Implications of constant CFC-11 concentrations for the future ozone layer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. This investigation is motivated by the results presented by Montzka et al. (2018). They discussed a strong deviation of the assumed emissions of chlorofluorocarbon-11 (CFC-11, CFCl3) in the past 15 years, which indicates a violation of the Montreal Protocol for the protection of the ozone layer. A Chemistry-Climate Model (CCM) study is performed, investigating the consequences of a constant CFC-11 surface mixing ratio for stratospheric ozone: In comparison to a reference simulation (REF-C2), where a decrease of the CFC-11 surface mixing ratio of about 50 % is assumed from the early 2000s to the middle of the century, a sensitivity simulation (SEN-C2-fCFC11) is carried out where after the year 2002 the CFC-11 surface mixing ratio is kept constant until 2050. Differences between these two simulations are shown. These illustrate possible effects on stratospheric ozone. The total column ozone (TCO) in the 2040s (i.e. the years 2041–2050) is in particular affected in both polar regions in winter and spring. At the end of the 2040s maximum discrepancies of TCO are identified with reduced ozone values of up to around 30 Dobson Units (in the order of 10 %) in the SEN simulation. An analysis of the respective partial column ozone (PCO) for the stratosphere indicates that strongest ozone changes are calculated for the polar lower stratosphere, where they are mainly driven by the enhanced stratospheric chlorine content and associated heterogeneous chemical processes. Furthermore, it turns out that the calculated ozone changes, especially in the upper stratosphere, are smaller than expected. In this altitude region the additional ozone depletion due to the catalysis by reactive chlorine is compensated partly by other processes related to enhanced ozone production or reduced ozone loss, for instance from nitrous oxide (NOx).
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".