the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Expanding seawater carbon dioxide and methane measuring capabilities with a Seaglider
Abstract. Warming, ocean acidification, and deoxygenation are increasingly putting pressure on marine ecosystems. At the same time, thawing permafrost and decomposing hydrates in Arctic shelf seas may release large amounts of methane (CH4) into the water column, which could accelerate local ocean acidification and contribute to climate change. The key parameters to observing and understanding these complex processes and feedback mechanisms are vastly undersampled throughout the oceans. We developed carbon dioxide (CO2) and CH4 gliders, including standard operational procedures with the goal that CO2 and CH4 measurements become more common for glider operations. The Seagliders with integrated Contros HydroC CO2 or CH4 sensors also include conductivity, temperature, depth, oxygen, chlorophyll-a, backscatter, and fluorescent dissolved organic matter sensors. Communication via satellite allows for near-real time data transmission, sensor adjustments, and adaptive sampling. Several sea trials with the CO2 Seaglider in the Gulf of Alaska and data evaluation with discrete water and underway samples suggest near ‘weather quality’ CO2 data as defined by the Global Ocean Acidification Network. A winter mission in Resurrection Bay, Alaska provides first insights into the water column inorganic carbon dynamics during this otherwise undersampled season. The CH4 Seaglider passed its flight trials in Resurrection Bay and is ready to be deployed in an area with greater CH4 activity. Both sensing systems are available to the science community through the industry partners (Advanced Offshore Operations and -4H-JENA) of this project.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(12543 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(12543 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1055', Dariia Atamanchuk, 08 May 2024
The manuscript by Hauri et al. details the integration of CO2 and CH4 sensors into the Seaglider and its performance during trials and rigorous data quality assessment. This work is an important contribution to the community effort to increase the number and type of observations in the global ocean, with a particular focus on the water column biogeochemistry and GHG fluxes.
The biggest obstacles to high-resolution carbonate system data from mobile platforms to date are the size, power consumption, and slow response time of the gas sensors. While pCO2 sensors have a relatively slow response, it is still possible to correct the glider-borne data to get decent quality, as nicely shown in this work. Please see my comment on Figure 8, though. As for the methane sensor, I've been wondering whether glider deployments are the best avenue for getting water-column data. The very slow response time of the CH4 sensor doesn't allow for full advantage of the glider-specific capabilities and allows for getting qualitative results, at best. In this respect, ROV-based surveillance or moored platforms would perhaps be a better and more economical option for methane monitoring. It all, of course, depends on the research objectives: qualitative vs quantitative assessment of CH4 distributions. The combined CH4/CO2 sensor is a great idea, too, but given the difference in response times, it will be hard to take full advantage of such a package on gliders. Perhaps an additional discussion on the complexity of the problem of ocean observing - there is no 'one size (sensor) fits all' approach when talking about autonomous sampling, sensors and platforms - would help to orient the readers in the field and help them appreciate the presented work even more.
Competing interests. Clearly declare the potential of a direct financial benefit to the co-authors affiliated with the private companies. That's what this section is for.
Some minor comments are attached.
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Claudine Hauri, 14 Jun 2024
Dear Dariia,
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and for your thoughtful comments. We thoroughly considered your comments and are planning on making the changes as listed in bold in the attached document. We are still working on the final version of the manuscript to make sure that all new edits will fit in the corresponding sections.
Thank you again,
Claudine and co-authors
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Claudine Hauri, 14 Jun 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1055', Damian Leonardo Arévalo-Martínez, 15 May 2024
Please see my comments in the attached document.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Claudine Hauri, 14 Jun 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1055/egusphere-2024-1055-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Claudine Hauri, 14 Jun 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1055/egusphere-2024-1055-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Claudine Hauri, 14 Jun 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1055', Dariia Atamanchuk, 08 May 2024
The manuscript by Hauri et al. details the integration of CO2 and CH4 sensors into the Seaglider and its performance during trials and rigorous data quality assessment. This work is an important contribution to the community effort to increase the number and type of observations in the global ocean, with a particular focus on the water column biogeochemistry and GHG fluxes.
The biggest obstacles to high-resolution carbonate system data from mobile platforms to date are the size, power consumption, and slow response time of the gas sensors. While pCO2 sensors have a relatively slow response, it is still possible to correct the glider-borne data to get decent quality, as nicely shown in this work. Please see my comment on Figure 8, though. As for the methane sensor, I've been wondering whether glider deployments are the best avenue for getting water-column data. The very slow response time of the CH4 sensor doesn't allow for full advantage of the glider-specific capabilities and allows for getting qualitative results, at best. In this respect, ROV-based surveillance or moored platforms would perhaps be a better and more economical option for methane monitoring. It all, of course, depends on the research objectives: qualitative vs quantitative assessment of CH4 distributions. The combined CH4/CO2 sensor is a great idea, too, but given the difference in response times, it will be hard to take full advantage of such a package on gliders. Perhaps an additional discussion on the complexity of the problem of ocean observing - there is no 'one size (sensor) fits all' approach when talking about autonomous sampling, sensors and platforms - would help to orient the readers in the field and help them appreciate the presented work even more.
Competing interests. Clearly declare the potential of a direct financial benefit to the co-authors affiliated with the private companies. That's what this section is for.
Some minor comments are attached.
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Claudine Hauri, 14 Jun 2024
Dear Dariia,
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and for your thoughtful comments. We thoroughly considered your comments and are planning on making the changes as listed in bold in the attached document. We are still working on the final version of the manuscript to make sure that all new edits will fit in the corresponding sections.
Thank you again,
Claudine and co-authors
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Claudine Hauri, 14 Jun 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1055', Damian Leonardo Arévalo-Martínez, 15 May 2024
Please see my comments in the attached document.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Claudine Hauri, 14 Jun 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1055/egusphere-2024-1055-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Claudine Hauri, 14 Jun 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1055/egusphere-2024-1055-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Claudine Hauri, 14 Jun 2024
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
430 | 126 | 37 | 593 | 33 | 29 |
- HTML: 430
- PDF: 126
- XML: 37
- Total: 593
- BibTeX: 33
- EndNote: 29
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Discussed
Brita Irving
Dan Hayes
Ehsan Abdi
Jöran Kemme
Nadja Kinski
Andrew Michael Paul McDonnell
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(12543 KB) - Metadata XML