GTSPP Annotated Agenda

Document Sample
GTSPP Annotated Agenda Powered By Docstoc
					GTSPP Meeting

Attendees were:
Yutaka Michida, Penny Holliday, Nathan Bindoff, Brian King, Piers Chapman, Hank Frey, Catherine
Mavzier, Yeun-ho Chong, Norm Hall, Bob Keeley.

1. Status of QC of yearly files
  SIO has QC'ed and returned to NODC the data for 1996. Data from 1996 for CSIRO and AOML have
not yet been provided by NODC; they were waiting on some additional data. This should go out soon.
  It was decided that scientific QC will not be carried out on 1997 data before WOCE CD 2 is prepared. It
was considered that the volume of data is unlikely to be sufficient to make it worth while.
QC of delayed mode data continues to be slowed because of the delays in data coming to NODC. In the
case of WOCE PIs, IPO agreed to try to help NODC if they could provide information about the PIs whose
data have not arrived at NODC. It is important to GTSPP to document the speed which data reach the
CMD. At the last meeting, NODC agreed to produce an analysis of this. This was not available this time
and so the request was restated.
  Hall noted that data from marginal seas of the Pacific are not QC'ed. Keeley asked that the definitions of
these areas be provided to him for inclusion on the CD. In addition, Keeley asked if the data from marginal
seas are 'marked' as having passed through SIO. Hall agreed to determine what was done and to inform

2. Status of GTSPP Participants
   NODC will continue to fund the QC of Pacific data at SIO until at least the preparation of WOCE CD
version 3. Both AMOL and CSIRO have funding to continue as well.
   At a U.S. GOOS meeting, Keeley, Bob Molinari and Rick Bailey decided that a formal MOU between
participants could strengthen the roles each participant plays. A draft has been put together and has been
seen by NODC. The terms need more work to emphasize the expected permanence of GTSPP and its
likely contributions to GOOS, CLIVAR, and other international programmes with oceanographic
components. Michida asked to be provided with a copy for JODC consideration. Keeley agreed to revise
the draft further and to send this out to the parties. It was agreed that signatories to the document should
be placed one administrative level above the agency directly involved.

3. Data flow and monitoring
  Brest has withdrawn from direct GTSPP activities. Approximately 2 years ago, NODC and Brest carried
out an intercomparison of their respective data holdings and updated each of their archives to ensure their
contents were the same. It is not clear if since then, an update of data has been received from Brest, so
that there is once again the concern that not all data received by Brest has come to NODC as well. NODC
was asked to check into this and to request any recent data received by Brest.
  Keeley noted that real-time data have not been received from the U.S. Navy in a number of years
although he was still trying to remedy this. Hank Frey said that there were ongoing discussions regarding
provision of declassified data by the Navy. The U.S. Navy has stopped sending data directly to NODC.
Rather, they place data on their server and let anyone pick them up. NODC found that a large fraction
(all?) of the data available on the Navy server are data obtained from NODC. This is still not completely
decided and NODC will keep GTSPP informed. Chapman noted that both Worth Nowlin and Bob Molinari
consider U.S. Navy data in their report (name?) for Jim Baker. Keeley was asked to contact Molinari and
Chapman offered to talk to Nowlin about this.
  Holliday and King raised the question about whether U.K. Navy data reached GTSPP. They agreed to
provide some information to Keeley and Frey to check and to proceed as needed. The contact for the U.K.
Navy would be Nigel Gooding.
  Keeley stated that the real-time data sent by JODC from Hydrographic department and Fisheries ships
which come to MEDS at the end of a month, do not arrive reliably each month (he will provide details to
Michida). In addition, he was informed that ship identifiers have changed but as yet no updated list has
been received. Michida agreed to check into this and to have the new list sent as soon as possible.
  Keeley informed the meeting of what is currently done in support of SOOP activities by GTSPP. Various
sampling maps are available from MEDS web site (, click on National
and International programmes, SOOPIP) as well as monthly QC statistics (under National and
International programmes, WOCE UOT). NODC provides the archive for the higher resolution XBT data
collected by the SOOP programme. Keeley has some evidence to show that monthly monitoring of data
quality and prompt reporting back to ship operators when problems are noted has resulted in
improvements in data quality.
  Michida informed the meeting that the Japanese Hydrographic Department was nearly ready to begin
exchanging 1 m resolution XBT data rather than data at standard depths. He agreed to check into this
progress and inform Keeley and Doug Hamilton. This problem needs to be solved before the question of
data exchange with the NEAR-GOOS programme begins.

4. Review of the GTSPP
  Keeley prepared a document discussing the future directions on GTSPP. The only comments received
were from Ron Wilson, and he was in basic agreement with the contents. Holliday commented that it was
important to stress ongoing and working level contacts between data centres and scientists. She also
noted there should be clear statements of the benefits of these contacts. No other comments were
provided at the meeting, but participants were asked to convey any they might have to Keeley. When
asked about the future of the document, he stated that it may be presented at the upcoming IODE
  Keeley noted that little salinity data was being handled by GTSPP. In particular, none of the Science
Centres have QC software that permits them to examine salinity. This is a problem that GTSPP needs to
met. He hoped that the new semi-automated procedures being developed by AOML and CSIRO would
address this.
  Keeley provided a revised project plan for GTSPP as completed by Ron Wilson. Participants were asked
to read this and send their comments to Ron either directly or through Keeley (keeley@meds-sdmm.dfo-
  WOCE DPC asked all DACs to examine what their role could be to support CLIVAR. This should be
based on the suite of variables and sampling required, and the stated aims for timeliness and free
exchange of data. The meeting did not discuss how GTSPP/UOT DAC would formulate this. All GTSPP
members should be aware of the strong emphasis in CLIVAR on real-time data and rapid delivery of
delayed mode data. This should result in more timely receipt of delayed mode data at the archive centres.
In addition it may well require faster handling of scientific quality control of data by science centres. Keeley
volunteered after the meeting to undertake the first draft and to circulate it to participants.

5. Code Changes
  Both BATHY and TESAC code forms have been modified and will come into effect on 3 May, 2000.
Keeley has posted a description of both the current code forms and the changes under the SOOPIP topic
on MEDS web site (see the URL under item 3.). Keeley also offered to help people check their encoding
software by trying to decode trial messages they produce.
  The major change in TESAC is to include information about the instrument used in collecting data found
in the TESAC. This will use the same tables as BATHY. Chong was asked to check with Bob Molinari to
see if the existing table was sufficient to describe profiling float instrumentation. She should provide
information to Keeley so that he can contact the right people at WMO to have additions made in the
tables. It was recognized that data centres will need sufficient detail about the profiling floats to ensure the
usefulness of data archived.

6. Archive issues
   Keeley made an analysis of P3 looking to see if all of the contents of the GTSPP format could map into
it. This was carried out in April, 1998. He concluded that, in particular, there was no place in P3 to store
information provided from Science Centres about the reasons for profile flags having been set. Frey noted
that P3 was not completely settled and that there was still some room for changes. He suggested that a
meeting be set up at NODC to include GTSPP members (e.g. Keeley, Chong, Bailey, Molinari), others
(e.g. Jim Swift, Dale Pillsbury, Gary Soneira) and NODC staff to work out the differences. Keeley was
asked to send out an email to possible interested parties to the meeting to inform them. Frey will
coordinate arrangements for setting a time. In the email, Keeley will outline the issues relating directly to
P3 as well as CMD considerations that are impacted by the format.

7. Review of action items from previous meeting
  These were reviewed and any outstanding issues discussed at the meeting. Any continuing issues
appear as action items from this meeting.

8. Review of UOT CD
  There were some minor and major issues regarding the next version of the WOCE CD.
a) WOCE DPC requested that the high resolution XBT lines be extracted from the general files and be
available separately.
b) Data were requested to be written in netCDF and if necessary compressed using gzip.
c) A sample file should be prepared in netCDF by September. From this, estimates of data volumes for
the next CD should be made.
d) A beta version of the CD must be ready by late February, 2000, with the final version by April, 2000.
e) Longitudes should be written as +/- 180 degrees with positive longitudes east of Greenwich.
  There was a problem on the first CD with real-time and the same delayed mode data being both
present. There also has appeared a mismatch of profiles to stations. The meeting agreed that both
problems needed to be resolved before the next CD was issued.
  Keeley agreed that MEDS to assemble the CD contents as it did last time. He agreed to talk to Rick
Bailey to see if they had any products they would like to include. Other participants were asked to review
the CD and provide suggestions to him regarding contents.
  Keeley agreed to write software to convert MEDS ASCII to netCDF. The software prepared by MEDS
will be used to prepare the sample file (one ocean, one season of one year rather than line P16 as DPC
requested). MEDS will pass the software to NODC to use as they can.
  NODC will work to correct the duplicate and mismatch problems noted above and will provide data to
the CD.They will merge all data available to ensure the most complete, high resolution data set possible.
  Hall agreed to review the QC documentation of SIO to ensure it is complete.
  Holliday remembered noting some problems viewing the CDs on a Macintosh. She will review this and
inform Keeley.

9. Profiling floats
   The WOCE DPC asked GTSPP to consider what its role might be in managing data from profiling floats.
King told participants that all data from the ARGO program were non-proprietary. In addition, all data were
to circulate on the GTS as quickly as possible (from immediate to 48 hours delay after data are sent
ashore). There is a plan to carry out scientific QC on the data within three months and these data to be
sent to some archive centre or centres. The plans on this part of the project were not well developed.
There was an offer by FNOC to provide the real-time data to users, but, apparently, they did not want to
propose archive services. Participants saw an opportunity for GTSPP to become involved by being a
source of real-time data for users with poor connections to data on the GTS, as well as the archive for the
data having passed through scientific QC. Managing data in this way, should be relatively simple since
only a delayed mode - real-time comparison and replacement would need to be done. It was recognized
that there may be other floats operating that are not a part of the ARGO programme, but these would
likely be few.
   Refinement of the data management for ARGO is taking place now. Participants asked both Keeley and
Frey to contact the planners, to discuss what aspects of the data management functions might be handled
by GTSPP and to move quickly to write up the necessary documentation for Eric. At the same time, IPO
would provide a list of PIs deploying floats to NODC with the thought that GTSPP should propose what
role GTSPP could play and ask PIs to send their delayed mode data to GTSPP. GTSPP was asked to
consider the size of the task of preserving current float data and information prior to the start of ARGO.

Definition of Marginal Seas at SIO

The following defines areas considered by SIO to be marginal seas and for which no QC is undertaken.

South China Sea: 8 S to 25 N, 90 to 122 E
East China Sea: 25 to 41 N, 115 to 128 E
Sea of Japan: 35 to 50 N, 128 to 140 E
Sea of Okhotsk: 45 to 65 N, 135 to 155 E
Bering Sea:    52 to 66 N, 163 E to 159 W

Shared By: