CEAREX Hydrography Data: CTDs Dr. James H. Swift Oceanographic Data Facility Scripps Institution of Oceanography La Jolla, CA 92093-0214 Documentation File: Table of Contents Section 1. Introduction Section 2. "S87" Standard CTD Data Format Section 3. Lamont CTD Data (PB1, PB2, PB3) - S. O'Hara Section 4. Bio-Physical Cruise Data (PB5) - T. Manley Section 5. Oceanography Camp (O-Camp) Daily CTD Casts - J. Morison, R. Andersen Section 6. Helicopter and Acoustics Camp (A-CAMP) CTD Data - R. Muench Section 7. Seasonal Ice Zone Experiment (SIZEX) CTD Data-O. Johannessen Section 8. EUBEX CTD Data - R. Perkin Section 9. Fram Strait 11-Year CTD Data Set - T. Manley Section 10. Bottle and Ship Data - J. Swift Section 11. References Section 12. Contact Information Section 13. Acknowledgments 1. Introduction Hydrography data files on this CD-ROM were provided to Dr. James Swift, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Oceanographic Data Facility, by the original CEAREX investigators. At Scripps, the files were converted to a standard format. The standard format selected is "S87", developed by the Physical Oceanography Group at Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory; S87 is described in detail in Section 2 of this documentation file. The S87 format data files were then provided to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), converted to fixed-length records, and written to magnetic tape for CD-ROM mastering. The CEAREX hydrography data sets on this CD-ROM are also archived in the original format, as provided to Scripps by each investigator. The original format data are available on magnetic media from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, CIRES, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0449, USA. Please inquire for current distribution format(s) and cost. 2. "S87" Standard CTD Data Format The S87 data format was developed as a standard format for ASCII station data. The main parts of the S87 format file are the header line containing all pertinent station information, an id line containing mnemonics of at least two unique characters describing the data in the columns that follow, and the data lines themselves. Please note that all CTD data files on this CD-ROM are in S87 format, and each record contains 64 characters. The end of each data record is padded to 64 characters with blanks; the 64th character is a "newline". The first line of S87 data files is the header line, containing all the information needed to identify the station. This line may be repeated within a single file, when the file contains data for more than one station. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 { column 1234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234 { counter TPPCC SSSS CC SDD.DDDD SDDD.DDDD YY/MM/DD JUL HH:MM CRUISE_ID { data fields where: T = data type (C: ctd, B: bottle, A: axbt, X: xbt) PP = NODC platform code CC = NODC country code of the platform SSSS = station number CC = cast number SDD.DDDD = latitude in decimal degrees SDDD.DDDD = longitude in decimal degrees YY/MM/DD = date (including "/") JUL = year-day for year of collection (sometimes called "julian day") HH:MM = time (including ":") CRUISE_ID = optional cruise identifier. Following the header line is an optional secondary header line for end-of-cast information. There may also be another line describing important physical characteristics at the station location. This line must begin with the character '&' in the first column. As of September 1989 there are eleven physical characteristics mnemonics used in this optional '&' line: CS = PC02 in situ CL = PC02 at lab T (15 degrees C) TC = total C02 TK = total alkalinity ZZ = bottom depth in meters SS = bucket surface salinity TA = air temperature in degrees C PA = air pressure in millibars (hectopascals) TS = bucket surface temperature in degrees C WS = wind speed in meters per second WD = wind direction in degrees A sample optional '&' line is as follows: &ZZ=4766 TA=-4.2 PA=0990 WS=0.6 WD=122 Comment lines follow this optional '&' line; they may not begin with '&' or '@'. It is recommended that these comment lines be used to note the name of the program used to write the data file, the date the file was written, and the name of the programmer. The column identification line contains mnemonics of at least two unique characters that identify the data types in the columns below. This line must start with the character '@' in the first column. A list of data type mnemonics in use when the data set was assembled is given here: AG adiabatic temperature AN specific volume anomaly BV Brunt Vaisalla frequency C3 delta C-13 C4 delta C-14 CA chlorophyll a CC total CO2 by gas chromatograph CL pCO2 @ lab temperature CO conductivity CS pCO2 @ in situ temperature DE depth DF density flux DR density ratio F1 freon 11 F2 freon 12 FL flags (from ctd78 format) FR freon ratio FS freon saturation GV geostrophic velocity HZ dynamic height IT ice thickness (cm) LT percent of light transmittted through water N2 nitrite (stability) N3 nitrate NH ammonia OC oxygen current OS % oxygen saturation OT oxygen temperature OX oxygen (ml/l) PA air pressure PH pH PO phosphate PR pressure PT potential temperature RN record number (bottle number) RT rosette temperature RS rosette salinity RO rosette oxygen SE sea state S0 sigma theta S1 sigma 1 S2 sigma 2 S3 sigma 3 S4 sigma 4 SA salinity SI silicate ST sigma t SV sound velocity SW swell T1 tritium (TU) T2 tritium (TU-81) TA air temperature TC total CO2 by titration TE temperature TF temperature above freezing TG temperature gradient TI time TK total alkalinity (titration) VE sound velocity WD wind direction WE weather WS wind speed (m/s) Here is an example of data, illustrating all parts of the S87 format: CPB32 55 1 74.4490 19.5095 89/03/01 60 17:56 PB3 &ZZ=4766 TA=-4.2 PA=0990 WS=0.6 WD=122 90/02/01 sohara program: s87interp -i 1 @PR TE CO SA PT S0 0 -1.877 27.375 34.912 -1.877 28.112 1 -1.877 27.375 34.912 -1.877 28.112 2 -1.877 27.375 34.911 -1.877 28.111 3 -1.877 27.375 34.910 -1.877 28.110 4 -1.877 27.375 34.910 -1.877 28.110 5 -1.877 27.375 34.909 -1.877 28.109 6 -1.877 27.375 34.908 -1.877 28.109 7 -1.878 27.383 34.920 -1.878 28.118 8 -1.876 27.384 34.919 -1.876 28.118 9 -1.873 27.385 34.916 -1.873 28.115 3. Lamont CTD Data (PB1, PB2, PB3) - S. O'Hara These data are in the CD-ROM subdirectory \HYDROG\LAMONT. The files LMTPB1.CTD, LMTPB2.CTD and LMTPB3.CTD contain the 208 calibrated, decimated CTD hydrographic stations collected during the first three legs of CEAREX aboard the ship POLARBJORN. LEG Dates of Stations Chief Scientist === ================= =============== PB1 17 Oct - 14 Dec 1988 R. Pritchard PB1 15 Dec - 08 Jan 1989 J. Ardai PB2 14 Jan - 01 Feb 1989 E. D'Asaro PB3 09 Feb - 01 Mar 1989 O. Johannessen The navigation available when this data set was assembled was the original navigation collected on the POLARBJORN by ERIM. Logging mistakes and gross navigational errors in station positions have been corrected using this raw navigation and the CTD log sheets. All station locations should be re-evaluated if the navigation is processed further. Bottom depths for the hydrographic stations are from the ship-mounted echo sounder. The values are in uncorrected meters and should be used as estimates. When the echo sounder was inoperable the following alternative methods were used: Leg Stations Source of Depth Data ----- ---------------- -------------------------------------- PB1 1, 2 General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans PB2 5-7 (GEBCO), 5th edition (corrected meters) PB1 60-104 ship's charts and winch wire counter PB3 10, 11, 52, 45-60 ADCP Raw CTD data were collected while the CTD unit was lowered (downtrace) and raised (uptrace). The data values presented here are from the downtrace except occasionally when the downtrace values were contaminated and unusable; in these cases the uptrace values were processed. At the following stations, uptrace data were used: PB1 Stations 13,16,18,30,32,34,36,38,41,44,92,99 PB2 Stations 2,8,12,13,15-19,21,22,24,25,30,36,45,47 PB3 Stations 1,7,13,16-18,22,24,25,29,32,34,36,43 Note that uptrace data tend to be lower quality than downtrace data. The instrument used to collect data was a Neil Brown IIIB CTD underwater unit, serial number 01-2276-01. The instrument was calibrated before the start of CEAREX on 22 March 1988 by the Naval Oceanographic Office. A total of 208 stations were collected between 10 October 1988 and 1 March 1989 (PB1-PB3). No post-cruise processing by the Naval Oceanographic Office was possible because of damage to the conductivity cell at the start of PB4. A post-cruise calibration of pressure only was run for the instrument on 22 August 1989 at Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory. Continuous cruise calibration of the conductivity cell was possible using Autosal salinity measurements from water samples collected by Niskin water bottles. The conductivity data were calibrated separately for each leg of the cruise. The reversing thermometers provided to calibrate the CTD thermometer were of poor quality and their results were not used in the temperature calibration. A total of 234 bottles were available for use with the 208 stations. The lack of bottle data has caused the calibration errors to be larger than is desirable. Data values within approximately five meters of the surface are to be used with caution. The upper water layer was often contaminated by the ship. In some cases the surface values have been extrapolated to allow all stations to start at zero meters. The final calibration results, with range, accuracy and resolution statistics supplied by the Neil Brown CTD, are as follows: Sensor Range Accuracy Resolution StDev* ------------------------------------------------------------------- Pressure (db) 0 to 6500 0.1%** 0.0015%** 0.80 Temperature (deg C) -3 to 32 0.005 0.0005 0.0039 Conductivity (mmohs) 1 to 65 0.005 0.001 PB1 = 0.0316 1 to 65 0.005 PB2 = 0.0193 1 to 65 0.005 PB3 = 0.0102 * StDev - Standard deviation of fit used for correction to calibration data. ** Values are in percent of frequency-shift. Calibration Equations: Pressure: PR = (3.8x10**-9)xPR**3 - (1.154x10**-5)xPR**2 + 1.00834123xPR +.45067954 Temperature: TE = .99996436*TE + .00133419 Conductivity: PB1: CO = .9858689xCO + (4.136x10**-5)xTE + .29824006 PB2: CO = (8.7285x10**-4)xCO**2 + .94209108xCO + (4.136x10**-5)xTE + .94666183 PB3: CO = (1.151x10**-5)xCO**3 - (1.01464x10**-3)xCO**2 + 1.0224569xCO + (4.136x10**-5)xTE - .07029152 The CTD data were processed at Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory. All data were filtered with a median filter using a window of five scans after which the correction coefficients were applied for each sensor and a 0.25 second lag in temperature/pressure was applied to account for response time. The final data set was then averaged into one meter bins. Time is in GMT; all latitudes are North; all longitudes are East. Temperature is in degrees Celsius; pressure is in decibars; salinity is in parts per thousand (PSS78 units); conductivity is in millimohs. [Documentation text taken from O'Hara, 1990 "Coordinated Eastern Arctic Experiment (CEAREX) CTD Data for PB1, PB2 & PB3, October 17 1988 - March 1, 1989." Palisades, NY: Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory.] 4. Physical Oceanography During the Bio-Physical Cruise (PB5)- T. Manley These data are in the CD-ROM subdirectory \HYDROG\BIOCTD. 4.1. CTD Data Processing - Tom Manley Although this may appear to be a long document on how things were done, I would strongly recommend that you read it in its ENTIRETY. If you are knowledgeable about how the data were processed, you will better understand what can and can not be 'obtained' from the data set. 4.1.1. Contents of the Data Set 4.1.1.1. All of the CEAREX bio-ctd stations are labeled XXX.BIO, where XXX ranges from 002 to 212. Station 1 was not even considered since it was an exceptionally bad TEST station. 4.1.1.2. The updated edition (26 December 1989) of the tagfile is called TAGNEW.DAT. This file is on the CD-ROM with the pathname \HYDROG\BIOCTD\TAGNEW.DAT. 4.1.1.3. The file COMPAR.LOG was used as one of the quality control steps. This file may be of more use to you than TAGNEW.DAT in that it incorporates the final data and compares it with the record tag (bottle trip) information. COMPAR.LOG is on this CD-ROM with the pathname \HYDROG\BIOCTD\COMPAR.LOG. 4.1.1.4. A station listing file called BIOSTA.LOG that lists all of the positions and times of the stations, is more or less useful for quick reference. The file is on this CD-ROM with the pathname \HYDROG\BIOCTD\BIOSTA.LOG. 4.2. Documentation for Tom Manley's file COMPAR.LOG The file COMPAR.LOG intercompares the trip log information (obtained as each bottle was tripped and reported in the file TAGNEW.DAT) and bottle salinities with that of the final processed CTD/fluorescence profiles. This file was used as a form of quality control on the final data and did indeed reveal important information for the user. The notes that follow are important to understanding and using the data. 4.2.1. Station 165 shows a trip-final temperature difference of 0.651 degrees C. This has NOT been modified for the following reasons. Although the original log sheet and the trip file do confirm the 1.88 degree C temperature, the uptrace file shows no indication of such temperatures. Looking at the original plot, it appears that the 1.8 degree C water is almost the last depth level plotted. All other temperatures shown in the original plot are in the 1.2 degree C range and agree with the Neil Brown final temperatures (NB_TE). This is not a confusion of stations since the profiles (original and final) match except for this upper level temperature of 1.8 degree C. I concede that the high temperature was there, however, it must obviously be slightly above where the uptrace profile was terminated by the software. Further, one may want to show how different the surface trips can be (perhaps due to the proximity of the ship and its engine coolant outlets, on the same side as was used to lower the CTD) by looking at station 168 results which had two duplicate trips at 2 db with differences between the RECORD_TAG information of 0.4 degree C!!!! 4.2.2. Stations 197 to 199 show the small but noticeable effect of a broken thermistor in the differences (DEL_TE) between the record tag observations (TF_TE) and the final data (NB_TE) when temperatures were positive. This resulted in an offset of about 0.08 degree C that was later corrected for in the final data. 4.2.3. When the thermistor was replaced after station 198, stations 199 to 212 show a rather obvious temperature mismatch of approximately 0.4 degree C between the record tag observations (TF_TE) and the final data (NB_TE) when temperatures were positive. These varying offsets were later corrected for in the final data. 4.3. Data Processing Steps 4.3.1. Downtrace processing was rejected due to too many unexplainable hysteresis problems between the down and up traces. Uptraces were chosen because they could be calibrated to much higher standards since bottles were taken on these profiles. 4.3.2. Bulk salinity calibration was abandoned because of strong variations between stations and because of the exceptional stability of the temperature-salinity curve generated using calibrated Neil Brown temperatures and BOTTLE salinities. 4.3.3. Temperature was entirely bulk-calibrated, since there was no direct evidence of time variation, except when the first response thermistor was replaced at station 197. A very small correction was used for stations 2 through 196. 4.3.4. Pressure calibration equations were generated for both uptrace and downtrace using a bulk processing method. However, pressure offsets were calculated individually for each station to get the best near surface information for the biological work as well as to provide the best intercomparison with the MER (G. Mitchell's bio-physical sensor; see BIOPHYS.DOC Section 6) observations. Station 196, due to its depth of approximately 2500 db, had its own pressure calibration. 4.3.5. University of Rhode Island (URI) provided a week of programming time and two weeks of microVAX time (at no cost) to reprocess all of the up and downtraces from the original digital data. The reprocessing included temperature and pressure calibrations. Salinity was then derived with the newly-calculated p, t and c. Nothing was done to fluorometry or conductivity. 4.3.6. Station 151 was re-derived from audio data and was later reprocessed by URI. 4.3.7. Processed uptraces were still quite noisy due to dragging instrumentation through the water column (i.e. the sensors reading some of the more nasty turbulent wake effects.) Filtering was done to smooth out these turbulent effects. 4.3.8. Both the top and bottom of the profiles were inspected to make sure that the data seemed reasonable. In several stations, a bad point was included that would make a mess of the filtering process. If bad data were observed, they were replaced with data along a similar trend using the original plotted data and the uptrace plot and/or, very rarely, the downtrace as a framework. 4.3.9. Two uptrace profiles were deemed unusable: station 117 and station 164. Station 127 had a repairable section of data missing and was salvaged using the downtrace information. 4.3.10. Initially, a median filter of 20 points and then a Gaussian filter of 30 points was used. This turned out to be too `heavy-handed' and a better method of 4 successive 10-point Gaussian passes was used. Glen Cota and I agreed on this as the best compromise for fluorescence as well as CTD work. Additionally, this provided a reasonable fluorometry profile, as opposed to some of the original profiles that looked more like a `shotgun' pattern. By the very nature of filtering, top and bottom parts of the profile (if in high gradient regions) will be off from the original characteristic conditions of the uptrace. Deviations of this kind were checked at the very end of the processing phase of quality control using the COMPAR.LOG file (i.e. comparing final data against original record tag trips). Please read the introduction to the COMPAR.LOG file to get an appreciation for these errors (Section 4.2, above). In short, these errors were minimal especially compared to the variability of the data within the record tag file itself (see the FT_VAR column in the COMPAR.LOG file.) With respect to the other high gradient regions such as the thermo/halo/pycnoclines, there will be deviations. This is not totally desirable, however it was a trade-off that I was willing to make to get the hydrographic information into a more intelligible form. The deviations in the `clines' can be also seen in the COMPAR.LOG file. 4.3.11. The correction of the `broken thermistor' data at Stations 197 through 212 was completed. 4.3.12. T,S, density and FL profiles were plotted for all of the stations. Since many of the stations have very little density variation in them, inversions, obviously a major source of problems, were easily detected. Many of the inversions were created solely because of a temperature/conductivity lagging mismatch. We did not have time to investigate this at URI, so the data were processed using generic lagging concepts. The lagging mismatch, the noisy nature of the data, and the potential for bio-fouling (Phaeocystis) gumming up the conductivity cell in certain high biomass regions, lead me to believe that the density inversions were an artifact of the above-mentioned problems and therefore COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS REAL PHYSICAL PROCESSES occurring in the ocean. For this reason, all density inversions were removed BY HAND to ensure the proper gradient characteristics of the original density field were preserved. 4.3.13. A major problem was then discovered: There was an obvious and CONSISTENT density inversion (approximately 0.006 sigma-0 units) observed at the transition from positive to negative temperatures (i.e. at 0 degrees C.) This problem should have been detected at the beginning and corrected BEFORE all of the filtering since the 0 degree density shift was subsequently `smeared' by the filtering process. Instead of starting from scratch, an attempt was made to fix the `generic' problems with some creative software. Surprisingly, the program worked better than had been expected, and all of the stations were realigned. Only stations 2 through 196 were done this way. Stations 197 through 212 had already been (unwittingly) corrected for this problem since it had manifested itself to extreme proportions because of the broken thermistor. It should also be noted that the temperature error that caused this 0.006 density inversion problem was on the order of 0.005 degrees C, which upon recalculation of salinity and then density (like a positive feedback loop) caused the observed density problem. The opposite effect was also observed (i.e. - a positive increase in density of 0.006 during the transition from negative to positive temperatures). These were more difficult to find since this transition was typically masked by the high gradient in the thermocline/pycnocline but in several profiles where this was not the case, it was observable. All positive temperatures were too warm by 0.005 degree C so their salinity profiles, etc., were also off. The program took all this into account so that ALL of the profiles can be considered similar in their makeup. 4.3.14. After verification of acceptable density structure at both the top and bottom of the profile, three techniques were tried for salinity calibrations. These were: 1) calibrating the purely independent channel of conductivity through the bottle salinity; 2) calibrating salinity as a function of the bottle salinity; 3) calibration of salinity as a function of pressure. Both 1 and 2 proved to be completely unsatisfactory while 3 proved to be the most acceptable. Additionally, the clean nature of the bottle salinity plotted against corrected Neil Brown temperature on a T-S curve gave exceptionally high credibility to the calibration of salinity on a per station basis. Of the DEEP bottles that fell off of the tight T-S curve, all had justification for being that way oceanographically (at virtually all points there was indication of deep water ventilation - chimneys, cold pool survey, and the like). So they remained as part of the calibration. Calibration for most of the stations was calculated using linear regression of the difference between the bottle salinity and the filtered and corrected Neil Brown data against their respective pressures, which of course provides a perfect fit given two x,y pairs. Only Station 196 had three salinity bottles taken. Using this station as a test case, a linear equation was generated with only the top and bottom information. The intermediate value was then solved for and compared with the actual value. The resulting error of 0.005 psu (see COMPAR.LOG Station 196 for this result) confirmed the linear method and additionally gave the best indication of accuracy of the data, this being less than 0.006 psu. Note that the 0.006 psu accuracy is ONLY for those stations that had both bottom and top bottle salinities available. About 82% of the data fall within these conditions. Those stations that have only one bottle or no bottles were provided extra information from the bounding stations (in time) to come up with the required equation. For those stations that had one bottle, accuracy is estimated to be on the order of 0.015 psu. For stations that had no bottles, accuracy would be on the order of 0.025 psu. The stations that fall into the 0.015 psu accuracy are 19, 46, 47, 57, 73, 102, 105, 106, 107, 114, 127, 129, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 165, 168, 190, 195, 201, and 202. The stations that fall into the 0.025 psu accuracy are 2, 3, 11, 15, 29, 30, 40, 49, 60, 67, 82, 92, 94, 103, and 104. All remaining stations have the higher 0.006 psu accuracy. 4.3.15. After salinity calibration was applied, plots were then made to verify the validity of the equation for each station. Several stations were found to have bad (primarily surface) bottle data when compared to the bounding station information and were therefore discarded. New equations were then made and retried. This iterative method was only used on about 8 stations and each was correctly calibrated on the second pass. 4.3.16. All profiles went though visual editing to insure the removal of all density inversions. If I don't believe them, I won't let other people suffer through them! New salinities were then 'back-solved' from the corrected density and unaltered pressure and temperature values. 4.3.17. T-S plots of all of the stations proved to be another quality control technique. Station 212 was found to be in error serendipitously. An autosal typographical error was found that gave the low salinity that in turn made the delta S look like all of the other `normal' stations. This was taken care of. Freezing temperature quality control also proved to be exceptionally useful in that no data values fell below the freezing point. 4.3.18. All of the station headers were redone to reflect the start time and position of the uptrace (or downtrace where applicable.) This was done on the basis of the original log sheets. Uptrace position was defined to be the average of the beginning and ending latitude and longitude. 4.3.19. The COMPAR.LOG file was the last quality control check (see the file for details) which also turned up one station, or I should say the lack of one station, in error. Station 151 was actually Station 150! Since Station 151 was the audio tape station and was difficult to get reprocessed (and I didn't want to hold the data back any more - at least not for one station), I decided to use the downtrace version and apply salinity calibration to the data based on the uptrace tag file information. This also proved to be acceptable. As it turns out, Station 151 did not have that large a deviation from the uptrace. 4.3.20. The parameters of potential temperature and dynamic height were added to each station. 4.3.21. The station file headers are explained below. The example shown here is for Station 002.BIO, with the actual data values at the beginning of the station given in the example. CPB32 2 2 78.5403 9.3690 89/04/10 100 12:29 PB5 PR TE SA FL PT S0 HZ 7.0 0.140 34.214 1.206 0.140 27.464 0.004 8.0 0.145 34.216 1.271 0.145 27.466 0.005 9.0 0.150 34.218 1.339 0.150 27.467 0.005 The first line (a traditional file header) can be broken down as: CPB32 - ship id code 2 - station number 2 - uptrace cast used; if value is 1, a downtrace was used 78.5403 - decimal latitude 9.3690 - decimal longitude (East is positive, West is negative) 89/04/10 - year/month/day 100 - relative Julian day (year-day) 12:29 - recorded log sheet time at beginning of uptrace or downtrace PB5 - CEAREX cruise number id for the bio/phys/oceanog phase. The second line (data column headers) can be broken down as: PR - pressure in db TE - temperature in degrees C SA - salinity in psu FL - uncalibrated, but very close to correct, according to Glen Cota; units are mg/l PT - potential temperature in degrees C S0 - Sigma-0 or potential density HZ - dynamic height anomaly in dyn. m. using the surface (0 db) as the reference level; the first value in the data (if not at 0 db) is used to represent the surface parameters. 4.4. Conclusion Time, and use of the data, will find any remaining errors. Please let me [T. Manley] know of any problems that are encountered so they can be investigated and corrected in later versions of the data set. 5. Oceanography Camp (O Camp) Daily CTD Casts - J. Morison, R. Andersen These data are in the CD-ROM subdirectory \HYDROG\OCAMP. At O Camp during CEAREX 1989, a yoyo CTD system was cycled nearly continuously down to 400 meters. Typically a single cast was made each day to 600 meters. Near the very end, the continuous yoyo-ing went deeper than 400 meters. Plots of individual daily deep casts, Day 088 - Day 117, are shown in a printed data report, "CEAREX 89 O-Camp Daily CTD Casts" (Morison, J. and R. Anderson, 1990, Seattle: University of Washington, Polar Science Center, 32 pp.) available from the authors at the address given in Section 12, "Contact Information". The plots offer a quick summary of the state of the water column during the experimental period. The plots show down casts. The alignment of temperature and conductivity sensors is adjusted to minimize salinity spiking and a correction for the thermal anomaly of the conductivity cell is applied, then the data are averaged into one-meter bins. Data obtained from a helicopter (cruise designator CX3) were obtained using a SeaBird model SBE/11 CTD system which had a pumped conductivity cell and was not subject to salinity spiking. The CX3 data is a small subset of the total volume of CTD data obtained from O-Camp, and is integrated with that data in the subdirectory \HYDROG\OCAMP. Data are described in the following publications: Muench, R.D.; M.G. McPhee; C.A. Paulson; and J.H. Morison (1991) Winter oceanographic conditions in the Fram Strait-Yermak Plateau region. Journal of Geophysical Research, submitted April 1991. 6. Helicopter and Acoustics Camp (A-Camp) CTD Data - R. Muench These data are on the CD-ROM in the files \HYDROG\HELO\CX2HELO.CTD and \HYDROG\HELO\ICEHELO.CTD. The CTD data on this CD-ROM were acquired from a drifting ice camp (A-Camp) and from a helicopter which was also based out of the ice camps. The CTD data from the A-Camp (cruise designator ICE) and from the helicopter (cruise designator CX2) were obtained using SeaCat portable, self-contained CTD systems. Some salinity spiking was encountered with the SeaCat systems in regions of strong vertical T gradient, and this was most pronounced in portions of the A-Camp data (cruise ICE), where lowering rates were maintained at 0.5 m/s (a slow rate) in an effort to minimize the problem. Each of the CTD systems was calibrated prior to and following the field program. Two SeaCats used at the A-Camp (ICE) were intercalibrated through simultaneous casts during the program, though loss of one of the two instruments precluded such intercalibration later in the program. The helicopter-borne SeaCat (CX2) systems were intercalibrated periodically at the O-Camp. Except where severe spiking was present, accuracy of the observations is +/- 0.01 degree C in T and 0.02 psu in salinity. The helicopter CTD data are described in the following journal article: Muench, R.D.; M.G. McPhee; C.A. Paulson; and J.H. Morison (1991) Winter oceanographic conditions in the Fram Strait-Yermak Plateau region. Journal of Geophysical Research, submitted April 1991. 7. Seasonal Ice Zone Experiment (SIZEX 89) - O.M. Johannessen These data are in the CD-ROM subdirectory \HYDROG\SIZEX. 7.1. Introduction SIZEX 89 (The Seasonal Ice Zone Experiment 1989) is an official pre-ERS-1 program where the main objective is to perform ERS-1 type sensor signature studies of different ice types in order to develop SAR algorithms for ice variables such as ice types, ice concentration and ice kinematics. When ERS-1 is launched, these variables in conjunction with other atmospheric and oceanic variables will be used as input to a mesoscale coupled ice-ocean forecasting model for the Barents Sea, Fram Strait and Greenland Sea. Furthermore the long term objective is to use radar satellites such as ERS-1 and the planned Polar Platforms to monitor the global ice cover as a climate indicator. The SIZEX program consists of pre- and post-launch experiments. The 1987 and 1989 experiments were pre-launch, while a post-launch experiment is planned for 1992. The main objective of the program can be separated into three groups: 1: Remote sensing science 2: Geophysical science 3: Application of remote sensing data in process studies and ice forecasting. SIZEX 89 was a multidisciplinary, international winter experiment carried out in the Barents Sea and the Greenland Sea in February and March 1989. During the field experiment remote sensing, oceanographical, ocean acoustical, meteorological, and sea ice data were collected. SIZEX is a continuation of the MIZEX summer experiments in 1983 and 1984 (O.M. Johannessen, 1987, "Introduction: Summer marginal ice zone experiments during 1983 and 1984 in Fram Strait and the Greenland Sea", JGR 92(C7), p. 6716-6718) and the winter experiment in 1987 (MIZEX Group, 1989, "MIZEX East 1987. Winter marginal ice zone program in the Fram Strait and Greenland Sea", EOS, 70(17), p. 545-555). All these experiments employed various observational platforms such as ice-strengthened ships, open ocean ships, drifting buoys, bottom-moored buoys, helicopter, aircraft and satellites. 7.2. R/V "POLARBJORN" Operations On 8 February at 2300 Z the POLARBJORN departed Tromso heading towards the Barents Sea. Between Fugloya and Bjornoya 12 CTD stations were obtained. The ice edge east of Bjornoya was encountered on 11 February when one acoustic buoy was deployed in ice-covered area at 75 degrees 04 minutes N, 23 degrees 00 minutes E. The next day one current meter rig and a second acoustic buoy were deployed in open water at 74 degrees 57 minutes N, 29 degrees 15 minutes E. Then the POLARBJORN headed northeastward towards the Hopen area. Between 13-15 February a total of ten Argos buoys were deployed on ice floes in an area of approximately 100 by 100 km. Five of these buoys were toroids with current meter strings. The deployment area west of Hopen was selected because the expected drift of the array was southwestward towards Bjornoya where the array could be recovered later. In this period the ship had to plow through fairly heavy ice, much of it was multiyear up to 4-5 m thick, and she could move only a few miles per day. Weather conditions were good with 4-6 hours daylight and the helicopter could be used almost every day for ice reconnaissance and buoy deployment. Between 17-24 February the ship drifted southwestward with the packice, or moved only slightly, while the different groups collected data. Every time the ship was towed to a floe, radar and in situ measurements of snow and ice were made, sessions of ADCP data and wave data were obtained, and vertical and horizontal acoustic arrays were deployed. Ice photographs were obtained using helicopter, and other in situ measurements for SAR calibration were carefully coordinated with the SAR flights. Sonobuoy deployments were also coordinated with the two Norwegian P3 flights from Andoya on 18 and 27 February. One iceberg, which was approximately 200 by 100 m large and grounded at 50 m depth, was visited for in situ measurements. Meteorological and remote sensing data were collected regularly throughout the experiment. From 24-27 February all the toroids were recovered, partly by use of helicopter since the ship could make only slow progress in the packice. Three small Argos buoys were left in the area to continue monitoring of the ice drift. On 27 February wave/acoustic studies had first priority with one dedicated SAR flight, deployment of a vertical acoustic array and a wave buoy near open water. Barents Sea operations had been very successful; in ice-covered areas the weather was very good most of the time, all important instruments were recovered, and a lot of interesting data were collected. Entertainment was provided by polar bears almost daily, and at the end of the experiment Bjornoya was called. In the morning of 4 March the POLARBJORN arrived in Tromso. After repair in a shipyard in Harstad and a cargo outhaul to Long- yearbyen, the POLARBJORN was ready for the Greenland Sea operations. On 11 March she left Longyearbyen and headed southwestward to occupy deep CTDs in the acoustic tomography array in the Greenland Basin in cooperation with the HAKON MOSBY. Between 13-16 March only four deep CTD casts were obtained in this area because there were problems with both the winch and the CTD sonde. We had to call the HAKON MOSBY for technical assistance before the program could be continued. Between 17-28 March the weather conditions were quiet and operations were carried out in the Boreas Basin at about 78 degrees N. The CTD system functioned normally after the repair and 70 CTD stations were obtained in this period. Only two toroid buoys with current meters and four other Argos buoys were deployed. Emphasis was put on the study of eddies, deep convection and chimneys using the CTD and water samples. Therefore less time was spent on buoy deployment and more on CTD work compared to the Barents Sea. Meteorological and remote sensing data were collected regularly, and snow/ice measurements and acoustic data were obtained in between the CTD casts. A dedicated acoustic experiment was carried out on 27-28 March. Seven SAR flights over the area by NADC P-3 were completed in this period. From 28 March to 1 April weather conditions changed from moderate to rough, since two moderate strong storms passed the area. Of highest priority in this period was the recovery of the last toroid, 5064, which had five current meters and one thermistor chain. It had been deployed from a multiyear floe at about 78 degrees 25 minutes N, and during a seven day period it drifted southward with the East Greenland current. Fortunately, the toroid survived the storms and was successfully recovered at 76 degrees 30 minutes N on 31 March. After one more deep CTD cast in the Greenland Basin the POLARBJORN headed back to Tromso where she arrived on 2 April. Two of the drifting Argos buoys were caught by eddies and circulated in the Boreas Basin for about three weeks after the ship had left the area. One buoy drifted south to about 73 degrees N where data transmission stopped on 18 May. The Greenland Sea leg was successfully completed, with a lot of interesting data. Both ice conditions, ocean conditions and weather are different in the Greenland Sea compared to the Barents Sea. Therefore the data sets from these two areas complement each other. 7.3 CTD and Seasoar Program In the Barents Sea a total of 55 CTD stations were completed. The water masses in the shallow area between Bjornoya and Hopen (40-60m depth) are dominated by homogeneous cold polar water with temperature around -1.8 degrees C and salinity of 34.7 parts per thousand. In the western part of the experiment area some intrusion of warm and saltier Atlantic water below 50 m was observed. In the Greenland Sea 75 CTD stations were obtained, 13 of which were deeper than 2000 m. The deep CTD casts were made in cooperation with the HAKON MOSBY to study deep convection and bottom water formation. The shallow casts (500m) were made to map eddies and upper ocean chimneys in the Boreas Basin. [Johannessen, O.M., et al., 1991, "Eddy-related winter convection in the Boreas Basin", in Deep Convection and Deep Water Formation in the Oceans, ed. by J.-C. Gascard, et al., Elsevier, in press]. 7.3.1 Data Report Nansen Remote Sensing Center plans to produce a data report on the CTD and Seasoar data sets. Inquire for availability at the address shown in Section 13, "Contact Information". [Documentation text taken from Johannessen and Sandven, "SIZEX 89: A Prelaunch ERS-1 Experiment. Experiment Report". Nansen Remote Sensing Center. Technical Report no. 23, 1989.] 8. EUBEX CTD documentation - R. Perkin These data are in the CD-ROM subdirectory \HYDROG\EUBEX. The 37 EUBEX (Eurasian Basin Experiment) CTD stations included in the file EUBEX.CTD on this CD-ROM were taken near Spitsbergen, during the period 8 March - 17 April 1981. The surveys were conducted using aircraft and from the sea ice surface, and extended down to 1 km where the water was deep enough to allow this. There are no data for stations 3503 or 3506. The following table provides location information for each of the stations: Area Stn Lat Lon Date Max-P Tch-P Instr Consec Deg Min Deg Min Yr Mo Dy Hr SPITSBERGEN 404 80 19.20 29 27.30 81 3 15 12 244. 237.X XCTD 3504 SPITSBERGEN 407 78 33.60 16 36.40 81 3 15 15 109. 104.X XCTD 3505 SPITSBERGEN 316 81 41.30 23 18.90 81 3 21 12 1002. -999.X XCTD 3507 SPITSBERGEN 211 83 30.00 13 .40 81 3 23 15 998. -999.X XCTD 3508 SPITSBERGEN 206 84 .10 1 31.50 81 2 24 15 1001. -999.X XCTD 3509 SPITSBERGEN 207 83 46.40 3 32.10 81 3 24 16 1002. -999.X XCTD 3510 SPITSBERGEN 215 81 25.50 16 30.50 81 3 25 11 1002. -999.X XCTD 3511 SPITSBERGEN 213 81 47.00 14 40.10 81 3 25 12 1006. -999.X XCTD 3512 SPITSBERGEN 212 82 16.90 13 2.20 81 3 25 14 1004. -999.X XCTD 3513 SPITSBERGEN 208 83 27.90 5 57.10 81 3 25 17 1004. -999.X XCTD 3514 SPITSBERGEN 210 82 39.20 11 29.50 81 3 26 10 1003. -999.X XCTD 3515 SPITSBERGEN 209 82 58.70 8 42.80 81 3 26 12 1003. -999.X XCTD 3516 SPITSBERGEN 308 84 29.10 17 12.70 81 3 26 15 1004. -999.X XCTD 3517 SPITSBERGEN 309 84 6.50 17 34.00 81 3 26 16 1004. -999.X XCTD 3518 SPITSBERGEN 315 81 59.60 22 49.20 81 3 27 11 1004. -999.X XCTD 3519 SPITSBERGEN 314 82 23.00 23 .00 81 3 27 12 1004. -999.X XCTD 3520 SPITSBERGEN 313 82 40.40 21 45.80 81 3 27 14 1004. -999.X XCTD 3521 SPITSBERGEN 310 83 41.60 18 49.40 81 3 27 17 727. -999.X XCTD 3522 SPITSBERGEN 516 81 59.50 31 40.30 81 3 28 11 1048. -999.X XCTD 3523 SPITSBERGEN 311 83 22.00 19 57.00 81 3 28 13 1003. -999.X XCTD 3524 SPITSBERGEN 512 83 24.50 30 42.30 81 3 28 16 1007. -999.X XCTD 3525 SPITSBERGEN 514 82 44.80 31 58.20 81 3 29 11 1004. -999.X XCTD 3526 SPITSBERGEN 312 83 9.90 19 35.70 81 3 29 13 1004. -999.X XCTD 3527 SPITSBERGEN 517 81 41.40 32 57.20 81 3 30 16 1003. -999.X XCTD 3528 SPITSBERGEN 401 81 15.90 29 22.40 81 3 31 11 331. 320.X XCTD 3529 SPITSBERGEN 317 81 22.30 24 45.00 81 3 31 12 136. 125.X XCTD 3530 SPITSBERGEN 211 83 9.80 12 17.40 81 3 31 17 106. -999.X XCTD 3531 SPITSBERGEN 508 84 33.50 30 44.30 81 4 1 13 1004. -999.X XCTD 3532 SPITSBERGEN 402 80 43.70 28 43.50 81 4 4 11 395. -999.X XCTD 3533 SPITSBERGEN 216 81 5.60 16 28.60 81 4 12 10 999. -999.X XCTD 3534 SPITSBERGEN 702 77 49.20 15 27.20 81 4 14 9 87. 75.X XCTD 3535 SPITSBERGEN 701 77 51.30 16 40.60 81 4 14 10 68. 56.X XCTD 3536 SPITSBERGEN 703 77 47.50 15 8.30 81 4 14 11 112. 99.X XCTD 3537 SPITSBERGEN 105 80 33.10 0 .10 81 4 17 11 1010. -999.X XCTD 3538 Three CTD casts taken off Greenland by Knut Aagaard are also included, in the file GREEN.CTD. See Lewis and Perkin, "Supercooling and energy exchange near the Arctic Ocean surface," JGR, 88(C12), p. 7681-7685, 1983, and Perkin and Lewis, "Mixing in the West Spitsbergen Current," Journal of Physical Oceanography, 14(8), p. 1315-1325, 1984 for more complete information on the EUBEX CTD data. 9. The Fram Strait 11-Year CTD Data Base - T. Manley, R. Bourke and K. Hunkins. These data are in the CD-ROM subdirectory \HYDROG\FRAM. 9.1. Abstract Using hydrographic data collected over an 11-year period, a view of the circulation pattern existing in the upper 40 meters over the Yermak Plateau of northern Fram Strait is presented. Past work has indicated that the primary influx of Atlantic water into the central Arctic Ocean is accomplished via a single narrow current that borders the northern coast of Svalbard. Volumetric analysis of the available hydrographic data has shown the presence of a shallow, previously undocumented plume of Atlantic-derived water entering the Arctic Ocean directly over the Litke Trough. This plume represents one part of a large, near-surface (predominant in the upper 20 m) mushroom-shaped salinity-defined dipole structure that has a lateral extent of some 450 km. The eastern vortex of this dipole is poorly documented due to a lack of data-coverage, but the better documented western limb of the dipole, which is the central topic of this paper, represents a recirculated filament of modified Atlantic water that moves cyclonically around the periphery of the Yermak Plateau. T-S analysis of the original data and the use of a simplified model depicting the evolving T-S properties of Atlantic water as it interacts with the atmosphere and ice cover support this view. Additionally, over the larger-scale distribution fields of salinity (which primarily defines density) and dynamic height, a well defined front in both salinity and dynamic height is observed 200-500 km north of Svalbard trending east northeast. [Abstract from Manley, Bourke and Hunkins, 1991, "Near-surface circulation over the Yermak Plateau in Northern Fram Strait", in press. The data set presented here is the basis for this paper.] 9.2. Data Base Description All readily available hydrographic information obtained from STD or CTD profiling instruments north of 76 degrees North and within the region of Fram Strait were combined into a single data base comprising 4,114 stations. Bottle data available from earlier cruises within this region, although gathered into a separate data base, were not used because of the large vertical spacing between samples and the initial requirement that the data base provide a vertical resolution on the order of 5 m. Table 1 lists the 26 experiments spanning 11 years (1977-1987) whose data have been collected into this data base. Primarily, the data base is comprised of spring, summer and fall measurements although there are three experiments (POLARCIRCLE 1977, HUDSON 1982 and MIZEX 1987) that do provide wintertime observations. TABLE 1 - Data Base Contents (In Chronological Order) Filename Experiment Platform Stations Dates ============ ========== ============ ======== ==================== SVALB77.JMS -- POLARCIRCLE 123 20 Nov - 5 Dec 1977 NORSEX79.JMS NORSEX POLARCIRCLE 238 17 Sep - 4 Oct 1979 ODEC79.JMS Fram-I helicopter 100 24 Mar - 1 May 1979 FRAM79.JMS Fram-I ice-camp 88 29 Mar - 6 May 1979 WWIND79.JMS -- WESTWIND 154 19 Aug - 25 Sep 1979 YMER80.JMS -- YMER 113 13 Aug - 19 Sep 1980 EUBEX81.JMS EUBEX Twin Otter 34 15 Mar - 17 Apr 1981 FRAM81.JMS Fram-III ice-camp/helo 191 30 Mar - 7 May 1981 NWIND81.JMS MIZLANT NORTHWIND 114 18 Oct - 15 Nov 1981 LANCE81.JMS -- LANCE 63 28 Jul - 12 Aug 1981 METEOR82.JMS METEOR 19 19 Jun - 23 Jun 1982 HUDSON82.JMS -- HUDSON 32 5 Mar - 15 Mar 1982 LANCE82.JMS -- LANCE 97 19 Jul - 3 Aug 1982 PBJORN83.JMS MIZEX-83 POLARBJORN 225 19 Jun - 9 Jul 1983 MIZEX83.JMS MIZEX-83 helicopter 119 21 Jun - 31 Jul 1983 LANCE83.JMS -- LANCE 61 21 Jul - 31 Jul 1983 LYNCH84.JMS MIZEX-84 LYNCH 26 21 May - 21 Jun 1984 HMOSBY84.JMS MIZEX-84 HAKON MOSBY 449 17 Jun - 17 Jul 1984 KBJORN84.JMS MIZEX-84 KVITBJORN 309 12 Jun - 22 Jul 1984 NWIND84.JMS MIZLANT NORTHWIND 313 22 Aug - 15 Sep 1984 QUEEN84.JMS MIZEX-84 POLARQUEEN 46 12 Jun - 17 Jul 1984 PSTERN05.JMS MIZEX-84 POLARSTERN 170 15 Jun - 18 Jul 1984 PSTERN07.JMS Arktis 7/84 POLARSTERN 33 20 Jul - 5 Aug 1984 MIZEX84.JMS MIZEX-84 helicopter 222 12 Jun - 17 Jul 1984 NWIND85.JMS MIZLANT NORTHWIND 147 5 Aug - 26 Sep 1985 HMOSBY87.JMS MIZEX-87 HAKON MOSBY 628 27 Mar - 9 Apr 1987 9.3. Data Format Description The 26 files in the CD-ROM directory \HYDROG\FRAM are named *.jms, where * represents the name and year of the platform, and jms tags the files as relating to Manley, Bourke and Hunkins (1991, in press) in the Journal of Marine Systems. In some cases, the name and year of the experiment was used instead to avoid duplicate filenames. The files are in the "s87" standard CTD data format, having 64 character records. Table 2 presents the filenames and the associated "Cruise_id" value found in positions 54-62 of each file's header records. See Section 2 of this file for a complete description of the "s87" standard CTD data format, developed at Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory, and in which format all the CTD files on this CD-ROM are presented. TABLE 2 - Filenames (In CD-ROM Directory Order) With Associated Cruise_id Filename Cruise_id Dates =========== ========= ==================== EUBEX81.JMS Eubex-81 15 Mar - 17 Apr 1981 FRAM79.JMS Fram1-79 29 Mar - 6 May 1979 FRAM81.JMS Fram3-81 30 Mar - 7 May 1981 HMOSBY84.JMS Hknmosby 17 Jun - 17 Jul 1984 HMOSBY87.JMS Mizex-87 27 Mar - 9 Apr 1987 HUDSON82.JMS Hudson-82 5 Mar - 15 Mar 1982 KBJORN84.JMS Kvtbjorn 12 Jun - 22 Jul 1984 LANCE81.JMS Lance-81 28 Jul - 12 Aug 1981 LANCE82.JMS Lance-82 19 Jul - 3 Aug 1982 LANCE83.JMS Lance-83 21 Jul - 31 Jul 1983 LYNCH84.JMS Lynch-84 21 May - 21 Jun 1984 METEOR82.JMS Meteor-82 19 Jun - 23 Jun 1982 MIZEX83.JMS Mizex-83 21 Jun - 31 Jul 1983 MIZEX84.JMS Mizex-84 12 Jun - 17 Jul 1984 NORSEX79.JMS Norsx-79 17 Sep - 4 Oct 1979 NWIND81.JMS Nwind-81 18 Oct - 15 Nov 1981 NWIND84.JMS Nwind-84 22 Aug - 15 Sep 1984 NWIND85.JMS Nwind-85 5 Aug - 26 Sep 1985 ODEC79.JMS Odec-Fr1 24 Mar - 1 May 1979 PBJORN83.JMS Plrbjorn 19 Jun - 9 Jul 1983 PSTERN05.JMS Ps-05-84 15 Jun - 18 Jul 1984 PSTERN07.JMS Ps-07-84 20 Jul - 5 Aug 1984 QUEEN84.JMS Queen-84 12 Jun - 17 Jul 1984 SVALB77.JMS Svalb-77 20 Nov - 5 Dec 1977 WWIND79.JMS Westwind 19 Aug - 25 Sep 1979 YMER80.JMS Ymer1980 13 Aug - 19 Sep 1980 9.4. Data Processing Description Due to the predominance of interleaving of the various water masses within this region, virtually all of the profiles displayed density inversions and spiking over a rather wide range of amplitudes (1 - 10 m). In that these characteristics were undesirable for the intended use of the data, a variable-knot cubic-spline smoothing algorithm was used to remove all density inversions and spikes from the data while still preserving structure having vertical amplitudes grater than 20 m. This algorithm consecutively fit a series of cubic splines with continuous first and second derivatives over the entire profile. More splines were used at the beginning of the profile to insure better fit of the thermal layering. Subsequent verification procedures were incorporated into the processing to insure a closeness of fit to the original profile and to insure that no inversions were present. Additionally, the mixed layer was removed from the smoothing process since it was important that the data maintain the original observational values as well as prevent the modification (smearing) of the base of the mixed layer. Data were subsampled every 5 m and then truncated at a maximum depth of 800 m to produce the final data set. The accuracy of the data varies with experimental program and the types of sensors used, but for the data set as a whole, the accuracy estimates are +/- 0.02 degree C and +/- 0.02 PSU for temperature and salinity, respectively. Residual (smoothed - original) standard-errors were used as an indication of the quality of fit between the smoothed and original profiles of temperature, salinity and density. Less than 10% of the station data had residuals greater than +/- 0.01, but they were still within the limits of the dataset reliability (i.e., +/- 0.02). 9.5. Reference Manley, T.O., R.H. Bourke, and K.L. Hunkins (1991) Near-surface circulation over the Yermak Plateau in northern Fram Strait. Journal of Marine Systems, in press. 10. Bottle and Ship Data - J. Swift 10.1. Bottle Data These data are in the CD-ROM subdirectory \HYDROG\BOTTLE. The bottle data stations in the file BOTTLE.DAT were obtained by searching a copy of the NOAA/National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC) data base, June 1990 version, held by Joe Reid. The search was performed using the following coincident criteria: - maximum observed (sampling) depths greater than or equal to 200 meters; - latitudes above 80 N, or latitudes between 70 N and 80 N with longitudes between 120 W and 180 or 180 and 100 E; - both temperature and salinity data at the same station; - salinity values reported to at least two decimal places. The search resulted in 1549 stations. No quality control measures were applied to the data after selection. The original investigators' and/or institutions' quality control measures are documented at NODC. Examination of the data shows very few stations with the quality, resolution, or range of parameters expected from modern observations. 10.2. Ship Data These data are in the CD-ROM subdirectory \HYDROG\SHIP. The ship data files are a special merged data set of 300 Norwegian Sea and Greenland Sea stations from 1980-1984, having relatively good data quality. Cruises included on the CD-ROM are the YMER 1980 Fram Strait and northern Barents Sea slope expedition, the KNORR 1981 expedition for the North Atlantic Study of the Transient Tracers in the Ocean (TTO-NAS), the HUDSON 1982 winter expedition, the METEOR 1982 spring expedition, and the POLARSTERN 1984 post-MIZEX expedition in and near Fram Strait. Data are in five files: HUDSON.CTD, KNORR.CTD, METEOR.CTD, STERN.CTD (POLARSTERN data), and YMER.CTD. When there was overlap among stations, HUDSON data were used. All station times are missing from the data files. The ship code for the KNORR is 5N instead of 6N as shown in the NODC ship code list. 11. References Johannessen, O.M. (1987) Introduction: Summer marginal ice zone experiments during 1983 and 1984 in the Fram Strait and the Greenland Sea. Journal of Geophysical Research, 92(C7), p. 6717-6718. [MIZEX, SIZEX] Johannessen, O.M. and S. Sandven (1989) SIZEX 89: A Prelaunch ERS-1 Experiment. Experiment Report. Nansen Remote Sensing Center. Technical Report no. 23, 39 p. [SIZEX] Johannessen, O.M.; S. Sandven; and J.A. Johannessen (1991) Eddy-related winter convection in the Boreas Basin. In: Deep Convection and Deep Water Formation in the Oceans, J.-C. Gascard, P.C. Chu, eds., Elsevier, in press. [SIZEX] Lewis, E.L. and R.G. Perkin (1983) Supercooling and energy exchange near the Arctic Ocean surface. Journal of Geophysical Research, 88(C12), p. 7681-7685. (EUBEX) Manley, T.O., R.H. Bourke and K.L. Hunkins (1991) Near-surface circulation over the Yermak Plateau in northern Fram Strait. Journal of Marine Systems, in press. MIZEX Group (1989) MIZEX East 1987. Winter marginal ice zone program in the Fram Strait and Greenland Sea. EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, 70(17), p. 545-555. [MIZEX, SIZEX] Morison, J. and R. Andersen (1990) CEAREX 89 O-Camp Daily CTD Casts. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Polar Science Center, unpaged. [OCAMP] Muench, R.D.; McPhee, M.G.; Paulson, C.A.; and Morison, J.H. (1991) Winter oceanographic conditions in the Fram Strait-Yermak Plateau region. Journal of Geophysical Research, submitted April 1991. [HELO, OCAMP] O'Hara, S.H. (1990) Coordinated Eastern Arctic Experiment (CEAREX) CTD Data for PB1, PB2 & PB3, October 17, 1988 - March 1, 1989. Palisades, NY: Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory, unpaged. [LAMONT] Perkin, R.G. and E.L. Lewis (1984) Mixing in the West Spitsbergen Current. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 14, p. 1315-1325. [EUBEX] 12. Contact Information J.L. Ardai (\HYDROG\LAMONT, 12/15/88 - 1/8/89) Lamont Doherty Geological Observatory Palisades, NY 10964 USA Phone: 914-359-2900 x436 Telemail: J.ARDAI/OMNET R. H. Bourke (\HYDROG\FRAM - analysis) Department of Oceanography Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, CA 93943 USA Dr. E. D'Asaro (\HYDROG\LAMONT, 1/14/89 - 2/1/89) University of Washington Applied Physics Laboratory 1013 NE 40th Street Seattle, WA 90105 USA Phone: 206-545-2982 Telemail: E.DASARO/OMNET K.L. Hunkins (\HYDROG\FRAM - analysis) Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory Columbia University Palisades, NY 10964 USA Telephone: 914-359-2900 Telemail: K.HUNKINS/OMNET Dr. Ola M. Johannessen (\HYDROG\SIZEX; \HYDROG\LAMONT 2/8/89 - 3/1/89) Stein Sandven Nansen Remote Sensing Center Edvard Griegsvei 3A N-5037 Solheimsvik Norway Phone: 47 5 297288 Fax: 47 5 200050 Telemail: O.JOHANNESSEN/OMNET Dr. Thomas O. Manley (HYDROG\BIOCTD, \HYDROG\FRAM - data set and analysis) Marine Research Corporation 8 Nedde Lane - Battell Hill Middlebury, VT 05753 USA Phone: 802-338-6884 Telemail: T.MANLEY/OMNET Dr. James H. Morison (HYDROG\OCAMP) Dr. Roger Anderson Polar Science Center Applied Physics Laboratory University of Washington 1013 NE 40th Street Seattle, WA 98105 USA Phone: Telemail: J.MORISON/OMNET Dr. Robin D. Muench (HYDROG\HELO) Science Applications International Corp. 13400B Northrup Way, Suite 36 Bellevue, WA 98005 USA Phone: 206-747-7152 Telemail: R.MUENCH/OMNET Suzanne H. O'Hara (\HYDROG\LAMONT) Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory Physical Oceanography Department Palisades, NY 10964 USA Phone: 914-359-2900 ext. 381 Telemail: K.HUNKINS/OMNET Dr. Ronald G. Perkin (HYDROG\EUBEX) Institute of Ocean Sciences Ocean Physics 9860 West Saanich Road Sidney, BC V8L 4B2 Canada Phone: 604-363-6584 Fax: 604-363-6390 Telemail: IOS.BC/OMNET [Attn: R.Perkin] Dr. Robert S. Pritchard (HYDROG\LAMONT, 10/17/88 - 12/14/88) IceCasting, Inc. 11042 Sand Point Way NE Seattle, WA 98125-5846 USA Phone: 206-363-3394 Telemail: R.PRITCHARD/OMNET Dr. James H. Swift (data compilation) Scripps Institution of Oceanography Oceanographic Data Facility La Jolla, CA 92093-0214 Telephone: 619-534-3387 Telemail: J.SWIFT/OMNET 13. Acknowledgments The CTD and hydrographic data files were assembled for this CD-ROM by Norma Mantyla of the Scripps Oceanographic Data Facility. Support was provided through ONR Grant N00014-90-J-1171. \HYDROG\LAMONT - S. O'Hara: I would like to acknowledge the help of Jay Ardai, without whom the CTD system on the POLARBJORN would not have operated. Many thanks to the crew of the POLARBJORN for their help throughout the entire CEAREX experiment. I would like to recognize Dr. Kenneth Hunkins, Dr. Doug Martinson and Dr. Stanley Jacobs for their helpful advice and reviews of the CTD data processing project. \HYDROG\BIOCTD - T. Manley: Support was provided by ONR Grant N00014-90-C-0021. \HYDROG\OCAMP - J. Morison: Support was provided by ONR Grant N00014-87-K0004, and the Naval Postgraduate School Office of Naval Research Chair in Arctic Marine Science. \HYDROG\SIZEX - O. Johannessen: The research was primarily sponsored by the Norwegian Space Centre, the European Space Agency, Office of Naval Research, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration. We would like to thank all participating institutions and personnel for their contributions to the success of SIZEX 89. A special thanks to the crews onboard the HAKON MOSBY and the POLARBJORN and the helo crew from A/S Lufttransport, and to the Norwegian Air Force Squadron at Andoya for participation with a P3 aircraft. [from Johannessen and Sandven, 1989] \HYDROG\EUBEX - R. Perkin: The valuable participation of Knut Aagaard and Clarke Darnall (University of Washington) is acknowledged, as is their courage and strength in enduring the loss of their aircraft. Logistical support was provided by the Polar Continental Shelf Project of Canada and the Fram 3 ice station. \HYDROG\FRAM - T. Manley: The efforts of many investigators and agencies that provided the data that made this investigation possible were and still are gratefully appreciated. Much of the work by Tom Manley was completed at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California while he held the Commander Naval Oceanography Chair (CNOC). This work was sponsored by the Office of Naval Research under contracts N00014-87-K-0204 Scope MH (Tom Manley) and N00014-90-J-1131 (Ken Hunkins). Bob Bourke is pleased to acknowledge the sponsoring of his research by the Arctic Submarine Laboratory, NOSC, San Diego, and funding by the Naval Postgraduate School. August 1991