the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
An updated version of the global interior ocean biogeochemical data product, GLODAPv2.2021
Siv K. Lauvset
Nico Lange
Toste Tanhua
Henry C. Bittig
Are Olsen
Alex Kozyr
Marta Álvarez
Susan Becker
Peter J. Brown
Brendan R. Carter
Leticia Cotrim da Cunha
Richard A. Feely
Steven van Heuven
Mario Hoppema
Masao Ishii
Emil Jeansson
Sara Jutterström
Steve D. Jones
Maren K. Karlsen
Claire Lo Monaco
Patrick Michaelis
Akihiko Murata
Fiz F. Pérez
Benjamin Pfeil
Carsten Schirnick
Reiner Steinfeldt
Toru Suzuki
Bronte Tilbrook
Anton Velo
Rik Wanninkhof
Ryan J. Woosley
Robert M. Key
Download
- Final revised paper (published on 03 Dec 2021)
- Supplement to the final revised paper
- Preprint (discussion started on 02 Aug 2021)
- Supplement to the preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Review of 'An updated version of the global interior ocean biogeochemical data product, GLODAPv2.2021' by Lauvset et al. [essd-2021-234]', Matthew Humphreys, 03 Aug 2021
This manuscript presents the latest update to GLODAP (GLODAPv2.2021) with 43 new cruises added since the previous version along with a few other minor QC-related updates. The changes and additions have been clearly explained and justified where necessary. The explanation of the overall QC procedure (inherited from the previous version of the manuscript) is comprehensive. The QC procedure itself is robust and now well established.
I have only a few minor techincal/copy-editing notes and suggestions as follows. Having also been a reviewer for the previous iteration of this manuscript I focused on the track-changes supplement provided by the authors. The line numbers below refer to that version.
185 'two-years' should be 'two years' (no hyphen needed here)
188 'update, is presented here which' should be 'update is presented here, which'
192 remove comma after '989 cruises'
217 'essentially the same' implies that there are minor differences - is this intended? If not, just delete 'essentially'.
219-221 why is there no Southern Ocean identifier? Are these cruises included in the Atlantic/Indian/Pacific sectors based on longitude? Please clarify and also mention briefly how the basins are defined (what are the lat/lon/etc. cutoffs).
220 should be Arctic 'and' Mediterranean Seas
366 'as the difference, is in accordance' should be 'as the difference, in accordance'
371-372 'The TCO2 data measured on this cruise are high by 2.15 ± 1.04 umol kg-1 when compared to the data measured on nearby cruises' suggest rephrase to 'The TCO2 data measured on this cruise are 2.15 ± 1.04 umol kg-1 greater/higher than the data measured on nearby cruises'
391 'avoid the communicating' should be 'avoid communicating'
425 'pH dependent' should be 'pH-dependent'
425 'in calculated pH with' might be clearer as 'in calculated pH compared with'
428 'pH dependent' should be 'pH-dependent'
518, 525, 529, 530, 532, 533, 534 & 535 missing full stop at end of sentence
588 'cruises that ended at 2106' should be 'cruises, which ended at 2106'
615-616 awkward sentence; suggest rephrase 'Neutral density for all 989 cruises was calculated using/following J & M (1997).'
616 missing full stop at end of sentence
740 'Silicate in the Atlantic Ocean, for example, shows' consider rephrase to 'For example, silicate in the Atlantic Ocean shows'
771 https://explore.webodv.awi.de/ link did not work for me (503 Service Unavailable), but it might be a temporary issue
776 expocode and doi are mostly lowercase but sometimes uppercase as here; suggest to be consistent throughout
880 & 881 'Python', not 'PYTHON'
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2021-234-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2021-234', Anonymous Referee #2, 05 Oct 2021
As is usual for GLODAP, the authors have been careful and thorough in their analysis and documentation of this critically important dataset. I have reviewed the manuscript as well as the relatively minor comments from the other reviewer and have no further comments.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2021-234-RC2 -
AC1: 'Authors' reply to reviewers', Siv K Lauvset, 04 Nov 2021
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2021-234/essd-2021-234-AC1-supplement.pdf
Peer review completion
- Article
(4622 KB) - Full-text XML