MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026834406 · doi:10.3137/ao.460104

Stratospheric ozone chemistry

2008· article· en· W2026834406 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
J. C. McConnell, Jiangfeng Jin

Bibliographic record

VenueATMOSPHERE-OCEAN · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStratosphereOzone layerOzoneMicrowave Limb SounderAtmospheric sciencesOzone depletionMontreal ProtocolEnvironmental scienceTropospheric ozoneAtmosphere (unit)TropospherePolar vortexMeteorologyGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stratospheric ozone is important in shielding the planet from harmful solar radiation and tropospheric ozone and, while harmful to plants and humans in large amounts is also, in combination with water vapour, a major source of OH radicals which act as a detergent for many chemical species emitted into the troposphere by natural and anthropogenic emissions. This paper presents the chemistry affecting both tropospheric and stratospheric ozone with an emphasis on the stratosphere. In the decade since the last Environment Canada report on stratospheric ozone (Wardle et al. , 1997) there have been many advances in our understanding. Recent studies have shown that inorganic chlorine, which is the main contributor to polar ozone depletion and middle stratospheric ozone reduction, has started to decrease as a result of the implementation of the Montreal Protocol. During this period, Canada launched a small satellite, SCISAT‐1. We discuss the chemical processes related to polar ozone loss, such as chlorine activation and denitrification, using data from SCISAT‐1. These measurements and those from the Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) instrument on the Aura satellite confirm that the chlorine deactivation in the Arctic is distinct from that in the Antarctic. Recent studies show that our understanding of the middle atmosphere bromine budget needs improvement. Using measured constraints reproduces the polar and extra‐polar ozone loss better. In addition, recent studies have addressed the variation of middle atmosphere ozone with solar variability. These studies have investigated the variation of solar radiation and related energetic particle precipitation (EPP) such as auroral precipitation, solar proton events (SPEs) as well as cosmic rays. Although there was some appreciation of these effects in the past, current three‐dimensional (3‐D) models suggest that the EPP may have a greater effect on middle atmospheric ozone than was previously realized. Stratospheric ozone loss allows the penetration of more ultraviolet (UV) radiation into the lower atmosphere, and thus may result in an increase in the oxidation state of the troposphere and affect tropospheric chemistry. Quantitative assessment of the effect of lightning on the ozone budget of the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere (UTLS) is a current challenge, while increases in the size of commercial aviation fleets have a positive radiative forcing in this region. To include the feedbacks between radiation, chemistry and dynamics associated with atmospheric change, coupled chemistry‐climate models (CCMs) have been developed during the past decade. While these models still require improvement in transport and physical processes they generally predict that the Antarctic ozone layer will recover to the levels prior to 1980 by the middle of this century as a result of decreasing atmospheric chlorine and a cooling stratosphere. According to a recent semi‐empirical relationship between ozone loss and Arctic meteorological conditions (Rex et al. , 2004), a colder Arctic stratosphere may result in more severe ozone loss in the boreal springtime in the near future.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.187 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations40
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueATMOSPHERE-OCEANSame topicAtmospheric Ozone and ClimateFrench-language works237,207