jcomm observation programmes support centre – argo information centre march 2014 argo status argo...
TRANSCRIPT
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Argo StatusArgo TC, M. Belbeoch
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Argo Status
• International issues
• General status
• Metrics, Objectives, Performance
• Implementation: coverage status
• Instrumentation
• Conclusion & actions
• Conclusion
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
National contributions
• 30/38 participating countries• 12 maintain 95% of the array
• News: Brazil, South Africa, Mexico,Indonesia, Russian Fed., Vietnam, Oman, Turkey,Oman, Maghreb, Lebanon, West. I. O.
56%
11%
7%
5%
4%
4%
3%3% 2%
USAAUSTRALIAFranceJAPANGERMANYUKINDIACHINAKOREACANADASPAINITALYNETHERLANDSNEW ZEALANDIRELANDMAURITIUSFINLANDARGENTINATURKEYBRAZILKENYAECUADORBULGARIAMEXICOSOUTH AFRICAGREECENORWAYGABONSRI LANKALEBANONEU
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
National contributions
• Argo needs more floats to reach the globalCan national contributions grow by 10 to 20% ?
• Donor programmes are important (foster participation on the long run, communicate to coastal states people, access maritime zones, enhance international political support to the program, raise educational actvities)
… Can also take ages.
• JCOMMOPS/AIC is seeking floats to contribute (co-operations, education)(bilateral not always the best) and help national contributions:
– Institutional funding, Industrial partners, foundations, sponsors, sailing world, crowd sourcing • Possibilities are under exploited
• 146 IOC Member States … concerned by ocean issues.
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Performance Indices #0
• Active Floats– Initial array sustained for 7 years– 2 last years above 3500– Mid-way to the global
• Deployments– Light decrease but above initial target in average (~800)– 2009 CTD issue sequels ? Budget cuts ?
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20130
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
2011-2014 Active Floats
March 2011 March 2012 March 2013 March 20140
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
USA
AUSTRALIA
FR
JAPAN
GERMANY
UK
INDIA
CANADA
CHINA
KOREA
NETHERLANDS
SPAIN
ITALY
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
2011-2014
March 2011 March 2012 March 2013 March 20140
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
AUSTRALIA
FR
JAPAN
GERMANY
UK
INDIA
CANADA
CHINA
KOREA
NETHERLANDS
SPAIN
ITALY
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Deployments
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20130
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
UNITED STATES
JAPAN
FRANCE
AUSTRALIA
GERMANY
UNITED KINGDOM
CANADA
INDIA
KOREA (REPUBLIC OF)
CHINA
TOTAL
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Deployments
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20130
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
JAPAN
FRANCE
AUSTRALIA
GERMANY
UNITED KINGDOM
CANADA
INDIA
KOREA (REPUBLIC OF)
CHINA
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
National contributions
• Active national fleets stable or lightly increasing– USA, France, Australia, Italy, UK– Float lifetime, research projects, or punctual funding boost
• Some are decreasing:– Japan, Germany, Canada (-200 floats in 3 years)– Budget cut ? Hardware issues (e.g. CTD 2009)?
Logistics ? Staff turnover? Float delivery or deployments– Temporary ?
• Array is anyway stable
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Performance of data flow
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20130
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
#Argo Profiles
GTS
GDACs
• To see ADMT• Volume, delays, users
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Network Diversification
ArgoArgo eq.Bio ArgoCoastal "Argo"Deep ArgoMisc.
• Any limitation?• Many positive outcomes
– Grow « customers » community– Multidisciplinary applications– Medias interest– Resources sharing– Logistic sharing and why not instruments
• Argo has some leadership and experience• New comers should fund DM and infrastructure
properly
• See agenda 8.x
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Argo Label
• Delivered to PIs, then to manufacturers
• Do not order sparingly… 3 euros/units (1-2 years minimum)• Do not use systematically
• Proposal: Charter for new customers.– Secure official Argo content and national programmes– Oversee all its components and new ones– Welcome and assist new float users– Promote and support existing services from the infrastructure in place
• Data management, AIC, deployments, etc.
• JCOMMOPS wish to develop such a « certification » for all its components
• Mutual interest to promote best practices (Argo being the larger float customer)
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
ATTENTION: Use of the official Argo label
Considering the diversity of profiling float users, Argo requires that its label must be used only for those floats which are officially part of the Argo program, and not automatically affixed on any profiling float .We are developing an “Argo charter” to be made available to profiling float customers. Until this is available, the Argo label should be used only in agreement with the Argo programme.
Argo float operators should adhere to the Argo Best Practices, including:
• International cooperation within the Argo Steering and Data Management teams• Transparent practices under UN framework, and respect of international regulations (UNCLOS, IOC/UNESCO
Resolution XX-6 and EC-XLI.4) • Free and unrestricted data exchange (in real-time and delayed mode)• Standardized practices in data and metadata distribution• Careful securing and retrieval of beached instruments• Instrument registration at JCOMMOPS (including deployment plans)• Harmonized practices in sampling and cycling *
(*) Equivalent contributions to the Argo programme with specific research objectives are also welcome.
In particular, manufacturers must inform the Argo Technical Coordinator of any new allocation of these labels.Send an email to [email protected] or [email protected] “Customer X wishes to operate N floats under the Argo label”.
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Argo label
• Remark from one AST member
• Argo / non-Argo: different pricing to encourage more participation in Argo and best practices.
• Issue: real Argo floats cost more in reality
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Objectives
• What is the optimal Argo array?• How to build simple performance indices for a complex question?• How to consider scientific (various), and operational objectives• How to communicate properly outside (public, agencies, etc) – critical but important
• Required within AST to optimize and balance the array and detect issues ?
• Required by JCOMM OPA, OOPC, etc for a « system perspective »
• Difficult for the TC to offer tools if objectives/results are not translated into clear « algorithms ».
• AST guidance required
• Meeting in Toulouse in April (NOOA/OSMC, OOPC, IOC, WMO) 28-30 April 2014
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Objectives
•
• Base grid used to calculate rationally a number of metrics (AST 14)• To allow tracking in time, comparisons, globally and regionally• To consider Argo’s array evolution to the global and regional specificities
• It is not anticipated to populate each box with floats !
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Objectives
• Base grid to be refined reasonably ( + 0-500 boxes)• Marginal seas, coastal areas, history, criteria ?• AST to feedback
• A fixed grid permits to calculate routinely indices, perform « spatial analyses »
• Goal: build a dashboard style monitoring system
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Objectives
1751; 42%
962.75; 23%
800.25; 19%
320; 8%
140; 3%• Estimation in each area (basin, sub basin, specific density, custom) of:
– active units, required units– yearly deployments needs– comparison to practices, plans, gaps– simple performance indices
• « Simple » calculations interesting to do• Between the global, and the local (3X3),regional indices make more sense.
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Performance Indice #1BASIN Boxes (#) Initial (#) Global (#) Active (%) (%) Initial Design 2952 2952 2970 101 101 Pacific Ocean 1530 1530 1 751 1671 109 95 Atlantic Ocean 757 757 963 729 96 76 Indian Ocean 666 666 800 889 133 111 ExtensionsSouthern Ocean 320 0 320 115 36 Arctic Ocean 140 0 140 63 45 Carribean Sea 19 0 38 4 11
Med. Sea 18 0 36 34 94 Gulf of Mexico 10 0 20 8 40 South China Sea 10 0 20 3 15 Sea of Japan 8 0 16 36 225 Banda Sea 5 0 10 0 - Black Sea 3 0 6 5 83 Celebes Sea 2 0 5 1 22 Makassar Strait 2 0 4 1 25 Sea of Okhotsk 2 0 4 0 - Sulu Sea 1 0 2 0 - TOTAL Global Design 3493 2952 4 135 3559 86
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Performance Indice #1
~600 floats are operating outside the initial array~600 floats are required for the global.
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Performance Indice #1
133%, 111%, -89
109%, 95%, 80
96%,76%, 234
N/A, 36%, 205
N/A, 45%, 77
%vs initial, % vs global, floats required for the global
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Performance Indice #1
Marginal Seas: 58%, 68
Equatorial: 63%,89
WBC: 53%, 410
TPOS: 93%, 40
Polar: 39%, 282
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Performance Indice #1
42%, 11444%, 140 60%, 40
90%, 8
40%, 15
70%, 3342%, 61
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Performance Indice #1: Active units
• Initial array is achieved in each basin
• Light excess in the Indian Ocean (but not where needed)
• Deficit for the global in the Atlantic (WBC but not only)
• Array enhancements implementation is well started.
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Performance Indice #2: Deployed units
• Deployments required vs practices• Objective: 4.1 years lifetime (150 cycles)• Reality with instruments (see later)
• ~720 units/year required for the initial Argo• ~1000 units/year for the Global Argo.
• We need an extra 10-20%.
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Performance Indice #2
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20130
100
200
300
400
500
600
Arctic Ocean Atlantic Ocean Indian Ocean Mediterranean Sea Pacific Ocean Southern Ocean (< -60°)
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Performance Indice #2
133 / 162-195
386 / 372-426
245 / 184-234
36 / 0-78
27 / 0-27
AVG Deployments in 2011-2013 / target initial-global
101, 0-39
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Performance Indice #2• Pacific:
– No real deficit– Yearly increase required ~40 floats
• Atlantic:– deficit of 234 units– but excess in yearly deployment vs global objectives (60 units) – suggestion (EU / USA) ?
• Indian:– Excess (2009-2011 floats ?) circulation?– Since that, recurrent deficit in deployments, even for the initial design– ?? Why budget ? International cooperation ?
• Southern ocean:– 200 units starting deficit – needs 25 more units per year
• Arctic ocean is okay
• Marginal seas: over sampled x2 (certainly the design is to be reviewed)
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Deployments - History
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Observations
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Deployments
• Historical challenging areas:
– No local and routine scientific interest
– Logistics: dedicated ship time and resources required (see 5.3)
– Geopolitics (specific zones to be addressed, see 9.3)
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Maritime Zones
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Deployments / Maritime Zones
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Yearly Deployments: 2013
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Yearly Deployments
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
2013 Deploymentsvs 2013 Objectives
• Some areas have been implemented without clear gaps identified.
• Which means over sampling in 2014 in these zones
• Strategy (anticipating the drift) ?• Update of the global design required?• Lack of deployment opportunities?
• To send floats outside you area of scientific interest to balance the array.
• To ask M. Kramp assistance (see 5.3)
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Argo Density 6°x6°to update to the new design ?
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Argo Density/Age(Floats weighted by their probability to survive a year, « decimal floats » - update G.
Johnson)
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Detect and highlight gaps
• Hot Spots spatial/statistical analyse
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Performance Indice: #3 - try
• What proportion of our array is optimally implemented ?
• Calculation:Sum of boxes density over the grid (initial/global), without counting the excess when the target is reached.
• Using Observations 2013, active floats,active aged floats
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Performance Indice: #3BASIN (obs/2013) (%) (active floats) (%) (active /age) (%)
Initial Design 73 59 49Pacific Ocean 63 54 45Atlantic Ocean 51 42 37Indian Ocean 55 43 37ExtensionsSouthern Ocean 20 25 22
TOTAL Global Design 53 44 38
Marginal 40 23 20Polar 23 27 23WBC 24 23 19EQ 40 36 32
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Performance Indice #3
• Over a year ¾ of the initial array worked optimally
• This is better than a random distribution (~60%)
• The Pacific Ocean has slightly better coverage than the other basins
• Metric not appropriate for the public.• Can be interesting to track in time.• The objective is certainly not 100%. 60 % ?
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Performance Indice #3
(%)Not sampled 0 Under sampled <75Well sampled 75-125Over sampled >125
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Performance Indice #3
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Needs?
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Needs (less strict)
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Performance Indice #3
• Beyond the need for higher density in WBC or eq. regions:– Large gaps are developing in the SW I.O. (and in
the piracy zone).– In the central North Pacific– In the South Atlantic
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
2014 planning
• Almost all programmes sent their plans• thanks!• But we need to progress.
• Proposal:yearly TXT file to maintain for an automatic synchonisation between all systems.
ID;WMO;LAT;LON;DATE;SHIP;CRUISE;STATUS
• STATUS = Probable (0), Confirmed (1), Registered (2) active (3), inactive (4), closed (5)
• Can be useful internally for program monitoring across a team
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Planning
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
2014 Planning
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Planning
• Some plans have to be refined• Routine opportunities implie oversampling on
the long run• Some areas can’t still be implemented
Þ Send floats on colleagues cruisesÞ Use new opportunities Þ Set up dedicated/chartered cruisesÞ Address EEZ access and develop cooperation
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Network Age
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Network Age
• Use spatial analyse to determine geographical trends (feature, weight, neighboring)
• Central IO and PO getting old• Not the Atlantic (not suprising excess/year)
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Telecom.30% Iridium
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Iridium vs Argos 60% dep./year
• 2004-2010: Slow turnover (R & D)• 2011-2013: Take off (inflexion mid 2012)
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 -
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Float models
60%
8%
5%
8%
4%
5%
4%
APEX (2121)
SOLO (292)
SOLO-W 191)
ARVOR (275)
PROVOR (140)
SOLO-II (181)
S2A (149)
NAVIS-A (87)
NOVA (46)
NEMO (44)
PROVOR-II (32)
ARVOR-C (1)
ARVOR-D (1)
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Float market
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 -
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
APEX NEMO NINJA POPS ARVOR PROVOR PROVOR-MTSOLO SOLO-II SOLO-W EM-APEX ITP PALACE NAVIS-ANOVA ARVOR_C ARVOR_D PROVOR-II 9 39 S2A 20 46 100
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
ReliabilityCPF= 170-180 (2005, 2006)
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
CPF (Nb)PPF (Nb)DIST (km)
Average 10 days cycles Average distance profiled
Average profiles distributedAll Argo
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
TO DO Conclusion TO DO
• Argo has demonstrated its capacity to sustainthe array
• Its on his way to the global. • IO: attention, gaps and old• AO: maybe seeding elswhere (EU, USA), e..g SW IO• PO: good coverage but getting old too.• Float reliability looks good. But takes time to evaluate (low cost floats ? Less battery ?
approrpiate)
• More intl cooperation, and slightly more resources (national, private, crowd) and we can reach the global
• We need better metrics to track its progress and build up the « Argo control dashboard ».• Better planning and resources sharing required (shared cruises, charters, etc)• Improve communication and cooperation with industry • Communicate on the new targets and new challenges to keep Argo visible.• Develop outreach …and democratize access to Argo information• Clarify our position with regard to the « multidicsiplinary turn »
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Actions
• International cooperation targets for the TC and Director
• Label/charter proposal• Planning proposal• Metrics proposal
• Other tasks or issue for the TC ?
JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014
Thanks.
[email protected]@jcommops.orghttps://twitter.com/jcommops