Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T10:41:51.510Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Systematic review of the impact of emissions from aviation on current and future climate

Part of: Sustainable Aerospace

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2016

K. Takeda ,
A. L. Takeda ,
J. Bryant  and
A. J. Clegg
K. Takeda
Affiliation:
School of Engineering Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
A. L. Takeda
Affiliation:
Southampton Health Technology Assessments Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
J. Bryant
Affiliation:
Southampton Health Technology Assessments Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
A. J. Clegg
Affiliation:
Southampton Health Technology Assessments Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aviation emissions have an impact on the global climate, and this is consequently an active area of research worldwide. By adapting replicable and transparent systematic review methods from the field of evidence-based medicine, we aim to synthesise available data on the effects of aviation emissions on climate. From these data, we aim to calculate lower and upper bounds for estimates of the effect of aviation on climate in an objective manner.

For the systematic review an appropriate protocol was developed and applied by two independent reviewers, to identify research that met the inclusion criteria. These included all aviation types, original research studies, climate models with aviation as a specific component, with outcomes for emissions, radiative forcing, global warming potential and/or surface temperature changes. These studies were prioritised and data extracted using a standard process. The 35 studies reviewed here reported radiative forcing, global warming potential and/or temperature changes as outcomes, allowing direct comparisons to be made.

Tabulated results and a narrative commentary were provided for overall effects on climate, and the individual effects of carbon dioxide, water, contrails, cirrus clouds, ozone, nitrogen oxides, methane, soot and sulphur oxides. Lower and upper bounds for these effects, and their relative contributions compared to overall radiative forcing and surface temperature changes, have been described.

This review shows that the most recent estimates for the contribution of aviation to global climate are highly dependent on the level of scientific understanding and modelling, and predicted scenarios for social and economic growth. Estimates for the future contribution of aviation to global radiative forcing in 2015 range from 5·31% to 8·04%. For 2050 the estimates have a wider spread, from 2·12% to 17·33%, the latter being for the most extreme technology and growth scenario. These global estimates should be considered within the context of uncertainties in accounting for the direct and indirect effects of different contributions. Variations between lower and upper bounds for estimates of radiative forcing are relatively low for carbon dioxide, around 131% to 800% for cirrus clouds effects, and 1,044% for soot. Advances in climate research, particularly in the area of contrail and cloud effects, has led to some revision of the 1999 IPCC estimates(1), and demonstrates that the research community is actively working to further understand the underlying science.

The approaches assumptions, limitations and future work were discussed in detail. We have demonstrated how the systematic review methodology can be applied to climate science, in a replicable and transparent manner.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 112 , Issue 1135 , September 2008 , pp. 493 - 522
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2008 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Penner, J.E., Lister, D., Griggs, D., Dokken, D. and McFarland, M. (Eds). Aviation and the global atmosphere: Summary for policymakers. 1999. Geneva, Switzerland, IPCC. IPCC Special Report.Google Scholar
2. Bows AAKaUP. Contraction and convergence: UK carbon emissions and the implications for UK air traffic. Tyndall Centre Technical Report, (40), pp 1–80, 2006. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.Google Scholar
3. Egger, M. and Davey Smith, G., Systematic Reviews in Health Care, 2nd ed, BMJ Books, 2001.Google Scholar
4. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Undertaking Systematic Reviews of Research on Effectiveness. CRD Report 4, 2nd ed, 2001, University of York, York, UK.Google Scholar
5. Drummond, M.F., O’Brien, B.J., Torrance, G.W. and Stoddart, G.L., Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes, Oxford University Press, 1997, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
6. Higgins, J. and Green, S. (Eds). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 2006, 4.2.6 (updated September 2006). Chichester, UK, John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
7. Berntsen, T.K., Myhre, G., Stordal, F. and Isaksen, I.S.A., Time evolution of tropospheric ozone and its radiative forcing, J of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 2000, 105, (D7):8915-8930.Google Scholar
8. Danilin, M.Y., Fahey, D.W., Schumann, U., Prather, M.J., Penner, J.E. and Ko, M.K.W., et al Aviation fuel tracer simulation: Model intercom-parison and implications. Geophysical Research Letters, 1998, 25, (21), pp 3947–3950.Google Scholar
9. Dessens, O. and Simon, P., The importance of dynamics/chemistry coupling in the evaluation of aircraft emission impact studies, Meteorologische Zeitschrift, 2002, 11, (3), pp 161–175.Google Scholar
10. Fichter, C., Marquart, S., Sausen, R. and Lee, D.S., The impact of cruise altitude on contrails and related radiative forcing. Meteorologische Zeitschrift, 2005, 14, (4), pp 563–572.Google Scholar
11. Forster, P.M.D., Shine, K.P. and Stuber, N., It is premature to include non-CO2 effects of aviation in emission trading schemes, Atmospheric Environment, 2006, 40, (6), pp 1117–1121.Google Scholar
12. Fortuin, J.P.F., Vandorland, R., Wauben, Wmf, and Kelder, H., greenhouse effects of aircraft emissions as calculated by A radiative-transfer model, Annales Geophysicae-Atmospheres Hydrospheres and Space, 1995, 13, (4), pp 413–418.Google Scholar
13. Fuglestvedt, J.S., Isaksen, I.S.A. and Wang, W.C., Estimates of indirect global warming potentials for CH4, CO AND NOX , Climatic Change, 1996, 34, (3-4), pp 405–437.Google Scholar
14. Gauss, M., Isaksen, I.S.A., Wong, S. and Wang, W.C., Impact of H2O emissions from cryoplanes and kerosene aircraft on the atmosphere, J Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 2003, 108, (D10):4304.Google Scholar
15. Isaksen, I.S.A., Berntsen, T.K. and Wang, W.C., NOx emissions from aircraft, Its impact on the global distribution of CH4 and O-3 and on radiative forcing, Terrestrial Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, 2001, 12, (1), pp 63–78.Google Scholar
16. Johnson, C.E. and Derwent, R.G., Relative radiative forcing consequences of global emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and NOX from human activities estimated with a zonally-averaged two-dimensional model, Climatic Change, 1996, 34, (3-4), pp 439–462.Google Scholar
17. Marquart, S., Sausen, R., Ponater, M. and Grewe, V., Estimate of the climate impact of cryoplanes, Aerospace Science and Technology, 2001, 5, (1), pp 73–84.Google Scholar
18. Marquart, S., Ponater, M., Mager, F. and Sausen, R., Future development of contrail cover, optical depth, and radiative forcing, Impacts of increasing air traffic and climate change, J Climate, 2003, 16, (17), 2890–2904.Google Scholar
19. Marquart, S., Ponater, M., Strom, L. and Glerens, K., An upgraded estimate of the radiative forcing of cryoplane contrails, Meteorologische Zeitschrift, 2005, 14, (4), pp 573–582.Google Scholar
20. Meerkotter, R., Schuman, U., Doelling, D., Minnis, P., Nakajima, T. and Tsushuma, Y., Radiative forcing by contrails, Annales Geophysicae, 1999, 17, pp 1080–1094.Google Scholar
21. Minnis, P., Schumann, U., Doelling, D.R., Gierens, K.M. and Fahey, D.W., Global distribution of contrail radiative forcing, Geophysical Research Letters, 1999, 26, (13), pp 1853–1856.Google Scholar
22. Morris, G.A., Rosenfield, J.E., Schoeberl, M.R. and Jackman, C.H., Potential impact of subsonic and supersonic aircraft exhaust on water vapor in the lower stratosphere assessed via a trajectory model, J Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 2003, 108, (D3).Google Scholar
23. Myhre, G. and Stordal, F., On the tradeoff of the solar and thermal infrared radiative impact of contrails, Geophysical Research Letters, 2001, 28, (16), pp 3119–3122.Google Scholar
24. Pitari, G., Mancini, E. and Bregman, A., Climate forcing of subsonic aviation, Indirect role of sulfate particles via heterogeneous chemistry, Geophysical Research Letters, 2002, 29, (22), pp 14–1.Google Scholar
25. Ponater, M., Brinkop, S., Sausen, R. and Schumann, U., Simulating the global atmospheric response to aircraft water vapour emissions and contrails, A first approach using a GCM, Annales Geophysicae-Atmospheres Hydrospheres and Space Sciences, 1996, 14, (9), pp 941–960.Google Scholar
26. Ponater, M., Sausen, R., Feneberg, B. and Roeckner, E., Climate effect of ozone changes caused by present and future air traffic, Climate Dynamics, 1999, 15, (9), pp 631–642.Google Scholar
27. Ponater, M., Marquart, S., and Sausen, R., Contrails in a comprehensive global climate model, Parameterization and radiative forcing results, J Geophysical Research, 2002, 107, (D13), 2–1.Google Scholar
28. Ponater, M., Marquart, S., Sausen, R. and Schumann, U., On contrail climate sensitivity, Geophysical Research Letters, 2005, 32, (10), 10706.Google Scholar
29 Ponater, M., Pechtl, S., Sausen, R., Schumann, U. and Hüttig, G., Potential of the cryoplane technology to reduce aircraft climate impact, a state of the art assessment., Atmospheric Environment, 2006, 40, pp 6928–6944.Google Scholar
30 Rind, D. and Lonergan, P., Modeled impacts of stratospheric ozone and water-vapor perturbations with implications for high-speed civil transport aircraft, J Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 1995, 100, (D4), pp 7381–7396.Google Scholar
31 Rind, D., Lonergan, P. and Shah, K., Climatic effect of water vapor release in the upper troposphere, J Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 1996, 101, (D23), pp 29395–29405.Google Scholar
32 Rind, D., Lonergan, P. and Shah, K., Modeled impact of cirrus cloud increases along aircraft flight paths, J Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 2000,105, (D15), pp 19927–19940.Google Scholar
33 Sausen, R., Feneberg, B. and Ponater, M., Climatic impact of aircraft induced ozone changes, Geophysical Research Letters, 1997, 24, (10), pp 1203–1206.Google Scholar
34 Sausen, R. and Schumann, U., Estimates of the climate response to aircraft CO2 and NOx emissions scenarios, Climatic Change, 2000, 44, (1-2), pp 27–58.Google Scholar
35 Sausen, R., Isaksen, I., Hauglustaine, D., Lee, D.S., Myhre, G. and Köhler, M., et al Aviation radiative forcing in 2000, an update on IPCC, 1999, Meteorologische Zeitschrift, 2005, 14, (4), pp 555–561.Google Scholar
36 Stevenson, D.S., Doherty, R.M., Sanderson, M.G., Collins, W.J., Johnson, C.E. and Derwent, R.G., Radiative forcing from aircraft NOx emissions, mechanisms and seasonal dependence, J Geophysical Research D, Atmospheres, 2004, 109, (17), p 13.Google Scholar
37 Stordal, F., Myhre, G., Stordal, E., Rossow, D., Lee, D.S. and Arlander, D., Is there a trend in cirrus cloud cover due to aircraft traffic? Atmos Chem Phys, 2005, 5, pp 2155–2162.Google Scholar
38 Strauss, B., Meerkoetter, R., Wissinger, B., Wendling, P. and Hess, M., On the regional climatic impact of contrails, microphysical and radiative properties of contrails and natural cirrus clouds, Annales Geophysicae, 1997, 15, (11), pp 1457–1467,Google Scholar
39 Valks, P.J.M. and Velders, G.J.M., The present-day and future impact of NOX emissions from subsonic aircraft on the atmosphere in relation to the impact of NOX surface sources, Annales Geophysicae-Atmospheres Hydrospheres and Space Sciences, 1999, 17, (8), pp 1064–1079.Google Scholar
40 Williams, V., Noland, R.B. and Toumi, R., Reducing the climate change impacts of aviation by restricting cruise altitudes, Transportation Research Part D, Transport and Environment, 2002, 7, (6), pp 451–464.Google Scholar
41 Baughcum, S., et al Scheduled aircraft emission inventories for 1992. Database development and analysis. NASA CR-4700. 1996.Google Scholar
42 Schmitt, A. and Brunner, B., Emissions from aviation and their development over time, 37-52. 1997. DLR, Cologne, Germany. Mitteilung – Deutsche Forschungsanstalt fuer Luft- und Raumfahrt.Google Scholar
43 Foquart, Y. and Bonnel, B., Computations of solar heating of the Earth’s atmosphere, A new paramaterization, Beitr Phys Atmos, 1980, 53, pp 35–62.Google Scholar
44 Morcrette, J.-J., Radiation and cloud radiative properties in the European centre for medium range weather forecasts forecasting system, J Geophys Res, 1991, 96, pp 9121–9132.Google Scholar
45 Dameris, M., Grewe, V., Kohler, I., Sausen, R., Bruhl, C. and Grooss, J.U., et al Impact of aircraft NOx emissions on tropospheric and stratospheric ozone. Part II, 3-D model results. Atmospheric Environment 1998, 32, (18), pp 3185–3199.Google Scholar
46 Rotman, D.A., Tannahill, J.R., Kinnison, D.E., Connell, P.S., Bergmann, D. and Proctor, D., et al Global modeling initiative assessment model, Model description, integration and testing of the transport shell, J Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 2001, 106, (D2), 1669–1691.Google Scholar