this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2026
340 points (98.3% liked)
Not The Onion
20499 readers
341 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?
They are, but clouds disproportionately reflect IR. Basically the energy comes in as a mix of high, medium and low energy light. The earth re-radiates as low energy IR. Clouds trap this keeping the warmth (and energy) in.
Clouds and CO2 act in a similar way.
I see. Thanks for the clarification
Yes, but the phenomenon occurs at specific altitudes, so you just fly slightly higher or lower.
If they’re just condensation, don’t they reflect sunlight and actually work against the greenhouse effect?
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.
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://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-64355-5).
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.
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.
Nah. Let’s note what you actually said, not this attempt at softening it. Someone posted a video link, and you said:
You pompously and wrongly dismissed it. It was short. It was highly informational. It did not drag on or exhort you to smash the like button. You made an assumption, you were confidently wrong, and we all got to hear a mini lecture about the sins of the video format.
You tell me to educate myself about logical fallacies while misusing ad hominem. So here’s that education you were talking about.
I don’t try to discredit your argument about contrails by attacking you. I’ve not engaged you at all about contrails. I’ve said that your behavior, right here, right in front of me, was haughty and foolish, and it was. There is no straw man there. There is argument via ad hominem there.
So once again: pomposity followed by being confidently wrong.
If you can’t handle being called out for your bullshit, don’t open your mouth in public. This is not some vendetta on my part, it’s how the internet works.
Lovely that I don’t have to deal with another pompous reply from you. I’ll be having that wonderful life while you give me that silent downvote just to let me know you read this.
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
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.
You understand Smash that Like button is referring to the video, yeah?
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.
Well since they’re not, maybe you should deal with them.
This is a very important piece of info that people who care about reducing flight emissions should know.