On the Climate Impacts of Upper Tropospheric and Lower Stratospheric Ozone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The global warming simulations of the general circulation models (GCMs) are generally performed with different ozone prescriptions. We find that the differences in ozone distribution, especially in the upper tropospheric and lower stratospheric (UTLS) region, account for important model discrepancies shown in the ozone‐only historical experiment of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5). These discrepancies include global high cloud fraction, stratospheric temperature, and stratospheric water vapor. Through a set of experiments conducted by an atmospheric GCM with contrasting UTLS ozone prescriptions, we verify that UTLS ozone not only directly radiatively heats the UTLS region and cools the upper parts of the stratosphere but also strongly influences the high clouds due to its impact on relative humidity and static stability in the UTLS region and the stratospheric water vapor due to its impact on the tropical tropopause temperature. These consequences strongly affect the global mean effective radiative forcing of ozone, as noted in previous studies. Our findings suggest that special attention should be paid to the UTLS ozone when evaluating the climate effects of ozone depletion in the 20th century and recovery in the 21st century. UTLS ozone difference may also be important for understanding the intermodel discrepancy in the climate projections of the CMIP6 GCMs in which either prescribed or interactive ozone is used.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".