Past changes in the vertical distribution of ozone – Part 3: Analysis and interpretation of trends
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Trends in the vertical distribution of ozone are reported and compared for a number of new and recently revised datasets. The amount of ozone-depleting compounds in the stratosphere (as measured by Equivalent Effective Stratospheric Chlorine – EESC) maximised in the second half of the 1990s. We therefore examine the trends in the periods before and after that peak to see if any change in trend is discernible in the ozone record. Prior to 1998, trends in the upper stratosphere (~ 45 km, 4 hPa) are found to be −5 to −10% per decade at mid-latitudes and closer to −5% per decade in the tropics. No trends are found in the mid-stratosphere (28 km, 30 hPa). Negative trends are seen in the lower stratosphere at mid-latitudes in both hemispheres and in the deep tropics. However it is hard to be categorical about the trends in the lower stratosphere for three reasons: (i) there are fewer measurements, (ii) the data quality is poorer, and (iii) the measurements in the 1990s are perturbed by aerosols from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption in 1991. These findings are similar to those reported previously even though the measurements for the two main satellite instruments (SBUV and SAGE II) and the ground-based Umkehr and ozonesonde stations have been revised. There is no sign of a continued negative trend in the upper stratosphere since 1998: instead there is a hint of an average positive trend of ~ 2% per decade in mid-latitudes and ~ 3% per decade in the tropics. The significance of these upward trends is investigated using different assumptions of the independence of the trend estimates found from different datasets. The averaged upward trends are significant if the trends derived from various datasets are assumed to be independent, but are generally not significant if the trends are not independent. This arises because many of the underlying measurement records are used in more than one merged dataset. At this point it is not possible to say which assumption is best. Including an estimate of the drift of the overall ozone observing system decreases the significance of the trends. The significance will become clearer as (i) more years are added to the observational record, (ii) further improvements are made to the historic ozone record (e.g. through algorithm development), and (iii) the data merging techniques are refined, particularly through a more rigorous treatment of uncertainties.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".