World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Johannes Quaas

Johannes Quaas

D-Index & Metrics

Environmental Sciences

D-Index
61
Citations
14612
World Ranking
2760
National Ranking
183

Johannes Quaas publication distribution in Environmental Sciences in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Environmental Sciences in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Johannes Quaas sits on this spectrum.

41–50 publications: 21 scientists 51–60 publications: 62 scientists 61–70 publications: 133 scientists 71–80 publications: 257 scientists 81–90 publications: 361 scientists 91–100 publications: 440 scientists 101–110 publications: 492 scientists 111–120 publications: 541 scientists 121–130 publications: 617 scientists 131–140 publications: 544 scientists 141–150 publications: 541 scientists 151–160 publications: 539 scientists 161–170 publications: 444 scientists 171–180 publications: 444 scientists 181–190 publications: 400 scientists 191–200 publications: 377 scientists 201–210 publications: 318 scientists 211–220 publications: 283 scientists 221–230 publications: 263 scientists 231–240 publications: 220 scientists 241–250 publications: 217 scientists 251–260 publications: 180 scientists 261–270 publications: 181 scientists 271–280 publications: 155 scientists 281–290 publications: 130 scientists 291–300 publications: 127 scientists 301–310 publications: 130 scientists 311–320 publications: 85 scientists 321–330 publications: 106 scientists 331–340 publications: 80 scientists 341–350 publications: 83 scientists 351–360 publications: 75 scientists 361–370 publications: 69 scientists 371–380 publications: 52 scientists 381–390 publications: 54 scientists 391–400 publications: 56 scientists 401–410 publications: 44 scientists 411–420 publications: 40 scientists 421–430 publications: 36 scientists 431–440 publications: 25 scientists 441–450 publications: 25 scientists 451–460 publications: 32 scientists 461–470 publications: 29 scientists 471–480 publications: 21 scientists 481–490 publications: 26 scientists 491–500 publications: 25 scientists 501–510 publications: 17 scientists 511–520 publications: 18 scientists 521–530 publications: 15 scientists 531–540 publications: 22 scientists 541–550 publications: 12 scientists 551–560 publications: 15 scientists 561–570 publications: 11 scientists 571–580 publications: 19 scientists 581–590 publications: 9 scientists 591–600 publications: 9 scientists 601–610 publications: 7 scientists 611–620 publications: 11 scientists 621–630 publications: 5 scientists 631–640 publications: 5 scientists 641–650 publications: 6 scientists 651–660 publications: 3 scientists 661–670 publications: 3 scientists 671–680 publications: 4 scientists 681–686 publications: 3 scientists 687+ publications: 100 scientists
41 publications 687+

This scientist: 252 publications — 78th percentile

78% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 687 publications or more.

Johannes Quaas D-index placement in Environmental Sciences in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Environmental Sciences scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Johannes Quaas sits on this spectrum.

30 D-Index: 12 scientists 31 D-Index: 26 scientists 32 D-Index: 51 scientists 33 D-Index: 88 scientists 34 D-Index: 123 scientists 35 D-Index: 163 scientists 36 D-Index: 206 scientists 37 D-Index: 267 scientists 38 D-Index: 265 scientists 39 D-Index: 275 scientists 40 D-Index: 321 scientists 41 D-Index: 343 scientists 42 D-Index: 305 scientists 43 D-Index: 336 scientists 44 D-Index: 330 scientists 45 D-Index: 348 scientists 46 D-Index: 291 scientists 47 D-Index: 275 scientists 48 D-Index: 272 scientists 49 D-Index: 273 scientists 50 D-Index: 263 scientists 51 D-Index: 232 scientists 52 D-Index: 266 scientists 53 D-Index: 217 scientists 54 D-Index: 199 scientists 55 D-Index: 177 scientists 56 D-Index: 202 scientists 57 D-Index: 204 scientists 58 D-Index: 166 scientists 59 D-Index: 177 scientists 60 D-Index: 166 scientists 61 D-Index: 152 scientists 62 D-Index: 143 scientists 63 D-Index: 150 scientists 64 D-Index: 124 scientists 65 D-Index: 119 scientists 66 D-Index: 120 scientists 67 D-Index: 118 scientists 68 D-Index: 82 scientists 69 D-Index: 98 scientists 70 D-Index: 94 scientists 71 D-Index: 105 scientists 72 D-Index: 74 scientists 73 D-Index: 84 scientists 74 D-Index: 70 scientists 75 D-Index: 67 scientists 76 D-Index: 78 scientists 77 D-Index: 60 scientists 78 D-Index: 59 scientists 79 D-Index: 52 scientists 80 D-Index: 47 scientists 81 D-Index: 38 scientists 82 D-Index: 48 scientists 83 D-Index: 42 scientists 84 D-Index: 42 scientists 85 D-Index: 43 scientists 86 D-Index: 29 scientists 87 D-Index: 37 scientists 88 D-Index: 29 scientists 89 D-Index: 30 scientists 90 D-Index: 34 scientists 91 D-Index: 20 scientists 92 D-Index: 22 scientists 93 D-Index: 17 scientists 94 D-Index: 19 scientists 95 D-Index: 24 scientists 96 D-Index: 21 scientists 97 D-Index: 20 scientists 98 D-Index: 24 scientists 99 D-Index: 17 scientists 100 D-Index: 17 scientists 101 D-Index: 21 scientists 102 D-Index: 25 scientists 103 D-Index: 18 scientists 104 D-Index: 26 scientists 105 D-Index: 19 scientists 106 D-Index: 15 scientists 107 D-Index: 10 scientists 108 D-Index: 13 scientists 109 D-Index: 15 scientists 110 D-Index: 12 scientists 111 D-Index: 8 scientists 112 D-Index: 7 scientists 113 D-Index: 9 scientists 114 D-Index: 6 scientists 115 D-Index: 12 scientists 116 D-Index: 7 scientists 117 D-Index: 8 scientists 118 D-Index: 3 scientists 119 D-Index: 5 scientists 120 D-Index: 7 scientists 121 D-Index: 2 scientists 122 D-Index: 4 scientists 123 D-Index: 8 scientists 124 D-Index: 7 scientists 125+ D-Index: 99 scientists
30 D-Index 125+

This scientist: 61 D-Index — 72nd percentile

72% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 125 D-Index or more.

Overview

Johannes Quaas is affiliated with Leipzig University in Germany and focuses on research within Environmental Science and Earth and Planetary Sciences. Their work extensively covers subfields of Global and Planetary Change, Atmospheric Science, Earth-Surface Processes, Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis, and Astronomy and Astrophysics.

Their research delves into topics such as Atmospheric aerosols and clouds, Atmospheric chemistry and aerosols, Climate variability and models, Atmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics, Atmospheric Ozone and Climate, Aeolian processes and effects, and Meteorological Phenomena and Simulations.

Quaas has contributed to various scientific publications, including:

  • A microphysics guide to cirrus - Part 2: Climatologies of clouds and humidity from observations, 2020, Atmospheric chemistry and physics
  • The Added Value of Large-eddy and Storm-resolving Models for Simulating Clouds and Precipitation, 2020, Journal of the Meteorological Society of Japan Ser II
  • An underestimated negative cloud feedback from cloud lifetime changes, 2021, Nature Climate Change
  • Constraining the Twomey effect from satellite observations: issues and perspectives, 2020, Atmospheric chemistry and physics
  • Opportunistic experiments to constrain aerosol effective radiative forcing, 2022, Atmospheric chemistry and physics

Their frequent co-authors include Johannes Mülmenstädt, Odran Sourdeval, Edward Gryspeerdt, Hailing Jia, and Jan Kretzschmar.

Quaas has published frequently in journals such as Atmospheric chemistry and physics, Geophysical Research Letters, Nature Communications, Meteorologische Zeitschrift, and Tellus B. The number of their publications in these venues highlights their ongoing contributions to atmospheric and environmental research.

Best Publications

  • Bounding global aerosol radiative forcing of climate change

    Nicolas Bellouin;Johannes Quaas;Edward Gryspeerdt;Stefan Kinne

  • Global observations of aerosol-cloud-precipitation-climate interactions

    Daniel Rosenfeld;Meinrat O. Andreae;Ari Asmi;Mian Chin

  • Aerosol indirect effects – general circulation model intercomparison and evaluation with satellite data

    Johannes Quaas;Yi Ming;Surabi Menon;Surabi Menon;T. Takemura

  • Evaluating the climate and air quality impacts of short-lived pollutants

    Andreas Stohl;Borgar Aamaas;M Amann;LH Baker

  • Remote Sensing of Droplet Number Concentration in Warm Clouds: A Review of the Current State of Knowledge and Perspectives

    Daniel P. Grosvenor;Odran Sourdeval;Paquita Zuidema;Andrew Ackerman

  • Frequency of occurrence of rain from liquid-, mixed-, and ice-phase clouds derived from A-Train satellite retrievals.

    Johannes Mülmenstädt;Odran Sourdeval;Julien Delanoë;Johannes Quaas

  • Satellite-based estimate of the direct and indirect aerosol climate forcing

    Johannes Quaas;Olivier Boucher;Nicolas Bellouin;Stefan Kinne

  • The global aerosol-climate model ECHAM-HAM, version 2: sensitivity to improvements in process representations

    K. Zhang;D. O'Donnell;D. O'Donnell;J. Kazil;J. Kazil;P. Stier

  • The Arctic Cloud Puzzle: Using ACLOUD/PASCAL Multiplatform Observations to Unravel the Role of Clouds and Aerosol Particles in Arctic Amplification

    Manfred Wendisch;Andreas Macke;André Ehrlich;Christof Lüpkes

  • Global and Regional Trends of Atmospheric Sulfur

    Wenche Aas;Augustin Mortier;Van C. Bowersox;Ribu Cherian

  • Large-eddy simulations over Germany using ICON: a comprehensive evaluation

    Rieke Heinze;Rieke Heinze;Anurag Dipankar;Cintia Carbajal Henken;Christopher Moseley

  • Constraining the total aerosol indirect effect in the LMDZ and ECHAM4 GCMs using MODIS satellite data

    Johannes Quaas;Olivier Boucher;Olivier Boucher;Ulrike Lohmann

  • Constraining the aerosol influence on cloud fraction

    Edward Gryspeerdt;Johannes Quaas;Nicolas Bellouin

  • Weak average liquid-cloud-water response to anthropogenic aerosols.

    Velle Toll;Velle Toll;Matthew Christensen;Johannes Quaas;Nicolas Bellouin

  • Model intercomparison of indirect aerosol effects

    J. E. Penner;J. Quaas;J. Quaas;T. Storelvmo;T. Takemura

  • Constraining the aerosol influence on cloud liquid water path

    Edward Gryspeerdt;Tom Goren;Odran Sourdeval;Odran Sourdeval;Johannes Quaas

  • Estimates of aerosol radiative forcing from the MACC re-analysis

    Nicolas Bellouin;Nicolas Bellouin;Johannes Quaas;Jean-Jacques Morcrette;Olivier Boucher

  • Total aerosol effect: radiative forcing or radiative flux perturbation?

    U. Lohmann;L. Rotstayn;T. Storelvmo;A. Jones

  • A microphysics guide to cirrus – Part 2: Climatologies of clouds and humidity from observations

    Martina Krämer;Christian Rolf;Nicole Spelten;Armin Afchine

  • Aerosol nucleation and its role for clouds and Earth's radiative forcing in the aerosol-climate model ECHAM5-HAM

    J. Kazil;P. Stier;K. Zhang;J. Quaas

  • Understanding Causes and Effects of Rapid Warming in the Arctic

    Manfred Wendisch;Marlen Brückner;John Burrows;Susanne Crewell

  • The Added Value of Large-Eddy and Storm-Resolving Models for Simulating Clouds and Precipitation

    Bjorn Stevens;Claudia Acquistapace;Akio Hansen;Rieke Heinze

  • Aerosol indirect effects -- general circulation model intercomparison and evaluation with satellite data

    Johannes Quaas

Frequent Co-Authors

Olivier Boucher
Olivier Boucher Sorbonne University
Philip Stier
Philip Stier University of Oxford
Ulrike Lohmann
Ulrike Lohmann ETH Zurich
Gunnar Myhre
Gunnar Myhre Center for International Climate and Environmental Research
Michael Schulz
Michael Schulz Norwegian Meteorological Institute
Nicolas Bellouin
Nicolas Bellouin University of Reading
Stefan Kinne
Stefan Kinne Max Planck Society
Bjorn Stevens
Bjorn Stevens Max Planck Society
Toshihiko Takemura
Toshihiko Takemura Kyushu University
Julien Delanoë
Julien Delanoë Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines University

If you think any of the details on this page are incorrect, let us know.

Report an issue

We appreciate your kind effort to assist us to improve this page, it would be helpful providing us with as much detail as possible in the text box below:

Related Online Degrees & Career Pathways

Studying Environmental Sciences in the USA opens doors to various interdisciplinary fields and career options. For those starting out, exploring the easiest bachelor's degree to get can help identify accessible programs that build foundational knowledge in environmental topics without overwhelming course loads.

Specialized areas such as geology play a crucial role in understanding earth processes and environmental impacts. Many students benefit from flexible options offered by online geology programs, which combine convenience with rigorous training in earth sciences.

Geospatial technology is another growing area linked to environmental sciences. The best GIS programs in the US provide advanced skills in geographic information systems, vital for resource management, urban planning, and environmental monitoring careers.

For professionals seeking leadership roles or policy influence, the best online MPA degrees focus on public administration with an environmental emphasis. These programs equip graduates with strategic management and governance expertise essential for driving sustainable initiatives.

Each pathway complements the core environmental sciences curriculum, enabling students to tailor their education toward in-demand skills and promising career trajectories.

Best Scientists Citing Johannes Quaas

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles