Air-sea fluxes of CO2 and CH4 from the Penlee Point Atmospheric Observatory on the south-west coast of the UK

We present air–sea fluxes of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), momentum, and sensible heat measured by the eddy covariance method from the recently established Penlee Point Atmospheric Observatory (PPAO) on the south-west coast of the United Kingdom. Measurements from the south-westerly direction (open water sector) were made at three different sampling heights (approximately 15, 18, and 27m above mean sea level, a.m.s.l.), each from a different period during 2014–2015. At sampling heights ≥18ma.m.s.l., measured fluxes of momentum and sensible heat demonstrate reasonable (≤ ±20% in the mean) agreement with transfer rates over the open ocean. This confirms the suitability of PPAO for air–sea exchange measurements in shelf regions. Covariance air–sea CO2 fluxes demonstrate high temporal variability. Air-to-sea transport of CO2 declined from spring to summer in both years, coinciding with the breakdown of the spring phytoplankton bloom. We report, to the best of our knowledge, the first successful eddy covariance measurements of CH4 emissions from a marine environment. Higher sea-to-air CH4 fluxes were observed during rising tides (20±3; 38±3; 29±6 μmolem-2 d-1 at 15, 18, 27ma.m.s.l.) than during falling tides (14±2; 22±2; 21±5 μmolem-2 d-1), consistent with an elevated CH4 source from an estuarine outflow driven by local tidal circulation. These fluxes are a few times higher than the predicted CH4 emissions over the open ocean and are significantly lower than estimates from other aquatic CH4 hotspots (e.g. polar regions, freshwater). Finally, we found the detection limit of the air–sea CH4 flux by eddy covariance to be 20 μmolem-2 d-1 over hourly timescales (4 μmolem-2 d-1 over 24 h).

Air-sea fluxes of CO2 and CH4 from the Penlee Point Atmospheric Observatory on the south-west coast of the UK

We present air–sea fluxes of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), momentum, and sensible heat measured by the eddy covariance method from the recently established Penlee Point Atmospheric Observatory (PPAO) on the south-west coast of the United Kingdom. Measurements from the south-westerly direction (open water sector) were made at three different sampling heights (approximately 15, 18, and 27m above mean sea level, a.m.s.l.), each from a different period during 2014–2015. At sampling heights ≥18ma.m.s.l., measured fluxes of momentum and sensible heat demonstrate reasonable (≤ ±20% in the mean) agreement with transfer rates over the open ocean. This confirms the suitability of PPAO for air–sea exchange measurements in shelf regions. Covariance air–sea CO2 fluxes demonstrate high temporal variability. Air-to-sea transport of CO2 declined from spring to summer in both years, coinciding with the breakdown of the spring phytoplankton bloom. We report, to the best of our knowledge, the first successful eddy covariance measurements of CH4 emissions from a marine environment. Higher sea-to-air CH4 fluxes were observed during rising tides (20±3; 38±3; 29±6 μmolem-2 d-1 at 15, 18, 27ma.m.s.l.) than during falling tides (14±2; 22±2; 21±5 μmolem-2 d-1), consistent with an elevated CH4 source from an estuarine outflow driven by local tidal circulation. These fluxes are a few times higher than the predicted CH4 emissions over the open ocean and are significantly lower than estimates from other aquatic CH4 hotspots (e.g. polar regions, freshwater). Finally, we found the detection limit of the air–sea CH4 flux by eddy covariance to be 20 μmolem-2 d-1 over hourly timescales (4 μmolem-2 d-1 over 24 h).

An Objective Framework to Test the Quality of Candidate Indicators of Good Environmental Status

Large efforts are on-going within the EU to prepare the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’s (MSFD) assessment of the environmental status of the European seas. This assessment will only be as good as the indicators chosen to monitor the eleven descriptors of good environmental status (GEnS). An objective and transparent framework to determine whether chosen indicators actually support the aims of this policy is, however, not yet in place. Such frameworks are needed to ensure that the limited resources available to this assessment optimize the likelihood of achieving GEnS within collaborating states. Here, we developed a hypothesis-based protocol to evaluate whether candidate indicators meet quality criteria explicit to the MSFD, which the assessment community aspires to. Eight quality criteria are distilled from existing initiatives, and a testing and scoring protocol for each of them is presented. We exemplify its application in three worked examples, covering indicators for three GEnS descriptors (1, 5 and 6), various habitat components (seaweeds, seagrasses, benthic macrofauna and plankton), and assessment regions (Danish, Lithuanian and UK waters). We argue that this framework provides a necessary, transparent and standardized structure to support the comparison of candidate indicators, and the decision-making process leading to indicator selection. Its application could help identify potential limitations in currently available candidate metrics and, in such cases, help focus the development of more adequate indicators. Use of such standardized approaches will facilitate the sharing of knowledge gained across the MSFD parties despite context-specificity across assessment regions, and support the evidence-based management of European seas.

An Objective Framework to Test the Quality of Candidate Indicators of Good Environmental Status

Large efforts are on-going within the EU to prepare the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’s (MSFD) assessment of the environmental status of the European seas. This assessment will only be as good as the indicators chosen to monitor the eleven descriptors of good environmental status (GEnS). An objective and transparent framework to determine whether chosen indicators actually support the aims of this policy is, however, not yet in place. Such frameworks are needed to ensure that the limited resources available to this assessment optimize the likelihood of achieving GEnS within collaborating states. Here, we developed a hypothesis-based protocol to evaluate whether candidate indicators meet quality criteria explicit to the MSFD, which the assessment community aspires to. Eight quality criteria are distilled from existing initiatives, and a testing and scoring protocol for each of them is presented. We exemplify its application in three worked examples, covering indicators for three GEnS descriptors (1, 5 and 6), various habitat components (seaweeds, seagrasses, benthic macrofauna and plankton), and assessment regions (Danish, Lithuanian and UK waters). We argue that this framework provides a necessary, transparent and standardized structure to support the comparison of candidate indicators, and the decision-making process leading to indicator selection. Its application could help identify potential limitations in currently available candidate metrics and, in such cases, help focus the development of more adequate indicators. Use of such standardized approaches will facilitate the sharing of knowledge gained across the MSFD parties despite context-specificity across assessment regions, and support the evidence-based management of European seas.

A reconciliation of empirical and mechanistic models of the air-sea gas transfer velocity

Models of the air-sea transfer velocity of gases may be either empirical or mechanistic. Extrapolations of empirical models to an unmeasured gas or to another water temperature can be erroneous if the basis of that extrapolation is flawed. This issue is readily demonstrated for the most well-known empirical gas transfer velocity models where the influence of bubble-mediated transfer, which can vary between gases, is not explicitly accounted for. Mechanistic models are hindered by an incomplete knowledge of the mechanisms of air-sea gas transfer. We describe a hybrid model that incorporates a simple mechanistic view—strictly enforcing a distinction between direct and bubble-mediated transfer—but also uses parameterizations based on data from eddy flux measurements of dimethyl sulphide (DMS) to calibrate the model together with dual tracer results to evaluate the model. This model underpins simple algorithms that can be easily applied within schemes to calculate local, regional, or global air-sea fluxes of gases.

A reconciliation of empirical and mechanistic models of the air-sea gas transfer velocity

Models of the air-sea transfer velocity of gases may be either empirical or mechanistic. Extrapolations of empirical models to an unmeasured gas or to another water temperature can be erroneous if the basis of that extrapolation is flawed. This issue is readily demonstrated for the most well-known empirical gas transfer velocity models where the influence of bubble-mediated transfer, which can vary between gases, is not explicitly accounted for. Mechanistic models are hindered by an incomplete knowledge of the mechanisms of air-sea gas transfer. We describe a hybrid model that incorporates a simple mechanistic view—strictly enforcing a distinction between direct and bubble-mediated transfer—but also uses parameterizations based on data from eddy flux measurements of dimethyl sulphide (DMS) to calibrate the model together with dual tracer results to evaluate the model. This model underpins simple algorithms that can be easily applied within schemes to calculate local, regional, or global air-sea fluxes of gases.

Big Data Analytics for Earth Sciences: the EarthServer approach

Big Data Analytics is an emerging field since massive storage and computing capabilities have been made available by advanced e-infrastructures. Earth and Environmental sciences are likely to benefit from Big Data Analytics techniques supporting the processing of the large number of Earth Observation datasets currently acquired and generated through observations and simulations. However, Earth Science data and applications present specificities in terms of relevance of the geospatial information, wide heterogeneity of data models and formats, and complexity of processing. Therefore, Big Earth Data Analytics requires specifically tailored techniques and tools. The EarthServer Big Earth Data Analytics engine offers a solution for coverage-type datasets, built around a high performance array database technology, and the adoption and enhancement of standards for service interaction (OGC WCS and WCPS). The EarthServer solution, led by the collection of requirements from scientific communities and international initiatives, provides a holistic approach that ranges from query languages and scalability up to mobile access and visualization. The result is demonstrated and validated through the development of lighthouse applications in the Marine, Geology, Atmospheric, Planetary and Cryospheric science domains.

Big Data Analytics for Earth Sciences: the EarthServer approach

Big Data Analytics is an emerging field since massive storage and computing capabilities have been made available by advanced e-infrastructures. Earth and Environmental sciences are likely to benefit from Big Data Analytics techniques supporting the processing of the large number of Earth Observation datasets currently acquired and generated through observations and simulations. However, Earth Science data and applications present specificities in terms of relevance of the geospatial information, wide heterogeneity of data models and formats, and complexity of processing. Therefore, Big Earth Data Analytics requires specifically tailored techniques and tools. The EarthServer Big Earth Data Analytics engine offers a solution for coverage-type datasets, built around a high performance array database technology, and the adoption and enhancement of standards for service interaction (OGC WCS and WCPS). The EarthServer solution, led by the collection of requirements from scientific communities and international initiatives, provides a holistic approach that ranges from query languages and scalability up to mobile access and visualization. The result is demonstrated and validated through the development of lighthouse applications in the Marine, Geology, Atmospheric, Planetary and Cryospheric science domains.