Hi Joe,
I read with interest the latest junk science on climate change, that which attributes more impact than CO2 from contrails on the climate change hyperbole.
The article which was well written describes “studies” that confirm that contrails while contributing to global cooling during the day add to the blanket of intellectually absent cirrus overcast that warms the earth during the night.
First, while an interesting approach, any jet pilot will report that contrails are not opaque, they are at worst translucent immediately upon their creation by not only exhaust but also bypass air that has been warmed by the engine.
Since they dissipate quickly by any measure and become even more translucent moments after they are created there is zero possibility of any impact on the temperature of the earth below because unlike an overcast, there is no chance of trapping any heat by a wisp of ice crystals that you can see through.
The entire predicate for the study, well-funded no doubt, is misplaced, or put another way is an unscientific figment of one’s imagination fertilized by generous grants to come up with as many ways to impact everything that is our world without regard for the consequences.
For example, the implications of the studies are that fuel efficient jets are the problem because they fly higher in colder air. That is nonsense since contrails can begin to form at much lower altitudes depending on temperature and frequently don’t exist at the higher altitudes. The air temperature of -56C at 40,000 feet is hardly much warmer than it is at say 430 or 450. In fact, on some days with similar temperatures there are either no contrails or more contrails depending upon the moisture in the air.
Thus, the implied “solution” is to flight plan based upon the likelihood of contrail formation without a shred of empirical evidence that there is a scintilla of climate change from the existence of contrails only an unproved supposition based on satellite reflectivity. Satellite based reflectivity is not equivalent to opacity since we know from our experience that contrails are not opaque, they are not solid, they are not thick, they are not long lived and they are ice not warm air. The next illogical path for these “scientists” is to outlaw cirrus clouds which can exist for tens of thousands of feet and often are far more opaque than any contrail ever could be.
Think of the implications of this nonsense run wild. Aircraft range will be dramatically reduced when we have to fly lower to satisfy some “study” where the hypothesis was that contrails are a problem before it began. Flying lower uses more fuel so the carbon foot print will be larger not smaller arguably contributing much more to climate change.
No contrails altitudes will be more crowded and thus unavailable for the flights we want to take or need to take and the risk of collision by ever crowding more aircraft in the no-contrail airspace will increase the risk of collision and delay. Delay causes a larger carbon footprint not smaller. Contrails are a great see- -and-avoid tool at flight levels and without them the risk of collision is higher for everyone.
So, to sum up, this study is unsupported by empirical data just supposition I would surmise by non-pilots who have no experience seeing a contrail up close and personal. Like most university and climate interested governmental organizations their zeal to come up with something is based upon the funding received to prove something, even if that something does not exist in nature.
At the risk of being accused of climatological change heresy I would point out that these same scientists claimed just 20 years ago that we were entering a new ice age and it would soon be too cold to live North of the Mason Dixon Line. Then Global Warming became the fashion statement of the scientific community so all of our coastal cities would soon be underwater or so it went. Then when the empirical data didn’t support that, the phenomenon was changed to be called Climate Change so a study could be commissioned hot or cold. I am not a climate change denier by any means but we must all be careful not to allow those so-called scientists who claim the sky is falling for one reason or another don’t take us down a path of wrong just to speculate that they are right.
Best wishes,
Arthur
