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
beng
June 19, 2014 4:34 am

Warmers trying to change the definition of a straight line…

Scott
June 19, 2014 4:44 am

I’m still trying to understand what our middle school principal meant during the global warming portion of the graduation speech when he said that kids would have to say “no” to flying on planes so much like we did, then later said kids might have to change jobs more often and so might have to go back to school to be trained as a pilot.

June 19, 2014 4:49 am

Are they channeling callers to George Noory? Sure sounds like it. So now contrails are responsible for AGW.

Santa Baby
June 19, 2014 4:50 am

Jet cirrus clouds could in theory warm up the surface below, and some days you can have a lot of jet cirrus. But this leading to global warming?
http://cnls.lanl.gov/~petersen/f/headers/jet.gif

Paul
June 19, 2014 4:59 am

We’re developing technology to increase aircraft cruise efficiency. And never thought of using CO2 reduction as a selling point. That should help with funding.

Just an engineer
June 19, 2014 5:05 am

Let’s see if I have this right, “since the net demonstrated effect of increased atmospheric CO2 is approximately zero”, then ANYTHING may have a greater effect on “global warming”!

Brian
June 19, 2014 5:49 am

This is stupid. Vapor trails form from condensing water of combustion. The amount of combustion H2O will be the same regardless of the formation of vapor trails.

Magic Turtle
June 19, 2014 5:52 am

Aircraft can become more environmentally friendly by choosing flight paths that reduce the formation of their distinctive condensation trails, new research suggests.
This “research” is pure conjecture with no empirical validation – an untested, unproven application of preconceived untested, unproven global warming ideology. This is the kind of vacuous pseudoscience that “informs” the policy-decisions of our political decision-makers. It is pretentious rubbish but useful in showing those of us who care to look at it how the Emperor’s New Green Clothes are being fabricated.

Andrew
June 19, 2014 5:53 am

Sorry but are they quantifying and instantaneous impact or are they seriously arguing that trails are persistent enough to match the half life of CO2? If so, great news – it means CO2 lasts a matter of minutes.

June 19, 2014 6:02 am

wulliejohn said, June 19, 2014 at 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.”
National average temperature normally fluctuates as weather systems pass through. The warmer times were probably related to the terrorists’ choice of when to attack. They apparently wanted good weather to make their attacks more visible.

jlkinsella
June 19, 2014 6:03 am

If you change flight paths and burn more fuel, you will produce both more water and more CO2. Why would this extra water not matter in their calculations?

June 19, 2014 6:22 am

So, if the earth is warming shouldn’t we try to form more contrails during the day when they are cooling and less during the night when they reflect back radiation? Was that part of the calculation, or did they miss the point it matters when clouds and contrails are formed?
I still vote for most efficient and least turbulent route when flying.

Steve from Rockwood
June 19, 2014 6:23 am

Fly less. Or was that idea shot down by Sir Richard Branson?

Tom O
June 19, 2014 6:25 am

“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.”
I have rarely seen a “contrail” last for any length of time and certainly not spread out and resemble natural, wispy clouds. I have watched high flying jets for probably 50 years, and although contrails can survive for a while, they are normally long and thin when they dissapate. What she is referring to has nothing to do with contrails, thus she is either incredibly misinformed or is intentionally misinforming others about an unnatural event.

ferdberple
June 19, 2014 6:31 am

the authors have it backwards. the grounding of aircraft during 911 increased temperatures.

ferdberple
June 19, 2014 6:33 am

Detailed calculations indicate that generally the warming effect wins over the cooling effect.
=============
try using detailed measurements instead.

more soylent green!
June 19, 2014 6:47 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.

I don’t believe it. I’m from Missouri. Show me.

John Boles
June 19, 2014 6:50 am

And after they concluded the study they got in their SUVs and drove home…

Adam
June 19, 2014 6:55 am

OMG… cue the chemtrail nutbags!

June 19, 2014 6:57 am

The article was insufficiently clear about the differential effects of high-altitude and low-altitude clouds. All other things being equal, high altitude clouds and low altitude clouds reflect the same amount of sunlight. However, high altitude clouds also block outgoing long-wave radiation from the atmosphere under them, while the atmosphere above low altitude clouds has an unobstructed view of space. That gives high, thin cirrus clouds a net warming effect, and low cumulus and stratus clouds a net cooling effect.
Having said that, rerouting jets to avoid making contrails is very silly. Who volunteers to be the first passenger or crew member injured by routing travel into turbulence to avoid making a contrail?

Bryan A
June 19, 2014 7:09 am

Peter Ward says:
June 19, 2014 at 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?!
At Lower altitudes, Thick clouds act to block sunlight from reaching the ground and thereby lower temperatures as the shortwave IR can’t enter the system by reaching the ground. Higher Whispy clouds reflect the Longer Wave IR that comes from the planet and prevent it from exiting to space retaining the heat in the system

wally
June 19, 2014 7:13 am

FAA has spent billions on developing new tracking systems that can’t be implemented. So to save a few carbon credits we are to spend billions mapping out vapor pressure so planes can avoid them?
Best and brightest working this “real world problem”.

wws
June 19, 2014 7:18 am

but.. but.. if they stop making so many contrails, how will the men in black be able to get all the mind control chemicals into the atmosphere?

June 19, 2014 7:29 am

It seems that the increase in contrails happened around the same time the “pause” started, so we have been accidentally geoengineering the planet.

June 19, 2014 7:39 am

This does prove that clouds have more impact on temps than CO2.