Present and future sources and emissions of halocarbons: Toward new constraints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate chlorocarbon and bromocarbon mixing ratio projections are necessary to make accurate estimates of future stratospheric ozone depletion. As global production of ozone depleting substances (ODSs) continues to decline in response to the Montreal Protocol, the quantity of ODSs in existing products and equipment, referred to as “banks,” has the potential to make an important contribution to future ODS emissions and the associated ozone depletion. Recently, large discrepancies between two approaches to estimating bank sizes have been reported for several ODSs (World Meteorological Organization (WMO), 2003; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (IPCC/TEAP), 2005). We analyze these bank differences for CFC‐11 and CFC‐12 and find that they are significant in terms of the amount of projected future ozone depletion, a finding that is also relevant to assessing the potential environmental benefits of recovering and destroying banked CFCs. We consider observed trends in atmospheric abundances and past production estimates of these chemicals to gain insight into the bank sizes and their roles as emission sources for the CFCs. If it is assumed that the rates of release from the banks have not increased over the last few years, a lower limit for the CFC‐12 bank size in 2002 is approximately 500 kt, consistent with the recent bottom‐up estimate of IPCC/TEAP (2005). The larger estimated CFC‐11 and CFC‐12 banks (IPCC/TEAP, 2005), if accurate, would lead to greater future emissions and, hence, to greater stratospheric chlorine abundances that can affect future ozone as compared to the smaller WMO (2003) banks.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".