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
74DI200_1 processing - BTL
2022-08-18
A Barna
Submissions
id submit date submitted by file name
---- ------------- -------------- -----------
2576 s04_hy1.csv
Changes
* Changed NITRAT to NO2+NO3 as per submission history on 2000-07-19
* Removed BTLNBR and BTLNBR_FLAG_W column (only fill values)
* Fabricated SAMPNO column as per old exchange doc
* Removed SECT_ID column that had only empty strings in it
note: this update only corrects errors but does not address the CFC data issues from 2002-05-25
74DI200_1_hy1.csv and 74DI200_1_nc_hyd.zip opened in JOA with no apparent problems.
Conversions
note: converted and put online by C Berys
file converted from software
-------------------- ----------------- -----------------------
74DI200_1_nc_hyd.zip 74DI200_1_hy1.csv hydro 0.8.2-61-g3353cfe
74DI200_1hy.txt 74DI200_1_hy1.csv hydro 0.8.2-61-g3353cfe
Updated Files Manifest
file stamp
-------------------- -----------------
74DI200_1_hy1.csv 20220818CCHSIOAMB
74DI200_1_nc_hyd.zip 20220818CCHSIOAMB
74DI200_1hy.txt 20220818CCHSIOAMB
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.
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.
New PDF and text docs online.
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).
New bottle file was sent by M. Gould which contains updated CFC data. However, there were 3 problems noted in the new file. File has fewer valid values for these parameters than whpo current online file (station samples that did have data and Q1 flags of 2 in old file have missing values and no flags in new file). New file is missing 5 quality bytes from the quality 1 word. Old file contains complete quality word. New file also has differing values for CTDPRS and THETA when compared to old file.
Dr. Gould has been emailed regarding these problems no reply as of this date. New bottle file and pertinant emails reside in the original s04 directory under 2002.03.22_S04_SEA_MGOULD
No action has been taken at this time.
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.
created *check file for this cruise. created .ps files for this cruise.
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.
Bottle and CTD exchange files were added to website.
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.
Hi Jim,
Sure, I would be glad to look over the Indian Ocean data for you. Sarilee has started plotting up I01 for me to start on. - Arnold
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.
The new files NITRAT is actually NO2+NO3, we don't have NITRIT by itself.
I believe my predecessors never converted from umol/l to umol/kg for you. Our database is umol/l.
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.
As per Gould. All current files (sum, bottle, and CTD) have been replaced with new files obtained from ftp site by S.Diggs.**Note new files have distinct differences relative to current holdings (i.e. different station numbers, different cast codes/times/lat/lon, parameters) differences are noted in README file in original subdirectory. Gould will be notified on these findings. Still no word on whether C14 was taken (Still have incomplete doc file up on website).
NOTES ON NEW 74DI200:
No files had leg 1 designators, current holdings have expo 74di200_1
SUM: New file has different station numbers. 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.
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
HYD: New file has different station numbers.
New file has no bottle or sample numbers (old bottle file has both).
New file does not have CTDRAW (old file does). New file does have CTDOXY (old file does not).
New file has NITRAT only, old file has NO2+NO3 (and empty NITRIT).
Values for all nutrients are different between old and new files.
New file does not have columns for TCARBN, ALKALI, PCO2, PH were these parameters ever taken?
New files have values for ccl4 and o18/o16, old files did not.
CTD: Difficult to compare CTD files since station numbers are different between old and new data sets, as are the dates of stations/casts.
> 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.
Diggs transferred files (again) from BODC site for DI200, DI207 and DI223. Will end up in ftp INCOMING as 2000.07.11_DI2XXX_DIGGS_SUM_SEA_CTD
Should replace any earlier files (per Martin Gould's message from today - 2000.07.11)
I have just phoned John Gould about the status of the ADOX data (Discovery 200 and 207) that BODC submitted to the WHPO.
ALL this data is PUBLIC.
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.
The CTD are now on the website and are unencrypted.