Comparison with the shipboard CTD cast was done for R0001 (the majority of the Papa cruise data are not available in Alfresco). The available science parameter values and patterns are comparable between profiler and CTD cast, however further analysis using the shipboard bottle data should be conducted. This is outside the scope of this project.

By Lori Garzio, on 3/8/19

I submitted a helpdesk question on 11/12/2018 regarding an offset between recovered and telemetered data for all global HYPMs: "There appears to be a substantial offset between data with the same timestamps from recovered_wfp and telemetered methods for all deployments of all global WFP CTDs, and I have included information from two representative deployments of two different profilers as examples. It looks like the values recorded for the first common timestamp are exactly the same, and as the profiler moves along in time the offset between the values recorded for the same timestamp become increasingly more offset. Then, the profiler reaches the end of the profile (either at its shallowest or deepest point), resets, and the pattern begins again. This is most easily seen in the pressure data, but there is an offset for all science parameters.

Examples:
GI02HYPM-WFP02-04-CTDPFL000 deployment 1
GP02HYPM-WFP02-04-CTDPFL000 deployment 3

The *_intersect.csv files attached contain data where recovered and telemetered timestamps intersect. For each timestamp and science parameter there are recorded values (from .nc files downloaded from the system) and the difference. For each parameter, the difference between the values at the bottom and top of the profiler's range are exactly zero, and (particularly for pressure) the differences steadily increase until they are reset at zero at the bottom/top of the profile. This pattern continues throughout the deployment. The plots attached are zoomed in to one upcast and one downcast, and highlight the offset in the data between the two methods."

Redmine 13743

By Lori Garzio, on 8/8/19

Deployments 4 and 5 don't have deployment depths defined in asset management.

By Lori Garzio, on 1/3/19

Too much variation in conductivity (and salinity) at the beginning of the deployment.

By Lori Garzio, on 8/7/19

Excluding data from the beginning of deployment 2 from the final statistics as the mooring was recovered and re-deployed (annotation ID 580)

By Lori Garzio, on 1/3/19

practical_salinity values at the bottom of the WFP02 range and the top of the WFP03 are offset for this deployment.

By Lori Garzio, on 8/7/19

Suspect profiles - conductivity, salinity and density values are too low.

By Lori Garzio, on 8/7/19

practical_salinity values at the bottom of the WFP02 range and the top of the WFP03 are offset for this deployment.

By Lori Garzio, on 8/7/19

Some data from WFP02 have been ingested along with data from WFP03. These data need to be purged and re-ingested

By Lori Garzio, on 8/7/19

Too much variation in conductivity (and salinity) at the beginning of the deployment.

By Lori Garzio, on 8/7/19

The mooring was deployed 9 - 10 km from the location of the previous 4 deployments of this mooring. If this location is correct, the platform should be annotated to inform the users as to why the deployment location changed.

By Lori Garzio, on 1/2/19