Impact of Antarctic Ozone Depletion and Recovery on Southern Hemisphere Precipitation, Evaporation, and Extreme Changes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The possible impact of Antarctic ozone depletion and recovery on Southern Hemisphere (SH) mean and extreme precipitation and evaporation is examined using multimodel output from the Climate Model Intercomparison Project 3 (CMIP3). By grouping models into four sets, those with and without ozone depletion in twentieth-century climate simulations and those with and without ozone recovery in twenty-first-century climate simulations, and comparing their multimodel-mean trends, it is shown that Antarctic ozone forcings significantly modulate extratropical precipitation changes in austral summer. The impact on evaporation trends is however minimal, especially in twentieth-century climate simulations. In general, ozone depletion has increased (decreased) precipitation in high latitudes (midlatitudes), in agreement with the poleward displacement of the westerly jet and associated storm tracks by Antarctic ozone depletion. Although weaker, the opposite is also true for ozone recovery. These precipitation changes are primarily associated with changes in light precipitation (1–10 mm day−1). Contributions by very light precipitation (0.1–1 mm day−1) and moderate-to-heavy precipitation (>10 mm day−1) are minor. Likewise, no systematic changes are found in extreme precipitation events, although extreme surface wind events are highly sensitive to ozone forcings. This result indicates that, while extratropical mean precipitation trends are significantly modulated by ozone-induced large-scale circulation changes, extreme precipitation changes are likely more sensitive to thermodynamic processes near the surface than to dynamical processes in the free atmosphere.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".