4.7 Article

Evidence for a continuous decline in lower stratospheric ozone offsetting ozone layer recovery

期刊

ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS
卷 18, 期 2, 页码 1379-1394

出版社

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.5194/acp-18-1379-2018

关键词

-

资金

  1. SNSF [163206]
  2. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  3. STFC [ST/N000838/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ozone forms in the Earth's atmosphere from the photodissociation of molecular oxygen, primarily in the tropical stratosphere. It is then transported to the extratropics by the Brewer-Dobson circulation (BDC), forming a protective ozone layer around the globe. Human emissions of halogen-containing ozone-depleting substances (hODSs) led to a decline in stratospheric ozone until they were banned by the Montreal Protocol, and since 1998 ozone in the upper stratosphere is rising again, likely the recovery from halogen-induced losses. Total column measurements of ozone between the Earth's surface and the top of the atmosphere indicate that the ozone layer has stopped declining across the globe, but no clear increase has been observed at latitudes between 60 degrees S and 60 degrees N outside the polar regions (60-90 degrees). Here we report evidence from multiple satellite measurements that ozone in the lower stratosphere between 60 degrees S and 60 degrees N has indeed continued to decline since 1998. We find that, even though upper stratospheric ozone is recovering, the continuing downward trend in the lower stratosphere prevails, resulting in a downward trend in stratospheric column ozone between 60 degrees S and 60 degrees N. We find that total column ozone between 60 degrees S and 60 degrees N appears not to have decreased only because of increases in tropospheric column ozone that compensate for the stratospheric decreases. The reasons for the continued reduction of lower stratospheric ozone are not clear; models do not reproduce these trends, and thus the causes now urgently need to be established.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据