Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Vapour Trails Do Far More Damage During The Night?  
User currently offlineAPwannabe From Hong Kong, joined Oct 2004, 17 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 2581 times:

2006-06-15 HKT 08:14

Scientists say that flights during the night are much more damaging to the environment than day time travel. New research, published in the journal Nature, says that vapour trails produced by planes do far more damage during the night.

Vapour trail do damage?? how??
Is there anyone who can help me with this?


Keep Rollin
15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31702 posts, RR: 56
Reply 1, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 2575 times:

Any Link to the Artlice So We can read it prior to Commenting.

regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineNewark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 29
Reply 2, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 2575 times:

Quoting APwannabe (Thread starter):

Vapour trail do damage?? how??

I believe the theory is that they contribute to a higher temperature, since the added "clouds" they form as contrails retain heat, almost as insulation on a house.

Harry



Why grab a Heine when you can grab a Busch?
User currently offlineBobster2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 2547 times:

The article says that contrails cool the ground during the day and heat the ground at night, especially during the winter. That sounds like a good thing to me. Less energy needed for air conditioning and heat. Somehow they twist this around to make it sound bad. Scientists are becoming so politically biased they lose their credibility.

You have to be a subscriber or pay a fee to read the entire article. The editor's summary is free, and the first paragraph of the article is free:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7095/edsumm/e060615-01.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7095/abs/nature04877.html

[Edited 2006-06-15 05:06:57]

User currently offlineSpeedracer1407 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 333 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 2499 times:

Quoting Bobster2 (Reply 3):
The article says that contrails cool the ground during the day and heat the ground at night, especially during the winter. That sounds like a good thing to me. Less energy needed for air conditioning and heat. Somehow they twist this around to make it sound bad. Scientists are becoming so politically biased they lose their credibility.

I can't speak to the this author's specific credibility, but your assumptions about the climate and scientists seems uninformed. The global climate is a fairly delicatly balanced system, and artifical heating/cooling is indeed an environmental hazard. Whether or not contrails actauly effect temperatures, i don't know.

Nevertheless, a scientist's career lives and dies by his or her ability to prove hypotheses as fact, or at least, as theoretical fact. There have been, and will continue to be, quack scientists here and there. They generally don't succeed as respected scientists. But of all the professions to attack with regards to political bias, or indeed, bias of any kind, it seems a joke to suggests that it's the SCIENTISTS who are out to decieve at the risk of their respect, and thus, their careers.



Dassault Mercure: the plane that has Boeing and Airbus shaking in their boots.
User currently offlinePilotaydin From Turkey, joined Sep 2004, 2539 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 2463 times:

i dont believe that someone who only lives for 70-90 years and studies science can be an expert on a planet who's history we have only theories about, ice ages plate shifting here and there....we only know as much as documented history...this is like Y2K when scientists said hell was gonna break lose....

the natural world in in it's balance i highly doubt we do a damn thing to really put it off....when it snows in Dubai and this and that people panic that the world is changing...it's never been stagnant right?



The only time there is too much fuel onboard, is when you're on fire!
User currently offlineBobster2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 2387 times:

I now have the full Nature article. However, many of the arguments in the article are based on the 30 references and I don't have those. So, admittedly, I'm uninformed.

Here's the concluding sentence of the article:

"In view of this, we argue that shifting air traffic from night-time to daytime would help to minimize the climate effect of contrails"

They want to shift air traffic to the daytime! Is that not absurd? How would such a shift be accomplished? Keep airplanes on the ground at night and make twice as many flights during the daytime? Rubbish. Impossible.

The authors admit that natural clouds were omitted from the analysis. They admit that contrails have a small effect compared to other emissions. Yet they conclude that we need to change airlines schedules.

Do you think this is science or politics disguised as science?


User currently offlineAvioniker From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 1109 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 2371 times:

Unabashed Politics
Please
Please
Please
Please
Please
Please
Please
Do Not bring up chemtrails

 Smile



One may educate the ignorance from the unknowing but stupid is forever. Boswell; ca: 1533
User currently offlineFLY2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 2324 times:

Quoting Pilotaydin (Reply 5):
this is like Y2K when scientists said hell was gonna break lose

Not really, some scientists said there *MIGHT* be a few problems here and there, nothing to worry about for the average Jon Doe.

But of course the media said the universe as we know it would come to an end and what not. I even remember reading a magazine saying how dishwashers and microwaves would turn useless because of the Y2k glitch on the turn of the century. I was amazed how many people actually believed that... rotfl   Yeah sure

Anyways...

Quoting Bobster2 (Reply 6):
"In view of this, we argue that shifting air traffic from night-time to daytime would help to minimize the climate effect of contrails"

Uhm, hello!!! more than 70% of all flights are in the daytime anyways!!! They can blame the other 30% on Fedex and UPS! Big grin

Quoting Bobster2 (Reply 6):
Do you think this is science or politics disguised as science?

Neither. I don't think the scientists are lying, but still i think they're worrying too much. It's all BS to me Big grin


User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17171 posts, RR: 66
Reply 9, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 2306 times:

Quoting Pilotaydin (Reply 5):
.this is like Y2K when scientists said hell was gonna break lose....

Not really comparable. While the wilder doom and gloom scenarios were absurd, without a lot of work done prior to 1/1/2000 many computer systems would have been in trouble.

The fact that the catastrophe did not happen was due in part to the fact that work was done to avoid it.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineBobster2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 2294 times:

Quoting FLY2HMO (Reply 8):
Uhm, hello!!! more than 70% of all flights are in the daytime anyways!!!

They are talking about winter, when the days are short, less than 10 hours for flying. If you consider flights that are only partly at night and ban them also, you've got a lot more than 30% of the flights being disrupted. Flights from LAX to JFK could only depart early in the morning; if they left too late they would be grounded at JFK until the next morning, meaning that an aircraft could do one flight per 24 hour day.

When they talk about changing schedules, they are ignoring the fact that many days will have natural clouds and those days planes could fly at night. But you can't change the schedule on a day-by-day basis. That's one reason why their argument is so stupid.


User currently offlineTPEcanuck From Taiwan, joined Oct 2005, 89 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (8 years 6 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2094 times:

Quoting Bobster2 (Reply 3):
The article says that contrails cool the ground during the day and heat the ground at night, especially during the winter. That sounds like a good thing to me. Less energy needed for air conditioning and heat. Somehow they twist this around to make it sound bad. Scientists are becoming so politically biased they lose their credibility.

Hi Bobster,
In honest respect, if you are curious to learn more about how a rising climate is NOT a good thing for humans, please message me and I can send you some links. It may sound like a good thing, but the aggregate effect of climate change is to increase the variability of climate conditions, something that we are ill-adapted to. Instead, I think the abject rejection of scientific reasononing is far more political than the science produced by the vast majority of scientists.

Quoting Speedracer1407 (Reply 4):
Nevertheless, a scientist's career lives and dies by his or her ability to prove hypotheses as fact, or at least, as theoretical fact.

Actually, scientists rarely (if ever) PROVE a theory. Instead, scientists attempt to refute a hypotheses. Hypotheses that withstand this type of scrutiny become accepted as 'theories,' but are not considered wholly definitive, acknowledging the limits of knowledge, and the possibility of new information that alters and informs our understanding. (this is not a bad thing, it's called progress, scientific insight has been the foundation of modernity, but suddenly it's simply political, or just 'another way of knowing.' )

A source of great confusion is the differences between the scientific definition of 'theory' (an idea that has withstood repeated, widespread scrutiny and verification, but is not a 'fact') and theory in general use. (i.e. a wild guess, or hunch) A scientific theory is far from unsupported speculation, instead, it is an idea that has withstood the scrutiny of the global scientific community which actively tries to move knowledge forward by refuting untenable ideas.


Quoting Pilotaydin (Reply 5):
i dont believe that someone who only lives for 70-90 years and studies science can be an expert on a planet who's history we have only theories about, ice ages plate shifting here and there....we only know as much as documented history

I do. We have ice cores that take us back millenia. Paleo climatologists have revealed a startling degree of insight into climate conditions of the past. Unless you mean that by 'expert' one can only be qualified by 100% total, infallible knowledge. So, given the alternative of relying on A) evidence from an honest scientist with superlative knowledge of climate conditions (though not 100% comprehensive) or B) wishful thinking on the part of various industries that is supported on little more than the natural doubt and that is INHERENT to ANY scientific endeavour (not to mention illogical, if any reasoning...)....well, I think A is a lot more reasonable. Call me foolish if you will.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 9):
The fact that the catastrophe did not happen was due in part to the fact that work was done to avoid it.

Indeed. Funny how we never credit successful prevention. I work in risk mitigation...when our systems save clients millions of dollars in a disaster, they say...hey...the disaster happened but nothing happened to our systems, why are we paying you guys the big bucks?

Relating to the topic, the recent edition of the Economist had fairly decent coverage of our emerging understanding of the effects of airline Greenhouse Gas Emissions on our client. While airline emissions make up only 3% of total GHG, due to their release high up in the atmosphere, the impact of these gases on climate is amplified. Scientifically, there is very little doubt about this, and climate models, and obeserved experience, are supporting this relationship. Simply put, sticking our heads in the sand and ignoring the problem, or attacking inconvenient science as speculative or political is not going to change the reality of the impacts of aviation on our climate.

It is clear to the scientific community, and increasingly clear to leaders within the business communities, that action on these types of problems make environmental and business sense. What I can't understand is the stubborn resistance to scientific insight, in favour of ideas that are little more than wishful thinking.

Let's get on with it, and find sustainable alternatives so that our children and posterity can enjoy the marvels of technology and the blessings that our energy intensive society afford us too!

"HSBC has a deep and longstanding commitment to the environment, and it is our judgment that climate change represents the largest single environmental challenge this century. It will have an impact on all aspects of modern life. It is therefore a major issue for our customers and our staff, as well for every organization on the planet, no matter how large or how small."

http://www.greenbiz.com/news/printer.cfm?NewsID=27474

Cheers!


User currently offlineBobster2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 6 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2051 times:

Quoting TPEcanuck (Reply 11):

I think you missed the point. The authors of the Nature article want to reschedule airline flights during winter to eliminate night flying.

Since this is the Tech/Ops forum, this is where the experts are best equipped to explain how this can happen. I think it's impossible, but I'm no expert, so I wait for the Operations experts to explain. We can assume for sake of argument that the scientific conclusions in the Nature article are correct and focus on the implementation of their proposed solution.

Now consider that planes flying from west to east during the winter would only have maybe 6.5 hours of daylight. Also consider that contrails last a couple hours generally, so you might want to shorten the flying further, certainly not extend it because that would defeat the whole point. If you follow the logic of the Nature authors, the actual "daylight" hours would presumably have to start an hour before dawn and end an hour before sunset, in order to maximize the beneficial effects of day contrails and minimize the harmful effects of night contrails.

If these are planes that normally fly a modest 12 hours per day or more and you want to carry the same number of passengers only during the day, you now need to double your day flights by buying twice as many aircraft to fly twice as many day flights. This means in at least some cities building twice as many runways to handle the doubled day traffic.

It sounds to me like proposed night flying ban would destroy the airlines. But I could be wrong. Maybe somebody will point out how it can be done.


User currently offlineAPwannabe From Hong Kong, joined Oct 2004, 17 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1933 times:

And the forming of Contrails are also depends the Flight level and temperature am i correct? so short range like domestic route will be more likely not forming any contrails to damage the nature?

Thanks all for the info by the way  Big grin



Keep Rollin
User currently offlineFredT From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2002, 2185 posts, RR: 26
Reply 14, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1909 times:

Quoting Speedracer1407 (Reply 4):
Nevertheless, a scientist's career lives and dies by his or her ability to prove hypotheses as fact, or at least, as theoretical fact. There have been, and will continue to be, quack scientists here and there. They generally don't succeed as respected scientists. But of all the professions to attack with regards to political bias, or indeed, bias of any kind, it seems a joke to suggests that it's the SCIENTISTS who are out to decieve at the risk of their respect, and thus, their careers.

Deceive, perhaps not. But it is a fact that the career of a scientist largely depends on securing funding for their research and getting papers published.

Securing funding becomes a lot easier when you are getting published and noticed. "Hey, mr. D. E. Partmenthead. My last paper was mentioned in newspapers all over the world. Do you think pulling my funding right now would be a good idea... ?".

A surefire way to get noticed is to publish papers which are politically correct and in line with the currently accepted mainstream media defined Right View of the World. Right now, that Right View of the World is that global warming is a fact, that contrails are a factor, that air traffic is bad, bad and utterly bad. That's unfortunate.

Another side effect is that if someone wrote a paper stating e g that more air traffic is required to create more contrails and help slow down global warming through limiting the energy arriving from the sun will never be published or mentioned in mainstream media - regardless of how solid the hypothesis is.

Cheers,
Fred



I thought I was doing good trying to avoid those airport hotels... and look at me now.
User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17171 posts, RR: 66
Reply 15, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1899 times:

Quoting TPEcanuck (Reply 11):

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 9):
The fact that the catastrophe did not happen was due in part to the fact that work was done to avoid it.

Indeed. Funny how we never credit successful prevention. I work in risk mitigation...when our systems save clients millions of dollars in a disaster, they say...hey...the disaster happened but nothing happened to our systems, why are we paying you guys the big bucks?

This sort of reasoning always amazes me. When I worked at IBM in Sweden there was a massive 2-day blackout of the Kista, Stockholm's "IT 'burb". Customers would call and say "we're amazed our systems are up". The salesman told his customer: "What exactly did you think I meant when I said 'failure tolerant with guaranteed 100% uptime?!? Why do you think our entire facility is covered by thick cloud of diesel exhaust?'"



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Do (or Should) Civilians Control The Military? posted Sat Oct 7 2006 00:00:08 by Connies4ever
What Goes On During The Meets? posted Fri Sep 1 2006 19:36:16 by Miamiair
Do You Believe Everything In The Bible? posted Fri Aug 25 2006 07:50:07 by Tsaord
Do You Read While On The Crapper? posted Fri Aug 18 2006 19:27:57 by KLMCedric
What Is Your City Like During The World Cup? posted Sat Jun 10 2006 20:50:13 by BA
What Do You Read While On The Toilet? posted Mon Apr 24 2006 22:49:21 by AAFLT1871
Middle Of The Night: Food? posted Mon Apr 17 2006 05:09:20 by EWS
What Do You Think Of Sting / The Police? posted Mon Jan 9 2006 22:41:29 by Birdwatching
Twas The Night Before Christmas posted Sat Dec 24 2005 13:20:41 by BHXFAOTIPYYC
Why Are The Welsh More Important Than The Irish? posted Sun Nov 13 2005 07:37:46 by Jafa39