SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “ocean monitoring”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

147 records · Page 9

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2022

Assessing the Potential Impact of River Chemistry on Arctic Coastal Production

The Arctic coastal margin receives a disproportionately large fraction of the global river discharge. The bio-geochemistry of the river water as it empties into the marine environment reflects inputs and processes that occur as the water travels from its headwaters. Climate-induced changes to Arctic vegetation and permafrost melt may impact river chemistry. Understanding the impact of river nutrients on coastal marine production, and how this may change in the future, are important for resource managers and community members who monitor and rely on coastal food resources. Using the Energy Exascale Earth System Model we explore the impact of timing and river nutrient concentrations on primary production in each coastal Arctic region and then assess how this influences secondary production and particle fluxes supporting the benthic food web. Our results indicate that while the concentration of Arctic river nitrogen can have a significant impact on annual average nitrogen and primary production in the coastal Arctic, with production increases of up to 20% in the river influenced interior Seas, the timing of the river nutrient inputs into the marine environment appears less important. Bloom timing and partitioning between small and large phytoplankton were minimally impacted by both river nutrient concentration and timing, suggesting that in general, coastal Arctic ecosystem dynamics will continue to be primarily driven by light availability, rather than nutrients. Under a doubling river nutrient scenario, the percentage increase in the POC flux to the benthos on river influenced Arctic coastal shelves was 2-4 times the percentage increase in primary production, suggesting changes to the river nutrient concentration has the potential to modify the Arctic food web structure and dynamics. Generally, the nutrient-induced changes to primary production were smaller than changes previously simulated in response to ice reduction and temperature increase. However, in the Laptev Sea, the production increase resulting from a doubling of river nutrients exceeded the production increase simulated with an atmospheric warming scenario. Dissolved organic carbon is presently poorly represented in the model so its impact on production is hard to simulate. Applying established relationships between modeled DOC, total DOC, and light absorption we illustrate that DOC could play a very important role in modulating production. Our findings highlight the importance of developing more realistic river nutrient and discharge forcing for Earth System Models such that their impact on the critical Arctic coastal domain can be more adequately resolved.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2021

Combined Mesonet and Tracker

Title: Combined Mesonet and Trackers (UNL Mobile Mesonets) Authors University of Nebraska PI: Adam Houston, UNL Professor (ahouston2@unl.edu) Mailing Address: 126 Bessey Hall P.O. Box 880340 Lincoln, NE 68588-0340 CoMeT Overview The University of Nebraska-Lincoln operates three Combined Mesonet and Tracker (CoMeTs). CoMeTs are Ford Explorers (model years 2015, 2017, and 2019) with forward-mounted suites of meteorological sensors and dual moonroofs, combining the capability of a mobile mesonet to collect near-surface observations with the capability of an unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) tracker vehicle, which enables an observer in the second row of seats to see the aircraft and maintain compliance with Federal Aviation Administration policies on UAS operation. The CoMeTs collect observations of slow temperature and humidity at ~2 m above ground level (AGL) using a Vaisala HMP155A, fast temperature at ~2 m AGL using a Campbell Scientific 109SS-L thermistor, pressure at ~2.5 m AGL using a Vaisala PTB210, wind speed and direction at ~3.25 m AGL using an R.M. Young 05103 propeller anemometer, and vehicle heading using a KVH Industries C-100 fluxgate compass (Barbieri et al. 2019). The HMP155A and 109SS-L thermistor are shielded and aspirated within a U-tube (Waugh and Frederickson 2010; Houston et al. 2016). This list of sensors is also included in the CoMeT data file metadata. Manufacturer specifications for these instruments are given in Table 1 of Hanft and Houston (2018). The reported measured quantities are summarized below.CoMeT-3 was funded through an equipment allocation included in the NSF TORUS award (AGS-1824649). Instrument Description The specific sensors included on each CoMeT are summarized in the table at the end of this section. In general each CoMeT collects observations of slow temperature and humidity at ~2 m above ground level (AGL) using a Vaisala HMP155, fast temperature at ~2 m AGL using a Campbell Scientific 109SS-L thermistor, pressure at ~2.5 m AGL using a Vaisala PTB210 barometer with a Gill pressure port, wind speed and direction at ~3.25 m AGL using an R.M. Young 05103 propeller anemometer, position using a Garmin 19x HVS receiver, and vehicle heading using a KVH Industries C-100 fluxgate compass. The HMP155 and 109SS are shielded and aspirated within a U-tube (Waugh and Frederickson 2010; Houston et al. 2016). Fast temperature and corrected RH measurements (using sensors housed within the U-tube) have a time constant of 10-12 s based on data collected across a temperature and RH shock during the CLOUD-MAP 2017 calibration/validation tests on June 26, 2017. Vehicle speed was < 10 kts for this test. CoMeT-1 CoMeT-2 CoMeT-3 Slow Temperature Slow RH Vaisala HMP155A-L20-PT Part #: 22280-7 Vaisala HMP155E Part #: E1AA11A0B1A1A0A Vaisala HMP155E Part #: E1AA11A0B1A1A0A Fast temperature Campbell Scientific 109SS-L20-PT Part #: 21448-3 Campbell Scientific 109SS-L12-PW Part #: 21448-109 Campbell Scientific 109SS-L12-PW Part #: 21448-150 Pressure Vaisala PTB-210 Part #: A1A1B Gill Pressure Port Part #: 61002 Vaisala PTB-210 Part #: A1A1B Gill Pressure Port Part #: 61002 Vaisala PTB-210 Part #: A1A1B Gill Pressure Port Part #: 61002 Wind RM Young 05103-L20-PT Part #: 18435-310 RM Young 05103-L20-PW Part #: 18435-244 RM Young 05103-L20-PW Part #: 18435-244 GPS Garmin GPS 19x HVS (NMEA 0183) Part #: 010-01010-00 Garmin GPS 19x HVS (NMEA 0183) Part #: 010-01010-00 Garmin GPS 19x HVS (NMEA 0183) Part #: 010-01010-00 Compass KVH C-100 Part #: 01-0177-15 KVH C-100 Part #: 01-0177-15 KVH C-100 Part #: 01-0177-15 Logger Campbell Scientific CR6-NA-XT-SW Part #: 28385-9 Campbell Scientific CR6-WIFI-XT-SW Part #: 28385-6 Campbell Scientific CR6-WIFI-XT-SW Part #: 28385-6 Data Collection and Real-Time Processing The reported measured quantities are summarized in the table below. Quantity Units Source Epoch time Seconds GPS Latitude and longitude Degrees GPS Altitude m GPS Pressure hPa PTB210 Temperature (fast) deg C 109SS-L Temperature (slow) deg C HMP155 RH (slow) % HMP155 Vehicle speed m/s GPS Vehicle heading deg C-100 and GPS In addition to the measured variables, several derived variables are calculated. Corrected/fast relative humidity (%) Relative humidity is adjusted to the fast temperature following Richardson et al. (1998) and Houston et al. (2016). Water vapor mixing ratio (g/kg) Dew point temperature (°C) Potential temperature (Kelvin) Virtual potential temperature (Kelvin) Equivalent potential temperature (Kelvin) Regular intercomparisons between all three CoMeTs were performed during TORUS 2019. Comparisons were also conducted between CoMeT-1 and CoMeT-2 during LAPSE-RATE (2018) on 14 July. In these intercomparisons, the vehicles were parked adjacent to each other aligned perpendicular to (and facing into) the wind. To minimize engine heating effects, intercomparisons were only conducted when the wind speed was >10 kts. Data Format Original data files for each deployment are saved as text files and then converted to NetCDF. NetCDF versions have units that are CF compliant and may not match the original units in the txt files. The naming convention for the NetCDF files is as follows: UNL.CoMeT3.{deployment date YYYYMMDD}.{start time of observation collection in UTC HHMM}.L2.{post-processing codes}.cdf example: UNL.CoMeT3.20190627.1931.L2.g1.f1.cdf Post-processing codes are included to track modifications to the raw data. These codes are closely connected to error flags associated with each record. Each letter corresponds to a particular instrument: g: GPS p: Barometer tf: Fast temperature ts: Slow temperature rh: Relative humidity f: Compass w: Wind monitor a: All instruments Each number corresponds to a particular post-processing action described more below. Measured and derived variables are included in the following table. Variable Heading Standard Name Units time Time seconds since 00:00:00, 01-01-1970 Alt Altitude meters lat Latitude degrees north lon Longitude degrees east fast_temp Air Temperature kelvin slow_temp Air Temperature kelvin pressure Air Pressure pascals logger_RH Relative Humidity percent calc_corr_RH Relative Humidity percent wind_speed Wind Speed meters per second wind_dir Wind From Direction degrees vehicle_dir Vehicle Direction degrees dewpoint Dew Point Temperature kelvin mixing_ratio Humidity Mixing Ratio g/g theta Air Potential Temperature kelvin theta_v Virtual Potential Temperature kelvin theta_e Equivalent Potential Temperature Kelvin error_flag The error_flag variable is a string that matches the post-processing codes listed above. All instruments will have an associated code, but will have a “0” if the datum is unchanged from the initial processed value. Error Codes The following table summarizes the error codes for data collected before 2020: Error Code Relevant CoMeT Description g1 1,2,3 Exact correction. GPS position and time reprocessed from raw data g2 1 As far as we can tell this is an exact correction to an error in the GPS time. During the correct time periods the time suddenly went backwards ~250s and stayed at this offset for 750s when it corrected itself. The offset was applied to the “time warp” period. p1 2 Approximate correction. Hole in the pressure tube connecting the pressure port to the barometer. Resulted in erroneously low air pressure measurements when the vehicle was in motion. Derived variables recalculated (dew point temperature [e depends on qv and p], water vapor mixing ratio, potential temperature, virtual potential temperature, equivalent potential temperature) a1 3 Exact correction. Missing data reprocessed from raw data a2 1 Bug fix to bias correction for ts1, ts2, and rh1: water vapor mixing ratio was off by a factor of 10 and virtual potential temperature was wrong because of this. f1 3 No correction, missing data. Fluxgate compass inoperable. Wind speed and direction calculated using GPS-derived vehicle heading instead. rh1 1 Approximate correction. Constant bias of +1.7% removed from relative humidity. Derived variables recalculated (corrected/fast relative humidity, dew point temperature, water vapor mixing ratio, virtual potential temperature, equivalent potential temperature) ts1 1 Approximate correction. Constant bias of +0.6 K removed from slow temperature. Derived variables recalculated (corrected/fast relative humidity, dew point temperature, water vapor mixing ratio, virtual potential temperature, equivalent potential temperature) ts2 1 Approximate correction. Constant bias of +1.0 K removed. Derived variables recalculated (corrected/fast relative humidity, dew point temperature, water vapor mixing ratio, virtual potential temperature, equivalent potential temperature) References Bolton, D., 1980: The Computation of Equivalent Potential Temperature. Mon. Wea. Rev., 108, 1046–1053, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1980)108<1046:TCOEPT>2.0.CO;2. Hanft, W., and A. L. Houston, 2018: An Observational and Modeling Study of Mesoscale Air Masses with High Theta-E. Mon. Wea. Rev., 146, 2503–2524, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-17-0389.1.Wexler Houston, A. L., R. J. Laurence III, T. W. Nichols, S. Waugh, B. Argrow, and C. L. Ziegler, 2016: Intercomparison of unmanned aircraft-borne and mobile mesonet atmospheric sensors. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology. 33, 1569-1582, doi: 10.1175/JTECH-D-15-0178.1. Lowe, P. R., 1977: An Approximating Polynomial for the Computation of Saturation Vapor Pressure. J. Applied Meteorology, 16, 100–103. Richardson, S. J., S. E. Frederickson, F. V. Brock, and J. A. Brotzge, 1998: Combination temperature and relative humidity probes: Avoiding large air temperature errors and associated relative humidity errors. Preprints, 10th Symp. On Meteorological Observations and Instrumentation, Phoenix, AZ, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 278–283. Waugh, S., and S. E. Frederickson, 2010: An improved aspirated temperature system for mobile meteorological observations, especially in severe weather. 25th Conf. on Severe Local Storms, Denver, CO, Amer. Meteor. Soc., P5.2. [Available online at https://ams.confex.com/ams/25SLS/techprogram/paper_176205.htm.]

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2023

CCN data from TAMU TRACER campaign in the Houston TX region from July to September 2022

During TRACER, the Texas A&M Rapid Onsite Atmospheric Measurements Van (ROAM-V) was deployed to capture airmasses behind (maritime) and ahead (continental) of the passage of the sea-breeze front through Houston. On select sampling days, ROAM-V sampled in the morning/mid-day on the coast and then transited to a second inland site for the afternoon/evening. The suite of instruments deployed on ROAM-V included a Condensation Particle Counter (CPC; GRIMM Model 5.403 CPC), Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS; TSI 3750 detector, TSI 3082 classifier, TSI 3088 neutralizer, TSI 3081A Differential Mobility Analyzer), Cloud Condensation Nuclei counter (Droplet Measurement Technologies CCN Counter), micro pulse lidar (Droplet Measurement Technologies Micro Pulse LiDAR (miniMPL)), and a Davis Rotating Uniform size-cut Monitor (DRUM; DRUMAir 4-DRUM). Before sampling at each location, the latitude and longitude were recorded using the GPS on the phone application “My Altitude”. Onboard the ROAM-V, aerosol samples are drawn through a shared isokinetic inlet at a flow rate ranging from 3.5 to 7.0 LPM. A portion of this flow is directed through a cyclone impactor (Brechtel, Inc. Model SCC 0.732) and 0.5 LPM is directed to the CCN. To calculate particle losses, we used a two-step method. First, the measured SMPS size distributions were used to calculate particle loss through the inlet during sampling. Second, the corrected SMPS data was used to calculate the average of the total losses per scan down the CCN line. Then, the correction was applied to the CCN data. This calculation was done separately for each deployment location due to changes in the measured size distributions between locations. Particle loss from diffusion (based on Kesten, 1991 and Gormley, 1949), inertial impaction in 90-degree bends (based on Aerosol Measurement, 2011 and Crane, 1977), and cyclone impactor efficiency (based on Dirgo, 1985) were included in the loss calculation. When the SMPS was not sampling at a location (in the case of an instrument malfunction or operator error), the reported CPC data was corrected with an average of the total losses for the entire campaign at the specified deployment location (e.g., if we needed to correct Galveston data, then the average of all calculated losses at Galveston was taken). These flatline corrections were used for all data on 22/07/13, 22/07/20, 22/07/22, and the data from Galveston on 22/08/09. The supersaturation uncertainty is estimated conservatively at +/- 0.03%, where variation in the inlet temperature, pressure, and calibration technique prevents a more accurate measurement. Confidence in the reported supersaturation measurements is based on a pre-campaign calibration (following the methods from our previous work and Deng, 2014 based on Rose, 2008) in addition to inter-comparisons with the DOE for two days (22/08/18 and 22/09/01) where TAMU was co-located with AMF1. The inter-comparisons show good agreement between our instrument and the DOEs instrument on both days at all supersaturations. After the last inter-comparison on 22/09/01, there was no indication of a malfunction by our instrument through the rest of the campaign. Unfortunately, the instrument was dropped during demobilization. A post-campaign calibration was conducted, which showed a substantial departure from the pre-campaign calibration. The drop may have damaged the instrument’s ability to produce the desired supersaturations. Therefore, we do consider the data after 22/09/01 to be correct, but it should be used with caution. The CCN counter sampled for 3 minutes at each supersaturation setpoint (0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, and 1.2%). At the end of a cycle, the instrument was set to 0.01% supersaturation for 5 minutes. The data is comprised of the last 60 seconds of each supersaturation set point (0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, and 1.2%) to ensure the instrument stabilized and was able to reach thermal equilibrium. We removed the data during the periods where there were operational difficulties, setup, or maintenance. This data was collected for ARM Field Campaign AFC07055 and supported by DOE ASR grant DE-SC0021047. For any further questions, please feel free to contact the instrument PI, Sarah D. Brooks, sbrooks@tamu.edu. Rose et. al. Calibration and Measurement Uncertainties of a Continuous-Flow Cloud Condensation Nuclei Counter (DMT-CCNC): CCN Activation of Ammonium Sulfate and Sodium Chloride Aerosol Particles in Theory and Experiment. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 8, 1153-1179, 2008. Deng et. al. Using Raman Microspectroscopy to Determine Chemical Composition and Mixing State of Airborne Marine Aerosols over the Pacific Ocean. Aerosol Science and Technology, Vol 48, Issue 2, 2014. Kesten et. al. Calibration of a TSI Model 3025 Ultrafine Condensation Particle Counter. Aerosol Science and Technology, 15:2, 107-111, 1991. Gormley et. al. Diffusion from a Stream Flowing through a Cylindrical Tube. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Vol 52, 163-169, 1948. Aerosol Measurement: Principles, Techniques, and Applications, Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2011. Crane et. al. Inertial Deposition of Particles in a Bent Pipe. Journal of Aerosol Science, Vol 8, 161-170, 1977. Dirgo et. al. Cyclone Collection Efficiency: Comparison of Experimental Results with Theoretical Predictions. Aerosol Science and Technology, 4:4, 401-415, 1985.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗