4.7 Article

Higher-Resolution Tropopause Folding Accounts for More Stratospheric Ozone Intrusions

期刊

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS
卷 50, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2022GL101690

关键词

stratosphere-troposphere transport; ozone; tropospheric ozone; chemical reanalysis; tropopause folding; stratospheric intrusions

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Understanding the transport of ozone from the stratosphere to the troposphere is crucial, and a systematic analysis of the relationship between tropopause folding and tropospheric ozone is limited. Comparing high-resolution reanalysis ERA5 and low-resolution chemical reanalysis CAMSRA, it is found that high-resolution folding is more frequent and better correlated with tropospheric ozone. It suggests that tropopause folding is more responsible for stratosphere-to-troposphere ozone transport.
Ozone in the troposphere is a pollutant and greenhouse gas, and it is crucial to better understand its transport from the ozone-rich stratosphere. Tropopause folding, wherein stratospheric air intrudes downward into the troposphere, enables stratosphere-to-troposphere ozone transport (STT). However, systematic analysis of the relationship between folding and tropospheric ozone, using data that can both capture folding's spatial scales and accurately represent tropospheric chemistry, is limited. Here, we compare folding in high-resolution reanalysis ERA5 (0.25 degrees horizontal, <21 hPa vertical) and low-resolution chemical reanalysis CAMSRA (0.75 degrees, <40 hPa), against CAMSRA ozone, over 1 year. Folding becomes dramatically more frequent at high resolution, with vertical resolution overwhelmingly responsible. Deeper, more filamentary folding is almost entirely unrepresented at low resolution. Higher-resolution folding is better-correlated with tropospheric ozone (especially along midlatitude storm tracks, where deep folding is most common); STT is therefore likely more attributable to tropopause folding than coarsely-resolved folding can capture.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据