the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Predicting Contrails and Their Potential Climate Impact With Uncertainty In Mind
Abstract. Pre-tactical contrail avoidance is a promising near-term strategy for reducing aviation’s non-CO2 climate impacts, but its effectiveness depends strongly on the accuracy of upper-tropospheric humidity forecasts. Because persistent contrails only occur in ice-supersaturated air, even small humidity errors can shift regions between contrail-forming and contrail-free states. To quantify how this uncertainty affects predicted contrail formation and potential climate impact, we apply a Monte Carlo framework in which spatially correlated, time-varying humidity perturbations are calibrated to published cruise-altitude forecast-error statistics and propagated through the Contrail Cirrus Prediction model (CoCiP) using ERA-5 meteorology and observed flight trajectories. The resulting ensemble simulations show that CoCiP’s deterministic estimates can misrepresent both the magnitude and robustness of contrail climate impact, particularly near the relative-humidity threshold for persistent contrail formation. For high-impact warming flights, ensemble impacts are often lower than the deterministic estimate even when all ensemble members remain warming, reflecting the asymmetric response introduced by the saturation threshold. For cooling flights, deterministic estimates can likewise overstate the magnitude of expected cooling. At the fleet level, humidity uncertainty changes the ranking of flights by predicted climate impact and alters which flights remain strong candidates for mitigation under risk-based decision criteria. A simple altitude-modification example further shows how uncertainty-aware evaluation can identify trajectory changes that remain beneficial across plausible humidity realizations while preserving favorable cooling effects elsewhere. Overall, these results demonstrate that probabilistic impact estimates provide a more useful basis for contrail mitigation planning than deterministic predictions alone.
- Preprint
(1588 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 25 Nov 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-4926', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Oct 2026 reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-4926', Anonymous Referee #3, 26 Oct 2026
reply
****Review of “Predicting Contrails and Their Potential Climate Impact With Uncertainty In Mind”****
This manuscript provides a novel methodology for evaluating potential climate impacts of contrails whilst accounting for uncertainties in the relative humidity with respect to ice. The spatiotemporal correlations of the uncertainty are accounted for using Perlin noise, which is scaled to match the variance of the RHi error distribution described by Thompson et al. (2024). These symmetric perturbations in RHi are applied to the ECMWF ERA5 humidity field only. Contrail climate impacts (CO2eq) are then evaluated over 300 000 flight trajectories by using the pycontrails implementation of CoCiP. The authors highlight that the deterministic predictions of CO2eq consistently overestimate the ensemble-based impact. The authors conclude that the current contrail avoidance paradigm which avoids the most impactful contrails is not robust to meteorological uncertainty.
This manuscript provides an overdue, necessary step towards robust contrail avoidance. However, the methodology is not yet sufficiently developed. For example, Perlin noise is directly applied to the relative humidity instead of the temperature or water vapour fields, and in the horizontal and time dimensions. This causes the same relative humidity perturbations to correspond to larger water vapour perturbations in regions where the ambient temperature is higher. This could create biases in the results which are currently unaccounted for. Furthermore, the effects that the specific choice of contrail process model has on the conclusions are not considered. The quality of the analysis therefore suffers because limitations of the methodology are not considered to a sufficient degree to warrant the conclusions. Hopefully the conclusions would remain unchanged when accounting for these limitations, but without at least considering the effects it is difficult to know whether the conclusions are robust.
For these reasons, despite the strong motivation and potential impact of this work, I recommend major revisions before publication at Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.****Major points to address****
---------------------Choice of RHi as the random noise variable---------------------Applying random noise to the RHi field (lines 106-165) whilst keeping the temperature constant leads to situations in which the same perturbation in RHi produces different changes in the water vapour concentration at the same pressure level because of differences in temperature between those points. In short, warmer regions experience larger changes in the water vapour concentration than cooler regions. Hence, in warmer regions where the difference between the ambient and critical Schmidt-Appleman temperatures is small, these perturbations have a stronger effect (more likely to impact whether a contrail forms or not) than in cooler regions (where the contrail will likely still form). This also makes the perturbations effectively asymmetric in a way which is not currently considered or quantified.
Given that simulated contrail ice growth is largely driven by the absolute difference between water vapour concentration and the saturation water vapour concentration (see e.g. eq. 44 in Schumann, 2012), the effects of direct RHi perturbations on the entire contrail evolution may also be silently boosted/attenuated in certain regions with warmer/cooler temperatures. Hence, the choice of applying noise to the RHi directly likely affects the degree by which the ensemble median is lower than the deterministic CO2eq value. I recommend that a second experiment is performed in which perturbations are applied to the water vapour concentration directly. This would reveal the extent to which any potential biases arise from the choice of RHi as a random variable.
---------------------Perlin noise construction---------------------
The Perlin horizontal grid resolution is quoted as 8×8° (line 120), or containing 32 meteorological grid points (line 119). Given the sensitivity of contrail evolution to the available water mass, perturbations may affect the entire lifecycle of contrails if they span a large enough region. Hence, the authors must justify their choice of the horizontal Perlin noise grid resolution. Furthermore, the sensitivity of the study’s findings to the Perlin noise grid resolution (in both horizontal dimensions and in time) has not been explored. I recommend that the authors conduct a sensitivity study in which the Perlin noise resolution is varied to test the robustness of the findings.
Inclusion of the time dimension in the Perlin noise grid (lines 115-120) means that, at a local scale, water vapour is generated and eliminated spuriously instead of diffusing and advecting. This assumption is non-physical. To illustrate why, consider an example ice supersaturated region (ISSR), which has formed as water vapour has been advected into the tropopause by a fixed gravity wave. In the authors’ representation of Perlin noise, the humidity could decrease in the ISSR at one time and increase later – even though the upstream source of the humidity and the gravity wave remain the same. Hence, this formulation treats the Perlin ensembles as versions of the baseline subject to numerical noise instead of true ensemble variations of the actual meteorology (which would instead be obtained by initially perturbing the meteorology, and then evolving it in a numerical weather prediction model, as highlighted by the authors in lines 110-113). Although the authors are aware of the alternative approach to generating ensembles with Perlin noise, in the manuscript this is presented as way to justify the use of Perlin noise instead of as a potential limitation of the methodology. Therefore, I recommend that the authors explore the implications of using Perlin noise, and the degree to which it might produce incorrect or biased conclusions. This exploration does not need to necessarily be quantitative, nor involve a repeat of the experiments.
Finally, the choice to not use Perlin noise variations within the vertical dimension (lines 128-130) is not explored in sufficient detail. Due to atmospheric stratification, variations in the vertical direction happen at lower length scales than variations in the horizontal direction. The choice to not to vary the Perlin noise in the vertical direction corresponds to an infinite vertical length scale, which is non-physical. This could affect the results and conclusions. Given this, the authors should either implement Perlin noise which varies in the vertical direction or provide an appropriate reason as to why variations in the vertical direction should not be used.
-------Justification for the use of CoCiP, and description of its potential limitations-------
One of the most important choices made by the authors is the use of CoCiP as a contrail model. First, critical reproducibility details have been omitted in the manuscript, including the pycontrails CoCiP version used, as well as the model configuration used. This must be addressed.
Second, the choice of CoCiP requires justification. It would be good enough to say, for example, that the European MRV uses CoCiP and hence employing CoCiP is warranted given its use by policymakers.
Finally, the authors propose (but do not execute) an extension to the study in lines 374-375 to consider the effects of model configuration, following the approach in Platt et al. (2024). I believe this extension, expanded in scope, needs to be explored in this study in order to understand the implications of choosing a single contrail process model for the findings of this study. Beyond varying the variables in Platt et al. (2024), I encourage the authors to think carefully about the modelling choices made by CoCiP to determine whether there is a need to perform specific experiments to determine the sensitivity of the findings to the choice of contrail process model – not just the CoCiP configuration. For example, repeating the experiment with boosted/limited sedimentation in CoCiP would allow the authors to infer whether sedimentation affects the conclusions. This could then be used to infer whether the 0D nature of CoCiP is likely to affect the conclusions from this study without needing to employ another contrail process model. Although such experiments would be unable to predict the precise effect of changing the contrail process model, it would add a quantitative representation of the sensitivity of the findings of this study to the choice of model. Hence, a reader would be more likely to know whether this method is appropriate for their model or use case.
-------------Unknown link between exceedance ratio and likelihood of event--------------
In line 211-214 (and throughout the manuscript) it is assumed that the larger the exceedance ratio, the larger the confidence of the expected climate impact from a particular flight. It would be recommendable to add a comment about how “realistic” each of these ensembles is, and potential ways of validating the ensemble generation in the future. In particular, I would recommend the authors to comment on the extent to which their ensembles might be under-dispersed, and hence the degree to which they are characterizing the true meteorological uncertainty.****Minor points to address****
Throughout the manuscript:
-RHice should not be in italics
-Ensure capitalisation of section headers is consistent (e.g. Sect 2 and Sect 2.1)
-Most figures have very small, barely legible text. Please amend the text size from Fig. 2 onwards
Lines 38-39: “Recent studies indicate that forecast errors in ISSR position are often dominated by spatial displacement, with characteristic offsets that can be small relative to feasible rerouting distances.” is an overreaching claim given the limited studies exploring this. Please soften this statement.
Line 65: “humidity errors are far larger than temperature errors” is a qualitative statement. Please quantify this with appropriate citations.
Section 2.2: Please clarify what the paper’s source of ADS-B data is, as well as its coverage.
Eq. 2: The upper limit of the RHi clipping mask (1.60; or 160 % RHi) likely corresponds to homogeneous nucleation, but this is not stated. Please justify this choice with appropriate evidence.
Line 137: Please define S-WRF.
Lines 167-186: This entire section should probably go under the methodology.
Line 184: Please define the indicator function.
Throughout Sect 3: Please give an uncertainty interval alongside the mean CO2eq results. This is leveraged enough to show the benefits of this paper’s approach.
Line 283: “can have very different medians and intervals” is qualitative. Please quantify this with a representative example
Line 347: “Safe and risk-aware” – safe is overreaching, only risk-aware is justifiable
Lines 348-349: “Neither of these two datasets match the observations in their distribution of RHice compared with the observations.” Please correct the repeated referral to observations.
Code and data availability: be more specific about which data cannot be publicly released.
Vigier 2026 reference: The link to the Vigier GitHub repository is broken. The text displays correctly, but the underlying link is missing a dash between perlin and numpy. Please fix this.
(Optional) Lines 357-361: I would like to see how the exceedance ratio trade-off with expected climate impact looks like. This is not a necessary inclusion, but rather a request out of curiosity.****References****
Platt, J. C., Shapiro, M. L., Engberg, Z., McCloskey, K., Geraedts, S., Sankar, T., Stettler, M. E. J., Teoh, R., Schumann, U., Rohs, S., Brand, E., and Van Arsdale, C.: The effect of uncertainty in humidity and model parameters on the prediction of contrail energy forcing, Environ. Res. Commun., 6, 095015, https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/ad6ee5, 2024.
Schumann, U.: A contrail cirrus prediction model, Geosci. Model Dev., 5, 543–580, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-5-543-2012, 2012.
Thompson, G., Scholzen, C., O'Donoghue, S., Haughton, M., Jones, R. L., Durant, A., and Farrington, C.: On the fidelity of high-resolution numerical weather forecasts of contrail-favorable conditions, Atmos. Res., 311, 107663, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2024.107663, 2024.
Unterstrasser, S. and Gierens, K.: Numerical simulations of contrail-to-cirrus transition – Part 1: An extensive parametric study, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 2017–2036, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-2017-2010, 2010.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-4926-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 451 | 154 | 33 | 638 | 35 | 34 |
- HTML: 451
- PDF: 154
- XML: 33
- Total: 638
- BibTeX: 35
- EndNote: 34
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
see attachment