the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
The Climate Impact of Hypersonic Transport
Abstract. Hypersonic aircraft flying at Mach 5 to 8 are a means for travelling very long distances in extremely short times and even significantly faster than supersonic transport (Mach 1.5 to 2.5). Fueled with liquid hydrogen (LH2) their emissions consist of water vapour (H2O), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and unburnt hydrogen. If LH2 is produced in a climate- and carbon neutral manner, carbon dioxide does not have to be included when calculating the climate footprint. While H2O that is emitted near the surface has a very short residence time (hours) and thereby no considerable climate impact, super- and hypersonic aviation emit at very high altitudes (15 km to 35 km), with residence times of months to several years, and therefore the emitted H2O has a substantial impact on climate via high altitude H2O changes. Since the (photo-)chemical lifetime of H2O is largely decreasing at altitudes above 30 km via the reaction with O(1D) and via photolysis, one could speculate that H2O climate impact from hypersonics flying above 30 km becomes smaller with higher cruise altitude. Here we use two state-of-the-art chemistry-climate models and a climate response model to investigate atmospheric changes and respective climate impacts due to two potential hypersonic fleets flying at 26 km and 35 km, respectively. We show for the first time that the (photo-)chemical H2O depletion at high altitudes is overcompensated by a recombination of hydroxyl radicals to H2O and an enhanced methane depletion, leading to an increase in H2O concentrations. This results in a steady increase of the H2O perturbation lifetime of up to 4.41 ± 0.20 years at 35 km. We find a 0.083 ± 0.014 % and 0.16 ± 0.015 % depletion of the ozone layer and a 43.0 ± 4.8 Tg and 94.0 ± 4.5 Tg increase in stratospheric H2O due to the two hypersonic fleets flying at 26 km and 35 km respectively. Our calculations show that the climate impact of hypersonic transport is estimated to be roughly 8–20 times larger than a subsonic reference aircraft with the same transport volume (revenue passenger kilometers) and that the main contribution stems from H2O.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(10170 KB)
-
Supplement
(297 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(10170 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(297 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-285', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 Jun 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-285/egusphere-2022-285-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-285', Anonymous Referee #2, 26 Jun 2022
authors have presentd a comprehensive study about the climatic impacts of air pollution from hypersonic aircrafts. Authors have covereddetailed explanation about the two set of emissions, two numerical models and the climatic impact. The reviewer 1 made very specifc and accurate observations and I agree that this manuscript may needs minor modification. In particular:
On line 131, authors states: "A comparison with satellite data shows that over the annual cycle ozone volume mixing ratios are well reproduced in the stratosphere, apart from southern polar regions and with larger differences at tropospheric altitud". Can you comment about these differences?
Include color legend for figure 1 and 2.
Suggestion: It is better to communicate the results with bar plots and not pie charts.
Lines 419-421. Is EMAC better? I believe the author plays with the ideia without explicitly stating.
Line 486: The author mention WACCM used by another author without define it.
There are some paragraphs consisting in less than 2 phrases. Each paragrah should have at least thee phrases, intro, body and conclusion.
The manucrsipt has an excessive number of tables and figures. Consider moving some into supplementary material
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-285-RC2 -
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-285', Anonymous Referee #3, 01 Jul 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-285/egusphere-2022-285-RC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-285', Johannes Pletzer, 08 Aug 2022
Dear Reviewers,
we post a combined author comment on the three reviews that were submitted. We would like to thank each of the reviewers for their time and their contribution to the manuscript. Each review is addressed in an own supplement pdf, which are combined as a zip-file.
Yours sincerely,
Johannes Pletzer
- AC2: 'Reply on AC1', Johannes Pletzer, 15 Sep 2022
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-285', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 Jun 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-285/egusphere-2022-285-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-285', Anonymous Referee #2, 26 Jun 2022
authors have presentd a comprehensive study about the climatic impacts of air pollution from hypersonic aircrafts. Authors have covereddetailed explanation about the two set of emissions, two numerical models and the climatic impact. The reviewer 1 made very specifc and accurate observations and I agree that this manuscript may needs minor modification. In particular:
On line 131, authors states: "A comparison with satellite data shows that over the annual cycle ozone volume mixing ratios are well reproduced in the stratosphere, apart from southern polar regions and with larger differences at tropospheric altitud". Can you comment about these differences?
Include color legend for figure 1 and 2.
Suggestion: It is better to communicate the results with bar plots and not pie charts.
Lines 419-421. Is EMAC better? I believe the author plays with the ideia without explicitly stating.
Line 486: The author mention WACCM used by another author without define it.
There are some paragraphs consisting in less than 2 phrases. Each paragrah should have at least thee phrases, intro, body and conclusion.
The manucrsipt has an excessive number of tables and figures. Consider moving some into supplementary material
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-285-RC2 -
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-285', Anonymous Referee #3, 01 Jul 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-285/egusphere-2022-285-RC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-285', Johannes Pletzer, 08 Aug 2022
Dear Reviewers,
we post a combined author comment on the three reviews that were submitted. We would like to thank each of the reviewers for their time and their contribution to the manuscript. Each review is addressed in an own supplement pdf, which are combined as a zip-file.
Yours sincerely,
Johannes Pletzer
- AC2: 'Reply on AC1', Johannes Pletzer, 15 Sep 2022
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
476 | 186 | 14 | 676 | 26 | 7 | 7 |
- HTML: 476
- PDF: 186
- XML: 14
- Total: 676
- Supplement: 26
- BibTeX: 7
- EndNote: 7
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
2 citations as recorded by crossref.
Johannes Friedrich Pletzer
Didier Hauglustaine
Yann Cohen
Patrick Jöckel
Volker Grewe
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(10170 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(297 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper