Inconsistencies between chemistry climate model and observed lower stratospheric trends since 1998
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The stratospheric ozone layer shields surface life from harmful ultraviolet radiation. Following the Montreal Protocol ban of long-lived ozone depleting substances (ODSs), rapid depletion of total column ozone (TCO) ceased in the late 1990s and ozone above 32 km now enjoys a clear recovery. However, there is still no confirmation of TCO recovery, and evidence has emerged that ongoing quasi-global (60° S–60° N) lower stratospheric ozone decreases may be responsible, dominated by low latitudes (30° S–30° N). Chemistry climate models (CCMs) used to project future changes predict that lower stratospheric ozone will decrease in the tropics by 2100, but not at mid-latitudes (30°–60°). Here, we show that CCMs display an ozone decline similar to that observed in the tropics over 1998–2016, likely driven by a increase of tropical upwelling. On the other hand, mid-latitude lower stratospheric ozone is observed to decrease, while CCMs show an increase. Despite opposing lower stratospheric ozone changes, which should induce opposite temperature trends, CCM and observed temperature trends agree; we demonstrate that opposing model-observation stratospheric water vapour (SWV) trends, and their associated radiative effects, explain why temperature changes agree in spite of opposing ozone trends. We provide new evidence that the observed mid-latitude trends can be explained by enhanced mixing between the tropics and extratropics. We further show that the temperature trends are consistent with the observed mid-latitude ozone decrease. Together, our results suggest that large scale circulation changes expected in the future from increased greenhouse gases (GHGs) may now already be underway, but that most CCMs are not simulating well mid-latitude ozone layer changes. The reason CCMs do not exhibit the observed changes urgently needs to be understood to improve confidence in future projections of the ozone layer.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".