Trends From the Long-Term Data Record and Models: What do They Tell us About our Ability to Predict Ozone Recovery?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our industrial society has performed an experiment on the stratospheric ozone layer over the last several decades. The initial part of this experiment was the rapidly increasing release of halogen-containing compounds that carry chlorine and bromine to the stratosphere where they can cause a loss of ozone. The present part of this experiment is the implementation of the Montreal Protocol, which has led to a leveling off of these halogen compounds and the beginning of their slow removal from the atmosphere. The observation and attribution of ozone response to the halogens has been a particularly important and difficult task because of the impact of solar cycle uv variation, two major volcanic eruptions (El Chichon and Pinatubo), and interannual dynamic variability of the stratosphere. We have run 3 different simulations of the chemistry and transport of ozone and the minor constituents that affect ozone to help evaluate our understanding of the causes of ozone change and to assess our ability to predict ozone recovery with the removal of halogens from the stratosphere. One simulation, using the Goddard chemical transport model (CTM), had interannual variability in the dynamics for the entire 50 years of simulation, which included the past 3 decades (1974-2004) and the next 2 decades to 2022. The other two simulations used the Global Modeling Initiative (GMI) CTM with no dynamical variability: one used a the winds and temperatures from a repeating warm Arctic winter and the other used a repeating cold Arctic winter. All simulations included the effects of aerosol surfaces from volcanic eruptions on chemical reactions as well as the variation in UV over the 11-year solar cycle.
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 | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".