Wolff, Eric W; Fischer, Hubertus; Ruth, Urs; Twarloh, Birthe; Littot, Geneviève C; Mulvaney, Robert; Röthlisberger, Regine; de Angelis, Martine; Boutron, Claude F; Hansson, Margareta E; Jonsell, Ulf; Hutterli, Manuel A; Lambert, Fabrice; Kaufmann, Patrik R; Stauffer, Bernhard; Stocker, Thomas F; Steffensen, Jørgen Peder; Bigler, Matthias; Siggaard-Andersen, Marie-Louise; Udisti, Roberto; Becagli, Silvia; Castellano, Emiliano; Severi, Mirko; Wagenbach, Dietmar; Barbante, Carlo; Gabrielli, Paolo; Gaspari, Vania (2006): Figure 2: Chemical measurements from the EPICA Dome C core, on an age scale. PANGAEA, https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.401198, In supplement to: Wolff, EW et al. (2006): Southern Ocean sea-ice extent, productivity and iron flux over the past eight glacial cycles. Nature, 440, 491-496, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04614
Always quote citation above when using data! You can download the citation in several formats below.
Latitude: -75.100000 * Longitude: 123.350000
Date/Time Start: 1993-01-01T00:00:00 * Date/Time End: 2004-12-31T00:00:00
Minimum Elevation: 3233.0 m * Maximum Elevation: 3233.0 m
EDC (EPICA Dome C) * Latitude: -75.100000 * Longitude: 123.350000 * Date/Time Start: 1993-01-01T00:00:00 * Date/Time End: 2004-12-31T00:00:00 * Elevation: 3233.0 m * Recovery: 3300 m * Location: Dome C, Antarctica * Campaign: Dome C * Method/Device: Ice drill (ICEDRILL) * Comment: Drill site is 56 km from the site of a previous Dome C core that provided records extending into the last glacial period, and 560 km from the site of the Vostok cores. The completion of the Dome C core was delayed when the first drilling became stuck at 788 m in 1999 (EDC96).
The timescale is EDC2, and the accumulation rates used to calculate flux also derive from EDC2. Non-sea-salt concentrations were calculated. We calculated ssNa and nssCa assuming a Ca/Na weight ratio of 0.038 for marine aerosols and 1.78 for the average crust. nssSO42- was derived assuming a SO42-/Na ratio in marine aerosol of 0.1 (appropriate for a sea ice surface, but note that the use of a traditional sea water ratio of 0.25 would not affect the results significantly).
Data presented in Wolff et al. (2006) were all too high by 8.3% because of an error with the accumulation rates: these are the corrected values.
|#||Name||Short Name||Unit||Principal Investigator||Method/Device||Comment|
|2||Calcium, non-sea-salt, flux||nssCa2+ flux||µg/m2/a||Wolff, Eric W||Calculated|
|3||Iron, flux||Fe flux||µg/m2/a||Wolff, Eric W||Calculated|
|4||Sodium, sea-salt, flux||ssNa flux||µg/m2/a||Wolff, Eric W||Calculated|
|5||Sulfate, non-sea-salt, flux||nssSO4 flux||µg/m2/a||Wolff, Eric W||Calculated|
1405 data points