting more light into space.
  • Can't we all just use an 'It' instead of waiting in airline queues and paying the hefty prices?

  • The conspiracy nuts will have a field day.

  • Reminds me of ST:TNG episode "The Force of Nature [stackexchange.com]", where Picard is not very happy about the speed limit.

    If we're told to slow down, the whole world will have that reaction, but it may be necessary until we figure out better options.

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.

Working...