Options to accelerate ozone recovery: ozone and climate benefits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Hypothetical reductions in future emissions of ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) and N2O are evaluated in terms of effects on equivalent effective stratospheric chlorine (EESC), globally-averaged total column ozone, and radiative forcing through 2100. Due to the established success of the Montreal Protocol, these actions can have only a fraction of the impact on ozone depletion that regulations already in force have had. If all anthropogenic ODS and N2O emissions were halted beginning in 2011, ozone is calculated to be higher by about 1–2% during the period 2030–2100 compared to a case of no additional restrictions. Direct radiative forcing by 2100 would be about 0.23 W/m2 lower from the elimination of anthropogenic N2O emissions and about 0.005 W/m2 lower from the destruction of the chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) bank. Due to the potential impact of N2O on future ozone levels, we provide an approach to incorporate it into the EESC formulation, which is used extensively in ozone depletion analyses. The ability of EESC to describe total ozone changes arising from additional ODS and N2O controls is also quantified.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".