Intercomparison of radiative forcing calculations of stratospheric water vapour and contrails
Abstract
Seven groups have participated in an intercomparison study of calculations of radiative forcing (RF) due to stratospheric water vapour (SWV) and contrails. A combination of detailed radiative transfer schemes and codes for global-scale calculations have been used, as well as a combination of idealized simulations and more realistic global-scale changes in stratospheric water vapour and contrails. Detailed line-by-line codes agree within about 15 % for longwave (LW) and shortwave (SW) RF, except in one case where the difference is 30 %. Since the LW and SW RF due to contrails and SWV changes are of opposite sign, the differences between the models seen in the individual LW and SW components can be either compensated or strengthened in the net RF, and thus in relative terms uncertainties are much larger for the net RF. Some of the models used for global-scale simulations of changes in SWV and contrails differ substantially in RF from the more detailed radiative transfer schemes. For the global-scale calculations we use a method of weighting the results to calculate a best estimate based on their performance compared to the more detailed radiative transfer schemes in the idealized simulations.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Uncertainty related to the model's radiative transfer scheme is approximately 35%.
“A1 Uncertainty related to the model ' s radiative transfer scheme of approximately 35% (Myhre et al., 2009).”
From The contribution of global aviation to anthropogenic climate forcing for 2000 to 2018 (2021) · cites this paper as Myhre et al., 2009
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 36 · Cited by 82
- Authors
- Myhre, G., Kvalevåg, M., Rädel, G., Cook, J., Shine, K. P., Clark, H., Karcher, F., Markowicz, K., Kardas, A., Wolkenberg, P., Balkanski, Y., Ponater, M., Forster, P., Rap, A., Leon, R., & Rodriguez
- Affiliations
- CICERO Center for International Climate Research (NO)
- Laboratoire d'Aérologie (FR)
- Centre National de Recherches Météorologiques (FR)
- Commissariat à l'Énergie Atomique et aux Énergies Alternatives (FR)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Meteorologische Zeitschrift
- Publisher
- Schweizerbart
- Published
- 2009-12-01
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 585-596
- ISSN
- 0941-2948 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2139227803
- Cited by
- 82
- References
- 36
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 5.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Meteorologische Zeitschrift (publishedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- e-space (Manchester Metropolitan University) (submittedVersion)
- elib (German Aerospace Center) (submittedVersion)
- White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Economic and Social Research Council (ES/G021694/1)
- Natural Environment Research Council (NE/E010164/1)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Atmospheric aerosols and clouds
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Atmospheric Ozone and Climate
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Advanced Aircraft Design and Technologies
- Keywords
- radiative forcing, stratospheric water vapor, contrails, intercomparison, aviation climate impact
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review