If symbols do not display correctly change your browser character encoding to unicode Cruise Report: ISS03 (Updated APR 2012) HIGHLIGHTS CRUISE SUMMARY INFORMATION WOCE Section Designation ISS03 Expedition designation (ExpoCodes) 09FA9605 Chief Scientists Peter McIntosh / CSIRO Dates 1996 May 7 - 1996 May 31 Ship R/V Franklin Ports of call Fremantle, Australia - Dampier, Australia 21° 59.14' S Geographic Boundaries 98° 22.37' E 114° 45.01' E 34° 14.34' S Stations 92 Floats and drifters deployed 0 Moorings deployed or recovered 0 Recent Contact Information: Peter McIntosh • CSIRO Marine Laboratories GPO Box 1538 • Hobart • Tasmania • 7001 • Australia Tel: (03) 6232-5390 • Fax: (03) 6232-5123 • Email: petermcintosh@csiro.au FRANKLIN National Facility Oceanographic Research Vessel RESEARCH SUMMARY FR 05/96 Sail Fremantle 1100 Tuesday 7 May 1996 Arrive Dampier 0900 Friday 31 May 1996 Mixing and Circulation in the Perth Basin Principal investigators Dr Peter C. McIntosh CSIRO Division of Oceanography (Chief Scientist) Dr Trevor J. McDougall CSIRO Division of Oceanography and Horizontal and Spatial Dynamics of Surface Phytoplankton Principal Investigator Ms Esmee Van Wijk Flinders University (piggyback project) June 1996 For further information contact: ORV Operations Manager Phone (002) 32 5222 CSIRO Division of Oceanography Fax (002) 32 5000 GPO Box 1538, Hobart, Tasmania 7001 Telex AA 57182 FRANKLIN is owned and operated by CSIRO Cruise Objectives • To conduct a closely-spaced CTD survey around the perimeter of the Perth Basin so that the flows into and out of the basin at all depths can be estimated by inverse methods. • To deduce the importance of mixing processes in the Perth Basin by examining the changes in water-mass properties as fluid flows through the basin and by using inverse methods on the hydrographic data from the perimeter of the Perth Basin. • To investigate horizontal changes in chlorophyll a and phytoplankton species composition across hydrographic fronts. • To correlate continuous chlorophyll a measurements with discrete samples of phytoplankton species composition. Cruise Track The actual voyage track is shown in Figure 1. It retraces the path of the 1987 Daxwin section along the southern leg of the box, passing over the deep current meter moorings of McDougall and Toole. It also duplicates the CTD's in this region conducted on Franklin Voyage FR6/95. The track then turns north, passing over Gulden Draak Knoll and Batavia Knoll, then turning northeastwards into the Cuvier Basin and closing the box over the ICM6 Tornczak and Church current meter moorings of Northwest Cape. Cruise Narrative Franklin departed Fremantle at 1100 on 7 May 1996, delayed one hour due to port traffic. We steamed down towards the first station of Cape Leeuwin with a moderate wind (15-20 knots) behind us. About midnight, 1 hour from the first station, the wind had swung to the NW and freshened to over 30 knots. We hove to, doing 2 knots to the NW. Some gusts reached 60 knots overnight. We were hove to all next day (8/5), and many people were feeling less than 100%, although a new influx of bean bags helped. The weather was caused by an unseasonably-late tropical cyclone ("Jenna") which travelled south. The morning of 9/5 we were about 50nm from first station, and steamed down there in a moderating wind (25- 30 knots). Arrived about 10am and did the first station in 120m of water. The wind freshened again, and so we hove to rather than travel to the next station. Once the wind eased again, we travelled to the next station and did CTD #2 at about 1pm. On Friday 10/5 the weather moderated and we got 3 stations done (#'s 3,4,5) in one watch. Then the fuel pump on the main engine broke about 9pm, and we drifted for about 4 hours while it was fixed. Luckily the seas were almost dead calm. The next morning we continued CTD's as planned. The voyage track was altered slightly to account for the lost time, reducing the number of CTD's to about 90, but still enclosing most of the original area. The major change was along the northern leg, where it was decided not to pass over the Wallaby Plateau, but stay in deep water to the south to avoid having to resolve deep and narrow boundary currents. We lost no further time due to bad weather. On Sunday 12/5 we had a fire alarm, which turned out to be false. This is apparently quite rare, and no cause was found. Some of the scientific crew had trouble recognising the alarm as they had not heard it before. Wednesday 15/5 we had a fire drill. Deepest cast of the voyage was here at station 27, with pressure of 5989db and 6150m of wire out. Started to notice a problem with the deep thermometers triggering at the next depth up (see equipment section below). Saturday 18/5 the bridge noticed a loose strand of wire on the CTD cable about 800m from the CTD itself; the splice was beginning to unravel (see equipment section). We were now out of email range, somewhat later than anticipated. Sunday 19/5 we celebrated Andreas's birthday with a formal (black tie) lunch, complete with birthday cake and a present from his wife (two Mr Bean videos). The bathymetry in this region (around station 50, western-most section of loop) is different from the charts by up to 1000m. This prompted the question: What happens to bathymetry data from Franklin voyages? Thursday 23/5 celebrated Dave's birthday with an informal (blue overalls) dinner, another birthday cake (thanks again cooks!) a lei made of sampling bottles and a highly edible present from friends. Friday 24/4 we started to have trouble reaching the bottom because of the reducedwire length. Failed to reach the bottom on 3 stations altogether, one by about 400m. We were very lucky not to lose the wire earlier in the voyage. Not reaching the bottom in the region of the McDougall current meters would have reduced the value of the entire experiment considerably. Once the casts became shallower than 3000m we mounted the fluorometer on the CTD so that Esmee could get vertical profiles. We also devoted spare Niskin bottles to collecting a large volume of water from the chlorophyll maximum to provide phytoplankton samples. Wednesday 29/5 finished the last CTD, giving us plenty of time to steam to Dampier. On the way we spent a number of hours practising picking up current meters for the benefit of Ian Moss, who will be master on the voyage to retrieve the McDougall current meters. Equipment The 1.7l Niskin bottles worked well, and there were no major problems. We lost one bottle on Monday 20/5 - it was simply missing when the CTD came out of the water. No idea what happened. We had a continual problem for the first half of the voyage with two deep bottles apparently triggering at the same depth. This was eventually tracked down to a slight alignment problem in the rosette, which Erik fixed, and we had no further problems. The backup rosette had problems operating at depths around 5000m or deeper, and we only used this for a few casts. On Saturday 18/5 the splice in the CTD wire started to unravel, and we had to cut off 835m of cable and re-terminate it. This took about 3 hours. The cable length was now estimated to be 5675m. This meant our maximum wire out for subsequent casts was about 5555m. There were three casts where we couldn't reach the bottom after this time. If this had happened earlier in the voyage, so that we couldn't reach the bottom in the region of the McDougall current meters, it would have reduced the value of the entire experiment considerably. I suggest that if another splice is used, that the number of times it goes over the sheaves is logged, and consideration be given to a backup strategy for intensive deep CTD voyages when the splice nears the end of its expected working life. About halfway through the voyage we received the news that CSIRO was considering buying new Guildline salinometers. This caused some consternation among the OMS people because they had not been consulted. Aren't they the local experts? For this voyage we had been given specific guidelines concerning CTD wire tension. We monitored this carefully, and logged all casts fully. Wire tension was always below the absolute limit of 1.3 tonnes, but did occasionally exceed 1.2 tonnes. The major factor was ship roll when the CTD was below 5000m. The next important factor was the winch acceleration, and the winch drivers were careful to start the winch slowly. We found it made no appreciable difference to ascend at half the usual speed while at depth, suggesting the drag of the CTD package is not important. It quickly became clear that deep CTD's were taking about 30 minutes longer than estimated. We eventually established that the wire-speed readout was reading high by about 10%, although the wire-out readout was accurate. From 17/5 we ran the winch at an indicated 65m/min. The colour printer was installed via Appletalk - it could not be made to work directly on the ethernet. Two new cuvette caps for the fluorometer were purchased for this voyage, but they had the wrong thread size. The old one was adequate until the engineers managed to machine one of the new caps to fit. The other new cap has not been touched. We were only without email for about 4 days. This was an important facility, allowing faster communication, and reducing the isolation. I suggest that consideration be given to improving this facility, so that it is always available. It might also be a good idea to arrange for some form of regular news service to be sent by email. I found out that most of the crew phone home about once a week. It is important that this is as easy and cheap as possible - it might save some relationships! At the moment it is both expensive and bad quality. I recommend this be fixed as soon as possible. Conclusion This was a very successful voyage in terms of the data collected. A large section of ocean was fully enclosed with deep CTD's, which will allow the construction of an inverse model to study mixing processes and property fluxes in this region. In addition, a large amount of surface data on chlorophyll and phytoplankton was collected in the region of a number of surface fronts. There were very few problems on this voyage, and everybody seemed to get along very well. With the exception of the first three days, the weather was also kind. Acknowledgements Thank you to the two CTD watches, and to the chemists, for working hard and caring about the quality of the data. Thank you to Esmee for helping with the CTD's when needed. A special thank you to the ship's crew for their hard work, dedication and generosity. And thanks to everyone for also making the voyage enjoyable. Science Crew Ship's Crew ------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- Peter McIntosh CSIRO Oceanography Neil Cheshire Master Chief Scientist lan Moss Mate Andreas Schiller CSIRO Oceanography Ian Menzies 2nd Mate Yukio Masumoto University of Tokyo Mike Culpepper Chief Engineer Esmee Van Wijk Flinders University Lindsay Cale 1st Engineer (piggyback project) Don Roberts Electrical Engineer Yannick Hansen Bosun Neil White CSIRO-ORV Norm Marsh AB Cruise Manager Peter Genge AB Erik Madsen CSIRO-ORV Wayne Golding AB Helen Beggs CSIRO-ORV Phil French Greaser Dave Terhell. CSIRO-ORV John Tilley Chief Steward Val Latham CSIRO-ORV Lindsay Ballinger Chief Cook Kate Berry CSIRO-DF (on loan) Peter Dux 2nd Cook NOTES ON ADCP DATA FOR FR 5/96 (Helen Beggs, 23 June, 1997) Features of this voyage The first three days of the cruise were very rough and this appears to have affected the data quality. The current vectors are suspect during 7 May'96/0800 - 1500 UTC and 8 May'96/0200 - 0900 UTC due to the very rough seas. The major reason for data being rejected during post-processing was due to %Good being less than 30% in any one ensemble. GPS "SA" degradation (see section 2) was in force during this voyage, and UPS coverage was nearly 100%. A very small amount of on-station data was mildly corrupted in the top 50 m by one acoustic beam intersecting water dragged by the CTD wire. All but the most subtly affected bins have been removed (as there is no way of correcting for this effect). The alignment angle calibration coefficient, a, varied sinusoidally with heading through the voyage, probably due to variation in the heading gyro synchro- digital converter. Specifically, α = 0.95 sin(heading) + 1.1 +/- 0.3. The scaling factor, 1+β, did not change significantly with time. 1.1 Profiles integrated • Bottom track corrected, no reference layer averaging in final integration: • 203 20 minute profiles (-12% of voyage covered). • GPS corrected (position-derived GPS ship velocities preferred to direct GPS velocities) • 1679 20 minute profiles (-99% of voyage covered). Use with care, if at all, as SA was active. • 562 60 minute profiles (-100% coverage). • Non-integrated profiles (3 minute ensembles) • All possible ensembles with best available correction (bottom track preferred to position-derived UPS velocities, preferred to direct GPS velocities). 2 GPS DATA DEGRADED BY SA (SELECTIVE AVAILABILITY) The US Department of Defence, who operates the UPS satellites, has introduced deliberate complex errors into UPS data. It is generally considered that these errors cannot be removed without extra equipment and post processing (and even then cannot be achieved with deep ocean work.) The characteristics of SA errors are probably changed from time to time, however they usually seem to be across quite a wide time spectrum. Of most concern for ADCP data are the errors of order 50 cm/s over 5 to 10 minute periods. There also appears to be a smaller and lower frequency component, the worst case so far observed had a residual error of 6 cm/s after averaging an hour's data. 2.1 The implications for ADCP data are: • individual GPS corrected ensembles (3 minute or less) often have errors of around.5 m/s. • The existence of such errors prohibits the use of some quality control measures, especially of course dv/dt. • 20 minute integrated profiles will usually have little extra error, maybe 1 or 2 cm/s. However, at times low frequency components of SA may cause larger errors, up to 10 or 20 cm/s. • 60 minute profiles will rarely have more than 1 or 2 cm/s extra error. • Incomplete 20 minute profiles (low 'icover' percentage) are less reliable because they are probably incomplete due to a break in GPS coverage, and data adjacent gaps is usually of poorer quality. Also, the SA errors are less likely to have been removed by averaging. • Bottom track and shear data are, of course, unaffected by this. When using UPS to get ship's position, these errors are negligible (200m or 300m at most). 3 CALIBRATION ADCP water profile vectors are calibrated by being rotated through an angle a and multiplied by scaling factor 1 + β. The rotational calibration primarily corrects for misalignment of the transducer with respect to the ship, of the ship with respect to the gyro compass, and the error in the gyro compass. The scaling multiplier primarily corrects biases arising from the profiler itself. Both of these calibrations make a large difference to the resultant currents, particularly because they are both applied to the usually large ship-relative currents. For example, a scaling multiplier of .01 applied when the water velocity with respect to the ship is 6 m/s alters the measured absolute currents by 6 cm/s. Calibration is particularly difficult when the coefficients change with time, as appeared to be the case on this voyage. Calibration chosen for this voyage: α = 0.95 sin(heading) + 2.05 +/- 0.3 1 + β = 1.019 +/- 0.005. 4 DATA QUALITY The data provided should not be taken as absolutely true and accurate. There are many sources of error, some of which are very hard to quantify. Often the largest error is that of determining the ship's actual velocity. Accuracy of water velocity relative to the ship The theoretical approximate short-term velocity error for our 150 kHz ADCP is: sigma = (pulse length X square root of pings per average) - 1 For a 3 minute ensemble with say 170 pings, using 8m pulse, this gives a theoretical error of 1 cm/s for each value (that is, independently for each bin). For 20 minute profiles, with say 1150 pings averaged, the error in measuring the velocity of the water relative to the ship is probably reduced to the long term systematic bias. Of this bias, RDI says "Bias is typically of the order of 0.5 - 1.0 cm/s. This bias depends on a variety of factors including temperature, mean current speed, signal/noise ratio, beam geometry errors, etc. It is not yet possi-ble to measure ADCP bias and to calibrate or remove it in postprocessing." As well as that, there are the transducer alignment and gyro-compass errors, which probably have a residual effect after calibrating of roughly: 0.3 cm/s per m/s of ship speed, due to, say, 0.3 degree uncertainty and variation in alignment angle. 0.5 cm/s per m/s of ship speed, due to, say, 0.005 uncertainty and variation in scaling factor. This gives us say 0.58 cm/s error per m/s of ship speed, or 3.6 cm/s at 12 knots. Other sources of bias might be the real-time and post-processing data screening, and depth- dependant bias. GPS profiles In the presence of SA, errors are larger and even very large errors cannot be removed by dvidt screening (because this would bias the long term average - there is reason to assume that given a long enough period the accumulated SA error is close to zero). Bottom track profiles Firstly note that errors arising from transducer alignment and gyro limitations will substantially cancel out. Normally, the accuracy of screened bottom track data appears to be of the same order of accuracy as non-SA UPS, that is, about 2 - 3 cm/s for a 20 minute profile. REPORT ON THE PROCESSING OF HYDROLOGY DATA FROM F9605 (David Terhell) Hydrochemists on the voyage were Dave Terhell, Val Latham and Kate Berry. 92 CTD stations were sampled. Approximately 1940 samples were analysed for salinity and nutrients and approximately 1916 samples were analysed for oxygen. The processing was performed by David Terhell. It was begun of 28/11/96 and completed on 22/5/97. the navigation data etc was transferred from the fr9605.sta file produced during CTD calibration to the hydrology .DAT files. The sample depths, CTD salinity and CTD temperature data were transferred to the hydrology .DAT files from the histcal.lis file produced during CTD calibration. The DO results were checked in Hobart and found to be correct. During processing corrections to the data were made (see below). The data was archived of 22/5/97 and all files copied to tape on 16/4/97. One persistent problem which had to be corrected was that rosette position's 2 and 4 often didn't fire until the next rosette position was fired. Stn RP NBN Comments Action --- -- --- --------------------------------------------- ------------------- 1 2 4 salt sample taken from next deepest bottle delete salt and bottle number 2 1 2 No oxygen for bottle 105 due to analysis oxygen bottle problems deleted 3 16 23 temperature difference between CTD and delete thermometer thermometer data = 2.01 - chemistry fine data 3 11 17 No salt for bottle 575 due to analysis salt bottle deleted problems 4 16 23 thermometer temperatures far too low yet delete thermometer chemistry fine. Thermometers may not have data been set correctly 4 5 15 oxygen far too low delete oxygen and bottle number 4 5 15 wrong oxygen had been deleted earlier (RP 4) corrected 4 4 14 rosette position fired next shallowest depth depth corrected 4 2 1 rosette position fired next shallowest depth depth corrected and - no 5 min wait on thermometers thermometer data deleted 5 16 10 oxygen high, salt difference = 0.007 delete niskin 5 4 3 rosette position fired next shallowest depth depth corrected 5 2 1 rosette position fired next shallowest depth depth corrected and - no 5 min wait on thermometers thermometer data deleted 6 16 10 phosphate high but other chemistry does not delete phosphate show anomaly 6 4 3 rosette position fired next shallowest depth depth corrected 6 2 1 rosette position fired next shallowest depth depth corrected and - no 5 min wait on thermometers thermometer data deleted 7 2 1 no thermometer data delete thermometer numbers 7 2 6 no nutrient samples taken due to sampling nuts tube numbers error (see CTD sheet) deleted 8 22 23 no nitrate peak detected by DAPA edited in 0.13 determined from DAPA trace 8 4 3 rosette position fired next shallowest depth depth corrected 8 2 1 no nutrient sample taken delete nutrient tube number 8 2 1 rosette position fired next shallowest depth depth corrected and - no 5 min wait on thermometers thermometer data deleted 9 24 23 no nitrate peak detected by DAPA edited in 0.1 determined from DAPA trace 9 22 8 no thermometers on this niskin delete thermometer numbers 9 9 24 salt sampled from next shallowest niskin delete salt and bottle number 9 4 3 no samples taken as duplicates of rosette delete niskin posn 2 9 3 14 no samples taken as duplicates of rosette delete niskin posn 2 10 22 8 niskin leaked so not sampled delete niskin 10 21 12 no salt or nutrient sample - no reason given delete salt bottle and nuts tube numbers Stn RP NBN Comments Action --- -- --- --------------------------------------------- ------------------- 10 2 1 pressure difference 388dbars - temps and delete unprotected chemistry fine data 11 14 16 salt difference = 0.031 but on steep gradient accept 11 2 1 rosette position fired next shallowest depth depth corrected and - no 5 min wait on thermometers thermometer data deleted 12 2 1 Thermometer and chemistry data indicates delete niskin bottle fired wrong depth 13 12 5 from chemistry niskin leaked badly delete niskin 13 2 1 rosette position fired next shallowest depth depth corrected and - no 5 min wait on thermometers thermometer data deleted 14 2 1 bottom cap of niskin stuck open delete niskin 15 18 6 from chemistry niskin leaked badly delete niskin 15 4 1 rosette position fired next shallowest depth depth corrected and - no 5 min wait on thermometers thermometer data deleted 16 16 19 conductivity ratio recorded as 9560 instead corrected of 8560 16 10 3 CTD sheet says niskin clearly leaked - no delete niskin samples 16 4 1 rosette position fired next shallowest depth depth corrected and - no 5 min wait on thermometers thermometer data deleted 17 24 23 DAPA didn't integrate nitrate peak manually measured and the value of 0.2 was edited into file 17 8 21 rosette position fired next shallowest depth depth corrected 17 4 1 rosette position fired next shallowest depth depth corrected and - no 5 min wait on thermometers thermometer data deleted 17 3 14 CTD sheet says niskin leaked - no samples delete niskin 18 8 21 rosette position fired next shallowest depth depth corrected 18 4 1 thermometers were accidentally reversed delete thermometer before they were read numbers 19 24 23 temperature difference between CTD and delete thermometer thermometer data = 1.22 - chemistry fine data Stn RP NBN Comments Action --- -- --- --------------------------------------------- ------------------- 20 4 1 rosette position fired next shallowest depth depth corrected and - no 5 min wait on thermometers thermometer data deleted 21 12 11 salt difference = 0.021. suspect niskin leak delete niskin as silicate trace has dog lag as well 21 4 1 thermometers didn't reverse delete thermometer numbers 21 4 1 rosette position fired next shallowest depth depth corrected 22 12 11 niskin leaked delete niskin 22 4 1 rosette position fired next shallowest depth depth corrected and - no 5 min wait on thermometers thermometer data deleted 23 4 1 thermometers were accidentally reversed delete thermometer before they were read numbers 23 4 1 rosette position fired next shallowest depth depth corrected 24 21 11 CTD sheet says niskin leaked - no samples delete niskin 24 4 1 thermometer data and chemistry except depth corrected and silicatesay bottle fired next shallowest thermometer data depth deleted 25 17 2 conductivity ratio recorded as 9700 instead corrected of 8700 25 4 1 rosette position fired next shallowest depth depth corrected and - no 5 min wait on thermometers thermometer data deleted 25 2 20 oxygen far too high delete oxygen and bottle number 26 16 10 nutrients typical of much deeper sample but delete nutrients oxygen and salt show no anomoly - nuts taken and tube number from wrong niskin 26 4 1 thermometers didn't reverse delete thermometer numbers 26 4 1 rosette position fired next shallowest depth depth corrected 27 19 7 Salt difference (CTD-Hydro) = 0.032. Other delete salt and chemistry fine bottle number 27 4 1 rosette position fired next shallowest depth depth corrected and - no 5 min wait on thermometers thermometer data deleted 28 24 23 no 5 min wait for thermometers delete thermometer numbers 28 10 3 rosette position fired next shallowest depth depth corrected 28 4 1 no 5 min wait for thermometers delete thermometer numbers 28 4 1 rosette position fired next shallowest depth depth corrected 28 rosette positions 1 and 2 fired at bottom and corrected depths made all niskins out by one depth 29 4 1 niskin didn't close - thermometers OK delete sample bottle numbers Stn RP NBN Comments Action --- -- --- --------------------------------------------- ------------------- 30 20 12 Salt difference (CTD-Hydro) = 0.149. delete niskin Possibly leaked 30 4 1 rosette position fired next shallowest depth depth corrected and - no 5 min wait on thermometers thermometer data deleted 31 24 1 niskin fired at the bottom not at the surface changed depth to 4842 db 31 23 8 as RP 24 fired at 4842 db the nitrate peak no nitrate result for RP23 was hidden by previous peak 31 23 8 salt difference = 0.078 but on steep gradient accept 31 4 1 rosette position fired next shallowest depth depth corrected and - no 5 min wait on thermometers thermometer data deleted 31 3 14 phosphate high but other chemistry does not delete phosphate show anomoly 32 23 8 salt difference = 0.053 but on steep gradient accept 32 4 1 rosette position fired next shallowest depth depth corrected and - no 5 min wait on thermometers thermometer data deleted 33 24 23 DAPA didn't integrate nitrate peak manually measured and the value of 0.2 was edited into file 33 17 2 conductivity ratio recorded as 9445 instead corrected of 8445 37 4 1 mercury in U/P thermometer fell through delete 12088 38 10 19 niskin cap didn't seal so it wasn't sampled delete niskin 39 21 23 DAPA didn't integrate nitrate peak manually measured and the value of 0.1 was edited into file 39 20 12 bottom niskin cap lanyard caught in spigot delete niskin so niskin not sampled 39 10 19 oxygen bottle number 188 was used twice in the correct bottle this station. no. 186 was entered and the oxygen conc corrected. Stn RP NBN Comments Action --- -- --- --------------------------------------------- ------------------- 40 21 23 first reading of first thermometer corrected incorrectly entered 40 12 3 salt obviously wrong - trouble with analysis delete salt 41 21 23 no 5 min wait for thermometers delete thermometer data 41 20 12 DAPA didn't integrate nitrate peak manually measured and the value of 0 was edited into file 42 21 23 DAPA didn't integrate nitrate peak manually measured and the value of 0 was edited into file 42 10 19 niskin not sampled as the bleed valve was delete niskin opened 42 3 14 fired at 2397 dbars corrected depth 42 2 20 fired at 2397 dbars corrected depth 42 rosette positions 1 and 2 fired at bottom corrected depths and made all niskins out by one depth 43 4 1 niskin cap lanyard caught in spigot so niskin delete niskin not sampled 48 5 15 top cap of niskin hadn't sealed so niskin not delete niskin sampled 49 27 12 no salt sample delete salt bottle number 51 4 1 rosette position fired next shallowest depth depth corrected and - no 5 min wait on thermometers thermometer data deleted 52 2 20 rosette position fired next shallowest depth depth corrected 55 20 23 DAPA didn't integrate nitrate peak manually measured and the value of 0.1 was edited into file 55 12 12 conductivity ratio recorded as 0809 instead corrected of 9809 55 5 15 conductivity ratio recorded as 8012 instead corrected of 9012 58 2 20 oxygen sample appears to have been taken delete oxygen and from next shallowest niskin bottle number 58 rosette positions 1 and 2 fired at bottom corrected depths and made all niskins out by one depth Stn RP NBN Comments Action --- -- --- --------------------------------------------- ------------------- 60 4 1 thermometer data and chemistry except delete niskin silicate say that bottle fired next shallowest depth Silicate follows trend however 61 4 1 thermometer data and chemistry except delete niskin silicate say that bottle fired next shallowest depth Silicate follows trend however 62 5 15 salt difference = 0.008 at depth - bottle delete niskin leaked 62 4 1 rosette position fired next shallowest depth depth corrected and - no 5 min wait on thermometers thermometer data deleted 64 24 23 thermometer data had not been entered entered it 64 23 12 salt difference = 0.055 but on steep gradient accept 64 4 1 rosette position fired next shallowest depth depth corrected 65 24 23 niskin fired at the bottom corrected depth 65 12 12 all chemistry says niskin leaked - see CTD delete niskin sheet 65 4 1 thermometer data and chemistry except delete niskin silicate say that bottle fired next shallowest depth Silicate follows trend however 66 24 23 thermometer data had not been entered entered it 66 17 6 no salt sample delete salt bottle number 66 4 1 thermometer data and chemistry except delete niskin silicate say that bottle fired next shallowest depth Silicate follows trend however 67 24 23 thermometer data had not been entered entered it 67 14 6 niskin cap lanyard caught in niskin so niskin delete niskin not sampled 68 24 23 niskin fired at the bottom corrected depth 68 4 1 thermometer data and chemistry except delete niskin silicate say that bottle fired next shallowest depth Silicate follows trend however 68 trouble with analysis of salinities delete all salts 69 1 3 rosette position didn't fire so depths were corrected depths wrong Stn RP NBN Comments Action --- -- --- --------------------------------------------- ------------------- 70 24 23 DAPA didn't integrate nitrate peak manually measured and the value of 0.1 was edited into file 71 22 11 nutrients taken from next deepest niskin delete nutrients and tube number 73 17 6 Salt far too low - other chemistry fine delete salt 73 11 17 conductivity ratio entered incorrectly corrected 73 4 1 thermometers didn't reverse delete thermometer numbers 75 24 23 first reading of thermometer 26038 was corrected entered incorrectly 76 24 23 DAPA didn't integrate nitrate peak manually measured and the value of 0 was edited into file 77 14 16 niskin cap lanyard caught in niskin so delete niskin niskin not sampled 78 24 23 DAPA didn't integrate nitrate peak manually measured and the value of 0.1 was edited into file 78 16 2 oxygen analysis problems delete bottle number 79 24 23 DAPA didn't integrate nitrate peak manually measured and the value of 0.2 was edited into file 82 24 23 DAPA didn't integrate nitrate peak manually measured and the value of 0.2 was edited into file 82 8 21 phosphate high but other chemistry does not delete phosphate show anomoly 82 4 1 not sampled - no reason given delete bottle numbers 82 3 14 niskin leaked - no samples taken delete niskin number 82 2 20 not sampled - no reason given delete niskin 82 1 3 not sampled - no reason given delete niskin 83 24 23 thermometer data not entered entered it 83 3 14 all chemistry shows niskin leaked delete niskin 85 15 4 niskin not sampled - see CTD sheet delete niskin 85 3 14 oxygen far too high delete oxygen and bottle number 85 1 3 oxygen sample did not dissolve fully delete bottle number 86 24 23 oxygen bottle broke delete bottle number 86 8 21 nutrients sampled from niskin 24 delete nutrients and tube number 86 4 1 pressure difference 465dbars - temps and delete unprotected chemistry fine data 89 24 23 DAPA didn't integrate nitrate peak manually measured and the value of 0.2 was edited into file 89 4 1 no thermometers read delete thermometer numbers 91 23 12 Salt difference (CTD-Hydro) = 0.406. Other delete salt and chemistry fine bottle number CCHDO DATA PROCESSING NOTES Date Person Data Type Action Summary ---------- ---------------- ----------- ---------------- ------------------------------------- 2000-11-20 James Crease CTD/BTL/SUM Submitted Submitted 2000-11-27 Danie Bartolacci CTD/BTL/SUM Website Updated Data added to website I have obtained the CTD and bottle data for 09FA9605. Both files are unformatted. Bottle data contains salinity in psu (needs converting) and oxygen, nitrate, silicate, phosphate only and all are in umol/l (need converting to umol/kg). Data has been linked in AS-IS condition with a note that reformatting is pending. Sumfile will need to be created from bottle file information. 2000-11-28 Terry Byrne CTD/BTL Website Updated Status Changed to Public The conditions of use are not meant to override any standing agreements. I have not checked, but I presume there was some formal arrangement already in place, and there is no intention to vary this, so go ahead and use the data in the usual WOCE way. - T. Byrne Terry, I understood your provision of the data to me and the WOCE WHPO DAC implied that you were placing no restriction on their distribution as part of the WOCE dataset. Your Marlin database embargoed it fro 2 years after 1996 as I understand it. - J. Crease 2000-12-11 Dave Muus CTD/BTL/SUM Website Updated Data Reformatted/OnLine Notes on formatting ISS3_a SUMMARY, BOTTLE and CTD files. (dated Dec 11, 2000/dm) R.V. Franklin May 7-31, 1996 EXPOCODE 09FA9605 1. Made WOCE formatted files from information in Australian files: ctd_format.htm aodc.txt hydro_format.htm f9605hyd.txt fr9605cd.txt 2. SUMMARY file: a) Original bottom depth labeled "Sonic depth at bottom in meters". (iss3_asu.txt) Put this value in uncorrected depth slot but do not know if value has been corrected per Carter Table. Do not know when bottom depth recorded: BE or BO? Put in BO slot. Bottom depth for Station 6 is missing on all sources. Max pressure bottle or ctd? 3. BOTTLE file: a) Only temperature in bottle file is DSRT. Used temp from CTD file (iss3_ahy.txt) for nearest CTD pressure to bottle file pressure. Always within one decibar. 4. CTD files: a) CTDO apparently not corrected. (iss3_a00xx.wct) Quality code 8888 not accepted by wctcvt 2001-01-03 Dave Muus CTD Website Updated Reformatted data online Notes on ISS3a CTD file reformatting to exchange format. Jan 3, 2001 dm 1. Could not find any instructions on CTD file name format. I used "iss3a00ss_ct1.csv" where ss is station number to be consistent with WOCE file name format. "A01E_STN_sss_ct1.csv" where sss is station number was used for A01E ctd data. 2. Some header designations differ between Exchange Instructions and Exchange example. Instructions Example SECT_ID SECTION_ID STNNBR STATION CASTNO CAST DEPTH BOTTOM I used Instructions since they match BOTTLE instructions and WOCE designations. 3. CTD oxygen appears to be uncorrected. Noted in header comments. 4. No quality code information available. 2001-01-19 Danie Bartolacci CTD/BTL Website Updated Reformatted Exchange files online I have replaced the current on line bottle and ctd files with the newly reformatted Exchange files created by D. Muus. All notes on editing are located in original/2001.01.18_ISS3_FRMTD_DMUUS all references have been updated to reflect this change, including a link to the Exchange file format description. 2002-01-30 Danie Bartolacci SUM Website Updated SUM file added to website WOCE formatted sumfile created by D. Muus has been added to the website. Notes on file creation and bottle/CTD reformatting will be emailed separately to meta data manager. Index page has been edited to reflect this update. No WOCE formatted bottle or CTD files exist still, only CTD and bottle exchange files.