Cruise: 49UP20130619 (dataset:GLODAPv2.2019.NEW) Data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
Synonyms (including errata!) for this cruise: rf201306; rf201306; 49UP20130619; GO-SHIP:P03W; erratum:49UP20130621;
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 | |
---|---|---|---|
Redfield.png | View | ||
tracer.png | View |
- no files! -
Plot/Data files re. Parameter(s) (select parameter on left side to view!):
alkalinity:3
cfc11:1
cfc12:1
cruise:2
nitrate:8
oxygen:8
ph:3
phosphate:7
salinity:9
silicate:7
tco2:3
- no files! -
Filename: | Comment: | Action | |
---|---|---|---|
325019850330_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
49HG19971110_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
49K619960620_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
49NZ20051031_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
49UF20021031_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
49UF20030625_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
49UF20050615_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
49UF20060614_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
Xresults.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View |
View comment(s) (filtered by salinity in subject)
49UP20130621 - salinity
Again, the crossovers with UF cruises are limited in depth, roughly to 2500m.
Thus, conclusions from these crossovers should be drawn with caution. The
overall good accuracy is nice given this relative variable region. Maintain.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-09-06 14:10:37 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
Filename: | Comment: | Action | |
---|---|---|---|
49HG19971110_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/tco2!] |
View | |
49NZ20051031_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/tco2!] |
View | |
Xresults.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/tco2!] |
View |
View comment(s) (filtered by tco2 in subject)
49UP20130621 - tco2
Only 2 crossovers present - making a full 2nd QC impossible. Both show a
relative strong positive offset. The more recent one (still only from 2005) is
within the range though.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-09-06 14:12:27 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
Filename: | Comment: | Action | |
---|---|---|---|
49HG19971110_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/alkalinity!] |
View | |
49NZ20051031_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/alkalinity!] |
View | |
Xresults.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/alkalinity!] |
View |
View comment(s) (filtered by alkalinity in subject)
49UP20130621 - alkalinity
Only 2 crossovers present - making a full 2nd QC impossible. It is striking
though that both agree very well and show an offset of roughly 3.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-09-06 14:12:05 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
Filename: | Comment: | Action | |
---|---|---|---|
49HG19971110_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/ph!] |
View | |
49NZ20051031_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/ph!] |
View | |
Xresults.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/ph!] |
View |
View comment(s) (filtered by ph in subject)
49UP20130621 - phosphate
With the exception of 49UF2006, have all crossovers only a small offset (in most
cases above 1). Note that all crossovers with UF cruises are limited in depth
compared to the cruise in question, i.e. limiting the crossover quality.
Maintain.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-09-06 14:10:58 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
49UP20130621 - ph
Only two crossovers present with more or less contrary offsets. The weighted
mean is thus very close to 0… An additional interconsistency check (type 2) does
not show any need for an adjustment in that perspective. However, none of the
other carbonate parameter could receive a full 2nd QC.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-09-06 14:09:15 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
Filename: | Comment: | Action | |
---|---|---|---|
325019850330_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/nitrate!] |
View | |
49HG19971110_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/nitrate!] |
View | |
49K619960620_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/nitrate!] |
View | |
49NZ20051031_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/nitrate!] |
View | |
49UF20030625_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/nitrate!] |
View | |
49UF20050615_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/nitrate!] |
View | |
49UF20060614_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/nitrate!] |
View | |
Xresults.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/nitrate!] |
View |
View comment(s) (filtered by nitrate in subject)
49UP20130621 - nitrate
All offsets are clearly within the acceptable range. The analysis supports that
the data is very precise (compared to other cruises) and accurate. Maintain
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-09-06 14:11:16 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
Filename: | Comment: | Action | |
---|---|---|---|
325019850330_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/phosphate!] |
View | |
49HG19971110_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/phosphate!] |
View | |
49NZ20051031_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/phosphate!] |
View | |
49UF20030625_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/phosphate!] |
View | |
49UF20050615_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/phosphate!] |
View | |
49UF20060614_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/phosphate!] |
View | |
Xresults.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/phosphate!] |
View |
View comment(s) (filtered by phosphate in subject)
49UP20130621 - phosphate
With the exception of 49UF2006, have all crossovers only a small offset (in most
cases above 1). Note that all crossovers with UF cruises are limited in depth
compared to the cruise in question, i.e. limiting the crossover quality.
Maintain.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-09-06 14:10:58 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
Filename: | Comment: | Action | |
---|---|---|---|
325019850330_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/silicate!] |
View | |
49HG19971110_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/silicate!] |
View | |
49K619960620_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/silicate!] |
View | |
49NZ20051031_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/silicate!] |
View | |
49UF20050615_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/silicate!] |
View | |
49UF20060614_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/silicate!] |
View | |
Xresults.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/silicate!] |
View |
View comment(s) (filtered by silicate in subject)
49UP20130621 - silicate
All offsets are clearly within the acceptable range. Note however, that their
standard deviation is quite large. Further, no systematic differences are
obtained, e.g. the offsets of the UF cruises (even if limited in quality) differ
in "sign". Maintain
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-09-06 14:09:46 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
Filename: | Comment: | Action | |
---|---|---|---|
325019850330_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
49HG19971110_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
49K619960620_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
49NZ20051031_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
49UF20030625_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
49UF20050615_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
49UF20060614_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
Xresults.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View |
View comment(s) (filtered by oxygen in subject)
49UP20130621 - oxygen
The individual mean offsets show quite a large variability (all within the
acceptable range), but if checked in more detail these can sometimes be a bit
misleading, e.g. 49UF2006. I.e. all crossovers actually indicate a good
accuracy. Maintain.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-09-06 14:11:48 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
Filename: | Comment: | Action | |
---|---|---|---|
CFC-12-saturation.png | View |
View comment(s) (filtered by cfc12 in subject)
49UP20130621 - cfc12
Only two stations with "surface" measurements, thus caution is needed when
interpreting the saturation ratios. However, there is no further evidence which
would support an adjustment. Maintain.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-09-06 14:08:18 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
Filename: | Comment: | Action | |
---|---|---|---|
CFC-11-saturation.png | View |
View comment(s) (filtered by cfc11 in subject)
49UP20130621 - cfc11
Only two stations with "surface" measurements, thus caution is needed when
interpreting the saturation ratios. The mean regression residual however
supports the impression that the concentrations might be oversaturated by
roughly 10%.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-09-06 14:08:38 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
View 11 comment(s) (Lists all comments)
49UP20130621 - tco2
Only 2 crossovers present - making a full 2nd QC impossible. Both show a
relative strong positive offset. The more recent one (still only from 2005) is
within the range though.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-09-06 14:12:27 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
49UP20130621 - alkalinity
Only 2 crossovers present - making a full 2nd QC impossible. It is striking
though that both agree very well and show an offset of roughly 3.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-09-06 14:12:05 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
49UP20130621 - oxygen
The individual mean offsets show quite a large variability (all within the
acceptable range), but if checked in more detail these can sometimes be a bit
misleading, e.g. 49UF2006. I.e. all crossovers actually indicate a good
accuracy. Maintain.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-09-06 14:11:48 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
49UP20130621 - nitrate
All offsets are clearly within the acceptable range. The analysis supports that
the data is very precise (compared to other cruises) and accurate. Maintain
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-09-06 14:11:16 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
49UP20130621 - phosphate
With the exception of 49UF2006, have all crossovers only a small offset (in most
cases above 1). Note that all crossovers with UF cruises are limited in depth
compared to the cruise in question, i.e. limiting the crossover quality.
Maintain.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-09-06 14:10:58 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
49UP20130621 - salinity
Again, the crossovers with UF cruises are limited in depth, roughly to 2500m.
Thus, conclusions from these crossovers should be drawn with caution. The
overall good accuracy is nice given this relative variable region. Maintain.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-09-06 14:10:37 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
49UP20130621 - silicate
All offsets are clearly within the acceptable range. Note however, that their
standard deviation is quite large. Further, no systematic differences are
obtained, e.g. the offsets of the UF cruises (even if limited in quality) differ
in "sign". Maintain
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-09-06 14:09:46 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
49UP20130621 - ph
Only two crossovers present with more or less contrary offsets. The weighted
mean is thus very close to 0… An additional interconsistency check (type 2) does
not show any need for an adjustment in that perspective. However, none of the
other carbonate parameter could receive a full 2nd QC.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-09-06 14:09:15 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
49UP20130621 - cfc11
Only two stations with "surface" measurements, thus caution is needed when
interpreting the saturation ratios. The mean regression residual however
supports the impression that the concentrations might be oversaturated by
roughly 10%.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-09-06 14:08:38 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
49UP20130621 - cfc12
Only two stations with "surface" measurements, thus caution is needed when
interpreting the saturation ratios. However, there is no further evidence which
would support an adjustment. Maintain.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-09-06 14:08:18 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
49UP20130621 - initialized
GO-SHIP:P03W; Carbon PI:Kazuhiro Nemoto; Hydrography PI:Kazuhiro Nemoto; Oxygen
PI:Kazuhiro Nemoto; Nutrients PI:Kazuhiro Nemoto; CFCs PI:Kazuhiro Nemoto;
Carbon Isotope PI:Masao Ishii
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-09-04 08:19:33 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
Hide comments