Argo Status Argo TC, M. Belbeoch

JCOMM Observation Programmes Support Centre – Argo Information Centre March 2014

Argo StatusArgo 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• 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


National contributions• Argo needs more floats to reach the global

Can 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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Network DiversificationArgoArgo 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


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)


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”.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


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


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


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 !


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


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.


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


Performance Indice #1

~600 floats are operating outside the initial array~600 floats are required for the global.



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



Marginal Seas: 58%, 68

Equatorial: 63%,89

WBC: 53%, 410

TPOS: 93%, 40

Polar: 39%, 282



42%, 11444%, 140 60%, 40

90%, 8

40%, 15

70%, 3342%, 61


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.


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%.



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°)



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


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)


Deployments - History


Observations


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)


Maritime Zones


Deployments / Maritime Zones


Yearly Deployments: 2013


Yearly Deployments


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)


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


Argo Density/Age(Floats weighted by their probability to survive a year, « decimal floats » - update G.

Johnson)


Detect and highlight gaps

• Hot Spots spatial/statistical analyse


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


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 22TOTAL Global Design 53 44 38

Marginal 40 23 20Polar 23 27 23WBC 24 23 19EQ 40 36 32



• 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 % ?



(%)Not sampled 0 Under sampled <75Well sampled 75-125Over sampled >125




Needs?


Needs (less strict)



• 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


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


Planning


2014 Planning


Planning

• Some plans have to be refined• Routine opportunities implie oversampling on

the long run• Some areas can’t still be implemented

ÞSend floats on colleagues cruisesÞUse new opportunities ÞSet up dedicated/chartered cruisesÞAddress EEZ access and develop cooperation


Network Age


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)


Telecom.30% Iridium


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


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)


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


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


TO DO Conclusion TO DO• Argo has demonstrated its capacity to sustain

the 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 »


Actions

• International cooperation targets for the TC and Director

• Label/charter proposal• Planning proposal• Metrics proposal

• Other tasks or issue for the TC ?


Thanks.

[email protected]@jcommops.orghttps://twitter.com/jcommops

https://twitter.com/jcommops




Documents

Argo Status Argo TC, M. Belbeoch