A. Cruise Narrative: P16N (Climate and Global Change 1991) A.1. Highlights WOCE line designation P16N WOCE EXPOCODE 31DSCGC91_1-2 Chief Scientist John L. Bullister NOAA-PMEL 7600 Sand Point Way, NE Seattle, WA 98115 Tel: 206 526 6741 FAX: 206 526 6744 Email: bullister@noaapmel.gov Dates Leg 1 14 Feb 1991 - 28 Feb 1991 Leg 2 07 Mar 1991 - 08 Apr 1991 Ship NOAA R/V Discoverer Ports of call Leg 1 Seattle, WA - Hilo, Hawaii Leg 2 Hilo, Hawaii - Seattle, WA Number of stations 64 19°53.27'N Geographic boundaries (stations) 154°55.51'W 151°56.27'W 56°17.72'N Floats and drifters deployed 0 Moorings deployed or recovered 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS A Cruise Narrative: P16N A.1 Highlights A.2 CRUISE SUMMARY A.3 LIST OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS A.3.a PARTICIPANTS A.4 RESULTS AND HIGHLIGHTS A.5 MAJOR PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED ON THE CRUISE B HYDROGRAPHIC MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES AND CALIBRATIONS B.1 CTD MEASUREMENTS B.1.a STANDARDS AND CALIBRATIONS B.1.b DATA ACQUISITION B.1.c DATA ACQUISITION PROBLEMS B.1.d SALINITIES B.1.e POST-CRUISE CONDUCTIVITY CALIBRATIONS B.1.f CONDUCTIVITY CALIBRATION PROGRAMS AND PLOTTING COMMAND FILES B.1.g PROCESSING B.2 BOTTLE SALINITY MEASUREMENTS B.3 DISSOLVED OXYGEN, NUTRIENTS B.3.a STS/ODF DATA COLLECTION, ANALYSES, AND PROCESSING B.3.a.1 OXYGEN B.3.a.2 NUTRIENTS B.3.a.3 DATA COMPARISONS B.4 RADIOCARBON RESULTS B.4.a GENERAL COMMENTS ON THIS DATA RELEASE (#92-15) B.4.b GENERAL COMMENTS ON C12 DATA B.5 CFC-11 AND CFC-12 MEASUREMENTS ON WOCE SECTION P16N B.6 DIC and pH B.6.a TOTAL DISSOLVED INORGANIC CARBON (TCO2) B.6.b pH C DATA QUALITY EVALUATIONS C.1 DATA QUALITY EVALUATION OF HYDROGRAPHIC DATA C.2 DATA QUALITY COMMENTS ON CTD DATA C.3.a CFC DQE REPORT C.3.b FINAL CFC DATA QUALITY EVALUATION A.2 CRUISE SUMMARY: Fig. 1 shows the station locations. A listing of station locations is given in the P16N.sea file. Fig. 2 shows the sampling depths for the 10 liter bottles along the section. A.3 LIST OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS: Measurement PI Institution ----------- -- ----------- CTD S. Hayes PMEL CFCs J. Bullister PMEL Helium-3 W. Jenkins WHOI J. Lupton UCSB Tritium W. Jenkins WHOI Oxygen J. Swift SIO-ODF TCO2 R. Feely PMEL Alkalinity R. Feely PMEL pH R. Byrne USF DIC P. Quay UW C-14 (AMS) R. Key Princeton Nutrients J. Swift SIO-ODF DON P. Wheeler OSU ADCP S. Hayes PMEL A.3.a PARTICIPANTS: LEG 2 John Bullister PMEL CFCs/Chief Scientist David Wisegarver PMEL CFCs Fred Menzia PMEL CFCS Jeff Benson PMEL Rosette operations Tiffany Vance PMEL CTD Kristy McTaggert PMEL CTD Dana Greely PMEL rosette operations, CO2 Paulette Murphy PMEL CO2 Susan Leftwich AOML CO2 Jiarong Zhang UW DIC Mike Behrenfeld OSU Productivity Pat Wheeler OSU Productivity/DON Mary-Lynn Dickson OSU Productivity/DON Leonard Lopez SIO-ODF Large Volume C-14 Art Hester SIO-ODF Oxygen, nutrients Bob Key Princeton Large Volume C-14, AMS C-14 Tonya Clayton USF pH Kim Kelly PMEL Underway dissolved gases Kelly Roupe PMEL Helium-tritium Dan Lee PMEL CFCs/data processing Larry Murray NOAA-PMC CTD/salinity Rex Long NOAA-PMC salinity Clyde Kakazu NOAA-PMC CTD Eric Noah NOAA-PMC CTD John Nakamura NOAA-PMC CTD A.4 RESULTS AND HIGHLIGHTS: Leg 1 of the CGC91 expedition consisted of 14 stations occupied along the transit from Seattle to Hilo. These stations were re-occupations of stations previously sampled by PMEL investigators in 1985 for various parameters, and are not part of any WHP section. Only 1 of the stations on Leg 1 (Sta. 13 at 21 20 N, 152 50 W), made on the appproach to Hilo, is included in this report Leg 2 consisted of 52 stations (Sta. 15-66) on a line extending nominally along about 152 W from Hilo, Hawaii (20 N) to Kodiak Alaska (57 N). This section roughly follows the track from Honolulu to Kodiak made in 1984 during the Marathon II Expedition (Martin et al, 1987). We obtained full water column CTD profiles at all stations. The CFC data have been submitted to the WHP Office. A detailed discussion of the CTD measurements, data acquisition techniques, post-cruise calibrations and processing is also given in McTaggart and Mangum (1995). A 24 position 10 liter rosette with Neil Brown MARK III CTD (NBIS serial # 1111) was used at all stations. Due to limitations in ship time and endurance of the Discoverer, station spacing was nominally set at 40 nautical mile intervals, with closer spacing near boundaries and topographic features. To improve vertical resolution (within the available time), we planned to alternate between single cast (24 bottle) and 2 cast (48 bottle) stations along the line. Large volume Gerard Barrel casts (for C-14) were planned at a nominal spacing of 5 degrees along the line. No floats, drifters or moorings were deployed or recovered during the expedition. Continuous underway measurements of sea surface temperature and salinity were recorded along the cruise track. Approximately 44 XBTs were launched along the section. A.5 MAJOR PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED ON THE CRUISE As anticipated for this region of the North Pacific in late winter, we encountered a series of storms along the cruise track. Bad weather caused the cancellation of several stations between about 20-48 N (see attached station listing and map). Severe weather caused us to skip all scheduled stations between 48-52 N on the northward transit along the line. We bypassed this region, and continued onward to complete the northern end of the line at Kodiak Island (57 N). We hoped to occupy the missed stations by re-tracing the track southward, but again experienced severe weather in this region, and were only partially successful in filling this gap. The center of this area (50 N, 152 W) was later crossed by a diagonal (SE-NW) section as part of WHP Line P17N in June 1993. A number of water samples were lost due to problems with the 24 position General Oceanics Rosettes used to close the sample bottles. Although 2 new units were purchased for use on this cruise, and we were careful not to exceed lanyard tension specifications, we experienced a number of difficulties with the Rosettes. The problems included double-trips, failures to confirm firings, and failures in closing bottles. Typically, these problems resulted in losses of from one to several samples per cast, but at several stations only a few bottles were closed successfully. The mechanical components in the rosette required frequent disassembly and re-alignment, often resulting in delays in deploying the CTD/rosette package. After re-adjustment, performance of these units often deteriorated after only a few casts. Most of the double trips and mis-firings were identified on board ship, and the correct closing depth determined from bottle salinity results. Additional mis- fires have been identified using other data, including dissolved nutrients, oxygen, CFCs and pH. We believe that most of the mis-fires have been identified, and that the bottle numbers (btlnbr) and corresponding ctd pressures (ctdprs) in the P16N.sea data file have been assigned correctly. After these checks were made, a bottle quality flag value of 2 has been assigned to these samples. As a result of the mechanical problems, bad weather, and reduced ship speed, we were forced to reduce the number of 2 cast stations made along the section. We experienced mechanical problems with some of the Gerard Barrels, especially during the first few stations attempted. This resulted in the loss of a number of large volume radiocarbon samples. Data from the Gerard Barrel casts has been processed by Robert Key at Princeton, and submitted to the WHP office in a seperate file (.LVS format). SUMMARY: Despite the problems in fully completing the section as planned, we feel that the quality of the data at the stations sampled is generally good. REFERENCES: MARTIN, M., Talley, L.D., DeSzoeke, R.A. (1987). Physical, Chemical and CTD Data from the Marathon II Expedition. Data Report 131, Reference 87-15, College of Oceanography, Oregon State University, Coravallis, OR. McTaggart, K.E., Mangum, L.J., (1995). CTD Measurements Collected on a Climate and Global Change Cruise (WOCE Section P16N) along 152 W during February-April, 1991. NOAA Data Report ERL PMEL-53, Pacific Marine Environmenal Laboratory, Seattle, WA. B. HYDROGRAPHIC MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES AND CALIBRATIONS B.1 CTD MEASUREMENTS (K. McTaggart) INTRODUCTION: The Neil Brown Mark IIIb CTD profiler is designed to make precise, high resolution measurements of conductivity, temperature and depth in the ocean environment. Electrical conductivity of sea water is obtained using a miniature, four electrode ceramic cell and highly precise and stable interface electronics. Temperature is determined using a platinum resistance thermometer (the fast response thermistor was disabled). And a high performance, strain gage pressure transducer and associated electronics are used to determine pressure. Data from the underwater unit is transmitted in real time to a shipboard data terminal through a single conductor electro-mechanical cable. The data is in TELETYPE (TTY) format and uses a frequency shift key(FSK) modulated signal superimposed on the DC power supplied to the underwater unit via the same conductor. B.1.a STANDARDS AND CALIBRATIONS: The EG&G conductivity sensor has a range of 1 to 65 mmho, an accuracy of +/- 0.005 mmho, resolution of 0.001 mmho, and stability of 0.003 mmho/month. The Rosemount platinum thermometer has a range of -32 to 32 C, an accuracy of +/-0.005 C (-3 to 32 C), resolution of 0.0005 C, and stability of 0.001 C/month. And the Paine pressure sensor has a range of 0 to 6500 db, and accuracy of +/- 6.5 db, resolution of 0.1 db, and stability of 0.1%/month. Both pre-cruise and post-cruise laboratory calibrations were done at Northwest Regional Calibration Center in Bellevue, Washington. The CTD was placed in a temperature controlled bath and compared against a calibration standard at nine different temperatures ranging from 0 to 30 C. A linear fit is calculated for the platinum thermometer. A calibrated piston gauge was used to determine separate third order fits for the CTD pressure sensor at four temperatures for increasing pressure (over 7 pressure values from 0 to 6300 dbars) and decreasing pressure (over 6 values from 6300 to 0 dbars). Temperature and pressure calibrations are crudely checked at sea by comparing values with those from deep reversing thermometers, but the stability of the sensors is good enough (about 4 milli-degrees C for temperature and about .95 dbars for pressure over the 4-month period between pre- and post-cruise calibrations) that the CTD sensors are more accurate than the reversing thermometers. The conductivity sensor is not as stable relative to water sample values, and is more accurately calibrated using water samples collected in Niskin bottles mounted on the rosette sampler. Immediately prior to tripping the sampler, P, T, and C values are read from the deck unit. These values are then used to compare with the water sample values. Pre-cruise calibrations: BIAS SLOPE COEF 1 COEF 2 -32.7088 .9961159 0.188702E-5 -0.1999822E-09 P DN S/N 1111 FEB 91 -35.0322 .9940687 0.293848E-5 -0.3073184E-09 P UP S/N 1111 FEB 91 0.0534 1.0005530 0.000000E-6 0.0000000E-10 T 68 S/N 1111 FEB 91 0.0018 0.9997682 0.000000E-6 0.0000000E-10 C S/N 1111 FEB 91 Post-cruise calibrations: -33.6641 .9963757 0.181537E-5 -0.1971429E-09 P DN S/N 1111 JUN 91 -35.8913 .9941153 0.290680E-5 -0.3061199E-09 P UP S/N 1111 JUN 91 0.0494 1.0006070 0.000000E-6 0.0000000E-10 T 68 S/N 1111 JUN 91 -0.0028 0.9996766 0.000000E-6 0.0000000E-10 C S/N 1111 JUN 91 B.1.b DATA ACQUISITION: A total of 64 CTD casts were done by the ship's survey personnel under the supervision of PMEL CTD personnel. 54 casts were taken to within 50 meters of the bottom, although all of these were not deep (i.e. greater than 2000 meters). The remaining 12 casts were taken to 1000 meters or less. PMEL's Neil Brown Mark IIIb CTD, serial number 1111, and two new General Oceanics 24-bottle rosette pilons were used throughout the cruise. CTD 1111 was not equipped with an oxygen sensor. 10-liter Niskin bottles were used to collect water samples for salinity, oxygen, nutrients, CFCs, helium, tritium, C14, CO2, alkalinity, DIC, pH, chlorophyll, oxygen-18, DON, particulate nitrogen, and productivity. Neil Brown Mark III deck units received the FSK signal from the underwater unit; displayed pressure, temperature, and conductivity values; sent an analog signal to an XY recorder which monitored the data acquisition in real time for signal spiking and problems with the electrical termination; sent any audio signal to a reel-to-reel or cassette recorder as a backup; and digitized the data before sending it to an IBM compatible 286-AT PC equipped with EG&G Oceansoft data acquisition software, version 2.02. B.1.c DATA ACQUISITION PROBLEMS: Regarding the underwater unit and cable: Leg 2 started with cast 24. During cast 28, the CTD grounding strap parted and was fixed after the cast. Heavy surging produced 2 kinks in the cable during cast 32 and cast 33. The reel-to- reel audio recorder began failing as well. Cast 36 produced two bends in the cable within 3 meters of the underwater package but the cable was not reterm- inated. With cast 40 began major malfunctions in the rosette system including nonconfirmations on the deck unit and open bottles at the surface but not necessarily the same number. Water was found in the connectors after this cast and they were cleaned and reseated. Extensive, even creative, troubleshooting of the rosette system continued with nearly every cast. The XY analog plots monitoring the CTD signal were consistently of good quality. After cast 55, the y-cable was replaced with one from the ship so that the CTD and rosette would be on two different wires instead of one interrupted signal. Things did not improve however. The CTD was reterminated after cast 56. The ground strap parted again during cast 59 and was repaired. The conductivity sensor was flushed with deionized water because of a noisier analog signal. Audio backups were made on cassette tapes after cast 59. By cast 72 the rosette was working better though not perfectly. After cast 77, all operations ceased for 2 days due to bad weather. The remaining casts were in rougher seas, the last being cast 87 at station 66. Regarding data: Misfires were determined by a collaborative effort using the difference in CTD and bottle salinity, pH, oxygen, and nutrient data. The following is the general consensus at the end of the leg. Only misfired bottles are listed. CAST NISKIN NOM Z ACTUAL P COMMENTS 26 1012 500 403.4 Sample bottles probably switched 26 1013 400 498.3 during analysis. 27 1026 1600 1302.4 Double trip at 1300m; no 1600m sample. 28 1036 4500 5079.2 Double trip at depth. 28 1031 4100 4516.6 Offset by one. 28 1025 3600 4001.7 Offset by one. 28 1029 3000 3613.9 Double trip at 3600m. 28 1038 2500 2985.6 Offset by one. 28 1007 2000 2501.6 Offset by one. 28 1012 1500 2001.6 Offset by one. 28 1013 1000 1500.4 Offset by one. 28 SI06 500 996.7 Offset by one. 28 1003 100 491.6 Offset by one. 28 1009 30 104.5 Offset by one. 28 1024 6 34.4 Offset by one; no 6m sample. 29 1025 100 67.2 Double trip at 70m; no 100m sample. 31 1040 1300 1095.8 Double trip at 1100m; no 1300m sample. 31 1036 800 698.9 Double trip at 700m; no 800m sample. 31 1025 600 497.7 Double trip at 500m; no 600m sample. 32 1036 200 147.3 Double trip at 150m; no 200m sample. 33 1036 2200 1901.4 Double trip at 1900m; no 2200m sample. 33 1025 1600 1298.9 Misfire; no 1600m sample. 33 1004 1300 1096.3 Double trip at 1100m; no 1300m sample. 35 1036 200 154.6 Double trip at 150m; no 200m sample. 38 1025 1000 1100.0 Double trip at 1100m. 38 1004 900 1001.0 Offset by one. 38 1026 800 898.0 Offset by one; no 800m sample. 39 1029 4500 4007.1 Double trip at 4000m; no 4500m sample. 39 1036 200 151.3 Double trip at 150m; no 200m sample. 39 1025 100 74.0 Double trip at 75m; no 100m sample. 40 1038 4000 1999.4 Double trip at 3000m; no 4000m sample. 41 1029 4600 4102.9 Double trip at 4100m; no 4600m sample. 41 1041 2100 1802.0 Double trip at 1800m; no 2100m sample. 41 1036 800 701.3 Double trip at 700m; no 800m sample. 41 1025 600 494.0 Double trip at 500m; no 600m sample. 43 1017 5650 4542.8 Misfire. 43 1028 5000 3504.6 Misfire. 43 1029 4500 101.8 Misfire. 43 1038 4000 28.1 Misfire; only 4 bottles closed. 44 1038 4100 4607.0 Double trip at 4600m. 44 1007 3500 4104.1 Double trip at 4100m. 44 1012 3000 4104.1 44 1013 2500 3508.8 Double trip at 3500m. 44 SI06 2000 3508.8 44 1003 1700 3003.2 Offset by three. 44 1002 1400 2502.0 Offset by three. 44 1041 1150 2001.9 Offset by three. 44 1019 900 1698.4 Offset by three. 44 1033 700 1396.4 Offset by three. 44 SI04 600 1111.9 Offset by three. 44 1032 500 898.2 Offset by three. 44 1037 400 698.8 Offset by three. 44 SI26 300 600.0 Offset by three. 44 1036 200 498.5 Offset by three. 44 1031 150 400.3 Offset by three. 44 1025 100 300.9 Offset by three. 44 1004 75 202.0 Offset by three. 44 1026 50 150.4 Offset by three; no 50m sample. 44 1016 25 100.7 Offset by three; no 25m sample. 44 1027 6 75.7 Offset by three; no 6m sample. 46 1028 5105 298.5 Misfired. 46 1029 4400 5112.7 Offset by one. 46 1038 3900 4407.6 Offset by one. 46 1007 3400 3904.2 Offset by one. 46 1012 2900 3405.4 Offset by one. 46 1013 2400 2902.2 Offset by one. 46 SI06 1900 2902.2 Double trip at 2900m; no 2400m sample. 46 1003 1600 1900.0 Offset by one. 46 1002 1300 1900.0 Double trip at 1900m. 46 1041 1000 1599.8 Offset by two. 46 1019 900 1297.6 Offset by two. 46 1033 800 998.1 Offset by two. 46 1011 700 898.0 Offset by two. 46 1032 600 799.8 Offset by two. 46 1037 500 700.3 Offset by two. 46 SI26 400 601.1 Offset by two. 46 1036 300 498.8 Offset by two. 46 1031 200 398.9 Offset by two. 46 1025 150 298.5 Offset by two. 46 1004 100 199.9 Offset by two. 46 1026 50 151.8 Offset by two. 46 1016 25 99.7 Offset by two; no 25m sample. 46 1027 6 51.3 Offset by two; no 6m sample. 47 SI06 2750 3251.0 Double trip at 3250m. 47 1003 2500 2752.7 Offset by one. 47 1002 2250 2500.8 Offset by one. 47 1041 2100 2250.0 Offset by one. 47 1019 1750 2250.0 Double trip at 2250m. 47 1033 1500 2098.4 Offset by two. 47 1011 1250 1750.8 Offset by two. 47 1032 900 1500.0 Offset by two. 47 1037 800 1246.4 Offset by two. 47 SI26 650 899.7 Offset by two. 47 1036 500 800.0 Offset by two. 47 1031 400 649.6 Offset by two. 47 1025 300 501.1 Offset by two. 47 1004 200 399.6 Offset by two. 47 1026 100 302.1 Offset by two. 47 1016 30 200.9 Offset by two; no 30m sample. 47 1027 6 100.9 Offset by two; no 6m sample. 48 1013 1000 749.6 Misfire. 49 SI06 2800 3101.2 Double trip at 3100m. 49 1003 2500 2802.4 Offset by one. 49 1002 2300 2502.2 Offset by one; no 2300m sample. 49 1019 1900 2100.9 Double trip at 2100m. 49 1033 1600 1897.8 Offset by one; no 1600m sample. 49 1032 1100 1298.1 Double trip at 1300m. 49 1037 1000 1098.8 Offset by one. 49 SI26 900 999.0 Offset by one. 49 1036 800 899.1 Offset by one. 49 1031 700 798.8 Offset by one. 49 1025 650 699.2 Offset by one. 49 1004 600 650.8 Offset by one. 49 1026 550 599.5 Offset by one. 49 1016 500 550.6 Offset by one. 49 1027 450 499.0 Offset by one; no 450m sample. 51 1003 2500 2752.7 Triple trip at 2750m; no 2500m sample. 51 1002 2250 2752.7 51 1041 2100 2250.6 Offset by one. 51 1019 1750 2250.6 Double trip at 2250m; no 1750m sample. 51 1033 1500 2100.9 Offset by two. 51 1011 1250 1499.2 Offset by one. 51 1032 900 1499.2 Double trip at 1500m. 51 1037 800 1246.7 Offset by two. 51 SI26 650 898.4 Offset by two. 51 1036 500 799.7 Offset by two. 51 1031 400 640.9 Offset by two. 51 1025 300 502.3 Offset by two. 51 1004 200 400.4 Offset by two. 51 1026 100 297.4 Offset by two. 51 1016 30 201.5 Offset by two; no 30m sample. 51 1027 6 102.2 Offset by two; no 6m sample. 52 1029 4000 5008.2 Double trip at 5000m. 52 1038 3000 4007.4 Offset by one. 52 1007 2000 3002.5 Offset by one. 52 1012 1500 1999.3 Offset by one. 52 SI06 1250 1372.8 Double trip at 1375m. 52 1003 1175 1246.5 Offset by one; no 1175m sample. 52 1002 1000 1246.5 Double trip at 1250m. 52 1041 850 1000.7 Offset by one. 52 1019 750 1000.7 Double trip at 1000m. 52 1033 650 849.7 Offset by two. 52 1011 550 750.7 Offset by two. 52 1032 450 550.2 Offset by one; no 650m sample. 52 1037 350 550.2 Double trip at 550m. 52 SI26 300 450.6 Offset by two. 52 1036 200 350.5 Offset by two. 52 1031 175 298.8 Offset by two. 52 1025 150 175.6 Offset by one; no 200m sample. 52 1004 125 175.6 Double trip at 175m. 52 1026 75 152.2 Offset by two; no 75m sample. 52 1016 30 126.8 Offset by two. 52 1027 6 31.6 Offset by one; no 6m sample. 53 1033 5000 5632.4 Double trip at depth. 53 1011 4750 5004.3 Offset by one. 53 1032 4500 4758.5 Offset by one. 53 1037 4250 4503.3 Offset by one. 53 SI26 3750 4254.5 Offset by one. 53 1036 3500 3755.9 Offset by one. 53 1031 3250 3507.9 Offset by one. 53 1025 2750 3252.5 Offset by one. 53 1004 2500 2753.8 Offset by one. 53 1026 2250 2500.2 Offset by one. 53 1016 1750 2251.8 Offset by one; no 1750m sample. 53 1017 1250 1498.6 Double trip at 1500m; no 1250m sample. 53 1029 800 1000.2 Double trip at 1000m. 53 1038 700 803.4 Offset by one. 53 1007 600 699.7 Offset by one. 53 1012 500 598.0 Offset by one. 53 SI06 250 402.0 Double trip at 400m. 53 1003 100 251.3 Offset by one; no 100m sample. 55 1007 3000 1175.4 Misfire. 55 1012 2000 1073.0 Offset by one. 55 1013 1500 847.2 Misfire. 55 SI06 1175 747.9 Offset by one. 55 1003 1075 646.7 Offset by one. 55 1002 925 547.0 Offset by one. 55 1041 850 453.2 Offset by one. 55 1019 750 351.0 Offset by one. 55 1033 650 301.5 Offset by one. 55 1011 550 199.7 Offset by one. 55 1032 450 176.1 Offset by one. 55 1037 350 151.0 Offset by one. 55 SI26 300 123.4 Offset by one. 55 1036 200 75.6 Offset by one. 55 1031 175 6.0 Offset by one. 56 1028 5650 4759.2 Misfire. 56 1029 4750 3502.0 Misfire. 56 1038 4500 2251.5 Misfire. 56 1007 4250 601.4 Misfire. 56 1012 3750 403.5 Misfire. 56 1013 3500 52.9 Misfire. 56 SI06 3250 52.9 Double trip at 50m. 56 1003 2750 7.4 Misfire. 57 1013 3250 2752.2 Double trip at 2750m; no 3250m sample. 58 1013 125 101.6 Double trip at 100m; no 125m sample. 59 1013 1375 1173.6 Triple trip at 1175m; no 1375m sample. 59 1003 1075 1173.6 59 1002 925 1075.3 Offset by one. 59 1041 850 924.1 Offset by one. 59 1019 750 850.9 Offset by one. 59 1033 650 749.4 Offset by one. 59 1011 550 648.7 Offset by one. 59 1032 450 548.8 Offset by one. 59 1037 350 449.7 Offset by one. 59 SI26 300 348.0 Offset by one. 59 1036 200 298.8 Offset by one. 59 1031 175 201.0 Offset by one. 59 1025 150 176.0 Offset by one. 59 1004 125 150.9 Offset by one. 59 1026 75 125.6 Offset by one. 59 1016 6 75.8 Offset by one. 59 1027 6 8.3 Offset by one; no second 6m sample. 60 1037 800 699.2 Double trip at 700m; no 800m sample. 61 1013 1375 1074.9 Double trip at 1075m; no 1375m sample. 61 SI06 1175 1074.9 No 1175m sample either. 61 1003 1075 924.4 Offset by one. 61 1002 925 819.4 Offset by one. 61 1041 850 651.8 Double trip at 650m; no 750m sample. 61 1019 750 651.8 Offset by one. 61 1033 650 450.2 Misfire. 61 1011 550 349.4 Double trip at 350m; no 550m sample. 61 1032 450 349.4 Offset by one. 61 1037 350 201.5 Double trip at 200m; no 300m sample. 61 SI26 300 201.5 Offset by one. 61 1036 200 177.0 Offset by one. 61 1021 175 151.5 Offset by one. 61 1025 150 127.0 Offset by one. 61 1004 125 77.2 Offset by one. 61 1026 75 32.8 Offset by one. 61 1016 30 8.6 Offset by one. 62 1003 2750 3252.1 Double trip at 3250m. 62 1002 2500 2749.4 Offset by one. 62 1019 1750 2249.6 Double trip at 2250m; no 2500m sample. 62 1033 1500 1748.5 Offset by one; no 1500m sample. 62 1037 800 701.4 Double trip at 700m; no 800m sample. 63 1029 5000 4007.1 Double trip at 4000m; no 5000m sample. 63 SI06 1375 1502.2 Double trip at 1500m. 63 1003 1175 1375.9 Offset by one. 63 1002 1075 1175.5 Offset by one. 63 1041 925 1072.5 Offset by one. 63 1019 850 923.1 Offset by one. 63 1033 750 849.2 Offset by one. 63 1011 650 749.5 Offset by one. 63 1032 550 648.0 Offset by one. 63 1037 450 548.9 Offset by one. 63 SI36 350 449.1 Offset by one. 63 1036 300 350.7 Offset by one. 63 1031 200 300.3 Offset by one. 63 1025 150 199.6 Offset by one. 63 1004 125 150.0 Offset by one. 63 1026 75 126.7 Offset by one. 63 1027 6 31.8 Offset by two; no 75m or 6m sample. 64 1013 3500 3254.0 Double trip at 3250m; no 3500m sample. 65 1007 3500 4007.1 Double trip at 4000m. 65 1012 3250 3503.2 Offset by one; no 3250m sample. 65 SI06 2500 2750.2 Double trip at 2750m. 65 1003 2250 2499.0 Offset by one. 65 1002 2000 2249.2 Offset by one; no 2000m sample. 65 1019 1500 1747.9 Double trip at 1750m. 65 1033 1250 1499.5 Offset by one. 65 1011 1000 1247.6 Offset by one. 65 1032 900 997.7 Offset by one. 65 1037 850 900.1 Offset by one. 65 SI26 800 849.4 Offset by one. 65 1036 750 798.3 Offset by one. 65 1027 6 41.7 Misfire. 66 1025 40 22.7 Misfire. 66 1004 20 7.9 Offset by one. 68 1017 5033 5008.8 Misfire; no sample at depth. 68 1028 5000 4756.8 Offset by one. 68 1029 4750 4504.1 Offset by one. 68 1038 4500 4255.1 Offset by one. 68 1007 4250 3753.4 Offset by one. 68 1012 3750 2750.7 Offset by one. 68 1013 3500 2499.6 Misfire; no 3500m sample. 68 SI06 3250 2499.6 Double trip at 2500m; no 3250m sample. 68 1003 2750 1749.6 Misfire; no 2750m sample. 68 1002 2500 1749.6 Triple trip at 1750m. 68 1041 2250 1749.6 No 2250m sample. 68 1019 1750 1498.6 Offset by one. 68 1033 1500 1247.8 Offset by one. 68 1011 1250 998.3 Offset by one. 68 1032 1000 797.0 Offset by one. 68 1037 800 697.6 Offset by one. 68 SI26 700 597.4 Offset by one. 68 1036 600 499.7 Offset by one. 68 1031 500 399.6 Offset by one. 68 1025 400 249.7 Offset by one. 68 1004 250 100.1 Offset by one. 68 1026 100 50.0 Offset by one. 68 1016 50 7.8 Offset by one. 69 1028 5250 4008.1 Misfire; no 5250m sample. 69 1029 4000 3002.2 Offset by one. 69 1038 3000 1998.9 Offset by one. 69 1007 2000 1498.5 Offset by one. 69 1012 1500 1374.9 Offset by one. 69 1013 1375 1172.9 Offset by one. 69 SI06 1175 1073.0 Offset by one. 69 1003 1075 922.6 Offset by one. 69 1002 925 847.6 Offset by one. 69 1041 850 749.1 Offset by one. 69 1019 750 648.7 Offset by one. 69 1033 650 548.8 Offset by one. 69 1011 550 349.4 Misfire; no 450m sample. 69 1032 450 202.4 Double trip at 200m; no 300m sample. 69 1037 350 202.4 Offset by two. 69 SI26 300 176.6 Offset by two. 69 1036 200 152.6 Offset by two. 69 1031 175 126.7 Offset by two. 69 1025 150 78.8 Offset by two. 69 1004 125 31.3 Offset by two. 69 1026 75 8.4 Offset by two. 70 1017 5330 4762.8 Misfire; no 5330m sample. 70 1028 5000 4506.4 Offset by two; no 5000m sample. 70 1029 4750 4257.4 Offset by two. 70 1038 4500 3756.1 Offset by two. 70 1007 4250 3253.1 Misfire; no 3500m sample. 70 1012 3750 2750.6 Offset by three. 70 1013 3500 1499.6 Misfire. 70 SI06 3250 799.4 Misfire. 70 1003 2750 699.1 Offset by eight. 70 1002 2500 600.3 Offset by eight; no 2500m sample. 70 1041 2250 499.6 Offset by eight; no 2250m sample. 70 1019 1750 400.3 Offset by eight; no 1750m sample. 70 1033 1500 252.1 Offset by eight; no 1500m sample. 70 1011 1250 101.6 Offset by eight; no 1250m sample. 70 1032 1000 50.4 Offset by eight; no 1000m sample. 70 1037 800 9.1 Offset by eight; no 150m sample. 73 1019 3250 2753.1 Double trip at 2750m; no 3250m sample. 74 1013 60 42.2 Misfire; no 60m sample. 74 1017 40 5.2 Misfire; no 40m sample. 74 1033 20 5.2 Tripped at the surface. 75 1026 3500 3254.2 Double trip at 3250m; no 3500m sample. 76 1029 4000 5004.4 Double trip at 5000m. 76 SI06 3000 4006.3 Offset by one. 76 1026 2000 3002.2 Offset by one. 76 1002 1500 1999.7 Offset by one. 76 1004 1375 1495.3 Offset by one. 76 1019 1175 1371.1 Offset by one. 76 SI26 1075 1174.6 Offset by one. 76 1011 925 1076.1 Offset by one. 76 1003 850 923.2 Offset by one. 76 1037 750 848.2 Offset by one. 76 1013 650 746.1 Offset by one. 76 1036 550 648.1 Offset by one. 76 1017 450 546.6 Offset by one. 76 1025 350 452.2 Offset by one. 76 1033 300 351.6 Offset by one. 76 1041 200 300.0 Offset by one. 76 1007 175 199.8 Offset by one. 76 1027 150 174.4 Offset by one. 76 1032 125 149.4 Offset by one. 76 1028 75 123.1 Offset by one. 76 1023 30 76.3 Offset by one. 76 1031 6 29.7 Offset by one; no 6m sample. 77 1016 5105 6.0 Misfire. 77 1029 4750 5119.2 Offset by one. 77 SI06 4500 4758.3 Offset by one. 77 1026 4250 4506.4 Offset by one. 77 1002 3750 4255.1 Offset by one. 77 1004 3500 3755.4 Offset by one. 77 1019 3250 3501.3 Offset by one. 77 SI26 2750 3253.8 Offset by one. 77 1011 2500 2751.4 Offset by one. 77 1003 2250 2500.2 Offset by one. 77 1013 1500 2248.9 Offset by one. 77 1036 1250 1750.6 Offset by one. 77 1017 1000 1497.7 Misfire; no 1000m sample. 77 1025 800 1250.6 Offset by two. 77 1033 700 798.6 Offset by one. 77 1041 600 701.7 Offset by one. 77 1007 500 599.9 Offset by one. 77 1027 400 498.6 Offset by one. 77 1032 250 400.9 Offset by one. 77 1028 100 242.5 Offset by one. 77 1023 50 102.6 Offset by one. 77 1031 6 52.1 Offset by one; no 6m sample. 79 SI06 3500 3003.7 Double trip at 3000m; no 3500m sample. 80 1026 4000 3502.4 Double trip at 3500m; no 4000m sample. 81 1016 400 350.0 Double trip at 350m; no 400m sample. 82 1016 4175 3502.2 Double trip at 3500m; no 4175m sample. 82 1026 2000 1697.7 Double trip at 1700m; no 2000m sample. 82 1027 125 149.1 Double trip at 150m; no 125m sample. 83 1002 1200 1096.3 Double trip at 1100m; no 1200m sample. 84 1012 900 932.6 Double trip at 935m. 84 1029 800 898.5 Offset by one. 84 SI06 700 798.0 Offset by one. 84 1026 600 699.2 Offset by one. 84 1002 500 699.2 Double trip at 700m. 84 1004 400 598.6 Offset by two. 84 1019 300 499.7 Offset by two. 84 SI26 200 399.9 Offset by two. 84 1011 150 300.6 Offset by two. 84 1003 100 201.4 Offset by two. 84 1037 60 152.1 Offset by two. 84 1013 30 101.4 Offset by two; no 30m sample. 84 1036 6 61.7 Offset by two; no 6m sample. 85 1026 150 125.5 Double trip at 125m; no 150m sample. 85 1003 30 21.2 Misfire. 85 1037 20 7.1 Offset by one. 86 1026 2500 2000.7 Double trip at 2000m; no 2500m sample. 86 1027 125 101.1 Double trip at 100m; no 125m sample. 87 1002 2000 2501.8 Double trip at 2500m. 87 1004 1700 1998.9 Offset by one. 87 1019 1450 1697.9 Offset by one. 87 SI26 1200 1447.8 Offset by one. 87 1011 1000 1201.2 Offset by one. 87 1003 900 1003.2 Offset by one. 87 1037 800 898.9 Offset by one. 87 1013 700 803.2 Offset by one. 87 1036 600 701.2 Offset by one. 87 1017 500 600.1 Offset by one. 87 1025 400 499.0 Offset by one. 87 1033 300 399.0 Offset by one. 87 1041 200 298.8 Offset by one. 87 1007 150 203.3 Offset by one. 87 1027 125 151.7 Offset by one. 87 1032 100 131.4 Offset by one. 87 1028 60 105.7 Offset by one. 87 1023 30 61.6 Offset by one. 87 1031 6 31.9 Offset by one; no 6m sample. SALINITIES: Guildline Autosal 56.118, last calibrated at NRCC 1/15/91, was used to run salinities for all casts by SST Rex Long. IAPSO standard seawater used was lot #P110. Operating temperature was 21C while running samples from casts 38-38, and 24C for all others. This did not seem to affect the quality of the salinities. Drift corrections were applied by survey before being transcribed to the CTD cast logs. B.1.d POST-CRUISE CONDUCTIVITY CALIBRATIONS: Final calibrations were done at PMEL using the composite bottle data set called COMBINE.CAL produced by COMBINE.FOR of CG191 (casts 1-23), CG291 (casts 24-87), and PSI91 (casts 88-116). CALMSTRW was run with pre-cruise calibrations, then LINCALW for an overall least squares fit, and then CALMSTRW again with the overall fit applied. Plots of cast number, P, T, C, and bottle salinity verses the difference in conductivity between CTD and bottle data (CALMCONW.PPC) for bottles greater than 2000 meters showed cast breaks between casts 2 and 3 where the cable was first reterminated, and between casts 16 and 17 where the conductivity cell had been cleaned on CG191. The PSI data had no deep bottle data to look at and so was calibrated along with the last group which included the whole of CG291 data. LINCALW was run on each of the 3 groups of casts. CALMCONW plots looked good but the pressure verses delta-conductivity showed an offset of approximately .002 psu in the deepest bottles. Fitting each group using only deep bottles (>2000 meters) remedied the deep pressure offset but skewed the surface bottles. Fitting each group using only bottles greater than 500 meters decreased the pressure offset at depth somewhat but there was still some skew in the surface bottles. Because DEEPCTD plots of CTD salinity verses potential temperature with bottle salinities overplotted did not show any difference between using a fit calculated from all the bottle depths and a fit calculated from those bottles deeper than 500 meters (still in 3 groups), it was decided to go with the conductivity coefficients calculated from all bottle depths for no skew in the surface bottles. Results of LINCALW: MAX STD BIAS SLOPE RESIDUAL ERROR Group 1 (casts 1 & 2): -0.03930474 1.000857 0.0033 0.0014 Group 2 (casts 3-16): 0.01242658 0.999319 -0.0048 0.0017 Group 3 (casts 17-118): -0.00262318 0.999693 -0.0061 0.0022 Group 1: 1 value discarded from 35 in 2 repetitions. Group 2: 26 values discarded from 282 in 7 repetitions. Group 3: 242 values discarded from 1640 in 11 repetitions. DEEPCTD plots with the above calibrations applied showed that the majority of deep CTD traces were slightly fresher than the bottles implying that the linear fit calibrations were not enough. An average of the delta-conductivity values for bottles deeper than 5000 meters was computed (0.0015), added to the bias of group 3, and applied to only casts of CG291 (casts 24-87). Adding this additional conductivity offset to CG191 casts of group 3 made things worse or made no difference. B.1.e CONDUCTIVITY CALIBRATION PROGRAMS AND PLOTTING COMMAND FILES: CALEGGW: creates .CAL uncalibrated bottle data file. CALMSTRW: inputs .CAL uncalibrated bottle file, and outputs .CLB calibrated bottle file and WOCE .SEA bottle file with uneditted quality flags. LINCALW: inputs .CAL uncalibrated bottle file (which may be broken into groups) and calculates a least squares fit between CTD and water sample conductivity. When the difference between CTD and water sample conductivity is greater than 2.8 times the standard devitation of the calculated fit, that calibration point is thrown out. Another fit is then calculated without these points and the process is iterated until no calibration pairs are discarded. LINCALW outputs a .COEF file containing the final least squares fit coefficients and a .LOG file of fit iterations. CALMCONW.PPC: reads .CLB calibrated bottle data and makes five separate scatter plots: P, T, C, S, and cast number verses delta-C (CTD-bottle). These are examined for cast breaks and drifts in the CTD. CALMDEEPW.PPC: reads .CLB calibrated bottle file and make two separate scatter plots: CTD salinity and bottle salinity verses potential temperature from theta=0.6 to 2.2 degrees C. DEEPCTD.PPC: reads processed CTD and bottle data files of deep casts only and overplots the bottle salinity data and CTD salinity trace from theta=0.8 to 2.4 degrees C for each deep cast. WOCE .SEA SUBMISSION: Programmer/chemish Dan Lee was manager of a collective data base of water sample data during the cruise and at the lab for this project. Each group (e.g. CTD, pH, freon, etc.) would give their results to Dan and he would incorporate them into a master data file whic;h would be submitted to the WOCE Programme Office following the guidelines set forth in the WOCE Operations Manual Part 3.1.2: Requirements for WHP Data Reporting (July, 1991). CALMSTRW was modified to create this same .SEA file but containing only CTD and salinity parameters. The International Temperature Scale of 1990 (ITS-90) is now a standard variable in PMEL CTD data files. Temperatures reported to the WHP office will have been converted to this scale. Salinities are still computed using PSS-78 and the 1968 temperature scale. WOCE quality flags are assigned to each bottle, each salinity value, and each bottle salinity value for every cast. The bottle quality flag was assigned a value of 2 (no problems noted), 3 leaking as noted on the sampling logs and CTD cast logs), or 4 (did not trip correctly i.e. if the nominal pressure differed from the actual pressure). The quality flag associated with the CTD salinity measurement was 2 (acceptable measurement). An in-house criteria was set up to distinguish between acceptable, questionable, and bad quality flags for bottle salinity measurements: For the highly variable upper water column (0-1000 db), if the difference between the CTD salinity and bottle salinity was greater than .04 psu, the quality flag was assigned a value of 4 (bad); if the difference was between .01 and .04 psu, it was assigned a value of 3 (questionable); and if the difference was less than .01, it was considered an acceptable bottle salinity. For the more stable deep water (potential temperature less than 2.4 degrees C), the quality flaf for bottle salinity was 4 if the difference in salinities was greater than .008 psu, 3 if delta-S was between .003 and .008 psu, and 2 if less than .003 psu. For mid-column water, the assignment of quality flag values was subjective. B.1.f PROCESSING: Data was restored to the PMEL VAX system from TK50 tape. The following standard processing programs and plotting command files were used to process the data: DPDNZ - In order to eliminate anomalous excursions in the raw temperature and conductivity data associated with reversals in the direction of movement of the CTD package, as well as when the package decelerates due to the ship rolling and pitching, a fall rate is computed between samples approximately 2 seconds apart and is recorded along with the original unprocessed data. DPDNZ inputs EG&G CTDACQ raw data files (.EDT) and outputs a binary file of raw data including computed fall rates (.DPZ) and an ASCII file (.RECZ) from which a record range for the downcast are selected. DLAGZ - inputs the .DPZ file, applies pre-cruise calibrations (read from CALIB.DAT), edits the data for window outliers and first differencing outliers (according to WINDOW.DAT), fills these gaps by linear interpolation, corrects for the time-constant mismatch between temper- ature and conductivity sensors, edits data exceeding the fall rate criteria (default minimum fall rate acceptable is .8 db/60 scans or 25 meters per minute) and pressure interval of 1.5 db; computes 1-meter averages, and applies cell dependence to final conductivity values. DLAGZ outputs an error log file (CTDERR.DAT) of outlier flags, interpolated values, and fall rate criteria failures, and an ASCII .CTD data file including computed salinity. Windowing and first differencing: After reading in a buffer of data DLAGZ applies appropriate transfer functions to convert the data to engineering units and checks for obviously bad values. If a value falls outside preset windows it is flagged as bad. The windows used on this data set were -12 to 6500 dbar for pressure, -2 to 33 C for temperature, and 24 to 68 mmho/cm for conductivity. The first two data scans after the user supplied starting record number which pass this window test are considered the first two good scans. Subsequent data points are then edited by calculating the difference between the scan under consider- ation and the previous scan. If this difference is greater than a certain preset value (1 for P, .07 for T, and .1 for C) it is tentatively rejected. The difference between the next scan and the last good scan is then calculated. If this value exceeds twice the maximum allowable difference between scans, it too is considered bad. If five scans in a row fail in this manner it is assumed that there is a gap in the data record and all scans are retained as good. If the next, third, fourth or fifth scan has a value close enough to the last good scan, then the scan in question is flagged as bad and is rejected. Lagging conductivity: A filter is applied to conductivity data to account for the response time difference between the conductivity sensor and the slower platinum thermometer. This filter was developed using the techniques discussed in Horne and Toole (1980). The conductivity is slowed down as follows: C(n) = (1-A) CM(n) + A*C(n-1) where C is the lagged conductivity, CM is the measured conductivity, n is the scan number, and A is a constant which has been determined to best match temperature and conductivity (A=0.87). Fall rate editting: We have found that the CTD/rosette package seems to entrap water and drag that water down with it as it falls downward. If the fall rate reverses or slows due to the ship's roll, the CTD sensors measure water that has been contaminated by the package. The contamination appears to extend below the level through which the CTD started its reversal or slowdown. So when the CTD starts downward again through this water, it is necessary to disregard data collected for a small interval past the pressure at which the reversal started. The lagged conductivity and measured temperature values are accepted and placed in 1 dbar bins unless the fall rate calculated by DPDNZ falls below the user specified minimum rate. Data are then rejected until the CTD is once again moving downward past the pressure at which it slowed below the minimum fall rate plus a user specified pressure interval to account for further contamination. EPCTDW - inputs .CTD calibrated P, T, and raw conductivity data; applies any additional P and T calibrations, corrects raw conductivity for cell factor, and applies conductivity calibrations; computes salinity; deals with oxygen if there was an oxygen sensor; eliminates 1-point spikes according to the gradients hardwired into the source code; omits any values specified by the processor, fills by linear interpolation for a value to exist every whole meter; recalculates conductivity (inverted from S, T, and P); and calculates potential temperature, sigma-t, sigma-theta, and dynamic height according to the subroutines supplied in Fofonoff and Millard (1974). EPCTDW outputs final .CTD data file in PMEL's EPIC (Equatorial Pacific Information Collection) format (Soreide and Hayes, 1988) and a log file listing the editted and filled data points. Single-point despiking and filling: A data scan is removed if the value of the point itself are both greater than a predetermined gradient and have opposite signs. Maximum allowable gradients are .05, .025 for T and S above 200 dbar and .01, .01 for T and S below 200 dbar. The data array is then filled to obtain one value for each 1 dbar interval. When the uppermost pressure is not equal to 0 dbar, surface values of T and S are filled with the values associated with the shallowest pressure for which values do exist (provided this pressure is leass than 20 dbar). Data points are linearly interpolated to fill the gaps resulting in an even 1 dbar pressure spacing of the final data array. EPICBOMSTRW - inputs .CLB calibrated bottle data file and .CTD EPIC data files (for header information), and outputs .BOT bottle data files in EPIC format. TSPLTEP.PPC - reads .CTD EPIC pointer file and .BOT EPIC pointer file and overplots full water column bottle salinity and CTD trace as well as sigma-t lines (from SIGMA.DAT). Use TSPLTB.PPC to include oxygen data. TEXTNOX - inputs .CTD EPIC pointer file and constructs plotting subcommand File and outputs TXT*.PPC file for each cast. Use TEXTEP to include oxygen data. 3PLTNOX.PPC - reads TXT*.PPC subcommand files and .CTD EPIC pointer file and overplots vertical profiles of temperature, salinity, and sigma-t verses pressure to 1000 db on left hand side of page; and lists data in table form on right hand side of page. Use 4PLT1DB.PPC to include oxygen data. Casts 27, 30, 31, 34, 39, and 47 theta-salinity plots showed obvious looping in the CTD trace, historically determined to be the result of fall rate inconsis- tencies of the package. The worse cast (cast 27) was used to determine a better criteria for this package. It turned out to be a minimum acceptable fall rate of .8 db/60 scans (approximately 25 meters per minute) and a pressure interval of 5.0 db to skip after a fall rate failure. However, this threw out around 50% of the original data! Alternatively, a group of casts were looked at with a more reasonable criteria (the default 0.8 db/60 scans and 1.5 db) but with a gradient despiking switch turned on in EPCTDW (default is off). This cleaned up the traces remarkably well and without loosing any structure. So all CGC92 casts were processed with the default fall rate criteria and automatic gradient despiking. Loops that got through this (as seen in TSPLTEP plots were editted out using the subroutine NOMIT in EPCTDW). These were casts 5 (leg 1), 26, 27, 28, and 48. Small temperature inversions were neglected since they are very fine scale work. TSPLTEP and DEEPCTD plots were looked at for any additional spiking that needed to be taken out using NOMIT of EPCTDW. Spikes were removed from casts 25, 27, 29, 32, 33, 36, 40, 41, 46, 48, 49, 52, 55, 58, 59, 61, 62, 65, 70, and 77; and the data replaced by linear interpolation. N.B. Approximately 600 meters of data from cast 65 were lost during acquisition when the PC hard disk became full and the program aborted. The operator didn't realize this for several minutes and the data had to be restored from audio reel-to-reel tape later. As mentioned earlier, these tapes were badly oxidized and the replay was very poor. The majority of data between 1350 and 2100 meters is linearly interpolated in patches. Also, a memo was received from Captain Smart of the DISCOVERER explaining that an error had been made in the bottle salinity calculations run aboard the ship between January 15, 1991 and October 28, 1991. In March, 1992 a program was written (FIXSAL) to read in the .BOT files, correct for this error, and write all the variables back out. Calibrations and CTD data files were left alone. Dan Lee also wrote a program to go through the master bottle file and make the corrections. Bottle data was resubmitted to WOCE. REFERENCES: Horne, E.P.W. and J.M. Toole (1980): Sensor response mismatch and lag correction techniques for temperature-salinity profilers. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 10, 1112-1130. Fofonoff, N.P., S.P. Hayes, and R.C. Millard (1974): WHOI/Brown CTD microprofiler: methods of calibration and data handling. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Technical Report No. WHOI-74-89, 64 pp. Neil Brown Instrument Systems, Inc. (1982): Mark IIIb conductivity, temperature, depth profiler underwater unit operation and maintenance manual 0101, Cataumet, MA, 1-12. Soreide, N.N. and S.P. Hayes (1988): A system for management, display and analysis of oceanographic time series and hydrographic data. Fourth International Conference on Interactive Information and Processing Systems for Meteorology, Oceanography, and Hydrology. American Meteorological Society, Boston, J20-J22. B.2 BOTTLE SALINITY MEASUREMENTS: Bottle salinity analyses were performed in a climate-controlled lab using two Guildline Autosal Model 8400A inductive salinometers and IAPSO Stamdard Seawater from Wormley Batch P110. The commonly accepted precision of the Autosal is 0.001 psu, with an accuracy of 0.003 psu. Salinity samples were collected from each sample bottle at all stations by ship's personnel. Two samples were drawn from the deepest bottle at each station to monitor the drift of the Autosal instrument. The first deep sample was run that day, the second was run the following day. The autosals were standardized at the beginning of each day using one vial of standard seawater, and again at the end of each case of sample bottles. The drift during each run was monitored and individual samples were corrected for the drift during each run by linear interpolation. Bottle salinities were compared with computed CTD salinites to identify leaking bottles, as well as to monitor the conductivity sensor performance and drift. B.3 DISSOLVED OXYGEN, NUTRIENTS (Kristin Sanborn at SIO-ODF) B.3.a. STS/ODF DATA COLLECTION, ANALYSES, AND PROCESSING Gerard casts were carried out with ~270 liter stainless steel Gerard barrels on which were mounted 2-liter Niskin bottles with reversing thermometers. The Gerard barrels were numbered 81 through 94 and the piggy-back Niskin were numbered 61 through 71. Salinity check samples were analyzed by PMEL from the Niskin bot- tles for comparison with the Gerard barrel salinities to verify the integrity of the Gerard sample. Gerard pressures and tem- peratures were calculated from Deep-Sea Reversing Thermometer (DSRT) readings. Each DSRT rack normally held 2 protected (tem- perature) thermometers and 1 unprotected (pressure) thermometer. Thermometers were read by two people, each attempting to read a precision equal to one tenth of the thermometer etching interval. Thus, a thermometer etched at 0.05 degree intervals would be read to the nearest 0.005 degrees. Each temperature value is therefore calculated from the average of four readings. B.3.a.1 OXYGEN Samples were collected for dissolved oxygen analyses soon after the sampler was brought on board and after CFC and Helium were drawn. Nominal 100 ml volume iodine flasks were rinsed care- fully with minimal agitation, then filled via a drawing tube, and allowed to overflow for at least 2 flask volumes. Reagents were added to fix the oxygen before stoppering. The flasks were shaken twice; immediately, and after 20 minutes, to assure thorough dispersion of the Mn(OH)2 precipitate. The samples were analyzed within 4-36 hours except for Station 13, Casts 21 and 22, which were analyzed ten (10) days after they were drawn. Dissolved oxygen samples were titrated in the volume- calibrated iodine flasks with a 1 ml microburet, using the whole-bottle Winkler titration following the technique of Car- penter (1965). Standardizations were performed with 0.01N potas- sium iodate solutions prepared from preweighed potassium iodate crystals. Standards were run at the beginning of each session of analyses, which typically included from 1 to 3 stations. Several standards were made up and compared to assure that the results were reproducible, and to preclude basing the entire cruise on one standard, with the possibility of a weighing error. A correction (-0.014 ml/l) was made for the amount of oxygen added with the reagents. Combined reagent/seawater blanks were deter- mined to account for oxidizing or reducing materials in the reagents, and for a nominal level of natural iodate (Brewer and Wong, 1974) or other oxidizers/reducers in the seawater. The assay of the finest quality KIO3 available to ODF is 100%, +/-0.05%, but the true limit in the quality of the bottle oxygen data lies in the practical limitations of the present sam- pling and analytical methodology, from the time the bottle is closed through the calculation of oxygen concentration from titration data. Overall precision within a group of samples has been determined from replicates on numerous occasions, and for the system as employed on this expedition, one may expect +/-0.1 to 0.2%. The overall accuracy of the data is estimated to be +/-0.5%. Oxygens were converted from milliliters per liter to micro- moles per kilogram using the equation: O2[um/kg]=O2[ml/l]/(.022392*(1.0+sigma theta/1000.0)) The potential density anomaly, sigma theta, is the potential density in kg/m3 referenced to pressure=0, from which 1000 has been subtracted. B.3.a.2 NUTRIENTS Nutrients (phosphate, silicate, nitrate and nitrite) ana- lyses, reported in micromoles/kilogram, were performed on a Tech- nicon AutoAnalyzer. The procedures used are described in Hager et al. (1972) and Atlas et al. (1971). Standardizations were performed with solutions prepared aboard ship from preweighed standards; these solutions were used as working standards before and after each cast (approximately 24 samples) to correct for instrumental drift during analyses. Sets of 4-6 different con- centrations of shipboard standards were analyzed periodically to determine the linearity of colorimeter response and the resulting correction factors. Phosphate was analyzed using hydrazine reduc- tion of phosphomolybdic acid as described by Bernhardt & Wilhelms (1967). Silicate was analyzed using stannous chloride reduction of silicomolybdic acid. Nitrite was analyzed using diazotization and coupling to form dye; nitrate was reduced by copperized cad- mium and then analyzed as nitrite. These three analyses use the methods of Armstrong et al. (1967). Sampling for nutrients followed that for the tracer gases, CFC's, He, Tritium, and dissolved oxygen. Samples were drawn into ~45 cc high density polyethylene, narrow mouth, screw-capped bottles which were rinsed twice before filling. The samples may have been refrigerated at 2 to 6 deg C for a maximum of 15 hours. Nutrients were converted from micromoles per liter to micro- moles per kilogram by dividing by sample density calculated at an assumed laboratory temperature of 25 deg C. B.3.a.3 DATA COMPARISONS The oxygen and nutrient data were compared not only with the adjacent station, but also with historical data from Marathon II and Trans-Pacific Section 47N. The agreement was within normal analytical error. REFERENCES Armstrong, F. A. J., C. R. Stearns, and J. D. H. Strickland, 1967. The measurement of upwelling and subsequent biologi- cal processes by means of the Technicon Autoanalyzer and associated equipment, Deep-Sea Research 14, 381-389. Atlas, E. L., S. W. Hager, L. I. Gordon and P. K. Park, 1971. A Practical Manual for Use of the Technicon AutoAnalyzer in Seawater Nutrient Analyses; Revised. Technical Report 215, Reference 71-22. Oregon State University, Department of Oceanography. 49 pp. Bernhardt, H. and A. Wilhelms, 1967. The continuous determination of low level iron, soluble phosphate and total phosphate with the AutoAnalyzer, Technicon Symposia, Volume I, 385- 389. Brewer, P. G. and G. T. F. Wong, 1974. The determination and distribution of iodate in South Atlantic waters. Journal of Marine Research, 32,1:25-36. Bryden, H. L., 1973. New Polynomials for Thermal Expansion, Adia- batic Temperature Gradient, Deep-Sea Research 20, 401-408. Carpenter, J. H., 1965. The Chesapeake Bay Institute technique for the Winkler dissolved oxygen method, Limnology and Oceanography 10, 141-143. Hager, S. W., E. L. Atlas, L. D. Gordon, A. W. Mantyla, and P. K. Park, 1972. A comparison at sea of manual and autoanalyzer analyses of phosphate, nitrate, and silicate. Limnology and Oceanography 17 931-937. Lewis, E. L., 1980. The Practical Salinity Scale 1978 and Its Antecedents. IEEE Journal of Oceanographic Engineering, OE- 5, 3-8. UNESCO, 1981. Background papers and supporting data on the Prac- tical Salinity Scale, 1978. UNESCO Technical Papers in Marine Science, No. 37, 144 p. B.4 RADIOCARBON RESULTS Small volume (AMS) samples were collected by Robert Key and processed at the AMS facility at WHOI. Information on processing and calibration of these samples is not included in this report. Results from several Large-Volume C-14 stations are included in the P16N.LVS file. These results have been provided by the University of Miami Tritium Laboratory, in Data Release #92-15, H. Gote Ostlund, Head. The following text is excepted from this report: B.4.a GENERAL COMMENTS ON THIS DATA RELEASE (#92-15) As part of the WOCE Hydrographic Programme, the NOAA R/V Discoverer CGC91 Cruise was undertaken during 7 March- 8 April 1991. The cruise track followed the 152 W meridian from 20-57 N., during which time six stations were sampled for radiocarbon using large volume casts. The University of Washington Quaternary Research Lab received samples from three of those stations and the University of Miami Tritium Lab received samples from the remaining stations. Hydrographic data for the large volume stations were received from Scripps Ocean Data Facility and Bob Key, Princeton University. Total CO2 is in progress of being measured by Richard Feely, PMEL B.4.b GENERAL COMMENTS ON C12 DATA Both C14 and C13 measurements were performed on CO2 gas prepared from the sample material. The standard for C14 measurements is ths NBS oxalic acid standard or radiocarbon dataing. R-value is the ratio between the measured specific activity of the sample CO2 to a dC13 value of -9 per mille and age-correcetd from today to AD1950, all according to international agreement. Delta C14 is the deviation, (in per mil) from unity, of the activity ratio, isotope-corrected to a sampe dC13 value of -25 per mil. If ages are reported, they are in 'C14 years' (before AD1950), based on a "best" C14 half-life of 5730 years. Multiply the ages by 0.9721 to obtain ages based on the 'official' half-life of 5570. The quoted errors are 1 sigma, the uncertainty of the half-life (+-40y) not included. For further information on standards, etc, cf. preface to each issue of Radiocarbon, and papers by Broecker and Olson 91961), Stuiver and Robinson (1974) and by Stuiver (1980). References : Broecker, W.S., and E.A. Olson. 1961, Lamont Radiocarbon measurements VIII, Radiocarbon, 3, 176-274. Ostlund, H.G. (1992). WOCE Radiocarbon, Data Release 92-15. Tritium Laboratory, University of Miami, RSMAS, Miami, FL. Stuiver, M., and S.W. Robinson, 1974, University of Washington GEOSECS North Atlantic carbon-14 results, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 23, 87-90. Stuiver, M., 1980, Workshop on C14 data reporting, Radiocarbon, 22(3), 964-966. B.5 CFC-11 AND CFC-12 MEASUREMENTS ON WOCE SECTION P16N Specially designed 10 liter water sample bottles were used on the expedition to reduce CFC contamination. These bottles have the same outer dimensions as standard 10 liter Niskin bottles, but use a modified end-cap design to minimize the contact of the water sample with the end-cap O-rings after closing. The O-rings used in these water sample bottles were vacuum-baked prior to the first station. Stainless steel springs covered with a nylon powder coat were substituted in place of the standard internal elastic tubing used to close Niskin bottles. Water samples for CFC analysis were usually the first samples collected from the 10 liter bottles. Care was taken to co-ordinate the sampling of CFCs with other samples to minimize the time between the initial opening of each bottle and the completion of sample drawing. In most cases, dissolved oxygen, helium-tritium, total CO2 and pH samples were collected within several minutes of the initial opening of each bottle. To minimize contact with air, the CFC samples were drawn directly through the stopcocks of the 10 liter bottles into 100 ml precision glass syringes equipped with 2-way metal stopcocks. The syringes were immersed in a holding tank of clean surface seawater until analyses. To reduce the possibility of contamination from high levels of CFCs frequently present in the air inside research vessels, the CFC extraction/analysis system and syringe holding tank were housed in a modified 20' laboratory van on the deck of the ship. For air sampling, a ~100 meter length of 3/8" OD Dekaron tubing was run from the CFC lab van to the bow of the ship. Air was sucked through this line into the CFC van using an Air Cadet pump. The air was compressed in the pump, with the downstream pressure held at about 1.5 atm using a back-pressure regulator. A tee allowed a flow (~100 cc/min) of the compressed air to be directed to the gas sample valves, while the bulk flow of the air (>7 liter/minute) was vented through the back pressure regulator. Concentrations of CFC-11 and CFC-12 in air samples, seawater and gas standards on the cruise were measured by shipboard electron capture gas chromatography (EC-GC), using techniques similiar to those described by Bullister and Weiss (1988). For seawater analyses, a ~30-ml aliquot of seawater from the glass syringe was transferred into the glass sparging chamber. The dissolved CFCs in the seawater sample were extracted by passing a supply of CFC-free purge gas through the sparging chamber for a period of 4 minutes at ~70 cc/min. Water vapor was removed from the purge gas while passing through a short tube of magnesium perchlorate dessicant. The sample gases were concentrated on a cold-trap consisting of a 3-inch section of 1/8-inch stainless steel tubing packed with Porapak C and Porapak T (60-80 mesh) immersed in a bath of isopropanol held at -20 degrees C. After 4 minutes of purging the seawater sample, the sparging chamber was closed and the trap isolated. The trap was then heated to 100 degrees C. The sample gases held in the trap were then injected onto a precolumn (12 inches of 1/8-inch O.D. stainless steel tubing packed with 80-100 mesh Porasil C, held at 90 degrees C), for the initial separation of the CFCs and other rapidly eluting gases from more slowly eluting compounds. The CFCs then passed into the main analytical column (10 feet, 1/8-inch stainless steel tubing packed with Porasil C 80-100 mesh, held at 90 degrees C), and then into the EC detector. The CFC analytical system was calibrated frequently using standard gas of known CFC composition. Gas sample loops of known volume were thoroughly flushed with standard gas and injected into the system. The temperature and pressure was recorded so that the amount of gas injected could be calculated. The procedures used to transfer the standard gas to the trap, precolumn, main chromatographic column and EC detector were similar to those used for analyzing water samples. Two sizes of gas sample loops were present in the analytical system. Multiple injections of these loop volumes could be done to allow the system to be calibrated over a relatively wide range of CFC concentrations. Air samples and system blanks (injections of loops of CFC-free gas) were injected and analyzed in a similar manner. The typical analysis time for a seawater, air, standard or blank sample was about 12 minutes. Concentrations of CFC-11 and CFC-12 in air, seawater samples and gas standards are reported relative to the SIO93 calibration scale (Cunnold, et. al., 1994). CFC concentrations in air and standard gas are reported in units of mole fraction CFC in dry gas, and are typically in the parts-per-trillion (ppt) range. Dissolved CFC concentrations are given in units of picomoles of CFC per kg seawater (pmol/kg). CFC concentrations in air and seawater samples were determined by fitting their chromatographic peak areas to multi-point calibration curves, generated by injecting multiple sample loops of gas from a CFC working standard (PMEL cylinder CC9944) into the analytical instrument. The concentrations of CFC-11 and CFC-12 in this working standard were calibrated before and after the cruise versus a primary standard (36743) (Bullister, 1984). No measurable drift in the concentrations of CFC-11 and CFC-12 in the working standard could be detected during this interval. Full range calibration curves were run at intervals of 1-2 days during the cruise. Single injections of a fixed volume of standard gas at one atmosphere were run much more frequently (at intervals of 1 to 2 hours) to monitor short term changes in detector sensitivity. Sample loops filled with CFC-free gas, and syringe samples of CFC-free water (degassed in a specially designed glass chamber) were also run to check sampling and analytical blanks. Previous studies of time-dependent tracers in this region of the North Pacific indicate that water at density sigma0 > 27.4 should have near-zero CFC concentrations during the time of the expedition. CFC-12 concentrations measured in deep samples along the section were typically at or near the detection limit (< 0.005 pmol/kg) of the analytical system. Blank corrections have been applied to the dissolved CFC-12 concentrations at 3 of the stations reported in the P16N.sea file (see table below). Typical CFC-11 concentrations measured in deep samples along the section had a median value of about 0.007 pmol/kg. The following table summarizes the blank corrections applied to the CFC measurements made during the expedition. CFC-11 blank CFC-12 blank Station correction (pmol/kg) correction (pmol/kg) ------- -------------------- -------------------- 15 0.015 0 16 0.006 0.005 17-20 0.006 0 21-22 0.010 0 23-25 0.006 0 26-27 0.000 0 28-31 0.007 0 32-38 0.000 0 39-42 0.004 0 43 0.007 -0.003 44-55 0.004 0 56-57 0.006 0 58 0.016 0 59-64 0.004 0 65 0.004 -0.002 We attribute the persistent non-zero CFC-11 blank signal to a combination of slow release of CFC-11 from the walls and O-rings of the 10 liter bottles into the seawater samples, contamination during the transfer and storage of the seawater samples in glass syringes prior to analysis and, most importantly, from contamination events due to the discharges from the ship. A number of water samples had unexpectedly high CFC-11 and/or CFC-12 concentrations relative to adjacent samples. These anomolous samples appeared to occur more or less randomly during the cruise, and were not clearly associated with other features in the water column (eg. elevated oxygen concentrations, salinity or temperature features, etc.). This suggests that the high values were due to individual, isolated CFC contamination events. A number of seawater samples were severely contaminated with CFC-11 during the first (non-WHP) leg of this expedition, especially at Stations 6-8. The sudden appearance of high and variable CFC-11 concentrations in deep samples at Sta. 8 may have been due to the inadvertent discharge of wastewater from the ship which occurred at the start of the hydrocast at this station. At several stations along Leg 2, CFC-11 concentrations significantly higher than the mean blank values were measured in some deep samples. We attribute this to sporadic CFC-11 contamination of the 10 liter bottles, possibly due to contact of the bottles with an oil slick from the ship at the start of the casts. Throughout the cruise, the exhaust stacks of R/V Discoverer emitted a large amount of soot and oil onto the working area of the ship's fantail. Although precautions were taken to shield the rosette and bottles from direct deposition of this material, an oily surface film was sometimes observed in the water as the rosette was lowered on station. Some of the sporadic CFC-11 contamination observed during Leg 2 could have resulted from deposition of trace amounts of material on the inside of the bottles as the rosette descended through the surface layer. Measured concentrations for these anomolously high samples are included in this report, but are give a quality flag of 4 (bad measurement). The CFC-11/CFC-12 ratio for each sample was checked for consistency, and compared to CFC-11/CFC-12 ratios from samples above and below it in the profile, and to samples from adjacent stations. A quality flag of 3 (questionable) was applied to some CFC-11 and/or CFC-12 measurements which had an anomolous CFC-11/CFC-12 ratios and/or concentrations relative to surrounding samples. If one of the two gases was clearly anomolous, that gas was given the questionable flag. In some cases both gases were flagged as questionable. A total ~208 analyses of CFC-11 were assigned a flag of 3 and ~120 analyses of CFC-12 were assigned a flag of 3. A total of ~215 analyses of CFC-11 were assigned a flag of 4 and 59 CFC-12 samples assigned a flag of 4. On this expedition, we estimate overall precisions (1 standard deviation) of about 1% or 0.005 pmol/kg (whichever is greater) for dissolved CFC-11 and 2% or 0.005 pmol/kg (whichever is greater) for dissolved CFC-12 measurements (see listing of replicate samples given at the end of this report). CFC samples from stations 1-13 and Sta 15 are not included in this report. A value of -9.0 is used for missing values in the listings. In addition to the file of mean CFC concentrations included in the P16N.sea file, tables of the following are included in this report: Table 1a. P16N Replicate dissolved CFC-11 analyses Table 1b. P16N Replicate dissolved CFC-12 analyses Table 2. P16N CFC air measurements Table 3. P16N CFC air measurments interpolated to station locations REFERENCES: Bullister, J.L. Anthropogenic Chlorofluoromethanes as Tracers of Ocean Circulation and Mixing Processes: Measurement and Calibration Techniques and Studies in the Greenland and Norwegian Seas, Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. Calif. San Diego, 172 pp. Bullister, J.L. and R.F. Weiss, Determination of CCl3F and CCl2F2 in seawater and air. Deep-Sea Research, 35 (5), 839-853, 1988. Cunnold, D.M., P.J. Fraser, R.F. Weiss, R.G. Prinn, P.G. Simmonds, B.R. Miller,F.N. Alyea, and A.J.Crawford. Global trends and annual releases of CCl3F and CCl2F2 estimated from ALE/GAGE and other measurements from July 1978 to June 1991. J. Geophys. Res., 99, 1107-1126, 1994. Table 1a. P16N Replicate dissolved CFC-11 Analyses STATION SAMP F11 F11 NUMBER NO. pM/kg Stdev ------- ----- ------ ------ 8 1106 3.900 0.004 10 1518 3.152 0.034 13 2206 -0.001 0.003 17 2616 1.988 0.001 19 2917 2.390 0.027 21 3218 2.252 0.021 22 3412 2.368 0.004 23 3523 2.169 0.010 24 3621 2.151 0.009 30 4416 0.177 0.010 32 4724 2.555 0.011 34 5001 2.222 0.019 35 5120 1.406 0.014 37 5308 2.398 0.023 42 5919 3.091 0.081 43 6018 0.689 0.003 43 6019 1.444 0.013 44 6114 2.762 0.006 44 6115 2.777 0.024 45 6218 0.789 0.003 48 6604 0.480 0.008 49 6714 0.664 0.015 50 6816 0.210 0.005 50 6822 3.973 0.014 51 6913 0.657 0.004 51 6922 4.209 0.012 52 7010 0.528 0.002 54 7324 4.396 0.067 56 7613 0.144 0.008 57 7721 1.310 0.001 58 7820 1.666 0.057 59 7914 0.053 0.004 59 7924 5.273 0.048 60 8101 0.316 0.004 60 8107 1.136 0.013 65 8616 0.282 0.001 66 8719 1.064 0.001 Table 1b. P16N Replicate dissolved CFC-12 Analyses STATION SAMP F12 F12 NUMBER NO. pM/kg Stdev ------- ----- ------ ------ 8 1106 1.831 0.000 10 1518 1.642 0.046 11 1814 0.001 0.003 12 1902 0.095 0.002 13 2206 0.003 0.000 19 2917 1.192 0.009 21 3218 1.170 0.013 22 3401 0.003 0.005 22 3412 1.242 0.009 23 3523 1.150 0.017 24 3621 1.156 0.002 30 4416 0.088 0.003 32 4724 1.339 0.013 34 4907 0.000 0.000 34 5001 1.090 0.000 35 5120 0.686 0.002 37 5308 1.209 0.024 42 5919 1.546 0.015 43 6018 0.328 0.003 43 6019 0.678 0.009 44 6114 1.362 0.001 44 6115 1.376 0.007 45 6218 0.365 0.002 48 6604 0.217 0.005 49 6714 0.310 0.001 50 6816 0.098 0.006 50 6822 1.947 0.081 51 6913 0.300 0.003 51 6922 2.085 0.000 52 7010 0.246 0.004 54 7319 0.323 0.011 54 7324 2.165 0.006 56 7613 0.067 0.001 57 7721 0.610 0.003 58 7820 0.790 0.001 59 7914 0.029 0.002 59 7924 2.584 0.014 60 8101 0.151 0.000 60 8107 0.521 0.000 65 8616 0.143 0.004 66 8719 0.490 0.001 Table 2. P16N CFC Air Measurements: Leg 1 Time F11 F12 Date (hhmm) Latitude Longitude PPT PPT --------- ------ --------- ---------- ----- ----- 17 Feb 91 1621 49 00.0 N 135 00.0 W 266.0 502.3 17 Feb 91 1631 49 00.0 N 135 00.0 W 266.0 499.1 17 Feb 91 1645 49 00.0 N 135 00.0 W 267.3 500.2 19 Feb 91 0535 46 55.8 N 135 26.9 W 265.1 501.6 19 Feb 91 0545 46 55.8 N 135 26.9 W 264.8 502.0 19 Feb 91 0601 46 55.8 N 135 26.9 W 264.6 500.5 19 Feb 91 0611 46 55.8 N 135 26.9 W 264.3 503.1 21 Feb 91 0516 44 34.0 N 135 02.0 W 263.4 499.2 21 Feb 91 0527 44 34.0 N 135 02.0 W 263.1 497.3 21 Feb 91 0538 44 34.0 N 135 02.0 W 263.0 499.6 21 Feb 91 0551 44 34.0 N 135 02.0 W 263.2 501.7 24 Feb 91 2138 32 22.7 N 138 36.6 W 262.4 501.0 24 Feb 91 2151 32 22.7 N 138 36.6 W 262.5 501.2 24 Feb 91 2204 32 22.7 N 138 36.6 W 262.6 498.1 24 Feb 91 2216 32 22.7 N 138 36.6 W 262.7 499.9 24 Feb 91 2229 32 22.7 N 138 36.6 W 263.0 500.1 25 Feb 91 0619 32 22.7 N 138 36.6 W 262.4 497.7 25 Feb 91 0703 32 22.7 N 138 36.6 W 261.1 496.6 25 Feb 91 0714 32 22.7 N 138 36.6 W 262.4 496.8 25 Feb 91 1712 29 31.2 N 142 20.8 W 262.2 503.3 25 Feb 91 1725 29 31.2 N 142 20.8 W 262.9 504.1 25 Feb 91 1738 29 31.2 N 142 20.8 W 263.3 503.7 25 Feb 91 1750 29 31.2 N 142 20.8 W 263.5 503.7 25 Feb 91 1802 29 31.2 N 142 20.8 W 263.8 503.7 26 Feb 91 0121 28 42.3 N 143 25.6 W 257.3 491.4 26 Feb 91 0133 28 42.3 N 143 25.6 W 259.6 491.6 26 Feb 91 0145 28 42.3 N 143 25.6 W 258.7 492.5 26 Feb 91 0157 28 42.3 N 143 25.6 W 262.2 491.3 26 Feb 91 0209 28 42.3 N 143 25.6 W 266.2 496.5 26 Feb 91 0820 27 51.0 N 144 30.0 W 263.3 503.3 26 Feb 91 0831 27 51.0 N 144 30.0 W 263.9 502.1 26 Feb 91 0843 27 51.0 N 144 30.0 W 263.3 502.1 26 Feb 91 0937 27 51.0 N 144 30.0 W 264.4 501.6 27 Feb 91 2254 27 51.0 N 144 30.0 W 262.1 500.6 27 Feb 91 2306 27 51.0 N 144 30.0 W 262.6 502.0 27 Feb 91 2319 27 51.0 N 144 30.0 W 261.6 500.6 27 Feb 91 2331 27 51.0 N 144 30.0 W 262.0 502.5 27 Feb 91 2343 27 51.0 N 144 30.0 W 262.2 501.9 11 Mar 91 0355 22 40.0 N 152 00.0 W -9.0 -9.0 11 Mar 91 0439 22 40.0 N 152 00.0 W 265.9 -9.0 11 Mar 91 0451 22 40.0 N 152 00.0 W 268.7 -9.0 11 Mar 91 0503 22 40.0 N 152 00.0 W 268.0 -9.0 11 Mar 91 0546 22 40.0 N 152 00.0 W 262.1 497.8 14 Mar 91 1210 27 42.7 N 151 59.7 W 265.2 502.5 14 Mar 91 1221 27 42.7 N 151 59.7 W 264.0 502.2 14 Mar 91 1233 27 42.7 N 151 59.7 W 264.8 500.9 14 Mar 91 1245 27 42.7 N 151 59.7 W 264.4 501.6 14 Mar 91 1259 27 42.7 N 151 59.7 W 264.8 501.2 15 Mar 91 0733 28 40.0 N 152 00.0 W 261.8 500.2 15 Mar 91 0746 28 40.0 N 152 00.0 W 263.0 499.2 15 Mar 91 0760 28 40.0 N 152 00.0 W 263.9 504.1 16 Mar 91 1700 28 40.0 N 152 00.0 W 262.4 503.0 16 Mar 91 1712 28 40.0 N 152 00.0 W 263.2 502.8 16 Mar 91 1724 28 40.0 N 152 00.0 W 263.7 503.2 16 Mar 91 1736 28 40.0 N 152 00.0 W 267.0 507.2 16 Mar 91 1748 28 40.0 N 152 00.0 W 265.7 502.4 17 Mar 91 1710 32 08.6 N 152 00.1 W 261.4 502.0 17 Mar 91 1721 32 08.6 N 152 00.1 W 264.4 501.6 17 Mar 91 1733 32 08.6 N 152 00.1 W 263.8 501.3 17 Mar 91 1745 32 08.6 N 152 00.1 W 263.2 500.2 17 Mar 91 1759 32 08.6 N 152 00.1 W 264.5 501.3 20 Mar 91 0633 32 08.6 N 152 00.1 W 265.2 502.7 20 Mar 91 0645 32 08.6 N 152 00.1 W -9.0 -9.0 20 Mar 91 0657 32 08.6 N 152 00.1 W 264.4 501.9 20 Mar 91 0709 32 08.6 N 152 00.1 W 263.6 503.0 22 Mar 91 1205 40 16.9 N 152 00.7 W 263.4 500.5 22 Mar 91 1217 40 16.9 N 152 00.7 W 266.5 501.6 22 Mar 91 1233 40 16.9 N 152 00.7 W 264.5 500.9 22 Mar 91 1245 40 16.9 N 152 00.7 W 265.0 499.3 22 Mar 91 1257 40 16.9 N 152 00.7 W 266.2 499.1 23 Mar 91 1020 40 16.9 N 152 00.7 W 266.4 506.2 23 Mar 91 2039 41 59.9 N 151 59.5 W 264.7 503.7 23 Mar 91 2051 41 59.9 N 151 59.5 W 267.9 504.2 23 Mar 91 2103 41 59.9 N 151 59.5 W 267.4 504.5 23 Mar 91 2115 41 59.9 N 151 59.5 W 265.6 505.2 23 Mar 91 2127 41 59.9 N 151 59.5 W 267.6 507.3 24 Mar 91 1104 42 48.9 N 151 57.2 W -9.0 504.0 24 Mar 91 1116 42 48.9 N 151 57.2 W 268.3 504.6 24 Mar 91 1805 43 20.0 N 152 00.0 W 268.4 503.4 24 Mar 91 1817 43 20.0 N 152 00.0 W 268.4 504.4 24 Mar 91 1828 43 20.0 N 152 00.0 W -9.0 501.2 24 Mar 91 1840 43 20.0 N 152 00.0 W 269.5 500.6 27 Mar 91 0343 49 09.0 N 152 00.0 W 267.1 504.3 27 Mar 91 0356 49 09.0 N 152 00.0 W 269.0 503.8 27 Mar 91 0408 49 09.0 N 152 00.0 W 268.5 505.8 29 Mar 91 0804 53 10.0 N 150 29.0 W 266.4 503.0 29 Mar 91 0816 53 10.0 N 150 29.0 W 263.2 503.1 29 Mar 91 0833 53 10.0 N 150 29.0 W 262.4 504.1 29 Mar 91 0845 53 10.0 N 150 29.0 W 261.5 503.9 30 Mar 91 1718 55 26.7 N 152 35.9 W 267.1 504.5 30 Mar 91 1729 55 26.7 N 152 35.9 W 267.8 504.4 30 Mar 91 1741 55 26.7 N 152 35.9 W 268.4 506.7 30 Mar 91 1753 55 26.7 N 152 35.9 W 268.1 503.6 30 Mar 91 1804 55 26.7 N 152 35.9 W 268.0 505.1 1 Apr 91 1219 55 26.7 N 152 35.9 W 259.3 499.8 1 Apr 91 1232 55 26.7 N 152 35.9 W 262.4 503.7 1 Apr 91 1244 55 26.7 N 152 35.9 W 264.8 499.2 1 Apr 91 1300 55 26.7 N 152 35.9 W 264.5 498.5 2 Apr 91 1134 55 26.7 N 152 35.9 W 267.2 503.4 2 Apr 91 1146 55 26.7 N 152 35.9 W 267.9 504.9 2 Apr 91 1158 55 26.7 N 152 35.9 W 269.7 500.7 2 Apr 91 1210 55 26.7 N 152 35.9 W 267.9 502.2 Table 3. P16N CFC Air values (interpolated to station locations) STATION F11 F12 NUMBER Latitude Longitude Date PPT PPT ------- --------- ---------- --------- ----- ----- 1 48 50.0 N 127 39.4 W 16 Feb 91 265.4 501.3 2 50 00.2 N 134 59.8 W 17 Feb 91 265.4 501.3 3 48 59.7 N 134 59.5 W 17 Feb 91 265.4 501.3 4 47 59.6 N 134 59.4 W 18 Feb 91 265.4 501.3 5 46 59.3 N 134 59.8 W 19 Feb 91 264.6 500.6 6 46 00.0 N 134 59.9 W 20 Feb 91 263.9 500.6 7 45 00.2 N 135 00.2 W 20 Feb 91 263.9 500.6 8 43 59.4 N 134 59.4 W 21 Feb 91 263.9 500.6 9 42 00.3 N 134 59.7 W 22 Feb 91 263.9 500.6 10 39 59.8 N 134 59.9 W 23 Feb 91 263.9 500.6 11 36 59.4 N 134 59.4 W 23 Feb 91 262.4 498.9 12 35 00.1 N 135 00.1 W 24 Feb 91 262.4 498.9 13 21 20.1 N 152 50.5 W 28 Feb 91 262.8 501.8 14 20 55.4 N 153 47.9 W 1 Mar 91 262.8 501.8 15 19 53.3 N 154 55.3 W 8 Mar 91 265.3 501.0 16 20 04.0 N 154 40.5 W 8 Mar 91 265.0 500.9 17 20 23.8 N 154 14.2 W 8 Mar 91 265.3 501.0 18 20 42.5 N 153 46.0 W 9 Mar 91 265.3 501.0 19 21 36.8 N 152 26.2 W 10 Mar 91 265.3 501.0 20 21 54.9 N 151 60.0 W 10 Mar 91 265.3 501.0 21 22 40.6 N 151 59.5 W 11 Mar 91 264.6 502.0 22 24 00.2 N 151 58.0 W 12 Mar 91 265.3 501.0 23 24 39.9 N 152 00.2 W 12 Mar 91 265.3 501.0 24 25 20.2 N 151 59.7 W 13 Mar 91 265.3 501.0 25 26 00.2 N 151 60.0 W 13 Mar 91 264.2 502.3 26 26 39.9 N 152 00.0 W 14 Mar 91 264.2 502.3 27 27 20.0 N 151 59.9 W 14 Mar 91 264.2 502.3 28 27 60.0 N 151 59.7 W 15 Mar 91 264.2 502.3 29 28 39.8 N 151 59.9 W 15 Mar 91 264.2 502.3 30 29 20.7 N 151 58.3 W 16 Mar 91 263.8 502.8 31 29 60.0 N 152 00.5 W 16 Mar 91 263.8 502.8 32 30 39.9 N 151 59.5 W 17 Mar 91 263.8 502.3 33 31 20.1 N 152 00.1 W 17 Mar 91 263.8 501.8 34 32 10.5 N 152 00.6 W 18 Mar 91 263.8 501.8 35 32 40.0 N 152 00.1 W 18 Mar 91 263.8 501.8 36 33 20.0 N 152 00.0 W 18 Mar 91 263.8 501.8 37 34 00.1 N 152 00.1 W 19 Mar 91 263.8 501.8 39 35 36.5 N 152 00.4 W 20 Mar 91 263.8 501.8 40 36 17.7 N 152 02.7 W 20 Mar 91 265.4 501.3 41 37 09.9 N 151 57.6 W 21 Mar 91 265.4 501.3 42 37 59.9 N 152 00.0 W 21 Mar 91 265.4 501.3 43 38 40.2 N 151 59.9 W 22 Mar 91 265.4 501.3 44 39 21.0 N 151 59.2 W 22 Mar 91 265.4 501.3 45 40 00.9 N 151 59.6 W 22 Mar 91 265.4 501.3 46 40 40.5 N 152 01.3 W 23 Mar 91 265.4 501.3 47 41 21.0 N 152 00.3 W 23 Mar 91 266.7 503.0 48 41 59.6 N 151 59.1 W 24 Mar 91 266.9 504.8 49 42 40.8 N 151 58.5 W 24 Mar 91 267.5 503.9 50 43 20.0 N 151 59.6 W 24 Mar 91 267.5 503.9 51 44 25.1 N 151 59.8 W 25 Mar 91 267.5 503.9 52 45 00.1 N 151 59.0 W 25 Mar 91 267.5 503.9 53 45 41.1 N 151 59.6 W 26 Mar 91 267.7 504.1 54 46 20.2 N 151 59.3 W 26 Mar 91 268.5 503.6 55 47 00.0 N 152 00.0 W 27 Mar 91 268.5 503.4 56 47 39.9 N 152 00.4 W 27 Mar 91 268.5 503.6 57 48 19.5 N 152 00.3 W 27 Mar 91 266.4 503.4 58 53 29.7 N 152 00.1 W 30 Mar 91 265.7 503.0 59 54 39.6 N 151 59.8 W 30 Mar 91 266.4 502.8 60 55 27.1 N 152 33.5 W 31 Mar 91 266.4 502.8 61 55 51.9 N 152 55.7 W 31 Mar 91 266.4 502.8 62 56 01.6 N 153 02.7 W 31 Mar 91 266.4 502.8 63 56 14.5 N 153 10.8 W 1 Apr 91 266.4 502.8 64 56 17.7 N 153 14.0 W 1 Apr 91 266.4 502.8 65 55 04.2 N 152 17.9 W 1 Apr 91 266.4 502.8 66 52 29.4 N 152 01.2 W 2 Apr 91 265.7 503.0 B.6 DIC and pH: (Marilyn F. Roberts) Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 7600 Sand Point Way NE Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6252 Phone (206) 526-6744 FAX e-mail: roberts@pmel.noaa.gov http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/co2-home.ht Additional details on the analytical techniques and data processing are available from the individual PIs, and from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC): http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/about/intro.html B.6.a TOTAL DISSOLVED INORGANIC CARBON (TCO2) The TCO2 concentration of seawater samples was determined by using the coulometric titration system (UIC Inc., Model 5011) described by Johnson et al. (1985, 1987). The standards used were Na2CO3 in a matrix of 0.7M KCl, and were analyzed daily. The batch of CRMs (Dr. Andrew Dickson, SIO) that was shipped for our cruise was not stable and we were not able to use them as reference materials. Batch 1 CRMs had been used on a previous cruise by our group. We were therefore able to reference our cruise data to Batch 1 CRMs by means of a non-certified seawater standard that had been collected on both cruises which gave similar results. Batch 1 CRM shipboard measurements yielded a mean value of 2017.0 +/- 2.5 umol/kg (n=25), which compares with 2020.2 +/- 0.8 umol/kg (n=12) certified by SIO. Data reported for this cruise have been corrected to the Batch 1 CRM value by adding the difference between the certified value and the mean shipboard CRM value (certified value - shipboard analyses). Seawater samples for TCO2 analysis were drawn from the Niskin-type samplers into 500mL borosilicate glass bottles and poisoned with 100uL of HgCl2. The samples were sealed with ground-glass stoppers coated with Type M Apiezon grease, and stored in a cooled environment before analysis (usually within 12 hours after collection). The sample was introduced into a calibrated, thermostated (25C) pipette (~50mL), and then transferred to the extraction vessel and acidified with 4.5 ml of 10% phosphoric acid (previously stripped of CO2). The evolved CO2 gas passed through an Orbo-53 tube to remove volatile acids other than CO2 and then into the titration cell of the coulometer by the N2 carrier gas. In the coulometric analysis of TCO2, all carbonate species are converted to CO2 (g) by addition of excess hydrogen to the seawater sample. The evolved CO2 gas is carried into the titration cell of the coulometer, where it reacts quantitatively with a proprietary reagent based on ethanolamine to generate hydrogen ions. These are subsequently titrated with coulometrically generated OH-. CO2 is thus measured by integrating the total charge required to achieve this. The entire sequence takes between 8 to 11 minutes. All reagents in the extraction/analytical system were renewed daily. B.6.b pH Sample cells (10-cm pathlength spectrophotometric cells, 30-cm3 volume) were filled directly from the NiskinTM-type bottle using a 20-cm length of silicone tubing. A flushing volume of approximately 300 mL was used. Care was taken to eliminate bubbles from the sampling system, and the sample cell was sealed with PTFE caps while ensuring that there was no head space. All spectrophotometric pH measurements were made using the indicator m-Cresol Purple. Spectrophotometric cells were warmed to 25CC within the water bath of a refrigerated thermocirculator. Subsequently cells were cleaned and placed in the thermostated sample compartment of the spectrophotometer. Absorbance measurements were made at three wavelengths: a non-absorbing wavelength (730 nm) and wavelengths corresponding to the absorbance maxima of the alkaline (I2-, 578 nm) and acidic (HI-, 434 nm) forms of the indicator. Subsequently, one of the cell caps was removed and 0.08 cm3 of concentrated indicator (2 umol/cm3) was injected into the cell. The cell was capped, rapidly mixed and returned to the thermostated cell. Absorbance measurements were again made at 730 nm, 578 nm and 434 nm. Sample pH was then calculated using the equations and procedures of Clayton and Byrne (1993). The "total" pH scale is used, and pHT is reported in mol/kg of seawater. Clayton T. and Byrne, R. H., 1993. Spectrophotometric seawater pH measurements: total hydrogen ion concentration scale calibration of m-cresol purple and at-sea results., Deep Sea Res., 40, 2115-2129. Johnson, K.M., A.E. King, and J. McN. Sieburth (1985): Coulometric DIC analyses for marine studies: An introduction. Mar. Chem., 16, 61-82. Johnson, K.M., P.J. Williams, L. Brandstrom, and J. McN. Sieburth Automation and calibration. Mar. Chem., 21, 117-133. 3.5.3 Tritium-helium data were not available at the time of this report. C. DATA QUALITY EVALUATIONS C.1 DATA QUALITY EVALUATION OF HYDROGRAPHIC DATA: DISCOVERER CR. 91/2, P16N (A. Mantyla) 5 April 1993 This report is an assessment of the hydrographic data taken along WOCE line P16N by the Discoverer Cr CGC91/2 in Feb.-Apr. 1991. The cruise essentially repeats the section done by the Marathon II Expedition in May-June 1984 (OSU Ref. 87- 15). Unfortunately, neither cruise achieved WOCE goals for water column sampling either in the vertical or horizontally. Marathon had deep station spacing usually at 40 nm intervals and deep bottle spacing no closer than 500 m (but their planned objectives were accomplished). The Discoverer cruise was considerably less successful. Many stations were cancelled because of bad weather, and many other stations failed to collect sufficient water sample data due to frequent rosette trip failures. The cruise did tend to support some of the interesting abyssal silicate structure seen on Marathon, but did not add any new information or better confirmation that the WOCE sampling strategy of 200 to 300 m deep bottle spacing could have provided. The cruise must have been a disappointment to the P.I.'s. They have clearly worked hard to sort out the mis- trips and to identify the correct trip depths for each of the rosette bottles. The analytical work was also good, I saw no significant systematic differences between this cruise and Marathon, nor with cruise TPS24 and TPS47. A large number of bottle numbers were flagged "4" (did not trip correctly) due to mis-trips or double-trips causing subsequent planned trips to be off by one or more target depths. When this occurs, it becomes a data processing challenge to sort out the correct CTD pressure and temperature to assign to the rosette bottle water sample data. Comparisons of the water sample salinity and oxygen measurements with the CTD info is usually sufficient to match the correct CTD trip data to the water sample data with a reasonable degree of certainty, and the data originators have done that quite well for this cruise. I have not changed any of their '4' flags, although my own inclination would have been to flag far fewer bottles for the following reasons: the initial mis-trip or double-trip represents a missed planned sampling depth and could even be a trip between planned depths and should be flagged as a problem. However, the subsequent trips are usually routine or normal, except that the initial CTD information assigned to the trip is incorrect. Once the correct trip info has been aligned with the water sample data, there really is little question as to the correctness of the data, and my own preference would be to accept those levels as OK. However, I'll leave it up to the WHP office and the data originators to decide on what convention to use. An unusual number of bottle salinities were flagged as questionable. Apparently any deep salinity that differed by more than .003 from the "corrected" CTD salinity was flagged. Since there was a slight bias between the corrected CTD and the salinometer salinities (CTD usually higher), an excessive number of measured salinities appeared to be too far off. I accepted most of the deep salts as OK, although there was some station to station wobble that probably is not real, presumably due to slight differences in salinometer standardizations or vial to vial variations in Standard Seawater. Larger salinity differences that are ofter seen in regions of strong vertical salinity gradients may be due to a different sort of problem. Each type of sampling bottle has its' own characteristic "flushing length" (Weiss, DSR 18:653-656) and requires a finite time to collect a sample representative of the intended sampling depths. CTD console operators often trip bottles nearly on the fly, hardly pausing at the desired sampling depth, so the rosette bottle is apt to have water entrained from deeper in the water column. The measured salinity can accurately represent the water contained by the rosette bottle, yet differ substantially from the instantaneous CTD measurement. Both measurements can be correct, though different when the water sample is smeared out somewhat in depth. The problem is only apparent in regions of strong salinity gradients, but can exist elsewhere in low salinity gradients that have high gradients of some other property. Since this is a problem common to rosette casts (wire cats have sufficient time to thoroughly flush before being tripped by messenger), I tend to be more accepting of halocline salinities and have flagged many then as OK. To be rigorously correct, if the incompletely flushed bottle salinity is flagged questionable, so should all of the other measurements for that depth. At any rate, it's a tough call. I didn't notice any mention of which batch of IAPSO SSW was used. Post-cruise intercomparisons of different batches sometimes reveal systematic differences from the labeled values for the batch, which would result in systematic errors in the cruise salinities. That sort of error is correctable, if the SSW batch number used is known. ODF noted the reported temperatures are in the IPTS-68 scale. If they haven't been converted to the ITS-90 scale yet, they should be. There were a surprising number of odd oxygens. Some look like errors in flask identification (each has a different volume). I suspect station 23, deepest 4 is such a problem, perhaps a little detective work could salvage them. I suspect that the oxygens below about 2500m on station 25 were listed one depth too shallow but without CTD oxygen probe data for verification, can't be sure. I have not flagged the data as doubtful, but if the data originator did, I would agree. For future reference, oxygen analytical blanks should be done in distilled water, not seawater (Culberson, WOCE Rep. 68/91). Seawater blanks, to be done properly, would have to be run on every sample. The error is slight however, probably less than 1m m/kg. The report indicates that the oxygen conversion to per kilogram units was done using sigma-theta, assuming that the oxygen sample was drawn at the potential temperature. Experience on a recent WOCE cruise where the oxygen draw temperature was measured and recorded indicated that the proper temperature for density of the sample at the time it was fixed is commonly several degrees warmer than the potential temperature. Use of the in-situ temperature would have been a better guess than the potential temperature. However, not knowing the correct temperature for volume to mass conversion results is an error of only about 0.2% (twice the analytical sensitivity). On station 18, salinity sample numbers 2807 to 2809 appear to belong one depth deeper. However, this station was a bust with no other water sample data reported, so it only matters if it affects the CTD calibration. On Station 21, the 100db water sample data appears to belong one depth shallower. I have flagged all of the data questionable for that depth, but if they were moved up, they would look OK. On Station 55, the first trip at 648db appears to belong to about 700db. Was there an attempt to trip this bottle at 700db? If so, the data would be acceptable at that level. I've tentatively flagged the bottle number and all water sample data as questionable. On Station 57, there appears to be some serious sample drawing errors. The salinity samples at 500 and 600db definitely belong one depth shallower, but the O2's and nutrients do not. The oxygen and nutrient samples at 1250, 1500, 1750 and 2250db (2nd trip) appear to belong one depth shallower (the 1250 at an unlisted pressure of about 1000db), but the salinity samples are OK as listed! Without outright data fudging I see no way to fix the problems, so I've flagged the doubtful data. Perhaps careful examination of the original data sheets could uncover the errors. The nutrient data appears to be of uniformly high quality; what is lacking are good resolution profiles. The nutrient data can show features that are not seen by the continuous CTD traces, so it is sad so much nutrient data was lost, particularly for the northern part of the cruise. As someone who has gotten beaten to hell trying to work in the Gulf of Alaska in February, I can commiserate with the Discoverer's scientific parties efforts to work in that region not just once, but twice without success in the winter. My last cruise also suffered because it was scheduled in the wrong season. P16S could only get to about 62S because sea ice was still near its maximum northern extent. Rosette trip problems also plagued our cruise, but we had sufficient ship time, people and spares to effect repairs as needed (one station lost). The rosette trip problems definitely need to be resolved to everyones benefit. C.2 DATA QUALITY COMMENTS ON CTD DATA: DISCOVERER CRUISE 19 LEG 2, P16N (Robert Millard) April 16, 1993 Two data sources have been looked at in quality controlling the CTD data of P16N (___.HY2 and to a lesser degree the individual ___.WTC files), The cruise report has good information on laboratory and at-sea calibrations performed on the CTD data set although a reference describing the calibration and standardization methods used by the Northwest Regional Calibration-Center would be helpful. It would also be useful to have a reference on the data processing methodology (i.e. converting the time series CTD data to a uniform pressure series, edit procedures both data glitches and pressure reversals). KO CTD oxygens were provided and therefore no assessment of CTD oxygens was performed. The water sample data (___.HY2) The CTD and water sample salinity difference (CTD-WS) was calculated for all observation levels of the ___.HY2 file and are plotted versus station in figure 1. In figure 1, several stations show salinity differences of .003-.004 psu (sta. 15,16,17,51, & 56) but this could problems associated with water sample or CTD salinity. A histogram of salinity differences is shown in figure 2 with a mean difference of .0019 psu and a standard deviation of .0043 psu. A plot of the salt differences versus pressure (figure 3) shows that the scatter decreases with depth particularly be low 2009 decibars. A few questionable salinities below 2000 dbars are indicated on figure 3 and the CTD salt is higher than the water sample most noticeable between 1500 and 3500 dbars. The least squares linear fit shows that mean difference approaches the zero line at the bottom. A plot of the salt differences below 200D decibars (figure 4) shows a the smaller scatter as does the histogram for P>2000 dbars of figure S. Again several stations 16,17,51, & 56) show salinity differences as noted earlier. The standard deviation below 2000 dbars is reduced to .0021 psu and the mean salt difference is 0.00083 psu. The CTD salinity a ears to be slightly higher than the water sample salts at all depths. Aside from these small 1 but systematic differences, the CTD conductivity (salinity) appears to be 11 matched to rosette water sample salinities for a 1 stations. The 1 decibar CTD profiles ___.WCT A mean profile was created on pressure surfaces for all stations and then individual profiles compared to the mean profile in order to identify questionable data values. Two edit criteria were used to flag questionable data: 1) T, S 02 variables whose difference from the mean profile exceeding 3.3 standard deviations (for all of the station data at that pressure level or density inversions where the stability parameter (E) exceeds -1.0 E-4 per meter. Station 17 has a series of temperature values between 2675 & 2 80 dbars that just exceed the 3.3 standard deviation edit criteria and is probably a feature of interest. The other questionable data involve a few slightly unstable regions (the E min = -1.0 E-04 edit criteria) A summary list stations with questionable data follows below: File name Pmax E_Tot T_err S_err 02_err E_err Sd fact E Min ------------ ------ ----- ----- ----- ------ ----- ------- ----------- 0012AO01.WCT 698.0 0 0 0 0 0 3.30 -0.1000E-04 0012AO02.WCT 5269.0 0 0 0 0 0 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0015AO01.WCT 920.0 2 0 0 0 2 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0016AO01.WCT 2519.0 2 0 0 0 2 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0017AO01.WCT 1004.0 2 0 0 0 2 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0017AO02.WCT 5212.0 272 265 0 0 7 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0018AOOI.WCT 5073.0 1 0 0 0 1 3.30 -0.1000E-04 0019AO01.WCT 5384.0 0 0 0 0 0 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0020A001.WCT 307.0 2 0 0 0 2 3.30 -0.1000E-04 0020AO02.WCT 5753.0 2 0 0 0 2 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0021AO01.WCT 5489.0 4 0 0 0 4 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0022AO01.WCT 5466.0 3 0 0 0 3 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0022AO02.WCT 909.0 6 0 0 0 6 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0023AOOI.WCT 5345.0 0 0 0 0 0 3.30 -0.1000E-04 0024AO01.WCT 5538.0 1 0 0 0 1 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0025AO01.WCT 603.0 3 0 0 0 3 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0025AO02.WCT 5414.0 1 0 0 0 1 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0026AO01.WCT 5486.0 2 0 0 0 2 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0027AO01.WCT 5550.0 1 0 0 0 1 3.30 -0.1000E-04 0028AO01.WCT 5530.0 2 0 0 0 2 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0028AO02.WCT 1002.0 3 0 0 0 3 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0029AO01.WCT 5645.0 4 0 0 0 4 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0030AO01.WCT 5430.0 0 0 0 0 0 3.30 -0-1000E-04 0031AO01.WCT 298.0 2 0 0 0 2 3.30 -0.1000E-04 0031AO02.WCT 5109.0 0 0 0 0 0 3.30 -0-1000E-04 0032AO01.WCT 5416.0 5 0 0 0 5 3.30 -0-10OOE-04 0033AO01.WCT 5507.0 0 0 0 0 0 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0034AO01.WCT 5006.0 0 0 0 0 0 3.30 -0-10OOE-04 0034AO02.WCT 393.0 1 0 0 0 1 3.30 -0-10OOE-04 0035AO01.WCT 5598.0 1 0 0 0 1 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0036AO01.WCT 5516.0 1 0 0 0 1 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0037AO01.WCT 5627.0 1 0 0 0 1 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0038AO01.WCT 5724.0 0 0 0 0 0 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0039AO01.WCT 5747.0 0 0 0 0 0 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0040A001.WCT 5651.0 0 0 0 0 0 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0041AO03.WCT 5618.0 0 0 0 0 0 3.30 -O.1000E-04 0041AO04.WCT 394.0 2 0 0 0 2 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0042AO01.WCT 5017.0 0 0 0 0 0 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0043AO01.WCT 5344.0 0 0 0 0 0 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0044AO01.WCT 5504.0 0 0 0 0 0 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0045AO01.WCT 5277.0 0 0 0 0 0 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0046AO01.WCT 5068.0 0 0 0 0 0 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0047AO01.WCT 5276.0 0 0 0 0 0 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0048AO01.WCT 5134.0 0 0 0 0 0 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0048AO04.WCT 753.0 0 0 0 0 0 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0049AO01.WCT 5206.0 0 0 0 0 0 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0050A001.WCT 5039.0 0 0 0 0 0 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0051AO01.WCT 5254.0 0 0 0 0 0 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0052AO01.WCT 5337.0 0 0 0 0 0 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0053AO01.WCT 5333.0 0 0 0 0 0 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0053AO02.WCT 643.0 1 0 0 0 1 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0054AO01.WCT 5454.0 0 0 0 0 0 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0055AO01.WCT 403.0 1 0 0 0 1 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0055AO04.WCT 5230.0 0 0 0 0 0 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0056AO01.WCT 5140.0 0 0 0 0 0 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0057AO01.WCT 5110.0 0 0 0 0 0 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0058AO01.WCT 4751.0 0 0 0 0 0 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0059AO01.WCT 4337.0 0 0 0 0 0 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0060A003.WCT 5244.0 1 0 0 0 1 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 006OA004.WCT 402.0 0 0 0 0 0 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0061AO01.WCT 4075.0 0 0 0 0 0 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0062AO01.WCT 1941.0 0 0 0 0 0 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0053AO01.WCT 929.0 1 0 0 0 1 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0064AO01.WCT 215.0 1 0 0 0 1 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0065AO01.WCT 4167.0 0 0 0 0 0 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 0066AO01.WCT 4501.0 2 0 0 0 2 3.30 -0.10OOE-04 Very few questionable data were located and nearly all were slight density inversions which could be real. Station 17 has a series of temperature Values between 2700 to 2980 dbars which exceed the 3.3 std. deviation edit criteria. Station 17 flagged temperature difference region is: Edit criteria Sta. dif. PRESS TEMP SALT OXYGEN t-sd S-sd t-df S-df QU E ------ ----- ------ ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ---- -- ----------- 2674.0 1.731 34.659 -9.00 0.076 0.023 0.17 0.076 0.010 0.00 2 -0.155E-06 2702.0 1.723 34.660 -9.00 0.076 0.023 0.17 0.076 0.010 0.00 2 -0.407E-06 2980.0 1.633 34.667 -9.00 0.063 0.020 0.17 0.063 0.006 0.00 2 0.282E-07 Qu error numbers: 2 = T 4 = S 8= 02 16 = E sum = combinations of errors E is the stability parameter The mean profile shows a standard deviation of salinity of .002 psu or less below 3700 dbars indicating that the CTD data is very internally consistent in the deep water. A spot check for down-UK salinity hysteresis was made on a couple of deeper stations (40,41, & 54). potential temperature versus salinity plot (figure 6) shows a hint that the up profile salinity (___.HY2) is slightly (<0.002 psu) fresher than the down profile (___.WCT). Overall the CTD data of P16N both the water sample file and CTD data files, appears to be of good quality both with respect to calibration and removal of erroneous data. C.3.a CFC DQE REPORT: DISCOVERER P16N (Rick Van Woy) June 1, 1993 My technique and reasoning for flagging data was abbreviated due to not having all of the information necessary to do a more through job. But with the information that was provided, I generated station listings for the values of CFC11, CFC12, CFC11/CFC12 ratio, percent saturation of O2, O2, pressure and density. I then plotted both CFC's concentration vs. depth for each station. The strongest indicator of questionable CFC data is the CFC11/CFC12 concentration ratio that is physically constrained by the solubility of the gases. Ratios that were thus determined to be unlikely indicate that one or possibly both CFCs could be questionable. From the station profiles and comparing to other parameters (such as O2 saturation for the surface waters) I attempted to judge which of the CFCs was most likely to cause the improbable ratio. In some cases I had to flag both values questionable if the profiles, values from the stations before and/or after or other measured tracers did not provide an indication as to which value to question. If the data generator provides the information that was requested for in the report, particularly for the data points in question, I would be able to reassess those quality control words. I suggest that the data originators for P16N recalculate their sample blank for certain stations since the CFC "free" water concentrations were consistently less than zero. |QUALT2 FLAGS |QUALT2 FLAGS STN |------------ STN |------------ # SAMP |CFC11|CFC12 # SAMP |CFC11|CFC12 -- ---- |-----|------ -- ---- |-----|----- 13 2201 | 3 | 3 30 4405 | 2 | 3 13 2203 | 3 | 3 30 4408 | 3 | 2 13 2204 | 3 | 3 30 4413 | 3 | 2 13 2206 | 3 | 3 30 4414 | 3 | 2 13 2207 | 3 | 3 30 4422 | 3 | 3 13 2208 | 3 | 2 31 4603 | 2 | 3 13 2209 | 3 | 3 31 4614 | 3 | 2 13 2212 | 3 | 3 32 4701 | 3 | 2 13 2213 | 3 | 3 32 4702 | 3 | 2 13 2214 | 3 | 3 32 4706 | 3 | 2 13 2215 | 2 | 3 32 4708 | 3 | 2 13 2216 | 3 | 3 32 4711 | 3 | 2 13 2217 | 3 | 3 32 4714 | 3 | 2 13 2218 | 3 | 3 32 4717 | 3 | 2 13 2219 | 3 | 3 33 4805 | 3 | 2 13 2220 | 3 | 3 34 4902 | 2 | 3 13 2221 | 3 | 3 34 4904 | 3 | 2 13 2222 | 3 | 3 35 5115 | 3 | 2 15 2402 | 3 | 2 36 5201 | 2 | 3 15 2408 | 3 | 3 36 5202 | 3 | 2 15 2402 | 3 | 2 36 5204 | 3 | 2 16 2508 | 2 | 3 36 5205 | 3 | 2 16 2506 | 2 | 3 36 5207 | 3 | 2 16 2505 | 2 | 3 37 5301 | 2 | 3 16 2503 | 2 | 3 37 5303 | 3 | 2 17 2602 | 2 | 3 37 5319 | 3 | 2 17 2601 | 2 | 3 37 5320 | 3 | 2 17 2721 | 2 | 3 37 5321 | 3 | 2 19 2912 | 3 | 2 37 5323 | 3 | 2 19 2904 | 3 | 2 37 5324 | 3 | 2 19 2903 | 3 | 2 39 5505 | 3 | 3 19 2902 | 3 | 3 39 5518 | 3 | 2 20 3109 | 3 | 3 40 5603 | 3 | 2 20 3113 | 3 | 2 41 5711 | 3 | 2 20 3115 | 2 | 3 41 5810 | 2 | 3 20 3116 | 3 | 2 42 5901 | 2 | 3 21 3201 | 3 | 2 42 5903 | 3 | 2 21 3202 | 3 | 3 42 5904 | 3 | 2 21 3203 | 3 | 2 42 5906 | 3 | 2 21 3204 | 3 | 3 43 6024 | 3 | 2 21 3205 | 3 | 3 45 6204 | 2 | 3 21 3213 | 2 | 3 47 6404 | 2 | 3 21 3214 | 3 | 3 47 6405 | 3 | 3 22 3302 | 3 | 3 47 6406 | 2 | 3 22 3303 | 3 | 2 48 6508 | 3 | 3 22 3304 | 3 | 2 48 6511 | 3 | 2 22 3305 | 3 | 2 49 6708 | 3 | 2 22 3307 | 3 | 2 49 6713 | 3 | 3 22 3309 | 3 | 2 52 7002 | 3 | 2 22 3312 | 3 | 2 52 7003 | 3 | 2 22 3315 | 3 | 3 52 7005 | 3 | 2 22 3319 | 2 | 3 53 7107 | 3 | 2 22 3320 | 2 | 3 53 7109 | 3 | 2 22 3322 | 2 | 3 54 7312 | 3 | 3 22 3403 | 3 | 3 54 7313 | 3 | 2 22 3410 | 3 | 3 54 7323 | 3 | 2 23 3503 | 3 | 3 55 7501 | 3 | 2 23 3511 | 3 | 2 55 7504 | 3 | 2 24 3603 | 3 | 3 55 7505 | 3 | 2 25 3803 | 2 | 3 55 7509 | 3 | 3 25 3810 | 3 | 2 55 7512 | 3 | 2 25 3816 | 3 | 2 58 7812 | 3 | 2 25 3719 | 3 | 3 59 7910 | 3 | 2 26 3918 | 3 | 2 59 7911 | 3 | 2 26 3919 | 2 | 3 59 7912 | 3 | 2 28 4101 | 2 | 3 59 7916 | 3 | 3 28 4103 | 3 | 2 59 7918 | 3 | 2 28 4105 | 2 | 3 60 8010 | 2 | 3 28 4109 | 3 | 2 61 8209 | 2 | 3 28 4111 | 2 | 3 63 8401 | 2 | 3 28 4115 | 3 | 2 63 8402 | 3 | 2 28 4207 | 3 | 2 65 8602 | 3 | 3 29 4302 | 3 | 2 C.3.b FINAL CFC DATA QUALITY EVALUATION (DQE) COMMENTS ON P16N. (David Wisegarver) Dec 2000 During the initial DQE review of the CFC data, a small number of samples were given QUALT2 flags which differed from the initial QUALT1 flags assigned by the PI. After discussion, the PI concurred with the DQE assigned flags and updated the QUAL1 flags for these samples. The CFC concentrations have been adjusted to the SIO98 calibration Scale (Prinn et al. 2000) so that all of the Pacific WOCE CFC data will be on a common calibration scale. For further information, comments or questions, please, contact the CFC PI for this section J. Bullister (johnb@pmel.noaa.gov) or David Wisegarver (wise@pmel.noaa.gov). Additional information on WOCE CFC synthesis may be available at: http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/cfc. Prinn, R. G., R. F. Weiss, P. J. Fraser, P. G. Simmonds, D. M. Cunnold, F. N. Alyea, S. O'Doherty, P. Salameh, B. R. Miller, J. Huang, R. H. J. Wang, D. E. Hartley, C. Harth, L. P. Steele, G. Sturrock, P. M. Midgley, and A. McCulloch, "A history of chemically and radiatively important gases in air deduced from ALE/GAGE/AGAGE." Journal of Geophysical Research, 105, 17,751-17,792, 2000. D. DATA PROCESSING NOTES Date Contact Data Type Data Status Summary -------- ----------- ------------- ---------------------------------------- 08/19/92 Mantyla NUTs/S/O DQE Begun 08/19/92 Van Woy CFCs Data sent to DQE 03/30/93 Mantyla NUTs/S/O DQE Report rcvd @ WHPO 04/16/93 Millard CTD DQE Report rcvd @ WHPO 05/03/93 Bullister CTD/NUTs DQE Report sent to PI 05/07/93 Van Woy CFCs DQE Report rcvd @ WHPO 06/10/93 Bullister CFCs DQE Report sent to PI 02/21/98 Key DELC14lvs Submitted in directory 09/28/98 Johnson BTL/CTD Make data PUBLIC OKd by J. Bullister John Bullister and I have discussed it and the other PMEL Pacific data, and have the following table for access (bottle and CTD): DQE? Public Gouretski P13 Yes No No P14S No No Yes P15S No No Yes P16N Yes Yes Yes P18 No Yes Yes 10/02/98 Talley CTD Update Needed the first ctd file in the p16n dataset was corrupted - someone had tarred the whole set and all of the data had ended up tarred into a file with the name of the first station. Do you have the original ctd data submission and can you fix the website data set? 12/14/98 Key DELC14 Data are Public 01/11/99 Bullister CTD/BTL Data are Public Tr/He data requested from Lupton/Jenkins 04/15/99 Diggs CTD Data Update file fixed I have managed to fix the CTD file for P16N over a SLOW line from England. I dug up an old version from the WHOI Pacific Atlas since they made the old file#1 a USTAR file. Station "0012a001.wct" has been replaced and all tables and associated files have been replaced. 04/16/99 Jenkins He/Tr Projected Submission Date 1999.05.15 04/29/99 Quay DELC13 Data and/or Status info Requested by dmb 10/08/99 Evans HELIUM/DELHE3 Submitted Date Contact Data Type Data Status Summary -------- ----------- ------------- ---------------------------------------- 05/31/00 Bullister BTL/SUM/DOC Submitted Updated data files I just re-sent P16N.sea, .sum and .doc files to the WHPO ftp site. The file names are: P16N.doc.senttoWOCE31may2000* P16N.sea.senttoWOCE.31May2000 P16N.sum.senttoWOCE31May2000* These files have a number of updates compared to the ones now posted at the WHPO web site. The .sea file includes tcarbn and pH data; the CFCs are reported on the SI093 calibration scale. The QUALT2 flags which were set by the DQEs for salnty, oxygen, phspht, silcat, nitrat and nitrit are unchanged. The QUALT1 flags for these parameters have been changed in response to the DQE recommendations. We did the DQE checking for the CFC data and have set the QUALT1 and QUALT2 flags for CFC-11 and CFC-12. There are columns for delhe3 data in the .sea file, but I don't have a copy of the delhe3 data files, so the values are reported as -9. 06/09/00 Bartolacci BTL/SUM/DOC Website Updated I have replaced the sum, bottle and doc files for P16n 31DICGC91_1/2 sent from Bullister on 05/31. I have updated the tables to reflect the change. Please note: the bottle file is not pressure sorted yet, and there are he/delhe3 data that still needs merging (there is a problem with the he file having NO documentation associated with it, and PI needs contacting). 06/21/00 Bartolacci helium/delhe3 Website Updated not yet merged into btl file 08/07/00 Huynh DOC Website Updated; txt file online 08/31/00 Anfuso HELIUM/DELHE3 Data merged into online BTL file Merged %deltaHe3 and molal[He] data into BTL file. p16nhe_edt.dat: this is an edited version of p16nwoce.csv.txt. Substituted spaces for ',' column delimiter; replaced missing [He] data with -9.0000 value (formerly white space) for sta/cst/btl: 13/2/6;22/1/1004;22/1/1028;25/2/1003;34/1/1019. Runtime format: %delHe3: a7, i6, 2x, a7, f10.2, i6 molal[He]: a7, i6, 2x, a7, 16x, f11.4, i6 original/p16nhy_rplcd_2000.08.31.txt: former p16nhy.txt file prior to helium data merge. Ran wocecvt: Data is reported in reverse pressure order. 11/27/00 Uribe DOC Submitted File contained here is a CRUISE SUMMARY and NOT sumfile. Documentation is online. 2000.10.11 KJU Files were found in incoming directory under whp_reports. This directory was zipped, files were separated and placed under proper cruise. All of them are sum files. Received 1997 August 15th. Date Contact Data Type Data Status Summary -------- ----------- ------------- ---------------------------------------- 06/22/01 Uribe CTD/BTL Website Updated; CSV File Added CTD and Bottle files in exchange format have been put online. 08/09/01 Bartolacci THETA Website Updated THETA header realigned realigned the THETA header. Edited file online. 11/16/01 Bartolacci CFCs Data ready to be merged Updated CFC data ready to be merged I have placed the updated CFC data file sent by Wisegarver into the P16n original directory in a subdirectory called 2001.07.09_P16N_CFC_UPDT_WISEGARVER This directory contains data, documentation and readme files. data are ready for merging 01/08/02 Uribe CTD Website Updated; CSV File Added CTD has been converted to exchange using the new code and put online. 01/22/02 Hajrasuliha CTD Internal DQE completed See Note: Created *check.txt file only. 03/08/02 Kozyr TCARBN/C14 Update Needed Flag numbers need updating I have been working with the final data from WOCE P16N (NOAA CGC91) cruise and found some problems with the quality flags for TCARBN and deltaC14 measurements in the WHPO data file. In many cases there are flags "3" for missing TCARBN data and flags "2" for missing deltaC14 data. Also, I found that WHPO CFC numbers are different from those at John's ftp site for this cruise. You can copy the correct data file from: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/oceans/woce_p16n.html (I did not update the CFC data in my file though). 03/08/02 Bullister CFCs Clarification Request In 1996, The original DIC QC people (see below) inserted '-9' as the DIC value for some samples assigned QC flag '3'. There are about 52 of these samples in my file. Does the final DQE'ed data set for this cruise report the actual values? If so, I think that the actual values should used, instead on -9. 03/11/02 Roberts TCARBN Data Update All - I will merge the DIC data back into the file, maintaining the revised QC flags. This will reinsert the values into the cells where Slansky replaced them with -9's, therefore reporting all data.