4.7 Article

Direct covariance air-sea CO2 fluxes

期刊

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-OCEANS
卷 106, 期 C8, 页码 16729-16745

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2000JC000506

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Direct covariance air-sea CO2 flux measurements over the open ocean are reported. These measurements were performed during June 1998 in the North Atlantic within a significant CO2 sink. These direct estimates are in general agreement with the traditional geochemical isotope constraints. The covariance, or eddy correlation, technique directly measures the air-sea CO2 flux over hour timescales by correlating the fluctuations of CO2 with the turbulent vertical velocity fluctuations in the atmospheric surface layer. These measurements quantify the transfer of CO2 between the atmosphere and ocean over a range of wind speeds and improve the understanding of the environmental factors controlling the flux. The relatively large flux of CO2 in the study region, together with improved analytical techniques, facilitated the measurements. The half-hour mean wind speeds varied from 0.9 to 16.3 m s(-1) over the month-long experiment. The mean pCO(2) during the study period was -85.8 +/- 16.0 mu atm, and the mean covariance CO2 flux was estimated at 4.6 mol m(-2) yr(1). The average observed wind speed was 7.7 m s(-1). This is in close agreement with 3.9 mol m(-2) yr(-1), the approximate CO2 flux based on C-14 parameterizations at this wind speed. At high winds, where the relationship between gas physical properties, surface processes, and air-sea gas exchange is still elusive, direct CO2 flux measurements are crucial. The measurements for winds in excess of 11 m s(-1) show a general enhancement of gas transfer velocity over previous indirect measurements, and it is believed that this enhancement can be explained by the fact that the indirect methods cannot discriminate surface process variability such as atmospheric stability, upper ocean mixing, wave age, wave breaking, or surface films.

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