Antarctic ozone loss in 1979–2010: first sign of ozone recovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. A long-term ozone loss time series is necessary to understand the evolution of ozone in Antarctica. Therefore, we construct the time series using ground-based, satellite and bias-corrected multi-sensor reanalysis (MSR) data sets for the period 1989–2010. The trends in ozone over 1979–2010 are also estimated to further elucidate its evolution in the wake of decreasing halogen levels in the stratosphere. Our analysis with ground-based observations shows that the average ozone loss in the Antarctic is about −33 to −50% (−90 to −155 DU (Dobson Unit)) in 1989–1992, and then stayed at around −48% (−160 DU). The ozone loss in the warmer winters (e.g. 2002 and 2004) is lower (−37 to −46%), and in the very cold winters (e.g. 2003 and 2006) it is higher (−52 to −55%). These loss estimates are in good agreement with those estimated from satellite observations, where the differences are less than ±3%. The ozone trends based on the equivalent effective Antarctic stratospheric chlorine (EEASC) and piecewise linear trend (PWLT) functions for the vortex averaged ground-based, Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer/Ozone Monitoring Instrument (TOMS/OMI), and MSR data averaged over September–November exhibit about −4.6 DU yr−1 over 1979–1999, corroborating the role of halogens in the ozone decrease during the period. The ozone trends computed for the 2000–2010 period are about +1 DU yr−1 for EEASC and +2.6 DU yr−1 for the PWLT functions. The larger positive PWLT trends for the 2000–2010 period indicate the influence of dynamics and other basis functions on the increase of ozone. The trends in both periods are significant at 95% confidence intervals for all analyses. Therefore, our study suggests that Antarctic ozone shows a significant positive trend toward its recovery, and hence, leaves a clear signature of the successful implementation of the Montreal Protocol.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".