<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0" article-type="research-article"><?xmltex \bartext{Research article}?>
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">ACP</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">ACP</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Atmos. Chem. Phys.</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1680-7324</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/acp-22-10919-2022</article-id><title-group><article-title>Aviation contrail climate effects in the<?xmltex \hack{\break}?> North Atlantic from 2016 to 2021</article-title><alt-title>Aviation contrail climate effects</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Aviation contrail climate effects}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{R. Teoh et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Teoh</surname><given-names>Roger</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Schumann</surname><given-names>Ulrich</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5255-6869</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Gryspeerdt</surname><given-names>Edward</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3815-4756</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>Shapiro</surname><given-names>Marc</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff5">
          <name><surname>Molloy</surname><given-names>Jarlath</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff5">
          <name><surname>Koudis</surname><given-names>George</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2 aff6">
          <name><surname>Voigt</surname><given-names>Christiane</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8925-7731</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Stettler</surname><given-names>Marc E. J.</given-names></name>
          <email>m.stettler@imperial.ac.uk</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2066-9380</ext-link></contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Centre for Transport Studies, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, <?xmltex \hack{\break}?>Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und
Raumfahrt,<?xmltex \hack{\break}?> 82234 Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>Grantham Institute – Climate Change and Environment, Imperial College
London, London SW7 2AZ, UK</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>Orca Sciences, Kirkland, WA 98033, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff5"><label>5</label><institution>NATS, Whiteley, Fareham, Hampshire PO15 7FL, UK</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff6"><label>6</label><institution>Institute of Atmospheric Physics, University Mainz, 55099 Mainz,
Germany</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Marc E. J. Stettler (m.stettler@imperial.ac.uk)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>29</day><month>August</month><year>2022</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>22</volume>
      <issue>16</issue>
      <fpage>10919</fpage><lpage>10935</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>2</day><month>March</month><year>2022</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>30</day><month>March</month><year>2022</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>26</day><month>May</month><year>2022</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>18</day><month>June</month><year>2022</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2022 </copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2022</copyright-year>
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/.html">This article is available from https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>

      <p id="d1e187">Around 5 % of anthropogenic radiative forcing (RF) is
attributed to aviation CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and non-CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> impacts. This paper
quantifies aviation emissions and contrail climate forcing in the North
Atlantic, one of the world's busiest air traffic corridors, over 5 years.
Between 2016 and 2019, growth in CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.13</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) and
nitrogen oxide emissions (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) outpaced increases in flight
distance (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.05</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>). Over the same period, the annual mean contrail
cirrus net RF (204–280 mW m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) showed significant inter-annual
variability caused by variations in meteorology. Responses to COVID-19
caused significant reductions in flight distance travelled (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">66</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>),
CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">71</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and the contrail net RF (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">66</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) compared with
the prior 1-year period. Around 12 % of all flights in this region cause
80 % of the annual contrail energy forcing, and the factors associated
with strongly warming/cooling contrails include seasonal changes in
meteorology and radiation, time of day, background cloud fields, and
engine-specific non-volatile particulate matter (nvPM) emissions. Strongly
warming contrails in this region are generally formed in wintertime, close
to the tropopause, between 15:00 and 04:00 UTC, and above low-level clouds.
The most strongly cooling contrails occur in the spring, in the upper
troposphere, between 06:00 and 15:00 UTC, and without lower-level clouds.
Uncertainty in the contrail cirrus net RF (216–238 mW m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) arising
from meteorology in 2019 is smaller than the inter-annual variability. The
contrail RF estimates are most sensitive to the humidity fields, followed by
nvPM emissions and aircraft mass assumptions. This longitudinal evaluation
of aviation contrail impacts contributes a quantified understanding of
inter-annual variability and informs strategies for contrail mitigation.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e369">Aircraft emissions of CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, nitrogen oxides (NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) and soot
particles are major contributors to aviation's climate forcing
(Lee
et al., 2021). Water vapour and soot particles, which consist of a mixture
of non-volatile particulate matter (nvPM) and semi-volatile organic and
inorganic particles
(Petzold et al.,
2013; Kärcher and Yu, 2009; Schumann, 1996; Stettler et al., 2011), can
also contribute to contrail formation when conditions in the exhaust plume
satisfy the Schmidt–Appleman criterion (SAC) (Schumann, 1996).
Contrails that are formed in ice supersaturated regions (ISSR) may persist
and spread over several hours and evolve into contrail cirrus
(Schumann et al., 2017). The annual mean contrail cirrus
cover can be up to 10 % of the sky area in high-air-traffic regions such
as Europe and the US east coast (Burkhardt and Kärcher,
2011). Contrail cirrus absorbs and re-emits outgoing long-wave (LW) infrared
radiation at all times and only reflects incoming short-wave (SW) solar
radiation during the day
(Meerkötter et al., 1999),
with the net result being a positive (warming) radiative forcing (RF)
(Kärcher,
2018; Lee et al., 2021).</p>
      <p id="d1e390">An evaluation of global aviation activity in 2018 estimated that
contrail cirrus is the largest contributor to annual mean RF due to
aviation, at 111 [33, 189] mW m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (95 % confidence interval),
followed by aviation's cumulative CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (34 [31, 38] mW m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) and
annual NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions (8.2 [<inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.8</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, 16] mW m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)
(Lee
et al., 2021). Although the nominal contrail cirrus net RF is around 3 times higher than the CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> RF, its effect on global mean surface
temperature change is less certain for the following reasons: contrail cirrus is
heterogeneously distributed; it mainly warms the upper troposphere; and it dehydrates
the atmosphere, which could reduce the occurrence and optical thickness of natural
cirrus and partially offset its warming effect
(Meerkötter
et al., 1999; Schumann and Mayer, 2017; Ponater et al., 2021). To account
for these second-order effects, the climate forcing of contrail cirrus is
also quantified as the effective radiative forcing (ERF)
(Ponater
et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2021; Myhre et al., 2013; Szopa et al., 2021). The
global annual mean contrail cirrus net ERF (57.4 [17, 98] mW m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) is
estimated to be 47 % smaller than the contrail cirrus net RF (111 [33,
189] mW m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), but the contrail cirrus net ERF estimate (57.4 [17, 98] mW m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) is still 67 % larger than the CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> ERF (34.3 [28, 40] mW m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)
(Lee
et al., 2021). Unlike the spatial homogeneity of CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> forcing, the
climate forcing due to contrail cirrus varies spatially and temporally,
depending on the local meteorology, surface and cloud albedo, and air
traffic density
(Meerkötter
et al., 1999; Stuber et al., 2006; Sanz-Morère et al., 2021; Schumann et
al., 2012; Chen and Gettelman, 2013; Burkhardt and Kärcher, 2011;
Schumann and Heymsfield, 2017). The annual mean contrail cirrus net RF
ranges from 70 to 360 mW m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> over low-albedo regions, such as the North
Atlantic flight corridor, to over 1 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> over high-traffic regions with
higher albedo, such as North America and Europe
(Chen and Gettelman,
2013; Schumann et al., 2015; Schumann and Graf, 2013; Burkhardt and
Kärcher, 2011; Bock and Burkhardt, 2019).</p>
      <p id="d1e558">While atmospheric conditions determine the formation and persistence of a
contrail, the aircraft non-volatile soot number emissions index (EI<inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>)
modifies the contrail properties
(Kärcher, 2018;
Schumann, 1996; Voigt et al., 2021; Bräuer et al., 2021b). In the
“soot-rich” regime, where EI<inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">13</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, and
under ice supersaturated conditions, the initial contrail ice crystal number is
proportional to nvPM EI<inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> because these particles act as the primary
source of condensation nuclei (Schumann, 1996;
Kleine et al., 2018). Under “soot-poor” conditions, ice crystal numbers are
thought to be constrained by a lower limit of around 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">13</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> due
to the presence of organic particles and ambient natural aerosols
(Kärcher, 2018). Recent cruise measurements have found that
the fraction of aircraft nvPM that activates into contrail ice crystals
depends on the ambient temperature
(Bräuer et al., 2021a), and they also
confirmed that a lower EI<inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> reduces the ice crystal number and optical
depth (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) of young contrails
(Voigt et al., 2021;
Bräuer et al., 2021b). Studies that used a contrail life cycle simulation
have shown that a lower nvPM EI<inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> can reduce contrail lifetime and
climate forcing
(Burkhardt
et al., 2018; Teoh et al., 2020b; Bock and Burkhardt, 2019; Schumann et al.,
2013). Although the nvPM EI<inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is recognised as a critical parameter that
initialises the ice particle number in contrail models, previous estimates
(Schumann
et al., 2021; Teoh et al., 2020b; Caiazzo et al., 2017; Schumann, 2012) that
found the EI<inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> to be in the range of 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">14</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> to 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">15</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> were
informed by measurements from a limited number of aircraft–engine types
(Moore
et al., 2017; Durdina et al., 2017; Wey et al., 2006; Lobo et al., 2015;
Boies et al., 2015). However, recent ground nvPM measurements from the
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) show that the EI<inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> can
vary by up to 5 orders of magnitude for different power outputs and
engine types, ranging between 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">16</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (EASA, 2021). This large variation in nvPM EI<inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
by engine type would translate to differences in their respective contrail
properties (Jeßberger et al., 2013), but these effects
have not yet been comprehensively quantified.</p>
      <p id="d1e757">An earlier study focusing on the Japanese airspace
(Teoh et al., 2020b) found that 2 % of all
flights are responsible for 80 % of the contrail energy forcing (the total
energy trapped in the atmosphere by contrails). However, these results were
derived from 6 weeks of air traffic data, and the relatively small sample
size did not allow for the identification of factors that led to the
formation of strongly warming/cooling contrails. In this study, we use a new
dataset containing air traffic data for the North Atlantic region from
January 2016 to March 2021 to address these limitations. This dataset also
spans the COVID-19 period, which resulted in a 60 % year-on-year drop in
global passenger traffic (ICAO, 2021), thereby enabling us
to quantify the changes in aircraft emissions and contrail climate forcing
in this region and compare it with previous estimates
(Schumann
et al., 2021; Gettelman et al., 2021; Quaas et al., 2021).</p>
      <p id="d1e761">This paper aims to (i) evaluate the magnitude and the changes in aircraft
CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and nvPM number emissions and contrail climate forcing in
the North Atlantic from January 2016 to March 2021, including effects from
the COVID-19 pandemic; (ii) identify the set of factors that lead to
strongly warming/cooling contrails; (iii) conduct uncertainty and
sensitivity analyses relating to meteorological, emissions and model
parameters; and (iv) discuss the implications for contrail mitigation.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Materials and methods</title>
      <p id="d1e790">This section describes the datasets and models that are used to simulate the
aircraft emissions, contrail properties and climate forcing that arise from
individual flights in the North Atlantic region. In summary, we used (i) an
air traffic dataset provided by the UK air navigation service provider,
NATS; (ii) the ERA5 high-resolution realisation (HRES, or “reanalysis”)
and 10-member ensemble reanalysis from the European Centre for Medium-Range
Weather Forecast (ECMWF); (iii) the Base of Aircraft Data (BADA) aircraft
performance models from EUROCONTROL (2016, 2019); (iv) the ICAO Aircraft Engine Emissions Databank (EDB) (EASA,
2021) and methodologies to estimate the nvPM
(Teoh
et al., 2019, 2020b), NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (DuBois and Paynter, 2006)
and CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions at cruise; and (v) the contrail cirrus prediction
model (CoCiP) (Schumann, 2012).</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>Air traffic dataset</title>
      <p id="d1e818">The air traffic data contain waypoint data for all civil flights that
traversed the Shanwick Oceanic Area Control Centre (OACC) from
1 January 2016 to 31 March 2021, totalling 2.1 million flights. Flight data
include the call sign, operator, origin and destination airports, and the
ICAO aircraft type designator. Waypoint data include 4D positions
(longitude, latitude, altitude and time) recorded when the flight passes
through a series of fixed waypoints along the route and when a climb/descend
air traffic command is executed by the pilot in between the fixed waypoints.</p>
      <p id="d1e821">There are spatio-temporal heterogeneities in the dataset stemming from two distinct sources: (i) waypoints for
westbound flights are only recorded in the Shanwick OACC (10 to
40<inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W), whereas additional waypoints are
available prior to entry into Shanwick for eastbound flights (10 to 70<inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W); and (ii) the temporal resolution between the recorded waypoints ranges from 30 to
3600 s. We resample the dataset by performing a great-circle interpolation
between waypoints to produce flight segments with a uniform temporal
resolution (60 s). Full flight trajectory coverage in the adjacent Gander
OACC is approximated by a great-circle interpolation between the first
(final) recorded waypoint and the origin (destination) airport, with the subsequent
removal of waypoints outside Shanwick and Gander. Therefore, the processed
dataset approximates the air traffic activity in the North Atlantic flight
corridor between 40–75<inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N and 50–10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W. Further information on the NATS dataset is detailed in the Supplement (Sect. S1).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>Meteorology</title>
      <p id="d1e868">Meteorological and radiation data are downloaded from the ECMWF Copernicus
Climate Data Store (ECMWF, 2021). The ERA5 HRES reanalysis is
obtained at a 0.25<inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.25<inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> horizontal resolution for 37 pressure levels and at a 1 h temporal resolution, whereas the ERA5
10-member ensemble (0.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> horizontal resolution, 37 pressure levels, 3 h temporal resolution) provides an estimate of uncertainties in the
reanalysis (Hersbach et al., 2020) and
is used to evaluate uncertainty in contrail forcing due to meteorology
(Sect. 2.6). For each waypoint, we use a quadrilinear interpolation to
estimate the local meteorological values (Schumann, 2012).</p>
      <p id="d1e922">The relative humidity with respect to ice (RHi) determines the contrail
persistence and lifetime (Schumann, 1996; Kärcher, 2018).
However, existing studies have highlighted that the ERA5 humidity fields are
generally weakly supersaturated (RHi <inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>≈</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and underestimate
regions with very high supersaturations (RHi <inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">120</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)
(Gierens
et al., 2020; Schumann et al., 2021; Rädel and Shine, 2010; Reutter et
al., 2020; Tompkins et al., 2007). We present a comparison of the ERA5
humidity fields with in situ measurements from the In-service Aircraft for a
Global Observing System (IAGOS) database
(Petzold et
al., 2020; Boulanger et al., 2018) in Sect. S3, and our
analysis supports these earlier findings (Fig. S9a). To address these
issues, we scale the ERA5 humidity fields throughout the domain by division
of coefficient <inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>; data points within ISSRs (RHi <inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) are then scaled up using a power-law function with coefficient <inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mi>b</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><label>1</label><mml:math id="M71" display="block"><mml:mrow><?xmltex \hack{\hbox\bgroup\fontsize{8.8}{8.8}\selectfont$\displaystyle}?><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">RHi</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Corrected</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close="" open="{"><mml:mtable class="array" columnalign="left left"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">RHi</mml:mi><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>when</mml:mtext><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">RHi</mml:mi><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>min</mml:mtext><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">RHi</mml:mi><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mi>b</mml:mi></mml:msup><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.65</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>when</mml:mtext><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">RHi</mml:mi><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:mfenced><?xmltex \hack{$\egroup}?></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
      <p id="d1e1065">The coefficients (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.9779</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.635</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for the ERA5 HRES;
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.9666</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.776</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for the ERA5 10-member ensemble) are found by
minimising the Cramér–von Mises test statistic (Parr
and Schucany, 1980), a measure of the goodness of fit between two empirical
distributions, between the probability distribution of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">RHi</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Corrected</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and that of the IAGOS observations in
the spatial domain of the air traffic dataset in 2019, comprising 262
flights and 43 919 data points. Further details are included in Sect. S3. We explore the sensitivity of contrail predictions to
meteorological data in Sects. 2.6 and 3.5.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <label>2.3</label><title>Aircraft performance and fuel consumption</title>
      <p id="d1e1135">The BADA Family 3 and 4 aircraft performance models are used to simulate the
physical forces that act upon an aircraft and the resultant fuel consumption
(EUROCONTROL, 2016, 2019). BADA 3 covers over 1400 aircraft
types, whereas BADA 4, which improves upon BADA 3 by including proprietary
manufacturer information and accounting for the compressibility and wave
drag (Nuic et al., 2010), covers 105 aircraft–engine
combinations. The simulated fuel mass flow rate (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and net
thrust are used to estimate the overall propulsion efficiency (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>),
which influences contrail formation (Schumann, 1996).</p>
      <p id="d1e1159">We use BADA 4 where possible, covering 91 % of flights in the NATS dataset,
and BADA 3 for the remaining flights. BADA also provides a range of mass
values for each aircraft type. As aircraft mass is not known, we set the
initial aircraft mass (at the first waypoint) to the nominal (reference)
value for flights occurring before April 2020. For flights affected by the
COVID-19 pandemic, from April 2020, we assume a “low” aircraft mass by
taking the average of the zero-fuel weight and reference values to account
for the reduced load factor. We describe and quantify the sensitivity to
these aircraft mass assumptions in Sects. 2.6 and 3.5.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4">
  <label>2.4</label><title>Emissions</title>
      <p id="d1e1171">An estimate of the nvPM EI<inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions index (EI<inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>)
requires inputs of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and engine-specific data. Here, the
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and aircraft–engine assignments are obtained from BADA, and the ICAO EDB provides the pressure ratio, nvPM
EI<inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and EI<inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> for available engine types at the four certification test points
(EASA, 2021).</p>
      <p id="d1e1258">Three approaches are used to estimate the nvPM EI<inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> at cruise: (i) a new
approach which utilises nvPM EI<inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> measurements from the ICAO EDB to
perform a linear interpolation relative to the non-dimensional engine power
(66.4 % of flights in the NATS dataset); (ii) the fractal aggregates model
that was used in earlier studies
(Teoh
et al., 2020b, a, 2019) to estimate the nvPM EI<inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> from the mass
emissions index (Stettler et al., 2013; Abrahamson et
al., 2016), particle size distribution and morphology (33.3 % of flights);
and (iii) a constant nvPM EI<inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> of 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">15</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> when data on the
aircraft–engine pair are not available (0.3 % of flights). Further
methodological details are described in Sect. S2. Method (i) is
the preferred approach because it captures the distinct emissions profile
from different engine types (Sect. S2.1). However, the new ICAO
EDB nvPM database only provides data for 47 aircraft–engine pairs, thereby
necessitating the use of method (ii) or (iii). Method (ii) was formulated
based on the emissions profile of singular annular combustors. In a
comparison against cruise measurements from Voigt et al. (2021), we found good agreement for the nvPM EI<inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
estimated using method (i) for one aircraft–engine pair (Sect. S2.3). While limited, this indicates that the emissions indices that are
corrected for system line losses are most appropriate.</p>
      <p id="d1e1328">We estimate the cruise EI<inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> using the Fuel Flow Method 2, where
EI<inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> from the ICAO EDB is fitted linearly on a log–log scale and
interpolated using the equivalent <inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at sea level
(DuBois and Paynter, 2006). The CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions are
estimated with a constant emissions index of 3.159 kg CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
(Wilkerson et al., 2010).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS5">
  <label>2.5</label><title>Contrail simulation</title>
      <p id="d1e1412">CoCiP is used to evaluate the life cycle of contrails produced from
individual flights (Schumann, 2012). If two consecutive flight
waypoints satisfy the SAC, a contrail segment is formed. A Runge–Kutta
integration simulates the contrail evolution with time steps of 1800 s until
its end of life, which is defined as the point when the ice number concentration is lower than the
background ice nuclei (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is
less than 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> or the maximum contrail lifetime of 24 h is
reached (Schumann, 2012). Further information on CoCiP can be
found in the literature (Schumann, 2012; Schumann et al.,
2012).</p>
      <p id="d1e1463">The initial contrail properties are dependent on the nvPM EI<inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
(Kärcher, 2018; Schumann, 2012). For this study, we
calculate the nvPM EI<inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> for different aircraft–engine types (Sect. 2.4)
and set a lower bound of 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">13</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> to account for the activation
of organic volatile particles and ambient natural aerosols
(Kärcher, 2018). We have also used the latest evidence from
in situ measurements of contrails that indicates that the activation of nvPM
particles to form contrail ice particles is not complete when ambient
temperatures (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">amb</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) are near the SAC threshold temperature (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SAC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)
(Bräuer et al., 2021a).
Specifically, the proportion of nvPM that activates to form contrail ice
crystals is calculated as follows:</p>
      <p id="d1e1528"><disp-formula id="Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><label>2</label><mml:math id="M109" display="block"><mml:mtable class="split" rowspacing="0.2ex" displaystyle="true" columnalign="right left"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">activation</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.661</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">e</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SAC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mtext>if</mml:mtext><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SAC</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>where</mml:mtext><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SAC</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">amb</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SAC</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
      <p id="d1e1617">Equation (2) asymptotically approaches unity and attains values <inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&gt;</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.99
for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SAC</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.2</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">K</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p id="d1e1650">CoCiP simulates the unique properties and shape of individual contrail
segments over time (Schumann, 2012), and it accounts for overlapping
of contrails above or below clouds present in the meteorological data
(Schumann et al., 2012) (Fig. S17 in the Supplement). The model is set up in
its original form without humidity exchange between contrails and the
background air and without radiative effects caused by contrail–contrail
overlapping. We acknowledge that the lack of atmospheric interaction and
feedback is a limitation of CoCiP relative to general circulation models
(Burkhardt et al.,
2018; Chen and Gettelman, 2013; Bickel et al., 2019) and is a topic for
further research. Previous studies that approximated the contrail–atmosphere
humidity exchange in CoCiP have since found a 10 %–20 % reduction in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and contrail net RF
(Schumann et al., 2015, 2021), while a
parametric analysis suggested that the effects of contrail–contrail
overlapping on the net RF is small (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mW m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) in
regions such as the North Atlantic and can likely be neglected
(Sanz-Morère et al., 2021).</p>
      <p id="d1e1686">The contrail outputs are saved at waypoint, hourly, flight and
gridded levels (Schumann, 2012;
Teoh et al., 2020b). Contrail cirrus and natural cirrus cover in a grid cell are
assumed when their respective optical depth (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) values are above a threshold of 0.1, which corresponds to the satellite detectability threshold
(Mannstein et al., 2010). Contrail cirrus coverage (as a
percentage of sky area) in a region is defined as the total cirrus cover
minus the natural cirrus cover (Schumann, 2012). The local
contrail RF (RF', instantaneous change in energy flux per contrail area)
(Schumann et al., 2012) of each waypoint is aggregated to
obtain the contrail RF in the domain, and the annual contrail ERF is
approximated using an ERF <inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> RF ratio of 0.42
(Lee
et al., 2021). The contrail energy forcing (EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) from individual
contrail segments and flights is calculated as follows:</p>
      <p id="d1e1712"><disp-formula id="Ch1.E3" content-type="numbered"><label>3</label><mml:math id="M118" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">EF</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∫</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">RF</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">net</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:mi>W</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> are the contrail length, width and lifetime respectively.
Essentially, the RF', RF and ERF (in W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) quantify the instantaneous
changes in the radiative energy balance at one point in time over a defined
spatial domain, whereas EF (in J) provides the cumulative radiative effect
of individual contrail segments.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS6">
  <label>2.6</label><title>Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis</title>
      <p id="d1e1815">The simulated contrail properties and climate forcing are sensitive to
various input parameters, assumptions and model processes. To perform an
uncertainty and sensitivity analysis on our results, we re-run the
simulation with five distinct set-ups: (i) the ERA5 10-member ensemble is
used to evaluate the uncertainty in contrail properties and forcing due to
uncertainty in meteorology and radiation
(Hersbach et al., 2020); (ii) a
simulation where no corrections are applied to the ERA5 HRES humidity
fields; (iii) a simulation to evaluate the sensitivity to EI<inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, in which we
assume a constant nvPM EI<inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> of 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">15</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for all waypoints;
(iv) two simulations where we assume a respective “low” aircraft mass (average of the
reference and zero-fuel weight) and “high” aircraft mass (average of the
reference and maximum take-off weight) for all flights at the initial
waypoint; and (v) a simulation to test the sensitivity to the soot activation near
threshold conditions by assuming that all nvPM particles activate to form
contrail ice crystals (i.e. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">activation</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). Due to
computational resource constraints, the uncertainty and sensitivity analysis is
conducted for 2019 only.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>Results</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <label>3.1</label><title>Multi-year statistics</title>
      <p id="d1e1888">Table 1 summarises the annual air traffic, emissions and contrail
statistics in the North Atlantic region. Between 2016 and 2019, we found
the following: (i) the growth in total fuel consumption and CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.13</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) outpaced the total flight distance
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.05</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) due to the use of larger aircraft types (mean aircraft
mass, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) (Fig. S6); (ii) total NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions grew by
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, which is likely attributable to the higher combustion
pressure and temperature in more fuel-efficient engines
(Kyprianidis and Dahlquist, 2017;
Freeman et al., 2018); (iii) the mean nvPM EI<inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> increased by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>; and (iv) the contrail cirrus net RF showed significant inter-annual
variability (up to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">19</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> relative to the mean, ranging between 204
and 280 mW m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), consistent with Wilhelm et al. (2021), indicating a stronger dependence
on meteorology than the total flight distance (Fig. S12).</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Table 1</label><caption><p id="d1e2064">Annual air traffic, emissions, meteorology and contrail statistics
in the North Atlantic flight corridor from January 2016 to March 2021.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><?xmltex \begin{scaleboxenv}{.83}[.83]?><oasis:tgroup cols="10">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="9" colname="col9" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="10" colname="col10" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Air traffic and emissions</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2016</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2017</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2018</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">2019</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">2020</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Annual growth</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">Pre-COVID:</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">COVID:</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">Change (%)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">(2016–2019)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">19 Apr to</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">20 Apr to</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">due to</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">20 Mar</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">21 Mar</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">COVID</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Total number of flights</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">445 622</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">462 643</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">472 303</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">477 923</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">203 035</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">2.4 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">466 336</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">158 979</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">66</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Total flight distance (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1.082</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.123</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.155</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.184</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.4953</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">3.0 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">1.153</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.3904</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">66</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Total fuel burn (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> kg)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">8.13</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">8.41</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">8.65</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">8.92</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">3.45</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">3.1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">8.69</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">2.48</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">71</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Fuel burn per flight distance (kg km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">7.52</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">7.49</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">7.49</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">7.54</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">6.96</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.08 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">7.54</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">6.36</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">16</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mean aircraft mass (kg)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">200 190</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">200 309</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">203 050</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">207 793</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">193 883</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1.3 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">207 788</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">181 966</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mean overall propulsion efficiency (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.318</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.320</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.323</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.325</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.331</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.8 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.325</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.336</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">3.1 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Total CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> kg)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">25.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">26.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">27.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">28.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">10.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">3.1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">27.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">7.85</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">71</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Total NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> kg)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.149</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.155</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.163</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.170</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.063</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">4.5 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.168</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.042</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">75</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Total nvPM number (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">24</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">7.52</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">7.90</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">8.15</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">8.38</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">3.18</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">3.7 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">8.19</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">2.35</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">71</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mean nvPM EI<inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M161" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">15</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.924</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.940</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.943</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.939</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.922</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.5 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.942</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.946</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.4 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Contrail properties</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2016</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2017</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2018</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">2019</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">2020</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Coefficient of</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">Pre-COVID</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">COVID</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">Change (%)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">variation</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">due to</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">(2016–2019)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">COVID</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mean ISSR coverage area (%)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">15.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">15.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">14.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">15.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">15.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">2.4 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">15.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">14.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M163" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Flights forming persistent contrails (%)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">55.4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">56.4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">52.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">54.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">47.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">3.4 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">50.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">50.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M164" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Distances forming persistent contrails (%)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">17.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">18.4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">15.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">16.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">15.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">7.9 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">14.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">16.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">11 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mean contrail age (h)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">3.53</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3.66</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">3.32</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">3.52</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">3.43</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">3.9 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">3.50</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">3.32</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Contrail optical depth (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M166" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.121</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.124</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.127</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.122</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.110</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">2.4 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.124</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.107</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">14</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Contrail cirrus coverage (%)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.492</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.571</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.439</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.473</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.160</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">11 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.420</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.141</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">67</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Cloud–contrail overlap (%)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">76.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">75.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">75.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">75.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">72.4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.65 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">74.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">72.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M169" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">SW RF (mW m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M170" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M171" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">224</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M172" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">258</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M173" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">216</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M174" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">236</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M175" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">69.8</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M176" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7.8</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M177" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">206</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M178" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">54.6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M179" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">73</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">LW RF (mW m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M180" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">449</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">538</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">420</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">471</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">161</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">11 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">410</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">124</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M181" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">70</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Net RF (mW m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M182" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">225</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">280</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">204</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">235</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">91.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">14 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">204</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">69.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M183" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">66</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Net ERF (mW m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M184" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">94.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">118</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">85.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">98.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">38.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">14 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">85.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">29.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M185" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">66</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M186" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M187" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">18</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> J)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">60.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">74.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">54.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">62.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">24.4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">14 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">54.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">18.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M188" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">66</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M189" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> per flight distance</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.556</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.666</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.468</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.530</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.492</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">15 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.471</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.475</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.9 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M190" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> J m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M191" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M192" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> per contrail length</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">3.23</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3.63</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">3.07</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">3.27</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">3.10</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">7.1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">3.21</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">2.92</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M193" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9.0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M194" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> J m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M195" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Percentage of flights responsible for</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">80 % of EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M196" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">12.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">12.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">10.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">12.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">10.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">6.4 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">11.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">10.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M197" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup><?xmltex \end{scaleboxenv}?></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e3748">Comparing statistics during the COVID-19 period (1 April 2020 to
31 March 2021) with the prior 1-year period, we find that the reductions in total
fuel consumption and CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M198" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M199" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">71</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) are greater than the reduction in total
flight distance (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M200" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">66</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), partly because we assumed a lower aircraft mass to account for lower passenger load factors resulting from COVID-19 travel restrictions
(Sect. 2.3). The proportion of the flight distance forming persistent contrails
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M201" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) during the COVID period was higher relative to pre-COVID
(16.3 % vs. 14.7 %), partly due to the use of more efficient aircraft
types with a higher mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M202" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M203" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.1</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), which facilitates contrail
formation. There is a 66 % reduction in the annual contrail cirrus net RF,
but the reduction in SW RF (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M204" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">74</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %) is larger than that in LW RF (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M205" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">70</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %)
for reasons that are consistent with recent COVID studies
(Gettelman
et al., 2021; Schumann et al., 2021): reductions in total flight distance
and contrail cirrus cover were largest during the spring months (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M206" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">80</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M207" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">83</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> relative to pre-COVID respectively) at a time when the contrail SW
RF tends to be at its maximum (Fig. 1f). We also simulated contrails for the
COVID-19 period with pre-COVID traffic to approximate the likely contrail
climate forcing under normal traffic conditions; in this scenario, the
annual contrail cirrus net RF increased from 69.6 mW m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M208" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (actual COVID
scenario) to 235 mW m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M209" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, which is 15 % higher relative to the
pre-COVID period (204 mW m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M210" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p>
      <p id="d1e3902">On average (from 2016 to 2020), around 12 % of all flights in this region
accounted for 80 % of the annual EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M211" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (Table 1, Fig. 2);
this is approximately 5 times larger than an earlier study which found
that 2.2 % of flights over Japan caused 80 % of the total
EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M212" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (Teoh et al.,
2020b). Several factors are likely to have contributed to this difference: (i) the
small sample size of the study over Japan, which only utilised 6 weeks of air traffic
data; (ii) the fact that 58 % of all flights over Japan are domestic short-haul flights,
meaning that more time is spent in climb and descent, leading to a smaller
mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M213" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (7.2 %) relative to the North Atlantic (16.6 %; Table 1); and (iii) the use of radar surveillance in Japanese airspace which results in
more randomised traffic patterns, relative to the organised track structure
(OTS) in the North Atlantic where flight paths often traverse the same air
parcel and have a smaller variation in flight distances and headings.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <label>3.2</label><title>Seasonal contrail statistics</title>
      <p id="d1e3942">The air traffic activity, meteorology and contrail characteristics in the
North Atlantic exhibit seasonal patterns (Fig. 1). Air traffic activity
peaks in the summer (Fig. 1a), but there is a higher occurrence of
persistent contrails during the winter despite traffic levels being 30 %
below peak values: <inline-formula><mml:math id="M214" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is higher in wintertime (23 %) relative to
summertime (13 %) (Fig. 1b), consistent with the
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M215" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> derived from in situ measurements (Gierens et
al., 1999), and these contrails persist for longer (3.2 in winter vs. 2.6 h in summer)
(Fig. 1c). These phenomena can be attributed to seasonal variations in the
ISSR coverage (Fig. S13). In winter, the larger horizontal extent of ISSRs
increases <inline-formula><mml:math id="M216" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and the thicker vertical extent of ISSRs reduces the
probability of contrails encountering warm/dry air after forming and
sedimentation, thereby increasing their lifetime
(Agarwal et al., 2022;
Kärcher, 2018; Schumann and Heymsfield, 2017). The contrail ice crystal
volume mean radius (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M217" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ice</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M218" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> averaged over all
contrail-forming flights in wintertime are around 25 % smaller relative to
the summer (Fig. S14g, h), and these are likely caused by seasonal
variations in the tropopause and temperature
(Hoinka et al., 1993; Lewellen, 2014): a
higher proportion of flights cruise above or close to the tropopause in
wintertime, due to the lower tropopause height (Fig. S13), and contrails
are formed with less condensable water (Fig. S14d), whereas a higher
tropopause height in the summer and the moist upper troposphere facilitate
the formation of contrails with larger ice water content, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M219" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ice</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M220" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e4025">Monthly statistics in the North Atlantic region from January 2016
to March 2021, including the <bold>(a)</bold> total flight distance; <bold>(b)</bold> percentage of the
flight distance forming persistent contrails (p<inline-formula><mml:math id="M221" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>); <bold>(c)</bold> mean
contrail age; <bold>(d)</bold> percentage of the contrail area overlapping with natural
cirrus; <bold>(e)</bold> contrail cirrus cover; and <bold>(f)</bold> contrail cirrus SW RF, <bold>(g)</bold> LW RF and
<bold>(h)</bold> net RF. Additional variables that are not presented in this figure are
available in Fig. S14 (Sect. S4).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/10919/2022/acp-22-10919-2022-f01.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e4070">Cumulative density function of the total EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M222" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> vs.
the percentage of flights. Individual coloured lines represent the results for each
year (2016–2020) in the North Atlantic, and the black line shows the
results from an earlier study in Japanese airspace
(Teoh et al., 2020b).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=170.716535pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/10919/2022/acp-22-10919-2022-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e4089">An earlier study highlighted that contrails that form over the North Atlantic
can exhibit a net cooling effect under cloud-free conditions
(Sanz-Morère et al., 2021).
However, our analysis of the hourly mean contrail cirrus net RF suggests
that these cooling periods occur infrequently (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M223" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">13</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % in
2019; Fig. 3) because around 70 % (summer) to 90 % (winter) of the
contrail area overlaps with natural cirrus (Fig. 1d). The mean ERA5 natural
cirrus coverage in this region varies between 40 % (summer) and 59 %
(winter), and the contrail cirrus coverage generally peaks at around 0.7 %
in the summer (Fig. 1e) because of the minimum natural cirrus cover and
cloud–contrail overlap during this period.</p>
      <p id="d1e4102">Between 2016 and 2019, the mean contrail cirrus SW RF in springtime is
around 16 % larger than summertime (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M224" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">323</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> vs. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M225" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">280</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mW m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M226" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> respectively; Fig. 1f)
despite air traffic levels being 11 % below the summer peak and both
seasons having a comparable mean solar direct radiation (SDR)
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M227" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">394</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M228" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>; Fig. S14i). This can be attributed to
summertime meteorological conditions that are generally less favourable for
contrail formation (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M229" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of 13 % in summer vs. 17 % in spring) and
persistence (mean age of 2.7 vs. 3.0 h respectively). The contrail LW RF is dependent on
the surface temperature and outgoing long-wave radiation (OLR), contributing
to smaller seasonal fluctuations in the LW RF relative to the SW RF (Fig. 1g). When taken together, the mean contrail net RF peaks during the winter
(302 mW m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M230" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) and reaches a minimum in spring (196 mW m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M231" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) (Fig. 1h).
Figure 1 also shows outliers in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M232" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, contrail cirrus cover and RF
values in April 2017, and this was primarily caused by large intersections
between the ISSR and OTS (Fig. S15).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <label>3.3</label><title>Conditions for forming strongly warming/cooling contrails</title>
      <p id="d1e4214">Figure 3a shows the contrail net RF and EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M233" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> per contrail
distance for each hour of 2019. There is a clear diurnal effect, where the
mean net RF is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M234" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">199</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mW m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M235" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> during daylight hours,
increasing to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M236" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">385</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mW m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M237" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (and up to 2.6 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M238" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)
around <inline-formula><mml:math id="M239" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> h of the sunrise and sunset time, and then falls to 293 mW m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M240" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> at night-time (periods where SDR <inline-formula><mml:math id="M241" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; Fig. S16). The peak net RF
around sunrise and sunset is partly attributable to the flight scheduling in
this region: eastbound and westbound traffic activity is highest at
around 03:00–06:00 and 12:00–16:00 UTC respectively (Fig. S5a). At night,
the mean net RF is 24 % smaller than the peak values around sunrise and
sunset because air traffic is at a minimum between 18:00 and 02:00 UTC, but
contrails that persist during these times have the largest EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M242" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
per contrail length, which is up to 1 order of magnitude larger than
daytime values (Fig. 3b).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e4326">The regional <bold>(a)</bold> contrail cirrus net RF and <bold>(b)</bold> EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M243" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
per contrail distance in the North Atlantic flight corridor for each hour of
2019. The hourly mean SDR that is used to identify the sunrise and sunset
times in this region is shown in Fig. S16 (Sect. S4).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=455.244094pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/10919/2022/acp-22-10919-2022-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e4350">The daytime contrail cirrus net RF also exhibits a large variability (Fig. 3a) and can be strongly warming (1086 mW m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M244" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> at 14:00 UTC on 18 September 2019) or
cooling (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M245" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">594</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mW m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M246" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> at 10:00 UTC on 28 August 2019). Taking these two 1 h
periods as a demonstrative example, they are similar in that the mean RHi
and OLR at the contrail waypoints agree within 1.7 % and 6.7 %
respectively (Fig. S18a, b). The SDR at 10:00 UTC on 28 August 2019
(net cooling) was 31 % smaller than at 14:00 UTC on 18 September 2019 (net warming)
(Fig. S18c), which would work in favour of greater (negative) SW RF for the
warming period. However, there was a lower percentage of cloud–contrail overlap on 28 August 2019 (68 % for August vs. 76 % for September; Fig. S17) and, thus, lower mean albedo along contrail waypoints (0.27 for August vs. 0.48 for September; Fig. S18d). Both of these differences were likely caused by a lower occurrence of low-level optically thick water clouds, which ultimately led to the different contrail net RF in the respective periods. A larger cloud–contrail overlap
and albedo reduces the SW RF attributable to contrail cirrus
(Schumann
et al., 2012; Meerkötter et al., 1999; Sanz-Morère et al., 2021)
and means that the LW RF dominated at 14:00 UTC on 18 September 2019.</p>
      <p id="d1e4388">The full dataset contains 1.27 million contrail-forming flights, and
contrails formed by 79.7 % of these flights are warming (EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M247" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> J). Figure 4 compares the distribution of aircraft, traffic,
meteorology and radiation variables for all contrail-forming flights as well as
separately for flights with strongly warming contrails (EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M248" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">99</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>th percentile for each year) and strongly cooling contrails (EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M249" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>st percentile). Here, we show that the differences in
EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M250" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> can be grouped into four categories: (i) seasonal changes in
meteorology and radiation, (ii) time of day, (iii) background cloud fields,
and (iv) the nvPM number emissions from different aircraft types.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d1e4444">Probability density functions of the aircraft, meteorology and
contrail properties for all contrail-forming flights (grey lines), flights
with strongly warming contrails (red lines, EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M251" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">99</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>th
percentile) and flights
with strongly cooling contrails (blue lines, EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M252" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>st percentile). The “time of day” variable in panel <bold>(i)</bold> represents the
time when the flight is at its midpoint between the first and final recorded
waypoints.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/10919/2022/acp-22-10919-2022-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3.SSS1">
  <label>3.3.1</label><title>Seasonal changes in meteorology and radiation</title>
      <p id="d1e4491">Figure 4a–c show that strongly warming contrails are generally formed
in wintertime and close to the tropopause (above FL350/35 000 ft/10.7 km) with a
mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M253" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of 65 %, whereas cooling contrails are primarily formed
in spring and in the upper troposphere (below FL350/35 000 ft) with a mean
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M254" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (43 %) that is larger than all contrail-forming flights
(30 %). These differences can be attributed to seasonal changes in the
ISSR coverage area and tropopause height (Fig. S13a). Conditions close to
the tropopause tend to be drier than the upper troposphere, leading to
strongly warming contrails having (i) a smaller amount of condensable water
(initial RHi <inline-formula><mml:math id="M255" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">111</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M256" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SAC</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> K, as shown in Fig. 4d and e)
relative to cooling contrails (RHi <inline-formula><mml:math id="M257" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">116</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M258" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SAC</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> K)
and (ii) a smaller mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M259" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ice</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (7.7 vs. 9.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M260" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m for cooling
contrails; Fig. 4f). For all contrail-forming flights, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M261" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ice</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is
correlated with the initial RHi (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M262" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.66</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M263" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SAC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M264" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.55</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)
and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M265" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M266" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>9), and it is negatively correlated with the
contrail age (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M267" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.350</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) (Fig. S19) because <inline-formula><mml:math id="M268" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ice</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> influences the ice
crystal sedimentation rate. Therefore, the smaller <inline-formula><mml:math id="M269" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ice</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for strongly
warming contrails contributes to a larger mean contrail lifetime (7.3 vs.
4.7 h for cooling contrails; Fig. 4g) and a smaller mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M270" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (0.11 vs. 0.19 for cooling contrails; Fig. 4h) relative to strongly cooling contrails. A smaller <inline-formula><mml:math id="M271" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
reduces the contrail SW RF' more strongly than the LW
RF' under clear-sky conditions and for the same surface
albedo (Schumann et al., 2012).</p>
      <p id="d1e4727">Seasonal changes in SDR lead to a high proportion of strongly warming
contrails forming in wintertime (Fig. 4a) when SDR is at a minimum (Figs. S14i, S16). In contrast, strongly cooling contrails predominantly occur
in the spring rather than in the summer, despite both seasons having a
comparable mean SDR (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M272" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">394</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M273" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>; Fig. S14i). This can be
attributed to a lower mean OLR in spring (221 vs. 237 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M274" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in the
summer; Fig. S14j), which reduces the mean contrail LW RF' by 23 % (4.9
vs. 6.3 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M275" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in the summer), and a larger mean contrail lifetime (3.0
vs. 2.7 h in the summer; Fig. 1c) that can increase the absolute magnitude
of EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M276" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3.SSS2">
  <label>3.3.2</label><title>Time of day</title>
      <p id="d1e4793">The time of day is a key determinant of EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M277" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 4i). Flights
with strongly warming contrails tend to occur between 15:00 and 04:00 UTC,
and the mean contrail lifetime of 7.3 h (Fig. 4g) suggests that these
contrails spread and persist through the night. In contrast, strongly
cooling contrails are predominantly formed by flights that traverse the
airspace between 06:00 and 15:00 UTC with a shorter contrail lifetime (4.7 h), thereby maximising the SW RF' and sublimating before nightfall.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3.SSS3">
  <label>3.3.3</label><title>Background cloud field</title>
      <p id="d1e4813">Contrails forming above low-level cloud (indicated by a high mean albedo of
0.47; Fig. 4j) are more likely to be strongly warming because the incoming
SDR would have been reflected by the low-level cloud regardless of the
presence of contrails, thereby reducing the contrail SW RF'. In contrast,
strongly cooling contrails are more common over regions with little
low-level cloud, where a strong albedo contrast with the dark ocean surface
(mean underlying albedo of 0.29; Fig. 4j) leads to a maximum SW RF'.
Strongly cooling contrails are also more likely when formed below high-level
cirrus with a higher mean overlying natural cirrus optical depth (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M278" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cirrus</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) of 0.17, which is around 2 times larger than for strongly
warming contrails (0.081) (Fig. 4k). This is because, for high-level cirrus,
albedo (driving SW RF) depends less strongly on optical depth compared with
the dependence of emissivity (driving LW RF) on the optical depth
(Wallace and Hobbs, 2006). Therefore, a higher <inline-formula><mml:math id="M279" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cirrus</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> increases the emissivity of the overlying high-level cirrus and
reduces the LW RF' that can be attributed to the underlying contrail, while
the smaller rate of increase in cirrus albedo (relative to its emissivity)
allows some incoming solar radiation to reach the underlying contrail, such
that the contrail SW RF' is reduced by a smaller degree relative to the
reduction in its LW RF'.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{5}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d1e4840">The <bold>(a)</bold> contrail ice crystal radius (r<inline-formula><mml:math id="M280" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ice</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>), <bold>(b)</bold> age, <bold>(c)</bold> optical depth (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M281" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and <bold>(d)</bold> EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M282" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> per flight
distance vs. nvPM number emissions per distance travelled. Each data point
represents the annual mean values for different aircraft types, and the
error bars represent 1 standard deviation.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/10919/2022/acp-22-10919-2022-f05.png"/>

          </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3.SSS4">
  <label>3.3.4</label><title>Influence of nvPM emissions</title>
      <p id="d1e4900">Strongly warming contrails tend to be associated with a mean nvPM
number emissions value per unit distance travelled (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M283" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.1</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">13</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M284" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) that is 14 % and 34 % larger relative to strongly cooling
contrails (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M285" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8.9</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M286" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) and all contrail-forming
flights (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M287" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.8</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M288" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) respectively (Fig. 4l).
Comparing the effects of different aircraft types shows that 43.4 %
(17.4 %) of flights with strongly warming (cooling) contrails are powered
by one engine combustor type, the phase 5 rich–quench–lean combustor, which
has one of the highest nvPM EI<inline-formula><mml:math id="M289" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> in the ICAO EDB (ranging from 0.7 to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M290" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.4</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">15</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M291" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) (EASA, 2021). In
particular, while one specific very large wide-body aircraft is only used in
2.4 % of all flights, it accounted for 18.0 % (6.4 %) of flights with
strongly warming (cooling) contrails (Fig. S20, Table S5). This aircraft
has the highest nvPM number emissions per distance (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M292" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.4</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">13</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M293" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), which is the product of the nvPM EI<inline-formula><mml:math id="M294" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and fuel
consumption, relative to other aircraft types (mean of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M295" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.9</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M296" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>). This leads to smaller <inline-formula><mml:math id="M297" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ice</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, as the fixed ambient
vapour is distributed to more particles; longer contrail lifetimes, due to the
lower sedimentation rate of particles with smaller <inline-formula><mml:math id="M298" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ice</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; and larger
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M299" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, due to the Twomey effect (Fig. 5). Indeed, in situ
contrail measurements have shown that the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M300" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from
different aircraft types with different nvPM emissions can vary by up to a
factor of 4 (Jeßberger et al., 2013). These processes
increase the magnitude and variability of EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M301" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> for aircraft with
higher nvPM emissions (Fig. 5d), and the sign depends on a trade-off between
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M302" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and lifetime: a higher <inline-formula><mml:math id="M303" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> increases
the SW RF' more strongly than the LW RF' and can produce a larger cooling
effect during the day (Schumann et al., 2012), but a longer
lifetime can also cause the contrail to be strongly warming as it spreads
and persists into the night. In contrast, contrails formed from aircraft
types with smaller nvPM emissions are neither strongly cooling nor strongly
warming (Fig. 5d). A separate comparison by EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M304" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> per passenger kilometre shows that one specific medium wide-body aircraft has the highest value (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M305" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.7</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> J m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M306" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) and that the very large wide-body aircraft
mentioned above (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M307" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.5</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> J m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M308" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) is close to the median
value for the 18 aircraft types considered in Table S5.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS4">
  <label>3.4</label><title>Meteorological uncertainties</title>
      <p id="d1e5236">The ERA5 ensemble spread represents the observation uncertainties (provided
to the data assimilation system) and model state uncertainties in the
reanalysis (Hersbach et al., 2020). We
propagate these uncertainties to estimates of the annual emissions and
contrail properties for 2019. Figure 6 shows that uncertainties derived from
the ensembles are small for the total fuel consumption, CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M309" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M310" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
and nvPM number emissions (within <inline-formula><mml:math id="M311" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.01</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> relative to the ensemble
mean), whereas the fleet-aggregated contrail properties have larger
uncertainty bounds of up to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M312" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Uncertainty in the 2019 contrail
cirrus net RF (216–238 mW m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M313" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>; Table S6) is smaller than the
inter-annual variability between 2016 and 2019 (204–280 mW m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M314" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>; Table 1).</p>
      <p id="d1e5308">The lower spatio-temporal resolution of the ensembles relative to the HRES
leads to differences in the simulated contrail properties. Figure 6 shows
that the ensemble mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M315" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is 2.6 % larger than the
nominal HRES simulation, which influenced the SW RF (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M316" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>31 %) more
strongly than the LW RF (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M317" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) (Schumann et al., 2012).
Although the range of net RF from the ensembles (216–238 mW m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M318" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)
encompasses the nominal HRES value (235 mW m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M319" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), the net RF from 9
of 10 ensemble member is below the HRES value.</p>
      <p id="d1e5366">To evaluate the consistency in contrail prediction for specific flights, we
compared the set of flights with EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M320" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>th
percentile in the nominal HRES simulation with each ensemble simulation
(5 % of all contrail-forming flights) and found that 36.9 % of these
flights have an EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M321" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>th percentile in all 10
ensemble members. The characteristics of flights with strongly
warming/cooling contrails in each ensemble member (Fig. S21) are generally
consistent with the HRES (Fig. 4). However, unlike the HRES, the ensembles
do not predict the occurrence of strongly warming or cooling contrails
before dawn or dusk respectively (Fig. 4i vs. Fig. S21i). This is likely
due to the lower spatio-temporal resolution of the ensembles relative to the
HRES, making the former less capable of capturing sub-grid areas where RHi <inline-formula><mml:math id="M322" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, thereby causing an overprediction of the mean contrail age (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M323" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %
relative to the HRES; Fig. 6d) and a change in the sign of EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M324" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> as
contrails persist through dawn/dusk. This also caused the percentage of flights
accounting for 80 % of the annual EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M325" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> in the ensembles
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M326" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8.6</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; Table S6) to be lower than the HRES (12.0 %;
Table 1).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{6}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d1e5452">Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis comparing the emissions and
contrail statistics in the North Atlantic region for 2019. Contrails are
simulated using meteorological data from the ERA5 HRES with humidity
correction (as outlined in Sect. 2.2; black lines), data from the ERA5 HRES without humidity correction (blue
lines) and data from the ERA5 10-member ensemble with humidity correction, where
individual red lines represent the results for each ensemble member.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/10919/2022/acp-22-10919-2022-f06.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS5">
  <label>3.5</label><title>Sensitivity analysis</title>
      <p id="d1e5470">To evaluate the sensitivity of contrail results to the ERA5 humidity
correction, we simulated contrails for 2019 without any correction (Figs. 6, S22). With no corrections applied, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M327" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> decreased from 16.2 %
in the nominal simulation to 14.7 %, and there was a 34 % and 8.9 %
reduction in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M328" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (0.08 without vs. 0.12 with correction)
and the mean contrail age (3.2 h without vs. 3.5 h with correction)
respectively. On the other hand, corrections applied to the humidity fields
increase saturation above 120 % (Fig. S11), and contrails formed in these
regions could have a shorter lifetime than in the simulation without
humidity correction (Fig. S25a) as the ice particles would grow to larger
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M329" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ice</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and, thus, experience a higher sedimentation rate. When taken
together, these effects caused the annual mean contrail cirrus net RF (121 mW m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M330" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) to be 49 % smaller than in our nominal simulation (235 mW m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M331" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>). Both results are within the range of earlier studies that
estimated the North Atlantic contrail cirrus net RF to be between 100 and
360 mW m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M332" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (Burkhardt and
Kärcher, 2011; Chen and Gettelman, 2013; Bock and Burkhardt, 2019;
Schumann and Graf, 2013) and confirm that the contrail climate forcing is
highly sensitive to the humidity fields.</p>
      <p id="d1e5543">The assumption of a constant nvPM EI<inline-formula><mml:math id="M333" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M334" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">15</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M335" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) for all
waypoints leads to higher fleet-aggregated contrail properties and climate
forcing than in the nominal case. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M336" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> remains unchanged because
the SAC does not depend on the nvPM EI<inline-formula><mml:math id="M337" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (Schumann, 1996);
however, the higher initial contrail ice particle number (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M338" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">25</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % relative
to the nominal simulation) led to a 3.4 %, 7.4 % and 14 % increase in
the mean contrail lifetime, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M339" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and annual mean net RF
(267 mW m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M340" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) respectively. When the comparison is made for individual
flights, however, a constant nvPM EI<inline-formula><mml:math id="M341" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> leads to more significant
differences in the initial ice crystal number (up to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M342" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.5</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">13</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M343" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M344" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ice</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M345" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">14</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M346" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M347" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M348" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.78</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), lifetime (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M349" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> h) and net RF' (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M350" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">30</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M351" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)
(Fig. S23) compared with the nominal case. These results suggest that the new
ICAO EDB nvPM database, which captures the emissions profile for specific
aircraft–engine types, is critical in identifying flights with the largest
EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M352" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>. A separate simulation assessing the aircraft mass
assumptions (high/low mass at the initial waypoint), which influence the
nvPM EI<inline-formula><mml:math id="M353" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and wake vortex dynamics, leads to a <inline-formula><mml:math id="M354" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> sensitivity
in the annual mean contrail cirrus net RF relative to the nominal
simulation.</p>
      <p id="d1e5783">The simulated contrail outputs are less sensitive to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M355" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">activation</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (see Eq. 2), and an assumption of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M356" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">activation</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> changes the annual
mean contrail cirrus net RF by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M357" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.81</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (237 mW m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M358" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) relative to the
nominal simulation because only 24.8 % of all flights form contrails near
the SAC threshold temperature (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M359" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SAC</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">K</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). For
these flights, the sensitivity to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M360" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">activation</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was also relatively small
for other contrail properties, including initial ice crystal number
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M361" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">14</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> on average), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M362" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ice</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M363" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.7</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), contrail age (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M364" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.8</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>),
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M365" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M366" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.0</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and net RF' (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M367" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.55</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) (Fig. S24).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7"><?xmltex \currentcnt{7}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 7</label><caption><p id="d1e5962">Comparison of the annual contrail cirrus net RF in the North
Atlantic provided by (i) the nominal simulations using the ERA5
HRES (2016–2020), (ii) the ERA5 10-member ensemble and
(iii) the sensitivity analyses for 2019.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/10919/2022/acp-22-10919-2022-f07.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>4</label><title>Conclusions</title>
      <p id="d1e5980">We quantified aviation emissions and contrail climate forcing in the North
Atlantic from January 2016 to March 2021. From 2016 to 2019, the total
CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M368" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M369" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions grew by 3.1 % and 4.5 % yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M370" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
respectively, followed by a significant decline of 71 % and 74 %
respectively in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Figure 7 shows that the
inter-annual variability in the annual mean contrail cirrus net RF (204–280 mW m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M371" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, between 2016 and 2019) is larger than the ensemble
uncertainties for 2019 (216–238 mW m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M372" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>). The 2016–2019 nominal
contrail cirrus net RF (204–280 mW m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M373" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) from our study is larger
than the range of global values reported in previous studies (33–189 mW m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M374" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) because of the higher relative air traffic density in the North
Atlantic, but it is within the range of earlier estimates for the North Atlantic
(70–360 mW m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M375" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)
(Chen and Gettelman,
2013; Schumann et al., 2015; Schumann and Graf, 2013; Burkhardt and
Kärcher, 2011; Bock and Burkhardt, 2019). Our estimate is smaller than
the 2006 North Atlantic estimates from Schumann and Graf (2013)
(240–360 mW m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M376" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) because our study uses a larger spatial domain
(Fig. S5b). However, our contrail net RF estimates increase to 281–386 mW m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M377" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> if we apply the same domain as Schumann and Graf (2013), showing consistency between the two studies. Figure 7
also shows that the contrail cirrus net RF is most sensitive to the ERA5
humidity correction, followed by the nvPM EI<inline-formula><mml:math id="M378" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and aircraft mass
assumptions, and is least sensitive to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M379" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">activation</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Without correction
of the humidity fields, the estimated contrail cirrus net RF is halved
relative to the simulation where correction to humidity is applied. However,
our analysis of in situ humidity measurements and the known limitations of
the ERA5 products (Sects. 2.2, S3) gives confidence in the fact that
the uncertainty in contrail cirrus net RF is more accurately characterised
by the simulations only when humidity correction is applied.</p>
      <p id="d1e6119">The set of factors associated with strongly warming/cooling contrails can be
explained by diurnal and seasonal patterns in meteorology and radiation,
background cloud fields, and the nvPM emissions profile from different
aircraft types, and these have implications for contrail mitigation. On
average, 12 % of all flights in this region cause 80 % of the annual
EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M380" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (Table 1), and this subset of flights (with large
EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M381" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> forecasts) could be supported by changes to the airline
flight plan and tactical trajectory adjustments based on up-to-date
meteorological forecasts (Molloy et al., 2022). More generally, the OTS in Shanwick and Gander
(which is currently designed for the safe and efficient flow of traffic based
on meteorological conditions), indicative airline flight plans and other
operational factors could also be optimised pre-tactically to minimise both
fuel consumption and EF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M382" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">contrail</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> whenever possible (Molloy et al., 2022). For example, the OTS
could minimise flight distances in regions with large <inline-formula><mml:math id="M383" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>d</mml:mtext><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SAC</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 4e)
as well as above low-level water clouds with high albedo (Fig. 4j). Diversions
around regions with very high ice supersaturation (RHi <inline-formula><mml:math id="M384" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">120</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)
might not be necessary because of a higher probability of forming contrails
with shorter lifetimes (Fig. S25a). In addition to trajectory modifications,
an unsophisticated approach might minimise the number of flights at selected
times of the day (i.e. dusk) or season (i.e. winter) when the risk of
forming strongly warming contrails is greatest (Fig. 4a, i).</p>
      <p id="d1e6175">Future research should be directed towards the following: (i) quantifying the overall
uncertainty in the simulated contrail climate forcing by propagating all of the
uncertainties/sensitivities from different input parameters, including
meteorology, nvPM emissions and aircraft mass assumptions; (ii) improvements
in data assimilation and humidity representation in numerical weather
prediction models; (iii) the development of a decision-making framework that
accounts for the overall climate forcing and meteorological uncertainties
(Sect. 3.4 and 3.5), where flights are only diverted when their net climate
benefits can be determined with a high degree of confidence; and (iv) quantification of the effectiveness of the different mitigation options proposed
above.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="codeavailability"><title>Code availability</title>

      <p id="d1e6183">Emissions and contrail model codes are available for scientific research purposes from the authors upon request.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="dataavailability"><title>Data availability</title>

      <p id="d1e6189">Flight trajectory data are commercially sensitive and are available from NATS upon reasonable request (george.koudis@nats.co.uk). IAGOS data were created with support from the European Commission; national agencies in Germany (BMBF), France (MESR) and the UK (NERC); and the IAGOS member institutions (<uri>https://www.iagos.org/organisation/members/</uri>, last access: 3 January 2022). The participating airlines (Deutsche Lufthansa, Air France, Austrian Airlines, China Airlines, Iberia, Cathay Pacific, Air Namibia and Sabena) have supported IAGOS by carrying the measurement equipment free of charge since 1994; the data are available at <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.25326/20" ext-link-type="DOI">10.25326/20</ext-link> (Boulanger et al., 2020) and <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.25326/06" ext-link-type="DOI">10.25326/06</ext-link> (Boulanger et al., 2018). This document has been created with or contains elements of Base of Aircraft Data (BADA) Family 4 Release 4.2, which has been made available to Imperial College London by EUROCONTROL. EUROCONTROL has all relevant rights to BADA. © 2019 The European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL). All rights reserved.</p>
  </notes><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><p id="d1e6201">The supplement related to this article is available online at: <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-10919-2022-supplement" xlink:title="pdf">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-10919-2022-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d1e6210">RT, US and MEJS conceptualised the study, developed the methodology and undertook the investigation. RT, US and MS were responsible for software development
and data curation. RT and MEJS created or sourced the figures. JM
and GK provided the air traffic dataset. RT wrote the original manuscript. RT,
US, EG, MS, JM, GK, CV and MEJS reviewed and edited the manuscript. MEJS acquired funding. All authors have
read and agreed upon the published version of the paper.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d1e6216">The contact author has declared that none of the authors has any competing interests.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="disclaimer"><title>Disclaimer</title>

      <p id="d1e6222">EUROCONTROL shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages arising out of or in connection with this document, including with respect to the use of BADA. This document contains modified Copernicus Climate Change Service information 2022. Neither the European Commission nor ECMWF is responsible for any use that may be made of the Copernicus information or data it contains.
<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?><?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Publisher’s note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e6231">The authors thank Susanne Rohs and the IAGOS team for providing early access to the latest IAGOS dataset, which contains more flights and valid water vapour measurements. We thank Ian Poll for reviewing an earlier version of the paper.</p></ack><notes notes-type="financialsupport"><title>Financial support</title>

      <p id="d1e6236">Edward Gryspeerdt was supported by a Royal Society University Research Fellowship (grant no. URF/R1/191602).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d1e6242">This paper was edited by Andreas Petzold and reviewed by Xavier Vancassel and one anonymous referee.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Abrahamson, J. P., Zelina, J., Andac, M. G., and Vander Wal, R. L.:
Predictive Model Development for Aviation Black Carbon Mass Emissions from
Alternative and Conventional Fuels at Ground and Cruise, Environ. Sci.
Technol., 50, 12048–12055, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b03749" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/acs.est.6b03749</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Agarwal, A., Meijer, V. R., Eastham, S. D., Speth, R. L., and Barrett, S. R.
H.: Reanalysis-driven simulations may overestimate persistent contrail
formation by 100–250 %, Environ. Res. Lett., 17,  014045,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/AC38D9" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1088/1748-9326/AC38D9</ext-link>, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bickel, M., Ponater, M., Bock, L., Burkhardt, U., and Reineke, S.:
Estimating the Effective Radiative Forcing of Contrail Cirrus, J. Climate,
33,  1991–2005, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0467.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0467.1</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bock, L. and Burkhardt, U.: Contrail cirrus radiative forcing for future air traffic, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 8163–8174, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-8163-2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-19-8163-2019</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Boies, A. M., Stettler, M. E. J., Swanson, J. J., Johnson, T. J., Olfert, J.
S., Johnson, M., Eggersdorfer, M. L., Rindlisbacher, T., Wang, J., and
Thomson, K.: Particle emission characteristics of a gas turbine with a
double annular combustor, Aerosol Sci. Technol., 49, 842–855,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2015.1078452" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/02786826.2015.1078452</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Boulanger, D., Blot, R., Bundke, U., Gerbig, C., Hermann, M., Nédélec, P., Rohs, S., and Ziereis, H.: IAGOS final quality controlled Observational Data L2 – Time series, Aeris [data set], <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.25326/06" ext-link-type="DOI">10.25326/06</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Boulanger, D., Thouret, V., and Petzold, A.: IAGOS Data Protal, AERIS [data set], <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.25326/20" ext-link-type="DOI">10.25326/20</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bräuer, T., Voigt, C., Sauer, D., Kaufmann, S., Hahn, V., Scheibe, M.,
Schlager, H., Diskin, G. S., Nowak, J. B., DiGangi, J. P., Huber, F., Moore,
R. H., and Anderson, B. E.: Airborne Measurements of Contrail Ice
Properties–Dependence on Temperature and Humidity, Geophys. Res. Lett.,
48, e2020GL092166, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL092166" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2020GL092166</ext-link>, 2021a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bräuer, T., Voigt, C., Sauer, D., Kaufmann, S., Hahn, V., Scheibe, M., Schlager, H., Huber, F., Le Clercq, P., Moore, R. H., and Anderson, B. E.: Reduced ice number concentrations in contrails from low-aromatic biofuel blends, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 16817–16826, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-16817-2021" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-21-16817-2021</ext-link>,  2021b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Burkhardt, U. and Kärcher, B.: Global radiative forcing from contrail
cirrus, Nat. Clim. Change, 1, 54–58, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1068" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nclimate1068</ext-link>,
2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Burkhardt, U., Bock, L., and Bier, A.: Mitigating the contrail cirrus
climate impact by reducing aircraft soot number emissions, npj Clim. Atmos.
Sci., 1, 1–7, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-018-0046-4" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41612-018-0046-4</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Caiazzo, F., Agarwal, A., Speth, R. L., and Barrett, S. R. H.: Impact of
biofuels on contrail warming, Environ. Res. Lett., 12, 114013, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa893b" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1088/1748-9326/aa893b</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Chen, C.-C. and Gettelman, A.: Simulated radiative forcing from contrails and contrail cirrus, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 12525–12536, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-12525-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-12525-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
DuBois, D. and Paynter, G.: ”Fuel Flow Method2” for Estimating Aircraft
Emissions, J. Aerosp., 115, 1–14, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Durdina, L., Brem, B. T., Setyan, A., Siegerist, F., Rindlisbacher, T., and
Wang, J.: Assessment of Particle Pollution from Jetliners: from Smoke
Visibility to Nanoparticle Counting, Environ. Sci. Technol., 51, 3534–3541,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b05801" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/acs.est.6b05801</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>EASA: Aircraft Engine Emissions Databank (07/2021) [data set],
<uri>https://www.easa.europa.eu/domains/environment/icao-aircraft-engine-emissions-databank</uri>,
last access: 17 August 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>ECMWF: The Copernicus Programme: Climate Data Store [data set],
<uri>https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/#!/home</uri> (last access: 15 February 2022), 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>EUROCONTROL: User Manual for the Base of Aircraft Data (BADA) Revision 3.15. EEC Technical/Scientific Report No. 19/03/18-45. EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre (EEC), <uri>https://www.eurocontrol.int/model/bada</uri> (last access: 17 August 2021), 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>EUROCONTROL: User Manual for the Base of Aircraft Data (BADA) Family 4. EEC Technical/Scientific Report No. 12/11/22-58. EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre (EEC), <uri>https://www.eurocontrol.int/model/bada</uri>  (last access: 17 August 2021), 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Freeman, S., Lee, D. S., Lim, L. L., Skowron, A., and León, R. R. De:
Trading off Aircraft Fuel Burn and NOx Emissions for Optimal Climate Policy,
Environ. Sci. Technol., 52, 2498–2505,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/ACS.EST.7B05719" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/ACS.EST.7B05719</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gettelman, A., Chen, C.-C., and Bardeen, C. G.: The climate impact of COVID-19-induced contrail changes, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 9405–9416, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-9405-2021" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-21-9405-2021</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gierens, K., Schumann, U., Helten, M., Smit, H., and Marenco, A.: A
distribution law for relative humidity in the upper troposphere and lower
stratosphere derived from three years of MOZAIC measurements,  Annales
Geophysicae, 17, 1218–1226, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00585-999-1218-7" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s00585-999-1218-7</ext-link>, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gierens, K., Matthes, S., and Rohs, S.: How Well Can Persistent Contrails Be
Predicted?, Aerosp., 7, 169, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/AEROSPACE7120169" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/AEROSPACE7120169</ext-link>,
2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Hirahara, S., Horányi, A.,
Muñoz-Sabater, J., Nicolas, J., Peubey, C., Radu, R., Schepers, D.,
Simmons, A., Soci, C., Abdalla, S., Abellan, X., Balsamo, G., Bechtold, P.,
Biavati, G., Bidlot, J., Bonavita, M., De Chiara, G., Dahlgren, P., Dee, D.,
Diamantakis, M., Dragani, R., Flemming, J., Forbes, R., Fuentes, M., Geer,
A., Haimberger, L., Healy, S., Hogan, R. J., Hólm, E., Janisková,
M., Keeley, S., Laloyaux, P., Lopez, P., Lupu, C., Radnoti, G., de Rosnay,
P., Rozum, I., Vamborg, F., Villaume, S., and Thépaut, J. N.: The ERA5
global reanalysis, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 146, 1999–2049, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3803" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.3803</ext-link>,
2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hoinka, K. P., Reinhardt, M. E., and Metz, W.: North Atlantic air traffic
within the lower stratosphere: Cruising times and corresponding emissions,
J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 98, 23113–23131,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/93JD02262" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/93JD02262</ext-link>, 1993.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>ICAO: Effects of Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) on Civil Aviation: Economic
Impact Analysis, Montreal, Canada, <uri>https://www.icao.int/sustainability/Documents/COVID-19/ICAO COVID 2021 04 08 Economic Impact TH Toru.pdf</uri> (last access: 17 August 2021), 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Jeßberger, P., Voigt, C., Schumann, U., Sölch, I., Schlager, H., Kaufmann, S., Petzold, A., Schäuble, D., and Gayet, J.-F.: Aircraft type influence on contrail properties, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 11965–11984, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-11965-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-11965-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kärcher, B.: Formation and radiative forcing of contrail cirrus, Nat.
Commun., 9, 1824, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04068-0" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41467-018-04068-0</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kärcher, B. and Yu, F.: Role of aircraft soot emissions in contrail
formation, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36,  L01804, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL036649" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008GL036649</ext-link>,
2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kleine, J., Voigt, C., Sauer, D., Schlager, H., Scheibe, M.,
Jurkat-Witschas, T., Kaufmann, S., Kärcher, B., and Anderson, B. E.: In
Situ Observations of Ice Particle Losses in a Young Persistent Contrail,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 13553–13561,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL079390" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2018GL079390</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kyprianidis, K. G. and Dahlquist, E.: On the trade-off between aviation NOx
and energy efficiency, Appl. Energ., 185, 1506–1516,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2015.12.055" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/J.APENERGY.2015.12.055</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lee, D. S., Fahey, D. W., Skowron, A., Allen, M. R., Burkhardt, U., Chen,
Q., Doherty, S. J., Freeman, S., Forster, P. M., Fuglestvedt, J., Gettelman,
A., De León, R. R., Lim, L. L., Lund, M. T., Millar, R. J., Owen, B.,
Penner, J. E., Pitari, G., Prather, M. J., Sausen, R., and Wilcox, L. J.:
The contribution of global aviation to anthropogenic climate forcing for
2000 to 2018, Atmos. Environ., 244, 117834,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ATMOSENV.2020.117834" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/J.ATMOSENV.2020.117834</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lewellen, D. C.: Persistent contrails and contrail cirrus. Part II: Full
lifetime behavior, J. Atmos. Sci., 71, 4420–4438,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-13-0317.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JAS-D-13-0317.1</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lobo, P., Durdina, L., Smallwood, G. J., Rindlisbacher, T., Siegerist, F.,
Black, E. A., Yu, Z., Mensah, A. A., Hagen, D. E., and Miake-Lye, R. C.:
Measurement of aircraft engine non-volatile PM emissions: Results of the
aviation-particle regulatory instrumentation demonstration experiment
(A-PRIDE) 4 campaign, Aerosol Sci. Technol., 49, 472–484,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2015.1047012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/02786826.2015.1047012</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Mannstein, H., Brömser, A., and Bugliaro, L.: Ground-based observations for the validation of contrails and cirrus detection in satellite imagery, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 3, 655–669, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-3-655-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-3-655-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Meerkötter, R., Schumann, U., Doelling, D. R., Minnis, P., Nakajima, T.,
and Tsushima, Y.: Radiative forcing by contrails, Ann. Geophys., 17,
1080–1094, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00585-999-1080-7" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s00585-999-1080-7</ext-link>, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Molloy, J., Teoh, R., Harty, S., Koudis, G., Schumann, U., Poll, I., and Stettler, M. E. J.: Design Principles for a Contrail-Minimizing Trial in the North Atlantic, Aerospace, 9, 375, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/AEROSPACE9070375" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/AEROSPACE9070375</ext-link>, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Moore, R. H., Thornhill, K. L., Weinzierl, B., Sauer, D., D'Ascoli, E., Kim,
J., Lichtenstern, M., Scheibe, M., Beaton, B., and Beyersdorf, A. J.:
Biofuel blending reduces particle emissions from aircraft engines at cruise
conditions, Nature, 543, 411–415, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21420" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nature21420</ext-link>,
2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Myhre, G., Shindell, D., Bréon, F.-M., Collins, W., Fuglestvedt, J.,
Huang, J., Koch, D., Lamarque, J.-F., Lee, D., Mendoza, B., Nakajima, T.,
Robock, A., Stephens, G., Takemura, T., and Zhang, H.: Anthropogenic and
Natural Radiative Forcing, in: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK, 665 pp., 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Nuic, A., Poles, D., and Mouillet, V.: BADA: An advanced aircraft
performance model for present and future ATM systems,
Int. J. Adapt. Control, 24, 850–866, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/acs.1176" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/acs.1176</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Parr, W. C. and Schucany, W. R.: Minimum distance and robust estimation, J.
Am. Stat. Assoc., 75, 616–624,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1980.10477522" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/01621459.1980.10477522</ext-link>, 1980.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Petzold, A., Ogren, J. A., Fiebig, M., Laj, P., Li, S.-M., Baltensperger, U., Holzer-Popp, T., Kinne, S., Pappalardo, G., Sugimoto, N., Wehrli, C., Wiedensohler, A., and Zhang, X.-Y.: Recommendations for reporting ”black carbon” measurements, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 8365–8379, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-8365-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-8365-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Petzold, A., Neis, P., Rütimann, M., Rohs, S., Berkes, F., Smit, H. G. J., Krämer, M., Spelten, N., Spichtinger, P., Nédélec, P., and Wahner, A.: Ice-supersaturated air masses in the northern mid-latitudes from regular in situ observations by passenger aircraft: vertical distribution, seasonality and tropospheric fingerprint, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 8157–8179, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-8157-2020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-20-8157-2020</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ponater, M., Bickel, M., Bock, L., and Burkhardt, U.: Towards Determining
the Contrail Cirrus Efficacy, Aerospace, 8, 42,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/AEROSPACE8020042" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/AEROSPACE8020042</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Quaas, J., Gryspeerdt, E., Vautard, R., and Boucher, O.: Climate impact of
aircraft-induced cirrus assessed from satellite observations before and
during COVID-19, Environ. Res. Lett., 16, 064051,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ABF686" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1088/1748-9326/ABF686</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Rädel, G. and Shine, K. P.: Validating ECMWF forecasts for the
occurrence of ice supersaturation using visual observations of persistent
contrails and radiosonde measurements over England, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,
136, 1723–1732, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.670" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.670</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Reutter, P., Neis, P., Rohs, S., and Sauvage, B.: Ice supersaturated regions: properties and validation of ERA-Interim reanalysis with IAGOS in situ water vapour measurements, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 787–804, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-787-2020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-20-787-2020</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sanz-Morère, I., Eastham, S. D., Allroggen, F., Speth, R. L., and Barrett, S. R. H.: Impacts of multi-layer overlap on contrail radiative forcing, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 1649–1681, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1649-2021" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-21-1649-2021</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Schumann, U.: On conditions for contrail formation from aircraft exhausts,
Meteorol. Z., 5, 4–23, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1127/metz/5/1996/4" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1127/metz/5/1996/4</ext-link>,
1996.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Schumann, U.: A contrail cirrus prediction model, Geosci. Model Dev., 5, 543–580, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-5-543-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-5-543-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Schumann, U. and Graf, K.: Aviation-induced cirrus and radiation changes at
diurnal timescales, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 2404–2421,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50184" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/jgrd.50184</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Schumann, U. and Heymsfield, A. J.: On the lifecycle of individual contrails
and contrail cirrus, Meteorol. Monogr., 58, 3.1–3.24,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/amsmonographs-d-16-0005.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/amsmonographs-d-16-0005.1</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Schumann, U. and Mayer, B.: Sensitivity of surface temperature to radiative forcing by contrail cirrus in a radiative-mixing model, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 13833–13848, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-13833-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-17-13833-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Schumann, U., Mayer, B., Graf, K., and Mannstein, H.: A parametric radiative
forcing model for contrail cirrus, J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim., 51,
1391–1406, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-11-0242.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JAMC-D-11-0242.1</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Schumann, U., Jeßberger, P., and Voigt, C.: Contrail ice particles in
aircraft wakes and their climatic importance, Geophys. Res. Lett., 40,
2867–2872, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50539" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/grl.50539</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Schumann, U., Penner, J. E., Chen, Y., Zhou, C., and Graf, K.: Dehydration effects from contrails in a coupled contrail–climate model, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 11179–11199, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-11179-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-15-11179-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Schumann, U., Baumann, R., Baumgardner, D., Bedka, S. T., Duda, D. P., Freudenthaler, V., Gayet, J.-F., Heymsfield, A. J., Minnis, P., Quante, M., Raschke, E., Schlager, H., Vázquez-Navarro, M., Voigt, C., and Wang, Z.: Properties of individual contrails: a compilation of observations and some comparisons, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 403–438, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-403-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-17-403-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Schumann, U., Poll, I., Teoh, R., Koelle, R., Spinielli, E., Molloy, J., Koudis, G. S., Baumann, R., Bugliaro, L., Stettler, M., and Voigt, C.: Air traffic and contrail changes over Europe during COVID-19: a model study, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 7429–7450, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-7429-2021" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-21-7429-2021</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Stettler, M. E. J., Eastham, S., and Barrett, S. R. H.: Air quality and
public health impacts of UK airports. Part I: Emissions, Atmos. Environ.,
45, 5415–5424,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.07.012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.07.012</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Stettler, M. E. J., Boies, A., Petzold, A., and Barrett, S. R. H.: Global
civil aviation black carbon emissions, Environ. Sci. Technol., 47,
10397–10404, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es401356v" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/es401356v</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Stuber, N., Forster, P., Rädel, G., and Shine, K.: The importance of the
diurnal and annual cycle of air traffic for contrail radiative forcing,
Nature, 441, 864–867, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04877" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nature04877</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Szopa, S., Naik, V., Adihikary, B., Artaxo, P., Berntsen, T., Collins, W.,
Fuzzi, S., Gallardo, L., Kiendler-Scharr, A., Klimont, Z., Liao, H., Unger,
N., and Zanis, P.: Short-Lived Climate Forcers, in: Climate Change 2021: The
Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
Cambridge, UK, New York, NY, USA, 817–922, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Teoh, R., Stettler, M. E. J., Majumdar, A., Schumann, U., Graves, B., and
Boies, A.: A methodology to relate black carbon particle number and mass
emissions, J. Aerosol Sci., 132, 44–59,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JAEROSCI.2019.03.006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/J.JAEROSCI.2019.03.006</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Teoh, R., Schumann, U., and Stettler, M. E. J.: Beyond Contrail Avoidance:
Efficacy of Flight Altitude Changes to Minimise Contrail Climate Forcing, Aerospace, 7,
121, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace7090121" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/aerospace7090121</ext-link>, 2020a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Teoh, R., Schumann, U., Majumdar, A., and Stettler, M. E. J.: Mitigating the
Climate Forcing of Aircraft Contrails by Small-Scale Diversions and
Technology Adoption, Environ. Sci. Technol., 54, 2941–2950,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b05608" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/acs.est.9b05608</ext-link>, 2020b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Tompkins, A. M., Gierens, K., and Rädel, G.: Ice supersaturation in the
ECMWF integrated forecast system, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 133, 53–63,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.14" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.14</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Voigt, C., Kleine, J., Sauer, D., Moore, R. H., Bräuer, T., Le Clercq,
P., Kaufmann, S., Scheibe, M., Jurkat-Witschas, T., Aigner, M., Bauder, U.,
Boose, Y., Borrmann, S., Crosbie, E., Diskin, G. S., DiGangi, J., Hahn, V.,
Heckl, C., Huber, F., Nowak, J. B., Rapp, M., Rauch, B., Robinson, C.,
Schripp, T., Shook, M., Winstead, E., Ziemba, L., Schlager, H., and
Anderson, B. E.: Cleaner burning aviation fuels can reduce contrail
cloudiness, Commun. Earth Environ., 2, 1–10,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-021-00174-y" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s43247-021-00174-y</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib68"><label>68</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wallace, J. M. and Hobbs, P. V.: Atmospheric Science: An Introductory
Survey, Second Edition, Elsevier Academic Press, Amsterdam, 1–488,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/C2009-0-00034-8" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/C2009-0-00034-8</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib69"><label>69</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wey, C. C., Anderson, B. E., Hudgins, C., Wey, C., Li-Jones, X., Winstead,
E., Thornhill, L. K., Lobo, P., Hagen, D., and Whitefield, P.: Aircraft
particle emissions experiment (APEX), Technical Memorandum (TM),  NASA/TM-2006-214382, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), 2006.
 </mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib70"><label>70</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wilhelm, L., Gierens, K., and Rohs, S.: Weather Variability Induced
Uncertainty of Contrail Radiative Forcing, Aerosp. 2021,
8, 332, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/AEROSPACE8110332" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/AEROSPACE8110332</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib71"><label>71</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wilkerson, J. T., Jacobson, M. Z., Malwitz, A., Balasubramanian, S., Wayson, R., Fleming, G., Naiman, A. D., and Lele, S. K.: Analysis of emission data from global commercial aviation: 2004 and 2006, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 6391–6408, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-6391-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-10-6391-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Aviation contrail climate effects in the North Atlantic from 2016 to 2021</article-title-html>
<abstract-html/>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Abrahamson, J. P., Zelina, J., Andac, M. G., and Vander Wal, R. L.:
Predictive Model Development for Aviation Black Carbon Mass Emissions from
Alternative and Conventional Fuels at Ground and Cruise, Environ. Sci.
Technol., 50, 12048–12055, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b03749" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b03749</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Agarwal, A., Meijer, V. R., Eastham, S. D., Speth, R. L., and Barrett, S. R.
H.: Reanalysis-driven simulations may overestimate persistent contrail
formation by 100–250&thinsp;%, Environ. Res. Lett., 17,  014045,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/AC38D9" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/AC38D9</a>, 2022.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Bickel, M., Ponater, M., Bock, L., Burkhardt, U., and Reineke, S.:
Estimating the Effective Radiative Forcing of Contrail Cirrus, J. Climate,
33,  1991–2005, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0467.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0467.1</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Bock, L. and Burkhardt, U.: Contrail cirrus radiative forcing for future air traffic, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 8163–8174, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-8163-2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-8163-2019</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Boies, A. M., Stettler, M. E. J., Swanson, J. J., Johnson, T. J., Olfert, J.
S., Johnson, M., Eggersdorfer, M. L., Rindlisbacher, T., Wang, J., and
Thomson, K.: Particle emission characteristics of a gas turbine with a
double annular combustor, Aerosol Sci. Technol., 49, 842–855,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2015.1078452" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2015.1078452</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Boulanger, D., Blot, R., Bundke, U., Gerbig, C., Hermann, M., Nédélec, P., Rohs, S., and Ziereis, H.: IAGOS final quality controlled Observational Data L2 – Time series, Aeris [data set], <a href="https://doi.org/10.25326/06" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.25326/06</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Boulanger, D., Thouret, V., and Petzold, A.: IAGOS Data Protal, AERIS [data set], <a href="https://doi.org/10.25326/20" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.25326/20</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Bräuer, T., Voigt, C., Sauer, D., Kaufmann, S., Hahn, V., Scheibe, M.,
Schlager, H., Diskin, G. S., Nowak, J. B., DiGangi, J. P., Huber, F., Moore,
R. H., and Anderson, B. E.: Airborne Measurements of Contrail Ice
Properties–Dependence on Temperature and Humidity, Geophys. Res. Lett.,
48, e2020GL092166, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL092166" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL092166</a>, 2021a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Bräuer, T., Voigt, C., Sauer, D., Kaufmann, S., Hahn, V., Scheibe, M., Schlager, H., Huber, F., Le Clercq, P., Moore, R. H., and Anderson, B. E.: Reduced ice number concentrations in contrails from low-aromatic biofuel blends, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 16817–16826, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-16817-2021" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-16817-2021</a>,  2021b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Burkhardt, U. and Kärcher, B.: Global radiative forcing from contrail
cirrus, Nat. Clim. Change, 1, 54–58, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1068" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1068</a>,
2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Burkhardt, U., Bock, L., and Bier, A.: Mitigating the contrail cirrus
climate impact by reducing aircraft soot number emissions, npj Clim. Atmos.
Sci., 1, 1–7, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-018-0046-4" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-018-0046-4</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Caiazzo, F., Agarwal, A., Speth, R. L., and Barrett, S. R. H.: Impact of
biofuels on contrail warming, Environ. Res. Lett., 12, 114013, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa893b" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa893b</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Chen, C.-C. and Gettelman, A.: Simulated radiative forcing from contrails and contrail cirrus, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 12525–12536, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-12525-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-12525-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
DuBois, D. and Paynter, G.: ”Fuel Flow Method2” for Estimating Aircraft
Emissions, J. Aerosp., 115, 1–14, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Durdina, L., Brem, B. T., Setyan, A., Siegerist, F., Rindlisbacher, T., and
Wang, J.: Assessment of Particle Pollution from Jetliners: from Smoke
Visibility to Nanoparticle Counting, Environ. Sci. Technol., 51, 3534–3541,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b05801" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b05801</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
EASA: Aircraft Engine Emissions Databank (07/2021) [data set],
<a href="https://www.easa.europa.eu/domains/environment/icao-aircraft-engine-emissions-databank" target="_blank"/>,
last access: 17 August 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
ECMWF: The Copernicus Programme: Climate Data Store [data set],
<a href="https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/#!/home" target="_blank"/> (last access: 15 February 2022), 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
EUROCONTROL: User Manual for the Base of Aircraft Data (BADA) Revision 3.15. EEC Technical/Scientific Report No. 19/03/18-45. EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre (EEC), <a href="https://www.eurocontrol.int/model/bada" target="_blank"/> (last access: 17 August 2021), 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
EUROCONTROL: User Manual for the Base of Aircraft Data (BADA) Family 4. EEC Technical/Scientific Report No. 12/11/22-58. EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre (EEC), <a href="https://www.eurocontrol.int/model/bada" target="_blank"/>  (last access: 17 August 2021), 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Freeman, S., Lee, D. S., Lim, L. L., Skowron, A., and León, R. R. De:
Trading off Aircraft Fuel Burn and NOx Emissions for Optimal Climate Policy,
Environ. Sci. Technol., 52, 2498–2505,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/ACS.EST.7B05719" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/ACS.EST.7B05719</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Gettelman, A., Chen, C.-C., and Bardeen, C. G.: The climate impact of COVID-19-induced contrail changes, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 9405–9416, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-9405-2021" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-9405-2021</a>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Gierens, K., Schumann, U., Helten, M., Smit, H., and Marenco, A.: A
distribution law for relative humidity in the upper troposphere and lower
stratosphere derived from three years of MOZAIC measurements,  Annales
Geophysicae, 17, 1218–1226, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00585-999-1218-7" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00585-999-1218-7</a>, 1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Gierens, K., Matthes, S., and Rohs, S.: How Well Can Persistent Contrails Be
Predicted?, Aerosp., 7, 169, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/AEROSPACE7120169" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/AEROSPACE7120169</a>,
2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Hirahara, S., Horányi, A.,
Muñoz-Sabater, J., Nicolas, J., Peubey, C., Radu, R., Schepers, D.,
Simmons, A., Soci, C., Abdalla, S., Abellan, X., Balsamo, G., Bechtold, P.,
Biavati, G., Bidlot, J., Bonavita, M., De Chiara, G., Dahlgren, P., Dee, D.,
Diamantakis, M., Dragani, R., Flemming, J., Forbes, R., Fuentes, M., Geer,
A., Haimberger, L., Healy, S., Hogan, R. J., Hólm, E., Janisková,
M., Keeley, S., Laloyaux, P., Lopez, P., Lupu, C., Radnoti, G., de Rosnay,
P., Rozum, I., Vamborg, F., Villaume, S., and Thépaut, J. N.: The ERA5
global reanalysis, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 146, 1999–2049, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3803" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3803</a>,
2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Hoinka, K. P., Reinhardt, M. E., and Metz, W.: North Atlantic air traffic
within the lower stratosphere: Cruising times and corresponding emissions,
J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 98, 23113–23131,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/93JD02262" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/93JD02262</a>, 1993.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
ICAO: Effects of Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) on Civil Aviation: Economic
Impact Analysis, Montreal, Canada, <a href="https://www.icao.int/sustainability/Documents/COVID-19/ICAO COVID 2021 04 08 Economic Impact TH Toru.pdf" target="_blank"/> (last access: 17 August 2021), 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Jeßberger, P., Voigt, C., Schumann, U., Sölch, I., Schlager, H., Kaufmann, S., Petzold, A., Schäuble, D., and Gayet, J.-F.: Aircraft type influence on contrail properties, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 11965–11984, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-11965-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-11965-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Kärcher, B.: Formation and radiative forcing of contrail cirrus, Nat.
Commun., 9, 1824, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04068-0" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04068-0</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Kärcher, B. and Yu, F.: Role of aircraft soot emissions in contrail
formation, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36,  L01804, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL036649" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL036649</a>,
2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Kleine, J., Voigt, C., Sauer, D., Schlager, H., Scheibe, M.,
Jurkat-Witschas, T., Kaufmann, S., Kärcher, B., and Anderson, B. E.: In
Situ Observations of Ice Particle Losses in a Young Persistent Contrail,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 13553–13561,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL079390" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL079390</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Kyprianidis, K. G. and Dahlquist, E.: On the trade-off between aviation NOx
and energy efficiency, Appl. Energ., 185, 1506–1516,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2015.12.055" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2015.12.055</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Lee, D. S., Fahey, D. W., Skowron, A., Allen, M. R., Burkhardt, U., Chen,
Q., Doherty, S. J., Freeman, S., Forster, P. M., Fuglestvedt, J., Gettelman,
A., De León, R. R., Lim, L. L., Lund, M. T., Millar, R. J., Owen, B.,
Penner, J. E., Pitari, G., Prather, M. J., Sausen, R., and Wilcox, L. J.:
The contribution of global aviation to anthropogenic climate forcing for
2000 to 2018, Atmos. Environ., 244, 117834,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ATMOSENV.2020.117834" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ATMOSENV.2020.117834</a>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Lewellen, D. C.: Persistent contrails and contrail cirrus. Part II: Full
lifetime behavior, J. Atmos. Sci., 71, 4420–4438,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-13-0317.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-13-0317.1</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Lobo, P., Durdina, L., Smallwood, G. J., Rindlisbacher, T., Siegerist, F.,
Black, E. A., Yu, Z., Mensah, A. A., Hagen, D. E., and Miake-Lye, R. C.:
Measurement of aircraft engine non-volatile PM emissions: Results of the
aviation-particle regulatory instrumentation demonstration experiment
(A-PRIDE) 4 campaign, Aerosol Sci. Technol., 49, 472–484,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2015.1047012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2015.1047012</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Mannstein, H., Brömser, A., and Bugliaro, L.: Ground-based observations for the validation of contrails and cirrus detection in satellite imagery, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 3, 655–669, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-3-655-2010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-3-655-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Meerkötter, R., Schumann, U., Doelling, D. R., Minnis, P., Nakajima, T.,
and Tsushima, Y.: Radiative forcing by contrails, Ann. Geophys., 17,
1080–1094, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00585-999-1080-7" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00585-999-1080-7</a>, 1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Molloy, J., Teoh, R., Harty, S., Koudis, G., Schumann, U., Poll, I., and Stettler, M. E. J.: Design Principles for a Contrail-Minimizing Trial in the North Atlantic, Aerospace, 9, 375, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/AEROSPACE9070375" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/AEROSPACE9070375</a>, 2022.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Moore, R. H., Thornhill, K. L., Weinzierl, B., Sauer, D., D'Ascoli, E., Kim,
J., Lichtenstern, M., Scheibe, M., Beaton, B., and Beyersdorf, A. J.:
Biofuel blending reduces particle emissions from aircraft engines at cruise
conditions, Nature, 543, 411–415, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21420" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21420</a>,
2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Myhre, G., Shindell, D., Bréon, F.-M., Collins, W., Fuglestvedt, J.,
Huang, J., Koch, D., Lamarque, J.-F., Lee, D., Mendoza, B., Nakajima, T.,
Robock, A., Stephens, G., Takemura, T., and Zhang, H.: Anthropogenic and
Natural Radiative Forcing, in: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK, 665 pp., 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Nuic, A., Poles, D., and Mouillet, V.: BADA: An advanced aircraft
performance model for present and future ATM systems,
Int. J. Adapt. Control, 24, 850–866, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/acs.1176" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/acs.1176</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Parr, W. C. and Schucany, W. R.: Minimum distance and robust estimation, J.
Am. Stat. Assoc., 75, 616–624,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1980.10477522" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1980.10477522</a>, 1980.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Petzold, A., Ogren, J. A., Fiebig, M., Laj, P., Li, S.-M., Baltensperger, U., Holzer-Popp, T., Kinne, S., Pappalardo, G., Sugimoto, N., Wehrli, C., Wiedensohler, A., and Zhang, X.-Y.: Recommendations for reporting ”black carbon” measurements, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 8365–8379, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-8365-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-8365-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Petzold, A., Neis, P., Rütimann, M., Rohs, S., Berkes, F., Smit, H. G. J., Krämer, M., Spelten, N., Spichtinger, P., Nédélec, P., and Wahner, A.: Ice-supersaturated air masses in the northern mid-latitudes from regular in situ observations by passenger aircraft: vertical distribution, seasonality and tropospheric fingerprint, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 8157–8179, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-8157-2020" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-8157-2020</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Ponater, M., Bickel, M., Bock, L., and Burkhardt, U.: Towards Determining
the Contrail Cirrus Efficacy, Aerospace, 8, 42,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/AEROSPACE8020042" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/AEROSPACE8020042</a>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Quaas, J., Gryspeerdt, E., Vautard, R., and Boucher, O.: Climate impact of
aircraft-induced cirrus assessed from satellite observations before and
during COVID-19, Environ. Res. Lett., 16, 064051,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ABF686" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ABF686</a>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Rädel, G. and Shine, K. P.: Validating ECMWF forecasts for the
occurrence of ice supersaturation using visual observations of persistent
contrails and radiosonde measurements over England, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,
136, 1723–1732, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.670" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.670</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Reutter, P., Neis, P., Rohs, S., and Sauvage, B.: Ice supersaturated regions: properties and validation of ERA-Interim reanalysis with IAGOS in situ water vapour measurements, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 787–804, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-787-2020" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-787-2020</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Sanz-Morère, I., Eastham, S. D., Allroggen, F., Speth, R. L., and Barrett, S. R. H.: Impacts of multi-layer overlap on contrail radiative forcing, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 1649–1681, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1649-2021" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1649-2021</a>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Schumann, U.: On conditions for contrail formation from aircraft exhausts,
Meteorol. Z., 5, 4–23, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1127/metz/5/1996/4" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1127/metz/5/1996/4</a>,
1996.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Schumann, U.: A contrail cirrus prediction model, Geosci. Model Dev., 5, 543–580, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-5-543-2012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-5-543-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Schumann, U. and Graf, K.: Aviation-induced cirrus and radiation changes at
diurnal timescales, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 2404–2421,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50184" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50184</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
Schumann, U. and Heymsfield, A. J.: On the lifecycle of individual contrails
and contrail cirrus, Meteorol. Monogr., 58, 3.1–3.24,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/amsmonographs-d-16-0005.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/amsmonographs-d-16-0005.1</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>
Schumann, U. and Mayer, B.: Sensitivity of surface temperature to radiative forcing by contrail cirrus in a radiative-mixing model, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 13833–13848, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-13833-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-13833-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>
Schumann, U., Mayer, B., Graf, K., and Mannstein, H.: A parametric radiative
forcing model for contrail cirrus, J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim., 51,
1391–1406, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-11-0242.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-11-0242.1</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>
Schumann, U., Jeßberger, P., and Voigt, C.: Contrail ice particles in
aircraft wakes and their climatic importance, Geophys. Res. Lett., 40,
2867–2872, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50539" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50539</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>
Schumann, U., Penner, J. E., Chen, Y., Zhou, C., and Graf, K.: Dehydration effects from contrails in a coupled contrail–climate model, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 11179–11199, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-11179-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-11179-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>
Schumann, U., Baumann, R., Baumgardner, D., Bedka, S. T., Duda, D. P., Freudenthaler, V., Gayet, J.-F., Heymsfield, A. J., Minnis, P., Quante, M., Raschke, E., Schlager, H., Vázquez-Navarro, M., Voigt, C., and Wang, Z.: Properties of individual contrails: a compilation of observations and some comparisons, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 403–438, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-403-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-403-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>
Schumann, U., Poll, I., Teoh, R., Koelle, R., Spinielli, E., Molloy, J., Koudis, G. S., Baumann, R., Bugliaro, L., Stettler, M., and Voigt, C.: Air traffic and contrail changes over Europe during COVID-19: a model study, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 7429–7450, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-7429-2021" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-7429-2021</a>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>
Stettler, M. E. J., Eastham, S., and Barrett, S. R. H.: Air quality and
public health impacts of UK airports. Part I: Emissions, Atmos. Environ.,
45, 5415–5424,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.07.012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.07.012</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>
Stettler, M. E. J., Boies, A., Petzold, A., and Barrett, S. R. H.: Global
civil aviation black carbon emissions, Environ. Sci. Technol., 47,
10397–10404, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es401356v" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/es401356v</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>
Stuber, N., Forster, P., Rädel, G., and Shine, K.: The importance of the
diurnal and annual cycle of air traffic for contrail radiative forcing,
Nature, 441, 864–867, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04877" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04877</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>
Szopa, S., Naik, V., Adihikary, B., Artaxo, P., Berntsen, T., Collins, W.,
Fuzzi, S., Gallardo, L., Kiendler-Scharr, A., Klimont, Z., Liao, H., Unger,
N., and Zanis, P.: Short-Lived Climate Forcers, in: Climate Change 2021: The
Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
Cambridge, UK, New York, NY, USA, 817–922, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation>
Teoh, R., Stettler, M. E. J., Majumdar, A., Schumann, U., Graves, B., and
Boies, A.: A methodology to relate black carbon particle number and mass
emissions, J. Aerosol Sci., 132, 44–59,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JAEROSCI.2019.03.006" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JAEROSCI.2019.03.006</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation>
Teoh, R., Schumann, U., and Stettler, M. E. J.: Beyond Contrail Avoidance:
Efficacy of Flight Altitude Changes to Minimise Contrail Climate Forcing, Aerospace, 7,
121, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace7090121" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace7090121</a>, 2020a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><mixed-citation>
Teoh, R., Schumann, U., Majumdar, A., and Stettler, M. E. J.: Mitigating the
Climate Forcing of Aircraft Contrails by Small-Scale Diversions and
Technology Adoption, Environ. Sci. Technol., 54, 2941–2950,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b05608" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b05608</a>, 2020b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><mixed-citation>
Tompkins, A. M., Gierens, K., and Rädel, G.: Ice supersaturation in the
ECMWF integrated forecast system, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 133, 53–63,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.14" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.14</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><mixed-citation>
Voigt, C., Kleine, J., Sauer, D., Moore, R. H., Bräuer, T., Le Clercq,
P., Kaufmann, S., Scheibe, M., Jurkat-Witschas, T., Aigner, M., Bauder, U.,
Boose, Y., Borrmann, S., Crosbie, E., Diskin, G. S., DiGangi, J., Hahn, V.,
Heckl, C., Huber, F., Nowak, J. B., Rapp, M., Rauch, B., Robinson, C.,
Schripp, T., Shook, M., Winstead, E., Ziemba, L., Schlager, H., and
Anderson, B. E.: Cleaner burning aviation fuels can reduce contrail
cloudiness, Commun. Earth Environ., 2, 1–10,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-021-00174-y" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-021-00174-y</a>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib68"><label>68</label><mixed-citation>
Wallace, J. M. and Hobbs, P. V.: Atmospheric Science: An Introductory
Survey, Second Edition, Elsevier Academic Press, Amsterdam, 1–488,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/C2009-0-00034-8" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/C2009-0-00034-8</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib69"><label>69</label><mixed-citation>
Wey, C. C., Anderson, B. E., Hudgins, C., Wey, C., Li-Jones, X., Winstead,
E., Thornhill, L. K., Lobo, P., Hagen, D., and Whitefield, P.: Aircraft
particle emissions experiment (APEX), Technical Memorandum (TM),  NASA/TM-2006-214382, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), 2006.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib70"><label>70</label><mixed-citation>
Wilhelm, L., Gierens, K., and Rohs, S.: Weather Variability Induced
Uncertainty of Contrail Radiative Forcing, Aerosp. 2021,
8, 332, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/AEROSPACE8110332" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/AEROSPACE8110332</a>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib71"><label>71</label><mixed-citation>
Wilkerson, J. T., Jacobson, M. Z., Malwitz, A., Balasubramanian, S., Wayson, R., Fleming, G., Naiman, A. D., and Lele, S. K.: Analysis of emission data from global commercial aviation: 2004 and 2006, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 6391–6408, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-6391-2010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-6391-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
