On the attribution of stratospheric ozone and temperature changes to changes in ozone-depleting substances and well-mixed greenhouse gases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The vertical profile of global-mean stratospheric temperature changes has traditionally represented an important diagnostic for the attribution of the cooling effects of stratospheric ozone depletion and CO2 increases. However, CO2-induced cooling alters ozone abundance by perturbing ozone chemistry, thereby coupling the stratospheric ozone and temperature responses to changes in CO2 and ozone-depleting substances (ODSs). Here we untangle the ozone-temperature coupling and show that the attribution of global-mean stratospheric temperature changes to CO2 and ODS changes (which are the true anthropogenic forcing agents) can be quite different from the traditional attribution to CO2 and ozone changes. The significance of these effects is quantified empirically using simulations from a three-dimensional chemistry-climate model. The results confirm the essential validity of the traditional approach in attributing changes during the past period of rapid ODS increases, although we find that about 10% of the upper stratospheric ozone decrease from ODS increases over the period 1975–1995 was offset by the increase in CO2, and the CO2-induced cooling in the upper stratosphere has been somewhat overestimated. When considering ozone recovery, however, the ozone-temperature coupling is a first-order effect; fully 2/5 of the upper stratospheric ozone increase projected to occur from 2010–2040 is attributable to CO2 increases. Thus, it has now become necessary to base attribution of global-mean stratospheric temperature changes on CO2 and ODS changes rather than on CO2 and ozone changes.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".