MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4221078800 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu22-7473

Parameterising CO2 air-sea gas transfer with wave breaking energy dissipation rate, sea state, and wind speed

2022· preprint· en· W4221078800 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andrew Smith, Adrian H. Callaghan, Jean‐Raymond Bidlot

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmpereChemistryInternal medicineEndocrinologyPhysicsBiologyThermodynamicsCurrent (fluid)Medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Air-sea gas exchange has up-scale ramifications for global climate and ocean biogeochemistry that are of paramount relevance. Gas transfer velocity (k) measurements or appropriate parameterizations for them are required to quantify the fluxes and budgets of the important trace gases (e.g., CO2, DMS, and CH4). Where gas flux and concentration gradients are not explicitly measured, k is subdivided into diffusive and bubble-mediated components – each parameterized. Although diffusive transfer velocity, ks , has been well-described by power-law relationships involving the Schmidt number Sc, large variability exists in parameterizations for bubble-mediated gas transfer velocity, kb. Since kb is driven primarily by entrainment of gases through wave breaking, the uncertainty is acutely problematic at high winds where gas flux measurements are scarce. To address the paucity of such data, the High Wind Gas Exchange Study (HiWinGS) directly calculated gas transfer velocity of CO2 (kCO2) from flux and concentration gradient measurements taken in the Labrador Sea from October 9 – November 13, 2013, where 10-meter neutral wind speeds ranged between 1.8 – 25.2 m s-1. We use these data to validate a novel gas transfer velocity parameterization constructed using output from a wave hindcast obtained with the spectral wave model (ecWAM) forced with the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) 5th Generation Reanalysis (ERA5). Our parameterisation combines a diffusive term based on wind speed and Sc, and a bubble-mediated term based on gas solubility, wave age, and wave breaking energy dissipation rate to capture gas transfer velocity. We compare our results to common wind-speed-only parameterisations and more recent sea-state based relationships.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes→French-language works237,207→