ALBERT

All Library Books, journals and Electronic Records Telegrafenberg

feed icon rss

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
Filter
  • Other Sources  (6)
  • Copernicus Publications (EGU)  (6)
  • 1
    Publication Date: 2020-02-06
    Description: Oxygen optode measurements on floats and gliders suffer from a slow time response and various sources of drift in the calibration coefficients. Based on two dual-O2 Argo floats, we show how to post-correct for the effect of the optode's time response and give an update on optode in situ drift stability and in-air calibration. Both floats are equipped with an unpumped Aanderaa 4330 optode and a pumped Sea-Bird SBE63 optode. Response times for the pumped SBE63 were derived following Bittig et al. (2014) and the same methods were used to correct the time response bias. Using both optodes on each float, the time response regime of the unpumped Aanderaa optode was characterized more accurately than previously possible. Response times for the pumped SBE63 on profiling floats are in the range of 25–40 s, while they are between 60 and 95 s for the unpumped 4330 optode. Our parameterization can be employed to post-correct the slow optode time response on floats and gliders. After correction, both sensors agree to within 2–3 µmol kg−1 (median difference) in the strongest gradients (120 µmol kg−1 change over 8 min or 20 dbar) and better elsewhere. However, time response correction is only possible if measurement times are known, i.e., provided by the platform as well as transmitted and stored with the data. The O2 in-air measurements show a significant in situ optode drift of −0.40 and −0.27 % yr−1 over the available 2 and 3 years of deployment, respectively. Optode in-air measurements are systematically biased high during midday surfacings compared to dusk, dawn, and nighttime. While preference can be given to nighttime surfacings to avoid this in-air calibration bias, we suggest a parameterization of the daytime effect as a function of the Sun's elevation to be able to use all data and to better constrain the result. Taking all effects into account, calibration factors have an uncertainty of 0.1 %. In addition, in-air calibration factors vary by 0.1–0.2 % when using different reanalysis models as a reference. The overall accuracy that can be achieved following the proposed correction routines is better than 1 µmol kg−1.
    Type: Article , PeerReviewed , info:eu-repo/semantics/article
    Format: text
    Format: archive
    Location Call Number Expected Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    Publication Date: 2023-02-08
    Description: The Global Ocean Data Analysis Project (GLODAP) is a synthesis effort providing regular compilations of surface-to-bottom ocean biogeochemical data, with an emphasis on seawater inorganic carbon chemistry and related variables determined through chemical analysis of seawater samples. GLODAPv2.2020 is an update of the previous version, GLODAPv2.2019. The major changes are data from 106 new cruises added, extension of time coverage to 2019, and the inclusion of available (also for historical cruises) discrete fugacity of CO2 (fCO2) values in the merged product files. GLODAPv2.2020 now includes measurements from more than 1.2 million water samples from the global oceans collected on 946 cruises. The data for the 12 GLODAP core variables (salinity, oxygen, nitrate, silicate, phosphate, dissolved inorganic carbon, total alkalinity, pH, CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, and CCl4) have undergone extensive quality control with a focus on systematic evaluation of bias. The data are available in two formats: (i) as submitted by the data originator but updated to WOCE exchange format and (ii) as a merged data product with adjustments applied to minimize bias. These adjustments were derived by comparing the data from the 106 new cruises with the data from the 840 quality-controlled cruises of the GLODAPv2.2019 data product using crossover analysis. Comparisons to empirical algorithm estimates provided additional context for adjustment decisions; this is new to this version. The adjustments are intended to remove potential biases from errors related to measurement, calibration, and data-handling practices without removing known or likely time trends or variations in the variables evaluated. The compiled and adjusted data product is believed to be consistent to better than 0.005 in salinity, 1 % in oxygen, 2 % in nitrate, 2 % in silicate, 2 % in phosphate, 4 µmol kg−1 in dissolved inorganic carbon, 4 µmol kg−1 in total alkalinity, 0.01–0.02 in pH (depending on region), and 5 % in the halogenated transient tracers. The other variables included in the compilation, such as isotopic tracers and discrete fCO2, were not subjected to bias comparison or adjustments.
    Type: Article , PeerReviewed
    Format: text
    Location Call Number Expected Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    Publication Date: 2023-02-08
    Description: Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere in a changing climate – the “global carbon budget” – is important to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe and synthesize data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO2 emissions (EFOS) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land-use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land-use change data and bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and its growth rate (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) and terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) are estimated with global process models constrained by observations. The resulting carbon budget imbalance (BIM), the difference between the estimated total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is a measure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the last decade available (2010–2019), EFOS was 9.6 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 excluding the cement carbonation sink (9.4 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 when the cement carbonation sink is included), and ELUC was 1.6 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1. For the same decade, GATM was 5.1 ± 0.02 GtC yr−1 (2.4 ± 0.01 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN 2.5 ±  0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND 3.4 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1, with a budget imbalance BIM of −0.1 GtC yr−1 indicating a near balance between estimated sources and sinks over the last decade. For the year 2019 alone, the growth in EFOS was only about 0.1 % with fossil emissions increasing to 9.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 excluding the cement carbonation sink (9.7 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 when cement carbonation sink is included), and ELUC was 1.8 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1, for total anthropogenic CO2 emissions of 11.5 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1 (42.2 ± 3.3 GtCO2). Also for 2019, GATM was 5.4 ± 0.2 GtC yr−1 (2.5 ± 0.1 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN was 2.6 ± 0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 3.1 ± 1.2 GtC yr−1, with a BIM of 0.3 GtC. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 409.85 ± 0.1 ppm averaged over 2019. Preliminary data for 2020, accounting for the COVID-19-induced changes in emissions, suggest a decrease in EFOS relative to 2019 of about −7 % (median estimate) based on individual estimates from four studies of −6 %, −7 %, −7 % (−3 % to −11 %), and −13 %. Overall, the mean and trend in the components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2019, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr−1 persist for the representation of semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. Comparison of estimates from diverse approaches and observations shows (1) no consensus in the mean and trend in land-use change emissions over the last decade, (2) a persistent low agreement between the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) an apparent discrepancy between the different methods for the ocean sink outside the tropics, particularly in the Southern Ocean. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new global carbon budget and the progress in understanding of the global carbon cycle compared with previous publications of this data set (Friedlingstein et al., 2019; Le Quéré et al., 2018b, a, 2016, 2015b, a, 2014, 2013). The data presented in this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/gcp-2020 (Friedlingstein et al., 2020).
    Type: Article , PeerReviewed
    Format: text
    Format: archive
    Location Call Number Expected Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 4
    Publication Date: 2024-02-07
    Description: The Global Ocean Data Analysis Project (GLODAP) is a synthesis effort providing regular compilations of surface-To-bottom ocean biogeochemical bottle data, with an emphasis on seawater inorganic carbon chemistry and related variables determined through chemical analysis of seawater samples. GLODAPv2.2021 is an update of the previous version, GLODAPv2.2020 (Olsen et al., 2020). The major changes are as follows: data from 43 new cruises were added, data coverage was extended until 2020, all data with missing temperatures were removed, and a digital object identifier (DOI) was included for each cruise in the product files. In addition, a number of minor corrections to GLODAPv2.2020 data were performed. GLODAPv2.2021 includes measurements from more than 1.3 million water samples from the global oceans collected on 989 cruises. The data for the 12 GLODAP core variables (salinity, oxygen, nitrate, silicate, phosphate, dissolved inorganic carbon, total alkalinity, pH, CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, and CCl4) have undergone extensive quality control with a focus on systematic evaluation of bias. The data are available in two formats: (i) as submitted by the data originator but updated to World Ocean Circulation Experiment (WOCE) exchange format and (ii) as a merged data product with adjustments applied to minimize bias. For this annual update, adjustments for the 43 new cruises were derived by comparing those data with the data from the 946 quality controlled cruises in the GLODAPv2.2020 data product using crossover analysis. Comparisons to estimates of nutrients and ocean CO2 chemistry based on empirical algorithms provided additional context for adjustment decisions in this version. The adjustments are intended to remove potential biases from errors related to measurement, calibration, and data handling practices without removing known or likely time trends or variations in the variables evaluated. The compiled and adjusted data product is believed to be consistent with to better than 0.005 in salinity, 1ĝ€¯% in oxygen, 2ĝ€¯% in nitrate, 2ĝ€¯% in silicate, 2ĝ€¯% in phosphate, 4ĝ€¯μmolkg-1 in dissolved inorganic carbon, 4ĝ€¯μmolkg-1 in total alkalinity, 0.01-0.02 in pH (depending on region), and 5ĝ€¯% in the halogenated transient tracers. The other variables included in the compilation, such as isotopic tracers and discrete CO2 fugacity (fCO2), were not subjected to bias comparison or adjustments. The original data, their documentation, and DOI codes are available at the Ocean Carbon Data System of NOAA NCEI (https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/ocean-carbon-data-system/oceans/GLODAPv2_2021/, last access: 7 July 2021). This site also provides access to the merged data product, which is provided as a single global file and as four regional ones-the Arctic, Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific oceans-under 10.25921/ttgq-n825 (Lauvset et al., 2021). These bias-Adjusted product files also include significant ancillary and approximated data and can be accessed via https://www.glodap.info (last access: 29 June 2021). These were obtained by interpolation of, or calculation from, measured data. This living data update documents the GLODAPv2.2021 methods and provides a broad overview of the secondary quality control procedures and results.
    Type: Article , PeerReviewed , info:eu-repo/semantics/article
    Format: text
    Format: text
    Location Call Number Expected Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 5
    Publication Date: 2024-02-07
    Type: Article , PeerReviewed , info:eu-repo/semantics/article
    Format: text
    Location Call Number Expected Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 6
    Publication Date: 2024-04-17
    Description: Since a pH sensor has become available that is principally suitable for use on demanding autonomous measurement platforms, the marine CO2 system can be observed independently and continuously by Biogeochemical Argo floats. This opens the potential to detect variability and long-term changes in interior ocean inorganic carbon storage and quantify the ocean sink for atmospheric CO2. In combination with a second parameter of the marine CO2 system, pH can be a useful tool to derive the surface ocean CO2 partial pressure (pCO2). The large spatiotemporal variability in the marine CO2 system requires sustained observations to decipher trends and study the impacts of short-term events (e.g., eddies, storms, phytoplankton blooms) but also puts a high emphasis on the quality control of float-based pH measurements. In consequence, a consistent and rigorous quality control procedure is being established to correct sensor offsets or drifts as the interpretation of changes depends on accurate data. By applying current standardized routines of the Argo data management to pH measurements from a pH / O2 float pilot array in the subpolar North Atlantic Ocean, we assess the uncertainties and lack of objective criteria associated with the standardized routines, notably the choice of the reference method for the pH correction (CANYON-B, LIR-pH, ESPER-NN, and ESPER-LIR) and the reference depth for this adjustment. For the studied float array, significant differences ranging between ca. 0.003 pH units and ca. 0.04 pH units are observed between the four reference methods which have been proposed to correct float pH data. Through comparison against discrete and underway pH data from other platforms, an assessment of the adjusted float pH data quality is presented. The results point out noticeable discrepancies near the surface of 〉 0.004 pH units. In the context of converting surface ocean pH measurements into pCO2 data for the purpose of deriving air–sea CO2 fluxes, we conclude that an accuracy requirement of 0.01 pH units (equivalent to a pCO2 accuracy of 10 µatm as a minimum requirement for potential future inclusion in the Surface Ocean CO2 Atlas, SOCAT, database) is not systematically achieved in the upper ocean. While the limited dataset and regional focus of our study do not allow for firm conclusions, the evidence presented still calls for the inclusion of an additional independent pH reference in the surface ocean in the quality control routines. We therefore propose a way forward to enhance the float pH quality control procedure. In our analysis, the current philosophy of pH data correction against climatological reference data at one single depth in the deep ocean appears insufficient to assure adequate data quality in the surface ocean. Ideally, an additional reference point should be taken at or near the surface where the resulting pCO2 data are of the highest importance to monitor the air–sea exchange of CO2 and would have the potential to very significantly augment the impact of the current observation network.
    Type: Article , PeerReviewed , info:eu-repo/semantics/article
    Format: text
    Location Call Number Expected Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...