Thanks for the data, I've had a chance to look at both the S04 and the ISS01 bottle files you sent last week and I have a couple of questions for you.

Both files appear to have the same problems associated with them: Our current online files for these cruises have valid CFC (CFC12, CFC11, CFC113, and CCl4) in them with quality bytes of 2 for many more station/samples than do the new files sent.  Where there were valid data (flagged 2) there are now missing values in the data colums.  (Please refer to our current online bottle files for these cruises versus files sent in email last week.) Could you confirm that this is correct?

Also the quality words for the new files are truncated, and appear to be missing the bytes (Q1 flags) for the updated CFC data, although at this point I've only eyeballed the columns and haven't run any diagnostic software on them yet, but they are in fact missing 5 flags.

And finally, the data for CTDPRS and THETA contain different values in the newly sent files versus the files we currently have online.

Can you advise us on how to handle these differences, or perhaps send corrected versions (in the case of the missing quality flags).

I have encountered an error while loading the s04hy.txt for our CFC DQE work for S04_I06. It turns out that the position of 'QUALT1' on header is aligned at the end of the flag columns instead of beginning of flag columns... The sample and bottle numbers are still entirely -9, so I can't compare with the revised CFC data set I got from the CFC PI.

Tom Haine (now at Johns Hopkins) is the CFC PI for this cruise, and he has recently sent out the revised CFC data to the British data center. He says the center will forward the merged hydrographic data file to WHPO soon.

CTD has been converted to exchange using the new code and put online. The sumfile has no WOCE SECT ID so the blanks were filled in with DIS93, the cruise is DISCOVERY and was held in 1993.

Meeting w/ Steve Diggs and Danie Bartolocci, decided to limit line designation s04 since no stations seem to touch the iss1 area and there is no other s04 line.  Will verify w/ Jim Swift.

Bottle

Updated file received from A. Poisson. Apparently, the bottle flags were omitted, which is the reason for there being less flags than asterisked fields in the original WOCE file. File is MS Excel and will require extensive reformatting. I will get it close to WOCE format and hand off the Sarilee A./Dave Muus for final formatting.

As per Gould's email, I have edited all the expocodes to now include the leg "_1". Also confirming that all nutrients in the bottle file obtained on 2000.07.11 have units of umol/kg. 

> NOTES ON NEW 74DI200:

> No files had leg 1 designators, current holdings have expo 74di200_1

They are all leg 1, I should have amended.

>  SUM:  New file has different station numbers.

The old set used BODC reference numbers and not the data originators station identifiers.

>  New file uses BE cast codes only (old uses BO only) which causes
>  dates, times and lat/lons to be slightly different relative to the
>  old sum file.

If times are changed then the lat and lon are recalculated from the master navigation. The BEgin times given will have the correct lat/lon. I guess previously our database had bottom times and I changed this to begin and end times, which is what our database should hold.

>  New file has two additional casts not found in old file:
>  74DS200          12361       2  ROS   022693 0344   BE 63 43.32 S  84  8.51 E GPS
>  74DS200          12361       2  ROS   022693 0344   BE 63 43.32 S  84  8.51 E GPS

These 2 are the same. The documents I've provided might hold the answers.

>  HYD: New file has different station numbers.

Again, the old ones were BODC reference numbers.

>  New file has no bottle or sample numbers (old bottle file has both).

We do not store bottle or sample numbers. The old bottle numbers will, again, be BODC bottle reference numbers - nothing to do with the actual bottle or sample numbers.

>  New file does not have CTDRAW (old file does).
>  New file does have CTDOXY (old file does not).

I'm not sure about these. We don't store CTDRAW, I don't know why it would have been included, maybe from original data files received and maybe oxygen wasn't available then, or CTD hadn't been linked with the bottle in our database.

>  New file has NITRAT only, old file has NO2+NO3 (and empty NITRIT).

The new files NITRAT is actually NO2+NO3, we don't have NITRIT by itself.

>  Values for all nutrients are different between old and new files.

I believe my predecessors never converted from umol/l to umol/kg for you. Our database is umol/l.

>  New file does not have columns for TCARBN, ALKALI, PCO2, PH were
>  these parameters ever taken?

No, these were never taken.
No samples were taken for carbon 14.

>  New files have values for ccl4 and o18/o16, old files did not.

Probably never had these at the time of the old submission.

>  CTD:  Difficult to compare CTD files since station numbers are different
>  between old and new data sets, as are the dates of stations/casts.

Please consider the new set as the definitive ones. I've spent a lot of time correcting all sorts of mistakes for UK WOCE data in our database which were submitted in the past. I also re-wrote the WHPO formatting routine to remove things like misleading BODC reference numbers and better conversion from /l to /kg, plus other alterations.

Sincerely,
Martin Gould.

s04.note         19981223WHPOSIODM

    s04_su.txt - I08A in Indian Ocean Table has .SUM file s04su.txt with only 
                 one station listed as S4 and the others are I06, I08 & ISS1. I 
		 changed WOCE SECT "S4" to S04" for STNNBR 47764 and changed 
		 name of .SUM file to s04_su.txt.

		 EXPOCODES not yet changed.