The Importance of the Montreal Protocol in Mitigating the Potential Intensity of Tropical Cyclones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The impact of the Montreal Protocol on the potential intensity of tropical cyclones over the next 50 years is investigated with the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model (WACCM), a state-of-the-art, stratosphere-resolving atmospheric model, coupled to land, ocean, and sea ice components, with interactive stratospheric chemistry. An ensemble of WACCM runs from 2006 to 2065 forced with a standard future scenario is compared to a second ensemble in which ozone-depleting substances (ODS) are not regulated (the so-called World Avoided). It is found that by the year 2065, changes in the potential intensity of tropical cyclones in the World Avoided are nearly 3 times as large as for the standard scenario. The Montreal Protocol thus provides a strong mitigation of the adverse effects of intensifying tropical cyclones. The relative importance of warmer sea surface temperatures (ozone-depleting substances are important greenhouse gases) and cooler lower-stratospheric temperatures (accompanying the massive destruction of the ozone layer) is carefully examined. It is found that the former are largely responsible for the increase in potential intensity in the World Avoided, whereas temperatures above the 70-hPa level—which plunge by nearly 15 K in 2065 in the World Avoided—have no discernible effect on potential intensity. This finding suggests that the modest (compared to the World Avoided) tropical ozone depletion of recent decades has not been a major player in determining the intensity of tropical cyclones, and neither will ozone recovery be in the coming half century.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".