World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Environmental Sciences

D-Index
44
Citations
14507
World Ranking
6586
National Ranking
2347

Thomas Diehl 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 Thomas Diehl 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: 80 publications — 5th percentile

5% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Thomas Diehl 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 Thomas Diehl 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: 44 D-Index — 32nd percentile

32% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Thomas Diehl is affiliated with the Goddard Space Flight Center in the United States and conducts research predominantly in the fields of Environmental Science and Earth and Planetary Sciences. Their work extends into several subfields, including Atmospheric Science, Global and Planetary Change, Environmental Chemistry, and Mechanics of Materials.

Their research interests cover a range of topics related to cryospheric processes and climate dynamics. Specific areas of focus include Arctic and Antarctic ice dynamics, climate variability and models, cryospheric studies and observations, methane hydrates and related phenomena, atmospheric and environmental gas dynamics, and hydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis.

Recent scholarly contributions include two publications:

  • Wind amplifies the polar sea ice retreat, 2020, Environmental Research Letters
  • Final report on research gaps of space-based Arctic monitoring, 2020, DIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC))

Frequent co-authors in their collaborative work are:

  • Ramdane Alkama
  • Ernest N. Koffi
  • Stephen J. Vavrus
  • Jennifer A. Francis
  • Julienne Strœve

The primary publication venues for their recent work include Environmental Research Letters and the DIGITAL.CSIC repository of the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC).

Best Publications

  • Analysis and quantification of the diversities of aerosol life cycles within AeroCom

    C. Textor;M. Schulz;S. Guibert;S. Kinne

  • Global dust model intercomparison in AeroCom phase I

    N. Huneeus;M. Schulz;Y. Balkanski;J. Griesfeller

  • Radiative forcing of the direct aerosol effect from AeroCom Phase II simulations

    Gunnar Myhre;Bjørn Hallvard Samset;M. Schulz;Y. Balkanski

  • An AeroCom Initial Assessment - Optical Properties in Aerosol Component Modules of Global Models

    S. Kinne;M. Schulz;C. Textor;S. Guibert

  • Online simulations of global aerosol distributions in the NASA GEOS‐4 model and comparisons to satellite and ground‐based aerosol optical depth

    Peter Colarco;Arlindo da Silva;Mian Chin;Thomas Diehl;Thomas Diehl

  • Sulfur dioxide emissions in China and sulfur trends in East Asia since 2000

    Z. Lu;D. G. Streets;Q. Zhang;S. Wang;S. Wang

  • Evaluation of black carbon estimations in global aerosol models

    D. Koch;D. Koch;M. Schulz;S. Kinne;C. McNaughton

  • Sensitivity of chemical tracers to meteorological parameters in the MOZART-3 chemical transport model

    D.E. Kinnison;Guy P. Brasseur;S. Walters;R.R. Garcia

  • Air pollution and climate-forcing impacts of a global hydrogen economy

    Martin G. Schultz;Thomas Diehl;Guy P. Brasseur;Werner Zittel

  • The AeroCom evaluation and intercomparison of organic aerosol in global models

    K. Tsigaridis;K. Tsigaridis;N. Daskalakis;N. Daskalakis;M. Kanakidou;P. J. Adams

  • Intercontinental transport of pollution and dust aerosols: implications for regional air quality

    Mian Chin;T. Diehl;P. Ginoux;W. Malm

  • Multi-decadal aerosol variations from 1980 to 2009: a perspective from observations and a global model

    Mian Chin;T. Diehl;T. Diehl;Q. Tan;Q. Tan;J. M. Prospero

  • The HAMMONIA Chemistry Climate Model: Sensitivity of the Mesopause Region to the 11-Year Solar Cycle and CO2 Doubling

    H. Schmidt;G. P. Brasseur;M. Charron;E. Manzini

  • Light absorption by pollution, dust, and biomass burning aerosols: a global model study and evaluation with AERONET measurements

    Mian Chin;T. Diehl;T. Diehl;O. Dubovik;T. F. Eck;T. F. Eck

  • Intercontinental transport of pollution and dust aerosols : implications for regional air quality

    Unknown

  • Global view of aerosol vertical distributions from CALIPSO lidar measurements and GOCART simulations: Regional and seasonal variations

    Hongbin Yu;Hongbin Yu;Hongbin Yu;Mian Chin;David M. Winker;Ali H. Omar

  • Anthropogenic and natural contributions to regional trends in aerosol optical depth, 1980–2006

    David G. Streets;Fang Yan;Fang Yan;Mian Chin;Thomas Diehl

  • Sources, distribution, and acidity of sulfate–ammonium aerosol in the Arctic in winter–spring

    Jenny A. Fisher;Daniel James Jacob;Qiaoqiao Wang;Roya Bahreini;Roya Bahreini

  • Black carbon vertical profiles strongly affect its radiative forcing uncertainty

    Bjørn Hallvard Samset;Gunnar Myhre;M. Schulz;Y. Balkanski

  • Application of the CALIOP layer product to evaluate the vertical distribution of aerosols estimated by global models: AeroCom phase I results

    Brigitte Koffi;Michael Schulz;Francois-Marie Bréon;Jan Griesfeller

  • Anthropogenic, biomass burning, and volcanic emissions of black carbon, organic carbon, and SO 2 from 1980 to 2010 for hindcast model experiments

    T. Diehl;T. Diehl;A. Heil;M. Chin;X. Pan;X. Pan

Frequent Co-Authors

Mian Chin
Mian Chin Goddard Space Flight Center
Trond Iversen
Trond Iversen Norwegian Meteorological Institute
Susanne E. Bauer
Susanne E. Bauer Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Huisheng Bian
Huisheng Bian University of Maryland, Baltimore County
Hongbin Yu
Hongbin Yu Goddard Space Flight Center
Toshihiko Takemura
Toshihiko Takemura Kyushu University
Xiaohong Liu
Xiaohong Liu Texas A&M University
Nicolas Bellouin
Nicolas Bellouin University of Reading
Michael Schulz
Michael Schulz Norwegian Meteorological Institute
Alf Kirkevåg
Alf Kirkevåg Norwegian Meteorological Institute

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

For those interested in expanding their expertise in Environmental Sciences, pursuing advanced online degrees can open diverse career pathways. Many professionals seek specialized education without traditional barriers, which is why doctorate degree online no dissertation options have become increasingly popular. These programs offer a flexible pathway for busy students aiming to earn their doctorate efficiently.

Additionally, students may consider transitioning from a Master of Education to a Doctor of Education through some of the best eds to edd programs available online, which are designed to build leadership skills for environmental education and policy roles.

For those leaning towards social work within environmental contexts, such as community resilience or sustainability advocacy, affordable dsw online programs offer an opportunity to bolster professional credentials while working remotely.

Lastly, if you are exploring broad interdisciplinary options that support environmental careers, a low cost online general studies degree might provide foundational knowledge and flexibility that perfectly complements specialized training.

Best Scientists Citing Thomas Diehl

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles