Event summary

solas event report
Report 14 I July 2019

SOLAS Open Science Conference 201921 - 25 April, 2019
Sapporo, Japan
In this report
Event summary
Early-Career Scientist Day
Geoengineering workshop

2
68

Discussion session reports
Can long-term observatories be used to study the processes controlling air-sea exchange?
Impacts of ocean plastic and microfibers on air quality and climate
The coupling of ocean, sea ice and atmospheric chemistry & biogeochemistry – a crossdisciplinary research challenge
SOLAS Science & Society: achievements, present status & future possibilities
Enhanced air-sea interaction in the emerging Marginal Ice Zone
The high resolution measurement for the ocean-atmosphere interfacial layers
What is Ocean KAN?
Atmospheric deposition of iron, ocean biogeochemistry and marine emission of biologicalAerosols
Oceanic greenhouse gases: The present situation and future initiatives

10
12
14
17
19
22
23
25
28

Award recipients research profiles
Measuring noble gas fluxes at high wind speeds in the SUSTAIN wind-wave tank
Spatial variability lengthscales of surface ocean dimethylsulfide (DMS) concentrations
in mid-high latitudes
Blowing snow sea salt aerosol emissions and radiative effects
Formation of secondary aerosol from the oxidation of T. pseudonana cultures
Using under-ice transmitted hyperspectra to determine land-fast ice algal biomass inSaroma-ko Lagoon, Hokkaido, Japan

30

Sponsors

41
1

32
35
37
39

Event summary© E. Rickert

The 7th SOLAS Open Science Conference washeld in Sapporo, Japan, from 21-25 April 2019 at
the Hokkaido University Conference Hall. Organised and run by a committee of 17 nationalities,
the conference welcomed 190 attendees from 30
countries to share their research and knowledge
of SOLAS science (Figure 1). The conference
participants were treated to the arrival of thecherry blossoms in northern Japan, a truly unforgettable experience.

Lauvset, from the Norwegian Research Centre(NORCE), Norway, on the role of humans andthe ocean in the carbon cycle.
Core theme two, “Air-sea interface and fluxesof mass and energy,” is dedicated to oceanicand atmospheric processes, driven for instanceby waves, bubbles or surfactants, which influence the transfer of mass and energy between
the ocean and atmosphere. Daiki Nomura of the
University of Hokkaido, Japan, introduced thistheme with his talk on gas exchange in icecovered oceans.

The plenary sessions ranged over the whole
spectrum of SOLAS science covering the following themes:Core theme three, “Atmospheric depositionand ocean biogeochemistry,” explores the impact of particles which enter the ocean from theCore theme one, “Greenhouse gases and theoceans,” featured a keynote lecture from Siv

Figure 1: Participants of the SOLAS Open Science Conference 2019. © A. Murayama

2Event summary

atmosphere. These particles can be from naturalprocesses, such as dust or volcanic eruptions, orhuman activities, such as the burning of fossil
fuels (including ship plumes) and biomass or agriculture. The keynote for this session was given
by Ying Chen, from Fudan University, China. Hertalk focused on the impact of atmospheric nitrogen and trace metals on marine phytoplankton.

A session on Geoengineering and Science andSociety explored the interface between SOLAS
science, societal priorities, and policy proposals.
Andrew Lenton from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Australia, gave a keynote talk on geoengineering, theocean and SOLAS (Figure 2). Kathryn Mengerink, Waitt Institute, USA, introduced the Science and Society topic with her keynote on marine spatial planning as a tool to advance science-based decision-making.

Core theme four focuses on the “Interconnections between aerosols, clouds, and marine
ecosystems” and how these components form asystem as a whole. Jonathan Abbatt of the University of Toronto, Canada, gave the keynote talkon how the ocean, aerosols, and clouds are connected in the summertime Canadian Arctic.
Core theme five is dedicated to “Ocean biogeochemical control on atmospheric chemistry,”
exploring how marine aerosols and reactive gases impact the atmosphere. Anoop Mahajan, fromthe Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology, India, and one of the latest additions to the SOLAS
Scientific Steering Committee, introduced thistheme with a look through time at how the ocean
regulates atmospheric chemistry.

Figure 3: Sharing knowledge during the poster sessions.
© J. Gier

The SOLAS Integrated Topics on upwellingsystems, polar oceans, and coastal waters filled
two sessions. The keynote talk was given by
Marcela Cornejo, Pontificia Universidad Católica
de Valparaíso, Chile, and focused on nitrous oxide changes in the Humboldt Current System.

In addition to these five core themes, the conference included three sessions on cross-cutting
themes:

The four-day conference encompassed not only
plenary sessions but also afternoon poster sessions (Figure 3). The best two student posters
were given awards during the conference banquet (Figure 4). Prizes were awarded to George
Manville (University of Exeter, UK) for “Highresolution spatial variability lengthscales of surface ocean dimethylsulfide (DMS) concentrations” (see page 32) and to Lumi Kinjo (Wellesley
College, USA) for “Measuring noble gas fluxes athigh wind speeds in the sustain wind-wave tank”(see page 30).

Figure 2: Keynote speaker Andrew Lenton (right) andGeoengineering session convener Philip Boyd (left).
© A. Murayama

3Event summary

Figure 4: A, The two student poster winners, George Manville (left) and Lumi Kinjo (right), receiving their awards from Yoav
Lehahn, Mitsuo Uematsu, and Maurice Levasseur (left to right) during the conference banquet. © K. Gier

Furthermore, the OSC provided a venue for nineformal discussion sessions on current projects
and new ideas. The outcomes of these sessions
are published on pages 9 - 28. In addition to themain conference, an Early-Career Scientist Day(see page 5) and a Geoengineering Workshop(see page 7) were held the day before the conference.

Again, congratulations to the winners of the student poster competition George Manville (University of Exeter, UK), Lumi Kinjo (Wellesley College, USA) and the winners of the Early Career
Scientist Day talk competition Hannah Horowitz(University of Washington, USA; see page 35),
Stephanie Schneider (University of Toronto,
Canada; see page 37), and Pat Wongpan (Hokkaido University, Japan; page 39).

SOLAS would like to thank all who contributed tomaking the SOLAS Open Science Conference
2019 a success: the Local Organising Committee, the Scientific Organising Committee, the
Early Career Scientist Day Committee, the poster
judges, all plenary and discussions session
chairs, all speakers, and all who attended!!

SOLAS International Project Office4

Event summary

SOLAS Open Science Conference 2019
Photo Gallery

The 1st SOLAS OSC Fun Run

SOLAS national representatives dinner

Sapporo and Odori Park
Plenary session

At the registration desk

Conference banquet

Some of the conference organisers

Sapporo TV Tower
Ice breaker in a Beer Keller

Poster session

Banquet honoree, Mitsuo Uematsu

Taiko drummers at the banquet© A. Murayama, E. Rickert, J. Gier, K. Gier, K. Mengerink, H. Tanimoto5

Eventsummary
Early-Career
ScientistDay

Early-Career Scientist Day
Sohiko Kameyama a, Yoko Iwamoto b, and Martine Lizotte caHokkaido University, Japan. Contact: skameyama@ees.hokudai.ac.jp
Hiroshima University, Japan. Contact: y-iwamoto@hiroshima-u.ac.jpcLaval University, Canada. Contact: martine.lizotte@qo.ulaval.cabwithin the public at large, gave a talk on the importance of “Writing about your research for a
non-academic audience”. During the lecture, participants actively discussed with the lecturers(Figure 6).

Before the main SOLAS Open Science Conference, an Early-Career Scientist Day (ECSD) was
organised on 21 April, 2019. The ECSD wasplanned by the ECSD committee composed ofDr. Sohiko Kameyama (Hokkaido University,
Japan), Dr. Yoko Iwamoto (Hiroshima University, Japan), and Dr. Martine Lizotte (Laval University, Canada). It brought together
25 doctoral students and postdoctoral researchers from 15 countries to network, discuss, and share their respective research.
At the registration desk in the morning, souvenirs that had been specially designed for
the ECSD were offered to the participants(Figure 5). After the welcoming introduction,
Dr. Anoop Mahajan (Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology, India) gave a lecture entitled “Making Science ‘Cool’” which delved
into the reasons why science needs to remain fun and accessible from the point ofview of connections between scientist andsociety. Mr. Namba Naoki (Hokkaido University, Japan), who has been involved inknowledge mobilization of research activities

Figure 6: Invited lecturers at the ECSD. A, Dr. Anoop Mahajan; B,
Mr. Namba Naoki. © A. Murayama and L. Li

Following the lectures, each participant presented their research during three-minute talks whichwere accompanied by two-minute Q&A, and Early-Career peer evaluations. As a result, the best
three talks were given awards during the conference banquet (Figure 7A). Prizes were awarded to Dr. Hannah Horowitz (University of Washington, USA) for “Where does mercury in fishcome from?”, Ms. Stephanie Schneider (University of Toronto, Canada) for “Heterogeneous oxidation of the surface microlayer with ozone”, and
Dr. Pat Wongpan (Hokkaido University, Japan)
for “Using under-ice spectra to determine land-

Figure 5: Souvenirs specially designed for the ECSD.
© Y. Iwamoto6Early-Career Scientist DayA

B

Figure 7: A, The three winners of the Early-Career Scientist Day three-minute talks receiving their awards. From left toright: Pat Wongpan, Stephanie Schneider, Hannah Horowitz, Mitsuo Uematsu, and Yoko Iwamoto. B, The awards werecreated by Hokkaido glass crafts. © K. Gier and S. Kameyama

fast ice algal biomass in Lake Saroma, Japan”,
along with special trophies created by Hokkaido
glass crafts (Figure 7B).

After the excursion, the participants returned to
Sapporo and the ECSD ended with the SOLAS
Open Science Conference Ice-Breaker.

After the three-minute competition, the EarlyCareer Scientists went on a field trip to Lake Shikotsu, a caldera lake created by a volcanic eruption that remains ice-free throughout the year despite its northern latitude (Figure 8). The day wascalm and sunny, and the participants enjoyed theglass boat outing and the walk around the lake.

The entire activities during the ECSD were madepossible through the financial support of PICES.
The organizing committee would like to thank
PICES for its patronage and for providing the
SOLAS Early-Career Scientists with an unforgettable experience.

Figure 8: The participants of ECSD at the Lake Shikotsu. © Y. Iwamoto

7

Eventworkshop
summary
Geoengineering

SOLAS Research and Geoengineering workshop
Philip Boyd a, Cliff Law b, and Lisa Miller caInstitute of Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia. Contact: philip.boyd@utas.edu.aubNational Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, New Zealand. Contact: cliff.law@niwa.co.nzcInstitute of Ocean Sciences, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Canada. Contact: lisa.miller@dfompo.gc.ca
SOLAS researchers Cliff Law, Philip Boyd, andLisa Miller organised a one-day workshop on”SOLAS Research and Geoengineering” on
Sunday 21 April 2019, to take advantage of themany scientists travelling to participate in the
SOLAS Open Science Conference (OSC) in
Sapporo. The workshop follows a tradition of discussing this topic at OSC’s started by Peter
Liss’s talk, and Cliff Law’s & Phil Williamson’s
discussion session at Barcelona in 2009, and followed by a discussion session in Kiel by Boydand Law in 2015. However, this was the first timethat an entire day had been dedicated to this topic, which was in part prompted by the release in2018 of the SOLAS position statement on Climate Intervention. The event was attended byaround 35 people ranging from graduate students and summer school alumni to researchers

who have been with SOLAS since its inception(Figure 9).
The day started with background information on
geoengineering, followed by a historical perspective on prior SOLAS contributions to the geoengineering debate, and a presentation on how thecurrent SOLAS science plan relates to the debate into climate intervention (Figure 10). Invitedlectures were presented on modelling (CDRMIP– Carbon Dioxide Removal-Model Intercomparison Project; and GeoMIP – the Geoengineering
Model Intercomparsion Project) by Andrew Lenton (Australia) and on societal issues by Erik van
Doorn (Germany) that provided valuable food forthought for the subsequent breakout groups. In
the second half of the workshop general discussion sessions were interspersed with more

Figure 9: The participants of the SOLAS Research and Geoengineering workshop. © J. Gier8

Eventworkshop
summary
Geoengineering
breakouts, and the event
closed with a summing up
session by the organisers.
During the era covered by theprevious SOLAS scienceplan, SOLAS played a keyrole in developing researchand informing policy on oceaniron fertilisation as a potential
climate intervention approach.
However, over the last 15
years a number of reports
have been published by naFigure 10: Cliff Law and Philip Boyd give background information on climate
tional academies and interintervention. © J. Gier
governmental bodies on additional geoengineering proposals, noting the lack of required scientific unparticular the observation that the Law is almost
derpinning. As geoengineering approaches haveexclusively reactive, which has major ramificabeen proposed for the lower atmosphere, ocean
tions for the legal basis for geoengineering.
surface, and upper ocean, SOLAS is perhaps
best placed within Future Earth to conduct theThe breakout groups focussed on “Terminology,
necessary scientific research. There also apPerceptions and Ethics”; “Methods: Bubbles andpears to be a willingness to pursue such reocean alkalinisation” and “Models: Sensitivity andsearch, particularly in recognition of the need for
fundamentals”. The discussions were freewheeladditional actions beyond emissions reductions
ing and in each case demonstrated that SOLAS
to achieve the Paris Agreement target. However,has a multi-faceted vision to offer the geoengiit will be essential to provide a “safe operating
neering debate.
space” (i.e., within the existing legislation) forIn summing up, it was clear from the workshop
such research by SOLAS scientists.
that SOLAS, with our multidisciplinary expertise
The modelling presentation by Andrew Lenton on
across the lower atmosphere and its interface
CDRMIP revealed that an Earth System Modelwith the surface ocean, is well positioned to adframework is the only tool we have to integrate
dress many of the issues that are hindering usewhat we know on the scales relevant to any
ful debate on geoengineering. Potent synergies
planned eventual climate intervention deploywith the modelling community are particularly evments. The MIP component provides confidence
ident. The five themes of the SOLAS sciencein the robustness of the model outcomes andplan provide a ready framework with which togives insights into the pro’s and con’s of eachdevelop an inventory of ideas that could beapproach; however, it was clear that in many
linked to a wide range of geoengineering apcases, the CDRMIP & GeoMIP communities areproaches, aspects of which can be tested readily
information-poor for a wide range of geoengiwithin laboratory and contained field settings.
neering approaches. The societal presentation
The science plan structure could therefore douby Erik van Doorn introduced the workshop to a
ble as a synthesis tool for these findings to enrange of concepts such as modes of opinion,
sure they are organised coherently.
governance principles, ocean jurisdictions, and in9

Discussion session reports

Can long-term observatories be used to study the processes controlling
air-sea exchange?
Conveners: Christa Marandino a, Arne Körtzinger b, Tom Bell c, and Jin-Yong Jeong d
Rapporteurs: Kerstin Krall e and Sonja Friman fa

GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel, Germany. Contact: cmarandino@geomar.de
GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel, Germany. Contact: akoertzinger@geomar.decPlymouth Marine Laboratory, UK. Contact: tbe@pml.ac.uk
dKorean Institute of Ocean Science and Technology, South Korea. Contact: jyjeong@kiost.ac.kreInstitute of Environmental Physics, Heidelberg University, Germany. Contact: kerstin.krall@iup.uniheidfelberg.defInstitute of Environmental Physics, Heidelberg University, Germany. Contact: sonja.friman@iup.uniheidelberg.deb

The boundary between the ocean and atmosphere is one of the Earth’s most important interfaces. Nonetheless, the controls upon mass andenergy fluxes across this interface are not fully
understood or quantified. Researchers from GEOMAR, Plymouth Marine Laboratory, and the Korea Institute of Ocean Science and Technology
hosted this discussion, drawing on varying levelsof experience running integrated air-sea exchange observatories to tackle these unknowns.
During this session, we identified the benefits
and challenges associated with the data collected at these and similar sites around the world.
The goal of the workshop was to publicize ongoing activity and to encourage community interest
and participation at these sites. The main outcome of this session was to organize a SOLAS
workshop on how to intercompare time-series
observatories, specifically with regard to air-sea
flux measurements by eddy covariance, with theintention to apply for a SCOR working group on
the topic.

These included: Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA) Station for Climate Observation (Roberto Sarao)
 Canadian Arctic (Brent Else, Lisa Miller) Bermuda Institute of Ocean Sciences (BIOS)
 Sweden - Östergarnsholm, Gotland (Anna
Rutgersson, Uppsala University) Finland - Utö
 Ireland - Mace Head
 South of Iceland & Svalbard (both dimethylsulfide) Ships: Integrated Carbon Observation System (ICOS) Voluntary Observing Ships (VOS)(UK), Oceania (Poland)
The open discussion began with the questions:
How should these observatories be used? Whatmeasurements should be included? Suggestions
were that many long-term sites are coastal andcan be used for footprint characterization andstandardization between stations. Measurements
should include: physical parameters - waves,bubbles, turbulence, and surfactants, friction velocity, SST, upwelling (wave modeling is a possibility at some sites); and chemical parameters greenhouse gases, oxygen, other trace gas surface concentrations, dissolved organic matter.
Aerosols must also be considered – both amountand composition – as well as investigating how

There were approximately 50 people in attendance (Figure 11). Each convener gave a brief
description of their observatory (Helmholtz International Ocean-Atmosphere Network, Penlee
Point Atmospheric Observatory, Korea Ocean
Research Stations) and gathered a list of others
that should be considered.

10Discussion session reports
The group determinedthat there is experience
with these types of intercomparisons. For example, joint measurements
in a single location forcross-calibrate has been
done repeatedly. We canalso take a reference
sensor to various sites ortake site sensors to a reference sensor when possible. A way to evaluate
whole sites, including
tower logistics, should alFigure 11: Discussion session on long-term observatories. © J. Gierso be identified. Regarding software, it is possible to perform a data
land and ocean interact differently with aerosols(feedbacks between the regions). Gradients inanalysis intercomparison from a common raw daboth air and water of the different variables
taset. Additionally, ICOS already institutes thatshould also be obtained when possible. Finally,practice that data is evaluated by someone not
involved in obtaining the data. It was also sugmicrolayer sampling should be attempted at
gested that we can back calculate physical pathese sites when possible.
rameters from the retrieved data, (e.g., wave
As long-term observatories were deemed essenheight, ship movement) or perform a simulated
training data set exercise.
tial for air-sea interaction research, the idea of intercomparability was raised. This was clearly amotivating topic and many scientists in the room
The final point discussed was how to optimise
were enthusiastic about the idea of performing
the stations, given community needs. The followintercomparison exercises. These should include
ing needs were discussed: CO2 flux contamination, presenting calibrated fluxes to global modboth physical measurements and data proelers, long term data storage and data science,
cessing. Some specifics discussed include: fixedlocation vs. moving measurements; reliable
platforms developed to tackle special tasks,
standardized flux measurements are generally
missing geographical locations, networking todifficult to make; often different instruments atcoordinate international science questions, longterm international funding, and the need for an
one location give different results; the sites require standardization. The community stated thatinternational effort.
we need unified protocols and best practiceguides, which should include software (e.g., theFinal thoughts were that this idea should be further discussed at the OceanObs’19 meeting in
ICOS land based eddy covariance community
September 2019 on Hawaii and that the global
has this standardization, but it should be highlighted that the ocean eddy covariance communiair-sea interaction community needs to be more
ty faces different challenges). We should also atengaged to solve funding issues. It was tentativetempt to devise a best practice guide for the inly decided to ask SOLAS for a workshop on longterm air-sea interaction observatories to lead up
tercomparisons themselves. We must also conto a Scientific Committee on Oceanic Researchsider the life cycle management of measurement
devices and emerging technologies.
(SCOR) working group.
11

Discussion session reports

Impacts of ocean plastic and microfibers on air quality and climate
Convener: Sarah-Jeanne Royer a
Co-convener: Dimitri Deheyn b
Rapporteur: Kathryn Mengerink ca

SCRIPPS Institution of Oceanography, UCSD, San Diego, USA. Contact: sroyer@ucsd.edu
SCRIPPS Institution of Oceanography, UCSD, San Diego, USA. Contact: ddeheyn@ucsd.edu
cWaitt Institute, San Diego, USA. Contact: mengerink@waittinstitute.orgb

Plastic pollution has been a growing concern recently as it is found everywhere, impacting all
forms of life, including humans (Figure 12). While
many studies have investigated the extent ofplastic pollution in aquatic environments andwildlife, very few studies have looked at the interplay between plastics and the atmosphere. It
was recently proven that greenhouse gases are
emitted from plastic degradation, which may potentially affect the global budget of methane, andthus link plastics to climate change (Royer et al.,2018).
Figure 13: Conveners of the session: Sarah-Jeanne Royer(right) and Dimitri Deheyn (left). © A. Murayama

Similarly, synthetic microfibers are ubiquitous in
the environment, including in the oceans and theatmosphere. Microfibers are invisible to the naked eye given their small size, and thus webreathe, eat and drink them without being awareof it. There is clearly an urgent need for increasing our knowledge regarding plastics and synthetic microfibers in the ocean and their transfer
to the atmosphere, especially in the wake of environmental and human health issues already increased by climate change.

The goal of this session was to engage SOLAS
scientists to explore potential collaborations tobetter assess the effect of the synthetic materials
on climate processes in linked with SOLAS
themes. The discussion session, with 40+ participants, was introduced with a brief presentationon the state of plastic production globally and theamount of plastic discarded in the environment
followed by a brief summary of the emissions ofgreenhouse gases by plastics and a short overview on microfibers by both conveners (Figure13). Following the brief introduction, three SOLAS participants kindly accepted to present theirwork with a special emphasis on their expertise
could be linked to plastic and microfibers in theenvironment. Erik van Doorn from the Walther
Schücking Institute for International Law at Kiel
University presented on “SOLAS, plastic andlaw” followed by Prof. William Landing on the“Atmospheric sampling for microplastics and microfibers” and Kathryn Mengerink, the executive
director of Waitt Institute who presented on “Marine debris legal frameworks”. These presenta-

Figure 12: Plastic marine debris at Kamilo Beach (Big Island, Hawaii, USA) off-gassing greenhouse gases. © S.-J.
Royer

12

Discussion session reports
tions showed how interrelated are the scientifictopics covered by the SOLAS community andplastic in the environment.

The general consensus of the discussion session
was that we need to move forward on many
fronts to include the plastic components into SOLAS objective, this is with both lab-based andfield-oriented studies and also modelling studies
that should now consider possible interactions
between plastic and atmospheric/oceanic components.

The remaining time of the discussion session
was devoted to an open discussion about questions in relation with plastics and microfibers and:the scope of SOLAS, oceanic and atmosphericmodels, the carbon budget, the sampling and theenvironmental and public health aspect. During
the discussion, several important questions wereraised and debated.

For fieldwork measurements, a collaborative approach will be needed that involves the international community with many lab groups employing different sampling techniques working on
same sample sets to include the measurementsof microplastics to nano- and picoplastics which
also include the measurements of microfibers(Figure 14).

1) How can we integrate plastic and microfiber
research in the interest of SOLAS research?
2) How can we add the plastic component in
SOLAS modelling studies?
3) Given recent studies showing interactions
between plastic and the carbon pool, should
we integrate hydrocarbon compounds in the
carbon cycle?
4) Are there efficient ways of sampling at agreater scale than the current techniques?
5) Would mesocosm experiments be an efficient tool to understand better the effect ofplastics and fibers on biological processes?
6) Is plastic a possible vector for the propagation of viruses, bacteria and algae?

Many methodological barriers exist at the moment, especially when measuring small plastic
particles release in the environment, and thecontribution of different science fields may also
help to develop proper techniques to capture
these small particles. Developing consistentmethodologies (guide of best practices) is also
an important task and will be the step following
the establishment of collaborative work between
different SOLAS entities.

Figure 14: A, Coriolis air sampler (Bertin Instruments) to measure microfibers in air at Lake
Altausse, Austria. B, Microfibers in air collected at Lake Altausse (Austria) using the Coriolis air
sampler (Bertin Instruments). © S.-J. Royer

Reference
Royer, S., Ferrón, S., Wilson, S. T., et al. (2018), Production of methane and ethylene from plastic in
the environment. PLoS One, 13(8): e0200574. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0200574
13

Discussion session reports

The coupling of ocean, sea ice and atmospheric chemistry and biogeochemistry - a cross-disciplinary research challenge
Convener: Markus M. Frey a
Co-conveners: Paul Zieger b and Daiki Nomura cRapporteur: Nadja Steiner daNatural Environment Research Council, British Antarctic Survey, UK. Contact: maey@bas.ac.uk
Department of Environmental Science and Analytical Chemistry, Stockholm University, Sweden.
Contact: paul.zieger@aces.su.secFaculty of Fisheries Sciences, Hokkaido University, Japan. Contact: daiki.nomura@fish.hokudai.ac.jpdInstitute of Ocean Sciences, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Canada. Contact: nadja.steiner@dfompo.gc.cab

The goal of the session was to assess ways toimprove links within the more atmospheric focused research community Cryosphere and Atmospheric Chemistry (CATCH) and the more sea
ice - ocean oriented research community Biogeochemical Exchange Processes at Sea-Ice Interfaces (BEPSII). Both communities focus on polarand cold regions.








Based on 1-slide introductions and follow-up discussions, the following key research areas wereidentified by the participants (Figure 15):

 Flux uncertainties and inventories (i.e.,monthly maps) of CO2 and trace gas fluxes; quantify (better) deposition (including scavenging) and vertical fluxes of trace gases,
create a deposition network to help to help
constrain models; Aerosol emissions (e.g. sea salt, biologicalmarine particles, secondary particle formation including new particle formation via
volatile organic compounds (VOC), dimethylsulfide, isoprene) and respective
changes with a changing climate; Treatment of VOCs in cloud physics andaerosol processes in earth system models(ESMs);
 Estimating ice algal biomass on higher spatial and temporal resolution to improve spatial coverage of marine and sea-ice

sources;Enhanced field measurements including
mesocosm experiments;
Marginal ice zone: improve physical processes, how physical processes impact biogeochemistry and vice versa;
Sea-ice internal processes: how sea-ice ischanging and how it affects and is affectedby biogeochemistry;
Snow on sea-ice: bring snow physicists andsnow chemists together;
Link different biogeochemical cycles and assess impacts of (micro-) biology on biogeochemical cycling / atmospheric chemistry.

To address the challenges, community field / labstudies and research networks were highlighted
as the best way to encourage collaboration. The
Canadian Network of climate and aerosols(NETCARE) and the upcoming international drift
expedition - the Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate (MOSAiC)
were highlighted as successful atmosphereocean collaborations to initiate a discussion onlessons learned and recommendations on atmosphere-ocean as well as modeller-observercollaboration for future projects.
Recommendations included the need to involve
all parties from the beginning and have discussions together to clarify what is wanted versus
what is realistic. For example, MOSAiC empha-

14

Discussion session reports

Figure 15: Discussion session participants. © A. Murayama

sises identification and discussion of crosscutting themes so researchers seek solutions
with colleagues in neighbouring disciplines. It
was highlighted that to involve the best science
for the research agenda, project partners should
be primarily science driven (i.e., include
new/upcoming researchers). In the Canadian example a strong collaboration between government and academic institutions was mentioned
as an asset, as well as the need for regular network meetings and student/early career researcher (ECR) interactions, e.g., via allocatedfunding for students to spend time in different
labs to expand their expertise, provide students /ECRs with opportunities to learn specialized
methods. To enhance their involvement in thecommunity encourage students to attend summer/winter schools (SOLAS, BEPSII-Cambridge
Bay, MOSAiC programme) and student mentoring at conferences (e.g., early career days within
SOLAS, Association for Polar Early Career Scientists (APECS), ArcticNet, Gordon Researchseminars) and join research communities suchas BEPSII and CATCH, organisations like the
APECS and apply for International Arctic Science
Committee fellowships. BEPSII makes a strong
effort on involving ECRs in leadership positions

for synthesis papers, model intercomparisonsand /or data collations.
To better connect atmospheric and physical(snow) scientists with the biological community
and to ensure all relevant expertise comes to thetable a joint CATCH-BEPSII workshop was recommended.
With respect to ESMs there is a need to identify(viacommunity
discussions)therelevant/important/key processes to be studied, parameterized and implemented and what is important to projecting future changes. A hierarchical list reflecting the importance of processes(a pecking order for research) was recommended. The need for experimentalists and modelers
to communicate was highlighted; BEPSII spent asignificant effort on this subject (see e.g., Steiner
et al. 2016). Other successful model-model andmodel-measurement evaluation exercises suchas AeroCom were mentioned together with theneed for parties to get involved and the use of ahierarchy of models to test sensitivities and assess high-impact processes from the modelingside (see also discussion in Steiner et al., 2016).

15

Discussion session reports

ReferenceLong-term observations, in addition to dedicatedfield
campaigns
inundersampled/underrepresented winter and fall months, were highlighted as to be important, e.g., MOSAiC, NyÅlesund. A network of such sites would be helpful to identify and assess seasonal impacts. Also,
there should be better use of opportunities to access data from hard-to-access regions (e.g., via
a site/repository collating information on researchcruises and possible berth availability for external
researchers) and coordination of measurements(send equipment/students, revisit sites, e.g., Pacific Arctic Distributed Biological Observatory) as
well as data sharing, (e.g., via coordinated databases, meta data catalogues, open data policies). Given funding uncertainties, opportunities
maybe short notice, hence it was suggested tobuild flexibility into projects and use research
networks to allow consistent/continuous collaboration and communication.

Steiner, N., Deal, C., Lannuzel, D., et al. (2016),
What sea-ice biogeochemical modellers needfrom observationalists. Elementa Science of Anthropocene, 4:84.
doi: 10.12952/journal.elementa.000084

Join the SOLAS community
Join the mailing list to stay apprised of themost current news on SOLAS, conferences,
events, publications and more.
www.solas-int.org/community/join.html

Follow us on twitter@SOLAS_IPO

16

Discussion session reports

SOLAS Science & Society: achievements, present status & future possibilities
Conveners: Erik van Doorn a and Christa Marandino b
Rapporteur: Josefine Maas caWalther Schücking Institute for International Law, Kiel University, Kiel, Germany. Contact:edoorn@wsi.uni-kiel.deb
GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research, Kiel, Germany. Contact: cmarandino@geomar.dec
GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research, Kiel, Germany. Contact: jmaas@geomar.de

SOLAS has grown in recent years to include
more disciplines as well as a diversity of stakeholders. It has recognised that greater efforts areneeded to increase interaction between naturalscientists and social scientists – especially in thelight of anthropogenic influence on the oceanatmosphere system. At the last Open Science
Conference, we organised a discussion session
to probe the interest in this topic. Multiple workshops have followed, focusing on bridging the
gap between SOLAS science and the societal
realm. The current SOLAS Science Plan contains a cross-cutting theme on science and society. In this discussion session, we wanted tooutline how SOLAS scientists can participate indeepening and widening this range of topics.
First, we hoped to identify SOLAS scientists interested in pursuing this integrating effort. Second, we aimed to broaden the topics to include inthis cross-cutting theme. Future efforts can include furthering the co-operation between naturaland social scientists or taking the step to increased transdisciplinarity (e.g., communication
with policy makers).
There were approximately 30 people at the session (Figure 16). It started with a short introduction to the SOLAS Science and Society activities,

Figure 16: The SOLAS Science and Society discussion session. © A. Murayama

17

Discussion session reports

including a description of the relevant UN sustainable development goals (SDGs). Three main
topics are currently part of the Science & Society
umbrella within SOLAS: valuing carbon in theocean, air-sea interaction and policy, and the influence of ship emissions on biogeochemical cycling. These were first discussed at a workshop
in Brussels in October 2016. The resulting paper
from this workshop – Marandino et al., Bridging
the gap between natural sciences and society via
social sciences – will be submitted in the summerof 2019. Subsequent workshops occurred in
March 2017 – carbon valuation in Monaco, June2017 – air-sea policy in Rome, and October 2017
– ship emissions in Gothenburg. The Monaco
and Rome participants hope to submit papers in
2019, while the ship emissions participants havealready published (Endres et al., 2018).

rine environment is obvious. Ideas for new topics
included plastics in the ocean, in cooperation
with Sarah-Jeanne Royer (see the report of her
discussion session at this Open Science Conference), and harmful algal blooms (HAB) from
Dave Kieber. HAB has clear potential to be an integrated topic with impacts on human health,fisheries, etc. Furthermore, research in remoteareas, where indigenous people must be considered (e.g., conducting science on sea-ice and in
the Arctic Ocean where Inuit tribes are living),
has direct connections with society. It is important to share experience and expertise withlocal communities. Overall, one should also learn
from society what is important to people and talkabout a variety of opinions. It was also suggested
that SOLAS Science and Society should be represented at the United Nations Ocean Week in
New York City.

The discussion then opened with a question
about which SOLAS core themes are most related to SOLAS Science and Society and if thename of the initiative is appropriate. It was pointed out that SOLAS has included more interdisciplinary topics in its programme since 2016, starting for instance with early career scientists at thesummer schools to raise awareness about theimportance of societal aspects. However, more
students with an interdisciplinary education areneeded and it is not clear how to achieve this yet.
Regarding future research possibilities, it wassuggested that we must make use of the grassroots nature of SOLAS to find topics, but that weshould get the best mileage out of our established expertise. Research design - especially in
relation to the SDGs - could benefit from direct
discussion with social scientists and policy makers, so this effort should be made in the future.
In order to facilitate this process, scientists canconsider using the services of COMPASS(www.compassscicomm.org) to obtain training in
the best ways to communicate to these sectors.
A major question was how SOLAS should be involved in research to reduce climate change. The
convergence with climate engineering in the ma-

The main outcomes of the workshop were that:
1) the initiative should continue;
2) more people are interested in joining theoriginal three topics;3) more co-design should be utilized in framing research topics;4) plastics and HAB should be incorporated
as new topics.
Reference
Endres, S., Maes, F., Hopkins, F., et al. (2018), A
New Perspective at the Ship-Air-Sea-Interface:
The Environmental Impacts of Exhaust Gas
Scrubber Discharge. Frontiers in Marine Science,
5:139. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2018.00139

18

Discussion session reports

Enhanced air-sea interaction in the emerging Marginal Ice Zone
Conveners: Phil B. Hwang a and Takenobu Toyota baUniversity of Huddersfield, United Kingdom. Contact: B.Hwang@hud.ac.uk
Institute of Low Temperature Science, Hokkaido University, Japan. Contact: toyota@lowtem.hokudai.ac.jpbThis discussion session was aimed to gather
ideas to address the potential impacts of thechanging ice conditions in the Marginal Ice Zone
(MIZ) on air-sea ice interactions, including gas
and aerosol exchanges. Although the MIZ is formally defined as the region of sea ice coverwhich is affected by waves and swell penetrating
into the ice from the open ocean (WMO, 2014), it
is also defined as a dynamic area with small ice
floes and low ice concentration (15 to 80%)
(Zhang et al., 2015; Aksenov et al., 2017; Strong
et al., 2017). Recent trends in the Arctic Ocean
show a rapid expansion of the MIZ, estimated at
12% per decade (Strong and Rigor, 2013; Zhang
et al., 2015), and it is projected to continue to increase the future. The expanding MIZ allows anintensification of momentum (Martin et al., 2016)and heat exchange between atmosphere andocean (Gallaher et al., 2016), which enhances
solar warming in the upper ocean (Perovich etal., 2011), generates stronger ocean surface
waves (Overeem et al., 2011; Thompson andRogers, 2014; Stopa et al., 2016) and promotes
smaller ice floes by wave-induced breakup(Langhorne et al. 1998; Kohout et al., 2016) orthermodynamic melt (Hwang et al., 2017) and ice
banding at various scales (Wadhams, 1983;
Saiki and Mitsudera, 2016). These conditions
enhance turbulent mixing in the upper ocean(Lincoln et al., 2016). By contrast, intense sea ice
melt in the MIZ forms a stratified surface layerand subdues the exchanges of momentum andmatter between the ocean surface and the deeper ocean (Randelhoff et al., 2017). The MIZ also
modifies the atmospheric boundary layer (Kantha
and Mellor, 1989; Inoue et al., 2005) and surface
ocean convection-induced external forcing within
the atmosphere-ice-ocean system (Buckley et al.

1979; Shapiro et al., 1989). The ice conditions in
the MIZ also affect the air-sea interactions andbiogeochemistry. The reduced ice cover increases ice melting, and the melt water enhances thestratification of the upper ocean, suppressing thenutrient supply from below. At the same time, thereduced ice cover and stronger wind/wave promote vertical mixing and nutrient supply from below and also increase aerosol flux to the atmosphere. During freeze-up in winter in the MIZ, frazil ice can form at depth during turbulent conditions, and subsequently bring chemical components to the upper ocean and to the ice, contributing to the ice algal bloom in spring (Clarke andAckley, 1984). Low ice conditions also create afavorable light environment for primary production.
In the discussion session, we had the 28 participants from 10 different countries with various expertise including sea ice physics, aerosol andgas exchange, and biogeochemistry (Figure 17).
With the background information above, our discussion raised the following questions:
1. What are the key processes in the MIZ,
especially for physical-biogeochemical
coupling?
2. What are the potentials and difficulties inunderstanding the key processes both inobservation and modelling?
Our discussion clearly highlighted the importanceof the MIZ as a ‘hot spot’ for aerosol and gas
fluxes (in addition to heat exchanges). Higher
surface waves, stronger winds and more open
water will promote more sea spray and bubbles,
enhancing gas and particle exchange between
air and sea. The potentially increased flux of primary and secondary aerosol particles at the sur19

Discussion session reports

Figure 17: Participants of the Marginal Ice Zone discussion session. © A. Murayama

face may affect cloud formation. Increased primary production also adds an important sourcefor organic particles. Despite its importance, aerosol and trace gas fluxes in the MIZ have notbeen well observed and modelled.

and prediction of MIZ physics, which can be also
used toward improving our understanding of airsea interactions, and aerosol/gas exchange in
the MIZ. The discussion session concluded withidentifying the significant knowledge gaps andrequirements to form a focus group to understand air-sea interactions in the MIZ.

Our current understanding based on perennial
ice conditions may no longer be applicable to the
MIZ. For example, the expanding MIZ meansthat the Arctic Ocean is transforming to a thinand saline first-year ice dominated area from athick and fresh multi-year ice dominated area. As
gas transfers primarily through brine channels
within the first-year ice, this change likely increases gas exchange between atmosphere andocean. Thin first-year ice is more saline than multi-year sea ice and is also more prone to flooding.
Both factors will lead to more saline snowpacks
on sea ice that contains more sea salt aerosol
and associated organic matter including organic
pollutants that can be released to the air. Changing ice conditions will affect ice thermodynamics
and the associated dimethyl sulfide (DMS) andexopolysaccharide (EPS) movements. Advancesin the MIZ physics, observations and modellingare on the way, including floe size distribution
from observations (Toyota et al., 2006, 2011,2016; Hwang et al. 2017) and modelling (Williams et al., 2013; Zhang et al. 2016). These advances will potentially improve our understanding

References
Aksenov, Y., Popova, E. E. Yool, A., et al. (2017), On
the future navigability of Arctic sea routes: Highresolution projections of the Arctic Ocean and sea ice.
Marine Policy, 75: 300-317.
doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2015.12.027.
Buckley, J. R. Gammelsrød, T., Johannessen, J. A. ,et al. (1979), Upwelling: oceanic structure at the edgeof the Arctic ice pack in winter. Science, 203: 165-167.
doi:10.1126/science.203.4376.165.
Clarke, D. B. and Ackley, S. F. (1984), Sea ice structure and biological activity in the Antarctic marginal ice
zone. Journal of Geophysical Research Oceans,89(C2): 2087-2095. doi:10.1029/JC089iC02p02087.
Gallaher, S. G., Stanton, T. P., Shaw, W. J., et al.
(2016), Evolution of a Canada Basin ice-ocean
boundary layer and mixed layer across a developing
thermodynamically forced marginal ice zone. Journalof Geophysical Research Oceans, 121: 6223-6250.
doi:10.1002/2016JC011778.
Hwang, B., Wilkinson, J., Maksym, T., et al. (2017),
Winter-to-summer transition of Arctic sea ice breakup
and floe size distribution in the Beaufort Sea. Elemen-

20Discussion session reports
ta Science of the Anthropocene, 5:40.
doi:10.1525/elementa.232.

Strong, C. and Rigor, I. G. (2013), Arctic marginal ice
zone trending wider in summer and narrower in winter. Geophysical Research Letters, 40: 4864-4868.
doi:10.1002/grl.50928.

Inoue, J., Kawashima, M., Fujiyoshi, Y., et al. (2005),
Aircraft observations of air-mass modification over the
Sea of Okhotsk during sea-ice growth. BoundaryLayer Meteorology, 117: 111-129.
doi:10.1007/s10546-004-3407-y.

Strong, C., Foster, D., Cherkaev, E., et al. (2017), On
the definition of marginal ice zone Width. Journal of
Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, 34: 15651584. doi: 10.1175/JTECH-D-16-0171.1.

Kantha, L. H., and Mellor, G. L. (1989), A numericalmodel of the atmospheric boundary layer over a marginal ice zone. Journal of Geophysical Research,
94(C4): 4959-4970. doi:10.1029/JC094iC04p04959.

Stopa J. E., Ardhuin, F., Girard-Ardhuin, F. (2016),
Wave climate in the Arctic 1992-2014: seasonality andtrends. The Cryosphere, 10(4): 1605-1629. doi:
10.5194/tc-10-1605-2016.

Kohout, A. L., Williams, M. J. M., Toyota, T., et al.
(2016), In situ observations of wave-induced sea ice
breakup. Deep-Sea Research II, 131: 22-27.
doi:10.1016/j.dsr2.2015.06.010.

Thompson, J. and Rogers, W. E. (2014), Swell andsea in the emerging Arctic Ocean. Geophysical Research Letters, 41: 3136–3140.
doi:10.1002/2014GL059983.

Langhorne, P. J., Squire, V. A., Fox, C., et al. (1998),
Break-up of sea ice by ocean waves. Annals of Glaciology, 27: 438-442. doi:10.3189/S0260305500017869

Toyota, T., Shinya, T., Masashige, N. (2006), Characteristics of sea ice floe size distribution in the seasonalice zone. Geophysical Research Letters, 33: L02616.
doi:10.1029/2005GL024556.

Lincoln, B., Rippeth, T., Lenn, Y., et al. (2016), Winddriven mixing at intermediate depths in an ice-free
Arctic Ocean. Geophysical Research Letters, 43.
doi:10.1002/2016GL070454.

Toyota, T., Haas, C., Tamura, T. (2011), Size distribution and shape properties of relatively small sea-ice
floes in the Antarctic marginal ice zone in late winter.
Deep-Sea
ResearchII,58:
1182-1193.
doi:10.1016/j.dsr2.2010.10.034

Martin, T., Tsamados, M., Schroeder, D., et al. (2016),
The impact of variable sea ice roughness on changes
in Arctic Ocean surface stress: A model study. Journalof Geophysical Research, 121.
doi:10.1002/2015JC011186.

Toyota, T., Alison, K., Fraser, A. D. (2016), Formation
processes of sea ice floe size distribution in the interior pack and its relationship to the marginal ice zone
off East Antarctica. Deep-Sea Research II, 131: 2840. doi:10.1016/j.dsr2.2015.10.003.

Overeem, I., Anderson, R. S., Wobus, C. W., et al.
(2011), Sea ice loss enchances wave action at the
Arctic coast. Geophysical Research Letters, 38:
L17503. doi:10.1029/2011GL048681.

Wadhams, P. (1983) A mechanism for the formationof ice edge bands. Journal of Geophysical Research,88(C5): 2813-2818. doi:10.1029/JC088iC05p02813.

Perovich, D. K., Light, B., Polashenski, C., et al.
(2011), Solar partitioning in a changing Arctic sea-ice
cover. Annals of Glaciology, 52(57): 192-196.
doi:10.1029/2018EF000820.

Williams, T. D., Bennetts, L. G., Squire, V. A. (2013),
Wave-ice interaction in the marginal ice zone. Part 1:
theoretical foundations. Ocean Modelling, 71: 81-91.
doi:10.1016/j.ocemod.2013.05.010.

Randelhoff, A., Fer, I., Sundfjord, A. (2017), Turbulent
Upper-Ocean Mixing Affected by Meltwater Layers
during Arctic Summer. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 47: 835–853. doi: 10.1175/JPO-D-16-0200.1

WMO, (2014), Sea-ice nomenclature: Terminology,
WMO No.259, Vol. 1, World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

Saiki, R. and Mitsudera, H. (2016), A mechanism of
ice-band pattern formation caused by resonant interaction between sea ice and internal waves: a theory.
Journal of Physical Oceanography, 46: 583-600. doi:
10.1175/JPO-D-14-0162.1.

Zhang, J., Schweiger, A., Steele, M., et al. (2015),
Sea ice floe size distribution in the marginal ice zone:
Theory and numerical experiments. Journal of Geophysical Research Oceans, 120: 3484-3498.
doi:10.1002/2015JC010770.

Shapiro, M. A., et al., 1989, Research aircraft observations of an Arctic front over the Barents Sea, In Polar and Arctic Lows (ed. Twitchell, P. F., Rasmussen,
E. A. and Davidson, K. L.), A. Deepak, Hampton, Va.,279-289.

Zhang, J., Stem, H., Hwang, B. (2016), Modeling theseasonal evolution of the Arctic sea ice floe size distribution. Elementa Science of Anthropocene, 4:000126. doi:10.12952/journal.elementa.000126.

21

Discussion session reports

The high resolution measurement for the ocean-atmosphere interfacial
layersConveners: Chuqun Chen a and Eric Achterberg baState Key Laboratory of Tropical Oceanography, South China Sea Institute of Oceanology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, China. Contact: cqchen@scsio.ac.cnb
GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel, Germany. Contact: eachterberg@geomar.de

This discussion session, with about 40+ attendees at peak time, included several parts: a)
the importance of improving measurement resolution, b) the BEST (Buoyant Equipment for Skin
Temperature), a new instrument for temperature
measurements in the ocean-atmosphere interfacial layers at 0.6 mm resolution in vertical direction, c) the true sea surface temperature (SST)
structure measured by the new instrument
BEST--there is a strong thermocline layer at the
top of water, which depends on the temperature
difference between the water and the atmosphere, d) possible applications of the new instrument BEST. Then the discussion topics include: a) What do you think of increasing measurement resolution? b) What is the requirementof measurement resolution for your research? c)
Are you interested in applying the high verticalresolution temperature in-situ data for your research? d) Any other suggestions and comments?

Figure 18: Session convener Chuqun Chen, China. © A.
Murayama

parameter of surface ocean, it affects many othermarine physical, chemical & biological processes
in surface ocean and low atmosphere. The temperature profile data measured by BEST could
be applied for many subjects, such as, development of algorithm for retrieving SST from satellitedata, validation of remotely-sensed SST products, In-situ calibration of satellite thermal sensors, studies on heat flux and CO2 flux, marine
micro-surface chemical processes, microbe responses to strong temperature variation (in thestrong thermocline layer), and so on.

With the discussion, it is believed that the studies
on ocean-atmosphere interaction (OAI), a continuous process with molecular activities, requirein-situ data collection with higher temporal andspatial resolution. It will be helpful for better understanding the OAI mechanism with observational data of higher resolution. At present, it isdifficult to improve the vertical resolution ofchemical or biological measurements or sampling. However, the high resolution temperature
in-situ data could be useful for chemical or biological research of the ocean-atmosphere interfacial layers. Temperature is the most important

If anyone interested in employing BEST for temperature measurements at ocean-atmosphere interfacial layers, please feel free to contact with
Dr. Chuqun Chen (Figure 18), the designer ofBEST, which can synchronously to measure thetemperature of the bottom layer of the air, theskin layer and subsurface layer of the water at
0.6mm resolution in vertical direction with frequency of once a second.
22

Discussion session reports

What is Ocean KAN?
Conveners: Kaela Slavik a, Mitsuo Uematsu b, and Anna Zivian caFuture Earth, Science Officer, Paris Hub, France. Contact: kaela.slavik@futureearth.org
Ocean Knowledge-Action Network Development Team, Co-chair; Emeritus Professor, University ofTokyo, Japan. Contact: uematsu@aori.u-tokyo.ac.jp
cOcean Knowledge-Action Network Development Team, Co-chair; Senior Research Fellow, Ocean
Conservancy, USA. Contact: azivian@oceanconservancy.orgbThis lively discussion session presented information on Future Earth and its role in supporting
Global Research Projects (GRPs), including SOLAS, as well as several Knowledge-Action Networks (KANs); the Ocean KAN; and the way Future Earth, the Ocean KAN, and the GRPs canengage in the upcoming United Nations (UN)
Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development. It also explored ways in which the
Ocean KAN can work cooperatively and synergistically with SOLAS. It included presentations
by Mitsuo Uematsu and Anna Zivian, co-chairs of
the Ocean KAN Development Team, and Kaela
Slavik, Science Officer at the Future Earth Global
Hub in Paris. Fumiko Kasuga, Global Hub Director for the Future Earth Global Hub in Japan, also
contributed information on Future Earth to thediscussion, in which
over 20 people participated (Figure 19).
A good portion of thesession was dedicatedto understanding the
Future Earth ecosystem, including how the
Future Earth Secretariat and GRPs are connected: note that Future Earth science officers are assigned toGRPs
asliaisons.
There are also meetings with GRP/KAN/Future Earth representatives, of whichsome examples include: Future Earth Summit, last held in August
2018, a two-day meeting in Bonn – it wasnoted that this is one of the most valuable
things Future Earth can do Four GRP representatives and one KAN representatives were present at the 2019 meeting of the Future Earth Advisory Committee
and Governing Council in Stockholm in April
In some ways, the outcome is the exchange;
there are also other opportunities, like help with
communications, networking/connections for science, etc. The Future Earth Communications
team, in particular, can support GRPs in communicating their achievements – Future Earth
Communications team (note that sharing science

Figure 19: Session conveners: Anna Zivian (left) and Kaela Slavik (right).
© F. Kasuga

23

Discussion session reports

can help lead to funding). In addition, Future
Earth has routes for engaging in science-policy
processes and conferences (e.g., Future Earth isaccredited in various UN fora and can provide
credentials for people interested in attending).

SOLAS and other GRPs can help provide thesubstance, and that substance can help inform
decision-makers and the public. The Ocean KAN
can amplify that science through blogs, webinars,
engaging in global science and policy efforts,
linking early career researchers in the GRPs withearly career researchers and professionals inbusiness, NGOs, government, and other academic organizations, and facilitating connections
and networks (Figure 20). Just as co-production
and co-design are important in designing research for society, it is important that the various
initiatives in Future Earth and the Ocean KAN
are connected and complementary, and thismeeting helped set the stage for that moving
forward.

Beyond Future Earth, the Ocean KAN has sponsorship from World Climate Research Programme,
Intergovernmental
Oceanographic
Commission, and Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research, and was set up, along with other
KANs, to respond to needs from the community,
connect to policy/society/decision-makers; andlink to industry as well as other organizations andnon-governmental organizations (NGOs) like
Ocean Conservancy and other boundary organisations. Some of these functions overlap with the
SOLAS Science and Society group, so it wasnoted that both groups will make sure to connect
via science officers, joint membership, and bothformal and informal channels.

Figure 20: Global Research Projects (GRPs) and Knowledge-Action Networks (KANs) on the basic research toaction spectrum

24

Discussion session reports

Atmospheric deposition of iron, ocean biogeochemistry and marine emission of biological aerosols
Convener: Akinori Ito a
Co-convener: William Landing b
Rapporteur: Douglas Hamilton caYokohama Institute for Earth Sciences, JAMSTEC, Yokohama, Kanagawa 236-0001, Japan. Contact: akinorii@jamstec.go.jpb
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA. Contact: wlanding@fsu.edu
cDepartment of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA. Contact: dsh224@cornell.edu

This session focused on the coupling between
the deposition of aerosol iron to the ocean andsubsequent emission of marine aerosol and precursor gases to the atmosphere via ocean primary productivity. The atmospheric deposition ofiron plays a key role in this coupling because it isa major new source of this limiting nutrient inmany remote ocean regions.

mineral dust sources, but combustion sources
can make up the dominant labile (bioavailable)
fraction in many regions (Myriokefalitakis et al.,2018; Ito et al., 2019). It was shown that watercolumn inventories can be used to further our
understanding of atmospheric deposition rates;
which are currently poorly constrained (Figure21). The presentation section finished with a discussion on how modelled cloud condensation
nuclei concentrations, and hence cloud properties and radiative forcing, are likely to be mostsensitive to changes in oceanic dimethylsulfide(DMS) over the Southern Ocean and Southern
Hemisphere sub-tropical gyres (Mahajan et al.,The presentation section started with showing
recent the United Nations Joint Group of Expertson the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP) results; atmosphericconcentrations of total iron are dominated by

Figure 21: The atmospheric iron deposition discussion session. © A. Murayama

25

Discussion session reports

2015; Hamilton, 2017). However, the role of DMS
in altering cloud albedo depends on whether it
nucleates to form new particles or is lost via condensation and grows existing particles instead.
The quantification of the oceanic iron residence
time is a key uncertainty in linking iron deposition
with ocean productivity (Tagliabue et al., 2017),
and hence marine emissions to the atmosphere.
If the dissolved iron residence time is short, on
the order of several days, then localised deposition is important (Wingenter et al., 2004) andmodels will need to have high temporal resolution. However, if the dissolved iron residence
time is longer, then it becomes regionally wellmixed and the link between aerosol iron deposition and marine emissions will be obscured.

floats and ocean gliders, and aircraft measurements were highlighted. Investigating the ironlimitation tipping point in different models could
also help in quantifying the importance of different processes that can be further investigated in
the field or laboratory.

During the discussion section many questions
were discussed and future undertakings were
proposed, with a clear overlap between the SOLAS and GEOTRACES projects motivating futurecollaborations. In general, more observations areneeded from remote regions, more specificallyover the Pacific, Indian, and the Southern
Oceans. Barbados, Bermuda and Cape Verdemake excellent natural laboratory sites for continuous measurement. However, as aerosol
sources, distributions and properties are spatiallyheterogenous it is important to consider regions
outside the North Atlantic. For example, new data from Australia (presented in the poster session
by Morgane Perron) showed that the magnitude
and solubility of iron emissions from fires is likely
to be underestimated over the Southern Hemisphere.

Standardising lab and field experiments dealing
with aerosol solubility and bioavailability was discussed. To aid this Bill Landing and Peter Morton(both at Florida State University) have been distributing subsamples of a large batch of ultra-fineArizona Test Dust (ATD, a mineral dust surrogate) to people doing such research, encouraging them to report their measurements of total
and soluble trace element concentrations and touse it in incubation experiments. They expect tosubmit a paper later in 2019 summarising theanalytical results and promoting ATD as a “consensus reference material”. It would be useful toexpand this type of collaboration to include “reference” aerosols from anthropogenic combustion
sources, ship’s exhaust, biomass burning, etc.
which also deliver trace elements to the oceans.

Finally, beyond iron, other metals (e.g., cobalt or
copper) are co-limiting nutrients or toxic to primary producers. While oceanic distributions of biologically-essential dissolved trace elements (including Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, and Cd) are now
freely available from the GEOTRACES 2017 Intermediate Data Product, atmospheric emission
and deposition inventories are still sparse (Mahowald et al., 2018).

References
Laboratory studies will continue to be importantin elucidating the impacts of different aerosol
solubilization processes. In particular, it wassuggested that incubation experiments can beused to understand the role of ligands in aerosol
iron solubility or in varying the supply of N/P/Fe
to determine production rates of marine aerosols
and precursor gases. Other novel ideas such as
the use of biogeochemical sensors on ARGO

Hamilton, D. S. (2017), Effects of natural aerosol
on climate, Ph.D thesis, Leeds University.
Ito, A., Myriokefalitakis, S., Kanakidou, M., et al.
(2019), Pyrogenic iron: The missing link to highiron solubility in aerosols. Science Advances,5(5): 1-10. doi:10.1126/sciadv.aau7671.

26

Discussion session reports

Tagliabue, A., Bowie, A. R., Boyd, P. W., et al.
(2017), The integral role of iron in ocean biogeochemistry. Nature, 543(7643): 51-59.
doi:10.1038/nature21058, 2017.

Mahajan, A. S., Fadnavis, S., Thomas, M. A., etal. (2015), Quantifying the impacts of an updated
global dimethyl sulfide climatology on cloud microphysics and aerosol radiative forcing. Journalof Geophysical Research Atmospheres, 120(6):2524-2536. doi:10.1002/2014JD022687, 2015.

Wingenter, O. W., Haase, K. B., Strutton, P., etal. (2004), Changing concentrations of CO, CH4,
C5H8, CH3Br, CH3I, and dimethyl sulfide during
the Southern Ocean Iron Enrichment Experiments. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America
101(23): 8537-8541.
doi:10.1073/pnas.0402744101, 2004.

Mahowald, N. M., Hamilton, D. S., Mackey, K. R.
M., et al. (2018), Aerosol trace metal leaching
and impacts on marine microorganisms. Nature
Communications, 9(1). doi:10.1038/s41467-01804970-7.
Myriokefalitakis, S., Ito, A., Kanakidou, M., et al.
(2018), The GESAMP atmospheric iron deposition model intercomparison study. Biogeosciences, 15(21): 6659–6684.
doi:10.5194/bg-15-6659-2018, 2018.

Follow us on twitter@SOLAS_IPO

27

Discussion session reports

Oceanic greenhouse gases: The present situation and future initiatives
Conveners: Parv Suntharalingam a, Arne Koertzinger b, and Guiling Zhang c
Rapporteur: Yassir Eddebbar daUniversity of East Anglia, United Kingdom. Contact: p.suntharalingam@uea.ac.uk
GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Re-search Kiel, Germany. Contact: akoertzinger@geomar.dec
Ocean University of China, China. Contact: guilingzhang@ouc.edu.cndScripps Institution of Oceanography, USA. Contact: yeddebba@ucsd.edub

The aims of this SOLAS Theme 1 discussion
session were to provide an overview of SOLASrelevant greenhouse gas (GHG) related activities, and to identify and prioritize key areas of future research. A specific session aim was also toprovide recommendations from the SOLAS
community to the new Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) Working Group on
Integrated Ocean Carbon Research, a joint program initiative sponsored by the Climate andOcean-Variability, Predictability, and Change(CLIVAR), the Global Carbon Project (GCP), theIntegrated Marine Biosphere Research (IMBeR),
SOLAS, the International Ocean Carbon Coordination Project (IOCCP), and the World Climate
Research Programme (WCRP). The session began with an introductory presentation on ongoing
GHG observational and synthesis activities (e.g.,
Surface Ocean CO₂ Atlas (SOCAT), the MarinE
MethanE and NiTrous Oxide database (MEMENTO), and the Surface Ocean pCO2 Mapping
intercomparison (SOCOM)). Key questions for
SOLAS-relevant GHG research were thenposed, including: (1) Are we making oceanic
GHG measurements in the right places? (2)Which surface ocean biogeochemistry-climate
feedbacks should be priorities for investigation?
(3) What are the significant modeling challenges
in estimating ocean-atmosphere GHG fluxes onregional and global scales?

a)Despite recent observational campaigns
and synthesis efforts, relevant ocean biogeochemical variables are under-sampled
in the open ocean and in regions especiallycritical for GHG fluxes; these regions include the polar oceans, coastal and marginal seas, and coastal upwelling zones(e.g., the Northwest Arabian Sea). It wasnoted that autonomous sampling technologies (e.g., Bio-Argo) can help alleviate under-sampling in the open ocean, but areless effective in polar and coastal regions.

b)

Significant open questions remain in predicting how future oceanic GHG fluxes will
evolve in response to changing physicaland biogeochemical processes in the surface ocean. Participants discussed theneed for greater understanding of the links
between ocean physical and biogeochemical variability, the role of decadal variability
in ocean circulation, and the impacts ofmultiple-stressors (e.g., warming, ocean
deoxygenation, and acidification) on GHG
sources and sinks. Large ensemble modeling efforts provide powerful tools to address
prediction of GHG fluxes, but are often limited by insufficient links to observations andincomplete mechanistic understanding of
the biogeochemistry.

A lively discussion ensued among the ~40 participants (Figure 22) in which the following issues
were highlighted:

The above issues led to a broader discussion on
the need for improved integration of currently
available oceanic GHG measurements (e.g.,28Discussion session reports

Figure 22: Participants in the Greenhouse Gases discussion session. © A. Murayama

CO2, N2O, CH4) together with relevant biogeochemical measurements (e.g., oxygen, nutrients)
in consistent and accessible databases that
could provide improved support for GHG data
analyses and model simulations.

a productive session, and note that many of theissues raised in the discussion align well with the
GHG Theme 1 priorities outlined in the SOLAS
2015-2025: Science Plan and Organisation (Breviere et al. 2016).

The session concluded with a discussion on
evaluating the impacts of multiple environmental
changes on marine ecosystems and GHG fluxes.
Previous efforts have focused on perturbation
experiments such as manipulated laboratory culture studies, and multiple-mesocosm analyses.
Participants highlighted the need for also exploiting ‘natural laboratories’ (e.g., in regions of distinct biogeochemical gradients such as ocean
eddies, or following climate and ecosystem perturbations induced by volcanic eruptions) to investigate the response of marine GHG fluxchanges to multiple environmental stressors.
We thank all participants for their contribution toReferences
Brévière, E. and the SOLAS Scientific Steering
Committee (eds.) (2016): SOLAS 2015-2025:
Science Plan and Organisation. SOLAS International Project Office, GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre
for Ocean Research Kiel, Kiel, 76 pp.

29

Award recipients research profiles
Lumi Kinjo majors in Chemistry at Wellesley College, Wellesley,USA. She studies air-sea gas exchange using noble gases as partof the Stanley laboratory at Wellesley College. Her undergraduate
thesis work was based on experiments conducted at the SUrge
Structure Atmospheric InteractioN (SUSTAIN) wind-wave tank at
the University of Miami, USA. She is excited to go on her first research cruise this summer.

Measuring noble gas fluxes at high wind speeds in the SUSTAIN windwave tankKinjo, L. a*, Alt, H. a, Kopp E. a, Aldrett, D. a, Krevanko, C. a, Wyatt-Smith, A. b, Haus, B. b, Stanley, R.
H. R. aab

Wellesley College, Wellesley, USA
University of Miami, Miami, USA* lkinjo@wellesley.edu
Gas exchange at high wind speeds is not wellunderstood—few studies have been conducted
at wind speeds above 20 m s-1, and significant
disagreement exists between gas exchange
models at high wind speeds. In particular, theflux due to bubbles is not explicitly included inmany gas exchange models, even though bubble-mediated gas exchange becomes increasingly important at higher wind speeds.
The goal of my project is to quantify air-sea gas exchange underhigh wind speeds and to examine
the relationship between noble gas
measurements, bubble spectra,
wave-type, and water temperature.
Noble gases serve as excellent
tracers for this purpose, as they
are biologically and chemically inert, and have a wide range of solubility and diffusivity that responds
differently to physical forcing(Stanley and Jenkins, 2013).
Over the course of five days in July
2018, we conducted 35 experi-ments at the SUrge Structure Atmospheric InteractioN (SUSTAIN) wind-wave tank with windspeeds at U10 = 20 - 50 m s-1 (5 m s-1 increment),
water temperatures at 20, 26, and 32 °C, andwave conditions including uniform (regularly
breaking) waves and JONSWAP (random)
waves. Continuous Ne, Ar, Kr, and Xe ratio
measurements were obtained by a Gas Equili-

Figure 23: Schematic of the Gas Equilibration Mass Spectrometer (GEMS)
instrumental set-up (not drawn to scale).

30

Award recipients research profiles
tion anomalies of the noble gases in order toquantitatively explore the relationship between
gas flux, bubble spectra, and wind speed. A few
studies conducted at high wind speeds showedthat gas flux increased dramatically as windspeed increased (McNeil and D'Asaro, 2007;
Iwano et al., 2013; Mesarchaki et al., 2015).
Therefore, it will be interesting to see the response of the gas transfer velocity to the different wind and wave parameters. We also will examine how other physical measurements suchas wave height, wave spectral slope, turbulent
kinetic energy, etc. affect both diffusive gas exchange and bubble-mediated gas exchange.

bration Mass Spectrometer (GEMS) (Figure 23).
Additionally, discrete noble gas measurements
were collected at the beginning of select experiments and at the end of all experiments for He,
Ne, Ar, Kr, and Xe. Bubble size and volume
spectra were obtained using an underwatershadowgraph imaging device. Other physicalmeasurements such as continuous salinity, watertemperature, wind/wave velocities, and atmospheric pressure were also obtained.
Our result from the conditions with the highest
saturation anomalies suggests that steady state
saturation anomalies of gases level off as windspeed increases (Figure 24). Additionally, boththe temperature dependence of noble gas saturation anomalies and the coherence between
bubble surface area spectra and saturation
anomalies suggest that partially dissolving bubbles may have an important flux contribution at
higher wind speeds.

References
Iwano, K., Takagaki, N., Kurose, R., et al. (2013),
Mass transfer velocity across the breaking air–water interface at extremely high wind speeds.
Tellus B: Chemical and Physical Meteorology,
65: 21341. doi: 10.3402/tellusb.v65i0.21341.

As the next step, we will construct a box model tocalculate the gas fluxes and steady state satura-

McNeil, C. and D'Asaro, E. (2007), Parameterization of air–sea gas fluxes at extreme windspeeds. Journal of Marine Systems, 66: 110-121.
doi: 10.1016/j.jmarsys.2006.05.013.
Mesarchaki, E., Kräuter, C., Krall, K., et al.
(2015), Measuring air–sea gas-exchange velocities in a large-scale annular wind–wave tank.
Ocean Science, 11: 121-138. doi:10.5194/os-11121-2015.
Stanley, R. H. and Jenkins, W. J. (2013), Noble
gases in seawater as tracers for physical and biogeochemical ocean processes. The Noble
Gases as Geochemical Tracers, Springer, 55-79.
doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-28836-4_4.
Acknowledgements

Figure 24: Saturation anomalies of five discrete noble gases(He, Ne, Ar, Kr, and Xe) from the end of each experiment in
the SUSTAIN tank are plotted as a function of wind speed forexperimental condition with uniform waves and water temperature at 26℃.Saturation anomalies level off as wind speed
increase.

31

I am very grateful to my advisor Professor Rachel Stanley for her mentorship and encouragement. I would also like to thank the National Science Foundation (Grant OCE-1634467), andWellesley College for their generous support.

Award recipients research profiles

George Manville completed his undergraduate degree and masters in Ocean Sciences at the University of Liverpool, United Kingdom, in 2015. He started his PhD in 2018 at the University of Exeter, United Kingdom, to investigate whether natural marine aerosols, notably dimethylsulfide (DMS), can be used to explain
Southern Ocean climate.

Spatial variability lengthscales of surface ocean dimethylsulfide (DMS)
concentrations in mid-high latitudes
Manville, G.a*, Bell, T. b, Halloran, P. a, Mulcahy, J. c, Majahan, A. d, Saltzman, E. ea

University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom
Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Plymouth, United Kingdomc
Met Office, Exeter, United KingdomdIndian Institute of Tropical Meteorology, Pune, Indiae
University of California Irvine, Irvine, USAb* gm441@exeter.ac.uk

Dimethylsulfide (DMS) makes a significant contribution to natural marine aerosol by adding
mass to existing particles or forming new ones.
These sulphate particles can scatter light and, as
cloud condensation nuclei (CCN), can modify
cloud optical properties and alter the Earth’s radiation budget (Charlson et al., 1987). The role ofclimate-active biogenic aerosols, such as thoseformed by DMS emissions, on modulating theradiative balance, is the largest source of uncertainty in the latest global climate projection estimates (Boucher et al., 2013).

which interpolation between measurements is
applied in L10, largely due to a sparsity in global
DMS concentration measurements. The L10 climatology is used by a number of coupled earthsystem and climate models, either to validate
DMS concentrations or to directly determine
DMS input into the atmosphere. This is of criticalimportance because the amount and distributionof preindustrial DMS emissions determines thesensitivity of climate models to anthropogenic
aerosol.
DMS concentration variability coupled with alarge-scale smoothing approach combine to create uncertainty in the estimates of global DMS
concentration
distribution
andocean–
atmosphere fluxes produced by L10. Improving
understanding of the spatial variability of seawater DMS will help improve climatological flux
estimates. High frequency data enables an assessment of the variability lengthscale (VLS) of
DMS (Royer et al., 2015). VLS indicates the pre-DMS is ubiquitous in marine surface waters,
however its temporal and spatial distribution arehighly variable and hard to predict due to complex biological processes that control its production and consumption (Asher et al., 2011). The
most widely used DMS climatology, produced by
Lana et al. (2011), herein referred to as L10, applies a large-scale smoothing, with a radius of
555 km. The radius of influence is the area over32

Award recipients research profiles

and defines the characteristic VLS for DMS. Figure 26
is an example VLS plot for
one of the transects fromthe Knorr 11 cruise dataset.
This is repeated for eachtransect, and for each data
set. The distribution of VLS
values within, and between,
cruise datasets is analysed,
and mean VLS values foreach cruise taken. Despite
differences between thethree cruises (seasonality,
location, spatial resolution,
cruise style), mean DMS
VLS is similar between datasets, with a range ofjust 3 km between mean values.

Figure 25: Map showing cruise transect locations.

dictability of spatial DMS concentration distribution, over increasing interpolation distances (Tortell et al., 2011). We use high frequency data
(max. distance between samples: 1-2 km), including measurements made using a chemical
ionization mass spectrometer (CIMS) (see Bell etal., 2015; Saltzman et al., 2009 for details) fromcruises during NAAMES (North Atlantic Aerosol
and Marine Ecosystem Study) and SOAP (Surface Ocean Aerosol Production study), to assess
the VLS in high latitude environments at different
stages of the seasonal cycle. Figure 25 shows
the cruise transect ship tracks.
The Knorr 11, NAAMES, and SOAP cruise datasets are broken into underway (ship speed >4ms-1), continuous transects. A binning scheme
applied to each transect produces average DMS
concentrations which, when interpolated back to
the original data resolution, are associated withinterpolation errors. Calculating the meansquared error (MSE) between interpolated andoriginal data at each interpolation distance, produces a linear relationship between MSE and increasingly coarse binning distance, up to an inflection point in the regression. The point at
which the linear relationship breaks down indicates the point at which MSE can no longer be
predicted as a function of interpolation distance,

The example plot provided in Figure 26 highlights how DMS varies over as little as ~4 km in
the North Atlantic. At even <10 km scale, climatological products that apply smoothing, averaging and interpolation techniques are likely tomiss much of the small-scale variability. The useof a 555 km radius of influence in L10 for example, is simply too coarse to resolve many of the

Figure 26: DMS interpolation mean squared errors(MSE) as a function of interpolation binning distance
(km).

33

Award recipients research profiles

Royer, S. J., Mahajan, A. S., Galí, M., et al.
(2015), Small-scale variability patterns of DMS
and phytoplankton in surface waters of the tropical and subtropical Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific
Oceans. Geophysical Research Letters, 42: 475483. doi: 10.1002/2014GL062543

mesoscale and sub-mesoscale processes andshort-lived patches of biological activity that occur ubiquitously in the surface ocean. The understanding of these small-scale processes, andthe spatial lengthscales over which they vary,
may prove key in understanding the biologicaland physical drivers of DMS production andemission.

Saltzman, E. S., De Bruyn, W. J., Lawler, M. J.,
et al. (2009), A chemical ionization mass spectrometer for continuous underway shipboard
analysis of dimethylsulfide in near-surface seawater. Ocean Science, 5: 537-546.
doi: 10.5194/os-5-537-2009

References
Asher, E. C., Merzouk, A., Tortell, P. D. (2011),
Fine-scale spatial and temporal variability of surface water dimethylsufide (DMS) concentrations
and sea-air fluxes in the NE Subarctic Pacific.
Marine Chemistry, 126: 63-75.
doi: 10.1016/j.marchem.2011.03.009

Tortell, P. D., Guéguen, C., Long, M. C., et al.
(2011), Spatial variability and temporal dynamics
of surface water pCO2, δO2/Ar and dimethylsulfide in the Ross Sea, Antarctica. Deep-Sea
Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers, 58: 241-259.
doi: 10.1016/j.dsr.2010.12.006

Bell, T. G., De Bruyn, W., Marandino, C. A., et al.
(2015), Dimethylsulfide gas transfer coefficientsfrom algal blooms in the Southern Ocean. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 15: 17831794. doi: 10.5194/acp-15-1783-2015

Acknowledgements
This work was supported by a NERC Case Studentship award (NE/R007586/1) and the NASA
NAAMES program. My thanks to the numerous
supervisors and collaborators for their contribution to this work.

Boucher, O., Randall, D., Artaxo, P., et al.
(2013), Clouds and Aerosols. In: Climate Change
2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contributionof Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, in: Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.
K., et al. (Eds.), IPCC. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New
York, NY, USA, pp. 571-658.
Charlson, R. J., Lovelock, J. E., Andreae, M. O.,
et al. (1987), Oceanic phytoplankton, atmospheric sulphur, cloud albedo and climate. Nature 326:
655-661. doi: org/10.1038/326655a0
Lana, A., Bell, T. G., Simó, R., et al. (2011), An
updated climatology of surface dimethlysulfide
concentrations and emission fluxes in the global
ocean. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 25: 1-17.
doi: 10.1029/2010GB003850.

34

Award recipients research profiles
Hannah M. Horowitz studied Earth and Planetary Sciences at
Harvard University (BA, PhD). Since 2017, Hannah has been an
National Science Foundation and Joint Institute for the Study of
the Atmosphere and Ocean postdoctoral fellow at University ofWashington, USA, researching the climate and chemistry impactsof sea salt aerosol in two contexts: blowing snow in polar regions
and marine cloud brightening.

Blowing snow sea salt aerosol emissions and radiative effects
Horowitz, H. M.
University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
hmhorow@uw.edu
Evidence from ice cores (e.g., Wagenbach et al.,
1994; Rankin and Wolff, 2003) and atmosphericobservations (e.g., Huang and Jaegle, 2017)
suggests that blowing saline snow on sea ice is amajor source of sea salt aerosol in polar regions.
This source is not represented in climate models.
In addition to aerosol-radiation and -cloud interactions, sea salt aerosols release reactive halogens that destroy ozone and increase the atmospheric lifetime of methane. Blowing snow
sea salt aerosol in particular is smaller in size
than open ocean sea salt (Yang et al., 2008),
meaning it can also be transported farther distances. In my postdoctoral research, I am quantifying the climate-atmospheric chemistry feedbacks of blowing snow sea salt aerosol in thepresent-day and future climate under changing
sea ice conditions. The fate of blowing snow sea
salt emissions under climate change is unclear,as declining sea ice cover decreases emissions,while younger ice and thinner snow cover increase emissions by increasing snow salinity(Krnavek et al., 2012; Nandan et al., 2017). To
address this, I simulate blowing snow sea salt
aerosol under present and future climate scenarios within the Community Earth System Model(CESM2.1). I have implemented size-dependent
blowing snow sea salt aerosol emissions basedon Huang and Jaegle (2017) into the 4-mode
Modal Aerosol Model (Liu et al., 2016) within theatmospheric component (CAM6). To calculatepresent-day radiative effects from blowing snow
sea salt, I have performed historical atmosphericsimulations from 1997 - 2010 (following 2 yearsof spin-up time) at 1° resolution with prescribedhistorical sea surface temperatures and sea ice
fraction and satellite phenology for the land surface.
Figure 27 shows preliminary model results forsea salt aerosol emissions from blowing snow in
the Arctic during winter 2009. With the addition of
blowing snow sea salt aerosol, shortwave cloud
forcing, longwave cloud forcing, aerosol opticaldepth (AOD), cloud liquid water path, and downwelling longwave flux at the surface all increasein absolute magnitude in the wintertime Arctic,
with largest changes in shortwave cloud forcing(10.9%; from -1.63 to -1.83 W m-2) and longwave
cloud forcing (20.7%; from 10.6 to 13.3 W m-2). In
the Antarctic, smaller changes in wintertime
cloud forcings are seen (shortwave: -1.48 to 1.52 W m-2; longwave: 12.3 to 13.0 W m-2), withnegligible changes in downwelling longwave flux
at the surface; AOD and cloud liquid water pathdecrease. I am still investigating the processes
35

Award recipients research profiles
behind the changes in AOD and cloud liquid water path over Antarctica, which areopposite of those seen over the Arctic.
I am currently evaluating simulated present-day sea salt aerosol concentrations
against surface, ship, and satellite observations. Ultimately, I will quantify thechange in blowing snow sea salt aerosol
concentrations and radiative effects underclimate change in polar regions. To dothis, I am developing a new parameterization of surface snow salinity as a functionof snow depth and sea ice surface salinity
based on observations of hundreds of vertical profiles of snow salinity. In implementing this parameterization in CESM, I
will couple additional processes between
the dynamic sea ice and snow model(CICE5) and the atmosphere model(CAM6) and allow simulated surface snow
salinity to respond to changes in sea ice
and snow properties for the first time.

Figure 27: Modelled sea salt aerosol emissions from blowing snow
-7-2 -1
(10 kg m d ) in the Arctic in winter 2009.

References

tic First-Year Sea Ice Freeboard Measurements.
Geophysical Research Letters, 44(20).
doi:10.1002/2017GL074506.

Huang, J. and Jaeglé, L. (2017), Wintertime enhancements of sea salt aerosol in polar regions
consistent with a sea ice source from blowing
snow. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 17:3699-3712. doi:10.5194/acp-17-3699-2017.

Rankin, A. M., and Wolff, E. W. (2003), A yearlong record of size-segregated aerosol composition at Halley, Antarctica. Journal of GeophysicalResearch, 108(D24): 4775.

Krnavek, L., Simpson, W. R., Carlson, D., et al.
(2012), The chemical composition of surface
snow in the Arctic: examining marine, terrestrial,
and atmospheric influence. Atmospheric Environment, 50: 349-359.
doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.11.033

Wagenbach, D., Graf, W., Minikin, A., et al.
(1994), Reconnaissance of chemical and isotopic
firn properties on top of Berkner Island, Antarctica. Annals of Glaciology, 20: 307-312.
Yang, X., Pyle, J. A., Cox, R. A. (2008), Sea salt
aerosol production and bromine release: Role ofsnow on sea ice. Geophysical Research Letters,
3: L16815. doi: 10.1029/2008GL034536

Liu, X., Ma, P.-L., Wang, H., et al. (2016), Description and evaluation of a new four-mode version of the Modal Aerosol Module (MAM4) withinversion 5.3 of the Community Atmosphere Model.

Acknowledgements
Funding: NSF AGS PRF 1624738. Thanks to collaborators and advisors Becky Alexander, Lyatt
Jaeglé, Cecelia Bitz, Susannah Burrows, Jiayue
Huang, Xiaohong Liu, Simone Tilmes, and Li Xu.

Geoscientific Model Development, 9: 505-522.
doi: 10.5194/gmd-9-505-2016.
Nandan, V., Geldsetzer, T., Yackel, J., et al.
(2017), Effect of Snow Salinity on CryoSat-2 Arc-36

Award recipients research profiles

Stephanie Schneider studied chemistry at the University of Alberta,
Canada, before moving to Toronto, Canada, to pursue her PhD inenvironmental chemistry in 2017. Her current PhD project focuseson the chemical mechanisms which release volatile organic compounds from the sea-surface microlayer.

Formation of secondary aerosol from the oxidation of T. pseudonana
cultures
Schneider, S.a*, Collins, D. B. b, Abbatt, J. P.D. caUniversity of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
Bucknell University, Lewisburg, USAc
University of Toronto, Toronto, Canadab* steph.schneider@mail.utoronto.ca
The sea surface microlayer (SML) is an important mediator of the interaction between thebulk aqueous phase of the ocean and the gaseous phase of the atmosphere. Field observationsin the Canadian Arctic during the Canadian Network of climate and aerosols (NETCARE) campaign found evidence of this interaction from thepresence of gas-phase organic species originating from secondary marine source. (Abbatt et al.
2019) For example, increased concentrations ofsecondary oxygenated volatile organic compounds (VOCs) correlating with an enriched SML
suggests chemical mechanisms, such as photochemistry or heterogeneous oxidation, are likely
the cause (Mungall et al. 2017). While the photochemical production of VOCs from the SML is
known (Ciuraru et al. 2015), the heterogeneousoxidation of the SML has been less well studied.
The formation of gas-phase carbonyls is observed from the oxidation of linoleic acid monolayers and natural SML samples with ozone(Zhou et al. 2014), however it is difficult to determine the identity and abundance of precursor
compounds to this reaction.

portant to understand, as they can undergo further oxidation in the atmosphere and condense
into the liquid or solid phase to contribute to aerosol mass. The relative organic composition ofaerosol is an important factor in determining the
likelihood of the aerosol acting as a cloud condensation nuclei or an ice nuclei, which can leadto indirect climate effects.
To answer these questions, it is important to accurately capture the complexity of the SML. (Engel et al. 2017) We aim to study the formationand fate of gaseous products from the oxidationof the SML with ozone, using a complex but controlled proxy for the SML. Axenic cultures ofThalassiosira pseudonana, a common diatom,
are used to generate relevant organic material tosimulate the biological origin of material present
in the real SML (Figure 28).
We observed gas-phase products of the ozonolysis of the T. pseudonana cultures. Only mature
cultures (~3 weeks old) produced significant
amounts of carbonyls compared to the growth
media compared to new cultures (~1 week old).
Most notably, the larger carbonyls saw the mostThe sources of VOCs to the atmosphere are im37

Award recipients research profiles

Figure 28: Schematic representing the production of organic material from T. pseudonana, its subsequentoxidation with ozone at the ocean surface, and its fate in the atmosphere to outline the project goals.

al. (2019), Overview paper: New insights into aerosol and climate in the Arctic. Atmospheric
Chemistry and Physics, 19(4): 2527-2560.
doi: 10.5194/acp-19-2527-2019change in signal in the presence of phytoplankton cultures. Larger carbonyls are less volatile,
making them more likely to condense and contribute to organic aerosol mass.

Ciuraru, R., Fine, L., van Pinxteren, M., et al.
(2015), Photosensitized production of functionalized and unsaturated organic compounds at the
air-sea interface. Scientific Reports, 5:12741.
doi: 10.1038/srep12741

Furthermore, in initial experiments we observe
the formation of ultrafine aerosol particles after
oxidation of T. pseudonana cultures with ozone.
Particles above our detection limit of 14 nm areobserved only with mature cultures, which aligns
with our gas-phase results. In later experiments,
ozone was mixed downstream of the cultures toverify that primary emissions were not responsible for the reactive precursors. The absence ofparticle formation in this case shows that it isheterogeneous oxidation at the surface of thecultures that is responsible for aerosol and VOC
formation.

Engel, A., Bange, H. W., Cunliffe, M., et al.
(2017), The Ocean’s Vital Skin: Toward an Integrated Understanding of the Sea Surface Microlayer. Frontiers in Marine Science, 4.
doi:10.3389/fmars.2017.00165.
Mungall, E. L., Abbatt, J. P. D., Wentzell, J. J. B.,
et al. (2017), Microlayer source of oxygenatedvolatile organic compounds in the summertime
marine Arctic boundary layer. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the UnitedStates of America, 114(24): 6203-6208.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1620571114

This preliminary study shows that biological material from phytoplankton is reactive towards
ozone. This reaction pathway can form gaseouscompounds that are secondary aerosol precursors, which can contribute to aerosol growth.
These results continue to help us understand theinfluence of chemical processes in the SML that
may have contributed to atmospheric observations made during the NETCARE campaign.

Zhou, S., Zhao, R., Lee, A., et al. (2014), Formation of gas-phase carbonyls from heterogeneous oxidation of polyunsaturated fatty acids at the
air–water interface and of the sea surface microlayer. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 14(3):1371-1384. doi: 10.5194/acp-14-1371-2014
Acknowledgements

References

We gratefully acknowledge Martine Lizotte for her
help and guidance in culturing phytoplankton.

Abbatt, J. P. D., Leaitch, W. R., Aliabadi, A. A., et38

Award recipients research profiles
Pat Wongpan obtained his PhD from University of Otago in New
Zealand and was a David Crighton fellow at University of Cambridge. He is a Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS)
Postdoctoral fellow at the Institute of Low Temperature Science,
Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan. He is interested in sea ice–
ice shelf–ocean interaction and its consequences on ecosystem.

Using under-ice transmitted hyperspectra to determine land-fast ice algal
biomass in Saroma-ko Lagoon, Hokkaido, Japan
Wongpan, P.a*, Nomura, D. bc, Toyota, T. a, Tanikawa, T. d, Ishino, T. e, Tamura, T. e, Tozawa, M. e,
Hirawake, T. bc, Ooki, A. bc, Aoki, S.aaInstitute of Low Temperature Science, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan
Faculty of Fisheries Sciences, Hokkaido University, Hakodate, Japanc
Arctic Research Center, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japand
Meteorological Research Institute, Japan Meteorological Agency, Tsukuba, Japane
School of Fisheries Sciences, Hokkaido University, Hakodate, Japanb* wongpan@lowtem.hokudai.ac.jp
The phenology of sea ice is the largest interannual variability exhibited by the Earth’s surface.
Land-fast ice, sea ice fasten to the coastline, is a
key component of coastal ecosystems in polar
regions, providing habitat for ice algal communities (Arrigo, 2017). The first-year to multiyear ice
ratio in the Arctic is increasing (Maslanik et al.,2011) and sea ice is thinning (Labe et al., 2018)
towards the predicted summer ice-free Arctic inthis century. To date, the estimation of algal biomass by satellites has only applied to the unfrozen ocean using the ocean color. The ocean color cannot be used with sea ice due to the highalbedo of snow hiding the ‘sea ice color’. This
study examines the relationships between thenormalized difference indices calculated fromunder-ice hyperspectral measurements, and ice
algal biomass for land-fast first-year ice in Saroma-ko Lagoon, Hokkaido, Japan in Spring 2019
(Figure 29). Saroma-ko Lagoon is one of thelowest-latitude areas where sea ice forms in thenorthern hemisphere (e.g., Liu et al., 2018). Its
surface area is 150 m2 (e.g., Nomura et al.,Figure 29: (a) A typical sea ice core from Saroma-ko Lagoon, Japan. (b) Under-ice irradiance sensor measuring thelight transmits through snow, sea ice, and is absorbed by sea
ice algae. (c) The irradiance sensor was installed through theborehole while the temperature of the drilled core was measured in concert.

39

Award recipients research profiles
2010). The methodology used in thisstudy has been successfully applied in
the Arctic (Mundy et al., 2007) and Antarctic (Wongpan et al., 2018) land-fast
ice. During the study period, we examined the physical properties of snow
and ice supporting 27 paired optical andbiological measurements along fourtransect lines across multiple scales
covering over 250 m × 250 m area. The
results of the under-ice hyperspectral
transmittance and the integrated chl-a
are illustrated in Figure 30. Trends between spectra and chl-a at typical wavelength ranges are indicated in Figure
Figure 30: Results of 27 hyperspectral transmittances against wave30. This is the first step towards the allengths colored by integrated chl-a values.
gorithm development. The new observation-based algorithms can be applied to nonage through spring 2011. Geophysical Research
Letters, 38(13). doi: 10.1029/2011gl047735
invasively estimate land-fast ice algal biomass
which will fill the gap of monitoring sea ice algal
Meiners, K. M., Arndt, S., Bestley, S., et al.
biomass for thin first-year ice. Together with the(2017), Antarctic pack ice algal distribution: Floeocean color remote sensing, our algorithms will
scale spatial variability and predictability fromhelp improve the understanding of the temporalphysical parameters. Geophysical Research Letand spatial variability of algal biomass using
ters,44(14):7382-7390.doi:10.1002/2017gl074346
moorings and underwater vehicles (Meiners et
Mundy, C. J., Ehn, J. K., Barber, D. G., et al.
al., 2017) focusing with the thin Arctic sea ice(2007), Influence of snow cover and algae on the
scenario.
spectral dependence of transmitted irradiancethrough Arctic landfast first-year sea ice. Journal
Referencesof Geophysical Research, 112(C3).
doi: 10.1029/2006jc003683
Arrigo K. R. (2017), Sea ice as a habitat for priNomura, D., Yoshikawa-Inoue, H., Toyota, T., etmary producers. In DN Thomas (ed.), Sea Ice,
al. (2010), Effects of snow, snow melting and re352-369, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. doi:freezing processes on air–sea-ice CO2 flux. Jour10.1002/9781118778371.ch14
nal of Glaciology, 56(196): 262-270.
Labe, Z., Magnusdottir, G., Stern, H. (2018), Vardoi: 10.3189/002214310791968548
iability of Arctic sea ice thickness using PIOMAS
Wongpan, P., Meiners, K. M., Langhorne, P. J., etand the CESM large ensemble. Journal of Clial. (2018), Estimation of Antarctic land-fast sea
mate, 31(8): 3233-3247.
ice algal biomass and snow thickness from underdoi:10.1175/jcli-d-17-0436.1
ice radiance spectra in two contrasting areas.
Liu, Y., Saitoh, S. I., Maekawa, K., et al. (2018),
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans,
Impact of short-term climate effects and sea ice
123(3): 1907-1923. doi: 10.1002/2017jc013711
coverage variation on Japanese scallop aquaculture in Saroma Lake, Japan. Aquaculture ReAcknowledgements
search, 49(5): 1752-1767.doi:10.1111/are.13630
We acknowledge financial support by the Grantsin-Aid for Scientific Research and Postdoctoral
Maslanik, J., Stroeve, J., Fowler, C., et al.
Fellowship of the JSPS.
(2011), Distribution and trends in arctic sea ice
40

Sponsors

SOLAS Open Science Conference Sponsors

Contact

SOLAS Sponsors

SOLAS International Project Office
GEOMAR Helmholtz Center for Ocean
Research Kiel, Germany
State Key Laboratory of Marine Environmental Science, Xiamen University,
Chinasolas@geomar.de
Editors:
Jessica Gier
Li Li

41