Cruise: 74JC20151217 (dataset:GLODAPv2.2019.NEW) Data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
Synonyms (including errata!) for this cruise: SR01b; 74JC20151217; alias: SR01b; 74JC20151217; sr1b; JR15003; SOCCOM-5
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:4
nitrate:6
oxygen:7
ph:2
phosphate:6
salinity:6
- no files! -
Filename: | Comment: | Action | |
---|---|---|---|
06AQ20050122_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
06AQ20080210_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
316N19831007_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
740H20090203_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
Xresults.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View | |
Xresults_edited.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/salinity!] |
View |
View comment(s) (filtered by salinity in subject)
74JC20151217 - salinity
The four reliable crossovers indicate quite accurate data.
Very nice match with 740H2009. Maintain.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-06-15 12:10:57 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
Filename: | Comment: | Action | |
---|---|---|---|
74JC20151217___alk___06AQ20080210_Xover.png | View | ||
74JC20151217___alk___740H20090203_Xover.png | View | ||
ta_MLR_ni.png | View | ||
ta_MLR_po4.png | View |
View comment(s) (filtered by alkalinity in subject)
74JC20151217 - alkalinity
The two only crossovers differ quite a lot in their offset. However, both are
within the acceptable range. The deep water average, as well as the MLR analyses
indicate good accuracy. Note that the two MLR offsets also differ - this might
be a consequence of slightly too high phosphate concentrations. Maintain.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-08-22 07:44:23 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
Filename: | Comment: | Action | |
---|---|---|---|
74JC20151217___ph___06AQ20080210_Xover.png | View | ||
74JC20151217___ph___740H20090203_Xover.png | View |
View comment(s) (filtered by ph in subject)
74JC20151217 - phosphate
Although only three x-overs, these are with cruises with reliable and precise
data: 06AQ20050122 and 06AQ20080210. The data of this cruise are clearly too
high, given those reliable cruises. Because the height of the offset is somewhat
less than with NO3, I suggest an adjustment of 0.99.
Posted by mario.hoppema@awi.de on 2018-10-01 14:34:34 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
74JC20151217 - phosphate
Following discussion in Seattle we adjust phosphate down by 1%. Note that the
nutrients were frozen on this cruise so this adjustment is quite small.
Posted by siv.lauvset@uib.no on 2018-10-01 10:35:07 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
74JC20151217 - ph
Two crossovers and the interconsistency check (type 3) indicate a strong
negative bias, i.e. a too low value. An adjustment of at least 0.025 would be
needed. Given that the interconsistency check is based on 2 tco2 crossovers only
(and additional MLR analyses) it is rather difficult whether to apply such a
strong adjustment ....
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-08-22 07:50:38 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
74JC20151217 - phosphate
Only 740H2009 shows an offset above the 2% range (out of 3 offsets in total).
Thus, based on these very restricted results, no strong offset "expected". The
MLR analyses (28 samples) support this result. Maintain.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-06-15 12:10:31 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
Filename: | Comment: | Action | |
---|---|---|---|
06AQ20050122_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/nitrate!] |
View | |
06AQ20080210_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/nitrate!] |
View | |
740H20090203_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/nitrate!] |
View | |
Xresults.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/nitrate!] |
View | |
ni_MLR_aou.png | View | ||
ni_MLR_po4.png | View |
View comment(s) (filtered by nitrate in subject)
74JC20151217 - nitrate
Following discussion in Seattle we adjust nitrate down by 2%. Note that the
nutrients were frozen on this cruise so this adjustment is quite small.
Posted by siv.lauvset@uib.no on 2018-10-01 10:34:50 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
74JC20151217 - nitrate
Maintain. Note that this analysis is based on only three crossovers with very
scattery profiles and quite sparse data in general. It is supported by a
comparison of the deep water averages as well as additional MLR analyses though.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-06-15 12:09:41 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
Filename: | Comment: | Action | |
---|---|---|---|
06AQ20050122_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/phosphate!] |
View | |
06AQ20080210_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/phosphate!] |
View | |
740H20090203_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/phosphate!] |
View | |
Xresults.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/phosphate!] |
View | |
po4_MLR_aou.png | View | ||
po4_MLR_ta.png | View |
View comment(s) (filtered by phosphate in subject)
74JC20151217 - phosphate
Although only three x-overs, these are with cruises with reliable and precise
data: 06AQ20050122 and 06AQ20080210. The data of this cruise are clearly too
high, given those reliable cruises. Because the height of the offset is somewhat
less than with NO3, I suggest an adjustment of 0.99.
Posted by mario.hoppema@awi.de on 2018-10-01 14:34:34 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
74JC20151217 - phosphate
Following discussion in Seattle we adjust phosphate down by 1%. Note that the
nutrients were frozen on this cruise so this adjustment is quite small.
Posted by siv.lauvset@uib.no on 2018-10-01 10:35:07 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
74JC20151217 - phosphate
Only 740H2009 shows an offset above the 2% range (out of 3 offsets in total).
Thus, based on these very restricted results, no strong offset "expected". The
MLR analyses (28 samples) support this result. Maintain.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-06-15 12:10:31 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
Filename: | Comment: | Action | |
---|---|---|---|
06AQ20050122_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
06AQ20080210_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
316N19831007_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
740H20090203_Xover.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
Xresults.png | [autogenerated from RC_Nico/oxygen!] |
View | |
oxy_MLR_ni.png | View | ||
oxy_MLR_po4.png | View |
View comment(s) (filtered by oxygen in subject)
74JC20151217 - oxygen
Three out of four (in total) offsets are within the acceptable range. 740H2009
is the only cruise indicating a "larger" negative offset (0.9877). A comparison
of the deep water averages does indicate too low concentrations, too. Additional
MLR analyses however only show offsets between 0.4% and 0.8%... Not enough for
an adjustment.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-06-15 12:08:46 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
View 9 comment(s) (Lists all comments)
74JC20151217 - phosphate
Although only three x-overs, these are with cruises with reliable and precise
data: 06AQ20050122 and 06AQ20080210. The data of this cruise are clearly too
high, given those reliable cruises. Because the height of the offset is somewhat
less than with NO3, I suggest an adjustment of 0.99.
Posted by mario.hoppema@awi.de on 2018-10-01 14:34:34 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
74JC20151217 - phosphate
Following discussion in Seattle we adjust phosphate down by 1%. Note that the
nutrients were frozen on this cruise so this adjustment is quite small.
Posted by siv.lauvset@uib.no on 2018-10-01 10:35:07 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
74JC20151217 - nitrate
Following discussion in Seattle we adjust nitrate down by 2%. Note that the
nutrients were frozen on this cruise so this adjustment is quite small.
Posted by siv.lauvset@uib.no on 2018-10-01 10:34:50 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
74JC20151217 - ph
Two crossovers and the interconsistency check (type 3) indicate a strong
negative bias, i.e. a too low value. An adjustment of at least 0.025 would be
needed. Given that the interconsistency check is based on 2 tco2 crossovers only
(and additional MLR analyses) it is rather difficult whether to apply such a
strong adjustment ....
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-08-22 07:50:38 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
74JC20151217 - alkalinity
The two only crossovers differ quite a lot in their offset. However, both are
within the acceptable range. The deep water average, as well as the MLR analyses
indicate good accuracy. Note that the two MLR offsets also differ - this might
be a consequence of slightly too high phosphate concentrations. Maintain.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-08-22 07:44:23 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
74JC20151217 - salinity
The four reliable crossovers indicate quite accurate data.
Very nice match with 740H2009. Maintain.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-06-15 12:10:57 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
74JC20151217 - phosphate
Only 740H2009 shows an offset above the 2% range (out of 3 offsets in total).
Thus, based on these very restricted results, no strong offset "expected". The
MLR analyses (28 samples) support this result. Maintain.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-06-15 12:10:31 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
74JC20151217 - nitrate
Maintain. Note that this analysis is based on only three crossovers with very
scattery profiles and quite sparse data in general. It is supported by a
comparison of the deep water averages as well as additional MLR analyses though.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-06-15 12:09:41 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
74JC20151217 - oxygen
Three out of four (in total) offsets are within the acceptable range. 740H2009
is the only cruise indicating a "larger" negative offset (0.9877). A comparison
of the deep water averages does indicate too low concentrations, too. Additional
MLR analyses however only show offsets between 0.4% and 0.8%... Not enough for
an adjustment.
Posted by nlange@geomar.de on 2018-06-15 12:08:46 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023
Hide comments