Simulated mixing in the UTLS by small-scale turbulence using multi-scale chemistry-climate model MECO(n)

Chau, Chun Hang; Hoor, Peter; Tost, Holger

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3805

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3805

Preprints

20 Dec 2024

| 20 Dec 2024

Simulated mixing in the UTLS by small-scale turbulence using multi-scale chemistry-climate model MECO(n)

Chun Hang Chau, Peter Hoor, and Holger Tost

Abstract. The chemical composition of the upper troposphere/lower stratosphere (UTLS) plays an important role for the climate by affecting the radiation budget. Small-scale diabatic mixing like turbulence has a significant impact on the distribution of tracers which further affect the energy budget via their radiative impact. Current models usually have a higher resolution near the surface and a coarser grid spacing in the free atmosphere, which is insufficent to resolve the occurrence of small-scale turbulence in the UTLS. In this work, we utilise enhanced vertical resolution (200 m in the UTLS) simulations focusing on mixing events in the Scandinavian region using the state-of-the-art multi-scale atmospheric chemistry model system MECO(n). These model simulations are able to represent different distinct turbulent mixing events in the UTLS and depict a significant impact of mixing on the tracer distribution in the UTLS. A novel diagnostic (delta tracer-tracer correlation) is introduced to determine the direction of the vertical mixing. The strength of the UTLS turbulent mixing depends on the particular situation, i.e., the vertical tracer gradient, and dynamical and thermodynamical forcing, i.e., vertical wind shear, deformation and static stability. This work provides evidence that high resolution simulations are able to represent significant turbulent mixing in the UTLS region, allowing for further research on the UTLS turbulent mixing and its implications for the climate system.

Received: 06 Dec 2024 – Discussion started: 20 Dec 2024

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 9003 KB)

Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
Preprint (9003 KB)

Supplement (36431 KB)

Download & links

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

21 Oct 2025

Simulated mixing in the UTLS by small-scale turbulence using multi-scale chemistry-climate model MECO(n)

Chun Hang Chau, Peter Hoor, and Holger Tost

Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 13123–13140, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-13123-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-13123-2025, 2025

Short summary

Chun Hang Chau, Peter Hoor, and Holger Tost

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-3805', Anonymous Referee #1, 23 Jan 2025
Referee comment on "Simulated mixing in the UTLS by small-scale turbulence using multi-scale chemistry-climate model MECO(n)”
This manuscript evaluates the ability of the multi-scale chemistry-climate model MECO to simulate turbulent mixing in the UTLS region in the Scandinavian region. The vertical resolution used in the UTLS region is enhanced compared to current models and passive tracers are used. A delta tracer-tracer correlation determines the direction of the mixing. Besides, the effect of the tracer gradient, dynamical and thermodynamical forcing on the strength of mixing are investigated. The manuscript is relevant to the scientific community. However, the following questions should be addressed prior to publication:
Specific comments
In section 3.1, the authors compared the model TKE with the turbulence diagnostic TI1 using the grid-scale wind data. Where does this grid-scale wind data come from? Is it data produced by COSMO? And if so, why do not the authors use ERA-5 data to evaluate the ability of COSMO to represent turbulence? Besides, the authors say that the differences between TI1 and TKE “might be caused by the neglected mechanism of the Ellrod index or sub-grid scale processes that could potentially lead to the formation of turbulence in the UTLS, e.g., scale-resolved gravity waves” (lines 137-138). First sub-grid scale processes are mentioned as a possible source of discrepancies and then an example is presented talking about scale-resolved gravity waves. Please, check and clarify this.

Throughout the paper, the authors used different dates and times to analyze turbulence and the distribution of passive tracers for three different cases but did not explain the reasons behind that selection. Could the authors justify why they chose these dates and times? Are they based on aircraft measurements, soundings? Please, explain. The clarity and quality of the paper will improve if information about the synoptic situation is included.

In Table 1, the different mixing ratios of the two passive tracers are presented without further explanation about the selection of these values and gradients. Could the authors provide an explanation for these ranges of the mixing values for each of the tracers? Why the different types of gradients for O3 (steep) and NO2(gentle) initialization?

Figures 5 and 6 show the distribution of tracers and the tracer-tracer correlation for a particular cross-section as mentioned in line 154. Where is this cross-section located on the map? Please, include it either in Figure 3 or Figure 4 or explain it in the text. This way the reader knows which section of the map is being analyzed. On a related note, no reference to the location where the three different study cases are performed is indicated in the text. Is it the same location as Figure 5 and 6? Please, clarify.

Line258: here the authors say that the mixing can be irreversible when “the exchange of tracers happens along a diagonal of a delta tracer-tracer correlation” while in the beginning of section 3.3.3 they say that scattered values from the diagonal are an indication of irreversible mixing. Please, clarify.

Technical corrections
Line 85: could the authors explain why the focus is on the Scandinavian region instead of on the eastern Mediterranean (line 45: the authors say it is an area with strong STE)?

Line 88: delete “tbc”.

Line 129: “…this section analyses, ” delete the comma.

Line 131: what do the authors mean by “grid-scale wind data”?

Line 154: replace “ooff” by “off”.

Figure 5: please include in the caption a description of what the black line represents. It is not explicitly mentioned here or in the text.

Line 187: after “vertical wind shear” please include “(VWS)” so that it is easier for the reader to follow the text while looking at the Figures.

Line 189: please, include a description of N² as it is the first time that it appears in the text.

Line 195: add a comma after “Besides the diffusion coefficient”.

Please, include the units used in each subplot in Figures 7, 9 and 10.

Line 210: “spheric air could attributed”. Change for “could be attributed”.

Line 214: put “the N² is distinctly higher in this region” inside parenthesis.

Line 241: delete the comma after “new”. Too long sentence. Please, split.

Line 250. Change the comma after “real world” for a full stop.

Line 206, replace “.e.g.” by “,e.g.”
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3805-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply to RC1,RC2 and RC3 comments on egusphere-2024-3805', Chun Hang Chau, 17 Apr 2025
  
  Please find our reply attached as PDF.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3805-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-3805', Anonymous Referee #2, 24 Jan 2025

see attached PDF

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3805-RC2
- AC1: 'Reply to RC1,RC2 and RC3 comments on egusphere-2024-3805', Chun Hang Chau, 17 Apr 2025
  
  Please find our reply attached as PDF.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3805-AC1
RC3:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-3805', Anonymous Referee #3, 04 Feb 2025

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-3805/egusphere-2024-3805-RC3-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3805-RC3
- AC1: 'Reply to RC1,RC2 and RC3 comments on egusphere-2024-3805', Chun Hang Chau, 17 Apr 2025
  
  Please find our reply attached as PDF.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3805-AC1
AC1: 'Reply to RC1,RC2 and RC3 comments on egusphere-2024-3805', Chun Hang Chau, 17 Apr 2025

Please find our reply attached as PDF.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3805-AC1

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-3805', Anonymous Referee #1, 23 Jan 2025
Referee comment on "Simulated mixing in the UTLS by small-scale turbulence using multi-scale chemistry-climate model MECO(n)”
This manuscript evaluates the ability of the multi-scale chemistry-climate model MECO to simulate turbulent mixing in the UTLS region in the Scandinavian region. The vertical resolution used in the UTLS region is enhanced compared to current models and passive tracers are used. A delta tracer-tracer correlation determines the direction of the mixing. Besides, the effect of the tracer gradient, dynamical and thermodynamical forcing on the strength of mixing are investigated. The manuscript is relevant to the scientific community. However, the following questions should be addressed prior to publication:
Specific comments
In section 3.1, the authors compared the model TKE with the turbulence diagnostic TI1 using the grid-scale wind data. Where does this grid-scale wind data come from? Is it data produced by COSMO? And if so, why do not the authors use ERA-5 data to evaluate the ability of COSMO to represent turbulence? Besides, the authors say that the differences between TI1 and TKE “might be caused by the neglected mechanism of the Ellrod index or sub-grid scale processes that could potentially lead to the formation of turbulence in the UTLS, e.g., scale-resolved gravity waves” (lines 137-138). First sub-grid scale processes are mentioned as a possible source of discrepancies and then an example is presented talking about scale-resolved gravity waves. Please, check and clarify this.

Throughout the paper, the authors used different dates and times to analyze turbulence and the distribution of passive tracers for three different cases but did not explain the reasons behind that selection. Could the authors justify why they chose these dates and times? Are they based on aircraft measurements, soundings? Please, explain. The clarity and quality of the paper will improve if information about the synoptic situation is included.

In Table 1, the different mixing ratios of the two passive tracers are presented without further explanation about the selection of these values and gradients. Could the authors provide an explanation for these ranges of the mixing values for each of the tracers? Why the different types of gradients for O3 (steep) and NO2(gentle) initialization?

Figures 5 and 6 show the distribution of tracers and the tracer-tracer correlation for a particular cross-section as mentioned in line 154. Where is this cross-section located on the map? Please, include it either in Figure 3 or Figure 4 or explain it in the text. This way the reader knows which section of the map is being analyzed. On a related note, no reference to the location where the three different study cases are performed is indicated in the text. Is it the same location as Figure 5 and 6? Please, clarify.

Line258: here the authors say that the mixing can be irreversible when “the exchange of tracers happens along a diagonal of a delta tracer-tracer correlation” while in the beginning of section 3.3.3 they say that scattered values from the diagonal are an indication of irreversible mixing. Please, clarify.

Technical corrections
Line 85: could the authors explain why the focus is on the Scandinavian region instead of on the eastern Mediterranean (line 45: the authors say it is an area with strong STE)?

Line 88: delete “tbc”.

Line 129: “…this section analyses, ” delete the comma.

Line 131: what do the authors mean by “grid-scale wind data”?

Line 154: replace “ooff” by “off”.

Figure 5: please include in the caption a description of what the black line represents. It is not explicitly mentioned here or in the text.

Line 187: after “vertical wind shear” please include “(VWS)” so that it is easier for the reader to follow the text while looking at the Figures.

Line 189: please, include a description of N² as it is the first time that it appears in the text.

Line 195: add a comma after “Besides the diffusion coefficient”.

Please, include the units used in each subplot in Figures 7, 9 and 10.

Line 210: “spheric air could attributed”. Change for “could be attributed”.

Line 214: put “the N² is distinctly higher in this region” inside parenthesis.

Line 241: delete the comma after “new”. Too long sentence. Please, split.

Line 250. Change the comma after “real world” for a full stop.

Line 206, replace “.e.g.” by “,e.g.”
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3805-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply to RC1,RC2 and RC3 comments on egusphere-2024-3805', Chun Hang Chau, 17 Apr 2025
  
  Please find our reply attached as PDF.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3805-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-3805', Anonymous Referee #2, 24 Jan 2025

see attached PDF

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3805-RC2
- AC1: 'Reply to RC1,RC2 and RC3 comments on egusphere-2024-3805', Chun Hang Chau, 17 Apr 2025
  
  Please find our reply attached as PDF.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3805-AC1
RC3:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-3805', Anonymous Referee #3, 04 Feb 2025

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-3805/egusphere-2024-3805-RC3-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3805-RC3
- AC1: 'Reply to RC1,RC2 and RC3 comments on egusphere-2024-3805', Chun Hang Chau, 17 Apr 2025
  
  Please find our reply attached as PDF.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3805-AC1
AC1: 'Reply to RC1,RC2 and RC3 comments on egusphere-2024-3805', Chun Hang Chau, 17 Apr 2025

Please find our reply attached as PDF.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3805-AC1

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

AR by Chun Hang Chau on behalf of the Authors (18 Apr 2025) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (24 Apr 2025) by Petr Šácha

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (21 May 2025)

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (23 May 2025)

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (23 May 2025) by Petr Šácha

Dear Chun Hang Chau, dear co-authors,

I am now in receipt of the two additional reviews of your manuscript " Simulated mixing in the UTLS by small-scale turbulence using multi-scale chemistry-climate model MECO(n)". I would like to apologize you for the delays in this round of reviews, but I had certain doubts about your responses to Ref#2 and Ref#3 comments from the previous round of reviews and wanted to have the referees own assessment.

As you can see, the Ref#2 thinks that all of his comments were successfully addressed and rates your revised manuscript as excellent on all fronts. There is only a minor suggestion for the further revision that I urge you to adopt in the next round.

However, the Anonymous referee #3, who made some fundamental critical comments in the interactive discussion stage, still does not think (rightfully, according to my judgement) that you have been able to resolve them. This reviewer also appears to remain less convinced about the quality and significance of your manuscript.

I must say that I fully support her/his original comment 1 about the model set-up validation and that from the current state of the manuscript it is not clear, whether the model resolution is adequate for studying the turbulent mixing. This comment is absolutely crucial in my eyes and I also agree that this cannot be addressed by comparing the parameterized TKE and a turbulence index computed from a similar set of variables from the same source. Further, the referee in his new review summarizes 4 points that you need to throughly address (and reflect in the manuscript) for the manuscript to be publishable in ACP. Note that the reviewer mostly does not demand you to redo the analysis, but urges you to clearly identify the limits of your analysis and modify the interpretation of the results accordingly. We should both thank the reviewer for this and the intention to improve the manuscript on all fronts.

To conclude, an editorial decision of Reconsider after major revisions has been reached. When I receive the second revision, I will send it back to the Ref#3, who graciously offers us her/his help also in the next review round and read it carefully myself. Hopefully, we will both find that all of the comments have been successfully resolved and reflected in the manuscript.

Sincerely,

RNDr. Petr Šácha, Ph.D.
Editor
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics

Hide

AR by Chun Hang Chau on behalf of the Authors (29 May 2025) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (02 Jun 2025) by Petr Šácha

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (26 Jun 2025)

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (01 Jul 2025) by Petr Šácha

Dear authors,

considering the last comments and rating of your manuscript by referee#3 and based on my own editorial review I regret to inform you that major revisions are needed before your manuscript can be considered for publication in ACP.
In addition to the comment by referee#3, I list below a set of major and minor comments that should help you to improve the manuscript. Please take your time to prepare a significantly revised version, where all the major comments will truly be reflected. After we receive the revised version, I will send it to two new referees for a review.
I am sorry for a lengthy and frustrating review process, but I hope that the constructive criticism will help you in improving the manuscript significantly.

Best regards, Petr.

Major comments:
1) Motivation and scientific question - As it comes now, the manuscript does not convey a sufficiently new or important message. The importance of UTLS composition, of the role of turbulent mixing in shaping it and of the issue of how well high-resolution simulations can capture it, is beyond any question. However, after reading your manuscript I am struggling to disentangle the motivation and goal of your manuscript. Was the aim to produce a detailed case study of turbulent events above Scandinavia? To test the skill of high-resolution simulations for turbulent mixing in UTLS? To test the performance of the parameteriation and get more insight in how the turbulence scheme by Doms et al works? Or to introduce a novel delta tracer methodology for analysing the mixing in the models?

For the first two questions, you would need to bring observations in for validating the model. For the latter two questions, the manuscript would have to be reconstructed with a focus on the type of a scientific question and a more detailed analysis in this regard would be needed.
Moreover, I think that there is a possibility to incorporate the question of mixing sensitivity to resolution from the supplement to the main manuscript and elaborate more on it.

2) Do I understand correctly that you are interested only in the part of mixing that is unresolved by the model and is mediated by the Doms et al. (2018) parameterization scheme? If so, the scheme needs to be detailly introduced in the paper, including all the underlying physics and technical details and review of previous validation efforts of the scheme.

3) Thorough meteorological analysis of the case studies needs to be done, including identification of regions of dynamic (e.g. Ri) or static instabilities (e.g. using potential temperature contours).

4) The methodology of computation of tracer-tracer and delta tracer correlations needs to be clarified, because right now it is not clear how they were constructed from the model fields (e.g. sampled over fixed volume regions over time of the simulation?)

5) Section 3.1 does not have any good meaning and should be omitted from the revision.
Definitely, the analysis presented cannot be used for the argumentation (however vague):" To conclude, the model is able to represent turbulence at a reasonable position (and time)."

Or was the intention to test the skill of the Ellrod index in detecting the turbulence in the model?

Minor and technical comments (chronological ordering):
L29 local changes in the energy budget
L30 affecting-> affect?
L67 the MESSy-fied - MESSy abbreviation has not been defined yet
L129 conducted in the supplement
L131 ..hence the mixing - a verb is missing?
L141 .. the Ellrod index does not fully representing?

Figure 5 and a majority of the following figures - the units are missing! Also what is the meaning of the (kg-1kg-1) unit? If the unit is indeed correct, why not to write kg-2?

Caption of Fig. 5:.. difference (vdiff on - off) (c) Inverted O3-like tracers,
(d)O3-like tracers at 2016-02-05 18:00. - Please rephrase for clarity.

L180-181:.. as the cross section of Figure 5. - in Figure 5?
Btw. where is the cross-section located?

L187 Figures 6c and 6d show
Sections 3.3.2-3.3.4. define the tracer differences and the whole delta tracer-tracer correlation by equation and discuss the results more rigorously.
L205.. The delta tracer-tracer correlation can also be used to determine the direction of vertical mixing. - but later in the text you mention only 1) no vertical mixing and 2) bi-directional mixing scenarios!
Please pay attention to proper definition and discussion of mixing regimes, including balanced/unbalanced and reversible/irreversible regimes invoked later in the text.

The part of the manuscript showing the results of delta tracer-tracer decomposed according to dynamical quantities and then normalized by the gradient is the strongest part of the paper that can elucidate how the turbulent parameterization works. But, more detail is needed how the plots were constructed.
L243 ..figure 9d....figure 7d of case 1 have a similar N2 on both ends - You mean 11d and 9d?
L255 2->two
L256 s most likely due to the advection, considering the completely different wind field in Figure 8 and tropopause in Figure S17 - This feature has to be disentangled (maybe a 3D resolved overturn encompasses the unresolved turbulence region) and the methodology suggested by Ref#3 can help here.

L262 ... such that the mixing is almost equally balanced. What does this statement about the mixing type mean?

L272-273 To conclude, vertical turbulent mixing by CAT in the model simulations leads to an enhanced and significant tracer mixing in the UTLS region. - Is there any novelty in this statement? This seems to come from the definition of the turbulence parameterization.

L275-276 Strong dynamical forcing like vertical wind shear could lead to mixing even
in the stable atmosphere with a typical stratospheric N2 value. - This is a textbook knowledge, intensively studied under the term dynamic instability?

L280 provides a reliable tool - this was not assessed in the manuscript
L283 ..MECO(n) is presented.-> MECO(n), is presented.
L286 .. balanced and imbalanced bi-direction mixing - balanced/imbalanced mixing has not been defined/introduced before. I had the impression that the motivation was to analyze the direction of mixing. Nevertheless, there is a great potential to define the different mixing regimes robustly and provide a systematic analysis on these aspects in the revision
L287-289 The simulated turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) is spatially and temporally well matched with the (post-simulation) diagnosed Ellrod Index, showing the model is able to generate turbulence in the UTLS in agreement with the gridscale wind field data from the model output. - > I assume that the Doms et al. parameterization has been validated before against observations.

L293-294 ...which located near the tropopause (case 1) experiencing the strongest mixing considering the high vertical wind shear and tracer gradient. -> please rephrase.
L295.. when measurement data is available. - you mean that there are not any data even from targeted campaigns existing that would be suitable for validating the model?
L300 .. both, the forcing or the pre-existing tracer gradients are the dominant drivers for the exchange. ->please rephrase
L302-305 These events can be irreversible, i.e., the exchange
of tracers happens along the diagonal of a delta tracer-tracer correlation, leading to a disturbance of typical stratospheric or tropospheric chemical compositions in the respective parts of the atmosphere with implications for climate, e.g., via the
radiative impact of exchanged species. - From the definition of a delta tracer-tracer correlation, these events are unresolved in the model and mediated by the parameterization, hence inherently irreversible. However, is this unresolved process the only irreversible mixing process in the model given that your resolution may be sufficient for resolving parts of the overturning?

Hide

AR by Chun Hang Chau on behalf of the Authors (30 Aug 2025) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (01 Sep 2025) by Petr Šácha

AR by Chun Hang Chau on behalf of the Authors (02 Sep 2025) Manuscript

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

21 Oct 2025

Simulated mixing in the UTLS by small-scale turbulence using multi-scale chemistry-climate model MECO(n)

Chun Hang Chau, Peter Hoor, and Holger Tost

Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 13123–13140, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-13123-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-13123-2025, 2025

Short summary

Chun Hang Chau, Peter Hoor, and Holger Tost

Supplement

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3805-supplement

Chun Hang Chau, Peter Hoor, and Holger Tost

Viewed

Total article views: 1,060 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	Supplement	BibTeX	EndNote
969	65	26	1,060	148	33	46

HTML: 969
PDF: 65
XML: 26
Total: 1,060
Supplement: 148
BibTeX: 33
EndNote: 46

Views and downloads (calculated since 20 Dec 2024)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Dec 2024	119	8	7	134
Jan 2025	82	23	4	109
Feb 2025	47	6	5	58
Mar 2025	13	0	13
Apr 2025	44	5	3	52
May 2025	25	4	1	30
Jun 2025	29	6	5	40
Jul 2025	29	5	1	35
Aug 2025	151	0	151
Sep 2025	409	6	0	415
Oct 2025	21	2	0	23

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 20 Dec 2024)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Dec 2024	119	8	7	134
Jan 2025	82	23	4	109
Feb 2025	47	6	5	58
Mar 2025	13	0	13
Apr 2025	44	5	3	52
May 2025	25	4	1	30
Jun 2025	29	6	5	40
Jul 2025	29	5	1	35
Aug 2025	151	0	151
Sep 2025	409	6	0	415
Oct 2025	21	2	0	23

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 1,039 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 1,039 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 21 Oct 2025

Download

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Preprint (9003 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

This study examines how the turbulence in the upper troposphere/lower stratosphere could modify the tracer distribution under different situations. Using a multi-scale chemistry model, we find that both the pre-existing tracer gradient and the dynamical and thermodynamically forcing play a role in modifying the tracer distribution. These results allow further research on the UTLS turbulent mixing and its implications for the climate system.

Simulated mixing in the UTLS by small-scale turbulence using multi-scale chemistry-climate model MECO(n)

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

Interactive discussion

Interactive discussion

Peer review completion

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

Supplement

Viewed

Viewed (geographical distribution)


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0