Cruise: 06M220170104 (dataset:GLODAPv2.2019.NEW) Data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021 Successor: GLODAPv2.2022, v2.2023
Synonyms (including errata!) for this cruise: MSM60; 06M220170104; alias: MSM60; erratum: 06MM20170104 (Do Not Use 06MM according to ICES http://data.ices.dk/Reports/ShipC.aspx)
IMPORTANT information for GLODAP Reference Group Editors: This adjustment version is immutable and published in GLODAPv2.2019! Click here to switch to new version (GLODAPv2.2019)
Please wait while loading list of related files
Filename: | Comment: | Action | |
---|---|---|---|
Redfield.png | View |
- no files! -
Plot/Data files re. Parameter(s) (select parameter on left side to view!):
alkalinity:10
cfc12:1
cruise:1
nitrate:10
oxygen:13
phosphate:11
salinity:15
silicate:11
tco2:11
- no files! -
Filename: | Comment: | Action | |
---|---|---|---|
06AQ19920521_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
29HE20010305_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
29HE20020304_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
29HE20100208_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
29HE20130320_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
323019940104_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
33MW19910711_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
33RO20050111_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
33RO20100308_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
35A319950221_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
35MF20080207_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
74DI19921222_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
74JC19950320_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
90AV20041104_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
Xresults.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View |
View comment(s) (filtered by salinity in subject)
06MM20170104 - salinity
All crossovers indicate a good accuracy, many of them have offsets very close to
zero. No need for an adjustment. Maintain.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-08-27 14:36:12 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021
Filename: | Comment: | Action | |
---|---|---|---|
29HE20100208_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/tco2!] |
View | |
29HE20130320_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/tco2!] |
View | |
316N19720718.1_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/tco2!] |
View | |
323019940104_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/tco2!] |
View | |
33RO20050111_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/tco2!] |
View | |
33RO20100308_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/tco2!] |
View | |
35A319950113_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/tco2!] |
View | |
35A319950221_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/tco2!] |
View | |
35MF20080207_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/tco2!] |
View | |
90AV20041104_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/tco2!] |
View | |
Xresults.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/tco2!] |
View |
View comment(s) (filtered by tco2 in subject)
06MM20170104 - tco2
The data seems to be accurate and also precise. All but one offset are clearly
within the acceptable range. No need for an adjustment.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-08-27 14:36:26 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021
Filename: | Comment: | Action | |
---|---|---|---|
29HE20100208_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/alkalinity!] |
View | |
29HE20130320_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/alkalinity!] |
View | |
323019940104_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/alkalinity!] |
View | |
33RO20050111_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/alkalinity!] |
View | |
33RO20100308_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/alkalinity!] |
View | |
35A319950113_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/alkalinity!] |
View | |
35A319950221_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/alkalinity!] |
View | |
35MF20080207_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/alkalinity!] |
View | |
90AV20041104_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/alkalinity!] |
View | |
Xresults.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/alkalinity!] |
View |
View comment(s) (filtered by alkalinity in subject)
06MM20170104 - alkalinity
Most cruises indicate too low concentrations, but still within the acceptable
range. It is striking that the crossover with RO2005 does not agree with the
other offsets. This cruise received an upward (5) adjustment itself to fit
better with core cruises. It has already been stated for other cruises in the
south atlantic that many (SAVE) cruises might be biased with too high
concentrations, i.e. negatively infleuncing the crossover results. This might be
the case here too. Maintain.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-08-27 14:36:37 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021
View comment(s) (filtered by ph in subject)
06M220170104 - phosphate
As discussed in Seattle all phosphate data are bad
Posted by siv.lauvset@uib.no on 2018-10-01 09:29:01 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021
06MM20170104 - phosphate
The measurements have a better precision compared to nitrate but are still very
scattery. This makes the 2nd QC very difficult. Based on the weighted mean and
the "ok" fit to most other cruises (trying to neglect dubious samples/profiles)
I would either suggest to maintain as is or not include the data completly.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-08-27 14:37:19 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021
Filename: | Comment: | Action | |
---|---|---|---|
06AQ19920521_Xover - Kopie.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/nitrate!] |
View | |
29HE20100208_Xover - Kopie.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/nitrate!] |
View | |
316N19831007_Xover - Kopie.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/nitrate!] |
View | |
316N19871123.1_Xover - Kopie.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/nitrate!] |
View | |
323019940104_Xover - Kopie.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/nitrate!] |
View | |
33RO20050111_Xover - Kopie.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/nitrate!] |
View | |
33RO20100308_Xover - Kopie.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/nitrate!] |
View | |
35A319950113_Xover - Kopie.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/nitrate!] |
View | |
35A319950221_Xover - Kopie.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/nitrate!] |
View | |
Xresults.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/nitrate!] |
View |
View comment(s) (filtered by nitrate in subject)
06M220170104 - nitrate
As discussed in Seattle the nitrate data are all bad on this cruise
Posted by siv.lauvset@uib.no on 2018-10-01 09:28:46 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021
06MM20170104 - nitrate
Most striking is the questionable precision most present in the eastern part,
e.g. crossover-plot with 74DI19921222. Combined with a strong offset (above 5%)
in regions where the data precision is acceptable (33RO2005), results in an
overall bad impression.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-08-27 14:36:51 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021
Filename: | Comment: | Action | |
---|---|---|---|
316N19831007_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/phosphate!] |
View | |
316N19831113_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/phosphate!] |
View | |
316N19871123.1_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/phosphate!] |
View | |
323019940104_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/phosphate!] |
View | |
33RO20100308_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/phosphate!] |
View | |
35A319950113_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/phosphate!] |
View | |
35A319950221_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/phosphate!] |
View | |
74DI19921222_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/phosphate!] |
View | |
74JC19950320_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/phosphate!] |
View | |
90AV20041104_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/phosphate!] |
View | |
Xresults.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/phosphate!] |
View |
View comment(s) (filtered by phosphate in subject)
06M220170104 - phosphate
As discussed in Seattle all phosphate data are bad
Posted by siv.lauvset@uib.no on 2018-10-01 09:29:01 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021
06MM20170104 - phosphate
The measurements have a better precision compared to nitrate but are still very
scattery. This makes the 2nd QC very difficult. Based on the weighted mean and
the "ok" fit to most other cruises (trying to neglect dubious samples/profiles)
I would either suggest to maintain as is or not include the data completly.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-08-27 14:37:19 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021
Filename: | Comment: | Action | |
---|---|---|---|
316N19831007_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/silicate!] |
View | |
316N19871123.1_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/silicate!] |
View | |
323019940104_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/silicate!] |
View | |
33RO20050111_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/silicate!] |
View | |
33RO20100308_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/silicate!] |
View | |
35A319950113_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/silicate!] |
View | |
35A319950221_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/silicate!] |
View | |
35MF20080207_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/silicate!] |
View | |
74DI19921222_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/silicate!] |
View | |
90AV20041104_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/silicate!] |
View | |
Xresults.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/silicate!] |
View |
View comment(s) (filtered by silicate in subject)
06M220170104 - silicate
As discussed in Seattle all silicate data are bad
Posted by siv.lauvset@uib.no on 2018-10-01 09:29:15 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021
06MM20170104 - silicate
Even though the precision seems ok, the crossover offsets vary widely. The
crossovers against RO2005 and RO2010 demonstrate this nicely. Based on the given
evidence I cannot suggest an adjustment. Looking at the individual profiles
rather than the corresponding offsets the data seems to be acceptable.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-08-27 14:37:44 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021
Filename: | Comment: | Action | |
---|---|---|---|
29HE20100208_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
29HE20130320_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
316N19831007_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
323019940104_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
33MW19910711_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
33RO20050111_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
33RO20100308_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
35A319950113_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
35A319950221_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
35MF20080207_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
74DI19921222_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
90AV20041104_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
Xresults.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View |
View comment(s) (filtered by oxygen in subject)
06MM20170104 - oxygen
Only 2 (out of 12) crossovers show offsets below 1. All others indicate slightly
too high concentrations. However, the weighted mean offset is clearly within the
acceptable range and given the higher than usual uncertainty of this data
(issues with the titration) I suggest to maintain it.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-08-27 14:38:11 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021
Filename: | Comment: | Action | |
---|---|---|---|
CFC-12-saturation.png | View |
View comment(s) (filtered by cfc12 in subject)
06MM20170104 - cfc12
Even though the stations 40 - 100 show a stronger oversaturation, a general
adjustment should not be applied (at the western ann eastern part of this track
the oversaturation is not visible). Also the overall mean is 1.04 and hence
within the acceptable range. Maintain.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-08-27 14:39:33 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021
View 11 comment(s) (Lists all comments)
06M220170104 - silicate
As discussed in Seattle all silicate data are bad
Posted by siv.lauvset@uib.no on 2018-10-01 09:29:15 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021
06M220170104 - phosphate
As discussed in Seattle all phosphate data are bad
Posted by siv.lauvset@uib.no on 2018-10-01 09:29:01 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021
06M220170104 - nitrate
As discussed in Seattle the nitrate data are all bad on this cruise
Posted by siv.lauvset@uib.no on 2018-10-01 09:28:46 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021
06MM20170104 - cfc12
Even though the stations 40 - 100 show a stronger oversaturation, a general
adjustment should not be applied (at the western ann eastern part of this track
the oversaturation is not visible). Also the overall mean is 1.04 and hence
within the acceptable range. Maintain.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-08-27 14:39:33 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021
06MM20170104 - oxygen
Only 2 (out of 12) crossovers show offsets below 1. All others indicate slightly
too high concentrations. However, the weighted mean offset is clearly within the
acceptable range and given the higher than usual uncertainty of this data
(issues with the titration) I suggest to maintain it.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-08-27 14:38:11 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021
06MM20170104 - silicate
Even though the precision seems ok, the crossover offsets vary widely. The
crossovers against RO2005 and RO2010 demonstrate this nicely. Based on the given
evidence I cannot suggest an adjustment. Looking at the individual profiles
rather than the corresponding offsets the data seems to be acceptable.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-08-27 14:37:44 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021
06MM20170104 - phosphate
The measurements have a better precision compared to nitrate but are still very
scattery. This makes the 2nd QC very difficult. Based on the weighted mean and
the "ok" fit to most other cruises (trying to neglect dubious samples/profiles)
I would either suggest to maintain as is or not include the data completly.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-08-27 14:37:19 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021
06MM20170104 - nitrate
Most striking is the questionable precision most present in the eastern part,
e.g. crossover-plot with 74DI19921222. Combined with a strong offset (above 5%)
in regions where the data precision is acceptable (33RO2005), results in an
overall bad impression.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-08-27 14:36:51 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021
06MM20170104 - alkalinity
Most cruises indicate too low concentrations, but still within the acceptable
range. It is striking that the crossover with RO2005 does not agree with the
other offsets. This cruise received an upward (5) adjustment itself to fit
better with core cruises. It has already been stated for other cruises in the
south atlantic that many (SAVE) cruises might be biased with too high
concentrations, i.e. negatively infleuncing the crossover results. This might be
the case here too. Maintain.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-08-27 14:36:37 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021
06MM20170104 - tco2
The data seems to be accurate and also precise. All but one offset are clearly
within the acceptable range. No need for an adjustment.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-08-27 14:36:26 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021
06MM20170104 - salinity
All crossovers indicate a good accuracy, many of them have offsets very close to
zero. No need for an adjustment. Maintain.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-08-27 14:36:12 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021
Hide comments