Jacek Piskozub

Institute of Oceanology PAS

Sopot, Poland

Lecture 2:
Marine aerosol source function:
approaching the consensus

Ho Chi Minh City, December 2007

 Jacek Piskozub
Hi Chi Minh City lectures, December 2007

 Ecosystem approach to valuation of marine coasts: examples from

Baltic Sea (authored by J. M. Węsławski)
 Marine aerosol source function: approaching the consensus
 Ocean as the sink and source of climatically important gases
 Air sea interaction in the global scale: from multidecadal variability to
Arctic Oscillation
 Climate change threats, Part I: Changes in the climate of the tropic
 Climate change threats, Part II: Arctic climate and global sea level
Air-Sea Interaction Laboratory, IOPAS, Sopot

Assoc Prof. Jacek Piskozub, D.Sc. - Head of the Laboratory

Dr. Violetta Drozdowska
Dr. Tomasz Petelski
Dr. Tymon Zieliński
M. Sc. Agniesznka Ponczkowska (graduate student)
M. Sc. Magda Dynakowska (graduate student)‫‏‬
Eng. Mirosław Irczuk
Longin Stojek
 Mechanisms of marine aerosol generation

Andreas “A review of sea spray generation function for the open ocean”
 Motivation: How far we are from consensus on aerosol fluxes...

Andreas “A review of sea spray generation function for the open ocean”, Skipton, 2004
 A proposition of getting closer to consensus:
let's delete the outliers and all function that are not U3 dependant

Andreas “A review of sea spray generation function for the open ocean”
 dF
=f U 10 f r W U 10 f r
dr

Monahan '71
Wilheit '79
M&O'M '80 RBF
Various whitecap coverage parametrizations M&O'M '80 OLS
100 Bondur&Sharkov'82 A
Bondur&Sharkov'82 B
Pandey&Kakar 82
Monahan et al. '83
10 Spillane et al'86 cold
Whitecap coverage,W (%)

Spillane et al'86 moder.

Spillane et al'86 warm
1 M&O'M 86 dT=0 (neutral)
Bortk'87, A+B, cold
Bortk'87, A+B, moder
0.1 Bortk'87, A+B, warm
Wu '88
Mon&Woolf'89, A
Monhan'93 visc., A
0.01 Monhan'93 visc., B
Asher&Wann'98, A
Hanson&Phillips'99, no <<
0.001 Hanson&Phillips'99, all meas
Asher et al.'02
Reising et al. '02, A
0.0001 Wentz '02 Hpol
Wentz '02 Vpol
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Stram&Petel'03 tot
Stram&Petel'03 dev.
Wind speed, U 10 (m s-1 ) Stram&Petel'03 undev.
Villarino et al '03, stable
Villarino et al '03, unst.

Anguelova et al. (NRL) “Effects of Environmental Variables in Sea Spray Generation

Function via Whitecap Coverage”
R/V Oceania

Foto: Adam Blok

Gradient method: calculating aerosol fluxes
from measured vertical profiles of concentration
using Monin-Obukhov similarity theory
Foto: Adam Blok
N ( z2 )  N ( z1)  N*[ f ( z 2 / L)  f ( z1 / L)]

 ln z / L  10 z / L 0 z /L

f ( z / L)   ln z / L  0.07  z / L  0
0.25  1.2( z / L) 1/3 z / L  0.07


N)
(z N*l
n )
(z C
 3
3

2.9

2.8
2.8

2.7
all sizes
N*log(z)+C
2.6 2.6 0.5-1.0
log(z)
log(z)

2.5
1.0-1.5 all sizes
2.4 1.5-2.0 N*log(z)+C
0.5-1.0
2.4 2.0-2.5
1.0-1.5
1.5-2.0
2.3 2.0-2.5

2.2

2.1 2.2
2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
N[1/m3] x 10
6

2
0 5 10 15
3 6
N[1/m ] x 10

3
all sizes
N*log(z)+C
2.8
0.5-1.0
1.0-1.5
2.6 1.5-2.0
2.0-2.5
log(z)

2.5-3.0
2.4 3.0-3.5
3.5-4.0
4.0-4.5
2.2 4.5-5.0
5.0-5.5
5.5-6.0
2 2 6.0-6.5
4 6 8
10 10 10 106.5-7.0
3 7.0-7.5
N [1/m ]
7.5-8.0
 
FE = A < dE > + B

MV E 0

V
M u
0uu 2
* 0

< dE >  M  U 3

3 
FE =A< U > +B
 Correlation between U3 and FE

for data limited by condition C0/U* >a

 
FE = A < dE > + B
0.9

0.88

0.86

0.84

0.82
r

0.8
r (0.65)
max
= 0.873447
0.78
r(2/3) = 0.873444
0.76

0.74

0.72
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
exponent 

N d  a3 h 2 
3
 N d  a5 dE 2/ 3

dE  a4 h 
 1/ 4
 w 
   1/3
aH 1/ 2
U 
2 2 /3

 g 
s 1`0
 Summary
-Aerosol emission from open sea areas my be parameterised
with a linear function of dissipation energy in power 2/3

-Aerosol emission from Baltic sea surface

may be described as:  w 
1/ 4

  1 / 3 aH s1 / 2U12`0   B
2/ 3
FE  A
-7
were: A=1.52 ; B=1.6 10  g 

Problems to solve:
-Finding a parameterisation of emission
flux for different wave ages
-Verifying the parameterisation using
experimental wave data
Measurement stations of r/v "Oceania" in the Norwegian and
Greenland Seas in recent summers
 SGF for different win speed: comparison of our North Atlantic
data (stars) and calculated functions to literature functions
7
10 6
10

10
6 U = 7 m/s
U = 6 m/s 5
10 dry dep.
Andreas
5
10 dry dep. Smith
Andreas Monahan method
4
Smith 10 gradient aprox.

Flux[m-2s-1µm-1]
Flux[m s µm ]

4
-1

10 Monahan method gradient data

gradient aprox.
-2 -1

3 gradient data 3
10 10

2
10 2
10
1
10
1
10
0
10

0
10
-1 10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Particle radius r [µm]
Particle radius r [µm]
6
10 6
10
dry dep.
U = 8 m/s Andreas U = 10 m/s dry dep.
5 Smith Andreas
10 Monahan method 5 Smith
10
gradient aprox. Monahan method
gradient data gradient aprox.
Flux[m-2s-1µm-1]

gradient data
10
4
Flux[m-2s-1µm-1] 4
10

3
10 10
3

2 2
10 10

1 1
10 10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Particle radius r [µm] Particle radius r [µm]
 Comparison different SGF for 10 m/s wind speed.

Literature results on flux as a function of particle size compared to ours:

Eq. 5.1 are the gradient derived flux results
Eq. 5.7 are results calculated with dry deposition method (used by other authors)
How do we fit? 1/2

Andreas 2007 (submitted to JGR)

How do we fit? 2/2

Andreas 2007 (submitted to JGR)

 Open ocean?
90

60    
  

  
30 

 

-30

-60


-90
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180

Anguelova et al. (NRL) “Effects of Environmental Variables in Sea Spray Generation Function via
Whitecap Coverage”
 Range of conditions

477 points 307 points

Anguelova et al. (NRL) “Effects of Environmental Variables in Sea Spray Generation Function via
Whitecap Coverage”
 Temperature effect?

Lewis E. (Brookhaven) “Methods of Determining Sea Salt Aerosol Production Flux

and Their Applicability to Different Size Classes”
 Sea Spray Source Functions: influence of
temperature

23oC

15oC
5oC
-2oC

Lab experiments, Mårtensson et al., JGR 2003

 The effect of salinity change on the
number, and size of bubbles
produced from a bucket spill
Note: The ordinate on the
“High Salinity” plot is
compressed by a factor
of 10 compared to the
ordinate on the fresh-
water plot.
See Monahan, Q. Wang,
X. Wang, and Wilson
(1994).See also Carey,
Fitzgerald, Monahan,
and Q. Wang (1993), and
Q. Wang and Monahan
(1995).
Monahan E. C. (Univ. of Connecticut) “Assessing Global Sea Spray Aerosol Production from
Estimates of Global Oceanic Whitecap Coverage”
 Circumstantial Evidence that
Organics on the Sea Surface can
Markedly Affect Aerosol Production
Note in this figure from
Woolf and Monahan
(1987, in Aerosols and
Climate, P.V. Hobbs
and M.P. McCormick,
eds) the change in
aerosol production with
time, and with the
presumed development
of a surface slick in the
tank.
• 0.25m < r < 2.5 m
r > 2.5
Monahan E. C. (Univ. of Connecticut) “AssessingGlobal m Aerosol Production from
Sea Spray
Estimates of Global Oceanic Whitecap Coverage”
Distinctions between Spilling Wave Crests (Stage A
Whitecaps) and Decaying Foam Patches (Stage B
Whitecaps)
 The distinction
between WA and
WB is quite
apparent from this
plot of Monahan
and Lu (1990)

WA1/3 and WB1/3 vs U10

Monahan E. C. (Univ. of Connecticut) “Assessing Global Sea Spray Aerosol Production from
Estimates of Global Oceanic Whitecap Coverage”
 Power Law Expressions for the
Dependence of WA and WB upon U10
WB =  U
  Citation
WA =  U 
0.00044 2 Blanchard (1963)
0.0000135 3.4 ECM (1971)   Citation
0.000012* 3.3 ECM (1969) 0.000000452 3.31 Wang (unpub)
0.00000775 3.23 Tang (1974) 0.00000263 2.90* Wang (unpub.)
0.00000200 3.75* Wu (1979) 0.000000458 3.09 ECM et al
(1988)
0.00000155 3.75* Wu (1979)
0.000000316 3.2 ECM (2001)
0.0000017 3.75* Wu (1979)
0.00000295 3.52 ECM&IO‟M (1980)
0.00000384 3.41 ECM&IO‟M (1980)
0.0000195 2.55 w.∆T term M&O‟M
(„86)
xxxxxxxx 3.08 IO‟M&ECM (1986)
0.00000637 3.12 Wang (unpub.)
0.0000458 2.47* Wang (unpub.)

Monahan E. C. (Univ. of Connecticut) “Assessing Global Sea Spray Aerosol Production from
Estimates of Global Oceanic Whitecap Coverage”
 Subjective analysis
 Intensity threshold;
 A and B stages in oblique view
 High uncertainty: Stramska and Petelski, 2003
 Up to 30%;
 Higher

Anguelova et al. (NRL) “Effects of Environmental Variables in Sea Spray Generation Function via
Whitecap Coverage”
 Alternative method: remote sensing of sea surface
emissivity.
90

60
 Same magnitude;
30  Different spatial
Lat itude

0 features:
-30

-60
March 1998
-90
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180  W  U103
Lon gitud e 90

60

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 30

Latitude
Wh itecap cov erage, W 0

-30

-60

-90
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Lon gitud e

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10

Anguelova et al. (NRL) “Effects of Environmental Variables in Sea Spray Generation Function via Wh iteca p cov erage , W

Whitecap Coverage”
 Alternative method: remote sensing of sea surface
emissivity. Validation with previous data

 Magnitude;
 Trend:
 Suppressio
n at high
winds;
 Enhanceme
nt at
moderate
winds.
 Variability!
Anguelova et al. (NRL) “Effects of Environmental Variables in Sea Spray Generation Function via
Whitecap Coverage”
 Turbulent fluxes: correlation eddy method (sonic anemometer)

O'Dowd C.E. et al. (Galway) “Primary Marine Aerosol Turbulent Flux Measurements at
Mace Head”
Plume bubbles: image and
distribution
0 101 -1
10
 3
M
Fit
1 0
10

M(µMol µm-1)
-2
10

9
~r -0.
10-1 ~
2

 (# µm-1)
r-2.4
z (cm)

3
10-2

~
-3
10

r-
2.8
4
10-3

5
10-4 10-4
100 200300 500 1000 200030005000
0 1 2 3 4 5 r(µ
m )
x(cm)

Ira Leifer (Marine Science Institute, Goleta, CA) “Bubble Plumes from Breaking
Waves during LUMINY”
 The next iteration: Whitecaps and
Bubble Plumes – “the gateleg table”
Rather like the blind-
folded person sizing
up the elephant: The
acoustician grasps
the large, old,
“microbubble”
plumes, while the
camera sees the new
“alpha” plumes

Monahan E. C. (Univ. of Connecticut) “Assessing Global Sea Spray Aerosol Production

from Estimates of Global Oceanic Whitecap Coverage”
Thank you
for attention