Observational evidence of solar activity interaction with chlorine chemistry curbing Antarctic ozone loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present the impact of the so-called energetic particle precipitation (EPP), part of natural solar forcing on the atmosphere, on polar stratospheric NOx, ozone, and chlorine chemistry in the Antarctic springtime, using multi-satellite observations covering the overall period of 2005–2017. We find consistent ozone increases when high solar activity occurs during years with easterly phase of the quasi biennial oscillation. These ozone enhancements are also present in total O3 column observations. We find consistent decreases in springtime active chlorine following winters of elevated solar activity. Further analysis shows that this is accompanied by increase of chemically inactive chlorine reservoir species, explaining the observed ozone increase. This provides the first observational evidence supporting the previously proposed mechanism relating to EPP modulating chlorine driven ozone loss. Our findings suggest that solar activity via EPP has played an important role in modulating Antarctic 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 produced NOx 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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".