Franklin Data Quality Control Report
Cruises:PR_13N/01
 PR_13N/02
 PR_21_/00
 PR_11_/04
 PR_13N/04
 PR_13_/06
 PR_11_/07


Daniel M. Gilmore and Shawn Smith

World Ocean Circulation Experiment(WOCE)

Surface Meteorological Data Assembly Center(DAC)
Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies(COAPS)
The Florida State University

June 11, 1996

Report WOCEMET 96-5
Version 1.0


Introduction:
The data referenced in this report were collected from the research vessel Franklin (call sign: VJJF) CSIRO meteorological station scanner from each of 7 different cruises for WOCE. The original data converted to a standard format and then preprocessed using an automated data checking program. Next, a visual inspection was completed by a data quality evaluator (DQE) who reviewed, modified, and added appropriate quality control (QC) flags to the data. Details of the WOCE QC can be found in Smith et al. (1996). This report summarizes the flags for the Franklin data, including flags added by both the pre-processor and the analyst.



Statistical Information:
The data from the Franklin were expected to include observations every 5 minutes from 7 cruises. The cruise track code (CTC), the begin and end date, the number of records, values, and flags and the percentage of non-Z flags for each cruise is given in table 1. Time (TIME), latitude (LAT), longitude (LON), platform course (PL_CRS), platform speed (PL_SPD), earth relative wind direction (DIR), earth relative wind speed(SPD), sea temperature (TS), atmospheric pressure (P), air temperature (T), and relative humidity (RH) were quality controlled. A total of 462294 values were checked and a total of 6934 flags were added to the 7 cruises resulting in 1.5% of the data being flagged. Table 2 details the flag distribution, including percentages flagged for each variable sorted by type.

Table 1: List of dates and numbers of records and flags for each cruise
CTCDatesNumber of RecordsNumber of ValuesNumber of FlagsPercent Flagged
PR_13N/0108/15/89 - 09/26/891167446696100.02
PR_13N/0202/26/90 - 04/06/90113354534020.01
PR_21_/0011/15/91 - 12/14/918210985209110.92
PR_11_/0409/18/92 - 10/04/9244965395200.00
PR_13N/0406/24/93 - 07/18/9358367586860057.92
PR_13_/0609/11/93 - 10/04/9357125405160.01
PR_11_/0703/10/94 - 04/03/9467598786700.00

Table 2: Frequency of Flags Assigned for Each Variable



Variable
Unreal Movement
>4 s.d. from Climatological Mean

Interesting Feature

Erroneous Data
Caution /Suspect Data


Spike


Totals		Percentage of Records Flagged
LAT5     50.01
LON5     50.01
DIR  4   40.01
SPD 25    250.09
TS  3  140.01
P   5365  536533.17
T     880.03
RH    1518 15185.26
Totals:1025753651518969341.50
Percentage of flags used0.000.010.001.160.330.001.50



Summary:
All the files for this data set do not contain the same parameters. The differences in content were not necessarily divided by cruise. No explanation was given for the discrepancy. Table 3 outlines which parameters are available for which files.

Table 3: Parameters Available for Each File
Filename

CruiseAvailable Parameters
VJJF.890815005v100.ncPR_13N/01TIME, LAT, LON, TS
VJJF.890820005v100.nc TIME, LAT, LON, TS
VJJF.890825005v100.nc
 TIME, LAT, LON, TS
VJJF.890830005v100.nc
 TIME, LAT, LON, TS
VJJF.890904005v100.nc
 TIME, LAT, LON, TS
VJJF.890909005v100.nc
 TIME, LAT, LON, TS
VJJF.890914005v100.nc
 TIME, LAT, LON, TS
VJJF.890919005v100.nc
 TIME, LAT, LON, TS
VJJF.890924003v100.nc
 TIME, LAT, LON, TS
VJJF.900226005v100.nc
PR_13N/02TIME, LAT, LON, TS
VJJF.900303005v100.nc
 TIME, LAT, LON, TS
VJJF.900308005v100.nc
 TIME, LAT, LON, TS
VJJF.900313005v100.nc
 TIME, LAT, LON, TS
VJJF.900318005v100.nc
 TIME, LAT, LON, TS
VJJF.900323005v100.nc
 TIME, LAT, LON, TS
VJJF.900328005v100.nc
 TIME, LAT, LON, TS
VJJF.900402005v100.nc
 TIME, LAT, LON, TS
VJJF.911115005v100.nc
PR_21_/00
TIME, LAT, LON, PS_CRS, PL_SPD, PS_WDIR, PS_WSPD, DIR, SPD, TS, T, RH
VJJF.911120005v100.nc
 TIME, LAT, LON, PS_CRS, PL_SPD, PS_WDIR, PS_WSPD, DIR, SPD, TS, T, RH
VJJF.911125005v100.nc
 TIME, LAT, LON, PS_CRS, PL_SPD, PS_WDIR, PS_WSPD, DIR, SPD, TS, T, RH
VJJF.911130004v100.nc TIME, LAT, LON, PS_CRS, PL_SPD, PS_WDIR, PS_WSPD, DIR, SPD, TS, T, RH
VJJF.911205005v100.nc TIME, LAT, LON, PS_CRS, PL_SPD, PS_WDIR, PS_WSPD, DIR, SPD, TS, T, RH
VJJF.911210005v100.nc
 TIME, LAT, LON, PS_CRS, PL_SPD, PS_WDIR, PS_WSPD, DIR, SPD, TS, T, RH
VJJF.920918005v100.nc
PR_11_/04
TIME, LAT, LON, PS_CRS, PL_SPD, PS_WDIR, PS_WSPD, DIR, SPD, TS, T, RH
VJJF.920923005v100.nc
 TIME, LAT, LON, PS_CRS, PL_SPD, PS_WDIR, PS_WSPD, DIR, SPD, TS, T, RH
VJJF.920927005v100.nc
 TIME, LAT, LON, PS_CRS, PL_SPD, PS_WDIR, PS_WSPD, DIR, SPD, TS, T, RH
VJJF.930624005v100.nc
PR_13N/04
TIME, LAT, LON, PS_CRS, PL_SPD, PS_WDIR, PS_WSPD, DIR, SPD, TS, P, T, RH
VJJF.930629005v100.nc
 TIME, LAT, LON, PS_CRS, PL_SPD, PS_WDIR, PS_WSPD, DIR, SPD, TS, P, T, RH
VJJF.930704005v100.nc
TIME, LAT, LON, PS_CRS, PL_SPD, PS_WDIR, PS_WSPD, DIR, SPD, TS, P, T, RH
VJJF.930709005v100.nc
 TIME, LAT, LON, PS_CRS, PL_SPD, PS_WDIR, PS_WSPD, DIR, SPD, TS, P, T, RH
VJJF.930714005v100.nc
 TIME, LAT, LON, PS_CRS, PL_SPD, PS_WDIR, PS_WSPD, DIR, SPD, TS, P, T, RH
VJJF.930911005v100.nc
PR_13_/06
TIME, LAT, LON, TS
VJJF.930915005v100.nc
 TIME, LAT, LON, TS
VJJF.930920005v100.nc
 TIME, LAT, LON, PS_CRS, PS_WDIR, PS_WSPD, DIR, SPD, TS, P, T, RH
VJJF.930925055v100.nc
 TIME, LAT, LON, PS_CRS, PL_SPD, PS_WDIR, PS_WSPD, DIR, SPD, TS, P, T, RH
VJJF.930930005v100.nc
 TIME, LAT, LON, PS_CRS, PL_SPD, PS_WDIR, PS_WSPD, DIR, SPD, TS, P, T, RH
VJJF.940310005v100.nc
PR_11_/07 TIME, LAT, LON, PS_CRS, PL_SPD, PS_WDIR, PS_WSPD, DIR, SPD, TS, P, T, RH
VJJF.940315005v100.nc
 TIME, LAT, LON, PS_CRS, PL_SPD, PS_WDIR, PS_WSPD, DIR, SPD, TS, P, T, RH
VJJF.940320005v100.nc
 TIME, LAT, LON, PS_CRS, PL_SPD, PS_WDIR, PS_WSPD, DIR, SPD, TS, P, T, RH
VJJF.940325005v100.nc
 TIME, LAT, LON, PS_CRS, PL_SPD, PS_WDIR, PS_WSPD, DIR, SPD, TS, P, T, RH
VJJF.940330005v100.nc TIME, LAT, LON, PS_CRS, PL_SPD, PS_WDIR, PS_WSPD, DIR, SPD, TS, P, T, RH


Two notable problems occurred in this data set. The first was that the atmospheric pressure observations for the entire PR_13N/04 cruise were reported as 0.0mb. These values were flagged as "J", erroneous data. One must assume an instrument malfunction; however, no confirmation of a malfunction was available. The second problem was that many of the relative humidity observations were at exactly 100% for the periods 11/30/91 - 12/14/91 and 07/09/93 - 07/18/93. This is a highly improbable situation. However, due to the absence of disputing data all these values were flagged with "K", caution/suspect data.

In addition, there were some minor problems with the data set. Five observations each of lat and lon were flagged with "F", unreal movement, by the pre-screener. No explanation was given for the readings, so they were not changed by the analyst. The meteorological observations for these records should be taken to be correct unless otherwise flagged. There were also 25 "G", observation >4 standard deviations from climatological mean, descriptive flags added to earth relative wind speed observations during the period 12/10/91 - 12/14/91. The flagged observations, which are near 20m/s, appear to be correct. Therefore, the flags were not changed by the analyst.

Three sea temperature observations were flagged with "I", interesting feature. In each case, the sea temperature fell more than 4 degrees, and then rose to near the previous temperature within a 4 hour period. Only the lowest temperature during each of these episodes was flagged. One possible explanation for this is that strong winds that mixed the ocean waters resulting in colder water near the ocean surface. A lack of corresponding data hinders further investigation into the cause of these events.

Four wind direction observations were also flagged with "I". The Intertropical Convergence Zone boundary shows up clearly as the ship passes through it twice. The observations at the start and finish of the change in wind direction at the beginning and end of the event were each flagged.



Final Note:
With the exception of the atmospheric pressure observations for the PR_13N/04 cruise and the relative humidity observations mentioned above, these data appear to be in excellent condition. The analyst foresees no problems in using this data.



References:
Smith, S.R., C. Harvey, and D.M. Legler, 1996: Handbook of Quality Control Procedures and Methods for Surface Meteorology Data. WOCE Report No. 141/96, Report WOCEMET 96-1, Center for Ocean Atmospheric Prediction Studies, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32310.