Cruise: 096U20160426 (dataset:GLODAPv2.2019.NEW) Data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021 Successor: GLODAPv2.2022, v2.2023
Synonyms (including errata!) for this cruise: P15S; 096U20160426; alias: P15S.2016; 096U20160426; P15S; SOCCOM-10
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 | |
---|---|---|---|
tracer.png | View |
- no files! -
Plot/Data files re. Parameter(s) (select parameter on left side to view!):
alkalinity:11
cfc11:1
cfc12:1
cruise:1
nitrate:13
oxygen:13
ph:6
phosphate:11
phts:6
salinity:12
silicate:12
tco2:10
- no files! -
Filename: | Comment: | Action | |
---|---|---|---|
09FA20010524_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
09SS20090203_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
318M19730822_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
318M20091121_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
31DS19960105_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
31OC19870606_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
33MW19900222_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
33RR19971020_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
33RR19971202_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
49NZ20030803_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
49NZ20090410_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
Xresults.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View |
View comment(s) (filtered by salinity in subject)
096U20160426 - salinity
Very accurate measurements. All but two offsets are very close to zero. 318M1973
not too reliable as it covers a large area - but even that crossover shows an
acceptable offset. No need for an adjustment.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-04-27 11:12:12 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021
Filename: | Comment: | Action | |
---|---|---|---|
09FA20010524_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/tco2!] |
View | |
09SS20090203_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/tco2!] |
View | |
18DD19940906_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/tco2!] |
View | |
318M19940327_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/tco2!] |
View | |
318M20091121_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/tco2!] |
View | |
33RR19971020_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/tco2!] |
View | |
33RR19971202_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/tco2!] |
View | |
49NZ20030803_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/tco2!] |
View | |
49NZ20090410_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/tco2!] |
View | |
Xresults.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/tco2!] |
View |
View comment(s) (filtered by tco2 in subject)
096U20160426 - tco2
All but one offset are positive around 1.5. 318M1973 not reliable. However, a
mean offset of 1.46 is not enough to justify an adjustment.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-04-27 11:15:46 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021
Filename: | Comment: | Action | |
---|---|---|---|
09FA20010524_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/alkalinity!] |
View | |
09SS20090203_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/alkalinity!] |
View | |
318M19730822_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/alkalinity!] |
View | |
318M19940327_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/alkalinity!] |
View | |
318M20091121_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/alkalinity!] |
View | |
31DS19960105_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/alkalinity!] |
View | |
33RR19971020_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/alkalinity!] |
View | |
33RR19971202_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/alkalinity!] |
View | |
49NZ20030803_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/alkalinity!] |
View | |
49NZ20090410_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/alkalinity!] |
View | |
Xresults.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/alkalinity!] |
View |
View comment(s) (filtered by alkalinity in subject)
096U20160426 - alkalinity
Pretty variable offsets, but except for 318M1973 all within acceptable range.
318M1973 might be too heavily corrected. Even ignoring this crossover mean
offset clearly within limits. No adjustment.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-04-27 11:18:47 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021
Filename: | Comment: | Action | |
---|---|---|---|
09FA20010524_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/ph!] |
View | |
09SS20090203_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/ph!] |
View | |
31DS19960105_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/ph!] |
View | |
33RR19971020_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/ph!] |
View | |
33RR19971202_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/ph!] |
View | |
Xresults.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/ph!] |
View |
View comment(s) (filtered by ph in subject)
096U20160426 - ph
Decided that the suggested adjustement is too low, considering the new cut-off
of 0.01
Posted by ttanhua@geomar.de on 2018-09-26 21:48:11 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021
096U20160426 - ph
pH - inter consistency check (type 2) confirms crossover result (offset of
-0.005).
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-07-27 09:14:37 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021
096U20160426 - phosphate
All offsets clearly within acceptable range, even within a 2% range. Only two
offsets above 1. However, not enough evidence to support and justify such a
small adjustment, thus no adjustment.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-04-27 12:12:53 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021
096U20160426 - ph
The proposed adjustment is only based on five (parallel) crossovers. All offsets
are negative and all of them close or below the limit (-0.005). Mean offset
strongly influenced by 31DS1996. With the proposed adjustment of 0.005 it would
match three (out of the five) crossover cruises quite nicely.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-04-27 11:29:25 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021
Filename: | Comment: | Action | |
---|---|---|---|
09FA20010524_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/nitrate!] |
View | |
09SS20090203_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/nitrate!] |
View | |
18DD19940906_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/nitrate!] |
View | |
316N19920502_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/nitrate!] |
View | |
318M19940327_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/nitrate!] |
View | |
318M20091121_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/nitrate!] |
View | |
31OC19870606_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/nitrate!] |
View | |
33MW19920224_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/nitrate!] |
View | |
33RR19971020_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/nitrate!] |
View | |
33RR19971202_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/nitrate!] |
View | |
49NZ20030803_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/nitrate!] |
View | |
49NZ20090410_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/nitrate!] |
View | |
Xresults.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/nitrate!] |
View |
View comment(s) (filtered by nitrate in subject)
096U20160426 - nitrate
Pretty variable offsets. All but two within acceptable range. The crossover
result of the outlier 33MW1992 is of doubtful quality. Further it matches
318M2009 - a cruise with high quality nitrate data - very nicely. No adjustment
needed.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-04-27 11:32:40 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021
Filename: | Comment: | Action | |
---|---|---|---|
09FA20010524_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/phosphate!] |
View | |
09SS20090203_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/phosphate!] |
View | |
316N19920502_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/phosphate!] |
View | |
318M19940327_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/phosphate!] |
View | |
318M20091121_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/phosphate!] |
View | |
31DS19960105_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/phosphate!] |
View | |
33RR19971020_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/phosphate!] |
View | |
33RR19971202_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/phosphate!] |
View | |
49NZ20030803_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/phosphate!] |
View | |
49NZ20090410_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/phosphate!] |
View | |
Xresults.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/phosphate!] |
View |
View comment(s) (filtered by phosphate in subject)
096U20160426 - phosphate
All offsets clearly within acceptable range, even within a 2% range. Only two
offsets above 1. However, not enough evidence to support and justify such a
small adjustment, thus no adjustment.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-04-27 12:12:53 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021
Filename: | Comment: | Action | |
---|---|---|---|
09FA20010524_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/silicate!] |
View | |
09SS20090203_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/silicate!] |
View | |
18DD19940906_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/silicate!] |
View | |
318M19940327_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/silicate!] |
View | |
318M20091121_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/silicate!] |
View | |
31DS19960105_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/silicate!] |
View | |
31OC19870606_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/silicate!] |
View | |
33RR19971020_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/silicate!] |
View | |
33RR19971202_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/silicate!] |
View | |
49NZ20030803_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/silicate!] |
View | |
49NZ20090410_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/silicate!] |
View | |
Xresults.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/silicate!] |
View |
View comment(s) (filtered by silicate in subject)
096U20160426 - silicate
All but three offsets are below 1 - three even below the limit of 0.98.
Nonetheless, not clear enough to suggest an adjustment. Weighted mean is also
close to zero being 0.995. Thus, no adjustment.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-04-27 12:15:59 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021
Filename: | Comment: | Action | |
---|---|---|---|
09FA20010524_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
09SS20090203_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
316N19920502_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
318M19730822_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
318M20091121_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
31DS19960105_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
31OC19870606_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
33MW19920224_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
33RR19971020_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
33RR19971202_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
49NZ20030803_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
49NZ20090410_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
Xresults.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View |
View comment(s) (filtered by oxygen in subject)
096U20160426 - oxygen
318M1973 and 33MW1990 represent outliers. All other crossovers show offsets very
close to 1, underlining the high quality of this cruise. No adjustment needed.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-04-27 12:19:24 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)
096U20160426 - cfc12
Even though there is a spatial trend visible, the mean of the saturation ratio
(upper 20m) and the good fit to the CFC_11 data support no adjustment.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-04-27 12:20:54 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021
Filename: | Comment: | Action | |
---|---|---|---|
CFC-11-saturation.png | View |
View comment(s) (filtered by cfc11 in subject)
096U20160426 - cfc11
Even though there is a spatial trend visible, the mean of the saturation ratio
(upper 20m) and the good fit to the CFC_12 data support no adjustment.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-04-27 12:20:43 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021
View 12 comment(s) (Lists all comments)
096U20160426 - ph
Decided that the suggested adjustement is too low, considering the new cut-off
of 0.01
Posted by ttanhua@geomar.de on 2018-09-26 21:48:11 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021
096U20160426 - ph
pH - inter consistency check (type 2) confirms crossover result (offset of
-0.005).
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-07-27 09:14:37 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021
096U20160426 - cfc12
Even though there is a spatial trend visible, the mean of the saturation ratio
(upper 20m) and the good fit to the CFC_11 data support no adjustment.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-04-27 12:20:54 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021
096U20160426 - cfc11
Even though there is a spatial trend visible, the mean of the saturation ratio
(upper 20m) and the good fit to the CFC_12 data support no adjustment.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-04-27 12:20:43 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021
096U20160426 - oxygen
318M1973 and 33MW1990 represent outliers. All other crossovers show offsets very
close to 1, underlining the high quality of this cruise. No adjustment needed.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-04-27 12:19:24 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021
096U20160426 - silicate
All but three offsets are below 1 - three even below the limit of 0.98.
Nonetheless, not clear enough to suggest an adjustment. Weighted mean is also
close to zero being 0.995. Thus, no adjustment.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-04-27 12:15:59 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021
096U20160426 - phosphate
All offsets clearly within acceptable range, even within a 2% range. Only two
offsets above 1. However, not enough evidence to support and justify such a
small adjustment, thus no adjustment.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-04-27 12:12:53 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021
096U20160426 - nitrate
Pretty variable offsets. All but two within acceptable range. The crossover
result of the outlier 33MW1992 is of doubtful quality. Further it matches
318M2009 - a cruise with high quality nitrate data - very nicely. No adjustment
needed.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-04-27 11:32:40 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021
096U20160426 - ph
The proposed adjustment is only based on five (parallel) crossovers. All offsets
are negative and all of them close or below the limit (-0.005). Mean offset
strongly influenced by 31DS1996. With the proposed adjustment of 0.005 it would
match three (out of the five) crossover cruises quite nicely.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-04-27 11:29:25 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021
096U20160426 - alkalinity
Pretty variable offsets, but except for 318M1973 all within acceptable range.
318M1973 might be too heavily corrected. Even ignoring this crossover mean
offset clearly within limits. No adjustment.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-04-27 11:18:47 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021
096U20160426 - tco2
All but one offset are positive around 1.5. 318M1973 not reliable. However, a
mean offset of 1.46 is not enough to justify an adjustment.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-04-27 11:15:46 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021
096U20160426 - salinity
Very accurate measurements. All but two offsets are very close to zero. 318M1973
not too reliable as it covers a large area - but even that crossover shows an
acceptable offset. No need for an adjustment.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-04-27 11:12:12 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021
Hide comments