The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Modelling the global tropospheric ozone budget: exploring the variability in current models
Open accessAbstract
Abstract. What are the largest uncertainties in modelling ozone in the troposphere, and how do they affect the calculated ozone budget? Published chemistry-transport model studies of tropospheric ozone differ significantly in their conclusions regarding the importance of the key processes controlling the ozone budget: influx from the stratosphere, chemical processing and surface deposition. This study surveys ozone budgets from previous studies and demonstrates that about two thirds of the increase in ozone production seen between early assessments and more recent model intercomparisons can be accounted for by increased precursor emissions. Model studies using recent estimates of emissions compare better with ozonesonde measurements than studies using older data, and the tropospheric burden of ozone is closer to that derived here from measurement climatologies, 335±10 Tg. However, differences between individual model studies remain large and cannot be explained by surface precursor emissions alone; cross-tropopause transport, wet and dry deposition, humidity, and lightning also make large contributions. The importance of these processes is examined here using a chemistry-transport model to investigate the sensitivity of the calculated ozone budget to different assumptions about emissions, physical processes, meteorology and model resolution. The budget is particularly sensitive to the magnitude and location of lightning NOx emissions, which remain poorly constrained; the 3–8 TgN/yr range in recent model studies may account for a 10% difference in tropospheric ozone burden and a 1.4 year difference in CH4 lifetime. Differences in humidity and dry deposition account for some of the variability in ozone abundance and loss seen in previous studies, with smaller contributions from wet deposition and stratospheric influx. At coarse model resolutions stratospheric influx is systematically overestimated and dry deposition is underestimated; these differences are 5–8% at the 300–600 km grid-scales investigated here, similar in magnitude to the changes induced by interannual variability in meteorology. However, a large proportion of the variability between models remains unexplained, suggesting that differences in chemical mechanisms and dynamical schemes have a large impact on the calculated ozone budget, and these should be the target of future model intercomparisons.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Development of a two-dimensional global tropospheric model: model chemistry
Hough, A. M. (1991) · Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · doi:10.1029/90jd01327 · Cited by 169
Radiative forcing from tropospheric ozone calculated with a unified chemistry-climate model
Mickley, L. J., Murti, P. P., Jacob, D. J., Logan, J. A., Koch, D. M., & Rind, D. (1999) · Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · doi:10.1029/1999jd900439 · Cited by 150
Cited by
Analysis of present-day and future OH and methane lifetime in the ACCMIP simulations
Voulgarakis, A., Naik, V., Lamarque, J.-F., Shindell, D. T., Young, P. J., Prather, M. J., Wild, O., Field, R. D., Bergmann, D., Cameron-Smith, P., et al. (2013) · Atmospheric chemistry and physics · doi:10.5194/acp-13-2563-2013 · Cited by 324
Tropospheric Ozone Assessment Report
Archibald, A. T., Neu, J. L., Elshorbany, Y. F., Cooper, O. R., Young, P. J., Akiyoshi, H., Cox, R. A., Coyle, M., Derwent, R. G., Deushi, M., et al. (2020) · Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene · doi:10.1525/elementa.2020.034 · Cited by 239
Hu, L., Jacob, D. J., Liu, X., Zhang, Y., Zhang, L., Kim, P. S., Sulprizio, M. P., & Yantosca, R. M. (2017) · Atmospheric Environment · doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.08.036 · Cited by 148
Uncertainties in climate assessment for the case of aviation NO
Holmes, C. D., Tang, Q., & Prather, M. J. (2011) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1101458108 · Cited by 74
Impacts of stratospheric sulfate geoengineering on tropospheric ozone
Xia, L., Nowack, P. J., Tilmes, S., & Robock, A. (2017) · Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics · doi:10.5194/acp-17-11913-2017 · Cited by 72
Metadata
- Authors
- Wild, O.
- Venue
- Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
- Publisher
- Copernicus GmbH
- Published
- 2007-05-21
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 2643-2660
- ISSN
- 1680-7316 (ISSN-L)
- 1680-7324
- OpenAlex
- W2098978783
- Cited by
- 206
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 5.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Modelling the global tropospheric ozone budget: exploring the variability in current models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5194/acp-7-2643-2007
- The paper
- Wild, O. (2007). Modelling the global tropospheric ozone budget: exploring the variability in current models. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-7-2643-2007
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.