Stratospheric variability and tropospheric ozone
By J. Hsu, Michael J. Prather. 2009
148 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Atmospheric Science, Global and Planetary Change
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/adb6bf3ba263a9e2de843a64822207223e7e5aac
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Atmospheric Science
- Andrew Gettelman
- J. Golaz
- William J. Randel
- V. Larson
- Stephen A. Klein
- Richard B. Neale
- M. Zelinka
- Elizabeth C. Hunke
In Global and Planetary Change
- Andrew Gettelman
- J. Golaz
- V. Larson
- William J. Randel
- Stephen A. Klein
- M. Zelinka
- Richard B. Neale
- Xiaohong Liu
Citations in the corpus
- THE EXTRATROPICAL UPPER TROPOSPHERE AND LOWER STRATOSPHERE (2011, background): “[ 70 ] The stratosphere ‐ troposphere exchange of ozone has been a subject of much discussion [ Gettelman et al. , 1997; Olsen et al. , 2004; Hsu and Prather , 2009] because it impacts the tropospheric ozone budget.”
- Understanding Cloud and Convective Characteristics in Version 1 of the E3SM Atmosphere Model (2018, background): “…from evaporated raindrops to coarse mode, the representation of marine organic aerosols, and a linearized ozone chemistry (Linoz2) mechanism (Hsu & Prather, 2009; McLinden et al., 2000) for representing stratospheric ozone and its radiative effects in the stratosphere (Bader et al., 2014).”
- The DOE E3SM Coupled Model Version 1: Overview and Evaluation at Standard Resolution (2019, methodology): “A linearized ozone photochemistry to predict stratospheric ozone changes, which provides an important source of stratospheric variability (Linoz v2, Hsu & Prather, 2009).”
- An Overview of the Atmospheric Component of the Energy Exascale Earth System Model (2019, methodology): “Figure 15 shows mean JJA differences between modeled total precipitation and GPCP1DD estimates (Huffman et al., 2001) over the CONUS at LR and HR standard resolutions and using EAM with regional refinement. Differences between the CONUS RRM and the high‐resolution model are generally statistically i”
- Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing (2014, result): “Additional model estimates of this influx (Hegglin and Shepherd, 2009; Hsu and Prather, 2009) fall within both ranges, as do estimates based on observations (Murphy and Fahey, 1994; Gettelman et al.”