the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Global aviation contrail climate effects from 2019 to 2021
Abstract. The global annual mean radiative forcing (RF) attributable to contrail cirrus is comparable to the RF from aviation’s cumulative CO2 emissions. Here, we simulate the global contrail climate forcing for 2019–2021 using reanalysis weather data and improved engine emission estimates along actual flight trajectories derived from Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast telemetry. Our 2019 global annual mean contrail net RF (62.1 mW m-2) is 44 % lower than current best estimates for 2018 (111 [33, 189] mW m-2). Regionally, the contrail net RF is largest over Europe (876 mW m-2) and the US (414 mW m-2), while the RF over East Asia (64 mW m-2) and China (62 mW m-2) are close to the global mean value because fewer flights in these regions form contrails as a result of lower cruise altitudes and limited ice supersaturated regions in the subtropics due to the Hadley Circulation. Globally, COVID-19 reduced the flight distance flown and contrail net RF in 2020 (-43 % and -56 % respectively vs. 2019) and 2021 (-31 % and -49 % respectively) with significant regional variation. Around 14 % of all flights form a contrail with a net warming effect, yet only 2 % of all flights account for 80 % of the annual contrail energy forcing. The spatiotemporal patterns of the most strongly warming and cooling contrail segments can be attributed to flight scheduling factors, aircraft–engine particle number emissions, tropopause height, background cloud and radiation fields, and albedo. Our contrail RF estimates are most sensitive to corrections applied to the global humidity fields, followed by assumptions on the aircraft-engine particle number emissions, and is least sensitive to radiative heating effects on the contrail plume and contrail-contrail overlapping. Accounting for the sensitivity analysis, we estimate a 2019 global contrail net RF of 62.1 [34.8, 74.8] mW m-2.
-
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
(2408 KB)
-
Supplement
(3082 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2408 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(3082 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1859', Louis Meuric, 26 Oct 2023
Hello
- It would be very useful to calculate and disseminate the ERF for each country of the northern hemisphere : there are still obvious differences (Spain / Norway)
- Moreover, a study carried out on the Tibetan plateau, where warming accelerated during the winter months at the end of the 20th century, shows that increased surface humidity leads to an increase in long-wave radiation (= heat) and can locally and temporarily raise temperatures at altitude. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009GL037245
Is it possible to have induced ERF at an altitude between 1500 2500m ?
Thanks a lot
All the best
Louis
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1859-CC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Marc Stettler, 15 Mar 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1859/egusphere-2023-1859-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
CC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1859', Louis Meuric, 28 Oct 2023
Hi
the monthly distribution of the contrail coverage is slightly different from the one reported for year 2002 in the publication below, from Stuber & Forster :
https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/7/3153/2007/
page 4
but 2002 was a special year, just after september 11
Louis
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1859-CC2 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Marc Stettler, 15 Mar 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1859/egusphere-2023-1859-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Marc Stettler, 15 Mar 2024
-
CC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1859', Louis Meuric, 29 Oct 2023
About the monthly distribution, please find another source :
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Contrails_1994_1995_Nasa_US_Air_Force.jpg?uselang=fr
Both statistics show a rebound in october and a high level, rather in February-April. This is important because one can link it with the first snows in october and the melting in march-april.
Louis
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1859-CC3 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Marc Stettler, 15 Mar 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1859/egusphere-2023-1859-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Marc Stettler, 15 Mar 2024
-
CC4: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1859', Adam Durant, 21 Nov 2023
This is a much needed bottom up flight by flight assessment of the global annual radiative impact from aircraft contrails. The work that has gone into the analysis is impressive. Congratulations ot the authors.
One aspect that does require a little more explanation is the use of a global climate model water vapour dataset, adjusted through a statistical fit against IAGOS in situ data, to drive highly specific trajectory based analyses of radiative forcing from COCIP.
The data presented in supplementary tables shows "ratio compares the false positive and false negative rate and is computed by (NIAGOS/YHRES (%) − 1). A positive value indicates YIAGOS/NHRES (%) that the ERA5 HRES underpredicts contrails, a value of zero indicates a symmetrical false positive and false negative rate, while a negative value indicates that the ERA5 HRES overpredicts contrails."
On semantics, this metric predicts ISSR occurrence, not contrails. The FP and FN rates are hidden in the ratio. The ETS values appear quite low.
Contrail formation and persistence will be highly sensitive to the vertical distribution of water vapour in the atmosphere. Given the authors have access to all the IAGOS data, it would be helpful and instructive to present more data on TP/FP/TN/FN rates (e.g., in the vertical and also by region) and to relate this to the challenges of doing a trajectory based COCIP analysis with all the associated specifics of aircraft type, engine emissions, etc. How does water vapour uncertainty propagate into a calculation of radiative impact at the global scale? There are no errors presented on annual net RF values. What are these errors and how much is attributed to water vapour uncertainty?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1859-CC4 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Marc Stettler, 15 Mar 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1859/egusphere-2023-1859-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Marc Stettler, 15 Mar 2024
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1859', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Dec 2023
Review of “Global aviation contrail climate effects from 2019 to 2021” by Teoh et al.
General comments
This is a mostly well-written paper on the estimation of global contrail climate effects for 2019 to 2021. This study has implemented almost all the most-up-to-date data and methods related to air traffic, aviation particle emission, meteorological background, and contrail formation, etc. This study explores the global contrail properties and climate forcing for 2019–2021; identifies the set of conditions that causes strongly warming/cooling contrails; evaluates the sensitivity of the simulated contrail climate forcing to aircraft emissions, meteorology, and contrail model parameters; and compares their new global contrail RF estimates with existing studies. The results look valid and the sensitivity experiments are reasonably set to illustrate the different factors. I have only a few suggestions to improve the paper for the authors’ consideration.
Major concerns
- For the methodology part, I suggest the authors added a flowchart and the related descriptions to better explain how the contrails are simulated as well as how the radiative forcings are calculated.
- Line 285: It is interesting to find the largest interannual variability in p-contrail at high latitudes. But it is not very convincing to attribute the reason to small sample size. Could the authors explain more about it? Moreover, if the sample size is a critical issue, it is worthwhile to show and discuss about it somehow.
- Could the authors show some comparisons between the simulated and observed contrails? I know this could be hard and difficult, but some more evidences help increase the credibility.
Minor problems
Line 14: It is better to explain the meanings of the numbers in square brackets (111 [33, 189] mW m-2).
Line 15: It is desirable to plot the boxes of the areas of US, Europe, and especially East Asia on the global maps (i.e., Fig.1) for better understanding of the results.
Line 80: It is suggested to note which section corresponds to the four objectives.
Line 91: It seems better to list the materials included in the SI instead of stating “Further information not included in the main text can be found in the SI.” I suppose you can’t include everything.
Line 202: Why and what can be the potential impacts by assuming an ERF/RF ratio of 0.42? The authors may need to explain a bit.
Line 221: It could be easier for the readers to understand the points of the sensitivity experiments if more explanations be given on why such settings were used.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1859-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Marc Stettler, 15 Mar 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1859/egusphere-2023-1859-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
EC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1859', Yuan Wang, 02 Feb 2024
The second referee agreed to review a few times but failed to do so eventually after several reminders. Finding another reviewer wasn't successful either. Meanwhile, the paper received two non-referee reviews during the open discussions, and we found each of them is insightful and constructive. In this situation, I suggest we should move forward to make decision.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1859-EC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Marc Stettler, 15 Mar 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1859/egusphere-2023-1859-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Marc Stettler, 15 Mar 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1859', Louis Meuric, 26 Oct 2023
Hello
- It would be very useful to calculate and disseminate the ERF for each country of the northern hemisphere : there are still obvious differences (Spain / Norway)
- Moreover, a study carried out on the Tibetan plateau, where warming accelerated during the winter months at the end of the 20th century, shows that increased surface humidity leads to an increase in long-wave radiation (= heat) and can locally and temporarily raise temperatures at altitude. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009GL037245
Is it possible to have induced ERF at an altitude between 1500 2500m ?
Thanks a lot
All the best
Louis
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1859-CC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Marc Stettler, 15 Mar 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1859/egusphere-2023-1859-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
CC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1859', Louis Meuric, 28 Oct 2023
Hi
the monthly distribution of the contrail coverage is slightly different from the one reported for year 2002 in the publication below, from Stuber & Forster :
https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/7/3153/2007/
page 4
but 2002 was a special year, just after september 11
Louis
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1859-CC2 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Marc Stettler, 15 Mar 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1859/egusphere-2023-1859-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Marc Stettler, 15 Mar 2024
-
CC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1859', Louis Meuric, 29 Oct 2023
About the monthly distribution, please find another source :
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Contrails_1994_1995_Nasa_US_Air_Force.jpg?uselang=fr
Both statistics show a rebound in october and a high level, rather in February-April. This is important because one can link it with the first snows in october and the melting in march-april.
Louis
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1859-CC3 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Marc Stettler, 15 Mar 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1859/egusphere-2023-1859-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Marc Stettler, 15 Mar 2024
-
CC4: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1859', Adam Durant, 21 Nov 2023
This is a much needed bottom up flight by flight assessment of the global annual radiative impact from aircraft contrails. The work that has gone into the analysis is impressive. Congratulations ot the authors.
One aspect that does require a little more explanation is the use of a global climate model water vapour dataset, adjusted through a statistical fit against IAGOS in situ data, to drive highly specific trajectory based analyses of radiative forcing from COCIP.
The data presented in supplementary tables shows "ratio compares the false positive and false negative rate and is computed by (NIAGOS/YHRES (%) − 1). A positive value indicates YIAGOS/NHRES (%) that the ERA5 HRES underpredicts contrails, a value of zero indicates a symmetrical false positive and false negative rate, while a negative value indicates that the ERA5 HRES overpredicts contrails."
On semantics, this metric predicts ISSR occurrence, not contrails. The FP and FN rates are hidden in the ratio. The ETS values appear quite low.
Contrail formation and persistence will be highly sensitive to the vertical distribution of water vapour in the atmosphere. Given the authors have access to all the IAGOS data, it would be helpful and instructive to present more data on TP/FP/TN/FN rates (e.g., in the vertical and also by region) and to relate this to the challenges of doing a trajectory based COCIP analysis with all the associated specifics of aircraft type, engine emissions, etc. How does water vapour uncertainty propagate into a calculation of radiative impact at the global scale? There are no errors presented on annual net RF values. What are these errors and how much is attributed to water vapour uncertainty?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1859-CC4 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Marc Stettler, 15 Mar 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1859/egusphere-2023-1859-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Marc Stettler, 15 Mar 2024
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1859', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Dec 2023
Review of “Global aviation contrail climate effects from 2019 to 2021” by Teoh et al.
General comments
This is a mostly well-written paper on the estimation of global contrail climate effects for 2019 to 2021. This study has implemented almost all the most-up-to-date data and methods related to air traffic, aviation particle emission, meteorological background, and contrail formation, etc. This study explores the global contrail properties and climate forcing for 2019–2021; identifies the set of conditions that causes strongly warming/cooling contrails; evaluates the sensitivity of the simulated contrail climate forcing to aircraft emissions, meteorology, and contrail model parameters; and compares their new global contrail RF estimates with existing studies. The results look valid and the sensitivity experiments are reasonably set to illustrate the different factors. I have only a few suggestions to improve the paper for the authors’ consideration.
Major concerns
- For the methodology part, I suggest the authors added a flowchart and the related descriptions to better explain how the contrails are simulated as well as how the radiative forcings are calculated.
- Line 285: It is interesting to find the largest interannual variability in p-contrail at high latitudes. But it is not very convincing to attribute the reason to small sample size. Could the authors explain more about it? Moreover, if the sample size is a critical issue, it is worthwhile to show and discuss about it somehow.
- Could the authors show some comparisons between the simulated and observed contrails? I know this could be hard and difficult, but some more evidences help increase the credibility.
Minor problems
Line 14: It is better to explain the meanings of the numbers in square brackets (111 [33, 189] mW m-2).
Line 15: It is desirable to plot the boxes of the areas of US, Europe, and especially East Asia on the global maps (i.e., Fig.1) for better understanding of the results.
Line 80: It is suggested to note which section corresponds to the four objectives.
Line 91: It seems better to list the materials included in the SI instead of stating “Further information not included in the main text can be found in the SI.” I suppose you can’t include everything.
Line 202: Why and what can be the potential impacts by assuming an ERF/RF ratio of 0.42? The authors may need to explain a bit.
Line 221: It could be easier for the readers to understand the points of the sensitivity experiments if more explanations be given on why such settings were used.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1859-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Marc Stettler, 15 Mar 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1859/egusphere-2023-1859-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
EC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1859', Yuan Wang, 02 Feb 2024
The second referee agreed to review a few times but failed to do so eventually after several reminders. Finding another reviewer wasn't successful either. Meanwhile, the paper received two non-referee reviews during the open discussions, and we found each of them is insightful and constructive. In this situation, I suggest we should move forward to make decision.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1859-EC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Marc Stettler, 15 Mar 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1859/egusphere-2023-1859-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Marc Stettler, 15 Mar 2024
Peer review completion
Post-review adjustments
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1,822 | 955 | 38 | 2,815 | 127 | 44 | 27 |
- HTML: 1,822
- PDF: 955
- XML: 38
- Total: 2,815
- Supplement: 127
- BibTeX: 44
- EndNote: 27
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
2 citations as recorded by crossref.
- Combining Fleetwide AviTeam Aviation Emission Modeling with LCA Perspectives for an Alternative Fuel Impact Assessment J. Klenner et al. 10.1021/acs.est.3c08592
- Feasibility of contrail avoidance in a commercial flight planning system: an operational analysis A. Martin Frias et al. 10.1088/2634-4505/ad310c
Roger Teoh
Zebediah Engberg
Ulrich Schumann
Christiane Voigt
Marc Shapiro
Susanne Rohs
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2408 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(3082 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper