this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2026
339 points (98.0% liked)
Not The Onion
20465 readers
1109 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Should be easy, considering they don't exist to begin with.
Shush. We're this close to getting them to tax contrails, which would effectively be a tax on jet fuel.
No, you can fly to avoid the creation of contrails. Ironically, would actually be a boon for the environment, since contrail clouds are massive greenhouse generators https://youtube.com/shorts/qBPwloCdRKw
I thought they were just condensation?
Yes, but the phenomenon occurs at specific altitudes, so you just fly slightly higher or lower.
Gonna call BS on that short. Clouds cool the atmosphere because they reflect incoming visible light. Clouds also absorb infrared light, causing a greenhouse effect, but they also do that when they're not condensed into clouds. Their infrared absorption depends primarily on their composition, which doesn't change. Contrails are basically equivalent to cloud seeding, which is a method of cooling the atmosphere by increasing cloud cover.
Current scientific consensus is that contrails are a net contributor to warming (they trap more heat from escaping the atmosphere than they prevent from entering overall) - but it's a complex phenomena that's difficult to model, so studies vary a lot in estimating the magnitude of this effect - from being a fraction of airplane CO2 emissions, to being several time that.
There are both cooling and warming contrails.
This isn't someone guessing, man. He's citing research on the topic.
Essentially, these clouds are 50% opacity to visible light, but nearly 100% in infrared. So they block some incoming light, but reflect almost all infrared from the surface. It's a net warming effect at these altitudes.
Oh….. dear.
Depends on your definition of "chemical". Technically all trails are chem trails, including hiking trails.
And snail trails.
And happy trails.
And entrails.
I can think of light trails that aren't chemical in nature
until they decide enforcement means no contrails at all and suddenly they've found a new and exciting way to economically ruin the country.
Contrails contribute to global warming and are completely avoidable.
Contrails are mostly water vapour that's condensed due to the hot exhaust of airplane engines.
They are certainly not completely avoidable, they are likely inescapable without sacrificing significant fuel efficiencies (eg: all methods stealth fighters use to suppress or mask their exhaust heat signature).. which would negate any benefits to global warming.
P. s. I'm not going to watch a YouTube video that could be a few paragraphs of textual explanation, because it'll no doubt be eight times longer than it needs to be for the benefit of more ad money or promotion in the almighty algorithm.
It’s a 2:35 short , btw. Quite dense and to the point. And one of the points is that you’re wrong about it not offsetting the extra fuel to avoid contrail zones.
Pretty sad that your comment gets so much attention while dismissing a huge breakthrough in research.
Maybe we shouldn’t have to SMASH THAT LIKE BUTTON to have a discussion on the internet, or sit through an ad read for Brilliant or whatever
Do we seriously have to listen to people air their gripes about internet video anytime a link is shared? Jesus Christ.
If YouTube links were banned, we wouldn't.
And maybe people dismiss comments that dont get liked and assume the answer that gets liked is "more correct". Yes I wish it would work without the likes systemy but in reality 90% of the internet is AI slop and misinformation.
In his defense, the comment didn't say shit about breakthrough research, it said "watch this".
Say what you want to say and people won't dismiss it. Link to something random and who knows.
Well yes, thats why I said "pretty sad" and didnt blame the commenter for it.
Its not a huge breakthrough in research, mate - its a feasibility study. Its claims are promising, but until its tested in the real world it's just interesting, not a breakthrough.
Upvotes don't mean much, they don't change the ranking of comments like on worse social media like Facebook or Reddit. Don't worry about them. I've seen very useful and valuable comments downvoted to heck and vice-versa.
Its been tested by now, Ive looked into it a little. Seems like 90% of the time contrails form inside clouds and there is no benefit in avoiding them there. So simply avoiding contrails altogether is not recommended, but avoiding the ones forming in a clear sky would be pretty easy and extremely efficient warming-wise.
Upvotes matter in the sense that comments with negative upvotes get dismissed more easily without thinking about them. Less people would watch a video from a comment with -5 votes than one with +100.
The linked one is a short video with a duration of 02:37. There's no padding in this one. Naturally, you can't actually get all of the nuances of the full-duration video, which also can't cover the full nuances of the study itself that it's based on (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2634-4505/ad310c).
Pop science videos making studies accessible to the general public are good, actually. I recommend that you stop being dismissive of them. Had you actually put in the time, you wouldn't have posted things that are in direct contradiction with the latest science on the subject, spreading misinformation in the process.
I've got no interest in watching even 2.5 minute YouTube videos when I can read the text of the same content in 45 seconds. Instructional videos can be great and valuable, but that's not what we're talking about here. There are a wealth of crap pop science videos on YouTube that misrepresent studies.
The study is interesting, but it's a feasibility study data utilizing a theoretical models - there are a lot of assumptions here. If they or other researchers go on to perform trials using their proposed flight adjustments to the autopilot software and validate it works, great! Until then, it's very far from settled science. Here is another recent study that proposes the main problem is incompletely-burned fuel which causes soot particles that sustain the contrails in the atmosphere for much longer than contrails from low-soot contrails, which quickly diaperse. This is an emerging field of study with few published studies and varying ideas on how to resolve issues.
Maybe if people want to share emerging scientific information that's important to them on a written forum they should put in the time to look to more valuable text sources, instead of dropping YouTube links with overconfident assertions that will put off people from watching them, eg, "contrails are completely avoidable".
You have remarkable audacity for continuing to argue the point while also boasting about how you’ll ignore any information that isn’t spoon fed to you in your format of choice. Sooner or later, you’re going to miss something that way and make an ass of yourself, if that didn’t already just happen in front of our eyes.
God forbid I actually read sources, and prefer reading to taking heads on a video platform that is designed to waste people's time in endless content crawls.
You call me audacious yet here you are stepping into a discussion to try your best to belittle and chastise an internet stranger with a different opinion.
I went to college for English Lit so please don’t lecture me on the virtues of reading. God forbid you stoop to get all the information you can. You are acting like an ass and I’m letting you know. I didn’t get up this morning to chastise you.
If there’s any doubt in your mind what you did:
1: “this video says you’re wrong” 2: “well I don’t watch videos dahling.” (flips hair, draws on cigarette)
See we’re not strangers anymore. You’re that fucking guy who did that fucking thing.
I gave MY preferences for reading, note the use of the phrase "I prefer". I did not extoll the virtues of reading. It's a shame your English Lit exposure in college didn't extend to education on logical fallacies, because you use them a lot.
1: User actually said "contrails are completely avoidable". 2: I said that's factually untrue. My disdain for a youtube link on a comment thread discussion was literally my post scriptum.
You have a massive chip on your shoulder about people who don't want to watch videos for science news, that's clear - but I don't care to hear any more about it. Maybe take a breath and reflect on context. We're in the comments section on a 'nottheonion' news post about goddamn JFK banning chemtrails because he thinks DARPA is secretly impregnating them with experimetnal chemicals. Y'know.. wackadoo shit.
Have a great weekend & life, I will no longer respond.
Well said
This is a very important piece of info that people who care about reducing flight emissions should know.
Tell that to Iran's nuclear weapons program.