Eliminating contrails from flying could be cheap
sustainabilitybynumbers.com
sustainabilitybynumbers.com
https://tridsys.com/our-divisions/optical-precision-sensors/
It was odd because I was like yea this is obviously a good idea, but also I’m not the person you need to convince here so WTF.
I did have a pentagon badge at the time which let me in, not sure if it was necessary though.
It's weird seeing physical advertising be so targeted. Like, multiple physical ads to target less than a dozen people total.
It's a bit like a Coke ad -- you do not need to be informed about Coke, but it creates an atmosphere of nebulous positive feelings. Still, kinda weird.
Like, the Dutch airplane manufacturer Fokker went bankrupt and stopped manufacturing planes in 1996, but the brand and company are still very much alive, manufacturing parts and providing maintenance services to all their planes still in operation worldwide.
Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman and Qinetiq know how to reach their audience.
Seeing people having to FOI request details of the chemicals they were exposed to in their service, is much more disturbing.
https://www.palantir.com/platforms/gotham/
> Gotham's targeting offering supports soldiers with an Al-powered kill chain
> Palantir Gotham is a modern solution for efficient and responsible target management.
> Gotham empowers you to make informed decisions, maximizing the effectiveness of your assets in even the most dynamic operational environments.
> Collaborate across the target lifecycle
I'm not sure this is really all that perfect/foolproof though, especially with 8k visible light cameras. For one, clouds can be quite the problem (even at non-visible wavelengths). Atmospheric turbulence can also be annoying and the air can be plain hazy depending on the day - both limit detection accuracy at a given range. When night comes the detection ability is greatly hampered even with additional wavelengths (and IR has lower resolution anyways).
It worked well enough in a weekend project many years back to use computer vision (the craze at the time) and compare to an ADS-B make by using a 4k 1 FPS image feed in a weekend project to mess with computer vision a decade back. I definitely see it as a valid addition to a detection system... but I would stop short of writing a "Military Dumbfounded at This One Simple Trick" article about it.
Russia has a 10x advantage over Ukraine in aviation, yet it only uses it to lob guided bombs from safely beyond the Russian border. The anti-air defense far outmatches the stealth of Russian airplanes.
They are not the stealthiest, sure. But there are reasons to think that NATO planes are not going to fare much better.
If you take a 8K camera with a standard 50 mm lens, its angular resolution is about 20" / pixel.
A 50 mm lens has a FOV of about 40°. It covers a cone of about 0.38 strad. A full hemisphere has 2·pi = 6.28 strad, so we need at least 16.5 such cones to cover the whole area; actually we need likely 20-25 because of imperfect geometry and some safety margins at intersections. We can, of course, mount fewer and scan.
If we take a plane like A320 (larger than a typical fighter jet), and remove it 25 km from us, its angular size would be about about 5', or 300". Our A320 would be 15 pixels wide, assuming very good optics, and very clear skies. This is not much to determine what craft is approaching us. At the cruise speed of 800 km/h, or 220 m/s, the plane will reach us in 122 s, or less than 2 minutes. Not a lot of warning. A fighter jet making 500 m/s would be there in 50 s.
This is, of course, without any clouds. Even very light clouds or haze would conceal the aircraft at 25 km. To say nothing of the night time.
We could of course take in IR camera, but I don't remember 8K IR cameras being cheap, or even available. A stealth aircraft like B-2 does a lot to make its thermal signature very faint, including the exhaust.
Blurry video is fine when using techniques like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-b51C82-UE
Clouds also don't save you (unless you have two thick layers to fly through) because this technique is even easier with satellites. Stealth effectively no longer exists for most nation-state level tech. The B-2 is a very cool plane but is unfortunately obsolete. Still great for when you want to put on more of a show than an attack.
I mean, yes, you can take a low-noise sensor, add cooling, add a telescope lens so that you'd see the shape more readily, put a bunch of these telescopes on a rotating platform to scan the sky, etc. This is doable, but the thread started with an idea that it's doable with consumer-grade ("cheap") tech. I doubt that.
While at it, even if we assume that stealth does not exist for fast and heavy aircraft, it seems to effectively exist for slow, lighter-weight drones. Ukrainian drones, built from ultralight aircraft like Aeroprakt A-20, somehow penetrate 700 miles into Russian territory to burn refineries. With a cruise speed of 70 mph (sic), it should take them 10 hours to fly this distance. Were they detected efficiently, that would be enough time to scramble an interceptor a hundred times. Apparently this does not happen.
700 miles is far more than the standard range of the A-20 (210nm). Is it possible they launched it from well within Russia thereby making it much less likely to be considered a threat?
But there has been one very well published Ukrainian attack launched from Russian soil[1].
If Ukraine had could regularly smuggle several drone aircraft's and explosives into Russia and launch them, we would be seeing a lot of other effects. Such as attacks on weapon production sites deep into Russia[2].
But yes, a lot of those attacks are probably unsuccessful. With my qualifications as armchair general, I would be surprised if more than 10% of them was successful.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spiderweb [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yelabuga_drone_factory
So no, these are not isolated incidents, this is a big hole in air defense, and Russia used to produce some competent air defense systems. They are just not geared towards the drones, much like Patriot air defense systems are not either.
You generally can't continually launch a even $1mil missiles at $100-$10k drones and expect to win. The problem is that most air defenses were designed in an age where the enemy aircraft were quite expensive so it wasn't so critical to optimize ordinance cost. That IMO is the primary challenge for all militaries now.
But, since this is not being done routinely along the way, I conclude that detection fails. All reports about drones shot down mention that the drones were shot down nearby, likely by local air-defense teams near the target. These could as well detect the drone visually, or by the sound.
https://www.twz.com/air/this-is-how-ukrainian-yak-52-crews-h...
The Russian air defense radar system has been badly degraded by recent Ukrainian strikes. They have been conducting a deliberate SEAD/DEAD campaign to clear the path for strikes on strategic targets. Of course the Russian air defenses everywhere far from Moscow were probably never very effective in the first place due to the usual mix of poverty, corruption, vodka, and incompetence.
This is incorrect. A typical satellite will orbit once every 100 minutes or so (military spy satellites more often because they fly lower, but that only makes the next part even worse). To have any kind of resolution the swath it can scan is very narrow. It'll pass from horizon to horizon in some 10-14 minutes or so, if if passes reasonably overhead (which it'll do once, the next orbit it'll be far from overhead or not seen at all, depending on your latitude).
For a satellite to spot an airplane you need to be in luck. A coincidence. It's not something you can use for spotting airplanes. The harder you look (the more you increase resolution) the more narrow the swath gets. You can have more satellites. There's still no chance of actively detecting airplanes on a regular basis. And this doesn't even take into consideration that the data must be processed after having been dumped from the satellite. The satellite is by then elsewhere.
You could use a geostationary satellite, to monitor a good third of the planet at once. But then you're nearly 36000km above equator and you can't see any details. So, not that either.
Satellites are great for scanning the surface of the planet. And for that we're now at a stage where it's hard to hide anything, for very long at least. But moving airplanes is something entirely different.
(My job is about processing data from satellites).
Constellations (like Star Shield or the Chinese equivalent) solve this problem; there is always a dozens of satellites overhead, and they don't need a lot of resolving power to detect contrails, I vet even cubesats with repurposed phone-camera sensors would suffice.
Note that the Starshield satellites aren't able to cover all of the earth all of the time, far from it.
Contrails tell you when and where to look with more paranoia than usual, and temporarily lower the noise floor and not to disregard the some signals that you'd normally classify as a small bird.
Are there reliable ways to figure out which pixels on subtracted frames are cloud movement and which are the few ones that are an aircraft?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but adding extra cameras doesn't seem to solve this problem, each source reporting "almost everything moves" would make solving intersections and tracking them impossible, because each target candidate can be assigned to many changes pixels in consecutive frames. Unless some additional pattern detection is done, but again it's hard for very small objects.
Yes, but no. "Infrared" is a very wide range, and you're talking about different things here.
"Just off the red end of the visible spectrum", aka near-IR is typically considered 700-1400nm, which is what your normal visible-spectrum camera becomes sensitive to when you pop off the filter. That's fun, and you'll find lots of cool things there. Remote controls use near-IR typically in 850nm, flowers often reflect vividly in this range too. Notably, near-IR passes through most materials that're clear in the visible spectrum, which is how bugs are able to have eyes that see it to locate those flowers. Also, plastics and glasses, so NIR-capable optics are cheap. (NIR windows are often dyed to look dark-purple or black to the visible spectrum, because these dyes are transparent to IR.)
However, "thermal infrared" is much longer -- rocket exhaust can be seen with a mediumwave-IR sensor in the 3000-8000nm range, but warm bodies only start to show up in longwave-IR, 8000-15000nm. Sensors for those are mindbogglingly harder to make than near-IR. And these wavelengths don't pass through normal materials. Plain old glass, for instance, is totally opaque to thermal wavelengths, so if you take a thermal picture (a thermograph) of a window, you don't see the warm bodies inside, but rather the temperature of the glass itself, combined with whatever outside objects are reflected off its surface -- it acts like a mirror, not a window.
This means making lenses for thermal cameras is also difficult and expensive. The materials are awful -- Zinc Selenide is one of the most common, despite being expensive and toxic so it's difficult to machine. Pure Germanium works, but it's even more expensive. Sodium Chloride is amusingly transparent to LWIR but it tends to dislike getting rained on.
Removing the hot-mirror from a visible-light camera is a neat party trick and does legitimately see into "the infrared", but that's not the same as thermal infrared, which does still require specialized equipment.
It's not the same IR you'd need for military purposes, you're seeing a tiny percentage of the IR spectrum, and it's the most useless. That's why any semi decent military tier system costs 50k+ a pop. Civilian tier scopes are 1k+ and pretty shit, you won't see anything smaller than a human more than 1km away.
Anyway. Combine with microphone arrays, and your coverage is better.
Why do you have to do that exactly? Aircraft identification and aircraft detection are very different tasks. For detection, you need a tiny fractional difference in illumination (<1%) of one single pixel, that persists over time, and which shows up on two or three cameras separated for parallax.
The Youtube channel Consistently Inconsistent has been doing a series on optical detection, after an offhand Elon Musk comment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-b51C82-UE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFiubdrJqqI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZkLQsv3huo
Anything detected can be subjected to closer inspection with radars, optical telescopes, and infrared telescopes.
Well it's one of the main last-mile mediums people use to doomscroll their propaganda feeds, so... yes?
It's some form of motivated reasoning. The same people who will tell you a secret cabal of billionaires controls the government will roll their eyes if you bring up the heritage foundation.
I would find CT believers fascinating if it also wasn't sad. I have one in the family and she lives below the poverty line and has been missing most of her teeth since her late forties (fluoride works, people).
You can’t reason (or evidence) someone out of a position that isn’t based on reason.
And if planes are making visible clouds one day and the other not, it is obviously because they are not spraying all the time, etc.
So no more clouds would not make people smarter, but it might actually reduce this particular conspiracy spread.
Furthermore https://duckduckgo.com/q=toxicologic+assessment+of+jet+fuel
and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fume_event
Are the fumes less bad, when they don't leak into the cabin by bleed air, just blown away backwards?
The solution to pollution is dilution (in the atmosphere)? With the current amount of global air traffic, no matter if civilian, or military?
[0] https://cpo.noaa.gov/the-unintended-consequences-of-reducing...
It isn't quite accurate to state that ship tracks have/had a "benefit" on our climate. Their existence creates a transient decrease in OLR and increase in albedo. If anything, they simply masked some GHG-induced warming that had a much longer half-time, and cleaning up ship emissions has "unmasked" some of that hidden warming. But, again, the warming was already committed.
Taken from another comment, this seems pretty clear:
> Contrail cirrus may be air traffic's largest radiative forcing component, larger than all CO2 accumulated from aviation, and could triple from a 2006 baseline to 160–180 mW/m2 by 2050 without intervention.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail#Impacts_on_climate
The original article describes associated costs in time and fuel usage in the realm of 1% increase.
In theory we could design and use N2O engines and airplanes etc, and their exhaust could be a gas that is nearly equivalent to atmospheric composition.
One important issue is making sure all the N2O has decomposed because it is a very potent GHG.
Would N2 and O2 create contrails? in what sense is it distinct from atmosphere?
It doesn't sound so bad, but when translated into grams, it's 1.86kJ/g for N2O and 13.3kJ/g for water.
In other words, when burning a gram of hydrogen, you get about 120kJ of energy. When decomposing a gram of N2O, you barely get 2kJ.
It decomposes into N₂ and O₂ at normal atmospheric temperatures and pressures, outside an engine.
But the reaction 2 N2O => 2 N2 + O2 is very exothermic, in fact it is explosive (but not in the burning sense, since its autodecomposition). However adding a small amount of ethanol makes N2O stable so that sudden shocks or compressions don't result in initiating autodecomposition or explosion.
To power an engine one doesn't necessarily need to burn, or a redox reaction to happen, the reaction just needs to be exothermic and N2O is very exothermic.
But contrails are just the tiniest, tiniest fraction of the sky somewhere and only last over a given area for a few minutes generally. Like, sure, if you live next to a busy airport maybe you see them more often, but that's balanced out by the 99.9% of sky not next to a busy airport. Plus the many days that they just don't show up at all, because they depend on certain weather conditions.
I mean, this just doesn't pass the smell test.
But Wikipedia has an entire section [1] full of citations. But then... it sounds like maybe a lot of them aren't credible or suggest that it's not a problem? E.g.:
> However, follow-up studies found that a natural change in cloud cover can more than explain these findings. The authors of a 2008 study wrote, "The variations in high cloud cover, including contrails and contrail-induced cirrus clouds, contribute weakly to the changes in the diurnal temperature range, which is governed primarily by lower altitude clouds, winds, and humidity."
> Then, the global response to the 2020 coronavirus pandemic led to a reduction in global air traffic of nearly 70% relative to 2019. Thus, it provided an extended opportunity to study the impact of contrails on regional and global temperature. Multiple studies found "no significant response of diurnal surface air temperature range" as the result of contrail changes, and either "no net significant global ERF" (effective radiative forcing) or a very small warming effect.
So it sounds like this theoretical contrail warming problem possibly doesn't exist? I find it strange the article doesn't even acknowledge any discussion over whether it's actually a problem in the first place.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail#Impacts_on_climate
Initially yes, but as a contrail diffuses it acts like a seed for wider cirrus cloud formation.
During COVID lockdown, researchers at Universität Leipzig found that the reduction of air travel correspondingly reduced cirrus formation by 9% in the area studied.
I am based in the UK and there are clear flight paths, for example, the big airport is west of London (Heathrow) and a lot of planes fly west to the 'New World'. A typical route will be over the Bristol Channel, which is over water rather than land. If you look at the satellite imagery in the different wavelengths then you will see the whole Bristol Channel 'clouded' with what can only be contrails.
If you are old enough then you might be able to remember 9/11 and the skies in the aftermath, when no planes were flying for quite a few days. The pandemic gave us a glimpse of this too, however, we were shutting down a lot else then.
To summarise, we are pissing in the pool big time with this aviation lark. I appreciate that you can't see it, but I don't think anyone that is heavily car dependent actually will. It is a 'wood for the trees' thing, and, if you are always around cars, trucks and planes, you are in the pool of piss and just not seeing it or smelling it.
You can see this filth if you get out of town, climb a hill and look back. If it is a clear day with a big sky and no wind, then you should be able to see the filthy air above the town, and that isn't from people riding bicycles.
What we have done with cars is to make them more efficient. Nobody is rolling coal any more, well, maybe in South Carolina, but everything was 'rolling coal' with added lead until relatively recent times. There might not be clumps of soot the size of snowflakes in the air, what happens now is that the car dependent person has a vehicle that burns the same amount of fuel as before, but the particle sizes that come out the back are extremely small, so small that you can't see them. But you can see them if you happen to be using a satellite to do so, or if you do get ten miles out of town on a clear day, and look at it properly.
I live in Scotland where we have had an interesting history with air quality. We have a network of paths that are made from former railway lines and canals that take you a long way from cars. There are stretches where you are riding through nothing but flowers for mile after mile. You can also unlock extra adventure levels to find networks of roads that don't exist on Google Maps that are closed to cars but definitely open to bicycles. However, eventually, some big road will need to be crossed or there will be a road running parallel to the trail. Then the magic ends.
What amazes me is how you can get used to the wonderful smells of the truly clean air to then be utterly appalled at how toxic the air is anywhere within a mile of a car. But, inside a car,the air always smells good, right? It is not as if you get tired from carbon monoxide poisoning on longer journeys, is it?
So, does any of this matter? Not if you are young with no health problems. Just suck in the air wherever there is an abundance of vehicles. You will never know what good air is or why it matters. Besides, we all need cars and trucks to get food on our tables, so there is no escaping and it would be hypocritical to do so.
Or you can opt out, to never fly and never drive. I chose this as a challenge and, so far, no regrets. I haven't been on a plane for three decades yet I seem to know more about the world than most frequent fliers. As for not getting into a car, there are occasions such as funerals where I will get a lift, and yes, I do get the occasional item delivered to my door, but everything else? Bicycle, or electric train, powered by wind farms. It seems to me that you can only really assess the problem if you aren't part of it.
Regarding contrails, they have been a conspiracy theorist talking point for as long as the internet has been around. What is pernicious about conspiracy stories is that there is always a small grain of truth in there. All of these hydrocarbons we burn - all of them - are toxic to life and cancer causing. Conspiracy theorists have egged the pudding on this, but who wins from this? Well, it means that anyone with a preference for genuinely clean air, buzzing with bees and wonderful smells from plants, can be branded a crazy person because they must be, right?
I wonder if factoring in the contrail reduction of this tilts them towards financial breakeven.
edit: Googled it and an Airbus test last year suggested a 25% decrease in contrail formation:
https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2024-06-wo...
Of course it's a coordination problem. It probably needs to be a regulation before it will actually happen.
Go to aviationweather.gov, and you can see huge boxes of alert areas that we already have to deal with. It's really just another day at the office.
When you consider that RyanAir don't have seat back pockets specifically because of the extra cleaning time to clear them between flights, you can see why the extra 2 minutes flight time might matter.
Then learned it’s just about rerouting a flight to climate zones that will less likely form a vapor trail.
(Science fiction books would use "heat sinks" in their war space ships to try to hide the heat for a short while, but would eventually have to dump the heat somewhere. As heat sinks are basically just a huge mass.. not an option for airplanes.)
Contrails are just condensation trails caused by jet exhaust and air pressure differences at high altitude.
Cloud seeding, on the other hand, is a real weather-modification technique that uses aircraft to disperse substances like silver iodide to encourage rainfall [1]
I completely empathize with people confused by this. They aren't all just a bunch of conspiracy nuts, many just don’t know how to identify what they’re seeing or how these technologies actually work. I don’t mock them, I try to educate.
Also, read the wikipedia on chemtrails: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory
My mental model is that a bullet leaving the barrel of a gun has much more penetrative power than that same bullet once it has ricocheted off a concrete wall.
More directly,radiation (light,photons) is absorbed and re-emmited by matter but the re-emitted energy is always at a lower frequency.
This absorbed & re-emitted longer wavelength radiation is what can become trapped.
I'm just having a hard time groking that contrails are really that impacting. TFA just quotes a bunch of numbers, but does not actually discuss how the numbers were derived. Maybe I've just been around too many people into Chemtrails, but this just reads to me as an offshoot of that type of thinking.
And also this paper which is a very in-depth technical explanation: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135223102...
I understand why you're reminded of chemtrails, but it is not crazy or conspiratorial to look at these giant lines in the sky and think "those things must be doing something". You can't then make the leap to "it's intentional and it's a biological weapon to control my mind and I don't need any evidence to believe this", but you can take the next step of looking into decades of research on the topic and deciding if the conclusions make sense to you.
Imagine a large city in an area that is always cloudy versus one in a sunny desert. They are both the same size, but the one in the desert is going to have an absolutely massive amount of evening heat release due to the urban heatsink effect.
I think more accurately it's not crazy to think they might be doing something. I could equally be convinced if researchers crunched the numbers and concluded they might seem big but they're negligible on a global scale. In fact the same figure of "only 3%" of flights really have an effect" could easily have cut the other way.
A bit like how wind turbines look huge and numerous but are (as yet and for the foreseeable future) completely negligible on the scale of global wind power.
In fact plenty of times much closer to home, thinking "this very obvious thing must be having an effect" and failing to verify that it actually does has screwed me over repeatedly in everything from bug fixing to installing floorboards.
https://globalnews.ca/news/2934513/empty-skies-after-911-set...
> It is considered that the largest contribution of aviation to climate change comes from contrails. In general, aircraft contrails trap outgoing longwave radiation emitted by the Earth and atmosphere more than they reflect incoming solar radiation, resulting in a net increase in radiative forcing. In 1992, this warming effect was estimated between 3.5 mW/m2 and 17 mW/m2. In 2009, its 2005 value was estimated at 12 mW/m2, based on the reanalysis data, climate models, and radiative transfer codes; with an uncertainty range of 5 to 26 mW/m2, and with a low level of scientific understanding. [...] Contrail cirrus may be air traffic's largest radiative forcing component, larger than all CO2 accumulated from aviation, and could triple from a 2006 baseline to 160–180 mW/m2 by 2050 without intervention.
What I can say is that even in a place with moderate air traffic, you get to see lots of contrails crisscrossing the sky on some days; in places near busy airports I hear that a sizable fraction of all cloud cover is due to lingering contrails.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail#Impacts_on_climate
Okay, but how does this compare to the forcing of the overall anthropogenic CO2 accumulation?
> For carbon dioxide, the 50% increase (C/C0 = 1.5) realized as of year 2020 since 1750 corresponds to a cumulative radiative forcing change (delta F) of +2.17 W/m2
Hmm. I don't know about that. My understanding is that contrails only (or mainly?) form at higher altitudes. Most of the traffic around a busy airport is low-altitude take-offs and landings. I live practically next door to a busy international airport and can't say I ever notice contrails, except for a few off in the distance around dusk.
I notice a lot more contrails when I'm out in rural "flyover country", but that might also just be because you typically get to see much more of the sky when you're out in the middle of nowhere.
> Researchers believe that the ice clouds created by contrails have contributed more to the rise in global temperatures in recent years than all the CO2 released into the atmosphere since the beginning of aviation. The annual increase in air traffic and flight routes at ever higher altitudes are particularly contributing to the formation of ice clouds. At high altitudes, contrails can combine with icy cirrus clouds and thus remain in the sky for up to 18 hours.
https://cdn.prod.www.spiegel.de/images/fe93cb37-2540-4fbb-a4...
How could this be observed you might ask? It turns out there was a study done immediately after the grounding of airplanes during the September 11th, 2001 events to take advantage of this unique incidence of effectively halting all air transportation for a few days [0]
0. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/17/5/1520-04...
This was seen to be evident in global pan evaporation measurements after the essentially global flight travel bans in the few days after 9/11; I have often wondered whether the equivalent restrictions in the early days of the pandemic show it as clearly because the impacts on pollution were very striking.
Airlines are on wafer thin margins and for the longer turnaround times affecting schedules wont love it. The fact that it is a small % is worse: if you get hit you become less competitive!
Pilots workload is increased too.
Its a great technical idea but not sure how you'd get it off the ground.
In an alternative timeline with a carbon price it may work. You get x$ carbon credits for a detour. Let the planes decide if they want it.
If it was even 1% we'd surely be up in arms about how awful it looked.
Not sure how wide that would be, but the length has to be factored in too, which begs the question, how wide and long is a piece of string/cloud?
On the ground looking up the sense of scale falls apart a bit.
The article does agree that 9% of contrails have an overall cooling effect, and perhaps that could be magnified by a larger or more persistent contrail.
I'm not sure they do. It's an extremely counterintuitive claim that would need to be justified, and while the author does cite (their own) paper, it sounds like the model they came up with is highly parameterised and not particularly physically validated. If it's really the case that contrails reflect more heat down than up (unlike what the scientific consensus says is true for regular clouds), then there should be an explanation for what contrail-specific factor causes this, not just "here's a pile of math equations that say it doesn't, don't ask where we got the parameters to fill them out from".
"In general, aircraft contrails trap outgoing longwave radiation emitted by the Earth and atmosphere more than they reflect incoming solar radiation, resulting in a net increase in radiative forcing."
Shiny bright light goes through or gets scattered. Dull red blackbody radiation gets absorbed. Doesn't sound too counterintuitive to me, but again I'm no expert.