4.1 Article Proceedings Paper

North American influence on atmospheric carbon dioxide data collected at Sable Island, Canada

期刊

出版社

BLACKWELL MUNKSGAARD
DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0889.2003.00051.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Continuous and flask measurements of atmospheric CO2 taken at Sable Island from August 1992 to April 1993 are presented and characterised as a function of air mass origin. The atmospheric environment over Sable Island (43degrees56'N, 60degrees01'W) is continuously influenced by the complex meteorology of synoptic systems moving off North America. This makes the interpretation of the Sable Island CO2 data difficult. However, trajectory analysis shows distinct quantitative differences between the statistics of CO2 measurements associated with air masses from North America (regions of high anthropogenic and terrestrial biospheric fluxes associated with much of the United States and the southern half of Canada) and of those associated with air masses from the Arctic/North Atlantic (regions of few terrestrial fluxes and oceans associated with the northern half of Canada and the Atlantic Ocean). When the continuous CO2 data are segregated into these two trajectory sectors for the period of observation, air masses originating in the North American sector show a higher CO2, mixing ratio by similar to2 ppm in winter and lower by similar to3 ppm in summer, compared to air masses arriving from the other sector. Furthermore, the continuous Sable Island CO2 measurements show a detectable monthly mean (August/September) diurnal cycle with an amplitude of similar to2 ppm, with a minimum occurring on average around noon local time. Given the timing of the observed diurnal minimum and the lack of vegetation on the island, this indicates that the diurnal pattern observed at Sable Island is a diffused remnant of diurnal cycles transported from the main North American continent. These characteristic details are not captured by the discrete flask sampling program on the island.

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

4.1
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