Montreal Protocol benefits simulated with CCM SOCOL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Ozone depletion is caused by the anthropogenic increase of halogen containing species in the atmosphere, which results in the enhancement of the concentration of reactive chlorine and bromine in the stratosphere. To reduce the influence of anthropogenic ozone-depleting substances (ODS), the Montreal Protocol was agreed by Governments in 1987, with several Amendments adopted later. In order to assess the benefits of the Montreal Protocol and its Amendments (MPA) on ozone and UV radiation, two different runs of the chemistry-climate model (CCM) SOCOL have been carried out. The first run was driven by the emission of ozone depleting substances (ODS) prescribed according to the restrictions of the Montreal Protocol and all its Amendments. For the second run we allow the ODS to grow by 3% annually. We find that the MPA would have saved up to 80% of the global annual total ozone by the end of the 21st century. Our calculations also show substantial changes in surface temperature and precipitations that could occur in the world without MPA implementations. To illustrate the changes in UV radiation at the surface and to emphasize certain features which can only be seen for some particular regions if the influence of the cloud cover changes is accounted for, we calculate geographical distribution of the erythemally weighted irradiance (Eery). For the no Montreal Protocol simulation Eery increases by factor of 4 to 16 between the 1970s and 2100. For the scenario including the Montreal Protocol it is found that UV radiation starts to decrease in 2000, with continuous decline of 5% to 10% at middle latitudes in the Northern and Southern hemispheres.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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".