Remotely Fixing and Preventing Mooring Issues

Alex Franks’s job is a big one. He is charged with fixing various issues that occur on OOI moorings, while they are hundreds and sometimes even thousands of miles away in the ocean. As an Engineer II at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), Franks is intimately familiar with the mooring system controller software, which allows him to troubleshoot and fix instrumentation problems on OOI moorings, regardless of their location.

Franks has been working with electronics for over a decade and solving OOI mooring-related challenges since 2015.  Many examples exist of his innovative solutions. In 2020, for example, the satellite Internet service that was being used to send data from OOI moorings to WHOI servers was no longer a viable solution. The WHOI team faced the task of either finding a replacement system, or working with the then-current system. One easily implementable solution was to move to transmitting data through OOI’s Iridium radio antennas full time. There were downsides to this solution, however.  It would allow no margin of error, would consume more power, and still not be able to send data from all the instruments.

Franks figured out a better solution that would both keep costs manageable and continue to meet timely data transmission goals by modifying the Iridium file transfer portion of the mooring software to accommodate a new data transfer scheme. The new scheme used a feature of the computer program rsync, a fast and versatile file copying tool, called “diff”. Instead of using rsync to communicate with shore servers and determine the “delta” or change between the new instrument data on the mooring and the instrument data files on the WHOI server, he used one of the mooring’s onboard computers as an intermediary server to generate “diff” files against (delineating old from new data). These files were then generated and stored, and sent over the Iridium connection. Using this new configuration, Franks succeeded in sending the entire dataset of all instruments on the mooring, except one that was sent at a reduced sample rate. While transmission times can vary with weather conditions, this newly configured system sends data to the server every 20 minutes every other hour, reducing transmission times from 1440 minutes per/day to about 240 minutes per day.

[media-caption path="/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/DSC_0639-copy.jpg" link="#"]Waves in the North Atlantic can get pretty large, which makes it hard to conduct research at sea, especially in winter.  The waves and wind in the Irminger Sea also create challenges for ocean observing equipment in the water there year-round. Credit: ©WHOI.[/media-caption]

Franks also found ways to remotely manage mooring issues caused by weather and sea state by modifying software that controls wind turbines. Wind turbines play a critical role on OOI moorings, providing power to recharge the main system batteries.  At the Irminger Sea Array, where the sun is absent for months at a time (the moorings also utilize solar panels), these wind turbines are critical. Prior to Franks’ software fix, human input was required to disable the turbines to prevent them from spinning while wave heights were too great. Franks modified the software used to control the spinning of the turbines to read environmental data from the buoy itself and make automated  decisions in real-time that previously had to be done manually. The system now changes its configuration based on a variety of sensor inputs, which make for more immediate decisions to ensure the continued safe operations of the turbines. The software modifications not only help mitigate heavy sea damage to the turbines but saves power, as well. The software detects when the air temperature is above freezing and turns off the precipitation sensor heaters, conserving energy when possible. The software also has fail-safes in place for high or low voltage and to determine hydrogen concentration levels inside the electronics. An illustration of this software configuration is provided below.

[media-caption path="/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Mooring-system-software-upgrade.png" link="#"] This new software configuration detects when the air temperature is above freezing and turns off the precipitation sensor heaters, and has fail-safes in place for high or low voltage and for hydrogen concentration levels inside the electronics .Credit: ©WHOI.[/media-caption]

Franks has also developed software improvements to the power system controller inside the OOI surface moorings.  His work ran the gamut from disabling operational bugs in the system to reducing power consumption to fixing software errors to increase reliability. During a year-long deployment in the Irminger Sea, part of the power system controller board failed. Franks installed a software patch remotely that was able to limit the level of charge coming from wind turbines and wrote a fail-safe feature for the system to disconnect all charging sources if the voltage approached dangerous levels.

The challenges are what keeps Franks enthusiastic about his job, “I just love trying to figure out a solution and it’s particularly rewarding to be able to remotely resolve issues with equipment deployed in the open ocean.”





Read More

Atlantic Water Influence on Glacier Retreat

The warming of Atlantic Water along Greenland’s southeast coast has been considered a potential driver of glacier retreat in recent decades. In particular, changes in Atlantic Water circulation may be related to periods of more rapid glacier retreat. Further investigation requires an understanding of the regional circulation. The nearshore East Greenland Coastal Current and the Irminger Current over the continental slope are relatively well studied, but their interactions with circulation further offshore are not clear, in part due to relatively sparse observations prior to establishing the OOI Irminger Sea Array and the Overturning in the Subpolar North Atlantic Program (OSNAP).

[media-caption path="/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Pioneer-highlight.png" link="#"]Satellite-derived sea surface temperature after adjustment for the Irminger Current (IC; green), Shelf Trough (ShTr; orange), and East Greenland Coastal Current (EGCC; purple). Monthly values (thin lines) are shown for 2000-2018 with 24-month low-passed records overlain. In situ observations from the fjord mouth (290 m: Black) and OOI flanking mooring FLMA (180 m; blue) are shown for comparison.[/media-caption]

In a recent study (Snow et al., 2021) use in-situ mooring data to validate satellite SST records and then use the 19-year satellite record to investigate relationships between glacier melt and Atlantic Water variability. In order to use the satellite records for this purpose, several adjustments must be made, including accounting for cloud and sea ice contamination, eliminating seasonally-varying diurnal biases, and removing the influence of air temperature. This adjusted satellite SST can be compared to in-situ mooring data during a portion of the record. A coastal mooring near the Sermilik Fjord mouth and the OOI Irminger Sea Array provide useful records during 2009-2013 and 2014-2018, respectively (Figure 24). An interesting aspect is that the temperature record from OOI Flanking Mooring A (FLMA) is useful for this purpose even though the measurements are at 180 m depth. This is because the upper ocean is relatively homogeneous in this region, and the mixed layer is deeper than 180 m during much of the year. The authors find that the adjusted satellite SST is consistent with the in-situ records on monthly to interannual time scales (Figure above). This provided the motivation to investigate relationships between the 19 year satellite record and glacier discharge rates.

The study concludes that warmer upper ocean temperatures as far offshore as the OOI Irminger Sea Array were concurrent with increased glacier retreat in the early 2000s, in support of the idea that Atlantic Water circulation plays a role. However, they also note that this influence is not direct, because of substantial variation in how Atlantic Water is diluted as it flows across the shelf towards Sermilik Fjord. The idea that time-varying dilution of Atlantic Water governs the temperature of water reaching the glacier was not previously understood, and resolving such small-scale, time-varying processes is a challenge for models. The authors conclude that with appropriate adjustments, “[satellite] SSTs show promise in application to a wide range of polar oceanography and glaciology questions” and that the method can be generalized to other glacier outflow systems in southeast Greenland to complement relatively sparse in-situ records.

Snow, T., Straneo, F., Holte, J., Grigsby, S., Abdalati, W., & Scambos, T. (2021). More than skin deep: Sea surface temperature as a means of inferring Atlantic Water variability on the southeast Greenland continental shelf near Helheim Glacier. J. Geophys. Res: Oceans, 126, e2020JC016509.

Read More

Improving Remote System Response in Increasingly Hostile Oceans

Wind and Waves and Hydrogen, Oh My!

Improving remote system response in increasingly hostile oceans

This article is a continuation of a series about OOI Surface Moorings. In this article, OOI Integration Engineer Alexander Franks discusses the mooring software and details some of the challenges the buoy system controller code has been written to overcome.

Components of the OOI buoys working in concert make up a system that is designed for deployment in some of the most challenging areas of our world’s oceans. These systems collect valuable scientific data and send it back to Wood Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) servers in near real time. Mechanical riser pieces (wire rope, and/or stretch hoses) moor the buoy to the bottom of the ocean. Foam flotation keeps the buoy above water in even the worst 100-year storm, while its masthead supports instrumentation and satellite radios that make possible the continuous relaying of data. The software controlling the system is just as important as the physical aspects that keep the system operating.

The system software has a variety of responsibilities, including setting instrument configurations and logging data, executing power schedules for instruments and parts of the mooring electronics, controlling the telemetry system, interfacing with lower-level systems including the power system controller, and distributing GPS and timing. The telemetry system is a two-way communication path, so the software controls data delivery from the buoy, but also provides operators with the ability to perform remote command and control.

[caption id="attachment_22938" align="alignnone" width="745"] Software flow diagram created by OOI Integration Engineer Alex Franks[/caption]

The unforgiving environment and long duration deployments of OOI moorings lead to occasional system issues that require intervention. Huge storms, for example, can build waves so high that they threaten wind turbines on the moorings. At the Irminger Sea Array, ice can accumulate so much as to drastically increase the weight of the masthead, and with subsequent buoy motion, risk dunking the masthead and instruments. Other mooring functions require constant attention. The charging system must be monitored to ensure system voltages stay at safe levels and hydrogen generation within the buoy itself is kept within safe limits. Two-way satellite communication allows operators to handle decision making from shore using the most up-to-date information from the buoy.

“Since starting in 2015 and following multiple mooring builds and deployments, I’ve realized that issues can rapidly arise at any time of the day or night. I started thinking about what the buoys can do for themselves, using the data being collected onboard,” Franks said.

One of the game-changing upgrades implemented by Franks was to read environmental data and make automated buoy safety decisions in real-time that were previously performed by the team manually. For example, previously, the team would need to monitor weather forecasts and decide preemptively whether changes to buoy operations were advisable. With recent software changes, the system can now change its configuration based on a variety of sensor inputs. These variables include system voltage, ambient temperature, hydrogen levels inside the buoy well, wind speed, and buoy motion (for sea state approximation). In addition to the software updates, the engineering team redesigned the power system controller. They added charge control circuits and the ability to stop the wind turbines from spinning. The software and electrical upgrades now provide redundant automated safeguards against overcharging situations, hydrogen generation, and turbine damage, maximizing buoy operability in harsh environments.

[caption id="attachment_22946" align="alignleft" width="650"] Onshore engineers are able to keep track of Irminger Sea buoys and instrumentation on this new new dashboard.[/caption]

With a largely independent system, operators also needed a way to easily monitor status of the buoys and instrumentation. The software team created a new shoreside dashboard that allows operators to set up custom alerts and alarms based on variables being collected and telemetered by the buoy. While the buoy systems can now operate autonomously, alerts and alarms maintain a human-in-the-loop component to ensure quality control.

As operations and management of the moorings have progressed, the operations team has found opportunities to fine tune how operators and the system handle edge cases of how the system responds to hardware failures and extreme weather.  In the past, sometimes conditions changed faster than the data being transmitted back to shore. This new sophisticated software automates some of the buoy’s responses to changing conditions in real time, which helps to ensure their continued operation even under challenging conditions. The decreased response time to environmental and system events using an automated system, coupled with the ability to monitor and interact remotely, has increased the reliability and survivability of OOI moorings.

Read More

Irminger Sea Array Overcomes Challenging Conditions to Provide Climate Insights

Deployed 140 miles east of the southern tip of Greenland and three miles south of the Arctic Circle, the Irminger Sea surface mooring floats on a cold empty sea named for a Danish naval admiral few people have heard of, in a location that few people could point to on a North Atlantic chart. The Irminger Sea is delineated less by coastlines or geographic basins and more by what is taking place within the deep ocean here, processes only visible with the aid of deep-sea instruments. To oceanographers and climate scientists the region is a confluence of ocean currents where heat carried from the topics gets extracted and cold water sinks into abyss like few other places worldwide and with climate-changing impacts.

Like most high-latitude oceans, storms are frequent and strong. Some storms migrate northeast from the mid-latitudes. Other storms are born here and then mature to impressively violent conditions influenced by the distant high mountains and massive Greenland icecap. Gale-force winds and steep-faced ocean waves spread east over a wide cone from the tip of Cape Farewell. The ice pack around Greenland ejects icebergs, some washing far out to sea where they threaten vessels. Cold air and sea spray build layers of heavy ice on exposed surfaces and instrument sensors. Other oceans can be found with higher waves, some have colder weather, but in few places do storms intensify so quickly, occur as often, and happen in a place so vital to planetary climate. Right where the storm forces are the strongest is also the perfect place for a tower packed with weather instruments.

The Irminger Sea mooring is designed to collect data in this stormy world where meteorological and ocean measurements, especially at the surface, are rare and hard to sustain. The mooring is recovered and a new one put in its place once a year, typically during the short summer month of July when weather conditions are calmest. At more than 4 meters high, the surface mooring tower is heavily instrumented with meteorological sensors and communication antennas, and the surface float is filled with data loggers and redundant computing elements and controllers that collect, store, and transmit data to shore. In total about four tons of floating equipment is anchored to the bottom by a 1.5-mile cable studded with dozens of instruments sampling the deep interior of this sea. To power everything, the buoy float is packed with rechargeable batteries, fueled by solar panels and wind turbines on the buoy tower. Strong winds are usually welcome because they rapidly re-charge the battery packs. Sometimes, however, these can be too much of a good thing.

[media-caption path="/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Irminger-storm-waves.png" link="#"]Storm waves captured by the Irminger Sea tower camera #5 on 2019-03-19 at 09:01:00 UTC during a typical bad weather day.  Observations made by the WAVSS instrument (from 09:00 to 09:20 UTC) report significant wave heights around 5 m (16 ft) and maximum heights of 21 m (69 ft).  Records from a second accelerometer (MOPAK) report a wave ~5 m high passing at 09:01 UTC, possibly the same one in this photo.  About half-a minute later, at 09:01:30 UTC, the MOPAK recorded a wave >20 m (no image).[/media-caption]

A recent storm during October 18-19, 2021, was one such time. The mooring was battered by wind speeds exceeding 35 knots (gale force) for almost 24 hours, with some topping out above 50 knots. Heavy storm seas built up and stacked upon themselves for hours. At the storm’s peak, about one third of the highest waves were above 15 m (49 ft). Picture heaving an 8000 lb. surface mooring 80 ft up and down on a tilt-a-whirl ride that never stops. Waves this high can bring tons of water crashing down.  Towering waves were recorded, some reaching up to 20-25 m (66-82 ft), so high they approached the limits of our instruments.

The Irminger Sea continues to test our ability to “weather harden” instruments in stormy parts of the world. From November to March, daylight is fleeting, the sun hovers near the horizon and solar panels trickle out only a few milliamps. For the next few months, many of the instruments in the ocean interior and on the tower will continue to sample, each instrument powered by its own small battery. The Irminger surface mooring will communicate once each day, a tiny burst of data with vital signs, until spring returns and the sun revives the cold battery packs.

[media-caption path="/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Ice-near-mooring-.png" link="#"]Ice near the Irminger Sea mooring 2019-04-02. Credit: @WHOI, Peter Brickley.[/media-caption]

The 2021 storm demonstrated, yet again, the challenges of working in the Irminger Sea. Yet, it also demonstrated the remarkable robustness of the OOI moorings in such extreme conditions. Ocean and meteorological measurements gathered by the Irminger Sea mooring during such storm events are extremely valuable for understanding oceanography and climate processes. Equally important is the invaluable experience gained that will drive continued improvement in the accuracy and durability of instruments deployed under such extreme conditions, with consequent increases in knowledge.

Written by Peter J. Brickley, PhD, Senior Engineer, AOPE Dept., Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and OOI’s Coastal and Global Scale Nodes Observatory Operations Lead



Read More

Irminger Array Successfully Turned 8th Time

The Irminger 8 Team successfully wrapped up the eighth turn of the Global Irminger Sea Array on 26 August when the R/V Neil Armstrong docked in Reykjavik, Iceland. After a few days of demobilization, the 10 members of the science party were free to head home after showing proof of a negative COVID test 72 hours before boarding a flight back to the U.S.

Chief Scientist John Lund led the science party of 10 in completing all of the expedition’s objectives. Over the course of 26 days at sea, they recovered four moorings and deployed four new moorings in their place. The team also deployed three gliders—two Open Ocean and one Profiling—and recovered a glider that had been in the water since 2020 and whose battery supply was rapidly depleting.

[media-caption path=”” link=”#”]The Irminger Sea presents challenges of high winds, strong waves, and icebergs as shown here with the R/V Neil Armstrong in the foreground. Credit: drone video, Croy Carlin SSSG. [/media-caption]

One highlight of the trip was engaging in scientific outreach with a class of fourth graders. The team connected with the students while out on the open ocean via Zoom. The oceanographers aboard the ship each had a chance to share what it’s like being on an oceanographic voyage and explain the purpose of the different instruments and sensors on the arrays. Another highlight of the expedition was the OOI team’s ongoing collaboration with OSNAP (Overturning in the Subpolar North Atlantic Program). While OSNAP participants were not onboard the Armstrong as in the past, their shore-based presence was clearly in evidence.  Expert hydrographer Leah McRaven worked with the onboard team to adjust CTD (Conductivity, temperature, depth) sampling to ensure that new CTD equipment was calibrated and sampling properly.

The science team also added a novel twist to the regular shipboard sampling that supports field calibration and validation of the platforms and sensors in the arrays. During Irminger 8, the shipboard team worked with OOI’s onshore data team to make collected CTD data available online in near real-time. As an added bonus, McRaven shared her insights about CTD sampling in regular blog posts here.

The Irminger 8 Team took full advantage of being in this critical ocean region, which is sensitive to climate change. During transit from Woods Hole to the array, off the southeast coast of Greenland, the team deployed surface drifters and ARGO floats for the Greenland Freshwater Project, which is studying the impact of freshwater runoff from Greenland’s melting ice sheet on the North Atlantic and Arctic climate. The team also deployed a biogeochemical ARGO float for the Global Ocean Biogeochemistry Project, and took a series of CTD casts on behalf of OSNAP, to add to long term data collection efforts in this critical region. In addition, the team deployed two RAFOS floats for the Madagascar Basin Project to measure deep water circulation and 15 Sofar Spotter buoys to measure wind, wave, and temperature data.

“In the ideal, science is a collaborative process,” said Chief Scientist John Lund. “During transit time to and from the array, we were able to help our scientific partners get their equipment in the water. The data provided will help advance understanding of this critically important region, which is equally difficult to sample. The region has high winds, large, steep waves, strong currents, icebergs, and consequent equipment icing.”

Given the challenges of the ocean environment at these latitudes, the eighth turn of Irminger Array included equipment improvements. The newly deployed surface moorings included wind turbine modifications to help it withstand strong, volatile winds, and it also incorporated other structural modifications to strengthen the mooring, while easing refurbishment. Similarly, design modifications were made to the subsurface moorings to help ensure consistent, long-term data collection.

The team experienced some of these challenges of high winds and strong waves while on the cruise, but the rough conditions were compensated by the gorgeous scenery of the region. Added Lund, “One afternoon, the sun came out as the ship transited further up Prince Christian Sound. Everyone was awed by the beauty of the landscape. We saw glaciers, icebergs and the occasional whale.”

Prior to leaving the Sound, the team secured all the items for the transit to Reykjavik, the demobilization of the ship, and finally the journey home to Woods Hole.




Read More

Everything You Need to Know about CTD data

In August 2021, expert hydrographer, Leah McRaven (PO WHOI) from the US OSNAP (Overturning in the Subpolar North Atlantic Program) team, worked with the OOI team members aboard the R/V Neil Armstrong for the eighth turn of the Global Irminger Sea Array to support collection of an optimized hydrographic data product. A truly novel aspect of this collaboration was the near real-time sharing of OOI shipboard CTD data with the public. McRaven also shared her reports while the cruise is underway.  In doing so, she provided a detailed explanation of the process of ensuring that CTD profiles are accurate and useable for future research use.

We share her blogs below.  For archival purposes, they will also be available on the Community Tools and Datasets page.

BLOGPOST #4 (September 13, 2021)

Another OOI cruise is in the books! Now that things have wrapped up and I’ve had a chance to dig into the data a bit more thoroughly, how did we do? In my previous post I reported that the Irminger 8 CTD data looked to be very promising, but I like to include one more step before recommending data to be used for science: carefully considering salinity bottle data.

Salinity bottle data can be used in many ways to support a particular scientific objective or research question. The two that I’ve become most familiar with are 1) to support the analysis of additional bottle samples (e.g. dissolved oxygen) and 2) to provide an additional assessment and calibration of the CTD conductivity sensors. Both applications are necessary when researchers require salinity values more accurate than what CTD sensors are able to provide. However, even if this is not required, it can help ensure that users receive data that are reasonably within manufacturer specifications.

I find it easiest to consider the GO-SHIP approach to bottle data first. Using ship-based hydrography, GO-SHIP provides approximately decadal resolution of the changes in inventories of heat, freshwater, carbon, oxygen, nutrients, and transient tracers, covering the ocean basins with global measurements of the highest required accuracy to detect these changes. For a program like this, 36 salinity samples are taken every CTD station in order to provide an extremely accurate and precise calibration for the CTD sensors. Interestingly, the Irminger OOI array is bracketed by three GO-SHIP repeat transects. While GO-SHIP provides invaluable measurements, drawing a large number of samples can be expensive and time consuming. Additionally, measurements occur on a decadal timescale, so there is a lot of the picture we miss.

One of the research programs that aims to provide a higher temporal and special resolution picture of the North Atlantic is OSNAP. This program has several scientific objectives, but generally aims to quantify intra-seasonal to interannual variability of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation(AMOC) in the subpolar Atlantic. This includes a focus on heat and freshwater fluxes, pathways of currents throughout the region, and air-sea interaction, all of which require highly calibrated data products. In order to accomplish this, PIs from the program need to be able to consistently merge their shipboard and moored data products for cohesive and accurate quantification of parameters. Because much of the variability being studied is so large, researchers do not necessarily need salinity accuracies at the level of GO-SHIP, but they do need to use salinity bottle samples to ensure that CTD casts are at the very least within manufacturer specifications.

In the end, no one approach to hydrographic sampling is necessarily better than another. What is important is the delicate balance of resources while at sea that best support the scientific objectives. For both OSNAP and OOI, where the primary work at sea is focused on servicing moorings, the resources for a GO-SHIP approach to sample bottle collection is simply not feasible. However, one very key feature of the OOI CTD data is that they are collected annually, while ONSAP data are collected every two years, and GO-SHIP data are collected every ten years. Hence, OOI is able to fill in some of the temporal data gaps in the region and greatly bolster many of the international programs working in the region.

This year OOI collaborated with numerous PIs and representatives from research programs that operate in the Irminger Sea region to produce a more optimized CTD and bottle sampling strategy that better complements goals similar to GO-SHIP, as well as several additional objectives from international programs, such as OSNAP. The goal of this updated plan was to provide OOI data end users and collaborators with data that are more appropriate for CTD, mooring, glider, and float instrumentation calibration purposes. In particular, the update included increased sampling of the deep ocean. Such data are critical in the Irminger Sea region due to the uniquely large variability of temperature, salinity, and chemical properties throughout the shallow and intermediate depths of the water column. Deeper CTD and bottle data will allow all end users to more carefully reference their scientific findings to more stable water masses and allow for better intercomparison with other available datasets, such as the available GO-SHIP and OSNAP data from the region.

The majority of methods that I use when considering salinity bottle data have been adapted from GO-SHIP and NOAA/PMEL. In particular, many of the cruises I work with, including OOI, often have far fewer bottle samples than recommended by GO-SHIP or PMEL methods. This isn’t necessarily bad, since we don’t need to achieve the same goals as those programs, however, great care in adapting methods does need to be considered (and I encourage you to reach out if this is something you have an interest in). So, with the improved OOI sampling scheme, what are the potential benefits to CTD data quality?

More strategically planned salinity bottle sample collection allows users to:

  • Decide if data from primary or secondary sensors are more physically consistent
  • Identify times when CTD contamination was not obvious
  • Assess manufacturer sensor calibrations
  • Potentially provide a post-cruise calibration

In the case of the Irminger 8 cruise, I see that all four uses of salinity bottle data are possible, which will make a lot of collaborators very happy! Starting with Figure 1, we can see a summary of CTD and bottle sample salinity differences as a function of pressure for both the primary and secondary sensors. As a rule of thumb, the average offset of these differences can be considered an estimate of sensor accuracy, and the spread, or standard deviation, can be considered an estimate of sensor precision. While the data have a fairly large spread to the eye, the standard deviations (indicated by the dashed lines) are placing the spread for each sensor within what we expect from the manufacturer precision. The striking result from this figure is that before using the bottle data to further calibrate the data, we see that the primary sensor had a higher accuracy than the secondary sensor. In going back to the Seabird Electronics calibration reports for the primary and secondary sensors (available via the OOI website), I noted that the calibrations for each sensor was a bit older than what we normally work with (last performed in May 2019). Additionally, the secondary sensor had a larger correction at its time of manufacturer calibration than the primary. This is corroborated by the differing sensor accuracies as determined by the bottle data. Lastly, while there are a few spurious differences shown, on average there doesn’t look to be any CTD and bottle differences due to factors other than expected calibration drifts.

Figure 1

In order to apply a calibration based on the bottle data to the CTD data, I first QC’d the bottle data and then followed methods described in the GO-SHIP manual. There are several sources of error that can contribute to incorrect salinity bottle values, ranging from poor sample collection technique to an accidental salt crystal dropping into a sample just before being run on a salinometer. This is why all methods of CTD calibration using bottle data stress the importance of using many bottle values in a statistical grouping. However, sometimes there are “fly-away” values that are so far gone they don’t contribute meaningful information to the statistics, and in those cases I simply disregard those values. As a reference, for the Irminger 8 cruise I threw out 9 of the ~125 salinity samples collected before proceeding with calibration methods. Note that within the methods described in the above documentation, systematics approaches are used to further control for outlier or “bad” bottle values.

Figure 2

Since the majority of CTD stations for OOI are performed close to one another (and consequently in similar water masses), I grouped all stations together to characterize sensor errors. The resulting fits produced primary and secondary sensor calibrations that allow for more meaningful comparison of data with other programs. Figure 2 shows how primary and secondary data compare before and after bottle calibrations have been applied. Post calibration, primary and secondary sensors now agree more closely in terms of their differences. Similarly, Figure 3 summarizes data before and after calibration in temperature-salinity space, providing visual context for the magnitude of bottle calibration. Many folks working with CTD data would say that this is a rather small adjustment!

Figure 3

Figure 4

However, Figure 4 shows a comparison of the bottle-calibrated OOI data with nearby OSNAP CTD profiles from 2020. The results here are extremely important as OSNAP currently has moorings deployed near the OOI array and the OOI CTD profiles provide a midway calibration point for the moored instrumentation that is currently deployed for two years. These midway calibration CTD casts are critical in providing information on moored sensor drift and biofouling in a region where there has been a slow freshening of deep water (colder than 2.5 ºC) throughout the duration of these programs. Quantifying the rate of freshening is one of the objectives that OSNAP focuses on, but it is nearly impossible without high-quality CTD data for comparison. Figure 4 demonstrates that the freshening trend has continued from 200 to 2021 and that the bottle-calibrated OOI CTD data will be critical for interpretation of moored data.

Finally, for those interested in the salinity-calibrated CTD dataset, please be in touch ( A more detailed summary of the calibration applied can be found in my CTD calibration report here.

BLOGPOST #3 (August 18, 2021)

Irminger 8 science operations are now fully underway, which means the stream of CTD data is coming in hot (actually the ocean temps are very cold)! So far, CTD stations 4 through 11 correspond to work performed near the Irminger OOI array location. I spent the weekend and past couple of days paying close attention to these initial stations. Here’s an update on how things look so far.

One of the concerns this year is that the R/V Neil Armstrong is using a new CTD unit and sensor suite (new to the ship, not purchased new). Any time a ship’s instrumentation setup changes, it’s a very good idea to keep a close eye on things as changes naturally mean there’s more room for human error. What better way to talk about this than to share my own mistakes in a public blog! When I first downloaded and processed the OOI Irmginer 8 (AR60) CTD data from near the Irminger OOI array location, I became very worried…

When I compared the Irminger 8 CTD data with three cruises from the same location last year, I was seeing very confusing and unphysical data in my plots. I was using Seabird CTD processing routines in the “SBE Data Processing” software (see that I had used for previous OOI Irminger cruises as a preliminary set of scripts, so I was confident that something strange with the CTD was going on. I immediately pinged folks on the ship to ask if there was anything that they could tell was strange on their side of things. Keep in mind, this OOI cruise focuses more on mooring work with only a handful of CTDs to support all additional hydrographic work, so any time there is a potential issue with the CTD data we want to address it as soon as possible. I started digging into things a bit more, and realized that I had made a mistake.

Within the SBE processing routines, there is a module called “Align CTD”. As stated in the software manual: “Align CTD aligns parameter data in time, relative to pressure. This ensures that calculations of salinity, dissolved oxygen concentration, and other parameters are made using measurements from the same parcel of water. Typically, Align CTD is used to align temperature, conductivity, and oxygen measurements relative to pressure.” When working in areas where temperature and salinity change rapidly with pressure (depth), this module can be very important (and I encourage you to read through its documentation). As you’ll see below, the OOI Irmginer Sea Array region can see some extremely impressive temperature and salinity gradients. This has to do with the introduction of very cold and very fresh waters from near the coast of Greenland, together with the complect oceanic circulation dynamics of the region. Based on data collected on the old CTD installed on the Armstrong, I had determined that advancing conductivity by 0.5 seconds produced a more physically meaningful trace of calculated salinity.

While 0.5 seconds doesn’t seem large, it’s important to remember that most shipboard CTD packages are lowered at the SBE-recommended speed of 1 meter/second. Depending on how suddenly properties change as the CTD is lowered through the water, this magnitude of adjustment may seriously mess things up if it’s not the correct adjustment. In the case of the CTD system currently installed on the Armstrong, I’m finding that very little adjustment to conductivity is needed. There are many reasons as to why this value will change – from CTD to CTD, cruise to cruise, and even throughout a long cruise. The major factor is the speed at which water flows through the CTD plumbing and sensors and how far the pressure, temperature, and conductivity sensors are from each other in the plumbed line. Water flow is controlled by many things including CTD pump performance, contamination in the CTD plumbing, kinks in the CTD pluming lines, etc. (for more information, start here: and here: file:///Users/leah/Downloads/manual-Seassoft_DataProcessing_7.26.8-3.pdf). Note that the SBE data processing manual provides great tips on how to choose values for the Align CTD module.

Below is a figure that summarizes impact on my processed data before and after my mistake. This is a fun figure as it compares CTD data from four cruises that all completed CTDs near the OOI site: the 2020 OSNAP Cape Farewell cruise (AR45), the 2020 OOI Irminger 7 cruise (AR46), a 2020 cruise on R/V Pelagia from the Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, and stations 5-7 of the 2021 OOI Irminger 8 cruise (AR60). I’m plotting the data in what is called temperature-salinity space. This allows scientists to consider water properties while being mindful of ocean density, which as mentioned in the last post, should always increase with depth. I include contours indicating temperature and salinity values that correspond to lines of constant density (in this case I am using potential density referenced to the surface). For data to be physically consistent, we expect that the CTD traces never loop back across any of the density contours. These figures are also incredibly useful as the previous three cruises in the region give us some understanding of what to expect from repeated measurements near the Irminger OOI array.

The plot on the left shows the data processed with a conductivity advance of 0.5 sec. As you can see, the CTD traces appear much noisier than the other datasets, and contain many crossings of the density contours (i.e., density inversions). The plot on the right shows data that are smoother and less problematic in terms of density. You may also note that in the right plot, the AR60 traces are a bit shifted to the left in salinity (i.e. fresher or lower salinity values) when compared to the other datasets. This is because I am plotting bottle-calibrated CTD data from the other three cruises. Just as I type this, I’ve been given word that the shipboard hydrographer has begun analyzing salinity water sample data for Irminger 8. These bottle data are critical for applying a final adjustment to CTD salinity data and I’ll talk more about this in a future post.

For now, I’m happy to report that the data look physically consistent! For completeness, I include the core CTD parameter difference plots from stations 4 through 11 (CTDs completed near the array thus far). CTD difference plots are described in my previous post. All checks out from where I am sitting so far. Thanks to the CTD watch standers and shipboard technicians for working so hard and taking good care of the system while the cruise is underway!

BLOGPOST #2 (August 10, 2021)

For this post I’d like to introduce some of the tools that folks can use to identify CTD issues and sensor health while at sea. Most of what I’ll be discussing here is specific to the SBE911 system that is commonly used on UNOLS vessels; however, a lot of these topics are relevant to other types of profiling CTD systems.

There are several end case users of CTD data within science. These include people who perform CTDs along a track and complete what we call a hydrographic section (useful in studying ocean currents and water masses); those who perform CTDs at the same location year after year to look for changes; people who use CTDs to calibrate instrumentation on other platforms (moorings, gliders, AUVs, etc.); and those who use the CTD to collect seawater for laboratory analysis (collected samples can be used to further analyze physical, chemical, biological, and even geological properties!). For each of these CTD uses, a core set of CTD parameters are needed.

Core CTD parameters include pressure, temperature, and conductivity. Conductivity is used together with pressure and temperature measurements to derive salinity. These three variables are needed to give users the critical information of depth and density in which water samples are collected, and support the calculation of additional variables. For example, ocean pressure, temperature, and salinity together with a voltage from an oxygen sensor are needed to derive a value for dissolved oxygen. In addition to core CTD parameters, it is very common to add dissolved oxygen, fluorescence, turbidity, and photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) sensors to a shipboard CTD unit. Each of these additional measurements have errors that must be propagated from the core CTD measurements – creating a rather complex system to navigate when trying to understand the final accuracy of a given measurement.

For each CTD data application, varying degrees of accuracy are needed from the measured CTD parameters to accomplish the scientific objective at hand… And this is where a lot of folks get into trouble! For a first example, consider someone who would like to calibrate a nitrate sensor that is deployed for a year on a mooring using water samples collected from the CTD. For a second example, consider someone who is interested in the changing dissolved oxygen content of deep Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation waters. In both cases, the core CTD parameters are critical. In the first example, this person needs to know the pressure and ocean density at the exact location their water samples are collected during a CTD cast so they can correctly associate analyzed water sample values with the correct position of the sensor on the mooring. However, in the second example, this person may need to use both salinity and oxygen samples to improve the accuracy and precision of CTD measurements so that their final data product will be sensitive enough to resolve small, but potentially critical, changes in the ocean.The most important take away here (CTD soapbox moment!) is that even if end users are not specifically interested in studying physical oceanographic parameters, they still need tools to verify that 1) the core CTD measurements are of high enough quality for use in their application and 2) that there are no unnecessary errors from the core measurements that are impacting their ability to address their scientific objective.

This is the first reason why I heavily encourage all CTD end users to become familiar not only with the accuracy of their particular measured parameter, but also the core CTD parameters. The second reason is that core CTD parameters are particularly useful in diagnosing early warning signs of CTD problems. Most shipboard systems install primary and secondary temperature and conductivity sensors on their CTDs, which provide an opportunity for in-situ sensor comparison. Additionally, calculated seawater density is particularly useful as it is one of the few properties we can make a strong assumption about – it should always increase with pressure. The density of seawater is determined by pressure, temperature, and salinity (conductivity), hence any time one or some of these recorded values is suspect, non-physical density “inversions” or “noise” may appear in the data record. 

Below are two figures that can be very helpful in diagnosing CTD problems. In these examples, I am using the Irminger 8 (AR60-01) deep test cast, which took place late Sunday evening, August 8th. Figure 1 shows difference plots of the two sensor pairs (temperature and conductivity). Each panel includes vertical dashed lines indicating expected manufacturer agreement ranges (see sensor specification sheets datasheet-04-Jun15.pdf and datasheet-03plus-May15.pdf). The values shown are, ±(2 x 0.001 ºC) and ±(2 x 0.003 mS/cm) for temperature and conductivity sensors, respectively (note that 0.003 mS/cm is close to 0.003 psu for reasonable temperature ranges). In general, sensor differences should fall within, or very close to, this range when calibrated by the manufacturer within the past year. The rule can be relaxed in the upper water column, however, differences between sensors deeper than approximately 500 m that consistently fall outside of this range indicate problematic sensor drift or contamination. Figure 2 shows the calculated seawater density profile using the primary sensors. Consistent density inversions larger than ~0.1 kg/m3 also indicate problematic sensor drift or contamination. When creating such figures, always look at the downcast and upcast (skipped here for the sake of brevity). The upcast will look a bit worse than the downcast (I encourage you to read about why), but those data are extremely important to anyone collecting water samples!

Figure 1 



Figure 2  


So, what can these plots tell us about the CTD system implemented on the Irminger 8 cruise so far? Figure 1 demonstrates an overall acceptable level of agreement between the sensor pairs. The particular sensors in use right now have calibrations older than one year, so this level of agreement is actually quite good. Figure 2 is also rather promising in showing a density profile that is continuously increasing. If you’re being picky (like me), you may notice that there are some small density inversions between roughly 200-500 m. After taking a closer look, I noted that the salinity profile indicates that there are some rather impressive salinity intrusions evident in the upper 500 meters (I encourage you to download data from cast 2 and verify!). This is normal for the Labrador Sea region where the cast took place (lots of melting ice nearby) and will naturally create a bit more “noise” in these plots. So, I’m not very concerned by this.

Now what do these plots look like when there’s a problem? There unfortunately isn’t one simple answer for this (I’ve been doing this for over ten years and am still learning subtle ways CTDs show problems!), but I’ll share two examples of when something was clearly wrong. The first example is from the Irminger 7 cruise (AR35-05). Figure 3 and Figure 4 show our two plots for stations 1-13 of the Irminger 7 cruise. Figure 3 shows a suspiciously large offset (well outside of the general threshold we expect in the conductivity differences) and incredibly noisy differences in both conductivity and temperature. Similarly, Figure 5 shows consistent and large density inversions for some of these casts. Several of the casts shown in Figures 4 and 5 were so bad that there are no usable profiles as far as scientific objectives are concerned. Luckily, however, there were a few casts in the set that could be corrected with water sample data (I’ll talk more about this later). Data loss is something that does happen while at sea, and the Irminger Sea in particular is an incredibly harsh environment to work in. However, if folks are diligent in creating these plots while at sea, the hope is that we can minimize time and data loss while striving for the highest quality data possible.

Figure 3   


Figure 4  

For my last example, I provide a quick reference guide for how core CTD parameter issues may look on a Seabird CTD Real-Time Data Acquisition Software (Seasave) screen. The reason for this is that a lot of people don’t have time to create fancy plots while at sea, so it’s helpful to know how to approach monitoring while watching the data come in. Follow the link here to download a one-page pdf that can be displayed next to your CTD acquisition computer.

BLOG POST #1 (August 2, 2021)

[caption id="attachment_21736" align="aligncenter" width="2560"] A CTD is performed near the coast of Greenland during one of the OSNAP 2020 cruises on R/V Armstrong. Photo: Isabela Le Bras©WHOI[/caption]

Hello folks and welcome to the Irminger 8 CTD blog! As the cruise progresses, tune in here for updates on Irminger 8 CTD data quality as well as tips on how best to approach using OOI CTD data. I plan to keep this information inclusive for folks with varying levels of experience with shipboard CTD data – from beginner to expert! If you have any questions about CTD data, feel free to send me an email ( and I’ll do my best to help. For this first post, I would like to summarize some important resources available to the community that will greatly help with CTD data acquisition and processing.

CTDs have been around for a while, which on the surface makes them a bit less interesting than many of the new exciting technologies used at sea. The fact remains that the CTD produces some of the most accurate and reliable measurements of our ocean’s physical, chemical, and biological parameters. Aside from being very useful on their own, CTD data serve as a standard by which researchers can compare and validate sensor performance from other platforms: gliders, floats, moorings, etc. Sensor comparison is particularly important for instruments that are deployed in the ocean for a long time (as is the case for OOI assets) as it is normal for sensors to drift due to environmental exposure and biological activity. As it turns out, CTD data provide a backbone for all OOI objectives.

However, just because CTDs have been performed for decades, we can’t always assume that that collection of quality data is straightforward. For example, one of the unique challenges of collecting CTD data near the OOI Irminger site and Greenland region is that there is an elevated level of biological activity throughout the year. While biological activity is exciting for many researchers, it can clog instrument plumbing, build up on sensors, and just be plain annoying to watch out for. CTDs utilized in the Irminger Sea are also subject to extreme conditions such as cold windchills and rough sea state (Cape Farewell is actually the windiest place on the ocean’s surface!), leading to the potential for accelerated sensor drift and the need to send sensors back to manufacturers for more regular servicing and calibration. As one can imagine, there are a lot of potential sources of error when simply considering the environment that OOI Irminger CTD data are collected in.

To help combat some of these potential sources of error, I’ll be picking apart CTD and bottle data cast by cast to look for evidence of CTD problems during the Irminger 8 cruise. But before we can talk about unique sources of CTD data errors, it’s helpful to remember errors that can become systematic throughout the entire data arc: from instrument care, to acquisition, to data processing, and to final data application. Improving our awareness of these issues will allow all CTD data users the opportunity for more meaningful data interpretation. So before I move forward, I thought it would be important to share some of my favorite resources available on community-recommended CTD practices. I encourage folks to comb through these resources and find what might be most appropriate for your respective research objectives.

Recommended CTD resources are provided here.





Read More

Students Participate Virtually in Irminger Sea 8

Twelve students from Paige Teves’ fourth-grade class virtually boarded the R/V Neil Armstrong via Zoom in early August to learn what it’s like to be at sea transporting lots of ocean observing equipment in and out of the water for a month. The connection was made through John Lund, an engineer at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and chief scientist for the eighth turn of the OOI’s Global Irminger Sea Array. John’s daughter, Annika, is a student in Ms. Teve’s class in the Summer Adventures in Learning (SAIL) program, a summer education program in Marion, MA for students in pre-kindergarten through 8th grade.

The Irminger Sea Array 8 team took turns holding up the “Zoom phone” to share their experiences with the students and the implications of their work in helping better understand the ocean and its role in the changing climate. The Irminger sea Array 8 team took the opportunity to showcase the different roles and genders involved in the work onboard the ship to demonstrate to the students the many possibilities in STEM careers.

Chief Scientist John Lund initiated the visit by explaining what the project was about (gathering real-time ocean data in one of the most important and difficult to sample regions in the Atlantic Ocean ), where they were (in the Atlantic off the Southeast coast of Greenland) and what they were doing (recovering and deploying ocean observing equipment).


[caption id="attachment_21913" align="aligncenter" width="487"] Chief Scientist John Lund showed off the CTD rosette, which is used to measure the temperature, conductivity, and density of seawater.  He had the bonus of seeing his daughter via the Zoom call, who was a participant in the SAIL program. Credit: ©WHOI, Andrew Reed.[/caption]


Engineer and Instrumentation Lead Jennifer Batryn explained her role working with the instruments.  She took them on a virtual tour of one of the surface moorings, pointing out the different instruments and explaining what the measure.


[caption id="attachment_21914" align="aligncenter" width="610"] Engineers Jennifer Batryn (in back) and Stephanie Petillo (on phone) took turns talking about the equipment they are responsible for aboard the R/V Neil Armstrong. Credit: ©WHOI, Andrew Reed.[/caption]


Senior Oceanographic Engineer, Software Architect & Manager, Oceanographic Roboticist and Technologist Stephanie Petillo explained her role as software lead and how the data are collected and relayed back to shore for the engineers and scientists, both to operate the array and to study the data.


[caption id="attachment_21912" align="aligncenter" width="566"] Engineer Dan Bogorff showed the 4th grade SAIL program students the floats that comprise part of OOI’s subsurface moorings. Credit: ©WHOI, Andrew Reed.[/caption]


Engineer and Subsurface Mooring Lead Dan Bogorff presented the Subsurface Moorings, explained their different requirements from surface moorings.  Like Batryn, he explained to the students the different instrument on these below-the-surface moorings and what kind of data they collect and report back.

The students peppered each of the presenters with great questions, demonstrating their curiosity and engagement.

Teacher Paige Teves summed up the experience, saying: “What an awesome experience we had today! It was so cool for everyone, including myself, to see everything we have learned in our summer session about climate change come together by listening to scientists and engineers share what they do.”

Added Chief Scientist Lund, “We are glad the kids enjoyed the experience and hope some of them will be inspired to pursue the fields of science and engineering.”

The SAIL program is sponsored by the Old Rochester Regional School District and Superintendency Union #55.  The school district includes the towns of Marion, Marion, Mattapoisett, and Rochester in Plymouth County, Massachusetts.






Read More

Summer at Sea: Three Arrays Turned

This summer has been a busy time for OOI’s teams, who are actively engaged in ensuring that OOI’s arrays continue to provide data 24/7. Teams are turning – recovering and deploying – three arrays during July and August. The first expedition occurred earlier in July when a scientific and engineering team spent 16 days in the Northeast Pacific recovering and deploying ocean observing equipment at the Global Station Papa Array. The team recovered three subsurface moorings and deployed three new ones. They also deployed one open ocean glider, recovered one profiling glider, and conducted 11 CTD casts (which measure conductivity, temperature, and depth) to calibrate and validate the instruments on the array.  After completing this eighth turn of the Station Papa Array, the team returned to Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution by way of Seward, Alaska on the second of August.


On 30 July, the Regional Cabled Array team embarked on the first of four legs of its 37-day Operations and Maintenance Cruise aboard the R/V Thomas G. Thompson. The ship, operated by the University of Washington, is hosting the remotely operated vehicle (ROV) Jason, operated by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI). During the cruise, Jason will be used to deploy and recover a diverse array of more than 200 instruments from the active Pacific seafloor. The science, engineering, and ROV teams will be joined this year by 19 students sailing as part of the University of Washington’s educational mission (VISIONS’21). A live video feed of the ship’s operations and Jason dives is available for the duration of the cruises.

[media-caption path="" link="#"]The Regional Cabled Array team expects to share imagery as spectacular as this during its upcoming cruise. Shown here is the El Guapo hot spring, covered in life venting boiling fluids 4500 feet beneath the oceans surface. Credit: UW/NSF-OOI/CSSF; V11.[/media-caption]

On 3 August, a team from WHOI boarded the R/V Armstrong for a weeklong transit to recover and deploy the Global Irminger Sea Array, off the Southeast coast of Greenland. The array is located in one of the most important ocean regions in the northern hemisphere and provides data for scientists to better understand ocean convection and circulation, which have significant climate implications.  A science and engineering team will be deploying and recovering a global surface mooring, a global hybrid profiler mooring, two global flanking moorings, and three gliders (two open ocean and one profiling) during the three-week expedition. The team will also carry out shipboard sampling and CTD casts to support the calibration and validation of platform sensors while underway.  A novel aspect of this cruise is that near real-time CTD profiles will be made publicly available during the cruise. The profiles will be evaluated by onshore staff, who will provide feedback to the ship, and share online assessment of CTD results.

“This summer’s at-sea activities are the culmination of months of planning, testing, and logistical work that goes on behind the scenes to make these expeditions possible,” said John Trowbridge, OOI’s Principal Investigator and head of the Program Management Office. “A tremendous amount of human effort and ingenuity is required to keep the arrays operational year-round, particularly in some of the ocean’s most challenging environments like the Irminger Sea and on the seafloor at Axial Seamount. The data collected, however, are essential, providing scientists with the tools needed to understand our changing ocean.”

The progress of the expeditions will be reported on these pages and on OOI’s social media channels.

[media-caption path="" link="#"]A global surface mooring in the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution stage area is outfitted and ready for deployment in the Irminger Sea Array. Photo: ©Jade Lin, WHOI[/media-caption]



Read More

Recommended CTD Resources

Hydrographer Leah McRaven (PO WHOI) from the US OSNAP team provided the following CTD resources to help researchers and others better how she and the Irminger Sea Array team are working with the near real-time data being provided by CTD sampling from the R/V Neil Armstrong: 

There are four main sources considered in this list:

  1. Seabird Electronics is one of the most commonly used manufacturers of shipboard CTD systems. Their CTDs allow for integration of instruments from several other manufactures.
  2. The Global Ocean Ship-Based Hydrographic Investigations Program (GO-SHIP) provides decadal resolution of the changes in inventories of heat, freshwater, carbon, oxygen, nutrients and transient tracers, with global measurements of the highest required accuracy to detect these changes. Their program has documented several methods and practices that are critical to high-accuracy hydrography, which are relevant to many CTD data users.
  3. The California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations (CalCOFI) are a unique partnership of the California Department of Fish & Wildlife, NOAA Fisheries Service and Scripps Institution of Oceanography. CalCOFI conducts quarterly cruises off southern & central California, collecting a suite of hydrographic and biological data on station and underway. CalCOFI has made great effort to document methods that are helpful to those collecting hydrographic measurements near coastal regions.
  4. University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS) is an organization of 58 academic institutions and National Laboratories involved in oceanographic research and joined for the purpose of coordinating oceanographic ships’ schedules and research facilities.

Instrument care and use

Seabird training module on how sensor care and calibrations impact data:

Data acquisition and processing

Notes on CTD/O2 Data Acquisition and Processing Using Seabird Hardware and Software:

CalCOFI Seabird processing:

Seabird CTD processing training material:

Within this material, discussion on dynamic errors and how to address them in data processing:

General overview documents and resources

GOSHIP hydrography manual:

CalCOFI CTD general practices:

UNOLS site )


Read More

Shipboard CTD Data in Near-real Time from Irminger 8

In August, members of the OOI team aboard the R/V Neil Armstrong for the eighth turn of the Global Irminger Sea Array and members of OSNAP (Overturning in the Subpolar North Atlantic Program) onshore are working together to make near-real time shipboard CTD data available here.



The OOI shipboard team is working directly with an onshore expert hydrographer, Leah McRaven (PO WHOI), from the US OSNAP team to support collection of an optimized hydrographic data product. This collaboration is supporting the OOI team through the cruise planning stages, during the cruise, and during initial data processing stages. In the end, both teams aim to document the process of collecting thoroughly vetted data from the shipboard CTD (conductivity, temperature, depth) system.

A special feature of this collaboration is the near real-time sharing of OOI shipboard CTD data with the public. Interested parties have access to the same CTD profiles that McRaven will be reviewing. Additionally, McRaven will share brief reports online while the cruise is underway.

The hydrographic data collection facilitated by OOI on the Irminger Sea cruise will bolster not only OOI end users, but also supports international oceanographic research projects, including OSNAP, AMOC (Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation) and BGC-ARGO (BioGeoChemical Array for Real-time Geostrophic Oceanography).

“We hope sharing this data will present an opportunity for OOI end users to learn more about working with oceanographic data as well as good data practices,” said McRaven.

Al Plueddemann, PI of OOI’s Coastal and Global Scale nodes, which includes the Global Irminger Array, added “This is a great example of a cross-project collaboration that expands the visibility of OOI data over the short-term and improves its quality for integration into long-term research projects like OSNAP.”

Read More