MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210392717 · doi:10.1029/2021jd035567

A Post‐Phaseout Retrospective Reassessment of the Global Methyl Bromide Budget

2022· article· en· W4210392717 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
E. S. Saltzman, M. R. Nicewonger, S. A. Montzka, S. A. Yvon‐Lewis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceBromideOzone depletionAtmospheric sciencesStratosphereMontreal ProtocolAtmosphere (unit)TroposphereClimatologyOzone layerMeteorologyGeographyGeologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Methyl bromide is a stratospheric ozone‐depleting substance with both natural and anthropogenic sources. The global budget of methyl bromide has never been fully understood as evidenced by the significant budget gap between the bottom‐up source estimates and calculated atmospheric losses. Atmospheric methyl bromide levels have declined significantly since Phase‐out under the Montreal Protocol began in 1999, and the atmosphere appears to have reached a new steady state during the past five years. Here, we reassess the global methyl bromide budget utilizing the 25‐year record of atmospheric methyl bromide measurements from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Global Monitoring Laboratory global flask network and a zonal 6‐box coupled global ocean/atmosphere model. Model inversions were used to estimate the total emissions required to account for the observed atmospheric methyl bromide levels. From 1995 to 2019, global land‐based emissions (natural and anthropogenic) declined from about 120 to 85 Gg y−1 and net ocean emissions increased from −5 to +5 Gg y−1. There remains an imbalance between the bottom‐up estimates of terrestrial sources and the inversion result. Based on the timing, magnitude, and spatial distribution of the imbalance we partition it into (a) a persistent or time invariant source located primarily in the tropics, and (b) a smaller time‐varying component that scales with the anthropogenic source during phase‐out. We hypothesize that the persistent source is likely natural and the time variant component is an artifact resulting from a slight underestimation of anthropogenic emissions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.193

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research AtmospheresSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207