Cruise: 06M220070414 (dataset:GLODAPv2.2019.NEW) Data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
Synonyms (including errata!) for this cruise: MSM05/1; 06M220070414; erratum:06MM20070414; 06M220070406
IMPORTANT information for GLODAP Reference Group Editors: This adjustment is a published version for GLODAPv2.2019!
Please wait while loading list of related files
Filename: | Comment: | Action | |
---|---|---|---|
tracer_complete.png | View |
- no files! -
Plot/Data files re. Parameter(s) (select parameter on left side to view!):
cfc11:1
cfc12:1
cruise:1
oxygen:12
salinity:9
- no files! -
Filename: | Comment: | Action | |
---|---|---|---|
06GA20000506_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
06MM20090714_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
06MT19990711_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
06MT20030626_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
06MT20030723_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
06MT20030831_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
18HU19950419_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
18HU19950607_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
Xresults.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View |
View comment(s) (filtered by salinity in subject)
06M220070414 - salinity
There seems to be a temporal trend which might have stopped or even reversed
between 2003 and 2009. Further is the offset strongly dependant on depth for
most of the individual crossovers. All in all this makes a conclusion very
difficult. Purely based on the closest (in time) crossover, 06MM2009, there
seems to be no need for an adjustment. Maintain.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-09-25 17:49:39 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
Filename: | Comment: | Action | |
---|---|---|---|
06GA20000506_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
06MM20090714_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
06MT19990711_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
06MT20030723_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
06MT20030831_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
18HU19950419_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
18HU19950607_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
316N19961102_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
316N19970530_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
316N19971005_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
32EV19910328_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
Xresults.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View |
View comment(s) (filtered by oxygen in subject)
06M220070414 - oxygen
All(!) - but 06MT2003 - crossovers have weighted offsets above the upper 1%
limit. The offset is present at all depths and the agreement is very striking.
Adjust accordingly to the most recent crossovers.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-09-25 17:50:03 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
Filename: | Comment: | Action | |
---|---|---|---|
CFC-12-saturation.png |
View comment(s) (filtered by cfc12 in subject)
06M220070414 - cfc12
The ok fit with CFC_11 is a Little misleading as CFC_11 itself is not accurate.
However, the surface saturation is acceptable for most stations - even though on
the lower limit. Maintain.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-09-25 17:46:46 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
Filename: | Comment: | Action | |
---|---|---|---|
CFC-11-saturation.png |
View comment(s) (filtered by cfc11 in subject)
06M220070414 - cfc11
As discussed in seattle the CFC-11 data were flagged 3 by the PI and should be
-777 here
Posted by siv.lauvset@uib.no on 2018-10-01 09:27:35 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
06M220070414 - cfc113
This case is rather difficult as the (bad) fit with CFC_11 suggests that the
data is "ok", given the undersaturation of CFC_11. I.e. CFC_113 concentrations
are too high if compared to CFC_11. But the saturation ratios of CFC_113 show a
strong undersaturation themselves... Taking into account that only flag "3"
data is present I suggest to exclude this data.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-09-25 17:48:39 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
06M220070414 - cfc11
The great majority of the surface data seems undersaturated - only two (out of
21) "outliers" are present. The mean surface saturatio ratio is 0.92. Adjust
accordingly.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-09-25 17:47:38 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
View comment(s) (filtered by cfc113 in subject)
06M220070414 - cfc113
This case is rather difficult as the (bad) fit with CFC_11 suggests that the
data is "ok", given the undersaturation of CFC_11. I.e. CFC_113 concentrations
are too high if compared to CFC_11. But the saturation ratios of CFC_113 show a
strong undersaturation themselves... Taking into account that only flag "3"
data is present I suggest to exclude this data.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-09-25 17:48:39 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
View 8 comment(s) (Lists all comments)
06M220070414 - cfc11
As discussed in seattle the CFC-11 data were flagged 3 by the PI and should be
-777 here
Posted by siv.lauvset@uib.no on 2018-10-01 09:27:35 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
06M220070414
Most bottle data were flagged 3 by the PI. As discussed in Seattle we flag the
oxygen data -777 for the 2018 version
Posted by siv.lauvset@uib.no on 2018-10-01 09:26:47 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
06M220070414 - oxygen
All(!) - but 06MT2003 - crossovers have weighted offsets above the upper 1%
limit. The offset is present at all depths and the agreement is very striking.
Adjust accordingly to the most recent crossovers.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-09-25 17:50:03 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
06M220070414 - salinity
There seems to be a temporal trend which might have stopped or even reversed
between 2003 and 2009. Further is the offset strongly dependant on depth for
most of the individual crossovers. All in all this makes a conclusion very
difficult. Purely based on the closest (in time) crossover, 06MM2009, there
seems to be no need for an adjustment. Maintain.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-09-25 17:49:39 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
06M220070414 - cfc113
This case is rather difficult as the (bad) fit with CFC_11 suggests that the
data is "ok", given the undersaturation of CFC_11. I.e. CFC_113 concentrations
are too high if compared to CFC_11. But the saturation ratios of CFC_113 show a
strong undersaturation themselves... Taking into account that only flag "3"
data is present I suggest to exclude this data.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-09-25 17:48:39 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
06M220070414 - cfc11
The great majority of the surface data seems undersaturated - only two (out of
21) "outliers" are present. The mean surface saturatio ratio is 0.92. Adjust
accordingly.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-09-25 17:47:38 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
06M220070414 - cfc12
The ok fit with CFC_11 is a Little misleading as CFC_11 itself is not accurate.
However, the surface saturation is acceptable for most stations - even though on
the lower limit. Maintain.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-09-25 17:46:46 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
06M220070414 - initialized
original: 06M220070414, Merian, M.Rhein, AO
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-09-21 18:22:40 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
Hide comments