Autogenerated CTD salinity and CTD oxygen update

Automated update! This overwrites adjustment values (and flags) of CTDoxy and
CTDsal with the values from BOTsal and BOToxy for every cruise, unless CTDsal
(or CTDoxy) is not present or bad.
Salinity action ID:3; no CTD salinity data. Setting CTD salinity offset to -999,
QC flag removed.
Oxygen action ID:3; no CTD oxygen data. Setting CTD oxygen offset to -999, QC
flag removed.

Posted by svheuven@gmail.com on 2015-02-19 09:22:23 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2, v2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023

Autogenerated comment - salinity

Auto-uploaded comment from GLODAPv2 assessment by Steven van Heuven (src:
GLODAPv2_ATL_for_Carsten.xls / 2015-01-08): : maintain 0

Posted by svheuven@gmail.com on 2015-01-08 16:40:59 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2, v2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023

29HE19920714/salinity: update slope+intercept

autogenerated: only BOTsal available (no CTDsal)

Posted by svheuven@gmail.com on 2014-12-18 16:52:40 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2, v2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023

29HE19920714/salinity: init slope+intercept

autogenerated: using BOTsal (no CTDsal)

Posted by svheuven@gmail.com on 2014-02-25 17:02:12 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2, v2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023

29HE19920714 - salinity

Inversion suggested adjustment of -0.45ppm based on 8 xovers with mean offset 0f
0.939. Do not adjust.

Posted by are.olsen@uib.no on 2012-08-31 09:10:36 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2, v2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023

Hide comments

Autogenerated CTD salinity and CTD oxygen update

Automated update! This overwrites adjustment values (and flags) of CTDoxy and
CTDsal with the values from BOTsal and BOToxy for every cruise, unless CTDsal
(or CTDoxy) is not present or bad.
Salinity action ID:3; no CTD salinity data. Setting CTD salinity offset to -999,
QC flag removed.
Oxygen action ID:3; no CTD oxygen data. Setting CTD oxygen offset to -999, QC
flag removed.

Posted by svheuven@gmail.com on 2015-02-19 09:22:23 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2, v2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023

Hide comments

Autogenerated comment - tCO2

Auto-uploaded comment from GLODAPv2 assessment by Steven van Heuven (src:
GLODAPv2_ATL_for_Carsten.xls / 2015-01-08): : Maintain 0. Note that I (and the
inversion) believe the cruise to be biased slightly high (~+3), but profiles to
few and thin to know for sure. Don't want to scrap DIC data due to early-90s
measurements being scarce.

Posted by svheuven@gmail.com on 2015-01-08 16:40:59 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2, v2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023

29HE19920714 - tco2

Mean offset with 6 cruises: 1.4
These cruises have good x-overs with 29HE19920714.
Inversion suggests insignificant +0.8
Therefore, NO adjustment in agreement with CARINA.

Posted by mario.hoppema@awi.de on 2012-11-19 15:18:59 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2, v2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023

29HE19920714 - tco2

Average offsets:
4.57 (automatic)
4.57 (manual)

Average offsets from xovers with Core Cruises:
4.57 (automatic)
4.57 (manual)

Inversion Results:
-7.63 WLSQ
-8.59 WDLSQ

Comments: The TCO2 on this cruise have been calculated from TA measurements.
This cruise has 2 bad xovers with 1005 and 1007. The other xovers are with core
cruises and all within the 4 umol/kg limit. A MLR done with 1008 shows that the
TCO2 values agree despite a fairly large scatter.
The bad xovers with 1005 and 1007 involve the same stations from this (2009)
cruise which could be bad.
Therefore I suggests no adjustment

Suggested adjustment: 0
quality: poor

Miami 2008.06.09
Denis Pierrot

Posted by betty.huss@noaa.gov on 2008-06-11 19:31:54 UTC for data product: CARINA

29HE19920714 - tco2

Average offsets:
4.57 (automatic)
4.57 (manual)

Average offsets from xovers with Core Cruises:
4.57 (automatic)
4.57 (manual)

Inversion Results:
-7.63 WLSQ
-8.59 WDLSQ

Comments: The TCO2 on this cruise have been calculated from TA measurements.
This cruise has 2 bad xovers with 1005 and 1007. The other xovers are with core
cruises and all within the 4 umol/kg limit. A MLR done with 1008 shows that the
TCO2 values agree despite a fairly large scatter.
The bad xovers with 1005 and 1007 involve the same stations from this (2009)
cruise which could be bad.
Therefore I suggests no adjustment

Suggested adjustment: 0
quality: poor

Miami 2008.06.09
Denis Pierrot

Posted by ttanhua@geomar.de on 2008-06-11 15:26:27 UTC for data product: CARINA

Hide comments

Autogenerated comment - alkalinity

Auto-uploaded comment from GLODAPv2 assessment by Steven van Heuven (src:
GLODAPv2_ATL_for_Carsten.xls / 2015-01-08): : make -5. Sharp xover with 33RO2003
(which is perfect).

Posted by svheuven@gmail.com on 2015-01-08 16:40:59 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2, v2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023

29HE19920714 - alkalinity

Mean offset with 6 cruises: +1.3
Inversion suggests +1.9
This is within the boundaries set for adjustments.
I suggest NO adjustment, in agreement with CARINA.

Posted by mario.hoppema@awi.de on 2012-11-19 15:25:28 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2, v2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023

29HE19920714 - alkalinity

29HE19920714
alkalinity
There are 11 xovers. The fitted offset is -4.3. The suggested adjustment is 0
because the t_student test shows that the proposed offset is distinguishable
from 6.
All inversion residuals fits inside +-2, except for 1 no-core cruise.
Very good fit with 7 GLODAP and 1 core cruises, that would support an offset of
-4
Vigo 2008/06/09
Fiz Perez
Anton Velo
--
All xovers and output of inversions are refered on figure: "Report plot for
adjustments"
Real diff (Green dots) are the differences taken directly from xover routines.
The complete segment of error bar represents the xover standard deviation.
Yellow line stand for the offset calculated for this cruise.
Black stars stand for the offset calculated for the others cruises in the
xovers.
Blue squares stand for the Fitted differences that would be obtained from the
calculated offsets (Yellow line - black stars)
Red dots stand for the Residuals between the 'Real diff'(Green dots) and 'Fitted
diff' (Blue squares)
c suffix in the upper X axis labels stand for Core Cruises

Posted by avelo@iim.csic.es on 2008-06-10 12:25:00 UTC for data product: CARINA

Hide comments

Autogenerated update by AV for pH

Bulk update requested by Anton Velo on 2015-06-04 including comments with
reasoning (src: ph_adjustments_g2_sent_carsten_20150604.xlsx / 2015-06-04): Make
0 by carbon interconsitency checks. Overally 0 is ok, but deepest waters could
have a slight offset of about 0.008. High scatter in comparison doesn't allow to
warrant a number.

Posted by avelo@iim.csic.es on 2015-06-10 08:17:12 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2, v2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023

Autogenerated update by AV for pH

Bulk update of pH requested by Anton Velo on 2015-05-28. Comments with reasoning
will follow. (src: ph_adjustments_g2_sent_carsten_20150527.xlsx / 2015-05-28)

Posted by avelo@iim.csic.es on 2015-05-28 13:37:13 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2, v2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023

Autogenerated comment - phosphate

Auto-uploaded comment from GLODAPv2 assessment by Steven van Heuven (src:
GLODAPv2_ATL_for_Carsten.xls / 2015-01-08): : make -777. Data very noisy (>10%
of value), and biased >5% low. Are Olsen already recommended scrapping in
earlier comment

Posted by svheuven@gmail.com on 2015-01-08 16:40:59 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2, v2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023

29HE19920714 - phosphate

Earlier decision of giving an adjustment of 1.05 is confirmed by new inversion
for phosphate in the Atlantic with 10 core cruises assigned.

Posted by mario.hoppema@awi.de on 2012-11-23 14:10:00 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2, v2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023

29HE19920714 - phosphate

The new analysis, using only data flagged 0, 2 and 6, showed that the data were
OK, but in need of a 1.05 correction. That is recommended here.

Posted by are.olsen@uib.no on 2012-11-12 14:22:14 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2, v2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023

29HE19920714 - phosphate

Suggested correction was 1.0301, and mean offset 0.992. The data appears to have
significant scatter in the crossovers. Scatter is confirmed through analysis of
GLODAP dataset in ODV, as shown in uploaded screenshot. The data that shows
scatter are from 29HE19920714. I suggest to flag these data 3.

Posted by are.olsen@uib.no on 2012-09-12 13:17:14 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2, v2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023

29HE19920714 - phosphate

The average of all cross overs is 0.95, suggesting that the phosphate might be
on the low side.
The inversion suggest an adjustment of 1.08 - 1.07 (WLSQ and WDLSQ).
The cross over results with core-cruises confirm that the phosphate values are
low.
This is also true for the two repeats of this section in 1998 and 2004.
The phosphate data from 29HE19920714 also seems to be a have a bit more scatter
than the other core-cruises.
The phosphate values for 29HE19920714 got an suggested adjustment of 0.03
(additative) by Gouretski and ancke (2001).
This cruise is not formally in CARINA, but since the cruise is there as an
"master-cruise", I will make an suggestion
to this cruise anyway.
Based on this I suggest an adjustment of 1.05 for phosphate for 29HE19920714.
This number is a bit smaller than suggested by the inversion,
but is consistent with the average offset, and the offset to the repeats of this
section.
Kiel, 2008.05.14
Toste Tanhua

Posted by ttanhua@geomar.de on 2008-06-18 18:00:49 UTC for data product: CARINA

29HE19920714 - ph

29HE19920714 1009c 741
pHSWS25
There are 15 xovers. The fitted offset is -0.002+-0.009. The suggested
adjustment is 0
The inversion residuals have a large variability. Even the std of the individual
xovers are also very large.
The pH data of this cruise has a lot of dispersion and so their calification as
poor.

Vigo 2008/06/12
Fiz Perez
Anton Velo
--
All xovers and output of inversions are refered on figure: "Report plot for
adjustments"
Real diff (Green dots) are the differences taken directly from xover routines.
The complete segment of error bar represents the xover standard deviation.
Yellow line stand for the offset calculated for this cruise.
Black stars stand for the offset calculated for the others cruises in the
xovers.
Blue squares stand for the Fitted differences that would be obtained from the
calculated offsets (Yellow line - black stars)
Red dots stand for the Residuals between the 'Real diff'(Green dots) and 'Fitted
diff' (Blue squares)
c suffix in the upper X axis labels stand for Core Cruises.
d preffix in the upper X axis labels stand for pH determined with Alk and TCO2
using the CO2SYS routines and the Mehr'73 ctes fitted by Dick&Mill'87.
expocode ids in upper X axis stand for NA ids or SO_ids+10000 for avoiding
coincidences

Posted by avelo@iim.csic.es on 2008-06-12 19:43:53 UTC for data product: CARINA

Hide comments

Hide comments

Autogenerated comment - nitrate

Auto-uploaded comment from GLODAPv2 assessment by Steven van Heuven (src:
GLODAPv2_ATL_for_Carsten.xls / 2015-01-08): : make 0.99. Below 5000m, the NO3
values of this cruise jump up to 5%-7% too high (see figure
NO3_change_33RO19980123_29HE19920714_detail). Besides that, values in west of 50
west are ~1-2% too low. Values east of 48 west are ~2% too high. Between 48W and
50W, values are >10% too low. New calibrant?

Posted by svheuven@gmail.com on 2015-01-08 16:40:59 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2, v2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023

29HE19920714 - nitrate

Suggested correction is 0.988, which goes to 0.99. Mean of all offsets is 1.01.
Do not adjust.

Posted by are.olsen@uib.no on 2012-08-31 14:43:47 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2, v2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023

29HE19920714 - nitrate

The average of all cross overs is 1.014, suggesting that the nitrate values are
good.
The inversion suggest an adjustment of 0.975.
The cross over results with core-cruises confirm that the nitrate values are
good.
Based on this I suggest no adjustment for nitrate for 29HE19920714.
Kiel, 2008.05.14
Toste Tanhua

Posted by ttanhua@geomar.de on 2008-06-11 15:27:17 UTC for data product: CARINA

Hide comments

Autogenerated comment - phosphate

Auto-uploaded comment from GLODAPv2 assessment by Steven van Heuven (src:
GLODAPv2_ATL_for_Carsten.xls / 2015-01-08): : make -777. Data very noisy (>10%
of value), and biased >5% low. Are Olsen already recommended scrapping in
earlier comment

Posted by svheuven@gmail.com on 2015-01-08 16:40:59 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2, v2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023

29HE19920714 - phosphate

Earlier decision of giving an adjustment of 1.05 is confirmed by new inversion
for phosphate in the Atlantic with 10 core cruises assigned.

Posted by mario.hoppema@awi.de on 2012-11-23 14:10:00 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2, v2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023

29HE19920714 - phosphate

The new analysis, using only data flagged 0, 2 and 6, showed that the data were
OK, but in need of a 1.05 correction. That is recommended here.

Posted by are.olsen@uib.no on 2012-11-12 14:22:14 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2, v2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023

29HE19920714 - phosphate

Suggested correction was 1.0301, and mean offset 0.992. The data appears to have
significant scatter in the crossovers. Scatter is confirmed through analysis of
GLODAP dataset in ODV, as shown in uploaded screenshot. The data that shows
scatter are from 29HE19920714. I suggest to flag these data 3.

Posted by are.olsen@uib.no on 2012-09-12 13:17:14 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2, v2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023

29HE19920714 - phosphate

The average of all cross overs is 0.95, suggesting that the phosphate might be
on the low side.
The inversion suggest an adjustment of 1.08 - 1.07 (WLSQ and WDLSQ).
The cross over results with core-cruises confirm that the phosphate values are
low.
This is also true for the two repeats of this section in 1998 and 2004.
The phosphate data from 29HE19920714 also seems to be a have a bit more scatter
than the other core-cruises.
The phosphate values for 29HE19920714 got an suggested adjustment of 0.03
(additative) by Gouretski and ancke (2001).
This cruise is not formally in CARINA, but since the cruise is there as an
"master-cruise", I will make an suggestion
to this cruise anyway.
Based on this I suggest an adjustment of 1.05 for phosphate for 29HE19920714.
This number is a bit smaller than suggested by the inversion,
but is consistent with the average offset, and the offset to the repeats of this
section.
Kiel, 2008.05.14
Toste Tanhua

Posted by ttanhua@geomar.de on 2008-06-18 18:00:49 UTC for data product: CARINA

Hide comments

Autogenerated comment - silicate

Auto-uploaded comment from GLODAPv2 assessment by Steven van Heuven (src:
GLODAPv2_ATL_for_Carsten.xls / 2015-01-08): : maintain 0.96. Stations are quite
scattery (i.e., may jump in values from one to the next), but cruise is clearly
high. Biases on eastern end may be more severe that at western end...?

Posted by svheuven@gmail.com on 2015-01-08 16:40:59 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2, v2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023

29HE19920714 - silicate

Inversion suggest a correction of 0.9649 and mean offset is 1.035. This is based
on 8 crossovers, and appears high on all but two them (2500. 316N151_3/
316N19970717 and 4000. 32OC133/ 32OC19830501). Suggest that this is adjusted by
a factor of 0.96.

Posted by are.olsen@uib.no on 2012-09-12 21:12:35 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2, v2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023

29HE19920714 - silicate

silicate
The average of all cross overs is 1.045, suggesting that the silicate might be
on the high side.
The inversion suggest an adjustment of 0.97 - 0.98 (WLSQ and WDLSQ).
The cross over results with core-cruises confirm that the silicate values are
high.
This is also true for the two repeats of this section in 1998 and 2004.
The phosphate data from 29HE19920714 also seems to be a have a bit more scatter
than the other core-cruises.
The silicate values for 29HE19920714 got an suggested adjustment of 1.9
(additative) by Gouretski and ancke (2001).
This cruise is not formally in CARINA, but since the cruise is there as an
"master-cruise", I will make an suggestion
to this cruise anyway.
Based on this I suggest an adjustment of 0.97 for silicate for 29HE19920714, as
suggested by the WLSQ inversion.
Kiel, 2008.05.14
Toste Tanhua

Posted by ttanhua@geomar.de on 2008-06-11 15:28:22 UTC for data product: CARINA

Hide comments

Autogenerated CTD salinity and CTD oxygen update

Automated update! This overwrites adjustment values (and flags) of CTDoxy and
CTDsal with the values from BOTsal and BOToxy for every cruise, unless CTDsal
(or CTDoxy) is not present or bad.
Salinity action ID:3; no CTD salinity data. Setting CTD salinity offset to -999,
QC flag removed.
Oxygen action ID:3; no CTD oxygen data. Setting CTD oxygen offset to -999, QC
flag removed.

Posted by svheuven@gmail.com on 2015-02-19 09:22:23 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2, v2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023

Autogenerated comment - oxygen

Auto-uploaded comment from GLODAPv2 assessment by Steven van Heuven (src:
GLODAPv2_ATL_for_Carsten.xls / 2015-01-08): : maintain 1.00.

Posted by svheuven@gmail.com on 2015-01-08 16:40:59 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2, v2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023

29HE19920714/oxygen: update slope+intercept

autogenerated: only BOToxy available (no CTDoxy)

Posted by svheuven@gmail.com on 2014-12-18 16:52:40 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2, v2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023

29HE19920714/oxygen: init slope+intercept

autogenerated: using BOToxy (no CTDoxy)

Posted by svheuven@gmail.com on 2014-02-25 17:02:12 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2, v2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023

29HE19920714 - oxygen

The inversion suggest a correction of 0.9993, based on 8 crossovers with a mean
offset of 1.001. Do not adjust.

Posted by are.olsen@uib.no on 2012-09-16 13:59:54 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2, v2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023

29HE19920714 - oxygen

The average of all cross overs is 1.002.
The inversions suggest no adjustment.
The cross-overs with other core cruises suggest no adjustment for this cruise.
Based on this I suggest no adjustment to the oxygen values.
Zürich, 2008.06.06
Ilaria Stendardo

Posted by ilaria.stendardo@env.ethz.ch on 2008-06-06 11:52:41 UTC for data product: CARINA

Hide comments

Autogenerated CTD salinity and CTD oxygen update

Automated update! This overwrites adjustment values (and flags) of CTDoxy and
CTDsal with the values from BOTsal and BOToxy for every cruise, unless CTDsal
(or CTDoxy) is not present or bad.
Salinity action ID:3; no CTD salinity data. Setting CTD salinity offset to -999,
QC flag removed.
Oxygen action ID:3; no CTD oxygen data. Setting CTD oxygen offset to -999, QC
flag removed.

Posted by svheuven@gmail.com on 2015-02-19 09:22:23 UTC for data product: GLODAPv2, v2.2019, v2.2020, v2.2021, v2.2022, v2.2023

Hide comments

Hide comments

29HE19920714 - cfc11

relatively large oversaturation of CFC-11

Reiner Steinfeldt
11.06.2008

Posted by rsteinf@physik.uni-bremen.de on 2008-06-11 17:29:25 UTC for data product: CARINA

Hide comments

Hide comments

Hide comments

Hide comments

Hide comments