Articles | Volume 19, issue 8
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-3551-2026
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-3551-2026
Model description paper
 | 
30 Apr 2026
Model description paper |  | 30 Apr 2026

The DLR CO2-equivalent estimator FlightClim v1.0: an easy-to-use estimation of per flight CO2 and non-CO2 climate effects

Hannes Bruder, Robin N. Thor, Malte Niklaß, Katrin Dahlmann, Roland Eichinger, Florian Linke, Volker Grewe, Sigrun Matthes, and Simon Unterstrasser

Related authors

AIRTRAC v2.0: a Lagrangian aerosol tagging submodel for the analysis of aviation SO4 transport patterns
Jin Maruhashi, Mattia Righi, Monica Sharma, Johannes Hendricks, Patrick Jöckel, Volker Grewe, and Irene C. Dedoussi
Geosci. Model Dev., 19, 2747–2784, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-2747-2026,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-2747-2026, 2026
Short summary
Contrail formation for aircraft with hydrogen combustion – Part 3: A neural-network-based parameterization of ice crystal number
Josef Zink, Cornelius Weiß-Rehm, Simon Unterstrasser, and Ulrike Burkhardt
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1088,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1088, 2026
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP).
Short summary
A manually labeled contrail dataset from MSG/SEVIRI
Vanessa Santos Gabriel, Luca Bugliaro, Mara Montag, Sabrina Ries, Ziming Wang, Kai Widmaier, Matteo Arico, Simon Unterstrasser, Johanna Mayer, Deniz Menekay, Andreas Marsing, Elena de la Torre Castro, Liam Megill, Monika Scheibe, and Christiane Voigt
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 18, 2397–2412, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-18-2397-2026,https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-18-2397-2026, 2026
Short summary
Contrail formation for aircraft with hydrogen combustion – Part 2: Engine-related aspects
Josef Zink and Simon Unterstrasser
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 26, 3145–3165, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-3145-2026,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-3145-2026, 2026
Short summary
The ELK global emission inventory for the transport sectors
Mattia Righi, Simone Ehrenberger, Sabine Brinkop, Johannes Hendricks, Jens Hellekes, Paweł Banyś, Isheeka Dasgupta, Patrick Draheim, Annika Fitz, Manuel Löber, Thomas Pregger, Yvonne Scholz, Angelika Schulz, Birgit Suhr, Nina Thomsen, Christian Martin Weder, Peter Berster, Maximilian Clococeanu, Marc Gelhausen, Alexander Lau, Florian Linke, Sigrun Matthes, and Zarah Lea Zengerling
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 18, 1619–1664, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-18-1619-2026,https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-18-1619-2026, 2026
Short summary

Cited articles

Bruder, H., Thor, R. N., Niklaß, M., Dahlmann, K., Eichinger, R., Linke, F., Grewe, V., Unterstrasser, S., and Matthes, S.: Code used in “The DLR CO2-equivalent estimator FlightClim v1.0: an easy-to-use estimation of per flight CO2 and non-CO2 climate effects” (Bruder et al., GMD, 2025), Zenodo [code, data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17184041, 2025. a, b
Burkhardt, U. and Kärcher, B.: Global radiative forcing from contrail cirrus, Nat. Clim. Change, 1, 54–58, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1068, 2011. a
Cames, M., Graichen, J., Siemons, A., and Cook, V.: Emission reduction targets for international aviation and shipping, Tech. Rep. IP/A/ENVI/2015-11, Policy Department A for the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI), https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/569964/IPOL_STU(2015)569964_EN.pdf (last access: 24 April 2026), 2015. a
Dahlmann, K., Grewe, V., Frömming, C., and Burkhardt, U.: Can we reliably assess climate mitigation options for air traffic scenarios despite large uncertainties in atmospheric processes?, Transport. Res. D-Tr. E., 46, 40–55, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2016.03.006, 2016a. a, b
Dahlmann, K., Koch, A., Linke, F., Lührs, B., Grewe, V., Otten, T., Seider, D., Gollnick, V., and Schumann, U.: Climate-Compatible Air Transport System – Climate Impact Mitigation Potential for Actual and Future Aircraft, Aerospace, 3, 38, https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace3040038, 2016b. a
Download
Short summary
We develop an easy-to-use tool to estimate the per-flight climate effect of CO2 and non-CO2 emissions, based only on aircraft size as well as origin and destination airports. The implemented model results from a comparison of Multiple and Symbolic Regression approaches and exhibits a mean relative error of 21 % with respect to climate response model results. The simplified method is designed for climate footprint assessment and covers jet-powered passenger aircraft with over 20 seats.
Share