Files in the Dataset have been checked for format consistency, and merged into a single, integrated, downloadable file.
Download Entire Dataset Submit Data For This Cruise How to Cite DatasetCCHDO-1.0 CF netCDF files converted from bottle exchange file
CCHDO-1.0 CF netCDF files converted from ctd exchange file
There is not enough information to know where this file should go in the timeline.
There is not enough information to know where this file should go in the timeline.
There is not enough information to know where this file should go in the timeline.
There is not enough information to know where this file should go in the timeline.
There is not enough information to know where this file should go in the timeline.
There is not enough information to know where this file should go in the timeline.
There is not enough information to know where this file should go in the timeline.
There is not enough information to know where this file should go in the timeline.
There is not enough information to know where this file should go in the timeline.
Corrected Stations 214 and 218 deep nitrites per info from Lou Gordon and Andy Ross in Lynne Talley message of March 19, 2002. New bottle files on-line.
Notes on P04E merging Mar 11, 2002 D.Muus
1. Merged TRITUM and TRITER values from http://www.soc.soton.ac.uk/soes/staff/wjj/p04trits.txt into bottle file from web (20010830WHPOSIODM)
2. Quality flag 2 assigned to all tritium values.
3. Made new exchange file for Bottle data.
4. Checked new bottle file with Java Ocean Atlas.
5. Put new exchange and woce format bottle files on-line.
We're working on P4 for the Pacific atlas now, and there is an interesting (or suspicious?) nitrite signal there as well, which I'd appreciate your help with.
On station 218, there are values of 0.04 at all bottles below the nitrite maximum (at 396 dbar) to the bottom, at 3492 dbar. (Bottles 13 to 1).
I had ignored it before because I had in the back of my mind that it could be real given the large productivity in the region, but now that we are finalizing the plots, we decided that it would be best to have it carefully checked.
Would you (or Joe or Andy) have a look at it?
I have obtained tritium and sigma tritium data for all 3 P04 legs from Bill Jenkins website. One file contains all 3 legs, not WOCE formatted, needs merging into respective bottle files. File is located /usr/export/html-public/data/onetime/pacific/p04/original/20020227_P04/TRIT_ALL_LEGS_JENKINS
created .ps files, check with gs viewer. Created *check.txt file.
CTD has been converted to exchange using the new code and put online.
Documentation for all three p04s has been replaced with a newer version and put online.
I have replaced the previously online bottle file for P04E with the bottle file containing newly merged CFCs. Data updates were sent by D. Wisegarver and merged by D. Muus. New updated sumfile was also created by D. Muus. all previous files have been moved to original subdirectory and have been renamed. All references have been updated to reflect this change.
1. New CFC-11 and CFC-12 from John Bullister, PMEL anonymous ftp site on Sept 4, 2001:
wocecfc/freon/pacific/FINALDQE/RELAXED/tps10_CFC_DQE.dat
merged into web SEA file as of Aug 21, 2001: P04E (20010326WHPOSIOKJU)
The first revised CFC file received this summer was missing Station 215 because it was not in the SUMMARY file:
/usr/export/html-public/data/onetime/pacific/p04/original
20010709_CFC_WISEGARVER_P04/20010709.165933_WISEGARVER_P04_tps10_CFC_DQE.dat
One file contained new CFC data for all three legs.
No SEA file QUALT2 words so added QUALT2 identical to QUALT1 prior to merging.
New CFC data file appears to have SAMPNO and BTLNBR swapped with respect to .SEA file data. Checked that .SEA file SAMPNO same as CFC file "btlnbr" compared with Sta#, Cast# and CTDPRS.
2. SUMMARY file (20010326WHPOSIOKJU) has "INT" (interpolated?) as NAV entry numerous times. "INT" not a NAV code per WOCE Manual.
EVENT CODE is BO, EN, BE rather than normal sequence of BE, BO, EN. All three position and time entries for each station are identical since this is a Pre-WOCE cruise.
No Station 215 in SUMMARY file although .SEA file contains Station 215, Cast 1 with 24 bottles (see Item 3 below).
3. Station 215, Cast 1 in Mar 26, 2001 .SEA file has 24 bottles with oxygen, nutrients, and 14 levels of CFCs.
.DOC overview states: "Stations 215-217 were made in deep water at the same geo- graphical position, 9.6 N and 86.2 W, to compare the data from the three CTDs used during this cruise."
.DOC ctd corrections have no info for Stations 215 or 216, only 217. No bottle or ctd data in WHOI Technical Report WHOI-91-32 for Stations 215 or 216.
Station 217 SEA file has bottle salinities and oxygens but no nutrients or CFCs.Do not know what, if any, CTD corrections applied to Station 215 CTDPRS, CTDTMP or CTDSAL. Ctd data look reasonable compared to Station 217 at approximately the same location.
In order to provide users with nutrients and CFCs for this location I have added Station 215 to the SUMMARY file with a comment about the uncertain status of the ctd data. Also changed quality codes for CTDSAL from "2" to "3" as an added caution for users.
Changed parameter numbers for 217 from "1-8" to "1-2".
Used parameter numbers "1-8" for 215.
Used intended position and estimated time and date for 215.
4. Exchange file checked using Java Ocean Atlas.
I have placed the new file containing updated CFC values for ALL P04 cruises in the subdirectory called original/20010709_CFC_WISEGARVER_P04 located in the parent P04 directory. These data are in need of merging into the individual P04 bottle files currently online.
The precision of the CFC-11 and CFC-12 measurements fell outside of the original WOCE standards of 1% or 0.005 pmol/kg with an estimated precison of 1.3% or 0.006 for CFC-11 and an estimated precision of 1.9% or 0.002 pmol/kg for CFC-12. Estimates of presision were based on the median value of percent deviation for mean concentrations > 0.5 pmol/kg and median standard deviation for mean concentrations less than or equal to 0.5 pmol/kg.
Due to bottle contamination experienced during the initial phase of the project, the calculated deep CFC concentrations were variable, in stpite of efforts to correct for the problem. The standard deviation of samples in the deep, presumable zero CFC concentration water was 0.01 for CFC-11 and 0.007 for CFC-12 during leg 1, but was reduced to 0.04 and 0.003 for CFC-11 and CFC-12 respectively by leg 3. This lever of scatter can be seen throughout the water column.
Based on the precision of the replicate samples and the scatter due to bottle contamination, this data set does not meet the original WOCE quality standards [1.3% or 0.006 for CFC-11 and 1.9% or 0.002 pmol/kg for CFC-12], but does fall within the relaxed standards of 3% or 0.015 pmol/kg.
CTD and Bottle files in exchange format have been put online.
Paper version on hand at WHPO
There are two problems with the TPS10 CFC data. The first has to do with contaminated bottles. Nearly all of the analytical equipment, including the WHOI 10-liter Niskin bottles used for the majority of the hydrographic work, were sent to Majuro in a shipping container which was severely contaminated with CFCs, probably originating from packing foams used for other equipment in the container.
There were 4 types of bottles used during this cruise, each with a different initial CFC blank, and each cleaning up at a different (about exponential) rate. Ricky and I did our best to fit the blanks for each bottle type to an exponential as a function fo time. To give you some idea, the initial blanks (in pmol/kg) at the start of each leg for each bottle type were:
Leg1 CFC-11 CFC-12
10 liter WHOI Niskin 0.047 0.019
2.4 liter Niskin 0.025 0.012
10 liter SIO Barron 0.047 0.019
Leg2 CFC-11 CFC-12
10 liter WHOI Niskin 0.022 0.005
2.4 liter Niskin 0.026 0.004
Leg3 CFC-11 CFC-12
10 liter WHOI Niskin 0.009 0.005
2.4 liter Niskin 0.006 0.004
10 liter Miami Niskin 0.004 0.006
When determining these blanks we also had the problem that CFC-free water was not sampled for all bottle types at all times, so some guess work was involved. As I write this, Ray reminds me that we have already written a detailed report on this. I have attached this as PostScript file "text.ps" if you would like all the details.
The second problem I discovered recently when comparing the WHPO database with our CFC database, as part of the WOCE synthesis. For TPS10 leg3, I found a few values where the two databases do not match, and also quite a few samples where the WHPO file shows CFC values of 0.0 where we report no value. These were clearly merging problems at the old WHPO at WHOI. I have attached the list of mis-matches and a correct version of the tps10 leg3 CFC data. I will send the corrected data to the WHPO next week (see below).
Please note that all the SIO TPS data (TPS10, 24 and 47) are still on the SIO 1986 standard scale. All the other SIO data at the WHPO are on the SIO 1993 standard scale. Early next week I will update the WHPO database with SIO 1993 values for the TPS cruises (the conversion from SIO 1986 to SIO 1993 requires dividing CFC-12 values by 0.9874 and CFC-11 values by 1.0251). If you would like, I will email you a copy of these data when I send them to the WHPO.
1. in the sum file(s): No entry for station 8 or 215 (data exists in hyd files) Entry for station 77 out of order (data in hyd file in correct order)
2. in the sum AND hyd files: No entry for stations 1,2,84 or 216. Station and data entries existed for these in older versions of the files (32MW893-i.yyy)
Data records for 119 bottles now "missing".
I'm working with Lou Gordon on the GODS Pacific project. No doubt you'll be hearing more from me.
In regard to the "P10 - Nitrate" note Lou sent to you the other day - the data listed under the "NITRATE" column is in fact the total of "Nitrate AND Nitrite" or N+N. You are correct in stating that to obtain NITRATE only, you must subract out the corresponding NITRITE value. Again, the units of umol/Kg are correct for all nutrients.
To clarify, I obtained the P10 data (p10hy.txt) from the WOCE website that your PACIFIC data listing website linked - http://whpo.ucsd.edu/data/onetime/pacific/p10/index.htm.
After downloading and checking cruise TPS10 (WOCE p04ehy.txt, p04chy.txt, p04why.txt) from the WOCE website, I've determined the same situation to be true. The data listed under the "NITRATE" column is actually NITRATE and NITRITE combined. The units of umol/Kg are correct for all the nutrients in the WOCE files.
Regarding your recent query about high nitrate values on some stations on the 10oN transpacific hydrographic section, I have looked into the issues and conclude that some of the nitrate values printed in the 10oN data report are high by 9 µmole/l. As you pointed out in your 28 May letter to Arnold Mantyla these erroneously high values are due to a glich in the computer software that generated the data report tables. In particular, when there is no printed nitrite value, the software subtracted a -9 (used internally to indicate no nitrite reading) from the total nitrate + nitrite value to derive a nitrate value 9 µmole/l higher than the nitrate + nitrite value.
I believe that the printed nitrate values are 9 µmole/l too high for the following stations in the 10ON data report:
9 Bottle 1
26-39
41-42
43 Bottle 7
44-57
71
72 Bottles 5-10
73-74
76
97 Bottle 10
134-135
163
212 Bottles 21-24
213
Please note that the problem is not continuous after station 25 as your letter to Mantyla, suggested. The problem stations and bottles axe easy to spot because they consist of all bottles for which nitrate concentration is printed but no nitrite concentration is printed.
Because there is essentially no nitrite concentration below 125 m depth for nearly all of the 10oN section, reasonable nitrate values can be derived for most of these problem stations by subtracting 9 µmole/I from the printed nitrate values, that is effectively to equate nitrite + nitrate concentration with nitrate concentration. More careful consideration is needed only in the upper 125 m over the entire section and between 250 m and 450 m depths on stations 212-213 where there may indeed be some nitrite present. Otherwise, I would conclude that nitrate concentrations for these problem stations could be accurately derived from the values printed in the data report.
Because the nutrient analysis directly measures two primary quantities, nitrate + nitrite concentration and nitrite concentration, and then derives nitrate concentration by taking the difference between the primary quantities, it may be sensible to archive and present the primary quantities in WHP data reports. The less appealing alternative seems to be that when there is no nitrite measurement the nitrate concentration cannot be presented, even though there is a valid measurement of nitrate + nitrite concentration that almost always represents accurately the nitrate concentration.
Thank you for pointing out the problem with the nitrate concentrations printed in the data report.
As I was preparing the 15 and P4 pre-WOCE data to send you, I noticed problems with the nitrate values, with a sharp 9 µmole/I increase in values at all depths after station 25. Upon further examination, it appears that when separating nitrate and nitrite from the data, the nitrite values were subtracted from the total (N03+NO2) even when there were no nitrite values (assigned -9 in the data). Subtracting a -9 would increase nitrate values by the right amount. The data appearing in the hard cover report suffer from this problem; the present file does not. I do not know why there were no nitrites after station 25; the nutrient report by Gordon and Jennings doesn't say anything about problems. I will ask Bryden when he returns from P6 later this week. Perhaps you know something? I have also included a floppy disk with the second year of HOTS data; I expect the third year sometime later this month. Of course, I don't expect you to start right in with the DQE work, especially since we haven't sent any money yet!