Assignment of formal uncertaintyor the likely (2/3 probability) interval about the best valueto radiative forcing caused by aircraft perturbations is difficult. For wellmixed gases (e.g., CO2, CH4) or for welldefined tropospheric perturbations (subsonic O3), there is small uncertainty in calculated RF. In these cases, the overall uncertainty interval lies with calculating the perturbation itself: 25% for CO2, a factor of 2 for O3, and a factor of 3 for CH4. For perturbations to stratospheric ozone and water, there is much greater uncertainty in calculating RF, especially because in these cases radiative forcing at the tropopause can be substantially different after stratospheric temperatures adjust. In addition, HSCTinduced ozone and water vapor perturbationswith large variations in the lower stratospherepresent a much more difficult calculation of RF where the placement of the modeled tropopause can lead to additional uncertainty.
As an example of the uncertainty in calculating RF values from an adopted ozone perturbation, the NASA1992 tropospheric ozone perturbation was calculated by several groups, as shown in Table 64. The instantaneous RF at the tropopause is consistent across the models, and the stratospheric adjustment (calculated by two groups) is consistently 0.001 to 0.002 W m2 less. For the HSCT(500) water vapor perturbation, the two groups have significantly greater disagreement, and the correction following stratospheric adjustment is a large fraction of tropopause instantaneous RF. This water vapor perturbation is the result of averaging six model results, and an additional RF is calculated using the water vapor perturbation calculated with a 3D model that lies at the lower end of this ensemble (Grossman*; see Table 64). This table highlights the robustness of calculated RF for tropospheric perturbations and the much greater uncertainty in deriving climate forcing for stratospheric changes.
Uncertainty ranges about the best values are given in Table 61 for the NASA1992* and FESGa (tech 1) 2050 subsonic scenarios and for some components of supersonic scenarios HSCT(500) and HSCT(1000). These intervals are intended to represent the same probability range (67% likelihood), but there is no uniform statistical model (e.g., Gaussian) for all of them, nor are the individual RF contributions fully independent; hence, these ranges cannot be combined into a confidence interval on total RF.
Table 64: Results of RF (W m2) for the 1992 aviationinduced ozone perturbation and for the water vapor from the HSCT(500) fleet as calculated by several models (see Section 6.3.1). 

NASA1992 Tropospheric Ozone Perturbation  
Type of RF Calculation 
Forster & Haywood

Ponater & Sausen

Grossman 
Rind 
Wang 
Top of atmosphere, instantaneous

+0.014

+0.021

+0.013

+0.011

+0.010

Tropopause, instantaneous

+0.020

+0.026

+0.022

+0.020


Tropopause, after stratospheric adjustment

+0.019

+0.024


HSCT(500) Stratospheric Water Vapor Perturbation  
Type of RF Calculation 
Forster & Haywood

Ponater & Sausen

Grossman 
Grossman* 

Top of atmosphere, instantaneous

+0.001

+0.001

0.002

0.001


Tropopause, instantaneous

+0.096

+0.049

+0.074

+0.048


Tropopause, after stratospheric adjustment

+0.068

+0.034


* RF calculation for a lower accumulation rate of H2O (Danilin et al., 1998; Hannegan et al., 1998). 
Other reports in this collection 