4.1 Article

Impact of Nonzero Intercept Gas Transfer Velocity Parameterizations on Global and Regional Ocean-Atmosphere CO2 Fluxes

Journal

GEOSCIENCES
Volume 9, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/geosciences9050230

Keywords

gas transfer velocity; low wind speed; carbon dioxide; ocean-atmosphere CO2 flux; carbon cycle

Funding

  1. European Research Council (ERC) [GA336408]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Carbon dioxide (CO2) fluxes between the ocean and atmosphere (FCO2) are commonly computed from differences between their partial pressures of CO2 (pCO(2)) and the gas transfer velocity (k). Commonly used wind-based parameterizations for k imply a zero intercept, although in situ field data below 4 m s(-1) are scarce. Considering a global average wind speed over the ocean of 6.6 m s(-1), a nonzero intercept might have a significant impact on global FCO2. Here, we present a database of 245 in situ measurements of k obtained with the floating chamber technique (Sniffle), 190 of which have wind speeds lower than 4 m s(-1). A quadratic parameterization with wind speed and a nonzero intercept resulted in the best fit for k. We further tested FCO2 calculated with a different parameterization with a complementary pCO(2) observation-based product. Furthermore, we ran a simulation in a well-tested ocean model of intermediate complexity to test the implications of different gas transfer velocity parameterizations for the natural carbon cycle. The global ocean observation-based analysis suggests that ignoring a nonzero intercept results in an ocean-sink increase of 0.73 Gt C yr(-1). This corresponds to a 28% higher uptake of CO2 compared with the flux calculated from a parameterization with a nonzero intercept. The differences in FCO2 were higher in the case of low wind conditions and large pCO(2) between the ocean and atmosphere. Such conditions occur frequently in the Tropics.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available