1 / 14

In-Situ Currents: Breakout Group Report Out

In-Situ Currents: Breakout Group Report Out. QARTOD II February 28 – March 2, 2005. Technology Selection. 25 participants Three technology groups Current meters ADCPs – technology selected by group Drifters In general, did not want to be vendor specific.

brock
Download Presentation

In-Situ Currents: Breakout Group Report Out

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. In-Situ Currents:Breakout Group Report Out QARTOD IIFebruary 28 – March 2, 2005

  2. Technology Selection • 25 participants • Three technology groups • Current meters • ADCPs – technology selected by group • Drifters • In general, did not want to be vendor specific

  3. Recommended Real-Time Quality Control Tests

  4. Real-Time Quality Control Checks for Red – Level 1 * • Pitch/Roll • UVW – Vertical velocity/horizontal velocity • Echo amplitude/intensity • Percent solutions • Percent good pings (PGP) • Error velocity • Correlation magnitude • Surface (or bottom) reflection/ detection * If information is available with instrument

  5. Real-Time Quality Control Checks for Yellow - Level 2 * • Heading • Bit status (Built In Test) • Battery voltage (V1 & V2) two batteries • Water temperature • Pressure • Timestamp • Std deviation of speeds • Transmit current • Correlation coefficient • Speed of sound * If information is available with instrument

  6. Real-Time Quality Descriptor Flags • Each data record goes out with quality descriptor flags Group Discussion • Two principle customer groups • Customer interested in observation only (e.g., maritime community) • Ensemble flag linked to release of data • Customer interested in full record (e.g., academia, oil and gas industry) • Flags for each hard parameter • Ensemble flag linked to release of data • Flags for soft flags, if affordable • Two data sets • Real-time observations (only Level 2 and 3 data) • Archived observations (all data)

  7. Real-Time Quality Descriptor Flags • Categories … agree with QARTOD I recommendations: • -9 = missing value • 0 = quality not evaluated • 1= bad • 2=questionable/suspect • 3=good

  8. Real-Time Metadata Descriptors Group Discussion • Developed a list of recommended fields to send with the real-time observation • Instrument-level description • Metadata should be in the header of the record

  9. Metadata to be Delivered in Real-Time • Latitude (with a designator: fixed or moving) • Longitude (with a designator: fixed or moving) • Horizontal datum / reference • Depth of water • Depth of instrument • Vertical datum / reference • Time (with a designator for time zone, e.g., UTC) • Data collected at beginning, middle, or end of sample • Compass reference • Serial number • Units for data reporting • Orientation

  10. Metadata to be Delivered if Affordable • Sensor type • Deployment date • Calibration procedures • Date of calibration • System frequency • Bin size • Number of bins • Sampling interval • Bad beam indicator • Average interval • Pings per ensemble • Compass update rate • Quality checks descriptions and thresholds • Blanking distance • Coordinate system for velocity measurements • Joyce parameters • Platform description, including fixed or moving

  11. Real-Time Calibration Flags Descriptors • Place reference to date of calibration in metadata

  12. Common Data Formats Group Discussion • Many data formats represented in group • ASCII is universally understood • Future holds sensor sending data in XML • Moving towards automation and interoperability Recommendations • Community should strive to be DMAC compliant • Recommended format: NetCDF, along with data dictionary and convention

  13. Next Steps and Roadblocks Key Next Steps • Define thresholds for quality control tests • Develop open source environment for collaboration (e.g., TWiki) • Define specifications for metadata descriptors Roadblocks • Disparity in requirements for different user groups – could lead to two or more datasets

More Related