Cruise: 74DI20120731 (dataset:GLODAPv2.2019.NEW) Data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
Synonyms (including errata!) for this cruise: AR07E D379; 74DI20120731
IMPORTANT information for GLODAP Reference Group Editors: This adjustment is a published version for GLODAPv2.2019!
Please wait while loading list of related files
- no files! -
Plot/Data files re. Parameter(s) (select parameter on left side to view!):
alkalinity:10
c13:3
nitrate:12
oxygen:17
phosphate:8
salinity:17
silicate:15
tco2:13
- no files! -
Filename: | Comment: | Action | |
---|---|---|---|
06MT19990610_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
06MT20010717_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
316N19810401_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
316N19961102_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
316N19970530_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
316N19971005_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
32OC19880723_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
33MW19930704.1_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
33RO20030604_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
58JH19940723_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
64TR19890731_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
64TR19900714_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
64TR19910408_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
74DI19890716_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
74DI19970807_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
74DI19980423_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
Xresults.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View |
View comment(s) (filtered by salinity in subject)
74DI20120731 - salinity
The salinity crossovers show nicely how variable this region is. Even the strong
outliers (except for JH1994 as it hasn't received full 2n QC) should not be
ignored… The uncertainty of the analysis is also reflected in the large
standard deviations of the mean offsets. My suggestion is to either keep it as
is or give it a -888.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-08-17 10:04:16 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
Filename: | Comment: | Action | |
---|---|---|---|
06MT19990610_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/tco2!] |
View | |
06MT20010717_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/tco2!] |
View | |
316N19810401_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/tco2!] |
View | |
316N19961102_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/tco2!] |
View | |
316N19970530_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/tco2!] |
View | |
33MW19930704.1_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/tco2!] |
View | |
33RO20030604_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/tco2!] |
View | |
58JH19940723_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/tco2!] |
View | |
64TR19890731_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/tco2!] |
View | |
64TR19900714_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/tco2!] |
View | |
64TR19910408_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/tco2!] |
View | |
74DI19980423_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/tco2!] |
View | |
Xresults.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/tco2!] |
View |
View comment(s) (filtered by tco2 in subject)
74DI20120731 - tco2
Given the typical temporal trend in this data it is almost impossible to suggest
a funded adjustment with the youngest crossover being from 2003.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-08-17 10:01:39 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
Filename: | Comment: | Action | |
---|---|---|---|
06MT19990610_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/alkalinity!] |
View | |
06MT20010717_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/alkalinity!] |
View | |
316N19810401_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/alkalinity!] |
View | |
316N19961102_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/alkalinity!] |
View | |
316N19970530_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/alkalinity!] |
View | |
33MW19930704.1_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/alkalinity!] |
View | |
33RO20030604_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/alkalinity!] |
View | |
64TR19890731_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/alkalinity!] |
View | |
74DI19980423_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/alkalinity!] |
View | |
Xresults.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/alkalinity!] |
View |
View comment(s) (filtered by alkalinity in subject)
74DI20120731 - alkalinity
All but two offsets are within the acceptable range. The crossovers cover nicely
the entire range of the stations. One rather low profile is striking out.
However, it is not possible to proof that it is off (or more accurate than the
others). Maintain.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-08-17 10:02:23 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
View comment(s) (filtered by ph in subject)
74DI20120731 - phosphate
All crossover results indicate too low concentrations. Given the nice agreement
(even though not all crossovers are of the same quality e.g. 316N1996) an upward
adjustment is justified even though it can not clearly be seen from the Redfield
ratio. Follow the weighted mean.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-08-17 10:03:46 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
Filename: | Comment: | Action | |
---|---|---|---|
06MT19990610_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/nitrate!] |
View | |
06MT20010717_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/nitrate!] |
View | |
316N19961102_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/nitrate!] |
View | |
316N19970530_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/nitrate!] |
View | |
32OC19880723_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/nitrate!] |
View | |
33MW19930704.1_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/nitrate!] |
View | |
33RO20030604_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/nitrate!] |
View | |
58JH19940723_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/nitrate!] |
View | |
64TR19910408_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/nitrate!] |
View | |
74DI19970807_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/nitrate!] |
View | |
74DI19980423_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/nitrate!] |
View | |
Xresults.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/nitrate!] |
View |
View comment(s) (filtered by nitrate in subject)
74DI20120731 - nitrate
The crossover results vary rather strongly. Nonetheless, data seems accurate as
the weighted mean suggests, too. Note that 58JH1997 did not receive a full 2nd
QC. Further, 316N1981 and 316N1996 are not trustworthy as well, as the stations
are too far apart. All in all maintain.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-08-17 10:03:12 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
Filename: | Comment: | Action | |
---|---|---|---|
06MT19990610_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/phosphate!] |
View | |
316N19810401_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/phosphate!] |
View | |
316N19961102_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/phosphate!] |
View | |
316N19970530_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/phosphate!] |
View | |
58JH19940723_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/phosphate!] |
View | |
64TR19900714_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/phosphate!] |
View | |
64TR19910408_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/phosphate!] |
View | |
Xresults.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/phosphate!] |
View |
View comment(s) (filtered by phosphate in subject)
74DI20120731 - phosphate
All crossover results indicate too low concentrations. Given the nice agreement
(even though not all crossovers are of the same quality e.g. 316N1996) an upward
adjustment is justified even though it can not clearly be seen from the Redfield
ratio. Follow the weighted mean.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-08-17 10:03:46 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
Filename: | Comment: | Action | |
---|---|---|---|
06MT19990610_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/silicate!] |
View | |
06MT20010717_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/silicate!] |
View | |
316N19810401_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/silicate!] |
View | |
316N19961102_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/silicate!] |
View | |
316N19970530_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/silicate!] |
View | |
32OC19880723_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/silicate!] |
View | |
33MW19930704.1_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/silicate!] |
View | |
33RO20030604_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/silicate!] |
View | |
58JH19940723_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/silicate!] |
View | |
64TR19890731_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/silicate!] |
View | |
64TR19900714_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/silicate!] |
View | |
64TR19910408_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/silicate!] |
View | |
74DI19970807_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/silicate!] |
View | |
74DI19980423_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/silicate!] |
View | |
Xresults.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/silicate!] |
View |
View comment(s) (filtered by silicate in subject)
74DI20120731 - silicate
Even though the absolute weighted mean suggsets that a rather strong upward
adjustment is needed, a closer look reveals that the concentrations are not too
low in general. The "individual mean offsets" are strongly influenced by offsets
in the upper part of the deep water, see examplarily crossovers with the Meteor
cruises. The deeper waters do not show this negative offset at all instead
rather indicating too high concentrations. This holds for all "good"
crossovers. Ignore weighted mean and maintain.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-08-17 10:05:01 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
Filename: | Comment: | Action | |
---|---|---|---|
06MT19990610_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
06MT20010717_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
316N19810401_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 | |
32OC19880723_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
33MW19930704.1_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
33RO20030604_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
58JH19940723_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
64TR19890731_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
64TR19900714_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
64TR19910408_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
74DI19890716_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
74DI19970807_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
74DI19980423_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
Xresults.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View |
View comment(s) (filtered by oxygen in subject)
74DI20120731 - oxygen
This is a very variable regon and even the noticeable profile changes could be
natural water mass changes. We err on the side of caution and do not adjust
Posted by siv.lauvset@uib.no on 2018-10-01 09:24:37 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
74DI20120731 - oxygen
The profiles show rather strong deviations from cruises in the same area - the
profiles don't vary as strongly with depth and do not show the maximum most
other cruises have. However, also note that the youngest cruise used for a
crossover is from 2003…. Even though one adjustment only does not completely
justfiy this case, I would suggest an upward adjustment of at least 1.01
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-08-17 10:06:37 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
Filename: | Comment: | Action | |
---|---|---|---|
06MT20030723_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/c13!] |
View | |
33MW19930704.1_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/c13!] |
View | |
58JH19920712_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/c13!] |
View |
View comment(s) (filtered by c13 in subject)
74DI20120731 - c13
Both the inversion and the offset mean of the crossover suggest a correction of
0.13‰ for the cruise (Humphreys
et al., 2015). This most recent cruise took place near the
Scotland–Iceland Ridge, where the deep water masses cannot
be assumed to be constant over time. All crossovers indicate
a lower 13C-DIC of this cruise when comparing it with
the others, which is consistent with an increased amount of
anthropogenic carbon. Therefore, no adjustment was applied.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-09-05 17:50:21 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
View 9 comment(s) (Lists all comments)
74DI20120731 - oxygen
This is a very variable regon and even the noticeable profile changes could be
natural water mass changes. We err on the side of caution and do not adjust
Posted by siv.lauvset@uib.no on 2018-10-01 09:24:37 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
74DI20120731 - c13
Both the inversion and the offset mean of the crossover suggest a correction of
0.13‰ for the cruise (Humphreys
et al., 2015). This most recent cruise took place near the
Scotland–Iceland Ridge, where the deep water masses cannot
be assumed to be constant over time. All crossovers indicate
a lower 13C-DIC of this cruise when comparing it with
the others, which is consistent with an increased amount of
anthropogenic carbon. Therefore, no adjustment was applied.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-09-05 17:50:21 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
74DI20120731 - oxygen
The profiles show rather strong deviations from cruises in the same area - the
profiles don't vary as strongly with depth and do not show the maximum most
other cruises have. However, also note that the youngest cruise used for a
crossover is from 2003…. Even though one adjustment only does not completely
justfiy this case, I would suggest an upward adjustment of at least 1.01
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-08-17 10:06:37 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
74DI20120731 - silicate
Even though the absolute weighted mean suggsets that a rather strong upward
adjustment is needed, a closer look reveals that the concentrations are not too
low in general. The "individual mean offsets" are strongly influenced by offsets
in the upper part of the deep water, see examplarily crossovers with the Meteor
cruises. The deeper waters do not show this negative offset at all instead
rather indicating too high concentrations. This holds for all "good"
crossovers. Ignore weighted mean and maintain.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-08-17 10:05:01 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
74DI20120731 - salinity
The salinity crossovers show nicely how variable this region is. Even the strong
outliers (except for JH1994 as it hasn't received full 2n QC) should not be
ignored… The uncertainty of the analysis is also reflected in the large
standard deviations of the mean offsets. My suggestion is to either keep it as
is or give it a -888.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-08-17 10:04:16 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
74DI20120731 - phosphate
All crossover results indicate too low concentrations. Given the nice agreement
(even though not all crossovers are of the same quality e.g. 316N1996) an upward
adjustment is justified even though it can not clearly be seen from the Redfield
ratio. Follow the weighted mean.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-08-17 10:03:46 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
74DI20120731 - nitrate
The crossover results vary rather strongly. Nonetheless, data seems accurate as
the weighted mean suggests, too. Note that 58JH1997 did not receive a full 2nd
QC. Further, 316N1981 and 316N1996 are not trustworthy as well, as the stations
are too far apart. All in all maintain.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-08-17 10:03:12 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
74DI20120731 - alkalinity
All but two offsets are within the acceptable range. The crossovers cover nicely
the entire range of the stations. One rather low profile is striking out.
However, it is not possible to proof that it is off (or more accurate than the
others). Maintain.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-08-17 10:02:23 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
74DI20120731 - tco2
Given the typical temporal trend in this data it is almost impossible to suggest
a funded adjustment with the youngest crossover being from 2003.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-08-17 10:01:39 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
Hide comments