MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101540063 · doi:10.5194/acp-3-1-2003

Uncertainties and assessments of chemistry-climate models of the stratosphere

2003· article· en· W2101540063 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmospheric chemistry and physics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoYork University
FundersUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignCanadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric SciencesGovernment of the United KingdomNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationU.S. Department of EnergyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsStratosphereOzone depletionAtmospheric sciencesClimatologyTropospherePolarOzone layerClimate modelEnvironmental scienceLatitudeRange (aeronautics)OrographyOzoneOrographic liftPolar nightNorthern HemisphereAtmospheric modelsMeteorologyClimate changeGeologyAtmosphere (unit)GeographyPhysicsGeodesy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. In recent years a number of chemistry-climate models have been developed with an emphasis on the stratosphere. Such models cover a wide range of time scales of integration and vary considerably in complexity. The results of specific diagnostics are here analysed to examine the differences amongst individual models and observations, to assess the consistency of model predictions, with a particular focus on polar ozone. For example, many models indicate a significant cold bias in high latitudes, the "cold pole problem", particularly in the southern hemisphere during winter and spring. This is related to wave propagation from the troposphere which can be improved by improving model horizontal resolution and with the use of non-orographic gravity wave drag. As a result of the widely differing modelled polar temperatures, different amounts of polar stratospheric clouds are simulated which in turn result in varying ozone values in the models. The results are also compared to determine the possible future behaviour of ozone, with an emphasis on the polar regions and mid-latitudes. All models predict eventual ozone recovery, but give a range of results concerning its timing and extent. Differences in the simulation of gravity waves and planetary waves as well as model resolution are likely major sources of uncertainty for this issue. In the Antarctic, the ozone hole has probably reached almost its deepest although the vertical and horizontal extent of depletion may increase slightly further over the next few years. According to the model results, Antarctic ozone recovery could begin any year within the range 2001 to 2008. The limited number of models which have been integrated sufficiently far indicate that full recovery of ozone to 1980 levels may not occur in the Antarctic until about the year 2050. For the Arctic, most models indicate that small ozone losses may continue for a few more years and that recovery could begin any year within the range 2004 to 2019. The start of ozone recovery in the Arctic is therefore expected to appear later than in the Antarctic. Further, interannual variability will tend to mask the signal for longer than in the Antarctic, delaying still further the date at which ozone recovery may be said to have started. Because of this inherent variability of the system, the decadal evolution of Arctic ozone will not necessarily be a direct response to external forcing.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.545
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.202 · 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