And then, they came, they came for your flight time…

320px-Qantas_Boeing_747-400_VH-OJU_over_Starbeyevo_Kustov[1]From the Institute of Physics

Re-routing flights could reduce climate impact, research suggests

Aircraft can become more environmentally friendly by choosing flight paths that reduce the formation of their distinctive condensation trails, new research suggests.

In a study published today, 19 June 2014, in IOP Publishing’s journal Environmental Research Letters, researchers from the University of Reading have shown that aircraft contribute less to global warming by avoiding the places where the thinly shaped clouds, called contrails, are produced – even if that means flying further and emitting more carbon dioxide. 

Contrails only form in regions of the sky where the air is very cold and moist, which is often in the ascending air around high pressure systems. They can sometimes stay in the air for many hours, eventually spreading out to resemble natural, wispy clouds.

The findings suggest that policymakers need to consider more than carbon emissions in discussions about how to make aviation less environmentally damaging. Recent research has shown that the amount of global warming caused by contrails could be as large, or even larger, that the contribution from aviation CO2 emissions.

The work was carried out by Dr Emma Irvine, Professor Keith Shine, and Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, at the Department of Meteorology at the University of Reading.

Dr Irvine said: “If we can predict the regions where contrails will form, it may be possible to mitigate their effect by routing aircraft to avoid them.

“Our work shows that for a rounded assessment of the environmental impact of aviation, more needs to be considered than just the carbon emissions of aircraft.”

Just like natural clouds, contrails reflect some of the Sun’s incoming energy, resulting in a cooling effect, but also trap some of the infrared energy that radiates from Earth into space, therefore having a warming effect. Detailed calculations indicate that generally the warming effect wins over the cooling effect.

The researchers estimate that smaller aircraft can fly much further to avoid forming contrails than larger aircraft. For example, for a small aircraft that is predicted to form a contrail 20 miles long, if an alternative route adds less than 200 miles onto the route (i.e. 10 times the length of contrail that would have been produced) then the alternative route would have a smaller climate impact.

For larger aircraft, which emit more CO2 than smaller aircraft for each mile flown, the alternative route could still be preferable, but only if it added less than 60 miles (i.e. 3 times the contrail length) onto the route.

Dr Irvine added: “Comparing the relative climate impacts of CO2 and contrails is not trivial. One complicating factor is their vastly differing lifetimes. Contrails may last for several hours, whilst CO2 can last for decades. In terms of mitigating these impacts, air traffic control agencies would need to consider whether such flight-by-flight re-routing is feasible and safe, and weather forecasters would need to establish if they can reliably predict when and where contrails are likely to form.

“The mitigation targets currently adopted by governments all around the world do not yet address the important non-CO2 climate impacts of aviation, such as contrails, which may cause a climate impact as large, or even larger, than the climate impact of aviation CO2 emissions.

“We believe it is important for scientists to assess the overall impact of aviation and the robustness of any proposed mitigation measures in order to inform policy decisions. Our work is one step along this road.”

###

 

Fast Facts

  • Aviation CO2 emissions accounted for 6% of UK total greenhouse gas emissions in 2011.
  • Global CO2 emissions from aviation were estimated at 630 million tonnes of CO2 for 2005. This is 2.1% of the global emissions of CO2 in that year.
  • Previous research by scientists at the University of Reading has shown that, on average, 7% of the total distance flown by aircraft is in cold, moist air where long-lasting contrails can form (2.4 billion km out of a global total of 33 billion km flown in 2005).
  • Aircraft engines emit a number of other gases and particles that can alter climate (such as oxides of nitrogen and sulphur gases) and their effects might also depend on the route taken.
0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

92 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Patrick
June 19, 2014 12:06 am

Insane!

Sheffield Chris
June 19, 2014 12:21 am

So, if this research is correct (?) the effect of the dreaded CO2 is reduced even further???

Keith Willshaw
June 19, 2014 12:27 am

So the conclusion is we must emit more CO2 to reduce global warming and wage war on the clouds.
The lunatics have taken over the madhouse.

Roy
June 19, 2014 12:34 am

Obviously prices will rise if flights are longer and more fuel is used. The price rises might discourage some people from flying – but not the people flying to exotic locations to discuss “saving the planet!”

June 19, 2014 12:35 am

Just how do artificially formed clouds cause global warming? Surely they reflect the sun and so reduce warming? And if these tiny contrails “cause global warming” then what about the steam that comes out of cooling towers? Perhaps we should forget carbon capture and just worry about the water vapour?!

charles nelson
June 19, 2014 12:38 am

I think there is a secret department that churns out stuff like this just to wind us up!

Alex
June 19, 2014 12:40 am

Institute of physics website;
News of the day is football
Enough said

Rbravery
June 19, 2014 12:42 am

It’s all pie in the sky if you ask me

Phil
June 19, 2014 12:46 am

This is how totalitarianism develops. Every single little aspect of life is analyzed and regulated to the slightest detail, until war comes and governments collapse. Then it’s back to just a struggle for survival. God help us all.

Ed Zuiderwijk
June 19, 2014 1:02 am

Shouldn’t planes take routes of optimal safety?

June 19, 2014 1:03 am

Now, if they could only figure out CO2’s influence, they’d be able to solve their re-routing equations. Big if. Really big if.

T.S.
June 19, 2014 1:10 am

And then there’s this:
Former White House climate czar joins board of natural gas exporter
Heather Zichal, deputy assistant to President Obama for energy and climate change from 2011 to 2013, has joined the board of Cheniere Energy Inc., a large liquefied natural gas exporter, reports SNL. Zichal was credited with having helped shape many of the administration’s key energy and climate priorities, including fuel economy standards and clean energy investment. Cheniere is currently working to push for greater US LNG exports. Exports by the US and Canada of LNG — a supercooled form of gas — are expected to account for 8 percent of the world’s output by 2019, according to the International Energy Agency.

wulliejohn
June 19, 2014 1:10 am

The experiment has already been done.
Following attacks on 9th September 2001 all flying over USA was stopped. No contrails. Ground temperatures rose.
Now is time to ask for more funding to tweak that model.

Olaf Koenders
June 19, 2014 1:12 am

“Just like natural clouds, contrails reflect some of the Sun’s incoming energy, resulting in a cooling effect, but also trap some of the infrared energy that radiates from Earth into space, therefore having a warming effect. Detailed calculations indicate that generally the warming effect wins over the cooling effect.”

Hmm.. didn’t I hear something about this post 9/11? Ah.. here’s something:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2010/0201/Airplane-contrails-and-their-effect-on-temperatures

“Of course, aviation’s real impact on climate probably has nothing to do with contrails. In 2005, NASA’s James Hansen published a study to that effect. He found that, even if the number of contrails were quintupled, global mean temperature would increase by just 0.03 degrees C (0.05 degrees F.).”

So it means absolutely nothing anyway, coming from the Hansen’s mouth of all things. Here’s a correction:

“The work waste of money was carried out by Dr Emma Irvine, Professor Keith Shine, and Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, at the Department of Meteorology at the University of Reading.”

Bah!

Bloke down the pub
June 19, 2014 1:16 am

If the air is already moist, then wouldn’t it already be absorbing infra-red? Why should it absorb more IR just because the moisture is in the form of a contrail?

johnmarshall
June 19, 2014 1:24 am

Contrails are like clouds they reduce incoming solar radiation so help cool the earth. this report is a pile of unsupported crap based on the GHE theory that has yet to be validated.

somersetsteve
June 19, 2014 1:25 am

Not even close to scientific…but….I was seated in my garden in UK yesterday on a beautiful sunny warm day in cloudless skies….when I noticed the brightness dim and the edge fall noticeably off the temp…looking up expecting to see a rogue cloud I in fact saw a broad contrail dimming the sun. The effect lasted around 15 mins until the contrail drifted out of alignment…..

June 19, 2014 1:28 am

Somebody needs to sit this guy in a desert and see if he starts to cry when a cloud comes by.

Alan the Brit
June 19, 2014 1:54 am

“and weather forecasters would need to establish if they can reliably predict when and where contrails are likely to form.”
Gathering around their boiling pot with leg of toad & eye of newt, & a few droplets of blood from a virgin, no doubt! Sheeesh!!! & reading University, fourth rate at best, unless you’re a warmista of course, then it is probably at the best out there!

Mike T
June 19, 2014 1:55 am

Ed Zuiderwijk says:
June 19, 2014 at 1:02 am
Shouldn’t planes take routes of optimal safety?
Aircraft normally take the route where the benefit from upper winds is most beneficial (or least bad, if they can’t avoid headwinds) in terms of fuel consumption. This often results in strange flight paths, to the lay person, especially when combined with great circle routes on a Mercator projection map.

Telboy
June 19, 2014 2:13 am

It’s like saying “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and how many fewer if they’re wearing clogs?” What action can we take to further mitigate a non-existant problem thereby causing more disruption?
Unbelievable.

M Seward
June 19, 2014 2:53 am

This isn’t hair splitting eco-loonism, this is nanofibre splitting and then obsessing if the split is along the exact centre. WTF is in the water at Reading?

June 19, 2014 3:13 am

“Recent research has shown that the amount of global warming caused by contrails could be as large, or even larger, that the contribution from aviation CO2 emissions”
I bet it hasn’t shown anything of the sort. Probably models. Confirmation bias seems to be large or larger than expected..

faboutlaws
June 19, 2014 3:58 am

How many miles does Obama fly on the largely empty Air Force One? How many of them are to progressive fund raisers? How much contrail does he create? Obama’s carbon footprint exceeds Godzilla’s by several orders of magnitude. And Godzilla is a whole lot more cuddly.

John S.
June 19, 2014 4:01 am

I recall a brief study by David Travis that looked at average temperatures before, during, and after the three day grounding of aircraft in the United States after 9/11. I believe he concluded that contrails raise nighttime temperatures, and lower daytime temperatures.

1 2 3 4