Is global ozone recovering?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thanks to the Montreal Protocol, the stratospheric concentrations of ozone-depleting chlorine and bromine have been declining since their peak in the late 1990s. Global ozone has responded: The substantial ozone decline observed since the 1960s ended in the late 1990s. Since then, ozone levels have remained low, but have not declined further. Now general ozone increases and a slow recovery of the ozone layer is expected. The clearest signs of increasing ozone, so far, are seen in the upper stratosphere and for total ozone columns above Antarctica in spring. These two regions had also seen the largest ozone depletions in the past. Total column ozone at most latitudes, however, does not show clear increases yet. This is not unexpected, because the removal of chlorine and bromine from the stratosphere is three to four times slower than their previous increase. Detecting significant increases in total column ozone, therefore, will require much more time than the detection of its previous decline. The search is complicated by variations in ozone that are not caused by declining chlorine or bromine, but are due, e.g., to transport changes in the global Brewer–Dobson circulation. Also, very accurate observations are necessary to detect the expected small increases. Nevertheless, observations and model simulations indicate that the stratosphere is on the path to ozone recovery. This recovery process will take many decades. As chlorine and bromine decline, other factors will become more important. These include climate change and its effects on stratospheric temperatures, changes in the Brewer–Dobson circulation (both due to increasing CO 2 ), increasing emissions of trace gases like N 2 O, CH 4 , possibly large future increases of short-lived substances (like CCl 2 H 2 ) from both natural and anthropogenic sources, and changes in tropospheric ozone.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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".