CEAREX Hydrography Data: CTDs

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

        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:

       PR = (3.8x10**-9)xPR**3 - (1.154x10**-5)xPR**2 + 1.00834123xPR
       TE = .99996436*TE + .00133419

          CO = .9858689xCO + (4.136x10**-5)xTE + .29824006

          CO = (8.7285x10**-4)xCO**2 + .94209108xCO + 
                               (4.136x10**-5)xTE + .94666183

          CO = (1.151x10**-5)xCO**3 - (1.01464x10**-3)xCO**2 +
                          1.0224569xCO + (4.136x10**-5)xTE -
     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  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.  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.  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.  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

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 

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

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

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 
For this reason, all density inversions were removed BY HAND to ensure 
the proper gradient characteristics of the original density field were

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

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

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

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

    CPB32    - ship id code
    2        - station number
    2        - uptrace cast used; if value is 1, a downtrace was
    78.5403  - decimal latitude
    9.3690   - decimal longitude (East is positive, West is
    89/04/10 - year/month/day
    100      - relative Julian day (year-day)
    12:29    - recorded log sheet time at beginning of uptrace or
    PB5      - CEAREX cruise number id for the bio/phys/oceanog

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

     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 

     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 

     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 

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 

     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 pp. 87-105].

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."  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 in the Journal of Marine Systems 3
(March 1992): 107-125.  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. "Near-surface circulation 
over the Yermak Plateau in northern Fram Strait," Journal of Marine Systems (1992).  
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): 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 23: 39 [SIZEX]

Johannessen, O.M.; S. Sandven; and J.A. Johannessen. 1991. Deep convection
and deep water formation in the oceans. J.-C. Gascard, P.C. Chu, eds.,
Elsevier [SIZEX]

Lewis, E.L. and R.G. Perkin. 1983. Supercooling and energy exchange 
near the Arctic Ocean surface. Journal of Geophysical Research 88(C12): 7681-7685. (EUBEX)

Manley, T.O., R.H. Bourke and K.L. Hunkins. 1992. Near-surface
circulation over the Yermak Plateau in Northern Fram Strait. Journal of
Marine Systems 3 (March): 107-125.

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): 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.

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: 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

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
K.L. Hunkins (\HYDROG\FRAM - analysis)
Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory
Columbia University
Palisades, NY  10964 USA
Telephone: 914-359-2900

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
Phone: 47 5 297288
Fax: 47 5 200050

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

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

Dr. Robin D. Muench (HYDROG\HELO)
Science Applications International Corp.
13400B Northrup Way, Suite 36
Bellevue, WA   98005 USA
Phone: 206-747-7152

Suzanne H. O'Hara (\HYDROG\LAMONT)
Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory
Physical Oceanography Department
Palisades, NY 10964 USA
Phone: 914-359-2900  ext. 381

Dr. Ronald G. Perkin (HYDROG\EUBEX)
Institute of Ocean Sciences
Ocean Physics
9860 West Saanich Road
Sidney, BC   V8L 4B2
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

Dr. James H. Swift (data compilation)
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Oceanographic Data Facility
La Jolla, CA  92093-0214
Telephone: 619-534-3387

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

     \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