A.   Cruise Narrative: P15N



A.1. Highlights
                         WHP Cruise Summary Information

             WOCE section designations  P15N, PR06, PRS1  P15N
   Expedition designations (EXPOCODES)  18DD9403_1  18DD9403_2
Chief Scientists and their affiliation  John Garrett/IOSÝ  
                                        Howard Freeland/IOS§
                         Dates (Leg 1)  1994.SEP.06 to 1994.OCT.10
                               (Leg 2)  1994.OCT.13 to 1994.NOV.10
                                        Ship  R/V John P. Tully
                 Ports of Call (Leg 1)  Dutch Harbor, Alaska to, HI 
                               (Leg 2)  Honolulu to Pago Pago, American Samoa
            Number of stations (Leg 1)  177  
                               (Leg 2)  191
                                                54 N
 Geographic boundaries of the stations  171 W          123 30 W
                                                15 S
          Floats and drifters deployed  15 Argos drifters (7 shallow, 8 deep), 
                                        1 meteorological Drifter
        Moorings deployed or recovered  0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       John Garrett                    Howard Freeland
       Institute of Ocean Sciences     Institute of Ocean Sciences
       P.O. Box 6000                   P.O. Box 6000
       9860 West Saanich Road          9860 West Saanich Road
       Sidney, B.C. V8L 4B2  CANADA    Sidney, B.C. V8L 4B2  CANADA
       Phone: 604-363-6574             Phone: 604-363-6590
       Fax:   604-363-6479             Fax:   604-363-6746
       Email: jfg@ios.bc.ca            Email: freelandhj@dfo-mpo.gc.ca


A.2    Cruise Summary Information

A.2.a  Geographic boundaries

On September 6, the Tully sailed west from the mouth of Juan de Fuca 
Strait, along Line PR6.  After completing 4 stations en route to 
Station PRS1, the vessel sailed for Dutch Harbor, Alaska, where it 
refueled.  Section P15N started near Dutch Harbor and continued south 
along 165 W.  At 24 N, we gradually shifted towards the West to 
coincide with a previous NOAA section and the planned route of 
P15S.  	 Most of the scientific crew were changed in Honolulu after 35 
days at sea.  Leg 2 continued from 20 30 N, following a course that 
moved gradually westward to 168 45 W at 10(N.  We remained on this 
longitude through the equator, then began a second southwestward 
course at 8 30 S that took us to 170 W at 10 S. At 15 S, Leg 2 
ended and the vessel sailed to American Samoa.

A.2.b  Stations occupied

CTD/rosette casts were done at 3 stations along 
PR6, PRS1 was reoccupied, and 70 CTD/rosette stations along P15N were 
done during the first leg.    Two rosettes were used to collect 3225 
samples for onboard analyses of salinity, oxygen, nutrients, CFCs, 
total CO2 and alkalinity.  Additional samples were stored for 13C, 
14C, 18O and CH4.  Continuous measurements of air and seawater CO2 
were taken from the scientific seawater supply (Uncontaminated Sea 
Water).  USW was also sampled for salinity, nutrients and chlorophyll  
a at almost all cast stations, and each degree of longitude between 
PRS1 and Dutch Harbor. Tracers were occasionally collected from the 
USW supply.


TABLE 1: STATION LOCATIONS FOR USW

   -123.500000 48.266700   -165.000300 46.498000   -168.118800  12.496000
   -124.002500 48.299800   -164.999700 45.991800   -168.250200  11.996200
   -124.500300 48.449800   -165.162700 45.504000   -168.375300  11.493800
   -125.011700 48.539300   -164.755700 44.996700   -168.512000  11.006300
   -125.546800 48.578200   -164.790200 44.500200   -168.623200  10.499500
   -126.000000 48.600000   -164.995200 43.995000   -168.746000  10.006800
   -126.333300 48.616700   -165.009300 43.487200   -168.749000   9.494200
   -126.665700 48.649200   -164.990000 43.013300   -168.751000   8.996300
   -126.171700 48.693300   -164.999200 42.500000   -168.754300   8.501000
   -127.686700 48.743300   -164.995200 41.999700   -168.743300   8.001800
   -128.666700 48.816700   -164.997200 41.496800   -168.741200   7.493500
   -129.165800 48.856200   -165.005800 40.997700   -168.730700   7.002800
   -129.662000 48.892700   -165.023300 40.494300   -168.726200   6.503500
   -130.166700 48.933300   -165.000000 40.001300   -168.742000   6.001800
   -130.661700 48.966700   -164.907200 39.498200   -168.739300   5.478000
   -131.664700 49.044000   -165.000300 38.999200   -168.747300   4.997300
   -132.664500 49.122500   -164.998300 38.504800   -168.752000   4.484700
   -133.659200 49.200000   -165.003300 37.998300   -168.750200   4.007200
   -134.669700 49.283700   -165.001800 37.501800   -168.747700   3.496500
   -135.670000 49.350000   -164.999300 36.998000   -168.760000   3.004200
   -136.661500 49.415300   -165.006200 36.504700   -168.755700   2.523300
   -137.666700 49.650700   -165.002000 35.998000   -168.750300   2.010200
   -138.667200 49.566500   -165.004200 35.495000   -168.762200   1.521500
   -139.666700 49.633000   -164.995300 35.000800   -168.753200   1.009300
   -140.662700 49.701200   -165.000800 34.514700   -168.760700   0.489000
   -141.669500 49.767000   -164.993800 34.001300   -168.750700  -0.003200
   -142.658300 49.835000   -165.000200 33.496300   -168.752500  -0.510800
   -143.603200 50.000000   -165.014500 32.995300   -168.747800  -1.011800
   -144.303700 50.001200   -164.995800 32.505000   -168.750700  -1.506800
   -144.984500 50.003000   -164.995700 31.997700   -168.742800  -2.010300
   -146.009200 50.206300   -165.006000 31.503200   -168.749000  -2.506800
   -147.003500 50.401000   -165.006500 31.003700   -168.757000  -3.003300
   -148.009500 50.596000   -165.000700 30.503200   -168.741200  -3.496300
   -149.003800 50.786500   -164.984300 30.006700   -168.754800  -3.997800
   -150.008300 50.979700   -164.994500 29.504500   -168.742200  -4.489200
   -151.218300 51.208300   -164.994200 29.001800   -168.752800  -5.004700
   -152.007300 51.359700   -165.000800 28.503700   -168.755200  -5.503800
   -153.007000 51.550000   -164.998700 27.999800   -168.759200  -6.018000
   -154.061500 51.748200   -164.974300 27.512700   -168.755800  -6.503800
   -155.000800 51.924500   -164.994200 27.008500   -168.746000  -7.013000
   -156.001500 52.112200   -165.001500 26.499200   -168.747800  -7.500500
   -157.000000 52.295500   -165.005800 25.995000   -168.747200  -8.008300
   -158.021700 52.488300   -164.996500 25.505000   -168.747200  -8.503500
   -159.000200 52.666800   -164.998500 25.005300   -169.000200  -9.003500
   -160.117800 52.874800   -165.000800 24.498200   -169.004200  -9.507300
   -161.128300 53.041700   -164.997000 23.995200   -169.501300 -10.002300
   -162.024200 53.183000   -165.317700 23.504800   -170.015500 -10.498200
   -163.000200 53.286800   -165.463200 22.917000   -169.997500 -11.004300
   -164.000800 53.394300   -165.567500 22.500700   -170.000000 -11.506500
   -164.998300 53.640800   -165.703200 21.986800   -170.494200 -11.999000
   -164.989500 53.920700   -165.994700 20.899200   -169.991500 -12.503800
   -164.989300 53.744700   -158.548000 21.178300   -169.988500 -13.019000
   -164.995700 53.500300   -166.086200 20.508800   -169.995300 -13.498800
   -165.015000 53.249000   -166.189300 20.016700   -169.995500 -14.007200
   -165.003700 52.998200   -166.317200 19.502200   -169.998300 -14.497500
   -165.003000 52.739800   -166.439200 19.002500   -169.999500 -15.001300
   -165.495700 52.238000   -166.691000 18.001500
   -165.141700 51.358300   -166.843200 17.479700
   -164.990800 50.967200   -166.994300 16.970500
   -164.993200 50.499000   -167.108200 16.494800
   -165.003000 50.000300   -167.228200 15.993000
   -164.999000 49.493500   -167.349800 15.498300
   -165.007300 49.004200   -167.496500 14.998800
   -165.000000 48.500200   -167.616300 14.494800
   -164.999300 47.999500   -167.750200 13.976200
   -164.991500 47.503800   -167.871200 13.493000
   -164.995500 47.012700   -167.982800 13.000300



A.2.c  Floats and drifters deployed

At 4 stations, a total of 15 Argos drifters, 7 shallow (20 m drogues) 
and 8 deep (120 m drogues), were deployed.  A single meteorological 
drifter was deployed for Department of the Environment near 47 N.  
About 2 dozen wine bottles with postcards inside were deployed at 
locations selected by a local school class. 


A.2.d  Moorings deployed or recovered

No moorings deployed or recovered 


A.3  List of Principal Investigators

TABLE 2:  Principal Investigators Principal 

          Investigator    Parameters                 Institution 
          ------------------------------------------------------
          Howard Freeland Climate change, XBTs, ADCP     IOS
          C.S. Wong       Climate chemistry              IOS   
                          TCO2, AT, CFCs, 13C, 14C,       
                          18O, underway pCO2 
          Ron Perkin      Physical measurements          IOS   
                          CTD, salinity 
          Frank Whitney   Chemical measurements          IOS   
                          Oxygen and nutrients,   
                          chlorophyll a, meteorology,   
                          bathymetry, thermosalinograph
          ------------------------------------------------------
 

A.4  Scientific Programme and Methods

Features such as the Alaska Stream, sub-arctic front, 2200 m 
silicate maximum (37 to 43 N), shallow oxygen minimum north of the 
equator, equatorial upwelling, flow of Antarctic water through the 
Samoan Gap, etc. are readily identified in this data set.  Surface 
waters in the subarctic region of the Pacific are evidently a strong 
sink for CO2 in September. 

Our deep ocean winch, rosette/CTD and heave compensation equipment worked 
very well to 6000 m, the first test it has had below 4200 m.  Sampling from 
the Tully was equally successful. The ship was able to hold station in 
40 knot winds, and aft deck sampling proved comfortable and safe in most 
conditions.  Sampling was suspended whenever the rosette unweighted 
excessively, as recorded on a load sensor mounted between the rosette and 
cable.
 
 
A.5  Major Problems and Goals not Achieved

Several stations were omitted due to high winds (reaching 70 knots), 
and CTD casts only were attempted at another 12 stations in marginal 
conditions.  Thus  there is a gap in the hydrographic sampling between
47 N and 43 30 N. Sampling intervals were spaced to 250 or 500 m below 
3000 m at many stations, allowing us to save time by carrying out only a 
single rosette cast.  This spacing should result in negligible loss of 
information, since there is little structure in North Pacific deep 
waters.  

Our deep ocean winch was damaged beyond repair following a cast at 10 S.  
Subsequent sampling was restricted to a maximum depth of 3800 m. 

CFC instrumentation caused us continual grief, although about 75% of 
the stations were successfully analyzed.  We had to return to Honolulu 
to pick up a replacement Gas Chromatograph at the beginning of Leg 2, 
costing us 3 days of ship time.  

There were some difficulties encountered throughout the cruise that 
hampered obtaining optimal results for CFC-11 and CFC-12. 

A problem with the consistency of the quality of the carrier gas meant 
having to subtract higher than normal stripper blanks.  

The results of stations 83 to 97 may show zero at the 300 to 
400 m depth because the threshold was initially set as per the 5890 GC 
program.  This was modified for later stations in order to have very 
small peaks integrated.  Thus these zero values may be a factor of 
threshold setting rather than a complete absence of CFCs. 

During some of the earlier stations we encountered samples affected by 
some sort of interference.  This resulted in the F11 peak being split 
or at other times summed, usually in the fifty meter sample.  Neither 
using the split value or a summed value seemed to give a reasonable 
result so these samples were flagged as questionable or bad.  This 
problem was also encountered on the first leg of the cruise. 

Phosphate samples were frequently contaminated during the second half 
of the first leg.  A nitrate reagent containing phosphoric acid was 
spilt on September 30 when Stations W044, W045, and W046 were 
analyzed.  On October 1 it was noted in the nutrient log that the crew 
were washing the deck with soap - Stations W047, W048 and W049 were 
analyzed on this day. 

Our water demineralizing system failed during Leg 2, which forced us 
to use low nutrient sea water 1) to establish a baseline during 
analyses, and 2) for the preparation of standards.  Each day, a sample 
of 3.2% NaCl in double run Milli-Q water was analyzed to assess the 
zero concentrations for each nutrient.  Silicate and phosphate in wash 
water typically was 2 and 0.2  mM higher than the clean salt water 
solution.  All data have been corrected for this baseline offset. LNSW 
was also used as a rinse after acid cleaning.   

The nitrite line developed a problem with crystal buildup at Station 
W123 and continued to the end of the cruise.  This resulted in higher 
than expected values for deep samples and all data for Stations W123 - 
W137 has been labelled data quality 3 for both nitrite and nitrate.  
Nitrate data is questionable due to the doubtful subtraction of 0.1 to 
0.3 umol/kg nitrite.   


A.6   Other Incidents of Note


A.7   List of Cruise Participants
 

TABLE 3: Cruise Participants 

Individual            Responsibility                   Institution 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Leg 1: 
  John Garrett          chief scientist                  IOS 
  Frank Whitney         coordinator, hydro. data         IOS 
  Dario Stucchi         CTD data processing              IOS 
  John Love             electronics, sampling, salinity  IOS 
  Bernard Minkley       sampling, salinity               IOS 
  Reg Bigham            sampling                         IOS 
  Tim Soutar            sampling                         IOS 
  Ron Bellegay          sampling                         IOS 
  Valerie Knight        carbonates                       IOS 
  Galina Pavlova        carbonates                       POI 
  Linda White           nutrients                        IOS 
  Andrei Andreev        nutrients                        POI 
  Pavel Tishchenko      CFCs                             POI 
  Ruslan Chichkin       CFCs                             POI 
  Leo Rebele            CFCs                             student 
  Sarah Thornton        Oxygen                           student 
  Marie Robert          sampling                         IOS 
  Louise Timmermans     sampling                         student 
  Mary-Beth Derube      sampling                         IOS 

Leg 2:                 
  Howard Freeland       chief scientist                  IOS 
  Ron Perkin            CTD data                         IOS 
  Bernard Minkley       hydro data                       IOS 
  John Love             electronics, sampling, salinity  IOS 
  Reg Bigham            sampling                         IOS 
  Neil Sutherland       sampling                         IOS 
  Dennis Sinnott        sampling                         IOS 
  Hugh Maclean          sampling                         UBC 
  Keith Johnson         carbonates                       IOS 
  Marty Davelaar        carbonates                       IOS 
  Janet Barwell-Clarke  nutrients                        IOS 
  Mary OBrien           nutrients                        IOS 
  Wendy Richardson      CFCs                             IOS 
  Carol Stewart         CFCs                             IOS 
  Tracy Feeney          CFCs                             student 
  Bob Wilson            Oxygen                           IOS 
  Taimi Mulder          sampling                         student 
  Rhiannon Johnson      sampling                         student 
  Robin Brown           sampling                         IOS 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbreviations:          IOS  Institute of Ocean Sciences,
                             Sidney, B.C. Canada
                        POI  Pacific Oceanological Institute,
                             Vladivostock, Russia
                        UBC  University of British Columbia
                             Vancouver, B.C. Canada

B.    Underway Measurements

B.1   Navigation and bathymetry

A SAIL (Standard ASCII Interface Loop) system onboard ship poles 
several sensors at 2 min intervals.  Data is stored on a micro 
computer and is subsequently processed in a format that is accessible 
for general use.  Ships speed, heading, and position plus ocean depth 
are logged.


B.2   Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP)

A hull mounted current profiler logged upper layer currents every 5 
min throughout the cruise.


B.3   Thermosalinograph and underway dissolved oxygen, etc

Temperature and conductivity sensors are installed near the intake of 
a sea water line that is used as a scientific supply in the 
laboratory.  Data is logged on SAIL.  Uncontaminated Sea Water (USW) 
was continuously pumped to the laboratory and used for half hourly 
measurements of pCO2, continuous fluorometry (chlorophyll  a) and 
discrete sampling at stations. An infrared analyzer was used to 
measure air, sea water and standard CO2 concentrations every 30 
minutes throughout the cruise. Sea water was equilibrated within a 
trapped air space to provide samples for measurements of pCO2 in 
surface sea water (DOE 1994). Chlorophyll a samples were collected 
from the USW supply at most stations, and filtered through Whatman 
GF/F filters.  Samples were then frozen for transport back to IOS.


B.4   XBT and XCTD

XBTs (Type T-5, 1830 m) were used at several stations when bad weather 
prevented use of CTDs.


B.5   Meteorological observations

Logged on SAIL are wind speed and atmospheric pressure.


B.6   Atmospheric chemistry



C.    Hydrographic Measurements

C.1.  Water sampling 

1. A 23 bottle rosette with a Guildline Model 8737 CTD was our primary 
   sampling system (Niskin bottles numbers 1 to 23). 	 

2. An 11 bottle rosette with a Guildline 8705 CTD was used 
   for shallow casts (Niskin bottles number S1 to S11). 

Water samples were collected from rosettes by both CFC analysts 
(Freons only) and sampling teams. Samples were drawn in the order CFCs, 
oxygen, carbonate suite (TCO2, alkalinity, 13C, 14C) and methane, then 
nutrients, salinity and 18O in any order. 

CFC samples were drawn into 100 ml glass syringes that were thoroughly 
rinsed in a continuous stream of sample. CFC samplers checked each 
Niskin bottle for leaking by pushing in the sample spigot before opening 
the air vent. Gas samples were drawn through amber or Tygon tubing and were 
all allowed to overflow from one to two volumes. Carbonate samples were 
poisoned with 200  ml of saturated HgCl2 solution per 250 ml. Methane samples 
were drawn through amber tubing into glass bottles. Rubber septa with 
syringe needles piercing their centers, were used to eliminate air 
from the samples. Septa were crimp sealed in place and samples were 
refrigerated. 

Other sample containers were rinsed 3 times and filled 
as required. Nutrient samples were refrigerated until analysis. 
Salinity samples were warmed to lab temperature before being 
analyzed.  180 samples were tightly stoppered and refrigerated.

		 
Standard Deviation of Pairs (Sp)

Standard Deviations of Pairs (Sp) were calculated from replicates 
drawn from Niskin bottles tripped within 2.3 db of each other using 
the following formula. Sp - {(summation of d**2)/2k}**0.5 where 
d - differences between pairs and k - number of pairs.  Using this as 
a measure of precision includes all discrepancies introduced by 
leaking water samplers, sample collection,  sample storage and 
analysis.
	
TABLE 4: Standard Deviation of Pairs (Sp)

Parameter                 Range         Sp    k
------------------------------------------------
Salinity  (PSS-78)   33.576 -  35.923  0.003  46
Oxygen    (umol/kg)  20.86  - 203.41   1.02   45
Silicate  (umol/kg)   0.02  - 149.8    0.34   46
Nitrate   (umol/kg)   0     -  42.9    0.11   44
Nitrite   (umol/kg)   0     -   1.406  0.008  46
Phosphate (umol/kg)   0.04  -   3.13   0.02   46
CFC-11    (pmol/kg)   0.415 -   2.587  0.076  11
CFC-12    (pmol/kg)   0.263 -   1.359  0.040  11
------------------------------------------------

C.2  WOCE Line P15N: CTD Calibrations

The P15N data was calibrated and processed to the stage of one metre 
average files using laboratory calibrations done before and after the 
cruise. The data were then examined for changes which may have 
occurred during the cruise, consistency between the three CTDís used 
and agreement with bottle salinities. The findings are given  below.
 
Instruments 

The three CTDís used were all Guildline CTDís, the primary 
instrument being the WOCE model (WOCE CTD) which was used for most of 
the deep casts using the 24 bottle rosette. The 12 bottle rosette used 
for shallow casts was equipped with a standard Guildline Digital CTD 
(OP CTD sn 58483). In weather too rough for launching a rosette, a 
modified Guildline Digital CTD was used (CTD6).

WOCE CTD, Guildline Model 8737 , SN 59901

This CTD was used for most of the casts in this cruise usually mounted 
in a bottle slot on a custom made 24 bottle rosette. It was interfaced 
to a GO pylon which triggered the 10-liter bottles in the 23 remaining           
slots; data gathering was not interrupted by the bottle triggers. 
Sensor data was digitally compensated for the effects of the 
electronics temperature which was monitored at all times. Additional 
sensors were a load cell giving the wire stress at the Rosette and 
two thermistor temperature sensors logged every half second. 

Pressure 

The Paros pressure sensor model 410K-101, Serial No. 50395 was 
calibrated on May 1, 1994 against a factory calibrated reference Paros 
pressure sensor. The correction was -1 +/-1 dbar for the entire range 
with no hysteresis. No correction was applied. 

Temperature 

Temperature calibrations are referenced to the triple point of 
water(.01 C) and the triple point of phenoxybenzene (26.868 C, IPTS-68, 
National Physical Laboratory, UK). Interpolation was done by a set of six 
reference thermistors calibrated at the National Research Council of 
Canadaís temperature standards lab. The thermistors were offset to 
match their calibrations at the triple point of water. Slope changes 
to match the high temperature triple point amounted to a change of 
-.0019 C at 30 C, the highest temperature measured. (Note: all WOCE
data is converted to ITS-90)

The main temperature sensor is a copper resistance thermometer, SN 51429. 
Through three years of use this sensor has been stable +/-.0065ƒC with 
no slope correction necessary. It was calibrated in May, 1994 giving 
an offset of -.005C and in Jan., 1995 giving an offset of -.0065ƒC. 
Calibration shifts were tracked by two complementary calibration 
thermistors using a separate housing, interfacing and digitizing 
circuitry and scanned every half second. These sensors are slower than 
the main sensor and were corrected for a 3 second time constant. Data 
from low gradient regions, deeper than 2000 m, were used to track any 
calibration shifts which occurred during the cruise.

Because of factory changes in the internal circuitry done between the 
pre-cruise calibration and the start of the cruise, the post-cruise 
calibration was used and changes to the main temperature sensor were 
back-tracked using the calibration thermistors. Six digital SIS reversing 
thermometers were used on the rosette as an additional check. Of 
these, one failed to track the other sensors and others showed a 
tendency to drift to lower temperature. Three, #451, #647 and #679 
were chosen by their consistency with each other and the reference 
thermistors and the fact that they were used in low gradient regions 
below 2000 m where time constant problems were minimal. Calibrations 
on the reversing thermometers were done in March ë94. 

Temperature Corrections 

Using the post-cruise calibration, new corrections for 
internal electronics temperature were computed for temperature(Tmain), 
conductivity and the two reference thermistors (th1 and th2). 
Calibration constants were determined as follows and used to 
re-process the data:


TABLE 5: Calibration Coefficients
-------------------------------------------------------------
CONDUCTIVITY CORRECTION FACTORS FOR P AND T 

  g#(0) - -.0000032  
  g#(1) -  .0000001

TEMPERATURE
  U(0) - -5.91775 - .0065 
  U(1) -  7.7834E-05 / 2
  U(2) -  1.92916E-13 / 4

CONDUCTIVITY
  V(0)  - -.000519#                 
  V(1)  - 1.69181E-06
  V(2)  - 0
  cELLK - 1!        ëCELL CONSTANT TO BE ADJUSTED FOR BOTTLE SALINITIES
  Nref  - rawdata&(13) - 3956   ëNref IS PROPORTIONAL TO ELECTRONICS TEMP.
  Nc&   - rawdata& (0) + Nref * (-.472)  Conductivity
  Nt&   - rawdata& (1) + Nref *  1.24    Temperature

TEMPERATURE - calctemp(U(0), U(1), U(2), Nt&)

conductivity - calccond(V(0),V(1),V(2),Nc&)*(1+g#(0)*TEMPERATURE+
                 g#(1)*PRESSURE) * cELLK

therm1raw - rawdata&(8) + (-.0545) * TREF
therm2raw - rawdata&(9) + (-.04) * TREF

  'calculate thermistor resistance(ohms) according to post P15n cal.

rt1 - 3591.57 - 6.540890000000001D-02 * therm1raw
rt2 - 3628.768 - .0766183#            * therm2raw

th1 - thermtemp(.00101711365#, .000294395858#, .00000015683113#, rt1, th1off)
th2 - thermtemp(.00104554083#, .000290301739#, .00000015888418#, rt2, th2off)
'3 sec. slower thermistors. So with a +ve rate of change, they read colder.
   thermdelt - 3 * tgrad     'look back by one time const. diff.

   'the thermistors are -.13 m below the Copper T sensor.

  IF dz > 0 THEN ZOFF - -.13 ELSE ZOFF - .13
  IF ABS(dz) > .14 THEN thermdeld - -ZOFF * tgrad * dt / dz ELSE thermdeld - 0

 'total correction to thermistors is:
  thcorr - thermdelt + thermdeld
  tcomp - TEMPERATURE - ((th1 + th2) / 2 + thcorr)
PRINT #3, USING fprintf$; rawdata&(41); PRESSURE; TEMPERATURE; SALINITY; 
conductivity; th1 + thcorr; th2 + thcorr; TREF; temp; TCOMP; Frame(KK)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a typical cast starting at close to 30C and ending close to 1ƒC, 
the internal temperature monitor, Nref, will change by about 350 
units. Over this range, corrections are as follows:	

Tmain: (350*1.24*7.7e-5/2) -   .016ƒC
Cond.: (-.472*350*1.69e-6) -  -.000279 (-.0159 in salinity)	
Th1:      (-.545*350*.065) - 12.3 ohms (.061 ƒC in temperature)

Comparisons for calibration purposes were generally made in water 
deeper than 2000 m where changes in Nref are much smaller than 350 
units, typically 30 units. 

Using the re-processed data, the average difference between th1 and Tmain 
were computed for each cast only for data below 2000 dbars.  For the 
last 26 casts, th1 and Tmain agreed within .001C so the 
post cruise calibration was deemed valid for these casts. Systematic 
changes in the comparison through the course of the cruise were 
attributed to the main sensor because of its more sensitive 
construction. However, it was noticed that the correction was 
different for down and up casts by about .001ƒC and different by about 
.0049ƒC depending on whether or not the load cell used to monitor line 
stress at the Rosette was attached. These offsets were very stable and 
consistent.  Removal of the load cell also removed the 
difference between down and up casts and resulted in good agreement 
between the CTD sensors and reversing thermometers. 
Although this effect has not been fully explained, tests in the shop 
show that there appears to be some interference between the sensors 
and the load cell. Work is proceeding to eliminate it but, for the 
purposes of this cruise, a compensating offset was applied.

Although Thermistor 2 was in good agreement(+/- 0.02 C) with 
thermistor 1, it did not fit the calibration bath thermistors or the 
main sensor as well as thermistor 1.  So Thermistor 1 was used to 
track calibration shifts during the cruise.  Its temperatures were 
offset to compensate for the .0049 C shift on casts with the load 
cell, the majority of the data.

The temperatures measured by the reversing thermometers were corrected 
according to their calibrations of March, 1994 and compared with Tmain 
(corrected for high and low triple points). There was a great deal of 
scatter in the comparisons so once again comparisons were limited to 
depths below 2000 m and three of the sensors were eliminated because 
of apparent drift problems or the depth limitation already mentioned. 
The remaining three (#451, #647 and #679) were in good agreement with 
the corrections determined by Thermistor 1 although #647 had 
apparently drifted by about .003C by the end of the cruise. A spot 
check on #647 a year later showed a change of .005C at low 
temperature. In general, these sensors are not as stable as they 
should be and some further work is being done to remove solder flux 
from the sensor areas. More frequent calibrations are also necessary.

Conductivity

The conductivity sensor is a 4-electrode Guildline Pyrex glass sensor. 
Conductivity data was corrected for the effects of pressure and 
temperature on Pyrex glass(Bennett, A. S., 1976, Conversion of in situ 
measurements of conductivity and salinity., D.S.R., vol. 23, pp. 157 
to 165.); conductivities derived from bottle salinities were used to 
correct the cell constant as described below.

Calibration samples were drawn from the 10-liter Niskin bottles into 
Pyrex bottles and analyzed within a few days on board. Bottle 
salinities were determined using a Guildline Portasal salinometer 
referenced to Batch P121 standard seawater. The internal precision of 
the Portasal exceeds +/-.001 C in salinity. Duplicate samples to test 
the precision of the procedure agreed with in .002 C. Other sources of 
error include sampling errors and mis-triggers and are thought to be 
either small or to have been corrected by visual inspection of 
outliers in the resulting salinity and chemical data. After 
determining the temperature corrections above and recomputing 
salinity, comparisons were made at the bottle points.

Upcast and downcast salinities were compared to bottle salinities and 
systematic pressure-dependent trends were removed. For the downcast 
data, an additional correction of P*(3E-8) was added to the 
conductivity to account for a small pressure dependency. For the 
upcasts, the trend was removed with a correction of P*(-1E-8). 
Possible causes of this effect are errors in the compensation for 
internal temperature, possibly due to thermal transients which would 
be stronger on the downcast.

In order to compare with bottles collected on the upcast, down cast 
salinities were interpolated to the matching upcast temperature to 
compensate for the vertical movement caused by internal waves during 
the roughly 3.4 hours of a cast. This was done by comparing 
temperatures in the appropriate depth range and offsetting salinity to 
the bottle temperature using the local TS slope estimated over a 10 
dbar range. A careful processing, shown in the table below, of an 
example cast, #97, produced salinity agreement ±.002ƒC from 5826 dbar 
to 200 dbar. Higher errors near the surface are expected because of 
the instability of the water column, including the TS correlation.


Table 6. Hand processing of a typical down cast removes the effect of 
         internal waves by interpolating to the temperature at which the 
         bottle was triggered on the up cast. Agreement between bottle 
         salinity and CTD salinity is good from 200 dbar down.
 
P15N  Cast 97  

BOTTLE 
Depts
        up cast                             Down                                Salinity
        data                                cast data                           Error 
UP P    Cruise T  Corr.T T(P-5)    T(P+5)   S(P-5)   S(P+5)  Sinterp   Sbott    Bott-Interp 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  11.56 23.0931 23.0994 23.07697  23.07167  34.59999 34.57936 34.68732  34.5555 -0.13182 
  49.02 16.0177 16.024  16.48648  15.08266  34.46396 34.44395 34.45737  34.3999 -0.05747 
 100.18 12.8362 12.8425 12.8824   12.66911  34.38542 34.36216 34.38107  34.3713 -0.00977 
 199.96 10.8816 10.8879 11.1023   10.90042  34.21864 34.18872 34.18687  34.1845 -0.00237 
 299.91 10.0152 10.0215 10.20157  10.08747  34.19784 34.1877  34.18183  34.1822  0.000369
 399.98  8.6104  8.6167  8.464675  8.272387 34.08092 34.06794 34.09119  34.0905 -0.00069 
 601.26  5.4378  5.4441  5.278873  5.119783 34.00744 34.01951 33.99491  33.998   0.003088
 799.94  4.0703  4.0766  4.089046  4.046349 34.16306 34.17121 34.16544  34.1641 -0.00134 
1000.49  3.4009  3.4072  3.405389  3.37939  34.29684 34.30184 34.29649  34.294  -0.00249 
1250.35  2.8679  2.8742  2.842024  2.819325 34.42956 34.43389 34.42342  34.421  -0.00242 
1499.69  2.4731  2.4794  2.461347  2.439049 34.51694 34.51789 34.51618  34.5127 -0.00348 
1750.54  2.1319  2.1382  2.145267  2.136668 34.56895 34.57033 34.57008  34.5699 -0.00018 
1999.78  1.9248  1.9311  1.92798   1.919581 34.60301 34.60434 34.60251  34.6014 -0.00111 
2250.18  1.7762  1.7825  1.77219   1.76839  34.62828 34.62888 34.62667  34.6259 -0.00077 
2499.08  1.6601  1.6664  1.663897  1.661197 34.64509 34.64527 34.64493  34.6433 -0.00163 
2748.77  1.5847  1.591   1.594001  1.590901 34.65649 34.65697 34.65695  34.6582  0.001246
2999.49  1.5395  1.5458  1.543304  1.542004 34.66485 34.66508 34.66443  34.6643 -0.00013 
3500.81  1.4817  1.488   1.489108  1.487808 34.67585 34.67623 34.67617  34.6767  0.000525
3998.45  1.4721  1.4784  1.479308  1.478308 34.68221 34.68241 34.68239  34.6818 -0.00059 
4499.44  1.4903  1.4966  1.495207  1.495507 34.68624 34.68627 34.68638  34.686  -0.00038 
4999.78  1.5273  1.5336  1.532005  1.532705 34.68889 34.68897 34.68908  34.6884 -0.00068 
5499.6   1.5753  1.5816  1.580302  1.581402 34.69106 34.69094 34.69092  34.691   8.35E-05
5826.5   1.6071  1.6134  1.6129    1.6115   34.6914  34.6914  34.6914   34.6911 -0.0003 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

										
Bulk processing of the data using local TS slopes estimated over 40 
dbars produced a similar improvement although not quite as much as the 
detailed processing of cast #97. Below is a plot of the cell constants 
computed from each bottle at or below 2000 dbars for the whole cruise. 
These cell constants were averaged for each cast in order to 
compensate for the small systematic and random differences between the 
casts. Differences from this average cell constant were computed for 
each bottle and are shown plotted below on the same graph.

This CTD was used as a backup to the WOCE CTD and is also equipped 
with a Paros sensor for accurate pressure determination. It was used 
by itself when the weather was too rough to safely launch the Rosette 
so there are not many bottle samples to use for comparison. However, 
at Station W108, it was used in a cast to 5000 m with a set of 11 
bottles from 1750 dbar to 5000 dbar. These bottles were used to 
determine the cell constant. In addition to the comparisons to the 
on-board thermistors, the temperatures were compared to the adjacent 
casts at stations W107 and W109 to verify the temperature calibration 
(see the section on temperature). Finally, the TS properties of CTD6 
casts taken near the end of the cruise were compared with the set of 
corrected WOCE CTD temperatures and their matching bottle salinities 
as shown below in the section on conductivity.


TABLE 7 The initial calibration on which these changes take effect is given 
        below:
_____________________________________________________________________________
*CALIBRATION
  $TABLE: RAW CHANNELS
  !Name                      Units         Fmla Pad        Coefficients
  !------------------------- -------------- -- ----  ------------------------
   Time_stamp                none           10  n/a    (0 1)
   Temperature:Analog_Probe  n/a            10  n/a    (0 1)
   Voltage:reference         n/a             0   "
   Voltage:reference:2       n/a             0   "
   Temperature              'DEG C (ITS68)' 10  -9     (0 1)
   Conductivity_ratio        n/a            63  -9     (0 1)
   Pressure                  DBAR           10  -9   (-10 1)
   Temperature:thermistor1   n/a            34  -9  (4722.61 0.203168
                                                             0.1051772E-02
                                                             0.2894819E-03
                                                             0.155711E-06 0)
   Temperature:thermistor2   n/a            34  -9  (4826.07 0.2058
                                                             0.1027592E-02
                                                             0.2916148E-03
                                                             0.1542955E-06 0)
   Temperature:digiquartz    n/a            10  -9     (0 1)
   Temperature:2             n/a             0  -9
   Transmissivity            n/a             0  -9
   Conductivity_ratio:2      n/a             0  -9
 $END
_____________________________________________________________________________


Pressure

Pressure

The Paros pressure sensor model 410K-101, Serial No. 50500 was 
calibrated before the cruise on Aug. 26, 1994. At 22ƒC, the pressure 
correction was -3 dbar and at 3 C, the pressure correction was 0 dbar. 
There was no hysteresis. No correction was applied beyond the -10 dbar 
correction from absolute to gauge pressure. 

Temperature 

The main temperature sensor is a copper resistance thermometer. It is 
complemented by two calibration thermistors in a separate housing 
using separate interfacing circuitry. These sensors are slower than 
the main sensor and serve to track any calibration shifts which may 
occur during the cruise. CTD6 agreed well with its second thermistor 
+/-.002ƒC but not with the first which read .01C high. Thermistor 2 
indicated an average correction of -.002 C. 

Below is the temperature comparison at Stn. 108 which shows good 
agreement with the WOCE CTD values at adjacent stations (these were 
later corrected up by .001 C). At depths near 4000 dbar, the CTD6 
temperatures seem to be a bit too high. Application of the above 
correction of -.002 C would bring the three casts into good agreement. 
Therefore, CTD6 temperatures were corrected by -.002 C.     CTD6 was 
used near the end of the cruise without the benefit of bottle 
salinities. Comparison with bottles collected on other casts done with 
the WOCE CTD. The effect of applying the cell constant of .99984 
results in good agreement in TS space between the two data sources.


Ocean Physics CTD (OP CTD) 

This CTD was used mainly for casts with the 12-bottle Rosette to 
depths not exceeding 1500 dbar. Its main function was to provide 
temperature and pressure data for the bottles since each station was 
covered by full depth profile by one of the other CTDís. Comparisons 
in the upper 1500 m of the water column with the other CTDís showed a 
great deal of scatter due to water column variability so a lowered 
accuracy is claimed for this data. The calibration originally used 
was:

Table 8: More Calibration coefficients
_____________________________________________________________________________
*CALIBRATION

    $TABLE: RAW CHANNELS
    !   Name                 Units           Fmla Pad    Coefficients
    !   -------------------- --------------- ---- ------ ------------
        Pressure             DBAR              10 -99    (0 3000)
        Temperature          'DEG C (ITS68)'   10 -99    (0.47653E-01 0.99872)
        Conductivity_Ratio   n/a               10 -99    (0.62E-03 0.99898)
    $END
______________________________________________________________________________


Pressure

The pressure sensor was calibrated before the cruise and during the 
cruise with a reversing pressure sensor. Of 25 calibrations, the 
average  offset determined by the reversing pressure sensor was -4.6 
dbar with a standard deviation of 2.1 dbar. The pressures for this CTD 
were therefore offset by -4.6 dbar.

Temperature

The main temperature sensor is a copper resistance thermometer. 
Comparison with reversing thermometer #679 and #647 gave a mean 
correction of .0076C. The scatter on temperature comparisons as a 
result of water column variability suggests an accuracy of .007 for 
these data.


TABLE 9. In-Situ calibrations for OP CTD (sn 58483)

         REVERSING SENSORS  

 Btl  CTD     CTD    Bottle   Sensor Sensor  
  #   Press.  Temp.  Salinity Trev   Prev    Trev    Trev-Tctd  Prev-Pctd  
     (dbar)   (°C)   (psu)    (°C)   (dbar)  (°C)    (°C)       (dbar)  
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 103 1002.97  2.994  34.3459  2.994  996.4  2.99924  0.00524545  -6.57  
 513  603.15  4.311  34.101   4.313  599    4.31847  0.00747693  -4.15  
 593  594.83  4.574  34.0393  4.571  593.3  4.57652  0.00252221  -1.53  
 671  496.05  6.363  33.9955  6.482  487    6.48785    outlier   -9.05  
 830  603     5.363  34.0015  5.372  598.2  5.37766  0.01466279  -4.8  
 910  598.42  6.124  33.9983  6.109  595.3  6.11479 -0.00920787  -3.12  
 944  600.3   6.284  33.9929  6.31   595.6  6.31582    outlier   -4.7
1001  599.02  5.899  33.9925  5.913  594.1  5.91875  0.01975773  -4.92  
1058  795.6   4.201  34.1374  4.205  790.3  4.21045  0.00945798  -5.3  
1115  799.5   4.31   34.1314  4.314  796.8  4.31947  0.00947711  -2.7  
1172  601.88  6.306  34.0223  6.317  596.5  6.32863  0.01682863  -5.38  
1229 1002.75  3.813  34.3584  3.822  997.3  3.82739  0.01439076  -5.45  
1295  605.85  6.795  34.043   6.778  603.2  6.78390 -0.01109046  -2.65  
2686 1000.35  4.667  34.5512  4.664  995.9  4.67579  0.00879269  -4.45  
----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           averages  0.0074      -4.6

Conductivity

As previously mentioned, bottle comparisons in the upper 1000 m 
produced noisy data. However, comparison of downcasts with 
corresponding up cast bottle data resulted in the following data for 
determining the cell constant for this CTD.

The low value for the first cast, which was at Stn. P, was to some 
extent due to temporal variation because the upcast gave values near 
1.0000. Based on these findings and accounting for the compression of 
the conductivity cell, the cell constant was set at 1.0001 and the 
accuracy of the salinity determinations was downgraded to .01, 
equivalent to .00025 in the cell constant.

SUMMARY

Processing was done according to the calibrations constants determined 
during the cruise. Salinity accuracy is estimated below for each CTD 
except in regions of the profiles where strong temperature and 
conductivity gradients result in errors due to sensor mismatches. 
Salinity spikes have been removed by hand in some profiles. Using 
bottle samples, on-board thermistors and reversing temperature and 
pressure sensors additional calibration constants were determined as 
follows:

WOCE CTD
No change to pressure.

The WOCE CTD was initially calibrated with the post-cruise calibration 
of  (offset, slope) - (-.0015, .999938). To account for 
changes which occurred during the cruise the temperature offsets 
listed in the following table were applied.

Down cast salinities were matched to corresponding bottle salinities 
with a separate cell constant determined for each rosette cast (see 
table below). Agreement to a standard deviation of less than .001 in 
salinity with bottle samples below the 2000 dbar horizon was achieved. 
Temperature accuracy is estimated at .002C , salinity at .002.

CTD6

No pressure correction.
Temperature correction: -.002 C.
Cell constant: .99984
Temperature accuracy is estimated to be .002 C and salinity accuracy to be .005.
OP CTD (58483)
Pressure correction: -4.6 dbar
Temperature correction: .0074 C.
Cell constant: 1.0002
Temperature accuracy is estimated to be .007 C and salinity accuracy to be.01


Calibration instructions for the WOCE CTD.
 
Processing of .1ma files.

The .1ma files have been edited to remove spikes, therefore, salinity cannot 
be recomputed from corrected temperatures and conductivities derived from the 
raw files. However, the conductivity has not been corrected for the pressure 
and temperature effects on the conductivity cell. In addition, three 
calibration steps are necessary to correct the data:

…  a pressure-dependent conductivity correction
…  a temperature offset and slope
…  a cell constant to produce agreement with bottle salinities.

Since corrections are to be applied to the conductivity, it is easiest 
to generate a new conductivity using the despiked salinity and the 
SAL78 routine. The other alternative is to compute a salinity 
correction but because of the interaction of the temperature and 
conductivity corrections, this would be much harder and may lead to 
errors.

The conductivity cell correction can be combined with the pressure-dependent 
conductivity correction:
	
                  Rcorr - R1ma(1 + P*(1.3E-7) + T*(-3.2E-6))

The temperature offset should be applied in two steps:

1. add .004C to all WOCE CTD casts after 94030219.1ma to remove the old 
   change in offset. This amounts to resetting the A0 in the temperature 
   polynomial to -5.92425 for all casts.

2. add the temperature offset in the list supplied to each cast and apply 
   slope of .999938 to all temperatures to compensate for high temperature
   triple point correction on the bath thermistors. The offset correction 
   was included in the A0 figure quoted above.

Apply the cell constant in the supplied list to the conductivity.
	
                           Rfinal - Rcorr * Cellk

Recompute salinity using the the final values of R, T and P.


TABLE 10.  WOCE CTD Corrections Relative to the post-cruise 

consec celk      Temp   |consec  celk      Temp   |consec  celk      Temp
  #    _avg     offset  |  #     _avg      offset |  #     _avg      offset
 --- --------  -------- | --- ---------  ---------| ---  --------  -------
  1  0.999874  0.008967 | 126  0.99995   0.005225 | 251  0.999948 -0.00092
  2  0.999874  0.008967 | 127  0.999942  0.00733  | 252  0.999915  0.001212
  3  1.000084  0.008967 | 128  0.999942  0.005769 | 253  0.999915 -0.00103
  4  1.000084  0.008967 | 129  0.999942  0.005769 | 254  0.999915 -0.00103
  5  0.999975  0.008967 | 130  0.999942  0.005769 | 255  0.999915 -0.00103
  6  0.999975  0.008967 | 131  0.999947  0.007092 | 256  0.999923  0.000493
  7  0.999952  0.007873 | 132  0.999947  0.005238 | 257  0.999923 -0.00081
  8  0.999952  0.008565 | 133  0.999976  0.006334 | 258  0.99991   0.000465
  9  0.999952  0.007528 | 134  0.999976  0.005268 | 259  0.99991  -0.00077
 10  0.999952  0.007528 | 135  0.999976  0.005268 | 260  0.99991  -0.00077
 11  0.999952  0.007528 | 136  0.999976  0.005268 | 261  0.99991  -0.00077
 12  0.999952  0.007528 | 137  0.999959  0.006557 | 262  0.99991  -0.00077
 13  0.999952  0.007528 | 138  0.999959  0.00538  | 263  0.999938  0.001093
 14  0.99998   0.007528 | 139  0.999959  0.00538  | 264  0.999938 -0.00095
 15  0.99998   0.008247 | 140  0.999959  0.00538  | 265  0.999952  0.00048
 16  0.99998   0.007452 | 141  0.999959  0.00538  | 266  0.999952 -0.0009
 17  0.99998   0.007452 | 142  0.999967  0.006914 | 267  0.999952 -0.0009
 18  0.99998   0.007452 | 143  0.999967  0.005579 | 268  0.999952 -0.0009
 19  0.99998   0.007452 | 144  0.999967  0.005579 | 269  0.999944  0.000918
 20  0.99998   0.007452 | 145  0.999967  0.005579 | 270  0.999944 -0.00095
 21  0.99998   0.007452 | 146  0.999947  0.006437 | 271  0.999944  0.000918
 22  1.000003  0.007452 | 147  0.999947  0.004717 | 272  0.999944  0.000918
 23  1.000003  0.007491 | 148  0.999971  0.006279 | 273  0.999944  0.000918
 24  1.000003  0.007323 | 149  0.999971  0.004864 | 274  0.999944  0.000918
 25  1.000003  0.007323 | 150  0.999908  0.006209 | 275  0.999944  0.000918
 26  1.000003  0.007833 | 151  0.999908  0.004681 | 276  0.999944  0.000918
 27  0.999915  0.006976 | 152  0.999898  0.006197 | 277  0.999944  0.000918
 28  0.999915  0.008049 | 153  0.999898  0.005034 | 278  0.999944  0.000918
 29  0.99996   0.006805 | 154  0.999906  0.006135 | 279  0.999963  0.000833
 30  0.99996   0.008395 | 155  0.999906  0.004743 | 280  0.999963 -0.00085
 31  1.000006  0.00706  | 156  0.999882  0.006066 | 281  0.999948  0.000392
 32  1.000006  0.008    | 157  0.999882  0.004782 | 282  0.999948 -0.00138
 33  1.000022  0.006856 | 158  0.999913  0.006024 | 283  0.999946  0.000633
 34  1.000022  0.007994 | 159  0.999913  0.00525  | 284  0.999946 -0.0015
 35  1.000001  0.006858 | 160  0.999964  0.006435 | 285  0.999945  0.000806
 36  1.000001  0.008517 | 161  0.999964  0.004984 | 286  0.999945 -0.00101
 37  0.999914  0.006794 | 162  0.999988  0.005913 | 287  0.999945 -0.00101
 38  0.999914  0.008112 | 163  0.999988  0.004589 | 288  0.999945 -0.00101
 39  1.000004  0.007239 | 164  0.999989  0.005864 | 289  0.999933  0.00081
 40  1.000004  0.007831 | 165  0.999989  0.004678 | 290  0.999933 -0.0011
 41  0.999979  0.007011 | 166  0.999986  0.005753 | 291  0.999962  0.000557
 42  0.999979  0.008248 | 167  0.999986  0.004637 | 292  0.999962 -0.00145
 43  0.999976  0.007022 | 168  0.999986  0.004637 | 293  0.999949  0.000445
 44  0.999976  0.008251 | 169  0.999986  0.004637 | 294  0.999949  0.000445
 45  0.999976  0.007333 | 170  0.999946  0.006031 | 295  0.999949  0.000445
 46  0.999976  0.007333 | 171  0.999946  0.004525 | 296  0.999949  0.000445
 47  0.999976  0.007333 | 172  0.999946  0.004525 | 297  0.999943  0.000126
 48  0.999976  0.007333 | 173  0.999946  0.004525 | 298  0.999943 -0.000081
 49  0.999976  0.007333 | 174  0.999946  0.004525 | 299  0.999943 -0.000081
 50  0.999914  0.007333 | 175  0.999946  0.004525 | 300  0.999943 -0.000081
 51  0.999914  0.008126 | 176  0.999946  0.005627 | 301  0.999917  0.000447
 52  0.999925  0.006856 | 177  0.999946  0.004717 | 302  0.999917 -0.00127
 53  0.999925  0.008557 | 178  0.999946  0.00577  | 303  0.999913 -0.000021
 54  0.999958  0.00672  | 179  0.999946  0.004102 | 304  0.999913 -0.00112
 55  1.000048  0.008258 | 180  0.999946  0.006606 | 305  0.999913 -0.00112
 56  1.000048  0.008069 | 181  0.999946  0.006542 | 306  0.999913 -0.00112
 57  1.000048  0.006733 | 182  0.999995  0.006774 | 307  0.999966  0.000217
 58  1.000048  0.006733 | 183  0.999995  0.004974 | 308  0.999966 -0.00112
 59  1.000048  0.006733 | 184  0.999995  0.004974 | 309  0.999952  0.000131
 60  1.000048  0.006733 | 185  0.999995  0.004974 | 310  0.999952 -0.00171
 61  0.999981  0.008607 | 186  0.999979  0.006897 | 311  0.999952 -0.00171
 62  0.999981  0.007265 | 187  0.999979  0.005886 | 312  0.999952 -0.00171
 63  1.000023  0.008451 | 188  0.999979  0.005886 | 313  0.99991   0.000646
 64  1.000023  0.007009 | 189  0.999979  0.005886 | 314  0.99991  -0.00092
 65  1.000052  0.008704 | 190  0.999997  0.006928 | 315  0.999908  0.000633
 66  1.000052  0.0085   | 191  0.999997  0.005113 | 316  0.999908 -0.00132
 67  1.000052  0.00729  | 192  0.999997  0.005113 | 317  0.999908 -0.00132
 68  1.000052  0.00729  | 193  0.999997  0.005113 | 318  0.999908 -0.00132
 69  1.000052  0.00729  | 194  0.999997  0.005113 | 319  0.999949 -0.000018
 70  1.000024  0.008214 | 195  0.999997  0.005113 | 320  0.999949 -0.00085
 71  1.000024  0.006935 | 196  0.999997  0.005113 | 321  0.999941  0.0000681
 72  1.000018  0.00845  | 197  0.999997  0.005113 | 322  0.999941 -0.00093
 73  1.000018  0.0067   | 198  0.999997  0.005113 | 323  0.999941 -0.00093
 74  1.000018  0.008257 | 199  0.999997  0.005113 | 324  0.999941 -0.00093
 75  1.000018  0.006689 | 200  0.999997  0.005113 | 325  0.9999    0.000256
 76  1.000018  0.006689 | 201  0.999997  0.005113 | 326  0.9999   -0.00148
 77  1.000018  0.006689 | 202  0.999966  0.006938 | 327  0.9999   -0.00215
 78  0.99998   0.008199 | 203  0.999966  0.005147 | 328  0.999961 -0.000008
 79  0.99998   0.00683  | 204  0.999919  0.006827 | 329  0.999961 -0.00101
 80  0.999969  0.008258 | 205  0.999919  0.00519  | 330  0.999961 -0.00101
 81  0.999969  0.006682 | 206  0.999943  0.006884 | 331  0.999961 -0.00101
 82  0.999978  0.008042 | 207  0.999943  0.005562 | 332  0.999962 -0.00014
 83  0.999978  0.006981 | 208  0.999886  0.006935 | 333  0.999962 -0.00139
 84  1.000003  0.008231 | 209  0.999886  0.004688 | 334  0.999984 -0.000019
 85  1.000003  0.006532 | 210  0.999918  0.006777 | 335  0.999984 -0.00122
 86  1.000003  0.006532 | 211  0.999918  0.004838 | 336  0.999965  0.0000919
 87  1.000003  0.006532 | 212  0.999951  0.00643  | 337  0.999965 -0.00116
 88  0.999971  0.008156 | 213  0.999951  0.005236 | 338  0.999974  0.000235
 89  0.999971  0.006674 | 214  0.999951  0.005236 | 339  0.999974 -0.00102
 90  0.999946  0.007911 | 215  0.999951  0.005236 | 340  0.999984 -0.00023
 91  0.999946  0.006303 | 216  0.999998  0.006688 | 341  0.999984 -0.00138
 92  0.999946  0.006303 | 217  0.999998  0.004688 | 342  0.999995  0.000637
 93  0.999946  0.006303 | 218  0.999933  0.006314 | 343  0.999995 -0.00122
 94  0.999946  0.006303 | 219  0.999933  0.004831 | 344  0.999995  0.001024
 95  0.999966  0.008344 | 220  0.999957  0.002581 | 345  0.999995 -0.00019
 96  0.999966  0.006289 | 221  0.999957  0.001114 | 346  0.999995  0.001018
 97  0.999966  0.007755 | 222  0.999986  0.001947 | 347  0.999995 -0.00019
 98  0.999966  0.006223 | 223  0.999986  0.000596 | 348  0.999995  0.000468
 99  0.999999  0.008071 | 224  0.999936  0.001738 | 349  0.999995 -0.00038
100  0.999999  0.00636  | 225  0.999936  0.000237 | 350  0.999995  0.000811
101  0.999999  0.00636  | 226  0.99998   0.002004 | 351  0.999995 -0.0004
102  0.999999  0.00636  | 227  0.99998   0.000515 | 352  0.999995  0.000455
103  0.999956  0.008208 | 228  0.999991  0.001325 | 353  0.999995 -0.00038
104  0.999956  0.006075 | 229  0.999991 -0.00042  | 354  0.999942 -0.0000065
105  0.999956  0.00797  | 230  0.999956  0.00102  | 355  0.999942 -0.00047
106  0.999956  0.006163 | 231  0.999956 -0.00056  | 356  0.999976  0.000123
107  0.999956  0.006163 | 232  0.999968  0.000492 | 357  0.999976 -0.00037
108  0.999913  0.007599 | 233  0.999968 -0.0008   | 358  0.999958  0.000268
109  0.999913  0.00592  | 234  0.999982  0.000854 | 359  0.999958 -0.00022
110  0.999913  0.00592  | 235  0.999982 -0.00054  | 360  0.99996   0.00031
111  0.999913  0.00592  | 236  0.999942  0.00079  | 361  0.99996  -0.00012
112  0.99989   0.007439 | 237  0.999942 -0.00073  | 362  0.99996  -0.00019
113  0.99989   0.005707 | 238  0.999926  0.000677 | 363  0.99996   0.000261
114  0.999946  0.007031 | 239  0.999926 -0.00107  | 364  0.99996  -0.0004
115  0.999946  0.00535  | 240  0.999909  0.000873 | 365  0.99996  -0.00023
116  0.999946  0.00535  | 241  0.999909 -0.00074  | 366  0.99996   0.000527
117  0.999946  0.00535  | 242  0.999952  0.000132 | 367  0.99996  -0.000068
118  0.999894  0.007352 | 243  0.999952 -0.0008   | 368  0.99996  -0.000068
119  0.999894  0.005468 | 244  0.999912  0.000461 | 369  0.99996  -0.00024
120  0.99992   0.007035 | 245  0.999912 -0.00089  | 370  0.99996   0.00018
121  0.99992   0.005618 | 246  0.99993   0.000654 | 371  0.99996   0.00018
122  0.99992   0.005618 | 247  0.99993  -0.00093  | 372  0.99996   0.00018
123  0.99992   0.005618 | 248  0.99993  -0.00093  | 373  0.99996   0.000274
124  0.99995   0.006594 | 249  0.99993  -0.00093  | 374  0.99996  -0.00025
125  0.99995   0.005225 | 250  0.999948  0.0005   | 375  0.99996  -0.00025



C.3.  CTD

The CTD probes (Models 8737 and 8705) used during this cruise are made 
by Guildline Instruments of Smiths Falls, Ontario, Canada. Their 
resolution and accuracy will be provided when data is submitted. 

An additional Guildline CTD with a high precision pressure sensor was 
used when weather would not allow rosette casts.


C.4.  Salinity

Samples were collected in glass bottles and analyzed onboard ship 
using a Guildline Model 8410 Portasal. The Portasal was standardized 
daily with IAPSO standard sea water Batch P125.  Salinity and nutrient 
measurements were made in an air conditioned lab (see Table 4.).


C.5.  Oxygen 

Samples were drawn through either amber rubber or Tygon tubing into 
125 ml iodine flasks.   The flasks were allowed to overflow twice 
their volume before being stoppered then unstoppered, fixed with 
manganous and iodide reagents according to Carpenter (1965), 
restoppered and shaken thoroughly. Sample temperatures were measured 
before initial stoppering to +/- 0.5 C. To avoid outgassing during 
analyses, samples were initially all refrigerated at 4 C for 1 to 24 
hours before being titrated with an auto-burette (Brinkman Dosimat) to 
an iodine colorimetric endpoint. 

By station W042, samples from the mixed layer were pulling in sizable 
air bubbles when they were cooled.   At 2 stations (W050 and W058), 
the effect of air contamination of pickled samples was tested and 
shown to add 1 to 3  umol/kg oxygen to surface samples that are 
cooled.  This bias remains in surface layer data from stations W042 to 
W050, and will vary in amount depending on the amount of cooling 
(volume change) for each sample.  Surface layer samples from W051 to 
W070 were not cooled.

On Leg 2, flasks were sealed with tap water around the lip of the 
flask.  This greatly reduced the amount of oxygen that enters a flask 
during cooling.  Samples were routinely refrigerated before being 
analyzed.

Standards were prepared as outlined in WOCE Report 73/91.  


C.6.  Nutrients

Samples were collected in 50 ml polyethylene tubes and refrigerated 
for a maximum of 12h (rosette) or 30 h (USW)  before being analyzed.  
A 4 channel Technicon Analyzer measured NO3 + NO2, NO2, PO4 and 
dissolved Si. Analytical procedures are essentially those described by 
Koroleff and Grasshoff (1983).

Concentrated standards were prepared from oven dried (80oC) reagents 
shortly before sailing on Leg 1 and again in Honolulu.  Working 
standards were made every 1 to 2 days by diluting 1 to 6 ml of various 
stock solutions to 250 ml with 3.2% NaCl (w/v in double run Milli-Q 
water).  Nitrate, nitrite and silicate standards were compared to 
Sagami standards.  The nitrate standards agreed to within 0.1  mmol/l, 
but the silicate concentrations differed by 2%, an unusual finding 
since our prepared standards usually agree very well with the stable 
Sagami standards.  Our silicate standard was checked on a recent 
cruise and again compared to Sagami and it was found to be low by 
2.2%.  We compared our results with data from one matching station on 
the Cruise TT190 of the R/V Thomas Thompson in 1985 and found that 
below 1000 m our silicate results are comparatively low by an average 
of 2.2%.  No corrections have been applied to our data, although in 
consultation with a WOCE DQE, this might be done.

Nutrient lab temperatures were recorded approximately hourly during 
analyses  and are recorded in 


TABLE 11: Nutrient Lab Temperatures 

                     Nutrient Lab Temperatures, Leg 1

Date    Station     Temperature (C)| Date    Station       Temperature (C)
-----------------------------------|--------------------------------------
7 Sep.  JF1-P04     22.4/22.8      | 27 Sep  W035/36/33    22.4/22.4/23.2
8 Sep.  P13         23.1/23.8/23.9 |         W034          24.6
9 Sep.  P14 to P18  22.5/23.9      | 28 Sep  W037/38/39    21.4/28.6/25
        P18         22.8/24.4      | 29 Sep  W040/41/43    22.4/23.3/23.1
10 Sep  P19 to P35  23.3/23.4      |         W042          23.0
        P26         23.4/24.3      | 30 Sep  W044/45/46    23.5/22.7/23.7
16 Sep  W004        21.3/22.4/21   |  1 Oct  W047/48/49    22.9/23.6/23.1
19 Sep  W002/3/4    23.2/23/23.4   |  2 Oct  W051/50       24.2/24.3
        W005        23.6           |  3 Oct  W052/53/54    23/23.8/24
20 Sep  W006/W011   23.7/23.9      |         W055          24
21 Sep  W012/13/14  23.8/23.8/23   |  4 Oct  W056/58/59    24.8/24.8/24.9
        W015        24.4           |  5 Oct  W060/61       25.2/24.8/24.9
22 Sep  W016/17/18  23.5/23.5/23.7 |  6 Oct  W062/63/64    25.2/-/24.9
24 Sep  W025        24.4           |         W065          25
25 Sep  W026/27/28  22/22.5/24     |  7 Oct  W067/66/68    24.7/25.7/-
        W029        24.3           |         W070          25.1
26 Sep  W030/31/32  25.3/25.6/25.2 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     Nutrient lab temperatures, Leg 2:

Date    Station     Temperature    | Date    Station       Temperature
-----------------------------------|--------------------------------------
18 Oct  W071/W072   25..0          | 29 Oct  W108/W109     25.7/25.3
19 Oct  W073/W074   25.8/25.5      | 30 Oct  W111/W112     25.1/24.0
20 Oct  W078/W079   23.8/24.9      | 31 Oct  W113/W114W115 -/-/25.0
21 Oct  W080/W081/  24.5/24.3      |  1 Nov  W116/W117     26/25.3
        W082/W083   25.1/24.5      |         W118          24.8
22 Oct  W084/W085   24.4/24.9      |  2 Nov  W119/W120     24.9/25.2
        W086/W087   25.2/24.5      |
23 Oct  W088/W089   24.8/24.9      |  3 Nov  W123/W124     -/25.9
        W090/W091   25.5/25.4      |         W125          26.1
24 Oct  W092/W093   25.9/26.3      |  4 Nov  W126/W127     22.9/23.5
25 Oct  W096/W097   23             |         W128/W129     -/-
        W098        23/23.2        |
26 Oct  W099/W100   25.2/25.6      |  5 Nov  W130/W131     23.1/24.1
        W101        25.6           |         W132          24.1
27 Oct  W102/W103   24.7/26        |  7 Nov  W133/W134     -/-
        W104/W105   25.8/24.6      |         W135          24.1
28 Oct  W106/W107   25.6/26        |  8 Nov  W136          24.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Phosphate samples were occasionally contaminated during the second 
half of the first leg.  A nitrate reagent containing phosphoric acid 
was spilt on September 30 when Stations W044, W045, and W046 were 
analyzed.  On October 1 it was noted in the nutrient log that the crew 
were washing the deck with soap - Stations W047, W048 and W049 were 
analyzed on this day.

Our water demineralizing system failed during Leg 2, which forced us 
to use low nutrient sea water to establish a baseline during analyses, 
and for the preparation of standards.  Each day, a sample of 3.2% NaCl 
in double run Milli-Q water was analyzed to assess zero 
concentrations.  Silicate and phosphate in low nutrient wash water was 
typically 2 and 0.2 uM higher than the clean salt solution.

Crystals developed in the nitrite line from Station 123 onwards.  This 
data has been labelled quality 3 for nitrite.  An error is introduced 
into nitrate data since nitrite is subtracted from the NO3 & NO2 
analysis results.  Consequently, nitrates have also been assessed as 
questionable (quality 3) although the actual offset is only 0.1 to 0.3 
umol/kg.  Summing nitrite and nitrate will provide correct NO3 + NO2 
values.

C.6.  CFCs

CFC-11 and CFC-12 were analyzed by the method of Bullister and Weiss 
(1988). Our use of an aging Hewlett-Packard GC created problems. For 
the first days on Line PR6, corrosion on a circuit board shut the 
system down. Then as we sailed from Honolulu, the GC failed completely 
and we had to return to pick up another that was flown to us from 
IOS.   Stations were occasionally skipped as columns were cleaned 
after they saturated with CFCs. 

Carrier blanks, stripper blanks, and restripped samples were analyzed 
throughout the cruise.  Syringe air samples were taken from above the 
bridge, the aft deck where sampling was done, and inside the lab 
container.  

Working standard tank number 63098 was used for Stns 71, 72, 73 and 74 
and tank number 63100 was used for the remaining stations.  (Tank 
63100 values: F-11, 583.10 ppt, standard deviation 2.05, and F-12, 
279.18 ppt, standard deviation 1.04.  Tank 63098 values: F-11, 443.63 
ppt, standard deviation 2.63 and F-12, 502.81, standard deviation 
1.91).

These standards were made up of outside air.  The tanks were 
calibrated against COCC's lab standard tank number 63088 (F-11, 457.59 
ppt, standard deviation 0.55; and F-12, 263.13 ppt standard deviation 
0.76).  This COCC lab standard was calibrated by John Bullister's lab 
in October 1993.

Data reduction was carried out using an adapted Scripps program 
(Weiss).  This program requires salinity and temperature for 
calculations; the former was taken from Salinometer data; and the 
latter was read from the sample bucket when the syringe was removed 
and attached to the extraction system.

There were some difficulties encountered throughout the cruise that 
hampered obtaining optimal results:

1) A problem with the consistency of the quality of the carrier gas 
   meant having to subtract higher than normal stripper blanks.  

2) The results of stations 83 to 97 may show zero at the 300 to 400 m 
   depth because the threshold was initially set as per the 5890 GC 
   program.  This was modified for later stations in order to have very 
   small peaks integrated.  Thus these zero values may be a factor of 
   threshold setting rather than a complete absence of Freon.

3) During some of the earlier stations we encountered samples affected 
   by some sort of interference.  This resulted in the F-11 peak being 
   split or at other times summed, usually in the fifty meter sample.  
   Neither using the split value or a summed value seemed to give a 
   reasonable result so these samples were flagged as questionable or 
   bad.  This problem was also encountered on the first leg of the cruise.
  
The restrips of water samples demonstrated the high stripper 
efficiency of the Freon analysis system.  

Air samples were usually taken around noon.

The values reported were initially calculated with the Freon analysis 
program.  If a particular station had a stripper blank run, the 
program automatically subtracted this before printing the final 
results.  If a station did not have a stripper blank, a manual blank 
subtraction was applied to the calculated results based on deep water 
values.

Limit of Detection Because contamination for F-12 was variable from 
day to day, detection limits were estimated each day as 3 times the 
standard deviation of deep sample concentrations.  Thus from 2 to 7 
samples were used to assess LODs in the range 0.025 to 0.244 umol/kg.  
Any value below this limit of detection was reported as zero. 

Both carrier gas and bottle blanks (deep ocean samples) were consistently 
zero for F-11.  The lowest discernible value was 0.045 umol/kg.


TABLE 12: Freon levels of air (ppt):
  
          Stn   Above bridge      Sampling deck          Lab
          --------------------------------------------------------
               F-11    F-12      F-11    F-12      F-11     F-12
          --------------------------------------------------------
          74   252.44  612.17    280.13  852.97    300.20   615.32
          74   281.21  504.43                      287.27   595.06
          86                     271.60  507.90    315.61  366.25
          86                                       277.83   602.34
          98   279.67  673.46    271.10  571.56    273.99   493.60
          101  272.04  531.47    281.40 1301.14    279.87   820.70
          106  249.57  528.55    258.47  673.47    264.18  1194.8
          108  263.07  518.75    261.66  516.57    265.45   689.58
          113  360.34  580.22    271.18  765.35    321.11   524.49
          --------------------------------------------------------


C.7.  Total CO2

The coulometric procedure outlined in DOE (1994) was used to measure 
carbon dioxide in sea water. Samples were collected in 250 ml GS 
bottles, fixed with 200 ul of saturated HgCl2 solution, and cool 
stored until analyzed. 


C.8.  Alkalinity

Following the method of DOE (1994), alkalinity was determined using a 
temperature stable (25 C) closed titration cell, a Metrohm 665 
Dosimat, a Metrohm 649 stir apparatus and an Orion model 720A pH meter.
 

D.  Acknowledgments


E.  References

Bullister, J.L. and R.F. Weiss (1988). Determination of CCl3F and 
    CCl2F in seawater and air. Deep-Sea Research, 35,839-853.

Carpenter, J.H. 1965.  The Chesapeake Bay Institute technique for
    the Winkler dissolved oxygen method.  Limnology Oceanography
    10: 141-143.

DOE. 1994. Handbook of methods for analysis of the various parameters 
    of the carbon dioxide system in sea water; version 2. A.G. 
    Dickson and C. Goyet, eds. ORNL/CDIAC-74.

Koroleff, F. and K. Grasshoff.  1983. Determination of nutrients. 
    in Methods of Seawater Analysis. eds. K. Grasshoff, 
    M. Ehrhardt, K. Kremling.
 
Unesco, 1983. International Oceanographic tables. Unesco Technical Papers in 
    Marine Science, No. 44.

Unesco, 1991. Processing of Oceanographic Station Data. Unesco memorgraph
    By JPOTS editorial panel.

Weiss, R.F. Freon Lab Manual, Unpublished manuscript, Scripps Institute
    of Oceanography, San Diego, California, USA

WOCE Report No. 73/91, 1991.  A comparison of Methods for the 
    Determination of Dissolved Oxygen in Seawater.  WHPO 
    Publication 91-2.



F.  WHPO Summary

Figures 3 and 4 are not presented in this report due to CTDOXY not
being available.
  
Several data files are associated with this report.  They are the 
18DD9403_1.sum and 18DD9403_2.sum, 18DD9403_1.hyd and 18DD9403_2.hyd, 
18DD9403_1.csl and 18DD9403_2.csl and *.wct files.  The P13j.sum file 
contains a summary of the location, time, type of parameters sampled, and 
other pertinent information regarding each hydrographic station.  The 
*.hyd file contains the bottle data. The *.wct files are the ctd data for 
each station.  The *.wct files are zipped into one file called *wct.zip. 
The P13j.csl file is a listing of ctd and calculated values at standard        
levels.

The following is a description of how the standard levels and
calculated values were derived for the *.csl file:

Salinity, Temperature and Pressure:  These three values were smoothed from
the individual CTD files over the N uniformly increasing pressure levels.
using the following binomial filter-

            t(j) - 0.25ti(j-1) + 0.5ti(j) + 0.25ti(j+1) j-2....N-1

When a pressure level is represented in the *.csl file that is not
contained within the ctd values, the value was linearly interpolated
to the desired level after applying the binomial filtering.   

Sigma-theta(SIG-TH:KG/M3), Sigma-2 (SIG-2: KG/M3), and Sigma-4(SIG-4:
KG/M3): These values are calculated using the practical salinity scale
(PSS-78) and the international equation of state for seawater (EOS-80)
as described in the Unesco publication 44 at reference pressures of the
surface for SIG-TH; 2000 dbars for Sigma-2; and 4000 dbars for Sigma-4.

Gradient Potential Temperature (GRD-PT: C/DB 10-3) is calculated as the
least squares slope between two levels, where the standard level is the
center of the interval.  The interval being the smallest of the two
differences between the standard level and the two closest values.
The slope is first determined using CTD temperature and then the
adiabatic lapse rate is subtracted to obtain the gradient potential
temperature.  Equations and Fortran routines are described in Unesco
publication 44.

Gradient Salinity (GRD-S: 1/DB 10-3) is calculated as the least squares
slope between two levels, where the standard level is the center of the
standard level and the two closes values.  Equations and Fortran
routines are described in Unesco publication 44.

Potential Vorticity (POT-V: 1/ms 10-11) is calculated as the vertical
component ignoring contributions due to relative vorticity, i.e.
pv-fN2/g, where f is the coriolis parameter, N is the buoyancy
frequency (data expressed as radius/sec), and g is the local
acceleration of gravity. 

Buoyancy Frequency (B-V: cph) is calculated using the adiabatic
leveling method, Fofonoff (1985) and Millard, Owens and Fofonoff
(1990).  Equations and Fortran routines are described in Unesco
publication 44.

Potential Energy (PE: J/M2: 10-5) and Dynamic Height (DYN-HT: M) are
calculated by integrating from 0 to the level of interest.  Equations and 
Fortran routines are described in Unesco publication 44.

Neutral Density (GAMMA-N: KG/M3) is calculated with the program GAMMA-N
(Jackett and McDougall) version 1.3 Nov. 94.  



G.   DATA QUALITY EVALUATIONS

G.1. EVALUATION OF CTD DATA FOR WOCE LINE P15N, LEG 1
     (Bob  Millard)
     June 3, 1998

WOCE cruise P15N is a North to South section along 165 W from South of the 
Aleutian Islands (54 N) to the Hawaiian Islands (21 N). A wide range of 
surface salinity and temperature is encountered as the overall potential 
temperature versus Salinity plot of figure 1a shows. All of the 2 decibar CTD 
data are displayed on this plot as are all up cast CTD and water bottle 
salinity. Station numbers have been modified to remove the W (i.e. W070 - 70) 
but otherwise are identical to those found in the ___.WCT and ____.hyd files. 
A second overall potential temperature versus Salinity (Theta/S) plot given in 
figure 1b shows the deeper water salinity variability. In the deep water 
Theta/S plot, figure 2b, the salinity variability increases as the potential 
temperature increases and the higher salinity values are found at the Southern 
end of the section. There are no CTD oxygen data reported and therefore 
oxygen is not examined. The CTD salinity data are generally well matched to 
the bottle values through out this cruise leg.

This report examines salinity, temperature and pressure data for both the 2 
decibar CTD profiles (____.WCT) and the subset of the CTD data collected with 
the water samples in the _____.hyd file. Particular attention is given to 
the salinity comparisons. The documentation on laboratory and in situ 
calibrations of pressure and temperature are reviewed from the cruise report. 

Two CTD are used . A WOCE accuracy Guildline CTD #6 for deep casts and an 
Ocean Physics CTD for shallow casts. Electronic reversing thermometers and 
pressure sensors were available to monitor pressure and temperature 
calibrations in the field. The electronic thermometers were used to correct the 
Ocean Physics CTD pressure and temperature and pressure but not the Guildline 
CTD. 

I didn't examine the shallow (500 to 1000 decibars) CTD cast with 
Transmissometer. There were often 2 casts in bottle file to obtain more than 24 
water samples. For this evaluation I treated both casts of bottle file as one 
cast associated with the deep CTD cast. 

Only the Guildline CTD data is evaluated in this report. The Paros pressure 
transducer is corrected to the laboratory calibrations. There is no mention of 
how the Paros sensor was calibrated in the laboratory (i.e. type of deadweight 
tester or some other pressure transfer standard?). I found the temperature 
calibration description confusing . The data report mentions that the 
Guildline CTD6 did not have a pre cruise temperature calibration. Wasn't one 
done at the factory before being returning?. The post cruise temperature 
calibration was relied on together with monitoring of the primary temperature 
against two addition slow responding thermistors and the electronic 
thermometers. Only one of the thermistors was found to be reliable and the 
electronic reversing thermometers evidently were not found to be accurate enough 
to make calibration adjustments. An adjust of 0.002 C was applied to the 
Guildline copper thermometer based on comparisons with neighboring stations 
below 4000 dbars . It is not clear if the temperature comparisons are made 
with neighboring stations from other WOCE cruises. There was no mention of other 
cruises, dates, etc.? Is the temperature correction applied as a bias at all 
temperatures (most likely) or only at pressures greater than 4000 dbars as 
implied in the cruise report.. 

SALINITY EVALUATION:

The water bottle salinity samples were analyzed on a Guildline PortaSal using 
standard water batch P121. A discussion of the variability of recent batches 
of standard water has been carried out by Micho Ayamo and others. which shows 
the salinity adjustment of standard water batches including P121. P121 has a 
measured salinity that is lower than the label salinity by 0.001 to 0.0015 psu.

Comparisons of water sample and CTD salinity are cared out to assess how well 
the CTD salinity matches the bottle salts for all stations and at all pressure 
levels. The salinity difference Ds - (CTD - WS) [Water Sample] for the up 
profile data taken from the water sample ____.hyd file is displayed in figures 
2a, b, &c. The down profile salinity differences (interpolated at pressure 
levels) are displayed in figures 2d, e & f. The salinity differences at all 
pressure levels are displayed in the first panels (a & d) followed by only the 
differences at pressures greater than 2000 dbars (2 b & e) and finally all 
stations are displayed versus pressure in panels (2c & f). No individual 
stations salinity stands out as poorly calibrated to the bottle salinity. There 
is a slight indication that the CTD salinity is a little higher than the bottles 
below 4500 dbars in figures (2c & f). Also a few deep up cast comparisons 
exceed -0.005 psu in figure 2c. A waterfall plot of up cast salinity 
differences are displayed in figure 3a and indicate that the deep salinity 
difference of station 27 are offset fresh. An expanded scale display of this 
plot (figure 3b) shows that station 27 in deed has larger differences than 
those of neighboring stations while the down profile Ds waterfall plot (figure 
3c) of the same station group shows no such offset. A plot of the Theta/S shows 
the Up cast CTD of station 27 to be to fresh and should be flagged as such in 
the bottle file (___.hyd). Histograms of salinity differences over the 
following 6 pressure intervals of 0 to 500, 500 to 1000 , 1000 to 1500, 1500 to 
3000, 3000 to 4500 and 4500 to 6500 dbars for both the up CTD salinity in figure 
4a and down CTD salinity in figure 4b. The standard deviation of salinity 
differences below 3000 dbars are extremely well behaved ranges from less than 
0.001 psu in the pressure interval 4500 to 6500 dbars to 0.0015 psu in the 
pressure range from 3000 to 4500 dbars. The average salinity difference from 
3000 to 6500 dbars is nearly zero. (.0002 psu or less). This seems to 
contradict figure 2 c & f which suggests that the CTD salinity appears to be 
high compared to the bottle data below 4500 dbars.

An average salinity profile at potential temperature intervals was formed for 
stations 4 through 70 and is plotted with +/- one standard deviation of salinity 
for the deep water in figure 5. The red circles are water sample salinity values 
which appear to be nicely distributed on either side of average CTD salinity. A 
plot of salinity anomalies from the average theta/s clearly shows the salinity 
at a potential temperature level increases from North to South above 1.15 C. 
The magnitude of the North/south salinity variation on a pot. temp. surface 
increases with increasing potential temperature but below 1.15 C this pattern is 
not evident although this may be due to the lack of a salinity signal large 
enough to be distinguished from the uncertainty of the salinity measurements.

Deep potential temperature versus salinity (THETA/S) plots for a couple of 
problem CTD stations are shown in figures 6 a - b. An examination of deep 
Theta/S plots like figures 6 a & b for all stations (see figure 1b) shows many 
of the 2 dbar CTD stations appear to be salty compared to water bottle salts 
below potential temperatures of 1.15 C. The salinity of station 6 is fresh 
by 0.003 psu compared to neighboring stations shown on figure 6 a & b or any 
other profile taken on this leg although the CTD salinity does match the water 
sample salts. The CTD salinity profiles for station W024 appears to be 0.005 
psu salty for theta's below 1.4 C compared to station to the North or South. 
Station W023 is also slightly salty (~0.002 psu) deep. The salinity 
difference of both of these stations with neighbors decreases with decreasing 
potential temperature. Both stations 23 and 24 have an increased salinity 
noise level discussed later. The up cast CTD profile for station 27 (black 
circles on figure 6b) clearly shows the up CTD salinity values deep to be 
fresh compared to the water samples and neighboring profiles around 1.1 C (as 
mentioned earlier in conjunction with the waterfall delta-s plots of figure 3b). 

COMPARISON WITH HISTORICAL DATA: TPS47 AND TPS24

Two earlier East-West hydrography Sections were carried out along 24 and 47 
North in 1985. Referred to as the transpacific sections (TPS), one was along 
47 N (TPS47) and the other along 24 N (TPS24 ). The water sample salinity 
samples for both of these cruises were standardized to P96. Stations at or near 
the crossing of 165 W are shown for 47 N and 25 30 N together with the 
comparable stations from P15N in figures 7 a & b. Both of these potential 
temperature versus salinity plots indicate that the deep salinity observations 
of P15N are salty compared with these earlier cruises. The water sample data 
for cruises TPS24 and TPS47 is shown as red (X's) while TPS47 CTD data of TPS24 
and TPS47 are red, magenta and also green (TPS24). The TPS24 CTD data is also 
distinguishable by the coarser 0.001psu salinity quantizing (figure 7b). The 
TPS47 CTD and water sample salinity are fresh by 0.0025 psu compared to P15N 
salinity over the entire range of potential temperature shown in figure 7a. The 
TPS24 CTD and water sample salinity are fresh by 0.001 psu in figure 7b 
compared to P15N salinity but this salinity difference decreases at lower 
potential temperatures. When the theta/S plots of TPS47 and TPS24 are 
overlaid their salinity curves are observed to merge at coldest common value of 
1.10 C which reinforces the earlier observation from the P15N mean Theta/S 
profile that observable North-South salinity variations around this potential 
temperature are to small to be resolved in the transpacific sections as well. 
Since the comparison of TPS 24 and TPS47 involves two standard water (SSW) 
batches P96 and P121, the works of Mantyla (1980 and 1987) and Aoyama, et al. 
(1998? DSR) should be consulted before drawing any conclusions on adjustments 
to salinity data. Aoyama ,et al. (1998?) gives a plot of SSW variations Ds- 
(Smeasured-Slabel) that includes both P96.

SALINITY NOISE:

The CTD salinity is high-pass filtered to exclude salinity variations with 
vertical scales longer than 25 dbars . Figure 8a shows the RMS of the 
salinity scatter on a station by station basis for two depth intervals: the red 
curve is from 3000 dbars to the bottom given in figure 8c and the green curve is 
from 1000 dbars to the bottom. Assuming that oceanic salinity variations with 
scales less than 25 dbars are absent below 3000 dbars the red curve gives an 
indication of the instrumental salinity noise. The salinity fluctuations below 
3000 dbars in the 4 to 25 dbars wavelengths has an station averaged RMS 
of.00017 psu and a minimum RMS of 0.00012 psu. The minimum RMS noise level 
in salinity is probably an indication of instrumental noise which at 0.00012 psu 
is at the low end of values observed other data sets examined which varies from 
0.0001 to 0.00035 psu. The RMS salinity plot versus station allows unusually 
noisy stations for salinity to be better identified without a point by point 
examination. Two Stations 23 & 24 have noisy salinity's signals relative to 
other stations which was identified earlier in figure 6b. These two stations 
have an RMS salinity 2.5 times the average salinity noise level for pressures 
greater than 3000 dbars. Station 57 also has noise in salinity but doesn't 
extend to 3000 dbars. All three these CTD stations (23, 24 and 57) are 
missing corresponding water sample data in the bottle file which perhaps 
indicates that the CTD and rosette misbehaved together? 

The final graph shows the pressure level of those stations which exhibited 
density inversions in excess of -0.005 and -0.01 kg/m^3/dbar. A total of 16 
observations listed in table I and plotted in figure have density instabilities 
exceeding -0.005 g/m^3/dbar while only 12 exceed the -0.01 kg/m^3/dbar 
criteria. The 16 density instability observations of the 10 stations listed in 
Table 1 are the values plotted on figure should be reviewed.


TABLE 1

      dsg/dp           Station #       Pressure        Salinity
      ---------------  --------------  --------------  --------------
      -1.0054632e-002  4.0000000e+000  5.6000000e+001  3.2588900e+001
      -7.6895939e-003  6.0000000e+000  5.0000000e+001  3.2581400e+001
      -9.2450718e-003  1.6000000e+001  5.2000000e+001  3.2924600e+001
      -1.2499790e-002  3.1000000e+001  7.4000000e+001  3.3872300e+001
      -7.8494724e-003  3.3000000e+001  1.1400000e+002  3.4127600e+001
      -5.1070095e-003  3.4000000e+001  1.2400000e+002  3.4227400e+001
      -6.7298463e-003  3.8000000e+001  4.0000000e+000  3.4503300e+001
      -1.3519456e-002  3.8000000e+001  8.0000000e+000  3.4459200e+001
      -1.3213828e-002  3.8000000e+001  1.0000000e+001  3.4423900e+001
      -6.1580665e-003  3.8000000e+001  1.2000000e+001  3.4407800e+001
      -1.0596627e-002  3.8000000e+001  1.4000000e+001  3.4379500e+001
      -1.8276013e-002  4.8000000e+001  8.6000000e+001  3.4583300e+001
      -5.8305896e-003  4.8000000e+001  8.8000000e+001  3.4567400e+001
      -1.6425674e-002  5.0000000e+001  7.0000000e+001  3.4688900e+001
      -1.0469056e-002  5.0000000e+001  7.8000000e+001  3.4650900e+001
      -1.3821924e-002  6.3000000e+001  2.2200000e+002  3.4723100e+001


REFERENCES:

Aoyama, Michio, T. M. Joyce, T. Kawano, and Y. Takatsuki (1998?) Offsets of the 
    IAPSO Standard Seawater for P103 through P129. Submitted Deep_sea Research .

Mantyla, A.W. (1980) Electrical conductivity comparisons of standard seawater 
    batches P29 to P84. Deep_sea Research  27A, 837-846.

Mantyla, A.W. (1987) Standard Seawater comparison Updates Physical 
    Oceanography, 17, 543-548.



Figure 1    All Bottle & CTD  a: Overall Theta/S ; b:  deep Theta/S

Figure 2    Salinity differences a-c]  (CTD up cast - WS)   
                                 d-e]  (CTD down cast - WS) 

Figure 3    Waterfall up cast salt differences (CTDup-WS)  psu

Figure 4    Waterfall plots sta. 25 to 40  a: up cast  b: down cast

Figure 5    Histograms salinity differences for indicated intervals: 
            a: (CTD up-WS)  
            b: (CTD down - WS)

Figure 6    CTD mean theta averaged salinity with over plot of  bottle salinity 
            (red o)

Figure 7a   Deep CTD Theta/S  shows Station 6 is fresh along with WS salinity

Figure 8b   Deep Theta/S  shows stations 23 & 24 salty and noisy

Figure 9    Historical East/West Hydrographic sections 
            a: 47 North; TPS47  
            b: 25 N TPS24

Figure 10a  red - Salinity noise estimate (P>3000 dbars); 
            green - 1000 to 3000 dbar variance up to 25 dbar cut-off:  
            lower panel: Station bottom  pressure; ignore middle Oxygen panel

Figure 11   Density inversions:  x - -.005 kg/m3/dbar & * - -.0075 kg/m3/dbars




G.   DATA QUALITY EVALUATION REPORTS

G.2  EVALUATION OF CTD DATA FOR WOCE LINE P15N LEG 2 
     (Bob Millard)
     November 4, 1998


WOCE cruise P15N, second leg , is a North to South section along 165 W beginning 
in Hawaii (21 N) and ending at America Samoa (15 S). The range salinity and 
temperature encountered is indicated in the overall potential temperature versus 
Salinity plot shown in figure 1a. All of the 2 decibar CTD data are displayed on 
this plot as are all up cast CTD (o) and water bottle salinity (+). Some bottle 
salinities fall outside of the envelope of the CTD down salinity profiles A 
second overall potential temperature versus Salinity (Theta/S) plot shown in 
figure 1b gives the deep water salinity variability. Figure 2b, indicates that 
the geographic variability of salinity increases with increasing potential 
temperature. The higher salinity values in the deep water are observed to be at 
the Southern end of the section. There are no CTD oxygen data reported and 
therefore no discussion of oxygen quality is included. The CTD salinity data are 
generally very well matched to the bottle values throughout P15N leg 2 .

This report examines salinity, temperature and pressure data for both the 2 
decibar CTD profiles (____.WCT) and the subset of the CTD data collected with 
the water samples in the _____.hyd file. Throughout this report, the CTD station 
numbers have been modified by removing the W (i.e. W071 - 71 to facilitate 
handling by Matlab) but otherwise are identical to those found in the ___.WCT 
and ____.hyd files. The documentation on laboratory and in situ calibrations of 
pressure and temperature described in the cruise report are reviewed . 

Two CTD instruments were used to collect stations on the cruise. A WOCE accuracy 
Guildline CTD number 9901 was used for deep casts and an Ocean Physics CTD for 
shallow casts. I have not looked at the shallow CTD casts that used the Ocean 
Physics CTD with Transmissometer. Sometimes there were o two bottle casts to 
obtain more than 24 water samples. For this evaluation the data from both bottle 
casts were combined and associated with the deep CTD cast. 

The following comments refer to the calibration description in the cruise report 
for Guildline CTD number 9901. The Paros pressure transducer was corrected to 
the laboratory calibrations but no mention is made of how the Paros sensor was 
calibrated in the laboratory (i.e. type of deadweight tester or other pressure 
reference ?). I found the use of event number and station number to be confusing 
and prefer station number . The post cruise temperature calibration was relied 
on together with monitoring of the primary temperature against two addition slow 
responding thermistors. Figure 2 is taken from data of Table 10 from the cruise 
report shows temperature offset and conductivity slope adjustment versus event 
number ( event # 301 - CTD station 117) for the Guildline CTD stations of leg 2. 
The temperature offset applied to the Guildline copper thermometer shows a shift 
in temperature adjust at event 220. I wonder how much of the temperature offset 
adjustment should be attributed to an uncertainty of temperature ? The 
conductivity slope variation does not show much pattern with event # (station) 
but then the total range of adjustments is has an effect on salinity is less 
than 0.004 psu. 

SALINITY EVALUATION:

The water bottle salinity samples were analyzed on a Guildline PortaSal using 
standard water batch P121. A discussion of the variability of recent batches of 
standard water can be found in Micho Ayamo, et al. (1998?) and Mantyla (1980, 
1987). The salinity adjustment of standard water batches including P121 is given 
in tabular and graphical form. The measured salinity of P121 is lower than the 
labeled salinity by between 0.001 to 0.0015 psu according to Ayamo, et al.

To assess how well the CTD salinity matches the bottle salts, the difference of 
CTD and water sample (WS) salinity are displayed versus both station and 
pressure. The up profile salinity difference Ds - (CTD - WS) are from the water 
sample data file (DD9403l2.hyd) and plotted in figures 3a, b, &c. The down 
profile salinity differences (interpolated from the 2 decibar data files ___.wct 
at the bottle pressure levels) are displayed in figures 3d, e & f. The salinity 
differences at all pressure levels are displayed in the first panels (a & d). 
The differences at pressures greater than 2000 dbars (2 b & e) also have the 
station mean salinity (red) with +/- one standard deviation (dashed magenta). 
Finally all stations are displayed versus pressure in panels (3c & f). No 
stations standout as having salinities off from the water samples. In general 
the CTD conductivity (salinity) match to the bottle salinity is very close. 
There is an indication that the CTD salinity is a bit higher than the bottles 
between 1000 and 3000 dbars in figures (3c & f). The deep CTD salinity match to 
the bottles has a low scatter (standard deviation-0.00134 psu) indicating 
careful handling of water sample salinities. 

Histograms of salinity differences over the following 6 pressure intervals of 0 
to 500, 500 to 1000 , 1000 to 1500, 1500 to 3000, 3000 to 4500 and 4500 to 6500 
dbars for both the up CTD salinity in figure 4a and down CTD salinity in figure 
4b. The standard deviation of salinity differences below 3000 dbars are 
extremely well behaved ranges from less than 0.001 psu in the pressure interval 
4500 to 6500 dbars to 0.0015 psu in the pressure range from 3000 to 4500 dbars. 
The average up and down salinity differences in the pressure intervals 1000:1500 
and 1500:3000 is 0.0015 and 0.0011 psu respectively indicating CTD salinity to 
be slightly to high compared to the water sample salinities in these pressure 
ranges both for the down and up casts. 

An average salinity profile with potential temperature for stations 71 through 
142 is shown figure 5a (overall) with +/- one standard deviation of salinity 
scater indicated. A similar plot for the deep water is presented in figure 5b . 
The black circles are water sample salinities and they seem to be very nicely 
distributed about the average CTD salinity and for the most part bounded by the 
one standard deviation envelope. The red (+ and *) indicate deep bottle 
salinities flagged in the bottle file as questionable (+) or bad (*) . It is not 
clear why these bottle salinities are marked as they seem to have a good agree 
with both the CTD and neighboring station water sample salinities. The (x) 
symbol indicates salinity differences Ds - ABS (CTD-WS) Ds > .01 for P>1000 
dbars and Ds>.02 for P>500 & <1000 and Ds>.2 P<500. I have flagged these 
observations as questionable in the accompanying water sample file. I used the 
QUALT2 of attached bottle file (P15L2DQE.hyd) to indicate changes. A second file 
is abbreviated to include only those bottle levels where QUALT1 and QUALT2 
differ (P15NL2DQE.CHG ). 

The variations of deep water (potential temperature range .8 and 2.0 C) salinity 
from the P15N LEG 2 average theta/s shows the salinity becoming progressively 
saltier in the most northern stations (stations 71 to 85) and then at around 12 
N the salinity variation becomes weak for the remainder of the section. As was 
observed in P15N leg 1, below a potential temperature of 1.15 C no pattern of 
salinity variations is evident (perhaps a good region to compare P15N leg 2 with 
historical data) although this may be due to the lack of a salinity signal large 
enough to be distinguished from the uncertainty of the salinity measurements. 

COMPARISON WITH HISTORICAL DATA: MOANA WAVE CRUISE 893

An earlier East-West hydrography section was carried out along 9.5 degrees North 
on the R/V Moana Wave cruise 893 (MW893) in March of 1989 along WOCE line P4. 
The water sample salinity samples of this cruise were standardized to standard 
sea water (SSW) batch P97. Three stations around the crossing of 165 W (MW893 
stations 113, 114, & 115) are plotted together with comparable stations near 9.5 
N from P15N LEG 2 in figures 6. The agreement between the P15N LEG 2 stations 
(93 & 94) and the earlier Moana Wave cruise 893 stations (113, 114, & 115) is 
remarkable good and not just below a potential temperature of 1.115 C. The 
salinity agreement may be fortuitous , since the comparison of MW893 and P15N 
LEG 2 involves two standard water (SSW) batches P97 and P121. The work of 
Mantyla (1980 and 1987) and Aoyama, et al. (1998? DSR) should be consulted 
before coming to any conclusions. Aoyama ,et al. (1998?) has a plot of SSW 
variations Ds - (S_measured - S_label) that includes both P97 and P121.

SALINITY NOISE:

The CTD salinity is high-pass filtered to exclude salinity variations with 
vertical scales longer than 25 dbars . Figure 7a shows the RMS of the salinity 
scatter on a station by station basis for two depth intervals: the red curve is 
from 3000 dbars to the bottom given in figure 7b and the green curve is from 
1000 to 3000 dbars. Assuming that oceanic salinity variations with scales less 
than 25 dbars are absent below 3000 dbars the red curve gives an indication of 
the instrumental salinity noise. The salinity fluctuations below 3000 dbars in 
the 4 to 25 dbars wavelengths has an station averaged RMS of.000217 psu and a 
minimum RMS of 0.00017 psu. The minimum RMS noise level in salinity is probably 
an indication of instrumental noise which at 0.00017 psu falls in the lower 
middle of values I have observed from other data sets examined which varies from 
0.0001 to 0.00035 psu. The RMS salinity plot versus station allows unusually 
noisy stations for salinity to be better identified without a point by point 
examination. Two stations 116 & 138 stand out as having a possibly noisy 
salinity signal relative to other stations. These two stations have an RMS 
salinity 2.5 times the average salinity noise level for pressures greater than 
3000 dbars. A Plot of station 116 versus pressure is shown in figures 8 while 
station 138 is shown versus pot. temp. in figure 9 (138 is the green profile , 
station 142, the blue profile is also noisy). A salinity shift can be seen to 
cause the excessive noise in station 116 while station 138 shows a generally 
noisier salinity profile deep.

CTD SALINITY CALIBRATION

The potential temperature versus salinity plot (figure 10a) indicates that 
station 125 (event 325) is 0.002 psu fresh compared to neighboring stations but 
appears to match its water sample. Referring back to figure 2a, the CCR value 
for event 325 is below the mean by -.00005 ( equivalent to ~ -0.002 psu). The 
potential temperature versus salinity plot of figure 10b shows station 130 (red) 
to be slightly noisy and salty (~0.002 psu) at the bottom, potential temp. < .9 
C while figure 9 indicates station 142 (blue) to be ~`0.003 salty below a pot. 
temp. of 1.2 C.

The final plot indicates the pressure levels of those stations which display 
density inversions in excess two thresholds. The 22 observations listed in table 
I and also plotted in figure 11 and represent those density instabilities 
exceeding -0.005 g/m^3/dbar (x) or the 7 observations (*) exceeding -0.0075 
kg/m^3/dbar. These data should be reviewed.


TABLE I

dsg/dp           Station #       Pressure        Salinity
---------------  --------------  --------------  --------------
-5.0652578e-003  7.1000000e+001  1.9000000e+002  3.4885900e+001
-6.9063507e-003  7.1000000e+001  2.3600000e+002  3.4611900e+001
-5.2530943e-003  8.6000000e+001  1.7200000e+002  3.4584100e+001
-1.1897481e-002  8.7000000e+001  2.3200000e+002  3.4316700e+001
-5.6016986e-003  8.8000000e+001  9.8000000e+001  3.4788100e+001
-8.6937644e-003  8.8000000e+001  1.4400000e+002  3.4567600e+001
-5.3238841e-003  8.9000000e+001  1.4600000e+002  3.4520900e+001
-1.9042638e-002  9.2000000e+001  9.2000000e+001  3.4668500e+001
-5.3296535e-003  1.0900000e+002  1.0000000e+001  3.5140700e+001
-1.4713326e-002  1.1100000e+002  1.6800000e+002  3.5025700e+001
-2.0049596e-002  1.1100000e+002  1.8000000e+002  3.5003700e+001
-7.3997328e-003  1.1400000e+002  1.9400000e+002  3.5152800e+001
-5.4391194e-003  1.1500000e+002  1.9000000e+002  3.5106100e+001
-5.1336623e-003  1.2300000e+002  2.0200000e+002  3.5637900e+001
-5.1641391e-003  1.2800000e+002  6.0000000e+000  3.5289200e+001
-5.8081470e-003  1.2800000e+002  3.1200000e+002  3.4874900e+001
-5.0208606e-003  1.3000000e+002  2.2400000e+002  3.5467900e+001
-5.0407261e-002  1.3200000e+002  4.7600000e+002  3.4593700e+001
-3.7438432e-002  1.3500000e+002  2.4400000e+002  3.5736900e+001
-1.8335791e-002  1.3800000e+002  2.0000000e+000  3.5119400e+001
-9.9007993e-003  1.4000000e+002  3.4800000e+002  3.4907400e+001


REFERENCES:

Aoyama, Michio, T. M. Joyce, T. Kawano, and Y. Takatsuki (1998? ) Offsets of 
    the IAPSO Standard sea water for P103 through P129. Submitted Deep Sea 
    Research.

Mantyla, A. W. (1980) Electrical conductivity comparisons of standard sea water 
    batches P29 to P84. Deep Sea Research 27A, 837-846.

Mantyla, A. W. (1987) Standard sea water comparison Updates Physical 
    Oceanography, 17, 543-548.




Figure 1 All 2 dbar & bottle salinities (a) overall (b) deep

Figure 2 (a) Cond. slope corrections (b) temp. adjustments

Figure 3 Salinity differences at bottles	(a, b, &c) [CTD up cast - WS]; 
         (d, e, & f ) [CTD down cast - WS]

Figure 3 Histograms (a) [CTD up cast -WS] (b) [CTD down cast - Ws]

Figure 4 Pot. temp. average profile with WS (o) & quality (+) & (x): 
         (a) Overall; (b) deep

Figure 5 Comparison with R/V MW893 leg 3

Figure 6 Salinity noise variance (4 to 25 dbars):  red p - 3002 dbars; 
                                                 green p - 1000 dbars

Figure 7 Salinity noise source station 116 : prs. 3050 to 3100 dbars

Figure 8 noise salinity station 138 (green); station 142 (blue) is salty deep

Figure 9 (a) Station 125 (green) fresh (b) Station 130 (red) salty near bottom

Figure 10 Density inversions versus pressure: (x) - -0.005 kg/m3/dbar & 
                                              (*) - -0.0075 kg/m3/dbars



G.3. DQ EVALUATION OF P15N SALINITY, OXYGEN AND NUTRIENTS
     (Arnold W. Mantyla)
     28 March 2000


WOCE Section P15N ran from the Aleutian Islands south to Samoa along 165W to 
170W close to the pre-salinometer era Alaska to Antarctica section that appears 
in Reid's classic "Intermediate Waters of the Pacific" monograph. With the 
closer WOCE station spacing, and more sensitive analytical techniques available 
to measure even more water constituents precisely, a clearer picture of the 
major Pacific gyre characteristics and water masses are now available. Although 
the analytical precision on the WOCE cruise was quite good, and comparisons with 
other cruises (WOCE, P04C, P02, TPS24, TPS47, INDOPAC and GEOSECS) agree 
reasonably well, there were a number of areas that did not meet WOCE guide- 
lines.

The biggest deficiency was inadequate sampling in the vertical; the WOCE 
standard of 36 discrete levels was not matched on any station on this cruise. 
Two rosette systems were available, a 23 place and an 11 place system. Both of 
the rosettes were only used on about 1/4 of the stations sampling about 26 to 31 
separate depths (less than the maximum available due to excessive duplicate 
depth trips). The 23 place rosette alone was used on the majority of the 
stations, with only 20 to 23 depths sampled in water as deep as 6000m. 
Occasional missing or contaminated measurements resulted in rather gappy 
profiles, 36 different sampling depths are really needed to properly cover the 
full water column for the chemical constituents. Because of the limited number 
of rosette bottles available, it would have been better to not waste any of them 
for multiple trips at the same depth. The multiple trips were often in high 
gradient regions, and the spread in the analytical results between duplicate 
bottle trips reflect more the difficulty in sampling the same water when in high 
gradients, than they do the intended measure of sample collection, storage, and 
analysis precision. For example, the standard deviation of the salinity 
differences between duplicate trips was .003, but nearly all of the deep water 
CTD and bottle salinity comparisons were closer to .001, which indicates that 
both the CTD and salinometer results were really quite good. The duplicate trips 
were not a good way to evaluate the analytical precision achieved on the cruise 
(unless the comparisons are limited to the mixed layer, or to other fairly 
uniform layers in the ocean). Likewise, targeting the same depth on both the 
shallow and deep casts serves no useful purpose other than to reveal the ocean 
is variable. The ideal way to sample 36 different depths with a 24 place and 12 
place rosette is to select the 36 depths to sample from the down full water 
depth CTD salinity and oxygen profiles, with an awareness of the depths of 
anticipated nutrient extrema based upon earlier station profiles, or from nearby 
historical data. Counting up from the bottom, trip the 24 bottles at depths 1 to 
23, and at depth 25. Then with the shallow 12 place rosette, sample depth 24 and 
then 26 to 36. Duplicate trips, if really needed, can be done at shallower 
stations with no loss of information. Another way to evaluate data quality 
without loss of trip levels would be to compare data on several constant 
potential temperature surfaces over the whole cruise. Station to station offsets 
and analytical scatter can easily be spotted and evaluated. 

The stations from 133 to the end of the cruise were limited to the top 3500m in 
water as deep as 5100m, because of winch problems. Those stations were recovered 
on P15S with full water column 36 place rosette casts; so the latter stations 
are to be preferred for the 170W section. 

The .sum file was not filled out very carefully. There were many duplicate cast 
times, as well as times that were clearly 12 or 24 hours off (times from one 
part of a cast appearing in the middle of a later station). The most obvious 
errors have been corrected, but someone with access to the original records 
should do a thorough re-check of the information.

The .sea file did not show any CTD O2 data; that data would have been helpful in 
evaluating the water sample data. With no continuous CTD oxygen profile 
available, the few water sample oxygens are critical for defining the water 
column structure. Therefore, I was a little more apt to accept oxygen data that 
was only about 1% off, than were the data originators; slightly off data is 
better than no data at all.

Water sample salinities were only listed to 3 decimal places after station 70, 
they should be listed to 4 places as was done on leg I, and also as was done 
with the CTD salinities on both legs.

Salinities: 

There is a discrepancy in which Standard Sea Water batch used on the cruise; 
P125 according to the cruise report, and P121 according to the CTD DQE report. 
Should verify which one was actually used. The P15N salinities tended to be 
about .001 higher than the comparison cruises, which is within the expected 
variation of SSW standards.

Oxygen: 

The whole bottle Carpenter oxygen technique was used on the cruise and the data 
agreement with crossing cruises was quite good, generally within about 1um. 
There were some small systematic errors for refrigerated warm water samples 
noted in the cruise report, introducing an error of plus 1-3um, or about 1% in 
those samples. That is in the same ballpark as the duplicate trip agreement, so 
I would prefer to accept those as ok rather than being flagged bad. I have 
changed some of the flags, but more could be accepted as ok and used in the 
vertical sections.

A minor modification in sampling procedure could improve the oxygen analytical 
precision. The cruise report indicates the samples were collected after 200% 
overflow, stoppered, unstoppered, pickles, and re-stoppered. The re-stoppering 
step is difficult to do without introducing small air bubbles. If the pickling 
reagents can be kept near the rosette frame, then the sample can be pickled 
immediately and then stoppered without contamination while the flared part of 
the flask still contains sample water. The improved precision can easily be 
demonstrated by collecting and analyzing 10 samples  out of a single large 
Niskin bottle both ways. The one-time stoppering  method will usually result in 
a lower standard deviation for the 10 replicates.

Also, if very low ambient oxygen water is sampled, they should be collected in 
clean, dry flasks, without rinsing, and with 300% overflow, (per Horibe, et al, 
J. Ocean. Soc. Japan, 28:203-206, 1972).

In spite of the above comments, the oxygen data for this cruise generally look 
quite good, with no large offsets from other WOCE cruises. 

Silicate: 

The cruise report indicates that their primary silicate standard was 2% low 
compared to Sagami standards, unlike their usually good agreement with the 
Sagami standards. Also, the cruise results tend to be low compared to the WOCE 
crossing cruises by that amount. The PIs feel that the silicate data should be 
increased by 2%, but they have not done so. I agree, and recommend the data be 
multiplied by 1.02.

Phosphate: 

Phosphates were the most frequently contaminated nutrient, with numerous 
scattered values clearly bad. The sparse vertical sampling intervals made the 
loss of any PO4 data regrettable, use of 36 place rosette might have minimized 
the information loss due to isolated bad PO4's. The deep PO4's tended to be 
about .05um high compared to other WOCE cruises, while numerous unlikely near 
zero surface values near the end of the first leg point toward a possible 
baseline or reagent blank problem. I have not flagged any of the zero um values, 
but I consider them to be questionable.  The uncertainty only occurred on the 
first leg, there were no zero values on the second leg. Also, surface PO4's were 
often higher than the next deeper sample. This is a common problem when running 
low level nutrients immediately after a high level standard: To avoid the 
problem, run two surface samples and discard the first one.

Nitrite: 

An analytical problem late in the cruise resulted in artificial deep NO2 values 
of 0.1 to 0.3, so much of the NO2 data after station 123 was flagged bad. The 
loss of the NO2 data is not serious, little occurs in deep water, but the 
problem created some uncertainty in the nitrate data.

Nitrate: 

The NO2 error of 0.1 to 0.3 is large for nitrite, but small for NO3. The nitrate 
analyses involves the reduction of NO3 to NO2 and what is finally detected is 
the sum of the NO3 and NO2 originally in the sample. The NO2 present is usually 
subtracted from the NO3+NO2 to get the nitrate alone. Since many of the NO2's 
were doubtful on this cruise, many of the "corrected" NO3's were also considered 
to be doubtful. Since the NO2 error was in the NO2 analyzer alone, the erroneous 
NO2 values should not have been subtracted from the NO3 results (although they 
are "NO3+NO2", the deep NO2's are essentially zero). Therefore I recommend the 
NO3's be restored to their original values and the flags be re-set to ok. The 
corrected values will result in somewhat better agreement with historical data 
and with P15S, and will avoid a data gap in the vertical section. 

STA. 18:  The deep NO2's below 200m are doubtful and have been flagged.  If the 
          second decimal place of the NO3's are available, the NO2 "corrections" 
          should be added back in and the NO3's accepted as ok.

STA. 27:  The bottom 4 CTD salinities appear to have been truncated to .01, and
          are about .006 low.  They have been flagged uncertain, but the 
          original data should be checked to see if an error had occurred in the 
          data tabulation.

          The PO4's appear to be about .1 low on all.  Suggest re-check the 
          factor or baseline offset.  If calculated ok, recommend "u"ing all.  

STA. 31,  cast 3 bottle 1:  The data are listed at 5db, without any temperature, 
          but are clearly from the bottom (even the listed CTD salinity).  The 
          data have been flagged uncertain, but would be ok if listed at the 
          bottom with bottle number 2.

STAS. 44-46: The majority of the oxygens have been flagged uncertain or bad, but 
          the profiles agree well with adjacent stations and appear better than 
          sta. 42. I would prefer to keep these as ok, unless there is a 
          compelling reason to believe that they are indeed very poor.

STAS. 45,47, 49, 51, 53, and 55: Bottles S9 and S10 are listed at different 
          depths, but the salinity and nutrients are essentially identical, 
          suggesting a double trip at the S10 bottle depth. Oxygen is at a local 
          high gradient maximum, so the 2 trips are not necessarily the same in 
          oxygen. I recommend flagging bottle S9 water samples as doubtful for 
          these stations.

STA. 50:  The salinity at 4000db is exactly 0.3 off. Could this be a key entry 
          error?

STA. 52:  Bottles 22 and 232 at 5db have no data, not even CTD temperature. 
          Suggest delete, as no useful information.

STA. 53:  Bottles S7 and S9 at 115db and 145db appear to be listed one depth too 
          deep, they would be ok one depth up. all of the water samples have 
          been flagged uncertain.

STA. 61,  5db: No CTD or water data, suggest delete.

STAS. 63 and 65: Nitrates seem low, suggest re-check calculation factor compared 
          to nearby stations. 

STAS. 66  and 69, 5db: No data suggest delete.

STA. 74,  bottle S1: No data, not even pressure. Suggest delete.

STA. 94,  1248db: The nitrate was flagged bad, but would be ok if the poor NO2 
          correction was added back.

STA. 108, cast 9, bottle S10: No data, not even CTD pressure. Suggest delete 
          level (2503db).

STA. 111: There was a shift (lower) in the phosphate on this and the following 
          station, but not in nitrate, suggesting a change in standards. This 
          should be looked into, and corrected, if possible.

STAS. 123-136: All of the NO2's and NO3's have been "u"ed, however the NO3's 
          would be ok if uncorrected for the NO2. Suggest adding the NO2 back to 
          the NO3's and accepting the nitrates as ok.  



G.4  FINAL CFC DATA QUALITY EVALUATION (DQE) COMMENTS ON P15N.
     (David Wisegarver)
     Dec 2000 
 
This data set, in its current form, does not meet the relaxed WOCE standard for 
CFC's.  The original CFC flags (QUALT1) assigned by the PI have not been 
altered. During the DQE process,  CFC QUALT1 flags of '2' (good) assigned by 
the PI have been given  QUALT2 flags of '3' (questionable). Detailed comments 
on the DQE process have been sent to the PI and to the WHPO.

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 (C. S. Wong, WongCS@pac.dfo-
mpo.gc.ca) 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 J. Geophys. Res., 105, 17,751-17,792, 2000.
******************************************************************************** 
 
The information below was provided by the CFC PI for this section.



WHPO DATA PROCESSING NOTES

==========
18DD9403_1
==========
Date      Contact     Data Type      Data Status Summary
--------  ----------  -------------  -------------------------------------------
07/02/97  Millard     CTD            DQE Begun  with jswift's OK

10/28/97  Freeland    CTD/BTL        Data are Public
          Garrett, orig chf. sci. is retired

06/15/98  Millard     CTD            DQE Report rcvd @ WHPO

09/08/99  Talley      SUM/BTL        Update Needed, passing along to S. Anderson 

10/11/99  Mantyla     NUTs/S/O       DQE Begun

12/07/99  Muus        BTL            Reformatted by WHPO  See note:   
          NOTES for P15N bottle and  summary file changes by D. Muus Sept 30, 
          1999.
                       p15nahy.txt  p15nasu.txt
                       p15nbhy.txt  p15nbsu.txt
          
           1. Changed silicate Station 069, Sample 1534, 1751.3db from 0.00 
              to 141.6.
           2. Changed STNNBR "NEWS" to "9991" and STNNBR "FREON" to "9992" 
              per Lynne Talley and Frank Whitney messages Sept 22, 1999.
           3. Changed longitude Station 9991 Cast 1 Code BE from 123 degrees 
              to 158 degrees to make all longitude degrees for Station 9991 
              consistent with date and time. 123 deg was Longitude of first 
              station of p15na.
           4. Removed letters "P" and "W" from STNNBRs  per Lynne Talley and 
              Frank Whitney messages Sept 22,1999. Left letters on STNNBRs not 
              in bottle data file.
           5. Moved all Left-Justified BTLNBRs to Right-Justified. (All were 
              2nd (shallow) rosette bottles with "S" before numbers to 
              distinguish them from main rosette bottles) p15nbhy.txt: Stations 
              72, 73 & 74 all cast 2.
           6. WOCE SECT PRS01 (old weather station Papa?) listed in summary 
              file with station number P26 but has station number PRS1 in bottle 
              file. Summary file has bottle samples indicated for Casts 5, 6, 7 
              & 9. Bottle file has bottle data for Casts 4, 5, 6 & 8. Lynne T. 
              questioned what we plan to do with PRS01 data. Probably should go 
              back to originator to be straightened out before we do anything. 
              Left all PRS01 data unchanged in p15na files.
           7. Swapped CTDSAL and THETA data columns to match Manual format.
           8. Moved PR06 data out of p15nahy.txt into pr06_ihy.txt and 
              p15nasu.txt into pr06_isu.txt to avoid duplicate station numbers 
              after Item 4 above.
          
              Summary of PR06 sequence designators:
                   Dates                  Vessel    Ch Sci   Status per Web
               a)  Oct 17 - Nov 1,  1991  Endeavor  Bellegy  WHPO
               b)  Feb 3 - 14,      1992  Tully     Whitney  WHPO NP
               c)  Mar 26 - Apr 13, 1992  Endeavor  Perkin   WHPO NP
               d)  Sep 8 - 29,      1992  Tully     Whitney  WHPO NP (See PR05)
               e)  Feb 26 - Mar 17, 1993  Tully     Perkin   WHPO NP
               f)  May 14 - Jun 3,  1993  Tully     Whitney  WHPO NP (See PR05)
               g)  Feb 7 - 21,      1994  Tully     Perkin   PI   
               h)  May 10 - 25,     1994  Tully     Whitney  WHPO NP (See PR05)
               i)  Sep 6 - Oct 10,  1994  Tully     Garrett  WHPO    (See P15N)
               
              Moved to separate PR06 files Oct 5, 1999
               j)  Feb 7 - 23,      1995  Tully     Whitney  PI
               k)  May 8 - 26,      1995  Tully     Whitney  ?
               l)  Aug 22 - Sept 13 1995  Tully     Boyd     ?
               m)  Feb 19 - Mar 8   1996  Tully     Whitney  ?
               n)  May 6 - 30       1996  Tully     Boyd     ?
          
          ADDITIONAL NOTES Oct 19, 1999,  D. Muus
           9. Moved PRS01 data out of p15nahy.txt into prs01_hy.txt 
              p15nasu.txt into prs01_su.txt Awaiting resolution of prs01 cast 
              numbering problem before making final prs01 files for Sep 11, 
              1994.
              
              Addition to summary of PR06 sequence designators:
              o)  Aug 14 - Sep 4   1996    Tully     Whitney   WHPO (*.XLS files 
              in 9618.ZIP)
          
          ADDITIONAL NOTES Dec 6, 1999, D. MUUS
          10. Re Item 7 above: When CTDSAL and THETA columns were swapped, I 
              forgot to swap the 7 asterisks denoting QUALT1 numbers.  Swapped 
              the 7 "*"s today (Dec. 6, 1999) and placed the corrected 
              p15nahy.txt p15nbhy.txt in /usr/export/ftp/pub/WHPO/MUUS/P15N.

04/04/00  Mantyla     NUTs/S/O       DQE Report rcvd @ WHPO

04/20/00  Key         DELC14         No Data Submitted  See Note:
          Unfortunately, I can provide no new information on the C14 
          status for cruises P15N and P24. I do know that acquiring data 
          from CS Wong (P15N) has been very difficult. I'll try to 
          investigate.

07/19/00  Wong        ALKALI         Submitted  needs extensive reformatting

07/19/00  Talley      CO2/O18        Data Request to C.S. Wong

08/11/00  Muus        ALKALI         Reformatting Needed  D. 
          Bartolocci asked D. Muus to do reformatting
              Aug 17, 2000 Dave Muus
          TCO2 and TALK from C.S. Wong files P15NLEG1.dat and P15NLEG2.DAT 
          have been merged with the p15nahy.txt and p15nbhy.txt files.
          (TCARBN & ALKALI)
          
          Uncontaminated Sea Water (USW) data are not included in the .SEA
          files so the TCO2 and TALK data for USW were put in separate
          files after conversion to mrgsea usable files: p15naUSWalkco2 &
                                                         p15nbUSWalkco2
          PR06 and PRS01 data from P15NA were recombined and the corresponding
          TCO2 and TALK data were merged: pr06_ihy.txt
                                          pr06_isu.txt
          "i"is the sequence designator used during my reformatting last 
          year.
          I am not sure it is still the proper designator.
          
          Data discrepancies noted:   
                    STA  CAST SMPL  PRESS
              P15NA 016   3   all          ALKALI present but QUALT1 - 1
                    052   3   all          ALKALI present but QUALT1 - 1
                 
               PR06  26   8   117  2800.6  ALKALI missing but QUALT1 - 2
          
                USW  64   2   L113    3.0  ALKALI 2305.9  but QUALT1 - 9
                     79   3   L126    3.0  ALKALI missing but QUALT1 - 2
                     96   2   L143    3.0  ALKALI missing but QUALT1 - 2
                    134   2   L181    3.0  ALKALI missing but QUALT1 - 2
                    136   2   L183    3.0  CO2&ALK missing but  " both 2
                    138   3   L185    3.0  ALKALI missing but QUALT1 - 2
                    140   2   L187    3.0  TCARBN missing but QUALT1 - 2
                    142   2   L189    3.0  CO2&ALK missing but  " both 2
          
08/18/00  Bartolacci  ALKALI/TCARBN  Data Update  btl file reformatted: 
          (tcarbn, alkali, qualt1)
          
          Total alkalinity and Dissolved Inorganic Carbon have been merged 
          into P15N_a and P15N_b by D. Muus. In doing so, he removed the 
          PRS01 and PR06 stations from the P15N_a bottle file. This creates 
          a missmatch between the current P15N_a sumfile and the new bottle 
          file, since the sumfile has retained PRS01 (but not PR06). PR06 
          and PRS01 have been split off into separate sum and bottle files 
          for this cruise and need to be put online. This matter should be 
          rectified, and correct stations be placed in the P15N files before 
          any further events take place on this line.
09/11/00  Bartolacci  BTL/SUM  Data Merged into BTL file
          PR06 and PRS01 segments reinserted, see note:  2000.09.11  

          At the request of J. Swift the PR06 and PRS01 segments of the P15 
          cruise were reinserted back into the P15 bottle and sumfiles.  The 
          table entry for PRS01 and PR06 will be linked to the P15 index.htm 
          page
          
          1. PR06/PRS01 data were obtained from the directory 
                  
             .../p15na/original/2000.07.24_P15N_TALK_DIC_WONG/pr06_ihy.txt
                  
             .../p15na/original/2000.07.24_P15N_TALK_DIC_WONG/pr06_isu.txt
             these files were originally extracted by D.Muus these files were 
             inserted into the current online summary file and the previously 
             formatted bottle file of 1999.10.01 by D. Muus.  
          
          2. The current online files were moved from:
               p15nahy.txt to /original/p15nahy_rplcd_2000.09.11.txt 
               p15nasu.txt to /original/p15nasu_rplcd_2000.09.11.txt
               
          3. New complete files were renamed p15nahy.txt and p15nsu.txt 
          
          4. Added name/date stamp.
          
          5. Ran sumchk - no errors.
          
          6. Ran wocecvt -  with errors corresponding to stations 13, 18, 
             39. error output stated that following station/cast combinations 
             could not be matched between sumfile and bottle file:
                          
                          PR06    13/3
                          PR06    18/3
                          P15     013/3
                          P15     018/3
                          P15     039/5

             all of these station casts are in both bottle and sum files so 
             interpretation of this output was difficult.
          
          7. Edited CTD file headers to match changes made by D. Muus to 
             summary and  bottle files so station designators would match 
             bottle and summary station designators:
             changed expocode in all files from 18DD9403/1 to 18DD9403_1 
             removed "W" from all station numbers changed "FREON" in station 
             designator to "9992" as per D. Muus.
             
          8. Ran wctcvt - with errors corresponding to stations 4,13, 39. 
             error output stated that the following station/cast combinations 
             could not be matched between sumfile and ctd file:

                             P15     004/1
                             P15     013/1
                             P15     018/2
                             P15     039/4 

             all of these station casts are in both ctd and sum files so 
             interpretation of this output was difficult.
          
          9. moved current zipped ctd files from p15nact.zip to 
             original/p15nact_rplcd_2000.09.11.zip moved newly formatted 
             zipfile into p15nact.zip  
 
11/29/00  Wisegarver  CFCs           DQE Report rcvd @ WHPO

12/11/00  Uribe  DOC  Submitted  See Note:  2000.12.11 
          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.

03/15/01  Key         DELC14         Measured as per .DOC  
          Funding now available to analyze Got word from Eric this A.M. that he 
          will fund NOSAMS at the rate of 1000/year to analyze previously 
          collected, but unfunded C14 samples. Highest priority will be to fill 
          in Pacific "holes" starting with P14S15S (NOAA), P15N (Wong) and P1 
          (Japan). Policy decision supported by WOCE SSC. Eric would, if 
          possible, like these data to be included in the atlas. In reality I 
          don't know if this is possible/practical, but I will do everything 
          possible to expedite. Scheduling at NOSAMS will be complicated, but 
          order listed above is the "scientific" priority as of now.
          
06/22/01  Uribe       BTL            Website Updated  CSV File Added
          Bottle file in exchange format has been put online.

10/29/01  Muus  CFCs  Website Updated  new cfcs merged 
          into online btl file  Merged July 2001 CFCs into bottle file and 
          placed new woce format and exchange format files on web. Made 
          minor modification to Summary file. Changed Quality Code 1 to 9 
          where appropriate.
          
          Notes on P15Na CFC merging Oct 29, 2001.  D. Muus
          
          1. New CFC-11 and CFC-12 from:
          
             /usr/export/html-
             public/data/onetime/pacific/p15/p15n/p15na/original/ 
             20010709_CFC_UPDT_WISEGARVER_P15N_ALL_LEGS/ 
             20010709.173723_WISEGARVER_P15N_p15n_CFC_DQE.dat 
             
             merged into SEA files from web Oct 17, 2001. 
             (20000908WHPOSIODMB) for P15Na
             
             Prior to merging:
             Changed all "1"s in QUALT1 to "9"s and then copied QUALT1 to 
             QUALT2. Changed all missing values for DELC14 from -9 to -999.0. 
             
             
          2. Summary file modified by putting 
               Station P13 Cast 1 before Station 13 Cast 2 BE, and putting    
               Station P18 Cast 1 before Station 18 Cast 2 BE. 
             Both were between Cast 2 BE and BO in correct time sequence but 
             wocecvt "skipped" both casts and the exchange conversion duplicated 
             both casts. Now in correct cast sequence but out of sequence for 
             times. Both wocecvt and exchange conversion okay.
          
          3. New exchange file checked using Java Ocean Atlas.

02/04/02  Uribe       CTD            Website Updated  CSV File Added
          CTD has been converted to exchange and put online.
          
==========
18DD9403_2
==========
Date      Contact     Data Type      Data Status Summary
--------  ----------  -------------  -------------------------------------------
07/02/97  Millard     CTD            DQE Begun  Leg 2 only

06/15/98  Millard     CTD            DQE Report rcvd @ WHPO

08/04/00  Kappa       data           hist  Data Update  for data hist see 
          P15N 18DD9403_1  Until today these 2 distinct data files were 
          treated as if they were one continuous cruise.
          
08/18/00  Bartolacci  ALKALI/TCARBN  Data Update  btl 
          file reformatted, see note:  Bottle: (tcarbn, alkali, qualt1)
          
          Total alkalinity and Dissolved Inorganic Carbon have been merged 
          into P15N_a and P15N_b by D. Muus. In doing so, he removed the 
          PRS01 and PR06 stations from the P15N_a bottle file. This creates 
          a missmatch between the current P15N_a sumfile and the new bottle 
          file, since the sumfile has retained PRS01 (but not PR06). PR06 
          and PRS01 have been split off into separate sum and bottle files 
          for this cruise and need to be put online. This matter should be 
          rectified, and correct stations be placed in the P15N files before 
          any further events take place on this line.

06/22/01  Uribe       BTL            Website Updated  CSV File Added
          Bottle file in exchange format has been put online.

10/29/01  Muus        CFCs           Website Updated  new cfcs merged 
          into online btl file  Merged July 2001 CFCs into bottle file and 
          placed new woce format and exchange format files on web. Changed 
          Quality Code 1 to 9 where appropriate.
          
          Notes on P15Nb CFC merging Oct 19, 2001.  D. Muus
          
          1. New CFC-11 and CFC-12 from:
          
             /usr/export/html-
             public/data/onetime/pacific/p15/p15n/p15na/original/ 
             20010709_CFC_UPDT_WISEGARVER_P15N_ALL_LEGS/ 
             20010709.173723_WISEGARVER_P15N_p15n_CFC_DQE.dat 
             
             merged into SEA file from web Oct 17, 2001. 
             (20000817WHPOSIODM)
             
             Prior to merging:
             Changed all "1"s in QUALT1 to "9"s and then copied QUALT1 to 
             QUALT2. Changed all missing values for DELC14 from -9 to -999.0. 
             
             Found duplicate sample number used for two different bottles: 
             
               Sta Ca Sample# Bottle# Pressure
               111 2   2552     13     1500.4
               111 2   2552     12     1749.2
             
             No CFCs taken from either bottle, but TCARBN and ALKALI were 
             measured and the values for Bottle #13 (2325.6 & 2409.9) had been 
             merged into both bottles. Corrected Bottle #12 TCARBN and ALKALI 
             values (2334.5 & 2417.9).
             
             Station 108, Cast 9, Sample 2492, Bottle S10 has CTDPRS - -9.0. 
             All other samples also -9. Bottle quality code is 4 "did not trip 
             correctly". CTDSAL quality codes are 2 while all other quality 
             codes are 9. Changed CTDSAL quality codes to 9.
          
          2. New exchange file checked using Java Ocean Atlas.
          
03/20/02  Bartolacci  CTD            Update Needed
          CTD cast numbers do not match SUM file CTD station files for this 
          cruise contain station numbers that do not match those station numbers 
          contained in the summary file. No CTD exchange files have been 
          generated at this time. Station numbers need to be resolved/corrected.
 
07/02/02  Kappa       DOC            PDF cruise reports added, text doc updated
          Added CTD, HYD and CFC Data Quality Reports to the online cruise 
          report.  Compiled PDF version with all updates and figures.
