the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
An updated microphysical model for particle activation in contrails: the role of volatile plume particles
Abstract. Global simulations suggest the mean annual contrail-cirrus net radiative forcing is comparable to that of aviation’s accumulated CO2 emissions. However, these simulations assume non-volatile particulate matter (nvPM) and ambient particles are the only source of condensation nuclei, omitting activation of volatile particulate matter (vPM) formed in the nascent plume. Here, we extend a microphysical framework to include vPM and benchmark this against a parcel model (pyrcel) modified to treat contrail formation. We explore how the apparent emission index (EI) of contrail ice crystals (AEIice) scales with EInvPM, vPM properties, ambient temperature and aircraft/fuel characteristics. We find model agreement within 20 % in the previously defined “soot-poor” regime. However, discrepancies increase non-linearly (up to 60 %) in the “soot-rich” regime, due to differing treatment of droplet growth. Both models predict that in the “soot-poor” regime, AEIice approaches 1016 kg-1 for low ambient temperatures (< 210 K) and sulphur-rich vPM, which is comparable to estimates in the “soot-rich” regime. Moreover, our sensitivity analyses suggest that the point of transition between the “soot-poor” and “soot-rich” regimes is a dynamic threshold on EInvPM that ranges from 1013 kg-1 – 1016 kg-1 and depends sensitively on ambient temperature and vPM properties, underlining the need for vPM emission characterisation measurements. We suggest that existing contrail simulations omitting vPM activation may underestimate AEIice, especially for flights powered by engines with very low EInvPM (<1013 kg-1). Under these conditions, AEIice might be reduced by reducing fuel sulphur content, minimising organic emissions and/or avoiding cooler regions of the atmosphere.
- Preprint
(5461 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(4420 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1717', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 Jun 2025
Review of “An updated microphysical model for particle activation in contrails: the role of volatile plume particles” by Joel Ponsonby et al.
This study proposes an updated scheme for particle activation in contrails and evaluates its performance in two parcel models. The topic is both timely and highly relevant, and the work brings a valuable and novel contribution to the existing literature. The manuscript is well written and scientifically robust, and I therefore support its publication. I have only a few comments and suggestions that could help further strengthen the paper before publication.
Main comment:
Evaluation against observations: It would be good to assess the extent to which the inclusion of vPM activation (using the framework proposed here) affects simulated AEI_ice for some case studies where observational data are available, e.g. PAZI-2, ECLIF II, CONCERT – see Table 1 in Bier and Burkhardt (2022).
Minor comments:
- Section 5.1 needs to articulate more clearly the extent to which current global contrail simulations are impacted by the limitations addressed by this proposed new scheme. The current text implies that all existing global contrail models rely on nvPM properties to parameterise AEI_ice, leading to the conclusion that “current global contrail simulations may underestimate global contrail forcing” (line 643). This is not necessarily true, as there are significant differences in how existing contrail schemes in climate models initialize contrails.
- Lines 9-11: While the study suggests that including vPM activation in models is likely to increase contrail cirrus RF estimates, the use of “however” in the second sentence of the abstract could be interpreted to imply the opposite. I recommend rephrasing this to avoid potential confusions.
- The phrase “both models” on line 16 of the abstract is unclear, as the two models are not introduced beforehand. Consider revising the opening sentences to explicitly mention the models being compared, which will help orient the reader.
Technical corrections:
- Line 230: at least on my screen what is referred to as green lines appear in fact as grey.
- Line 550: Fig. 7 caption should mention 211-223K rather than 211-213K.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1717-RC1 -
AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1717', Marc Stettler, 01 Aug 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-1717/egusphere-2025-1717-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1717', Anonymous Referee #2, 23 Jun 2025
This paper update two different microphysical model and perform sensitivity analysis to input parameters with only one of this model, the one that seems the most realistic. Their update consist in adding a distribution to account for volatile particles in order to be able to compute contrail formation in low soot regime. Overall the model modification are well explained as well as most of the underlying hypothesis; however several informations are missing such as what is the density of the volatiles particles, the surface tension... The main limitation of this study in my opinion, that they fix the number of volatile particles but little is done to look at the dependency of the results to this parameter.
-
AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1717', Marc Stettler, 01 Aug 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-1717/egusphere-2025-1717-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1717', Marc Stettler, 01 Aug 2025
-
AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1717', Marc Stettler, 01 Aug 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-1717/egusphere-2025-1717-AC1-supplement.pdf
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1717', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 Jun 2025
Review of “An updated microphysical model for particle activation in contrails: the role of volatile plume particles” by Joel Ponsonby et al.
This study proposes an updated scheme for particle activation in contrails and evaluates its performance in two parcel models. The topic is both timely and highly relevant, and the work brings a valuable and novel contribution to the existing literature. The manuscript is well written and scientifically robust, and I therefore support its publication. I have only a few comments and suggestions that could help further strengthen the paper before publication.
Main comment:
Evaluation against observations: It would be good to assess the extent to which the inclusion of vPM activation (using the framework proposed here) affects simulated AEI_ice for some case studies where observational data are available, e.g. PAZI-2, ECLIF II, CONCERT – see Table 1 in Bier and Burkhardt (2022).
Minor comments:
- Section 5.1 needs to articulate more clearly the extent to which current global contrail simulations are impacted by the limitations addressed by this proposed new scheme. The current text implies that all existing global contrail models rely on nvPM properties to parameterise AEI_ice, leading to the conclusion that “current global contrail simulations may underestimate global contrail forcing” (line 643). This is not necessarily true, as there are significant differences in how existing contrail schemes in climate models initialize contrails.
- Lines 9-11: While the study suggests that including vPM activation in models is likely to increase contrail cirrus RF estimates, the use of “however” in the second sentence of the abstract could be interpreted to imply the opposite. I recommend rephrasing this to avoid potential confusions.
- The phrase “both models” on line 16 of the abstract is unclear, as the two models are not introduced beforehand. Consider revising the opening sentences to explicitly mention the models being compared, which will help orient the reader.
Technical corrections:
- Line 230: at least on my screen what is referred to as green lines appear in fact as grey.
- Line 550: Fig. 7 caption should mention 211-223K rather than 211-213K.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1717-RC1 -
AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1717', Marc Stettler, 01 Aug 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-1717/egusphere-2025-1717-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1717', Anonymous Referee #2, 23 Jun 2025
This paper update two different microphysical model and perform sensitivity analysis to input parameters with only one of this model, the one that seems the most realistic. Their update consist in adding a distribution to account for volatile particles in order to be able to compute contrail formation in low soot regime. Overall the model modification are well explained as well as most of the underlying hypothesis; however several informations are missing such as what is the density of the volatiles particles, the surface tension... The main limitation of this study in my opinion, that they fix the number of volatile particles but little is done to look at the dependency of the results to this parameter.
-
AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1717', Marc Stettler, 01 Aug 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-1717/egusphere-2025-1717-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1717', Marc Stettler, 01 Aug 2025
-
AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1717', Marc Stettler, 01 Aug 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-1717/egusphere-2025-1717-AC1-supplement.pdf
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
583 | 88 | 14 | 685 | 49 | 8 | 29 |
- HTML: 583
- PDF: 88
- XML: 14
- Total: 685
- Supplement: 49
- BibTeX: 8
- EndNote: 29
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1