Options
Gettelman, Andrew
Loading...
4 results
Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
- PublicationOpen AccessThank You to Our Peer Reviewers for 2020(2021)
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;On behalf of the authors and readers of Reviews of Geophysics (RoG), the American Geophysical Union (AGU), and the broader scientific community, the editors wish to wholeheartedly thank those who reviewed manuscripts for RoG in 2020.47 7 - PublicationRestrictedAssessment of temperature, trace species, and ozone in chemistry-climate model simulations of the recent past(2006)
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;Eyring, V.; Institut fu¨ r Physik der Atmospha¨re, Deutsches Zentrum fu¨ r Luft- und Raumfahrt, Oberpfaffenhofen, Wessling, Germany ;Butchart, N.; Climate Research Division, Met Office, Exeter, UK. ;Waugh, D. W.; Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. ;Akiyoshi, H.; National Institute for Environmental Studies, Tsukuba, Japan. ;Austin, J.; Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, NOAA, Princeton, New Jersey, USA. ;Bekki, S.; Service d’Ae´ronomie du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris, France. ;Bodeker, G. E.; National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Lauder, New Zealand. ;Boville, B.; National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA. ;Brühl, C.; Max Planck Institut fu¨ r Chemie, Mainz, Germany. ;Chipperfield, M.; Institute for Atmospheric Science, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. ;Cordero, E.; Department of Meteorology, San Jose State University, San Jose, California, USA. ;Dameris, M.; Institut fu¨ r Physik der Atmospha¨re, Deutsches Zentrum fu¨ r Luft- und Raumfahrt, Oberpfaffenhofen, Wessling, Germany ;Frith, S. M.; Science Systems and Applications, Inc., Lanham, Maryland, USA. ;Garcia, A.; National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA. ;Gettelman, A.; National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA. ;Giorgetta, M.; Max Planck Institut fu¨ r Meteorologie, Hamburg, Germany. ;Grewe, V.; Institut fu¨ r Physik der Atmospha¨re, Deutsches Zentrum fu¨ r Luft- und Raumfahrt, Oberpfaffenhofen, Wessling, Germany ;Jourdain, L.; Service d’Ae´ronomie du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris, France. ;Kinnison, D. E.; National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA. ;Manzini, E.; Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Bologna, Bologna, Italia; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; Simulations of the stratosphere from thirteen coupled chemistry-climate models (CCMs) are evaluated to provide guidance for the interpretation of ozone predictions made by the same CCMs. The focus of the evaluation is on how well the fields and processes that are important for determining the ozone distribution are represented in the simulations of the recent past. The core period of the evaluation is from 1980 to 1999 but long-term trends are compared for an extended period (1960–2004). Comparisons of polar high-latitude temperatures show that most CCMs have only small biases in the Northern Hemisphere in winter and spring, but still have cold biases in the Southern Hemisphere spring below 10 hPa. Most CCMs display the correct stratospheric response of polar temperatures to wave forcing in the Northern, but not in the Southern Hemisphere. Global long-term stratospheric temperature trends are in reasonable agreement with satellite and radiosonde observations. Comparisons of simulations of methane, mean age of air, and propagation of the annual cycle in water vapor show a wide spread in the results, indicating differences in transport. However, for around half the models there is reasonable agreement with observations. In these models the mean age of air and the water vapor tape recorder signal are generally better than reported in previous model intercomparisons. Comparisons of the water vapor and inorganic chlorine (Cly) fields also show a large intermodel spread. Differences in tropical water vapor mixing ratios in the lower stratosphere are primarily related to biases in the simulated tropical tropopause temperatures and not transport. The spread in Cly, which is largest in the polar lower stratosphere, appears to be primarily related to transport differences. In general the amplitude and phase of the annual cycle in total ozone is well simulated apart from the southern high latitudes. Most CCMs show reasonable agreement with observed total158 21 - PublicationOpen AccessThank You to Our 2021 Peer Reviewers(2022)
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;Reviews of Geophysics is the top-rated journal in Geochemistry and Geophysics (ISI Web of Knowledge category) reflecting the many excellent contributions we received. It is an important milestone achieved with the reviewers' investment of time and effort. Their expertise ensures that the papers published in this journal meet the standards that the research community expects. We sincerely appreciate the time the reviewers spent reading and commenting on manuscripts, and we are very grateful for their willingness and readiness to serve in this role.52 5 - PublicationOpen AccessWhy and How to Write a High-Impact Review Paper: Lessons From Eight Years of Editorial Board Service to Reviews of Geophysics(2017)
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;High‐impact review papers describe and synthesize the current state of the art, the open questions and controversies, and provide ideas for future investigations. They are written not only for a specific scientific discipline but also for the broader Earth and space science community. They not only summarize the literature, but they also create a framework from which to understand the progress, problems, and connections between different communities, observations, models, and approaches. Here we describe how to write a high‐impact review paper, and why you should consider writing one for Reviews of Geophysics.50 17