the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 26 Mar 2025
Anthropogenic climate change has increased severity of mid-latitude storms and impacted airport operations
Abstract. The impact of extreme weather events, particularly those associated with tropical and extra-tropical cyclones (TC and ETC), on aviation can rise serious concerns in the context of the ongoing climate change. These events often lead to significant disruptions, including flight cancellations, delays, re-routing, and impacts on airport infrastructure resilience to adverse weather conditions. This study conducts an analysis of the influence of anthropogenic climate change on four recent major storm events that occurred over Europe, the USA, and East Asia, with an in-depth analysis on the Storm Eunice, a powerful ETC that affected the UK and Ireland. Using climate reanalysis data we assess the dynamics of these extreme storms and their implications for aviation operations, particularly during critical phases such as take-off and landing. Our research underscores the growing intensity of extreme storms, particularly stronger winds, driven by human-induced climate change, and stresses the need for taking into account growing climate hazards to optimize planes and airport operations.
- Preprint
(3846 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 17 May 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1219', Anonymous Referee #1, 24 Apr 2025
reply
Summary:
The study uses Faranda’s attribution technique to assess the impact of climate change on four extratropical and tropical storms. The stated goal is to assess the effect of climate change on airport operations, but aside from brief and general statements in the introduction about how air traffic is affected by storms, little connection is made between the effects of climate change and airport opertaions. When reading the abstract and title I was expecting a more detailed and quantitative analysis of how the impacts on airport and flight operations have been affected by climate change. In the summary section, the authors state: “In summary, our findings demonstrate that Eunice-like storms are becoming more severe in the current climate, with significant implications for transportation systems and public safety.” Except for vague allusions this has not at all been addressed in the manuscript. Some suggestions how to address this follow below, and my recommendation is major revisions.
General comments:
- The link between the impacts of the effects of climate change and airport operations are superficial and sometimes misleading (e.g., stronger headwind actually improves airplane performance; the authors also suggest an increased risk due to increased tailwinds, which is not likely a big impact because tailwind operations are easily and commonly avoided); while wind shear in downbursts is dangerous, in extratropical cyclones wind shear typically means that the planes take off into the shear, which improves climb performance (likewise, descending into wind shear acts to increase the headwind, so it is not inherently dangerous). So, a much more nuanced analysis is needed when considering the impacts of ETCs on aircraft operations. (I’m not arguing that stronger winds don’t cause disruptions, but the current argument in the manuscript is imprecise.)
My recommendation is that either the “spin” of the paper is adjusted, away from airport operations, and instead putting more emphasis on how the weather systems were affected by climate change. Alternatively, a much more detailed analysis about how climate change actually affected air travel would be needed: Given the increases of turbulence/wind speed, how many more delays happened due to climate change? What are the costs? Wouldn’t this be the questions that stakeholders would be interested in? - Throughout the manuscript, the authors use wind shear (which should have units of 1/s rather than m/s) when I think they mean "bulk wind difference" (which has the unit of m/s).
Specific comments:
- Line 35: The impact of wind shear on aircraft performance is too vague.
- Line 77: The development or presence of frontal zones?
- Line 92: So you are considering the temporal minimum? When the ETC was the most intense?
- Line 97: 35-year periods
- Line 141: Either use e.g., in front of the Volonte reference, or cite the original study by Browning where the phenomenon is introduced
- Line 167: Not sure what you mean by pressure lines becoming narrower. Pressure gradient increasing?
- Line 174: Not sure about the tail winds—these are easily avoided by choosing the appropriate runway.
- Line 178: Shear has the units s-1—you probably mean wind difference?
- Line 210, 225: precipitation (no plural)
- Line 237: “Very extremely high” is a little excessive. Just state that there was an anomaly of +7 K.
- Line 244: Suggest starting a new paragraph here.
- Line 248, 251: Wind speed gradients have the unit of s-1.
- Line 251, 254: Wind shear (commonly used in its singular form); also, incorrect units.
- Line 255: Not sure why turbulence suggests frontogenesis; please provide additional justification, or omit.
- Line 258: Check units of the wind speed gradients.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1219-RC1 - The link between the impacts of the effects of climate change and airport operations are superficial and sometimes misleading (e.g., stronger headwind actually improves airplane performance; the authors also suggest an increased risk due to increased tailwinds, which is not likely a big impact because tailwind operations are easily and commonly avoided); while wind shear in downbursts is dangerous, in extratropical cyclones wind shear typically means that the planes take off into the shear, which improves climb performance (likewise, descending into wind shear acts to increase the headwind, so it is not inherently dangerous). So, a much more nuanced analysis is needed when considering the impacts of ETCs on aircraft operations. (I’m not arguing that stronger winds don’t cause disruptions, but the current argument in the manuscript is imprecise.)
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 87 | 21 | 5 | 113 | 5 | 3 |
- HTML: 87
- PDF: 21
- XML: 5
- Total: 113
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 3
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1