Observational evidence of energetic particle precipitation NO <sub> <i>x</i> </sub> (EPP-NO <sub> <i>x</i> </sub> ) interaction with chlorine curbing Antarctic ozone loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigate the impact of the so-called energetic particle precipitation (EPP) indirect effect on lower stratospheric ozone, ClO, and ClONO 2 in the Antarctic springtime. We use observations from the Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) and Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) on Aura, the Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment – Fourier Transform Spectrometer (ACE-FTS) on SCISAT, and the Michelson Interferometer for Passive Atmospheric Sounding (MIPAS) on Envisat, covering the period from 2005 to 2017. Using the geomagnetic activity index Ap as a proxy for EPP, we find consistent ozone increases with elevated EPP during years with an easterly phase of the quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO) in both OMI and MLS observations. While these increases are the opposite of what has previously been reported at higher altitudes, the pattern in the MLS O 3 follows the typical descent patterns of EPP-NO x . The ozone enhancements are also present in the OMI total O 3 column observations. Analogous to the descent patterns found in O 3 , we also found consistent decreases in springtime MLS ClO following winters with elevated EPP. To verify if this is due to a previously proposed mechanism involving the conversion of ClO to the reservoir species ClONO 2 in reaction with NO 2 , we used ClONO 2 observations from ACE-FTS and MIPAS. As ClO and NO 2 are both catalysts in ozone destruction, the conversion to ClONO 2 would result in an ozone increase. We find a positive correlation between EPP and ClONO 2 in the upper stratosphere in the early spring and in the lower stratosphere in late spring, providing the first observational evidence supporting the previously proposed mechanism relating to EPP-NO x modulating Cl x -driven ozone loss. Our findings suggest that EPP has played an important role in modulating ozone depletion in the last 15 years. As chlorine loading in the polar stratosphere continues to decrease in the future, this buffering mechanism will become less effective, and catalytic ozone destruction by EPP-NO x will likely become a major contributor to Antarctic ozone loss.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".