Articles | Volume 18, issue 1
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-37-2025
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-37-2025
Research article
 | 
07 Jan 2025
Research article |  | 07 Jan 2025

Ground-based contrail observations: comparisons with reanalysis weather data and contrail model simulations

Jade Low, Roger Teoh, Joel Ponsonby, Edward Gryspeerdt, Marc Shapiro, and Marc E. J. Stettler

Related authors

Weak liquid water path response in ship tracks
Anna Tippett, Edward Gryspeerdt, Peter Manshausen, Philip Stier, and Tristan W. P. Smith
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 13269–13283, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-13269-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-13269-2024, 2024
Short summary
Air mass history linked to the development of Arctic mixed-phase clouds
Rebecca J. Murray-Watson and Edward Gryspeerdt
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 11115–11132, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-11115-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-11115-2024, 2024
Short summary
The importance of an informed choice of CO2-equivalence metrics for contrail avoidance
Audran Borella, Olivier Boucher, Keith P. Shine, Marc Stettler, Katsumasa Tanaka, Roger Teoh, and Nicolas Bellouin
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 9401–9417, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-9401-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-9401-2024, 2024
Short summary
Factors limiting contrail detection in satellite imagery
Oliver G. A. Driver, Marc E. J. Stettler, and Edward Gryspeerdt
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2198,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2198, 2024
Short summary
Model analysis of biases in satellite diagnosed aerosol effect on cloud liquid water path
Harri Kokkola, Juha Tonttila, Silvia Calderón, Sami Romakkaniemi, Antti Lipponen, Aapo Peräkorpi, Tero Mielonen, Edward Gryspeerdt, Timo H. Virtanen, Pekka Kolmonen, and Antti Arola
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1964,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1964, 2024
Short summary

Related subject area

Subject: Aerosols | Technique: Remote Sensing | Topic: Data Processing and Information Retrieval
Retrieval of stratospheric aerosol extinction coefficients from sun-normalized Ozone Mapper and Profiler Suite Limb Profiler (OMPS-LP) measurements
Alexei Rozanov, Christine Pohl, Carlo Arosio, Adam Bourassa, Klaus Bramstedt, Elizaveta Malinina, Landon Rieger, and John P. Burrows
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 6677–6695, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-6677-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-6677-2024, 2024
Short summary
Total column optical depths retrieved from CALIPSO lidar ocean surface backscatter
Robert A. Ryan, Mark A. Vaughan, Sharon D. Rodier, Jason L. Tackett, John A. Reagan, Richard A. Ferrare, Johnathan W. Hair, John A. Smith, and Brian J. Getzewich
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 6517–6545, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-6517-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-6517-2024, 2024
Short summary
ALICENET – an Italian network of automated lidar ceilometers for four-dimensional aerosol monitoring: infrastructure, data processing, and applications
Annachiara Bellini, Henri Diémoz, Luca Di Liberto, Gian Paolo Gobbi, Alessandro Bracci, Ferdinando Pasqualini, and Francesca Barnaba
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 6119–6144, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-6119-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-6119-2024, 2024
Short summary
Post-process correction improves the accuracy of satellite PM2.5 retrievals
Andrea Porcheddu, Ville Kolehmainen, Timo Lähivaara, and Antti Lipponen
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 5747–5764, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-5747-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-5747-2024, 2024
Short summary
Increasing aerosol optical depth spatial and temporal availability by merging datasets from geostationary and sun-synchronous satellites
Pawan Gupta, Robert C. Levy, Shana Mattoo, Lorraine A. Remer, Zhaohui Zhang, Virginia Sawyer, Jennifer Wei, Sally Zhao, Min Oo, V. Praju Kiliyanpilakkil, and Xiaohua Pan
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 5455–5476, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-5455-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-5455-2024, 2024
Short summary

Cited articles

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, 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/AC38D9, 2022. 
Bedka, S. T., Minnis, P., Duda, D. P., Chee, T. L., and Palikonda, R.: Properties of linear contrails in the Northern Hemisphere derived from 2006 Aqua MODIS observations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, 772–777, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL054363, 2013. 
Bier, A. and Burkhardt, U.: Impact of Parametrizing Microphysical Processes in the Jet and Vortex Phase on Contrail Cirrus Properties and Radiative Forcing, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 127, e2022JD036677, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JD036677, 2022. 
Bier, A., Unterstrasser, S., and Vancassel, X.: Box model trajectory studies of contrail formation using a particle-based cloud microphysics scheme, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 823–845, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-823-2022, 2022. 
Download
Short summary
The radiative forcing due to contrails is of the same order of magnitude as aviation CO2 emissions but has a higher uncertainty. Observations are vital to improve our understanding of the contrail lifecycle, improve models, and measure the effect of mitigation action. Here, we use ground-based cameras combined with flight telemetry to track visible contrails and measure their lifetime and width. We evaluate model predictions and demonstrate the capability of this approach.