1 / 12

Availability to Observation data: Importance, Challenges, and Funding

Learn about the significance of databases for storing and accessing observation data, the unique challenges faced in atmospheric composition observations, and the funding frameworks that support these initiatives.

lremy
Download Presentation

Availability to Observation data: Importance, Challenges, and Funding

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. Availability to Observation data Kjetil Tørseth, NILU - Introduction to data flow - NRT-initiatives - Monitoring strategies and funding frameworks database – definition; A computerdatabase is a structured collection of records or data that is stored in a computer system so that a computer program or person using a query language can consult it to answer queries (Wikipedia) • A tool to store data and metadata • A tool to find, analyse and disseminate information • Complicated mixture of hardware, software and ”know”ware • Important limitations; what is measured, what is reported/updated, what is not restricted....

  2. Why databases of observations? • Facilitate access to data for users • Ensure long-term preservation of measurements • Compliance monitoring • Transparency • Provide a framework for funding of observations • Facilitate data integration

  3. What is so special with atmospheric composition observations • Data originate from a large number of data originators (many not IT-experts) • Mixture of operational and scientific activites • IPR and compliance issues – openness vs restrictions • Quality and representativity is highly variable • Often significant efforts are required in generate data • Large number of parameters reported • Complex data formats to accommodate meta data provision • Different frameworks have different standards • Same data ends in different databases (duplicates, snapshots etc) • Funding situation may encourage data restrictions • Data reporting is a result of either encouragement or force

  4. What is so special with atmospheric composition observations (cont.) • High cost of single data values; - O3 by monitor ~ 1 € - SO4 by filterpack ~100 € - POPs ~ 600 € - Aerosol lidar profile ~2000€ - Research aircraft …. One dataset of 30 year duration -> 1 mill. € Ebas hosts more than 15000 datasets !

  5. Virtual access Users Funding QAQC Formats Deadlines Restrictions Secondary reporting (other obligations or voluntary contributions (WDCs etc)) Reporting to the organisation from where monitoring obligations arise Sites and nationalorganisations

  6. Databases at NILU • OECD database ~ 1975 • EMEP-CCC ~ 1980 • NADIR data centre ~ 1990 • Inclusion of AMAP, OSPAR and HELCOM in EMEP database – new version developed ~ 1995 (EBAS) • Envisat Cal/Val database ~ 2002 • ESA Campaign Database ~ 2004 (CDB) • CREATE/EUSAAR, GEOMON • EMEP HTAP - 2008

  7. Some definitions • Near Real Time (NRT), data available within ~3 hours delay • Rapid delivery (RD), data available within weeks to months (< ~3 months)

  8. EMEP public EMEP data flow timeline Limited availability National db To CCC/AirBase AQ – online services Jan Dec June Oct Apr Sep Annual submission of about 4500 datasets (one parameter at one site), more than 100 data originators. ~2 persons on full time to import data (including interactions with DO’s for revisions, adding meta info, etc)

  9. Why an EMEP NRT-initiative? • EMEP sites provide essential information related to regional scale pollution events • EMEP sites have a well documented spatial representativeness and offer high quality data • EMEP sites offer a wide suite of chemical and physical parameters relevant for process understanding, many can now be provided with shorter time delay. • Many EMEP sites are acting as supersites (EMEP/GAW) and includes advanced instrumentation which has a potential to support research applications including satellite RS cal/val • EMEP sites have a large scientific community involved (TFMM, HTAP others), many requesting data at an earlier stage than currently provided • EMEP is the funding framework for a large fraction of the rural monitoring capacity in Europe • EMEP can develop its monitoring strategy to include additional parameters to be measured by on-line methodologies • EMEP is a GEOSS member and should be one ”system among other systems of systems….” • EMEP has a well established ”open data policy” • EMEP has well established data infrastructures (also applied in relevant initiatives elsewhere) • EMEP Parties and others have indicated a strong support

  10. Important considerations: • Considers both NRT and RD data delivery • Focus is to address the needs of the Convention; understand and improve the descritption of LRTAP • Facilitate the access of data to EMEP users • No focus on providing ”public awareness” • Other initiatives partly overlaps with the EMEP initiative

  11. Response by SB members or monitoring agencies is shown on map Only positive feedback ! Also support from several ”Supersites” (not shown on map) Support expressed also by DG ENV MSC-W ECMWF Lotos

  12. Initiatives “dataflow” • National systems (Prevair, luftkvalitet.info....) • EEA; ozone and PM web • DG Env; HTAP, others? • DG Ent (Space); GEMS, GMES GAS, MACC, GNU, ... • DG Res (GCE); GEOMON, ACCENT,... • FP7 Capacities; IMECC, EUSAAR, GENESI-DR (ICT)… • APREORI, others ? • ESA; Envisat CDB, Promote, GAS... • CLRTAP/EMEP; EMEP strategy • WMO/GAW; IGACO/GAW strategy • COST ES0602, Chemical Weather forecasting…

More Related