Long‐term ozone trends at rural ozone monitoring sites across the United States, 1990–2010
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This analysis provides an up‐to‐date assessment of long‐term (1990–2010) rural ozone trends using all available data in the western (12 sites) and eastern (41 sites) USA. Rather than focus solely on average ozone values or air quality standard violations, we consider the full range of ozone values, reporting trends for the 5th, 50th and 95th percentiles. Domestic ozone precursor emissions decreased strongly during 1990–2010. Accordingly 83%, 66% and 20% of summertime eastern U.S. sites experienced statistically significant ozone decreases in the 95th, 50th and 5th percentiles, respectively. During spring 43% of the eastern sites have statistically significant ozone decreases for the 95th percentile with no sites showing a significant increase. At the 50th percentile there is little overall change in the eastern U.S. In contrast, only 17% (2 sites) and 8% (1 site) of summertime western U.S. sites have statistically significant ozone decreases in the 95th and 50th percentiles, respectively. During spring no western site has a significant decrease, while 50% have a significant median increase. This dichotomy in U.S. ozone trends is discussed in terms of changing anthropogenic and biomass burning emissions. Consideration is given to the concept that increasing baseline ozone flowing into the western U.S. is counteracting ozone reductions due to domestic emission reductions. An update to the springtime free tropospheric ozone trend above western North America shows that ozone has increased significantly from 1995 to 2011 at the rate of 0.41 ± 0.27 ppbv yr−1. Finally, the ozone changes are examined in relation to regional temperature trends.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".