On the statistical modeling of persistence in total ozone anomalies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Geophysical time series sometimes exhibit serial correlations that are stronger than can be captured by the commonly used first‐order autoregressive model. In this study we demonstrate that a power law statistical model serves as a useful upper bound for the persistence of total ozone anomalies on monthly to interannual timescales. Such a model is usually characterized by the Hurst exponent. We show that the estimation of the Hurst exponent in time series of total ozone is sensitive to various choices made in the statistical analysis, especially whether and how the deterministic (including periodic) signals are filtered from the time series, and the frequency range over which the estimation is made. In particular, care must be taken to ensure that the estimate of the Hurst exponent accurately represents the low‐frequency limit of the spectrum, which is the part that is relevant to long‐term correlations and the uncertainty of estimated trends. Otherwise, spurious results can be obtained. Based on this analysis, and using an updated equivalent effective stratospheric chlorine (EESC) function, we predict that an increase in total ozone attributable to EESC should be detectable at the 95% confidence level by 2015 at the latest in southern midlatitudes, and by 2020–2025 at the latest over 30°–45°N, with the time to detection increasing rapidly with latitude north of this range.
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 | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".