The Antarctic ozone hole during 2018 and 2019
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the Montreal Protocol is reducing stratospheric ozone loss, recent increases in some ozone depleting substance (ODS) emissions have been identified that may impact southern hemisphere climate systems. In this study, we discuss characteristics of the 2018 and 2019 Antarctic ozone holes using surface in situ, satellite and reanalysis data to gain a better understanding of recent ozone variability. These ozone holes had strongly contrasting characteristics. In 2018, the Antarctic stratospheric vortex was relatively stable and cold in comparison to most years of the prior decade. This resulted in a large and persistent ozone hole that ranked in the upper-tercile of metrics quantifying Antarctic ozone depletion. In contrast, strong stratospheric warming in the spring of 2019 curtailed the development of the ozone hole, causing it to be anomalously small and of similar size to ozone holes in the 1980s. As known from previous studies, the ability of planetary waves to propagate into the stratosphere at high latitudes is an important factor that influences temperatures of the polar vortex and the overall amount of ozone loss in any particular year. Disturbance and warming of the vortex by strong planetary wave activity were the dominant factors in the small 2019 ozone hole. In contrast, planetary wave disturbances to the vortex in the winter–spring of 2018 were much weaker than in 2019. These results increase our understanding of the impact of Montreal Protocol controls on ODS and the effects of Antarctic ozone on the southern hemisphere climate system.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".