P. Poli et al.: SVP-BRST: genesis, design, and initial results
201
www.ocean-sci.net/15/199/2019/
Ocean Sci., 15,199-214, 2019
These requirements were adopted on a number buoys
deployed by the Economic Interest Group (EIG) EUMET-NET
Operational Service for surface marine observations
(E-SURFMAR) and European partners. This brought about
four major technical improvements, as compared to standard
practices at the time.
First, the location accuracy was increased, thanks to GPS
instead of Argos for estimating position, and several buoys
adopted Iridium instead of Argos for the transmission, to ensure
regular hourly data reports. Second, the temperature was
reported and transmitted to shore at a resolution of 0.01 K.
These technical improvements are collectively known as
“HRSST-1”. While only few buoys adhered to the HRSST-1
requirement in 2009, it has now become the standard, at
the time of writing, for almost all drifters deployed globally.
From there, a third requirement appeared, namely the adoption
of a new Binary Universal Form for the Representation
of meteorological data (BUFR) template in 2015, to encode
the SST data at the resolution of 0.01 K, and transmit to operational
data users via the World Meteorological Organization
(WMO) Global Telecommunications System (GTS), without
loss of information. That template became operational
at most data-originating centers by the end of 2016; before
that, many data transmitted on the GTS were sent at reduced
SST resolution of 0.1 K. At the time of writing, all these three
improvements are standard for most operational drifters.
The fourth technical improvement was for each buoy to
use an individually calibrated temperature probe, instead of
one picked from a batch calibration, in order to guarantee
the more stringent total uncertainty requirement of 0.05 K, as
well as traceability to national standards. This requirement
(on top of previous ones) was called “HRSST-2”. In total,
46 such HRSST-2 buoys fitted with all three technical advances,
as well as including each a barometer, were deployed
between 2012 and 2017. These buoys are listed in Table 1 below.
They were manufactured by Metocean (Petólas, 2016),
using Yellow Springs Instrument Company (YSI Inc.) sensors
described in the table. One buoy was redeployed after
running ashore.
In addition, several other HRSST-2 buoys were manufactured
for experimental purposes, also by Metocean. Each
buoy carried a conductivity-temperature (CT) probe manufactured
by Sea-Bird Electronics (SBE) in order to measure
salinity. Each HRSST-2 SVP buoy with barometer and
salinity (SVP-BS) hence included two individual-calibrated
SST probes: one integrated with the buoy hull (around 17 cm
depth), and one in the CT probe (around 45 cm depth).
This twin-sensor configuration offered near-optimal horizontal
and temporal co-location by virtue of the buoy design. The
only major differences between the two sensors were the vertical
positioning and the housing of the sensors (one digital
SST sensor integral with the hull, the other CT sensor immersed
entirely in water). In total, there were 19 such buoys
deployed between 2012 and 2015 (one buoy was redeployed
after beaching). Table 2 shows the list of such buoys, the de-Number
of points
275 280 285 290 295 300 305
Hull SST (K)
Figure 1. Density plot of the scatter between hull SST measurements
(horizontal axis) and CT SST measurements (vertical axis)
from HRSST-2 SVP-BS buoys.
ployment areas, and the mission dates. Most buoys were deployed
in the North Atlantic.
2.2 HRSST-2 SVP-BS data record revisited
In order to exploit the co-located information from two individually
calibrated SST probes, the data record from the second
set of HRSST-2 buoys, SVP-BS fitted with CT probes, is
addressed here. The record consists of about 87 000 data reports
between 2012 and 2016. Figure 1 shows a scatter density
plot of the two temperatures. The twin measurements
are highly correlated, and the robust standard deviation of
the difference is 0.03 K. This result is compatible with uncertainty
in a difference of two sensors with total uncertainties
better than 0.05 K (or possibly 0.02 K). However, Fig. 1
shows a small fraction of outliers in both directions, especially
for warmer temperatures. In fact, the root mean square
(rms) of the differences is quite large, at 0.36 K.
The differences between the two measurements are not
only due to sensor accuracy but also to the placement of the
sensors: vertical location and housing (one integral with the
buoy hull, the other underneath the buoy). To better understand
the sources of differences. Fig. 2a shows the differences
between the two sensor temperatures as a function of solar elevation
angle. Differences that are out of range (below —IK
or above 1 K) are also shown for completeness (at — 1 and
+ 1 K, respectively); they represent about 0.5 % of the entire
data record. We find, as expected, that most large-magnitude
differences (absolute value greater than 0.2 K) are positive