Minnis et al. (2004, hereafter MAPP) estimate that surface temperature trends over the United States due to aircraft-induced contrails and cirrus are in “good agreement” with corresponding observations over the period 1973 to 1994. MAPP reach this conclusion based on a simple model [their Eq. (3)] calibrated using general circulation model (GCM) results from Rind et al. (2000, hereafter RLS). Depending on the assumed cirrus optical depth, MAPP estimate an annual-mean surface warming trend over the United States of between 0.16 and 0.27 K decade , compared with Angell’s (1999) observed trend of 0.27 K decade . I believe that MAPP significantly overestimate the climate impact of aircraft-induced clouds. A useful first-order estimate for the equilibrium global-mean surface temperature change Ts comes from applying the approximate equation Ts F, where is a climate sensitivity parameter and F is the radiative forcing (e.g., Houghton et al. 2001). The range of values of found in current GCMs is about 0.4 to 1.2 K (W m ) , corresponding to an equilibrium surface warming due to a doubling of carbon dioxide from about 1.5 to 4.5 K (e.g., Houghton et al. 2001); RLS’s GCM has a climate sensitivity toward the upper end of this range. MAPP estimate a maximum global-mean radiative forcing due to aircraft-induced clouds (for 1992) of 0.0255 W m . With these values, the above equation yields a global-mean warming of 0.01 to 0.03 K, or about 0.003 to 0.01 K decade , assuming that the forcing grew quasi-linearly over the previous three decades. Hence, this estimate is one to two orders of magnitude lower than that given by MAPP. The realized warming is likely to be 25%–50% smaller than this because of the thermal inertia of the climate system. MAPP’s estimate is for the United States, rather than for the global mean, but evidence for significant localization of the climate response resulting from a geographically limited forcing, beyond a broad hemispheric scale effect, is scant. Plate 3 of RLS shows that their modeled surface warming due to aircraft-induced clouds over the United States as a whole differs by no more than 50% from the global mean. More importantly, RLS compare two experiments, both with a global-mean increase in aircraft-induced clouds of about 1%. In one experiment (which they label “1/99”), the spatial pattern of cloud change is related to flight path occurrence; in the other (labeled “scaled”), the spatial pattern is related to flight path density, yielding a far more inhomogeneous change in cloudiness (see RLS, Plate 1). The scaled experiment yields a cloud change over the eastern United States that reaches about a factor of 2 larger than 1/99—despite this, the pattern of surface temperature response in the two experiments is very similar and RLS conclude that “there is no obvious geographical bias in the warming” despite the localization of the forcing. Other GCM studies on the impact of inhomogeneous patterns of forcing reach similar conclusions. For example, Boer and Yu (2003) conclude that “temperature response patterns are at best a weak reflection of their parent forcing pattern.” Certainly the regional nature of the aircraft-induced cloud forcing cannot explain the order(s) of magnitude difference in surface temperature change between the estimate derived here and that derived by MAPP. I believe that the main cause of MAPP’s overestimate is that their use of Eq. (3) implicitly assumes that there is a 1% cloud cover change present globally, or at least hemispherically, rather than just over the United States. Indeed, RLS (their Table 3a) show that a 1% Corresponding author address: Dr. Keith P. Shine, Dept. of Meteorology, University of Reading, Earley Gate, Reading RG6 6BB, United Kingdom. E-mail: k.p.shine@reading.ac.uk 15 JULY 2005 N O T E S A N D C O R R E S P O N D E N C E 2781
Read full abstract