Delay in recovery of the Antarctic ozone hole from unexpected CFC-11 emissions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Antarctic ozone hole is decreasing in size but this recovery will be affected by atmospheric variability and any unexpected changes in chlorinated source gas emissions. Here, using model simulations, we show that the ozone hole will largely cease to occur by 2065 given compliance with the Montreal Protocol. If the unusual meteorology of 2002 is repeated, an ozone-hole-free-year could occur as soon as the early 2020s by some metrics. The recently discovered increase in CFC-11 emissions of ~ 13 Gg yr−1 may delay recovery. So far the impact on ozone is small, but if these emissions indicate production for foam use much more CFC-11 may be leaked in the future. Assuming such production over 10 years, disappearance of the ozone hole will be delayed by a few years, although there are significant uncertainties. Continued, substantial future CFC-11 emissions of 67 Gg yr−1 would delay Antarctic ozone recovery by well over a decade.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".