Arctic ozone loss in threshold conditions: Match observations in 1997/1998 and 1998/1999
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chemical ozone loss rates inside the Arctic polar vortex were determined in early 1998 and early 1999 by using the Match technique based on coordinated ozonesonde measurements. These two winters provide the only opportunities in recent years to investigate chemical ozone loss in a warm Arctic vortex under threshold conditions, i.e., where the preconditions for chlorine activation, and hence ozone destruction, only occurred occasionally. In 1998, results were obtained in January and February between 410 and 520 K. The overall ozone loss was observed to be largely insignificant, with the exception of late February, when those air parcels exposed to temperatures below 195 K were affected by chemical ozone loss. In 1999, results are confined to the 475 K isentropic level, where no significant ozone loss was observed. Average temperatures were some 8°–10° higher than those in 1995, 1996, and 1997, when substantial chemical ozone loss occurred. The results underline the strong dependence of the chemical ozone loss on the stratospheric temperatures. This study shows that enhanced chlorine alone does not provide a sufficient condition for ozone loss. The evolution of stratospheric temperatures over the next decade will be the determining factor for the amount of wintertime chemical ozone loss in the Arctic stratosphere.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".