3 ms·
You seem to be right about the forcing of water being much higher [1], but CO2 has a nasty property as opposed to water: it stays in the atmosphere for much lon
by effie 8y ago
You seem to be right about the forcing of water being much higher [1], but CO2 has a nasty property as opposed to water: it stays in the atmosphere for much longer and contributes to warming for much longer than the water does. If temperatures get really bad in future, we can limit burning fuels and all the excess water will fall back down to oceans in few years. CO2 won't do such thing as fast. So even if we can't decrease forcing due to aviation burning fuel, it makes sense to make aviation use CO2 neutral fuels to keep the concentration of CO2 low.
[1] https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es9039693 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es9039693
- maelito 8y agoThanks for pointing this out. As for the temperature, the rise is already really bad right now, it didn't change the mind of the minority flying...
- effie 8y agoContrary to what I said above, it seems the effect of jet exhaust water is more complicated and hard to evaluate... the problem is that unless there is enough water for condensation, water molecule is lighter than oxygen or nitrogen molecule, which means the high altitude vapor isn't likely to fall down quickly.