Mike's Lamp file 
% File: \noaa\lamps\asciiout\ol420\ol420L9.txt
% What: MLML OL420 Lamp#9, 25Jul06 NIST calibrated Radiance spectra 
% Date: 14Dec06;  By: M.Feinholz/MLML;  For S.Flora/MLML
% Note: Contains original NIST spectra and MF's Black-Body fit/interpolation
%
% Column:
% 01 = Wavelength (nm)
% 02 = Radiance (uW/cm^2/sr/nm) [Cal 16: 25Jul06 Lamp 09 PreCal by NIST 300:1000 nm  (6.5045 & 6.5056 Adc) (Lamp:L-846)]
% 03 = Wavelength (nm)
% 04 = Radiance (uW/cm^2/sr/nm) [OL420 25Jul06 NIST cal & MLML Black-Body Fit @ 300:0.25:1000 nm]
 
NIST Colored Source file 
FhdS 1: Colored Source Filter files                                                     
FhdS 2: FROM: david allen   on Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 18:33:10 -0500  
FhdS 3: Complied into NDBASE by S. Flora on 11-Nov-2008                                 
FhdS 4: The file names with the "wa" (With Attenuator in reference beam) are the files  
FhdS 5: you should use for the out-of-band data.  The file names without the "wa" should
FhdS 6: be used for the in band data.                                                   

Also I did not see the obvious 2% decrease in the OL420 lamp data that I did in the 2008_02 and that Mike saw in the 2011_03 data. So no 2% correction is applied to the OL420 data.

These graphs the OL420 and three colored source data sets were SLC with the new matrix and the preL259 system response. The Ol420 look pretty good, it does have that funny little hump around 460 nm, so does the BG28 and 39. That hump also exist in the 2011 corrected data. The BG28 (closest spectrally to MOBY) looks pretty good too, minus the hump, it misses a bit from ~550nm out to 600 nm. The BG39 looks good in the blue too but gets messy past 550 nm. The PER is probably the worse of the three. It is rarely near 1. All three over correct a by a little bit in the UV.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

The next two figures compare the uncor, old iterative matrix correction and the new matrix. The bands are viirs-npp bands (412.9, 444.5, 481.2 and 556.3 nm). Compared to uncorrected the change is huge for the 412 nm band, about 18% higher. Compared to the old interative matrix it is 7-8% higher.

Figure 5

Figure 6

Just to make sure the UV looks OK I wanted to compare some MOBY data SLCEd using the 2011 SLC with the M241 data. Turns out because of all the shifting buoy deployments I found that the M241 and M249 were both deployed in Dec. The dates are not exact, M241 data are Dec 4th and M249 data are Dec 17 and 18th. So the following are a comparison of M241 and M249 in the same day, good data only. As far as the shape of the UV goes I say it looks pretty good.

Figure 7

Figure 8

Figure 9