This entry was posted
on Tuesday, April 28th, 2009 at 08:08 and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
3 open review comments to “The Ship Of Opportunity Program”
Recommended changes in capitols
1) Anticipating implementation of the Argo float network AND CONTINUED SATELLITE ALTIMETRIC OBSERVATIONS…..
2) Low density sampling does not resolve small spatial scales or at special locations. Change to …along well-observed transects EITHER ON LARGE-SCALE SAMPLING….
1)…providing sampling INITIALLY DURING REGIONAL RESEARCH CRUISES AND RECENTLY DURING BOTH RESEARCH CRUISES AND ALONG MAJOR SHIPPING LINES
2) The requirements AND PURPOSES… Add a sentence or two about the purpose of each mode.
3)….if Argo profiling float AND SATELLITE ALTIMETRIC DATA could provide…
4) FR is not high spatial resolution but high temporal resolution
5) what does “HD in one single realization” mean, HD samples 4Xs/year
6) what does “consecutive realizations” mean re FR sampling
1) questions 1 and 2 are the same since present sampling (1) includes differences (2)
2) Delete sentence eginning with AX02… and replace with AX01 AND AX02 CROSS CURRENTS THAT TRANSPORT WATERS INTO AND OUT OF THE NORDIC SEAS AND ARCTIC OCEAN, CRUCIAL COMPONENTS OF THE MOC.
3) Omit “recommendation” after items 1 throgh 5
4) Is GTSPP at MEDS, I thought NODC was the final archive for all data?
1) Recommendation 9: need to define highest resolution; i.e., will a user only get HD data if both HD and LD data are available?
2) The definition of a “definitive ocean data base” is not given. Once defined how will it be generated?
1) should specify which communities have specified requirements.
1) e-mail addresses for groups listed in figure legend would be useful
2) specific line numbers for b and c in comparison paragraph would help
3) delete ” to some extent”, both were considered essential
4) ..if observations from Argo floats AND/OR SATELLITE ALTIMETRY
5) Sentence beginning with HOWEVER is awkward and should be rewritten
6) Replace last sentence: LD transects were dropped efore Argo was fully implemented and comparisons for compatability wre completed as was recommended by Oceanbs99
1) Use as first bulltet INITIALIZE SI FORECAST MODELS
2) …in relation TO interannual..
3).. .that may REPRESENT up to..
4) delete “alter the”
5) add a bullet on initializing SI forecast models
1) Combine sentences 1 and 3 under FR
2) In some cases…. delte sentence, some currents suchas the Forida Current, Somali Current, etc. are found inshore of the 200m contour
3) Estimates of geos…are made using CLIMATOLOGICAL SALINITY DATA, low pzass filtering..
1) Was Figure 2 corrected for Fall Rate Equation errors?
2) First state that HD lines transect from ocean boundary to ocean boundary than follow with Auckland to Fiji example. Need to expand on use of HD lines as not only boundary to boundary sections
3) Some transects are …. should be deleted, implies some HD data are not being useed.
1) …in TERMS of high desntiy and DEEPER ARGO MEASUREMENTS
2) Obtain long time series… is this really done, I find it hard to belive that ships exactly duplicate same transect.
3) Are the ojectives “provide appropriate in situ data..”and Determine the synergy really different?
4) Awkward structure: listing scientific results under objectives thena separate paragraph then a description of 4 projects, should be rewritten
1)… a period of about 4 years and a sudden change. Provide some details of sudden change.
1) Figure 2: XBTs corrected for FRE uncertainties?
2) Need brief explanation of how total northward heat flux estimated if only upper 800m observed.
3) How do you compute heat flux through center of gyre?
1) Need to define abbreviations used to identify domains in Figure
2) …amelioration of the INCREASED SST..
3)… opposing behavior with RESPECT to ocean heat..
4) resulting in no obvious trend in ocean heat content. Need to specify over what area and ensure areas are the sme in AS and BB
5) Using this one consistent data set.. is not true in view of recently identified time dependent changes in FRE
1) Delayed mode qc definition different than common useage (i.e., scientific review of data). Can name be changed?
1) Define “inter-operable”
2)….. processing history, LD…
3) …for depths GREATER than 10m..
4).. …1.0336 was applied TO DEPTHS ESTIMATED THE ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS FRE
1) Cargo ships provide…sentence confusing, what other observational platforms?
2)..provided by far th3e ongest TEMPERATURE time series of the GS
3) We have learned much from this. Inadequate-require specific examples
4) Aren’t convective changes also partly wind driven
1)… may be difficult to OCCUPY
2) With the full implementation of Argo AND CONTINUED ALTIMETRIC OBSERVATIONS, the role of the XBTs…
1) the role of XBTs and THEIR impact on…
2)..in one or THE OTHER INSTRUMENT
3) Form an XBT Science Steering Teamj: strongly disagree, we are at the stage in the evolution of GOOS when need to form integrative temas that consider specific variables (e.g., T, S, sea level, etc.) not self-serving instrument teams. Only then will we be able to desing effective and cost-efficent observing systems. If this is a minoority position, I hope it can be included as such.
4)…systematic errors in EQAUIPMENT and ships
5) Isn’t there a difference in qc applied to data from ships and those from organizations? This should be a meta-data requirement if so.
Thank you Bob. I am entering most of your comments. Some others we will have to discuss them in person after you return back from your vacation. Are you really on vacation or actually working ? Gustavo
RE: Bob’s comment (p 2-3) on the sentence “HD transects are designed to have high spatial resolution in one single realization, while FR transects accomplish the same objective from consecutive realizations.” I think what we’re saying here is “HD transects are designed to have high spatial resolution in A SYNOPTIC SECTION”, while FR transects REQUIRE TWO OR MORE REALIZATIONS TO ACHIEVE A SIMILAR SPATIAL RESOLUTION IN THE BIMONTHLY MEAN SECTION.
P. 4 comment on a “definitive ocean database”: Actually the XBT profile data base is in a big mess e.g. many profiles have been depth corrected twice, the large number of duplicates remains and other problems. Should we say simply that THE PRODUCTION OF A HIGH QUALITY, GLOBAL, HISTORICAL XBT DATA SET REMAINS TO BE ACHIEVED. COMPLETION OF THIS TASK IS STRONGLY RECOMMENDED. THE TASK WILL REQUIRE A VERY LARGE EFFORT, SIMILAR IN NATURE TO THE RESTORTATION OF SHIP-METEORIOLOGICAL DATA IN THE COADS PROJECT.
Page 8 I agree good to combine sentences 1 and 3. I think having the XBT drop at 200m contoure adds value to the XBT lines. Bob is right that major currents may flow inshore of 200m but the fixed endpoint in fairly shallow water improves the estimate of current transport by always having the same insore edge.
Page 10: Fig 2 was corrected for fall-rate
Gustavo, Bob, I have only responded here to Bob’s comments. I’ll give the paper a read again from beginning to end when I get a chance. When does the paper have to be finalized?