This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 640276.
G6.02 Analysis and optimisation of geographical spread of observational assets to increase their utility for satellite Cal/Val, research, and services
Submitted by Anna Mikalsen on 12 June, 2017 - 15:31
Gap abstract:
As a result of fractured governance along with historical funding decisions, the geographical spread of observation systems, which may, in principle, be synergistic, are not presently sufficiently optimised in order to realise the potential benefits for numerous research applications, including, but not limited to, satellite cal/val. For example, a twice-daily radiosonde program may currently be undertaken 100km from a facility with lidars and an FTIR. This dispersion of observational capabilities may substantially reduce their overall value to the user community for multiple uses.
Part I Gap description
Primary gap type:
- Spatiotemporal coverage
Secondary gap type:
- Governance (missing documentation, cooperation etc.)
ECVs impacted:
- Temperature,Water vapour, Ozone, Aerosols, Carbon Dioxide, Methane
User category/Application area impacted:
- Operational services and service development (meteorological services, environmental services, Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) and Atmospheric Monitoring Service (CAMS), operational data assimilation development, etc.)
- International (collaborative) frameworks and bodies (space agencies, EU institutions, WMO programmes/frameworks etc.)
- Climate research (research groups working on development, validation and improvement of ECV Climate Data Records)
Non-satellite instrument techniques involved:
- Independent of instrument technique
Part of the closure of G1.10 may include a rationalisation of the dispersed observational capabilities in data-sparse regions to maximise both their value and their long-term sustainability.
G6.02 arises as a direct result of G6.01, which is the fractured governance of measurement systems. Addressing G6.01 will strongly facilitate closing G6.02.
Detailed description:
A direct result of the fractured governance of observational networks is that instruments that could derive synergistic analysis benefits are very frequently not geographically co-located. That is to say that an instrument may belong to network or operator X and be located 100km distance from a suite of potentially complimentary instruments belonging to network or operator Y. Because the measurements are geographically dispersed, this serves to reduce their value for numerous applications, including, but not limited to, satellite characterisation. This arises either because they measure complementary ECVs that enable fuller understanding, or measure distinct aspects of the same ECV such that, when combined, a fuller understanding of the measurand accrues. This is especially important for certain satellite instruments such as hyperspectral sounders, which, across the sensed channels, are sensitive to a broad range of ECVs such that to adequately characterise them requires quasi-coincident measures of a broad number of ECVs with an overpass.
In a worst-case scenario of a catastrophic space weather event, there remains a risk that multiple satellites are simultaneously unavailable. To bridge such an event from a climate perspective requires the persistence of a set of in-situ sounding capabilities that can measure what is sensed by the satellite instrumentation across the gap. For the more complex instruments, there is value to this being achieved by a set of super-sites that measure multiple ECVs simultaneously and to high quality.
However, in some cases, there may be good reasons to not co-locate measurements: (1) if long time series already exist, it would be counterproductive to climate monitoring to disrupt the time series by re-locating the instrument to another site; (2) the atmospheric variability may be different from one target species to another, justifying their observation at different sites, and (3) the benefits of a site for satellite validation are not necessarily the same as for other research purposes. For example, a mountain site may be very appropriate for stratospheric observations, but is much less appropriate for satellite validation.
Therefore, a careful scientific analysis should be carried out before implementing a new observation site, and before deciding to re-locate an instrument, taking into account the existing data, the existing sites in the neighbourhood, and the main scientific objectives of the (new) observations. Funding authorities and network coordinators should take these scientific analyses into account before taking decisions about the implementation of new observations or moving existing capabilities.
Operational space missions or space instruments impacted:
- Independent of specific space mission or space instruments
Validation aspects addressed:
- Radiance (Level 1 product)
- Representativity (spatial, temporal)
- Calibration (relative, absolute)
- Auxiliary parameters (clouds, lightpath, surface albedo, emissivity)
Gap status after GAIA-CLIM:
- After GAIA-CLIM this gap remains unaddressed
Part II Benefits to resolution and risks to non-resolution
| Identified benefit | User category/Application area benefitted | Probability of benefit being realised | Impacts |
|---|---|---|---|
Improved characterisation of state of atmospheric column characteristics at co-located sites |
|
| Better ability to characterise processes and undertake vicarious calibration of satellites and other instrumentation |
Development of novel products combining information from multiple instruments |
|
| Improved understanding of relevant processes, new products, and services |
Cooperation between investigators, networks, and funders |
|
| Better planning and deployment of future observational capabilities |
Cost reduction |
|
| Larger benefit/cost ratios |
| Identified risk | User category/Application area at risk | Probability of risk being realised | Impacts |
|---|---|---|---|
Continued lack of strategic placement of research infrastructure, leading to diminished scientific value across the range of application areas. |
|
| Reduced quality of data services provided by dispersed instruments. Potential research insights arising from co-located observational strategy not realised. |
Threat to instrument long-term continuity arising from not realising full value of assets. |
|
| Reduction in overall non-satellite measurement constellation capabilities. |
Reduced ability to bridge across catastrophic satellite failure. |
|
| Many satellite instruments take measurements that are sensitive to multiple parameters. To bridge the effect of catastrophic failure requires surface assets capable of sufficiently mimicking the measurement series. |
Observational needs cannot be satisfied because of too high cost |
|
| Non-optimised deployment of research infrastructures leads to instruments not working effectively, which reduces available data for many applications |
Part III Gap remedies
Gap remedies:
Remedy 1: Reviews of capabilities leading to action plans for rationalisation of current non-satellite observational capabilities
Primary gap remedy type:
Deployment
Secondary gap remedy type:
Governance
Proposed remedy description:
Undertake reviews of high-quality observational assets to assess potential value of different reconfigurations of capabilities to address multiple potential applications. These assessments may be carried out nationally, regionally, or internationally. The assessments must be guided to the extent available by quantitative research and well-formulated stakeholder needs. The reviews would lead to steps towards consolidation of facilities where a clear overall benefit to multiple data stakeholders is identified in doing so. The analysis may be facilitated by activities such as OSSEs, short period field campaigns or other activities, which permit a quantitative assessment of the benefits of collocating capabilities. It may also make use of a number of existing instrument-rich sites such as the US department of energy’s Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Southern Great Plains site, Ny Alesund, Lindenberg, Lauder, and others. It may build on work assessing the observational entropy of different measurement configurations (Madonna et al., 2014)
Relevance:
The remedy would lead to rationalisation of observing capabilities to selected super-sites where justified.
Measurable outcome of success:
Evidence of more strategic decision-making and long-term planning in research infrastructure investments and progressive creation of more co-located facilities.
Expected viability for the outcome of success:
- Medium
Scale of work:
- Programmatic multi-year, multi-institution activity
Time bound to remedy:
- Less than 5 years
Indicative cost estimate (investment):
- High cost (> 5 million)
Indicative cost estimate (exploitation):
- Yes
Potential actors:
- Copernicus funding
- National funding agencies
- National Meteorological Services
- WMO
- ESA, EUMETSAT or other space agency
References:
- Madonna, F., Rosoldi, M., Güldner, J., Haefele, A., Kivi, R., Cadeddu, M. P., Sisterson, D., and Pappalardo, G.: Quantifying the value of redundant measurements at GCOS Reference Upper-Air Network sites, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 7, 3813-3823, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-3813-2014, 2014.