1 / 62

Argo Status Argo TC, M. Belbeoch

Argo Status Argo TC, M. Belbeoch. Argo Status. International issues General status Metrics , Objectives, Performance Implementation : coverage status Instrumentation Conclusion & actions Conclusion. National contributions. 30/38 participating countries

kerem
Download Presentation

Argo Status Argo TC, M. Belbeoch

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Argo StatusArgo TC, M. Belbeoch

  2. Argo Status • International issues • General status • Metrics, Objectives, Performance • Implementation: coveragestatus • Instrumentation • Conclusion & actions • Conclusion

  3. 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.

  4. National contributions • Argo needs more floats to reach the globalCan national contributions grow by 10 to 20% ? • Donorprogrammes are important (foster participation on the long run, communicate to coastal states people, accessmaritime zones, enhance international political support to the program, raiseeducationalactvities) … Can alsotakeages. • JCOMMOPS/AIC isseekingfloats to contribute (co-operations, education)(bilateral not always the best) and help national contributions: • Institutionalfunding, Industrialpartners, foundations, sponsors, sailing world, crowdsourcing • Possibilities are underexploited • 146 IOC Member States … concerned by ocean issues.

  5. Performance Indices #0 • Active Floats • Initial arraysustained for 7 years • 2 last yearsabove 3500 • Mid-way to the global • Deployments • Light decrease but above initial target in average (~800) • 2009 CTD issue sequels ? Budget cuts ?

  6. 2011-2014 Active Floats

  7. 2011-2014

  8. Deployments

  9. Deployments

  10. National contributions • Active national fleets stable or lightlyincreasing • USA, France, Australia, Italy, UK • Floatlifetime, researchprojects, or punctualfundingboost • Some are decreasing: • Japan, Germany, Canada (-200 floats in 3 years) • Budget cut ? Hardware issues (e.g. CTD 2009)?Logistics ? Staff turnover? Floatdelivery or deployments • Temporary ? • Arrayisanyway stable

  11. Performance of data flow • To see ADMT • Volume, delays, users

  12. Network Diversification • 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 comersshouldfund DM and infrastructureproperly • See agenda 8.x

  13. Argo Label • Delivered to PIs, then to manufacturers • Do not ordersparingly… 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 floatusers • Promote and support existing services from the infrastructure in place • Data management, AIC, deployments, etc. • JCOMMOPS wish to developsuch a « certification » for all its components • Mutualinterest to promote best practices (Argo being the largerfloatcustomer)

  14. 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 aic@jcommops.org or support@argo.net “Customer X wishes to operate N floats under the Argo label”.

  15. Argo label • Remarkfrom one AST member • Argo / non-Argo: differentpricing to encourage more participation in Argo and best practices. • Issue: real Argo floatscost more in reality

  16. Objectives • Whatis the optimal Argo array? • How to build simple performance indices for a complex question? • How to considerscientific (various), and operational objectives • How to communicateproperlyoutside (public, agencies, etc) – critical but important • Requiredwithin AST to optimize and balance the array and detect issues ? • Required by JCOMM OPA, OOPC, etcfor a « system perspective » • Difficult for the TC to offertools if objectives/results are not translatedintoclear «algorithms». • AST guidance required • Meeting in Toulouse in April (NOOA/OSMC, OOPC, IOC, WMO) 28-30 April 2014

  17. Objectives • Base gridused to calculaterationally a number of metrics (AST 14) • To allowtracking in time, comparisons, globally and regionally • To considerArgo’sarrayevolution to the global and regionalspecificities • It is not anticipated to populateeach box withfloats !

  18. Objectives • Base grid to berefinedreasonably ( + 0-500 boxes) • Marginal seas, coastal areas, history, criteria ? • AST to feedback • A fixedgridpermits to calculateroutinelyindices, perform « spatial analyses  » • Goal: build a dashboard style monitoring system

  19. Objectives • Estimation in each area (basin, sub basin, specificdensity, custom) of: • active units, requiredunits • yearlydeploymentsneeds • comparison to practices, plans, gaps • simple performance indices • « Simple » calculationsinteresting to do • Between the global, and the local (3X3), regional indices make more sense.

  20. Performance Indice #1

  21. Performance Indice #1 ~600 floats are operating outside the initial array ~600 floats are required for the global.

  22. Performance Indice #1 N/A, 45%, 77 109%, 95%, 80 96%,76%, 234 133%, 111%, -89 N/A, 36%, 205 %vs initial, % vs global, floatsrequired for the global

  23. Performance Indice #1 Polar: 39%, 282 Marginal Seas: 58%, 68 Equatorial: 63%,89 TPOS: 93%, 40 WBC: 53%, 410

  24. Performance Indice #1 42%, 61 70%, 33 40%, 15 90%, 8 44%, 140 60%, 40 42%, 114

  25. Performance Indice #1: Active units • Initial arrayisachieved in each basin • Light excess in the IndianOcean (but not whereneeded) • Deficit for the global in the Atlantic (WBC but not only) • Arrayenhancementsimplementationiswellstarted.

  26. Performance Indice #2: Deployedunits • Deploymentsrequired vs practices • Objective: 4.1 yearslifetime (150 cycles) • Reality with instruments (seelater) • ~720 units/yearrequired for the initial Argo • ~1000 units/year for the Global Argo. • Weneed an extra 10-20%.

  27. Performance Indice #2

  28. Performance Indice #2 27 / 0-27 101, 0-39 386 / 372-426 245 / 184-234 133 / 162-195 36 / 0-78 AVG Deployments in 2011-2013 / target initial-global

  29. Performance Indice #2 • Pacific: • No real deficit • Yearlyincreaserequired ~40 floats • Atlantic: • deficit of 234 units • but excess in yearlydeployment vs global objectives (60 units) – suggestion (EU / USA) ? • Indian: • Excess (2009-2011 floats ?) circulation? • Sincethat, recurrentdeficit in deployments, even for the initial design • ?? Why budget ? International cooperation ? • Southernocean: • 200 unitsstartingdeficit • needs 25 more units per year • Arcticoceanisokay • Marginal seas: over sampled x2 (certainly the design is to bereviewed)

  30. Deployments - History

  31. Observations

  32. Deployments • Historicalchallenging areas: • No local and routine scientificinterest • Logistics: dedicatedship time and resourcesrequired (see 5.3) • Geopolitics (specific zones to beaddressed, see 9.3)

  33. Maritime Zones

  34. Deployments / Maritime Zones

  35. YearlyDeployments: 2013

  36. YearlyDeployments

  37. 2013 Deploymentsvs 2013 Objectives • Some areas have been implementedwithoutcleargaps identified. • Whichmeansover sampling in 2014 inthese zones • Strategy (anticipating the drift) ? • Update of the global design required? • Lack of deploymentopportunities? • To sendfloatsoutsideyou area of scientificinterest to balance the array. • To ask M. Kramp assistance (see 5.3)

  38. Argo Density 6°x6°to update to the new design ?

  39. Argo Density/Age(Floatsweighted by theirprobability to survive a year, « decimalfloats » - update G. Johnson)

  40. Detect and highlight gaps • Hot Spots spatial/statisticalanalyse

  41. Performance Indice: #3 - try • What proportion of ourarrayisoptimallyimplemented ? • Calculation:Sum of boxes density over the grid (initial/global), withoutcounting the excesswhen the targetisreached. • Using Observations 2013, active floats,active agedfloats

  42. Performance Indice: #3

  43. Performance Indice #3 • Over a year ¾ of the initial arrayworkedoptimally • This isbetterthan a random distribution (~60%) • The Pacific Ocean has slightlybettercoveragethan the other basins • Metric not appropriate for the public. • Can beinteresting to track in time. • The objective iscertainly not 100%. 60 % ?

  44. Performance Indice #3

  45. Performance Indice #3

  46. Needs?

  47. Needs(less strict)

  48. Performance Indice #3 • Beyond the need for higherdensity 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

  49. 2014 planning • Almost all programmes sent their plans • thanks! • But weneed to progress. • Proposal:yearly TXT file to maintainfor an automaticsynchonisationbetween all systems. ID;WMO;LAT;LON;DATE;SHIP;CRUISE;STATUS • STATUS = Probable (0), Confirmed (1), Registered (2) active (3), inactive (4), closed (5) • Can beusefulinternally for program monitoring across a team

  50. Planning

More Related