Kind of shocked but also VERY glad there aren’t more climate change deniers in the comments. Coby Explanes viewers must be smarter than the average youtube viewer
You mean dumber- Climate change theology opposers represent the highest educational standards in the world including a hundred NASA employees and some astronauts who have multiple doctorates. Dyson a giant of the scientific world was one those you classify as a denier.
Suggestion: when mentioning a study, please, include references. Credibility is everything. Besides, researchers deserve credit for their work as well.
Suggestion: when mentioning a study, please, include references. Credibility is everything. Besides, researchers deserve credit for their work as well.
@@Letsberealish Asking someone to link a clearly cited study in the description isn't asking them to do your homework, lol. It's a basic responsibility when making media that will be viewed by tens of thousands of people.
I mean it is a proven fact that cloud cover at night acts like a blanket and insulates and keeps heat in a cloudy night will always be warmer than a clear night
It's a major problem that crap is in our air and we are all breathing it there is all kinds of polymers in the jet fuel made to make these trails last longer to reflect sunlight away from the planet
@@hawkeye6038 underrated and understated, but we got his point. Let me explane, the jibberish coming out of his mouth is nonsense in every respect of the word. The coined term which Mr. Let Me Explane conspicously avoids, ie, c h e m t r a i l s, linger in the air, often becoming a washed out white sky, distinctly different from contrails. He is either very dumb or purposely evading the haracteristics and differences between contrails and aerosol spraying by commercial airliners.
I was walking through the BNA when a lady stopped me and asked me “what’s the deal with chem-trails” (btw, in my pilot uniform). I started explain contrails, condensation and such... her reply “no, I mean chem-trails... population control...” My response “wouldn’t it just be easier to spike the water supply” Her face was priceless, looked like, oh yeah.
Huge difference between contrails and chemtrails. Contrails last about 20 seconds, chemtrails last for hours and spread for miles and miles and leave a grey haze.
This is one of the best explanations of contrails and their effect on the climate that I have seen. I have read several studies regarding this and it seems to be ignored. If you can look up in the sky and see blue skies clouded over by contrails, then you can see first hand what Coby is speaking of. All concerned citizens of the world should be concerned about this. Just go to a flight tracker site and see how many planes are in the air, how can this NOT effect the climate?
The effects can be neglected if there's a closed cloud cover anyway, can't they? Because here in germany I'd say we got that about halfway through the year. Also I think that during the daytime clouds will actually radiate heat back into space. That would mean that the effects on temperature during the daytime are not balanced but rather positive. Am I wrong?
I still don't understand how can Coby have only 41k subscribers as his videos are very informative. He deserves much more at least 500k. Always well presented and clearly spoken. Thumbs up Coby 👍 keep up the good work
This guy has a odd presentation style and is just throwing darts in the dark. People are getting savvy to people who spout off about how the sky is falling, however there are issues with contrails just not ones he addresses.
After 911 Frontline told us that the airline shutdown temporarily stopped the normal "global dimming" that contrails help create(according to them) and that temperatures rose because there were no flights. That sounds like a lot of crap to me, because in 2020 here in Maine we had one of the coldest summers(especially at night) that I've ever experienced. That's when flights were shut down because of the PeeDemic. Maybe Frontline was being misleading and were only taking into account the DAYTIME temp rise. Were they trying to propagandize us into believing that contrails overall COOL the planet? Seems like it to me. Very strange
Ok, this dude way over states the impact of contrails. If all the contrails were gathered into one area it would be a problem, but they aren't. The is where the classic line of "the solution to pollution is dilution" comes into play. The thin contrails, being dispersed as they are, don't have the impact that he's claiming. Also, it's not passenger flights that are the driving factor if night time contrails, it's freight flights, as that's the time when commercial traffic is low, so they can fly with minimal impact to travel. So, like most climate alarmists, he way overstates the impact and simply ignores that main causing factors.
@@fernandolora1905 You're asking me for sources, yet the video didn't provide any. Also, the "solution to pollution is dilution" is a well known quote, especially in the waste remediation (hazmat type cleanup) industry. I know that as my father worked in the industry for years (he has a degree in biology). Basically, 1 drop of hydrochloric acid on your skin will cause damage, while 1 drop in a swimming pool in undetectable. It's also why smog forms around cities (lots of pollution in a concentrated area) and not in the middle of Kansas (still pollution, just not as much as it's "diluted") Also, heat radiation doesn't "bounce around" like he claims. Heat rises, period. The contrails may hold the heat in, but once they evaporate (which they do relatively quickly) the heat just escapes anyways. Also, the heat needs to melt the ice crystals formed anyways, so it's no longer hot. If you're asking about my cargo plane claim, well, first, I know several pilots who fly for cargo companies, and they mainly fly at night. Second, why else do you think it's called "overnight shipping". Anyways, I've attached an article by USA today about overnight flight, but if you Google "why are there planes flying at 4am" or "why does cargo fly overnight" you'll get a bunch of articles about cargo flying overnight. www.usatoday.com/story/travel/columnist/cox/2014/08/24/cargo-planes-late-night-air-traffic/14258707/
@@fernandolora1905 Oh, also, NASA and NOAA did a study on it, and while there was minor heating it was an extremely local thing (only around high air traffic areas) and the amount was negligible compared to the heating due to carbon emissions
@@fernandolora1905 I mean, don't believe me, go do your own research, read up on it, and come to your own conclusion. From the research I've done, most if the "this is causing massive amounts of climate change" stories typically end up being way overblown. I'm not saying climate change isn't real, it is real, I'm simply saying that the human impact on it is waaaaaaayyyyyyyy smaller than climate alarmists say and the impacts of climate change are nowhere near what most people like to preach. Also, I'm not against innovation. As a recent Aerospace Engineering graduate, researching new forms of fuel and propulsion methods is obviously something I'm interested in, and if we can find a cleaner way to propel aircraft I'm all for it. But, simply saying we need to reduce air traffic isn't a solution, it's a "push the problem down the road" method. We live in a connected world, and while I know Zoom meetings have become the new standard over the last few months, there is still a substantial benefit to in person, face to face meetings, something that will definitely pick up again once everyone stops freaking out about coronavirus. I'd recommend you take a look at some of Bjorn Lomborg. He's considered to be a top climate scientist, and dispels a lot of the climate change hysteria that a lot of people like to push. www.lomborg.com/
This is highly inaccurate. Planes do contribute to climate change however these contrails are hardly an issue. Those research papers /experts/ and what studies? Not a link in the description or shred of evidence to back this theory. Contrails are way to small to be trapping any kind of heat. It's just condensation because at that altitude outside temperatures reach -60c. This video is pretty much a whole mess of misinformation.
Nope sorry you denied this one completely inaccurate piece of information. You are a denier. Nope it doesn't matter that your correct. You questioned any aspect of climate change therefore we should censor you permanently and cause you to lose your job.
Hydrogen combustion would also produce water vapour and therefor contrails so nothing more than a rouse, and currently H2 production produces masses of CO2 just not at the point of use.
I was in the infantry for 6 yrs, communications for 4 yrs and NBC specialist for 6 yrs. During the Nuclear training portion we did a study testing contamination in the air at one location at different heights and the increase over a year was significant. Different contamination can be at different heights in the atmosphere but sooner or later it will mix with water and down it comes. The exhaust effects has been studied for many years and it is not changing. The less emissions is great but the number of planes keeps increasing and that is the bottom line. All we can do is keep making fuel burn cleaner because as long as i drive a car I can't complain. Unless we go back to the 1800s there's not too much we can do to stop our planet from dying.
No sorry you don't get it. The planet will be fine, it's *us* that will die, and in pretty unpleasant ways (pandemics, famines, wars), if we don't stop immediately heating the spaceship we live in.
I'm an aircraft mechanic for the airlines 18 yrs. Contrails come from the water entrained in the fuel hitting sub zero temperatures coming out the back end of the engine. They also come from the effect of Bernouli's Principal over the top of the wing as it moves through the air. That's it nothing more. You are always going to have some soot from combustion of any kind except hydrogen and oxygen which gives you water. Then you are pumping more water into the upper atmosphere. Soot will eventually fall down, water will not. Are you proposing that we shut every airline in the world down? Then we are going to have to live with it aren't we?
Hey it’s been a while since you made this comment but I have a question. How long would you say contrails can last in the sky? My only concern is why they stay up for so long if it was just condensation?, also they spread out very thick so that the whole sky is just haze after a cpl hours of seeing the initial tight lines. Seems like you would know why this happens, it’s the only reason I do believe they are chemicals and not condensation.
@@richc369 so the reason they last longer than aerodynamic contrails (those mini cloud-like things that you see on the wings of the jets in Top Gun, for example) is because of the ambient temperature of the air. You'll notice they form at high altitude. When the ambient air at altitude is negative 50, and the hot humid exhaust gases mix, you get condensation. Think about how you car windshield fogs up on a cold day. Now when you wind down your car window, (or blast the windshield with dry air from you AC, removing humidity) the temperature inside your car becomes as cold as outside and the condensation goes away. Same principle for contrails except it takes ages for the warm exhaust to get back down to negative 50, because the difference between the very cold air and the warm exhaust is so large. That's why they stick around for a while, it takes time for large temperature gaps to reach equilibrium. Hope this helps!
@@joshuah5556 that’s awesome, and I kind of knew already it had something to do with the extreme cold at those altitudes , another question I have is why are there trails only some days, some days are completely clear blue sky but obviously planes are flying at those altitudes every day?
@@richc369 Contrails are clouds, even if they are caused by planes. You'll notice that on the days they last more, there are also high-altitude clouds such as cirruses and cirrostratuses.
@@markotrieste so why only some days there are contrails? At those high altitudes it’s always freezing temperatures so shouldn’t it always have the safe effect?
They've already know contrail's effects but they chose not to bother bc its happens less frequently than cars driving. Curious Droid did videos for it.
How can you reduce night flights when traveling from the US to Europe when your major airports are already slot-restricted? There aren’t enough runways. Also, you’d kill the next-day air services.
This is so much more than just a few red-eye flights from LA to New York. There are so many long haul flights now where no matter when you leave you’re going to be flying at night during some part of it.
@@michaelnice93 I mean even normal high bypass turbofans. People also forget that you can use hydrogen fuel in jet engine, which produce water as it's exhaust.
The funny thing in my area, only one jet had a disappearing trail, the others had persistent trails. One which flew low near my house, expanded to three or four times its size. After californias neverending drought, kentucky tornadoes and the anticipated heat wave in the south. I say something is up, and anything that effects the natural clouds is my enemy.
Mixing with cold air that is humid... the water vapor was already there in the air. If it's not humid and cold, then no contrail. (The water from the engines is minuscule compared to the water vapor in the air)
Using less carbon emitting fuel like hydrogen or biofeedback is more expensive and an airline only makes $100 on average of profit per flight with normal jet fuel, using more expensive biofuel makes it a net negative profit for airlines
Your solution of changing fuel is naive, as is the explanation of contrails forming only on soot and other solid nuclei in the exhaust. They do, but they would form without these anyway. The deposition process of supercooled water vapors can be started by only adding a bit of more water or just by an agitation of the saturated air. There are well documented contrails behind rockets burning pure hydrogen.
Cutting night flights seems like a good idea, but as almost always, it's not that simple. A major issue that's been plaguing commercial aviation (pre-covid-19) is airport congestion. Major airports around the world are trying to accommodate more flights and more aircraft then they were designed to handle. And the airspace around these airports are crazy congested and Flow restrictions are frequently used to simply keep the airspace manageable in order to maintain separation. Cancelling night flights means trying to cram the same daily number of flights into a much smaller window of time, massively compounding the congestion problem.
This has to be BS. I don't understand the logic behind Clouds blocking heat radiation. The ground is hot and heats the air above it. That air heats the air above that and so forth. When it hits a cloud it will just heat the cloud. What makes heat hard to dissipate isn't the visibility of the particles, it is the density of the particles and their structure. The thicker the air, the hotter it is, like Venus vs Mars.
Thoughts on how Boom Supersonic is going to use carbon neutral alternative fuels and yet contrails will remain? My understanding of contrails is that the water vapor does not come from the engine at all, rather the ambient humidity surrounding the plane. So we would still see contrails, but they would not have any affect past that of a regular cloud.
Water comes from the fuel. The fuel is effectively just carbon and hydrogen molecules, they both bond to oxygen to make carbon dioxide and hydrogen monoxide (water). Nearly all liquid fuels contain some form of hydrogen unfortunately. The only way to really eliminate it is by doing the burning on the ground, where water vapour's heating effect is negligible and doesn't stay around. As in, convert it to energy on the ground and using energy storage in the airplanes. The only effective way of doing that really is batteries, while also electric engines are just straight up incomparable to a commercial bypass jet engine in terms of capability. We would have to find a way to negate the effect of it by going far and beyond carbon neutral in other things. Incorporating things that might help eliminate all green house gases.
You're right. It's from warm water vapour condensing in a cold atmosphere (negative 50 or colder at altitude, negative 24 or colder at sea level). Hydrogen fueled planes will still produce contrails.
Hi, If the air is oversaturated in water, the sublimation or evaporation doesn't occur. Also, loss of heat is precisely when the contrail forms, not when it disppear.
@victorvastel8028 and when the heat has dispersed the trail also disperses. There is no force holding the trail together. In almost all cases the air has passed through a high bypass engine. Less the 20 % of the used air has been subjected to heat of any kind. There shouldn't be a trail at all particularly when the plane is only at 15 to 25k in the air.
@@richardpatterson302 Hi " *and when the heat has dispersed the trail also disperses.* " Condensation occurs when the temperature drops below the dew point. So heat pursuing its dispersion when condensation already happened would actually make it even more persisting. " *There is no force holding the trail together.* " What "force" necessary for condensation to last would be missing then? What force would there be in a fully natural and lasting nimbostratus that would be lacking in an "hypothetical lasting contrail"? " *In almost all cases the air has passed through the bypass engine. Less the 20 % of the used air has been subjected to heat of any kind. There shouldn't be a trail at all particularly when the plane is only at 15 to 25k in the air.* " Please correct me if I'm wrong : are you saying that contrails actually can't exist? Because for people claiming that there are chemtrails, their existence is usually admitted and their difference in term of persistence with what they call "chemtrails" is actually advanced as a proof by them.
@victorvastel8028 the " contrail" is water vapor in a temporary solid form ( correct ) which should naturally return to thin air literally. If solids in nono sized particles are dispersed into the trail of the plane they would in concentration be visible for hours or all day even. No confusion on my part. We see what we see, silver shit filling the sky in growing lines till the sky becomes blanketed. Most days, even on somewhat clear ones ou can still see the silver tinge around the sun. This didn't happen 40 years ago. Clouds didn't have wave patterns in them. Skies were clear and blue .
Well done for highlighting this, I'm myself a climate scientist and an aviation geek and conciliating flying and C neutrality is essential ! The next decade will be key to develop fairly produced biofuels and electric planes.
I think the issue with 100% Hydrogene is large storage needed on the aircraft as well as the need for H to be produced sustainably (not done at a larger scale currently), so looks like low C synthetic fuels (mixed H and captured carbon) may be the most viable solution.
Very interesting perspective about reducing the number of flights during the night. I'm actually competing in a student competition initiated by Lufthansa to optimise flight routes for contrail reduction, so the airlines have definetly taken note of the problem.
This is bananas. "One widely accepted study [cite?] says that one day's contrails has more impact [on what?] than all emissions since the dawn of the jet age" So every day we are doubling our "impact"? This guy has no clue
Cirrus clouds naturally block in heat, so I guess we need to get rid of these first before we eliminate contrails. Also nobody is talking about planes dumping fuel before landing. I'd think that would be more serious than this...Most of this post is sarcasm anyway, I agree with your comment.
Yeah, so next time you get a hot cup of coffee or tea, and you wanna keep it warm, don't bother with a lid. Just put a piece of string over it. It'll stay nice and warm.
@@andrewday3206 okay, so contrails are condensation formed by compression of air. Suppose every flight produced contrails 100% of the time multiply the area just assuming that the contrail is the full width of the plane. Further assume 100% solar blockage. The coverage is infinitely small. Further physics as a science has nothing to do with this. Also physics doesn’t lie but humans misapply it and often lie to support their own prejudiced opinions. Saying science is real is an ignorant statement that attempts to make he listener blindly accept a premise.
@@optimisticfuture6808 It’s actually condensation caused by the very cold air. It is not compression as air up high is thinner. The contrails get wider than the plane as they disperse. They can be many miles long. It is not just absorption of additional solar energy, but it’s insulating effect during the night not allow heat to radiate into space. Water can absorb a lot of energy, hence its use in radiators. This has everything to do with science and a Mass and Energy Balance.
Let's imagine an airline could buy space in the desert, and cover it with mirrors facing the sky to reflect heat back into space. How much area would they need to cover to undo the effect of one red-eye flight per day?
You'd need to factor in the CO2 expense of building the mirrors, transporting them and installing them in the desert (instead of mirrors It would make more sense to use plastic covers like the ones that cover greenhouses)
I have often observed the growth of contrails during the day, at various latitudes, and that they grow to essentially cover the sky with cirrus clouds by evening. How long they persist at night I don't know, but they are often persistent and growing into cirrus during the day. Studies have shown that they do affect temperature, first demonstrated just after 9/11 when there was no air traffic over the US for several days and temperatures dropped. It has also been proposed that relatively small changes in altitude up or down will prevent condensation, so there may be relatively simple fixes for the worst of the problem. On the other hand, GHG emission , especially at higher altitudes, may be ameliorated by reverting to somewhat slower but more efficient turboprops, or developing even higher by-pass ratio geared fanjets (such as those on the A220). Flying at 400 instead of 500 mph is not a big penalty to pay for less GHG emission and no contrails.
Saying "contrails grow" is not really accurate. They TRIGGER growing of cirrus clouds from the ambient moisture - a process, that would have, in most cases, occurred anyway - just a bit later. The contribution to the total moisture content of the air by the water from the engines is negligible.
This is interesting, I’m not sure what you mean here. My observations are that the ice crystals fan out and persist. In heavy traffic areas these plumes of crystals blanket the sky. Not sure what the trigger is.
If we want to cut down on carbon emissions we should switch the whole power grid to nuclear. Most people think it is dangerous but it actually isn’t. It is pretty much no emission, and it is really efficient for how much you need. One small reactor and power a submarine for 25-30 years. If we have maybe 10-20 in a state like California or New York they could be set for a couple decades. Probably the same in Europe per country
Studies have been done on the effects of contrails on climate. There are two opposite effects : - greenhouse effects, trapping the heat emitted by earth surface - reflection of solar rays, leading to a cooling effect The net balance of these two effects is close to zero.
Didn't scientists find that contrails lower surface temperatures by analyzing the data from the post 9/11 period due to reflecting energy back before it hits the ground? Also, it seems odd that contrails would cause more insulation effect on energy radiated from the earth rather than reflection effect on energy from the sun. After all, the vast majority of thermal energy that radiates from the earth originated from the sun to begin with.
If airline pilots are for some reason venting fuel a lot more often than they used to, this might account for an increase in long-persisting contrails over the last couple of decades. It's a possibility worth looking at. Why might jet pilots be venting fuel unnecessarily? A little sky-blue thinking suggests some potential answers: Kickbacks from folks the jet fuel industry? Or maybe as a collective silent protest against something they can't speak about without endangering their jobs? Say, regarding the official story of the behavior of American Airlines Flight 77 on 9/11/01? Professional pilots everywhere know it's a lie, but they can't talk about it.
Exaust cooling and condensation would solve it. Bring the temperature of exaust of the turbine back below 100C (possible with the air around at - 50C) dropt the condensate (mostly water) leaving very little cloud.
Most of the North America to Europe flights are overnight...Leave in the evening and because you're flying against the sun, the night time happens during the flight and you end up landing in Europe in the morning. I can't say the airlines are likely going to follow suit on this because it would force the planes to spend a very large number of hours on the ground waiting for a daytime flight back to the continent.
You should have mentioned that Japanese study that suggest altering the path or altitude of merely 2% of flights over Japan to reduce contrail formation by 80%.
There is actually a tracking system in place currently to identify weather which is likely to form contrails now. It just has not been used to divert planes away from these areas since it would cost the airlines in fuel and longer flight times.
1.5° temperature rise for climate catastrophe. 🤔 Wasn't Florida, Denmark, and a few other places supposed to be under water like 2 decades ago already ? 🤷♂️
It is going to be hard for people to not take night-time flying if the flight flies against the sun, like US to EU or EU to AU or Asia or from there to US.
Tbh I was originally thinking this video was one big troll for the chemtrail idiots. But if the solution is no more commercial night flights, then you risk all those flights being during the day. When flight demand finally comes back (and it will) that traffic demand is still going to be there. So you trade one solution for another.
Nope, it's not a matter of quantity of flights, but quantity of clouds on the unhlit side of the planet. This specific issue is not directly connected with carbon emissions.
The contrails are significantly affected by cosmic radiation, which in turn is affected by the solar magnetic field. Weak magnetic field increases the comic radiation, significantly reducing contrails.
The ideal solution would involve creating an engine/fuel/whatever system, which did not procude the contrails at the same time it DECREASES fuel consumption. This way, the airlines would implement it by themselves, eyeing the savings on cash, with the 'side effect' of no contrails.
Con-trails are hot air mixing with cold air which basically makes a cloud. Yes it has sut but most of it is just water. And they’re so small I highly doubt they’re as bad as you make it.
They could have negative effects but these effects are not the ones he claims. There is truth about the day and night time temps being effected. Other than that he’s way off.
Oh, about night time flying, it is cheaper because airlines use it to move planes around to supply the daytime demands. If those planes can't be flown at night, it will have to be done during the day -> less flights to carry people (the planes won't be there yet) -> less supply + more demand = higher prices. Not so simple.
The amount of red eye passenger flights pale in comparison to the amount of cargo flights flying at night. Whats worse is these cargo carriers often use older "dirtier" birds. Other than buying new aircraft (which isn't always the best economic decision) how do we fix them when they have to fly at night?
A total nonsense. Contrail has nothing to do with "dirty combustion". The soot is often being mentioned as causing nuclei for forming ice crystals from the supercooled ambient moisture, but the significance of it is grossly overstated. The contrail mostly forms as result of of the extra moisture from the engine tips the humidity level over the saturation point. In an oversaturated air also the mere agitation by the engines trips the process of "deposition" - something like this: ua-cam.com/video/kEHdyiBMgAg/v-deo.html
I'm not sure about the rest of the U.S. But in southern Utah we have little to no contrails during the summer months. As someone who spends to much time on FR24 and looking up.. aircraft must be at 40,000+. Even then it dissipates very quickly.
My contrail conspiracy is this. Humans will always readily seek instant gratification, or seek out a bargain as in saving a few bucks for a redeye flight. So...good luck with that.
From economic point of view if all passengers start traveling only day time the prices of night flying will go down and day flying will more expensive.
Is increasing cruising altitude above the contrail zone a feasible solution? Some commercial flights already use 40,000-41,000ft which shouldn't be too far off (or maybe it already is above contrails).
There is a project to reroute flights to levels where conditions don't allow contrails to form - look on UA-cam for "innovating to prevent contrail formation"
@@get_emld I think we got caught into a bit of semantics :-). Of course prop planes make contrails the same way as jets do. I was trying to say the reason we see less contrails from them is they don't fly at the required altitude that often. I felt your way of saying it wasn't clear.
nice videos but as middle income people who are on budget we normally prefer night fights so we can save on hotels and explore the city as soon as we land! also most long haul flights r at night so they reach the next day morning or after noon !
This video makes it sound like aviation is not a major problem if the issue of contrails be solved. Unfortunately the study that says contrails in a year are worse than all the accumulated CO2 emissions is behind a paywall (www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1068) This page from the IPCC says CO2 + NOx) has a greater effect (+0.041 W m-2) than contrails (+0.020 W m-2). Given one study versus the IPCC, both must be quoted, at least. EXTRACT The components of aircraft-induced radiative forcing are as follows: CO2, +0.018 W m-2; NOx, +0.023 W m-2 (via ozone changes) and -0.014 W m-2 (via methane changes); contrails, +0.02 W m-2; stratospheric H2O, +0.002 W m-2; sulfate aerosol (direct effect), -0.003 W m-2; and black carbon aerosol (soot), +0.003 W m-2. archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/aviation/index.php?idp=64
It really depend at which study you look at... I don't think anybody is really sure about the extend of the problem (if there is any). From this fact alone my conclusion is, it can't be that bad :-).
Does the opposite also apply when the sun is reflected outwards by about the same amount, or it seems to be here when it is cloudy it is colder an miserable.
True. Good conditions for forming contrails are consistent with a high relative humidity that is also causing forming cirrus clouds. Every sailor and farmer knows cirrus clouds mean a cold front is coming and even meteorologists noticed it lately :-).
Okay, so let's have all of those red-eye flyers travel during the day instead. Of course there aren't enough day flights available for that, since airliners are pretty much fully booked during those hours. Simple solution? Build lots more airplanes so they can all sit idle at night. All of that extra manufacturing isn't going to have any effect on CO2 emissions, is it? Nah, our intentions are good. But wait, with all of these extra planes flying during the peak daytime hours, we'll need extra gates at all of the airports, and more runways to handle them, and larger concourses to deal with the increased traffic. Not to worry. Governments all over the world are flush with excess tax money, and trillions of dollars in new construction could be done without any increase in CO2, right guys? Right? Guys?
Kind of shocked but also VERY glad there aren’t more climate change deniers in the comments. Coby Explanes viewers must be smarter than the average youtube viewer
You mean dumber- Climate change theology opposers represent the highest educational standards in the world including a hundred NASA employees and some astronauts who have multiple doctorates. Dyson a giant of the scientific world was one those you classify as a denier.
planeshame, how tolerant of you. You're a good liberal. Anyone that disagrees with you is promptly made fun of. Straight out of the lib playbook.
He needs more subs.
@Tom Sherwood Gender deniers? Do such exists? That's something new to me.
Suggestion: when mentioning a study, please, include references. Credibility is everything. Besides, researchers deserve credit for their work as well.
Suggestion: when mentioning a study, please, include references. Credibility is everything. Besides, researchers deserve credit for their work as well.
ua-cam.com/video/Hd2jA0lT8N0/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/rI2OGALLTT0/v-deo.html
@@Letsberealish Asking someone to link a clearly cited study in the description isn't asking them to do your homework, lol. It's a basic responsibility when making media that will be viewed by tens of thousands of people.
@@Letsberealish XXX wrong answer.
I mean it is a proven fact that cloud cover at night acts like a blanket and insulates and keeps heat in a cloudy night will always be warmer than a clear night
It's a major problem that crap is in our air and we are all breathing it there is all kinds of polymers in the jet fuel made to make these trails last longer to reflect sunlight away from the planet
FBI: Why did you release this video
Cody: Let me explain
coby*
Underrated comment
Coby*: Let me explane*
no he will say "Let me explane"
@@hawkeye6038 underrated and understated, but we got his point. Let me explane, the jibberish coming out of his mouth is nonsense in every respect of the word. The coined term which Mr. Let Me Explane conspicously avoids, ie, c h e m t r a i l s, linger in the air, often becoming a washed out white sky, distinctly different from contrails. He is either very dumb or purposely evading the haracteristics and differences between contrails and aerosol spraying by commercial airliners.
I was walking through the BNA when a lady stopped me and asked me “what’s the deal with chem-trails” (btw, in my pilot uniform). I started explain contrails, condensation and such... her reply “no, I mean chem-trails... population control...”
My response “wouldn’t it just be easier to spike the water supply”
Her face was priceless, looked like, oh yeah.
That’s exactly what they want you to think
Good answer capitán
I think that lady's mind 'triggered' her to hear "chemtrail" than "contrail." Cognitive bias, of sort.
How stupid. Spiking the water supply would be obvious. Slowly poisoning people is covert.
They do, flouride
A cloud.... They are everywhere
Greek name of this cloud translates in English to man made. Do your research don't be a sheep
HERE IS YOUR JOKE
Will invisible planes ever be a thing?
I just can't see them taking off.
Your talking privileges have been revoked
Just like the 737max! Lol
taking away your right to speak rn
You suck McBain!
Im sure the military has some secret cloaking device in the works. 🤔
Huge difference between contrails and chemtrails. Contrails last about 20 seconds, chemtrails last for hours and spread for miles and miles and leave a grey haze.
This is one of the best explanations of contrails and their effect on the climate that I have seen. I have read several studies regarding this and it seems to be ignored. If you can look up in the sky and see blue skies clouded over by contrails, then you can see first hand what Coby is speaking of. All concerned citizens of the world should be concerned about this. Just go to a flight tracker site and see how many planes are in the air, how can this NOT effect the climate?
The effects can be neglected if there's a closed cloud cover anyway, can't they? Because here in germany I'd say we got that about halfway through the year. Also I think that during the daytime clouds will actually radiate heat back into space. That would mean that the effects on temperature during the daytime are not balanced but rather positive. Am I wrong?
I still don't understand how can Coby have only 41k subscribers as his videos are very informative. He deserves much more at least 500k. Always well presented and clearly spoken.
Thumbs up Coby 👍 keep up the good work
Same I’m baffled
Because this video is bullshit. It’s like saying that clouds are killing the planet. He’s a douche bad.
This guy has a odd presentation style and is just throwing darts in the dark. People are getting savvy to people who spout off about how the sky is falling, however there are issues with contrails just not ones he addresses.
After 911 Frontline told us that the airline shutdown temporarily stopped the normal "global dimming" that contrails help create(according to them) and that temperatures rose because there were no flights. That sounds like a lot of crap to me, because in 2020 here in Maine we had one of the coldest summers(especially at night) that I've ever experienced. That's when flights were shut down because of the PeeDemic. Maybe Frontline was being misleading and were only taking into account the DAYTIME temp rise. Were they trying to propagandize us into believing that contrails overall COOL the planet? Seems like it to me. Very strange
Nice way to deflect what's really going on.
Ok, this dude way over states the impact of contrails. If all the contrails were gathered into one area it would be a problem, but they aren't. The is where the classic line of "the solution to pollution is dilution" comes into play. The thin contrails, being dispersed as they are, don't have the impact that he's claiming.
Also, it's not passenger flights that are the driving factor if night time contrails, it's freight flights, as that's the time when commercial traffic is low, so they can fly with minimal impact to travel.
So, like most climate alarmists, he way overstates the impact and simply ignores that main causing factors.
Could you provide sources for your claims?
@@fernandolora1905 You're asking me for sources, yet the video didn't provide any.
Also, the "solution to pollution is dilution" is a well known quote, especially in the waste remediation (hazmat type cleanup) industry. I know that as my father worked in the industry for years (he has a degree in biology). Basically, 1 drop of hydrochloric acid on your skin will cause damage, while 1 drop in a swimming pool in undetectable. It's also why smog forms around cities (lots of pollution in a concentrated area) and not in the middle of Kansas (still pollution, just not as much as it's "diluted")
Also, heat radiation doesn't "bounce around" like he claims. Heat rises, period. The contrails may hold the heat in, but once they evaporate (which they do relatively quickly) the heat just escapes anyways. Also, the heat needs to melt the ice crystals formed anyways, so it's no longer hot.
If you're asking about my cargo plane claim, well, first, I know several pilots who fly for cargo companies, and they mainly fly at night. Second, why else do you think it's called "overnight shipping". Anyways, I've attached an article by USA today about overnight flight, but if you Google "why are there planes flying at 4am" or "why does cargo fly overnight" you'll get a bunch of articles about cargo flying overnight.
www.usatoday.com/story/travel/columnist/cox/2014/08/24/cargo-planes-late-night-air-traffic/14258707/
@@fernandolora1905 Oh, also, NASA and NOAA did a study on it, and while there was minor heating it was an extremely local thing (only around high air traffic areas) and the amount was negligible compared to the heating due to carbon emissions
@@nathan1sixteen i see. Ill believe you instead of Coby in this instance. You sure are quite knowledgeable around this topic!
@@fernandolora1905 I mean, don't believe me, go do your own research, read up on it, and come to your own conclusion.
From the research I've done, most if the "this is causing massive amounts of climate change" stories typically end up being way overblown. I'm not saying climate change isn't real, it is real, I'm simply saying that the human impact on it is waaaaaaayyyyyyyy smaller than climate alarmists say and the impacts of climate change are nowhere near what most people like to preach.
Also, I'm not against innovation. As a recent Aerospace Engineering graduate, researching new forms of fuel and propulsion methods is obviously something I'm interested in, and if we can find a cleaner way to propel aircraft I'm all for it. But, simply saying we need to reduce air traffic isn't a solution, it's a "push the problem down the road" method. We live in a connected world, and while I know Zoom meetings have become the new standard over the last few months, there is still a substantial benefit to in person, face to face meetings, something that will definitely pick up again once everyone stops freaking out about coronavirus.
I'd recommend you take a look at some of Bjorn Lomborg. He's considered to be a top climate scientist, and dispels a lot of the climate change hysteria that a lot of people like to push.
www.lomborg.com/
This is highly inaccurate. Planes do contribute to climate change however these contrails are hardly an issue. Those research papers /experts/ and what studies? Not a link in the description or shred of evidence to back this theory. Contrails are way to small to be trapping any kind of heat. It's just condensation because at that altitude outside temperatures reach -60c.
This video is pretty much a whole mess of misinformation.
Nope sorry you denied this one completely inaccurate piece of information. You are a denier. Nope it doesn't matter that your correct. You questioned any aspect of climate change therefore we should censor you permanently and cause you to lose your job.
Great point, that’s what I was thinking to myself as well.
www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/do-airplane-contrails-add-climate-change-yes-problem-about-get-ncna1034521
www.wired.com/story/plane-contrails-surprising-effect-global-warming/
From 1980:
ua-cam.com/video/L6X5QZDQ6mw/v-deo.html
It’s like coby knows exactly what we’re wondering about aviation. Love the vids.
Love the variety in the content too it’s not all just airline news
This post proves that intelligent life in the universe is indeed rare.
Would be interesting to see a follow up on the new Airbus Hydrogen project
Hydrogen combustion would also produce water vapour and therefor contrails so nothing more than a rouse, and currently H2 production produces masses of CO2 just not at the point of use.
I was in the infantry for 6 yrs, communications for 4 yrs and NBC specialist for 6 yrs. During the Nuclear training portion we did a study testing contamination in the air at one location at different heights and the increase over a year was significant. Different contamination can be at different heights in the atmosphere but sooner or later it will mix with water and down it comes. The exhaust effects has been studied for many years and it is not changing. The less emissions is great but the number of planes keeps increasing and that is the bottom line. All we can do is keep making fuel burn cleaner because as long as i drive a car I can't complain. Unless we go back to the 1800s there's not too much we can do to stop our planet from dying.
No sorry you don't get it. The planet will be fine, it's *us* that will die, and in pretty unpleasant ways (pandemics, famines, wars), if we don't stop immediately heating the spaceship we live in.
No they do contribute to heating at night! It Is a serious problem.
I'm an aircraft mechanic for the airlines 18 yrs. Contrails come from the water entrained in the fuel hitting sub zero temperatures coming out the back end of the engine. They also come from the effect of Bernouli's Principal over the top of the wing as it moves through the air. That's it nothing more. You are always going to have some soot from combustion of any kind except hydrogen and oxygen which gives you water. Then you are pumping more water into the upper atmosphere. Soot will eventually fall down, water will not. Are you proposing that we shut every airline in the world down? Then we are going to have to live with it aren't we?
Hey it’s been a while since you made this comment but I have a question. How long would you say contrails can last in the sky? My only concern is why they stay up for so long if it was just condensation?, also they spread out very thick so that the whole sky is just haze after a cpl hours of seeing the initial tight lines. Seems like you would know why this happens, it’s the only reason I do believe they are chemicals and not condensation.
@@richc369 so the reason they last longer than aerodynamic contrails (those mini cloud-like things that you see on the wings of the jets in Top Gun, for example) is because of the ambient temperature of the air. You'll notice they form at high altitude. When the ambient air at altitude is negative 50, and the hot humid exhaust gases mix, you get condensation. Think about how you car windshield fogs up on a cold day.
Now when you wind down your car window, (or blast the windshield with dry air from you AC, removing humidity) the temperature inside your car becomes as cold as outside and the condensation goes away.
Same principle for contrails except it takes ages for the warm exhaust to get back down to negative 50, because the difference between the very cold air and the warm exhaust is so large. That's why they stick around for a while, it takes time for large temperature gaps to reach equilibrium. Hope this helps!
@@joshuah5556 that’s awesome, and I kind of knew already it had something to do with the extreme cold at those altitudes , another question I have is why are there trails only some days, some days are completely clear blue sky but obviously planes are flying at those altitudes every day?
@@richc369 Contrails are clouds, even if they are caused by planes. You'll notice that on the days they last more, there are also high-altitude clouds such as cirruses and cirrostratuses.
@@markotrieste so why only some days there are contrails? At those high altitudes it’s always freezing temperatures so shouldn’t it always have the safe effect?
They've already know contrail's effects but they chose not to bother bc its happens less frequently than cars driving. Curious Droid did videos for it.
lmfao as they continue slaughtering every race from existence for a few hundred more years
I remember reading that there was a temperature drop when all flights were stopped over the US after 9/11
How can you reduce night flights when traveling from the US to Europe when your major airports are already slot-restricted? There aren’t enough runways. Also, you’d kill the next-day air services.
This is so much more than just a few red-eye flights from LA to New York. There are so many long haul flights now where no matter when you leave you’re going to be flying at night during some part of it.
Yea we better work on getting rid of those pesky regular clouds to!
Glad you kept and intelligent argument. I repsectully disagree and jet engines have become more efficient and cleaner than ever before.
True there is a new engine out that is much more efficient and quiet, I believe they found a way to ditch the fan blades.
@@michaelnice93 I mean even normal high bypass turbofans. People also forget that you can use hydrogen fuel in jet engine, which produce water as it's exhaust.
The funny thing in my area, only one jet had a disappearing trail, the others had persistent trails. One which flew low near my house, expanded to three or four times its size. After californias neverending drought, kentucky tornadoes and the anticipated heat wave in the south. I say something is up, and anything that effects the natural clouds is my enemy.
LOL- contrails are nothing more than the hot air mixing with the cold air. LOL
Mixing with cold air that is humid... the water vapor was already there in the air. If it's not humid and cold, then no contrail. (The water from the engines is minuscule compared to the water vapor in the air)
Using less carbon emitting fuel like hydrogen or biofeedback is more expensive and an airline only makes $100 on average of profit per flight with normal jet fuel, using more expensive biofuel makes it a net negative profit for airlines
Your solution of changing fuel is naive, as is the explanation of contrails forming only on soot and other solid nuclei in the exhaust. They do, but they would form without these anyway. The deposition process of supercooled water vapors can be started by only adding a bit of more water or just by an agitation of the saturated air. There are well documented contrails behind rockets burning pure hydrogen.
Cutting night flights seems like a good idea, but as almost always, it's not that simple. A major issue that's been plaguing commercial aviation (pre-covid-19) is airport congestion. Major airports around the world are trying to accommodate more flights and more aircraft then they were designed to handle. And the airspace around these airports are crazy congested and Flow restrictions are frequently used to simply keep the airspace manageable in order to maintain separation. Cancelling night flights means trying to cram the same daily number of flights into a much smaller window of time, massively compounding the congestion problem.
Wow, I used to think contrails are basically icy exhaust, you know like how cars appear to blow massive amount of white steam in winter.
And why do you think it is anything else now?
www.kathrynsreport.com/2017/10/what-really-comes-out-of-airplane.html
Well that's what they are, ice clouds that form around exhaust. Those steam plumes from cars in winter ARE in fact mini contrails of a sort!
This has to be BS. I don't understand the logic behind Clouds blocking heat radiation. The ground is hot and heats the air above it. That air heats the air above that and so forth. When it hits a cloud it will just heat the cloud. What makes heat hard to dissipate isn't the visibility of the particles, it is the density of the particles and their structure. The thicker the air, the hotter it is, like Venus vs Mars.
Radiation. Ever heard of that?
Thoughts on how Boom Supersonic is going to use carbon neutral alternative fuels and yet contrails will remain?
My understanding of contrails is that the water vapor does not come from the engine at all, rather the ambient humidity surrounding the plane. So we would still see contrails, but they would not have any affect past that of a regular cloud.
Water comes from the fuel. The fuel is effectively just carbon and hydrogen molecules, they both bond to oxygen to make carbon dioxide and hydrogen monoxide (water). Nearly all liquid fuels contain some form of hydrogen unfortunately. The only way to really eliminate it is by doing the burning on the ground, where water vapour's heating effect is negligible and doesn't stay around. As in, convert it to energy on the ground and using energy storage in the airplanes. The only effective way of doing that really is batteries, while also electric engines are just straight up incomparable to a commercial bypass jet engine in terms of capability. We would have to find a way to negate the effect of it by going far and beyond carbon neutral in other things. Incorporating things that might help eliminate all green house gases.
You're right. It's from warm water vapour condensing in a cold atmosphere (negative 50 or colder at altitude, negative 24 or colder at sea level). Hydrogen fueled planes will still produce contrails.
Why do the contrails last all day ? Sublimation normally happens when the heat dissipates which should be in minutes.
That's the sulphur, ever smelt the air eggy ?
Hi,
If the air is oversaturated in water, the sublimation or evaporation doesn't occur.
Also, loss of heat is precisely when the contrail forms, not when it disppear.
@victorvastel8028 and when the heat has dispersed the trail also disperses. There is no force holding the trail together. In almost all cases the air has passed through a high bypass engine. Less the 20 % of the used air has been subjected to heat of any kind. There shouldn't be a trail at all particularly when the plane is only at 15 to 25k in the air.
@@richardpatterson302 Hi
" *and when the heat has dispersed the trail also disperses.* "
Condensation occurs when the temperature drops below the dew point. So heat pursuing its dispersion when condensation already happened would actually make it even more persisting.
" *There is no force holding the trail together.* "
What "force" necessary for condensation to last would be missing then?
What force would there be in a fully natural and lasting nimbostratus that would be lacking in an "hypothetical lasting contrail"?
" *In almost all cases the air has passed through the bypass engine. Less the 20 % of the used air has been subjected to heat of any kind. There shouldn't be a trail at all particularly when the plane is only at 15 to 25k in the air.* "
Please correct me if I'm wrong : are you saying that contrails actually can't exist? Because for people claiming that there are chemtrails, their existence is usually admitted and their difference in term of persistence with what they call "chemtrails" is actually advanced as a proof by them.
@victorvastel8028 the " contrail" is water vapor in a temporary solid form ( correct ) which should naturally return to thin air literally. If solids in nono sized particles are dispersed into the trail of the plane they would in concentration be visible for hours or all day even. No confusion on my part. We see what we see, silver shit filling the sky in growing lines till the sky becomes blanketed. Most days, even on somewhat clear ones ou can still see the silver tinge around the sun. This didn't happen 40 years ago. Clouds didn't have wave patterns in them. Skies were clear and blue .
Because its ...water vapor. The colors? Well, we have understood refraction since Newton... in the 17th century.
Well done for highlighting this, I'm myself a climate scientist and an aviation geek and conciliating flying and C neutrality is essential !
The next decade will be key to develop fairly produced biofuels and electric planes.
Biofuels would seem less effective than LNG or liquid hydrogen (but at least they're not cryogenic)
I think the issue with 100% Hydrogene is large storage needed on the aircraft as well as the need for H to be produced sustainably (not done at a larger scale currently), so looks like low C synthetic fuels (mixed H and captured carbon) may be the most viable solution.
@@get_emld Why would you mix the two? Seems like the worst of both, best of neither.
Very interesting perspective about reducing the number of flights during the night. I'm actually competing in a student competition initiated by Lufthansa to optimise flight routes for contrail reduction, so the airlines have definetly taken note of the problem.
This is bananas. "One widely accepted study [cite?] says that one day's contrails has more impact [on what?] than all emissions since the dawn of the jet age"
So every day we are doubling our "impact"?
This guy has no clue
So contrails can do what the total cloud cover of the planet can't do. Got it. AOC will love this.
Lol- We all love airplanes on this channel... but If we want to live longer than 10 more years, we need to get rid of all of them.
Cirrus clouds naturally block in heat, so I guess we need to get rid of these first before we eliminate contrails. Also nobody is talking about planes dumping fuel before landing. I'd think that would be more serious than this...Most of this post is sarcasm anyway, I agree with your comment.
Yeah, so next time you get a hot cup of coffee or tea, and you wanna keep it warm, don't bother with a lid. Just put a piece of string over it. It'll stay nice and warm.
I can’t even begin to count the number of basic flaws in this supposed fact. If this sounds ridiculous and little known it’s because it is fringe.
Is this sarcasm, or are you trying to leave an uneducated comment?
@@andrewday3206 it’s so ridiculous to make a statement that contrails significantly impact solar effect on the earth.
@@optimisticfuture6808
Maybe to some, but physics doesn’t lie.
@@andrewday3206 okay, so contrails are condensation formed by compression of air. Suppose every flight produced contrails 100% of the time multiply the area just assuming that the contrail is the full width of the plane. Further assume 100% solar blockage. The coverage is infinitely small. Further physics as a science has nothing to do with this. Also physics doesn’t lie but humans misapply it and often lie to support their own prejudiced opinions. Saying science is real is an ignorant statement that attempts to make he listener blindly accept a premise.
@@optimisticfuture6808
It’s actually condensation caused by the very cold air. It is not compression as air up high is thinner. The contrails get wider than the plane as they disperse. They can be many miles long. It is not just absorption of additional solar energy, but it’s insulating effect during the night not allow heat to radiate into space. Water can absorb a lot of energy, hence its use in radiators. This has everything to do with science and a Mass and Energy Balance.
Let's imagine an airline could buy space in the desert, and cover it with mirrors facing the sky to reflect heat back into space. How much area would they need to cover to undo the effect of one red-eye flight per day?
You'd need to factor in the CO2 expense of building the mirrors, transporting them and installing them in the desert (instead of mirrors It would make more sense to use plastic covers like the ones that cover greenhouses)
38k square miles is .01% of the earth at sea level.
I have often observed the growth of contrails during the day, at various latitudes, and that they grow to essentially cover the sky with cirrus clouds by evening. How long they persist at night I don't know, but they are often persistent and growing into cirrus during the day. Studies have shown that they do affect temperature, first demonstrated just after 9/11 when there was no air traffic over the US for several days and temperatures dropped. It has also been proposed that relatively small changes in altitude up or down will prevent condensation, so there may be relatively simple fixes for the worst of the problem. On the other hand, GHG emission , especially at higher altitudes, may be ameliorated by reverting to somewhat slower but more efficient turboprops, or developing even higher by-pass ratio geared fanjets (such as those on the A220). Flying at 400 instead of 500 mph is not a big penalty to pay for less GHG emission and no contrails.
Saying "contrails grow" is not really accurate. They TRIGGER growing of cirrus clouds from the ambient moisture - a process, that would have, in most cases, occurred anyway - just a bit later. The contribution to the total moisture content of the air by the water from the engines is negligible.
This is interesting, I’m not sure what you mean here. My observations are that the ice crystals fan out and persist. In heavy traffic areas these plumes of crystals blanket the sky. Not sure what the trigger is.
If we want to cut down on carbon emissions we should switch the whole power grid to nuclear. Most people think it is dangerous but it actually isn’t. It is pretty much no emission, and it is really efficient for how much you need. One small reactor and power a submarine for 25-30 years. If we have maybe 10-20 in a state like California or New York they could be set for a couple decades. Probably the same in Europe per country
Studies have been done on the effects of contrails on climate. There are two opposite effects :
- greenhouse effects, trapping the heat emitted by earth surface
- reflection of solar rays, leading to a cooling effect
The net balance of these two effects is close to zero.
Don't forget to look up at the contrails!
Didn't scientists find that contrails lower surface temperatures by analyzing the data from the post 9/11 period due to reflecting energy back before it hits the ground? Also, it seems odd that contrails would cause more insulation effect on energy radiated from the earth rather than reflection effect on energy from the sun. After all, the vast majority of thermal energy that radiates from the earth originated from the sun to begin with.
by the way i love your channel im suprised you dont have 1 million subs
If airline pilots are for some reason venting fuel a lot more often than they used to, this might account for an increase in long-persisting contrails over the last couple of decades.
It's a possibility worth looking at. Why might jet pilots be venting fuel unnecessarily? A little sky-blue thinking suggests some potential answers: Kickbacks from folks the jet fuel industry? Or maybe as a collective silent protest against something they can't speak about without endangering their jobs? Say, regarding the official story of the behavior of American Airlines Flight 77 on 9/11/01? Professional pilots everywhere know it's a lie, but they can't talk about it.
Exaust cooling and condensation would solve it.
Bring the temperature of exaust of the turbine back below 100C (possible with the air around at - 50C) dropt the condensate (mostly water) leaving very little cloud.
**PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW 2 PLANES FLYING ABOUT THE SAME ALTITUDE ONE LEAVES A LONG "TRAIL" AND THE OTHER JUST A SMALL TRAIL??**
Most of the North America to Europe flights are overnight...Leave in the evening and because you're flying against the sun, the night time happens during the flight and you end up landing in Europe in the morning. I can't say the airlines are likely going to follow suit on this because it would force the planes to spend a very large number of hours on the ground waiting for a daytime flight back to the continent.
You should have mentioned that Japanese study that suggest altering the path or altitude of merely 2% of flights over Japan to reduce contrail formation by 80%.
There is actually a tracking system in place currently to identify weather which is likely to form contrails now. It just has not been used to divert planes away from these areas since it would cost the airlines in fuel and longer flight times.
1.5° temperature rise for climate catastrophe. 🤔 Wasn't Florida, Denmark, and a few other places supposed to be under water like 2 decades ago already ? 🤷♂️
Start going underwater by 2050 not 1990 and it starts in 2050 not underwater by 2050.
It is going to be hard for people to not take night-time flying if the flight flies against the sun, like US to EU or EU to AU or Asia or from there to US.
Tbh I was originally thinking this video was one big troll for the chemtrail idiots. But if the solution is no more commercial night flights, then you risk all those flights being during the day. When flight demand finally comes back (and it will) that traffic demand is still going to be there. So you trade one solution for another.
Nope, it's not a matter of quantity of flights, but quantity of clouds on the unhlit side of the planet. This specific issue is not directly connected with carbon emissions.
Airbus: Write that down write that down!
Boeing: NMA...? No NMA....?
How come in the 80’s and before I have never seen these chem trail???
The contrails are significantly affected by cosmic radiation, which in turn is affected by the solar magnetic field.
Weak magnetic field increases the comic radiation, significantly reducing contrails.
Contrails reflect more solar radiation power than reflect from the ground, resulting in a cooling effect.
The ideal solution would involve creating an engine/fuel/whatever system, which did not procude the contrails at the same time it DECREASES fuel consumption. This way, the airlines would implement it by themselves, eyeing the savings on cash, with the 'side effect' of no contrails.
And unicorns, too
He knows literally everything
Covid-19 is taking care of the contrail problem right now.
How to not get your video viewed.
Include a conspiracy.
Does anyone know which studies are referenced in this?
Very interesting! Love your videos, keep them coming! 💪🏽
Con-trails are hot air mixing with cold air which basically makes a cloud. Yes it has sut but most of it is just water. And they’re so small I highly doubt they’re as bad as you make it.
They could have negative effects but these effects are not the ones he claims. There is truth about the day and night time temps being effected. Other than that he’s way off.
Oh, about night time flying, it is cheaper because airlines use it to move planes around to supply the daytime demands. If those planes can't be flown at night, it will have to be done during the day -> less flights to carry people (the planes won't be there yet) -> less supply + more demand = higher prices.
Not so simple.
The amount of red eye passenger flights pale in comparison to the amount of cargo flights flying at night. Whats worse is these cargo carriers often use older "dirtier" birds. Other than buying new aircraft (which isn't always the best economic decision) how do we fix them when they have to fly at night?
A total nonsense. Contrail has nothing to do with "dirty combustion". The soot is often being mentioned as causing nuclei for forming ice crystals from the supercooled ambient moisture, but the significance of it is grossly overstated. The contrail mostly forms as result of of the extra moisture from the engine tips the humidity level over the saturation point. In an oversaturated air also the mere agitation by the engines trips the process of "deposition" - something like this: ua-cam.com/video/kEHdyiBMgAg/v-deo.html
That's just water
I'm not sure about the rest of the U.S. But in southern Utah we have little to no contrails during the summer months. As someone who spends to much time on FR24 and looking up.. aircraft must be at 40,000+. Even then it dissipates very quickly.
I saw one of those years ago as a kid and until a month ago saw another one. The rest are persistent trails that expand to three times thier size.
Hydrogen powered aircraft will dump more water vapor and increase contrail density.
But there will be *significantly* less soot for it to freeze on, mitigating the effect.
Inert. Wrong.
My contrail conspiracy is this. Humans will always readily seek instant gratification, or seek out a bargain as in saving a few bucks for a redeye flight.
So...good luck with that.
Finally someone understands!!!
#ZEROe make a video on this
airbusses new planes
From economic point of view if all passengers start traveling only day time the prices of night flying will go down and day flying will more expensive.
Is increasing cruising altitude above the contrail zone a feasible solution? Some commercial flights already use 40,000-41,000ft which shouldn't be too far off (or maybe it already is above contrails).
Most commercial airline jets max out at FL410…it’s usually smaller private jets that can go way above that
There is a project to reroute flights to levels where conditions don't allow contrails to form - look on UA-cam for "innovating to prevent contrail formation"
Ahh... UA-cam with the "You're Lying" context sticker!
Seems like we're living too good of a life to care about such a tiny issue.
Those vapor trails are really dangerous........ 🤷🏼♂️
Lets not forget that prop planes make little to no contrails, although they are smaller and fly mostly at lower altitudes than commercial jets.
It is not "although". It is "because".
I thought props still make contrails at those altitudes
@@get_emld I think we got caught into a bit of semantics :-). Of course prop planes make contrails the same way as jets do. I was trying to say the reason we see less contrails from them is they don't fly at the required altitude that often. I felt your way of saying it wasn't clear.
Curious Cat ah ok
I love the style of Coby's videos
Yep. He sounds like Wesley Crusher of Star Trek Fame.
Think aviation is the less of our issues.... The cities and highways are the biggest 🙋🏾♂️
nice videos but as middle income people who are on budget we normally prefer night fights so we can save on hotels and explore the city as soon as we land! also most long haul flights r at night so they reach the next day morning or after noon !
This video makes it sound like aviation is not a major problem if the issue of contrails be solved.
Unfortunately the study that says contrails in a year are worse than all the accumulated CO2 emissions is behind a paywall (www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1068)
This page from the IPCC says CO2 + NOx) has a greater effect (+0.041 W m-2) than contrails (+0.020 W m-2). Given one study versus the IPCC, both must be quoted, at least.
EXTRACT
The components of aircraft-induced radiative forcing are as follows: CO2, +0.018 W m-2; NOx, +0.023 W m-2 (via ozone changes) and -0.014 W m-2 (via methane changes); contrails, +0.02 W m-2; stratospheric H2O, +0.002 W m-2; sulfate aerosol (direct effect), -0.003 W m-2; and black carbon aerosol (soot), +0.003 W m-2.
archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/aviation/index.php?idp=64
It really depend at which study you look at... I don't think anybody is really sure about the extend of the problem (if there is any). From this fact alone my conclusion is, it can't be that bad :-).
Really cool to see them but been years thanks for the great videos
Red eye flights suck anyway I don’t mind skipping them
i remember after 9/11, no planes in the sky and no contrails.
Coby is always the pioneer!
But When are we going to enjoy the dividend of this more than 80% cutback on uncivil passenger Aviation industry?
Oh good I needed another reason to hate red-eye flights...
Does the opposite also apply when the sun is reflected outwards by about the same amount, or it seems to be here when it is cloudy it is colder an miserable.
So by what is stated , you need dirty air to make clouds. Where does all the dirt come from for a thunderstorm? Or a hurricane. ?????
" if enough conscious consumers " what percentage is enough? 💜💙
Uh? You do know that contrails are not big enough or last too long in order to create problems, right?
Dumping jet fuel, crop dusting, cloud seeding, and carbon monoxide emissions are all realistic in aviation.
So... come up with an alternative. This is how many people travel overseas and how many of our commercial goods are shipped.
They also predict weather contrails which can be hundreds of miles long predict bad weather contrails a mile or less long predicts good weather.
True. Good conditions for forming contrails are consistent with a high relative humidity that is also causing forming cirrus clouds. Every sailor and farmer knows cirrus clouds mean a cold front is coming and even meteorologists noticed it lately :-).
Hoping consumers will change their behaviour is a sure-fire way of getting nothing done.
Therefore, is the piston prop engines are more environmental friendly than the Jets?
Nope. Both type of engines burn hydrocarbons and produce water. No difference in creating contrails.
contrailscience.com/wwii-contrails/
Okay, so let's have all of those red-eye flyers travel during the day instead. Of course there aren't enough day flights available for that, since airliners are pretty much fully booked during those hours. Simple solution? Build lots more airplanes so they can all sit idle at night. All of that extra manufacturing isn't going to have any effect on CO2 emissions, is it? Nah, our intentions are good. But wait, with all of these extra planes flying during the peak daytime hours, we'll need extra gates at all of the airports, and more runways to handle them, and larger concourses to deal with the increased traffic. Not to worry. Governments all over the world are flush with excess tax money, and trillions of dollars in new construction could be done without any increase in CO2, right guys? Right? Guys?