the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Distribution and morphology of non-persistent and persistent contrail formation areas in ERA5
Abstract. The contrail formation potential as well as its temporal and spatial distribution are estimated using meteorological conditions of temperature and relative humidity from the ERA5 re-analysis provided by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts. Contrail formation is estimated with the Schmidt–Appleman criterion (SAc), solely considering thermodynamic effects. The focus is on a region ranging from Eastern United States to central Europe. Around 18,000 flight trajectories from the In-service Aircraft for a Global Observing System (IAGOS) are used as a representative subset of transatlantic, commercial flights. The typical crossing distance through a contrail-prone area is determined based on IAGOS measurements of temperature T and relative humidity r, then based on co-located ERA5 simulations of the same quantities. For IAGOS, 50 % of the crossings of persistent contrail (PC) regions are shorter than 9 km, while in ERA5 the median is 155 km. Time-averaged IAGOS data lead to a median crossing length of 66 km. The difference between the two data sets are attributed to the higher variability of r in IAGOS compared to ERA5. Binary masks of PC formation are created by applying the SAc on the two-dimensional fields of T and r from ERA5. In a second step the morphology of PC regions is also assessed. Half of the PC regions are found to be smaller than ≈35000 km2 (at 200 hPa) and the median of the maximum dimension is shorter than 760 km (at 200 hPa). Furthermore, PC regions tend to be of near-circular shape with a tendency to a slight oval shape and a preferred alignment along the dominant westerly flow. Seasonal, vertical distributions of PC formation potential P are characterized by a maximum between 250 and 200 hPa. P is subject to seasonal variations with a maximum in magnitude and extension during the winter months and a minimum during summer. The horizontal distribution of PC regions suggests that PC regions are likely to appear in the same location on adjacent pressure levels. Climatologies of T , r, wind speed U, and resulting PC formation potential are calculated to identify the constraining effects of T and r on P. PC formation is primarily limited by too warm conditions below and too dry conditions above the formation region. The distribution of PCs is slanted towards lower altitudes from 30° N to 70° N, following lines of constant T and r. For an observed co-location of high U and P it remains unclear whether PC formation and the jet stream are favored by the same meteorological conditions or if the jet stream itself favors PC occurrence. This analysis suggests that some PC regions will be difficult to avoid by rerouting aircraft because of their large vertical and horizontal extents.
-
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
(1605 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1605 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-3086', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Jan 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2023-3086/egusphere-2023-3086-RC1-supplement.pdf
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Kevin Wolf, 04 Mar 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-3086', Anonymous Referee #2, 14 Feb 2024
Review of “Distribution and morphology of non-persistent and persistent contrail formation areas in ERA5” by Wolf et al., egusphere-2023-3086
This paper describes an analysis of the characteristics and morphology of contrail formation regions from the IAGOS aircraft data and the ERA5 reanalysis. The focus is on the North Atlantic flight track around cruise altitudes. Characterising regions of persistent contrail formation is important and very relevant for the potential mitigation of the climate impact of aircraft flights by rerouting. There are a number of interesting results from the analysis, with an overall conclusion that some persistent contrail regions will be difficult to avoid by rerouting aircraft because of their large vertical and horizontal extents and their frequent colocation with the jet stream.
The paper is well written and logically presented and is appropriate for ACP. I have one main comment and several minor corrections that need to be addressed.
MAIN COMMENT
Should the crossing length for ERA5 in Figure 1 and Table 2 have values less than the grid length of 14km - 24km (i.e. values in Fig 1 for ERA5 go down to less than 1km - the native IAGOS resolution - and Table 2 has a 10th percentile for ERA5 PC of 9km)? Line 211 says “short crossing lengths occur less frequently and cannot by construction be smaller than grid-box size”. I assume the reason for small lengths is because the flight track can cut the corner of a grid cell, but then the above sentence is not correct and the reason should be made clear in the text. Whether this makes sense is another matter, as the ERA5 data is not providing useful information less than the grid length (and probably several grid lengths). Would a different methodology (e.g. a flight track at the resolution of the grid) lead to a significant difference in the results/conclusions?
MINOR CORRECTIONS
Section 2.2
Regarding interpolation of the ERA5 data, it should be noted here that there is already some interpolation from the native grid of ERA5 (reduced gaussian TL639 grid, ~31km approx equally spaced grid, and 137 hybrid sigma-pressure coordinate levels) to the lat/lon 0.25 degree grid and fixed pressure levels.
e.g. https://confluence.ecmwf.int/display/CKB/ERA5%3A+What+is+the+spatial+referenceLine 138
Duplication of "fixed grid resolution"Line 147
bellow->belowLine 156
Given the “reservoir (R)” conditions are mentioned, it is worth just mentioning briefly in one sentence what this refers to, as it may not be obvious to the reader and shouldn’t require looking up in a different paper.Line 340
relative -> relativelyLine 344
“Figure 5b….indicates that PC regions are generally small…”
This part of the sentence is a bit vague and the size of PC regions is already quantified in Fig 4b, so I suggest removing it.Line 426
“…to the 2D binary arrays of PC occurrence.” I suggest adding “in the ERA5 dataset.” to this sentence for clarity.Lines 451 and 452
extend -> extentLine 455
“isohumes (lines of constant moisture)” should be “(lines of constant relative humidity)” for clarity.Fig 4.
Top right x-axis says “Major axis length” but the caption says “maximum dimension” which is 2x the major axis length.Fig 4.
caption 4th line
“are are”Fig 5.
Left axis label says “Major axis length” but the caption says “maximum dimension” which is 2x the major axis length.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-3086-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Kevin Wolf, 04 Mar 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-3086', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Jan 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2023-3086/egusphere-2023-3086-RC1-supplement.pdf
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Kevin Wolf, 04 Mar 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-3086', Anonymous Referee #2, 14 Feb 2024
Review of “Distribution and morphology of non-persistent and persistent contrail formation areas in ERA5” by Wolf et al., egusphere-2023-3086
This paper describes an analysis of the characteristics and morphology of contrail formation regions from the IAGOS aircraft data and the ERA5 reanalysis. The focus is on the North Atlantic flight track around cruise altitudes. Characterising regions of persistent contrail formation is important and very relevant for the potential mitigation of the climate impact of aircraft flights by rerouting. There are a number of interesting results from the analysis, with an overall conclusion that some persistent contrail regions will be difficult to avoid by rerouting aircraft because of their large vertical and horizontal extents and their frequent colocation with the jet stream.
The paper is well written and logically presented and is appropriate for ACP. I have one main comment and several minor corrections that need to be addressed.
MAIN COMMENT
Should the crossing length for ERA5 in Figure 1 and Table 2 have values less than the grid length of 14km - 24km (i.e. values in Fig 1 for ERA5 go down to less than 1km - the native IAGOS resolution - and Table 2 has a 10th percentile for ERA5 PC of 9km)? Line 211 says “short crossing lengths occur less frequently and cannot by construction be smaller than grid-box size”. I assume the reason for small lengths is because the flight track can cut the corner of a grid cell, but then the above sentence is not correct and the reason should be made clear in the text. Whether this makes sense is another matter, as the ERA5 data is not providing useful information less than the grid length (and probably several grid lengths). Would a different methodology (e.g. a flight track at the resolution of the grid) lead to a significant difference in the results/conclusions?
MINOR CORRECTIONS
Section 2.2
Regarding interpolation of the ERA5 data, it should be noted here that there is already some interpolation from the native grid of ERA5 (reduced gaussian TL639 grid, ~31km approx equally spaced grid, and 137 hybrid sigma-pressure coordinate levels) to the lat/lon 0.25 degree grid and fixed pressure levels.
e.g. https://confluence.ecmwf.int/display/CKB/ERA5%3A+What+is+the+spatial+referenceLine 138
Duplication of "fixed grid resolution"Line 147
bellow->belowLine 156
Given the “reservoir (R)” conditions are mentioned, it is worth just mentioning briefly in one sentence what this refers to, as it may not be obvious to the reader and shouldn’t require looking up in a different paper.Line 340
relative -> relativelyLine 344
“Figure 5b….indicates that PC regions are generally small…”
This part of the sentence is a bit vague and the size of PC regions is already quantified in Fig 4b, so I suggest removing it.Line 426
“…to the 2D binary arrays of PC occurrence.” I suggest adding “in the ERA5 dataset.” to this sentence for clarity.Lines 451 and 452
extend -> extentLine 455
“isohumes (lines of constant moisture)” should be “(lines of constant relative humidity)” for clarity.Fig 4.
Top right x-axis says “Major axis length” but the caption says “maximum dimension” which is 2x the major axis length.Fig 4.
caption 4th line
“are are”Fig 5.
Left axis label says “Major axis length” but the caption says “maximum dimension” which is 2x the major axis length.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-3086-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Kevin Wolf, 04 Mar 2024
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
262 | 90 | 16 | 368 | 5 | 7 |
- HTML: 262
- PDF: 90
- XML: 16
- Total: 368
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 7
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Nicolas Bellouin
Olivier Boucher
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1605 KB) - Metadata XML