MASTER Questionnaire Summary

MASTER Questionnaire Summary

T. H. Painter

27.10.2005

PoDAG XXIV

Asheville, NC

2-4.11.2005

1. What type of user would you expect to have or be in 5/10 years and what data needs would they/you require? How can the DAAC further help to support them?

· Tough question. I guess this the place to dream: I would think that access to long time series of multi-variable data sets, that have with clear documentation, meaningful validation results, without gaps, varying resolutions, associated physically consistent methods for interpolation in space and time. In other words: Data you don’t have to mess with to ask science questions. This is the attraction of the reanalysis data sets. I guess this is the one end of the dream. The other end is highly specialized data sets that can be used for model validation.

· Personally – SOTC type information. Generally – access multidisciplinary data sets with capability to merge data sets at a keystroke; likewise subsetting. (DAACs are way ahead of IPCC Model outputs at PCMDI in subsetting incidentally)

· I would expect to have users in need of NSIDC data for validation of atmospheric and sea ice models. I think NSIDC can help to support these areas by continuing to acquire data sets, by clearly explaining data set options, and by providing adequate documentation for first-time users.

· Users who do not want to spend a bunch of time mining the DAAC to see itf the holdings suit their needs, and users who might like tools on the DAAC that assemble or otherwise compile the products. As we progress to further exploiting the data in the DAAC it might help to have graphics and/or tables that portray holdings in a readily appreciated way addressing user needs. For example, if a user has interest in time seris of snow extent, a simple graph could depict, with platforms on the y axis and time on the x axis, the dates of acquistions of all systems that one could use to get SCA over an area of interest. Moreover, if the user could also download the graphics to use and cite in publications, it might provide an improved outreach for the DAAC.

· I expect that I will want validated products and climate-data-record-quality datasets. I will want to use multiple data sets (from different sensors and different geophysical parameters) and will not want to start with the radiance data each time to create my own products. I will also want “long-term” datasets. Furthermore, as a user and not a programmer, I want products that are easy to use, i.e., flat-binary files as compared to HDF (or some more “advanced” creation that programmers prefer).

· I don’t expect users to be much different in 5-10 years than now. The data volume will, of course, be much greater.

· Scientists: long-term climate research Operational applications: detecting anomaly by comparing current data with long-term average

· Cryospheric data (from the various different sources) will continue to be obtained and produced. A centralized archive and distribution center will therefore continue to be highly valuable to the cryospheric scientific community and to everybody interested in snow and ice. My impression is that we all become increasingly impatient when having the wait for data. While ftp-pull etc. generally works pretty fast, the optimum way is when people can download data directly.

2. What products, services, information, technology, etc does NSIDC not presently have that it should consider archiving and distributing?

· I think NSIDC could strengthen their “data endorsement” angle. The multiplicity of data sets available (i.e sea ice) has been confusing and it doesn’t appear to be getting better.

· Product - Model climate scenarios of cryo variables particularly + standard climate fields; merged cryosphere products – snow + FG + Glaciers; sea ice + icebergs, + SST

· Info - Update Snow and do other pages like the new Sea Ice ones

· NSIDC now maintains a tremendous number of data products. Many of these data sets originated in the U.S. NSIDC should continue to investigate and acquire historical data sets from other countries such as those from the former Soviet Union. There are a number of European in situ meteorological data sets including the SCAR READER project that should also consider acquiring. NSIDC should also consider development of a model validation suite of products that would be useful for evaluating global climate models for those not familiar with the polar regions and/or the available data sets.

· I do not have a comprehensive inventory of services and products, etc.. However, it might prove useful to prospective users to have cross-referenced listings of peer preview publications, which used and cited DAAC products.

· I can’t think of anything at this time.

· (Not sure if this is already provided.) One possibility is to compile integrated data sets for specific field experiments, regions, or case studies. These would include in situ data, satellite data and browse imagery, and model fields in a format that permits integrated studies with minimal effort.

· An enhanced “State of the Cryosphere” web page/site. What’s there is good, but there are many other real-time products on other web sites (e.g., mine at http://stratus.ssec.wisc.edu) that could be added or linked to.

· A compilation of references for various topics relevant to the cryosphere.

· A section on climate change in the polar regions?

· Of course, you may need sponsors for these services, as they may be beyond your basic mission.

· Fast imaging/plotting of data

· IceSat freeboard estimates (current sea level reference heights are too uncertain)

· Near real time AMSR ice concentration (the Europeans can do it, why not nsidc?); see: http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/amsre.html NSIDC has 5-day old info

· Near real time AVHRR images in an easily navigated format (mark a rectangle on a map, select a date, see the images at low res, ftp the image of the region at high res)

· Continued updates (lag of no more than one month) of pathfinder data

· Descriptions and links to polar data at other data centers (NCDC, NOAA, RGPS, foreign sites)

· Better web navigation (e. g. why doesn’t “AMSR-E Data at NSIDC” give you a list and brief description of each of the data sets? I never did find such a list.). EG, MODIS has this in a “Data Summary”

· Make a merged daily IST SST Terra Aqua data set. Why do we need to go to four different data sets to get the skin temperature? One field could be the number of cloud-free observations of each pixel for the day.

· I recently downloaded the monthly sea ice concentration data from
passive microwave, both the bootstrap and NASA Team products.
They only go through December 2003. I wrote to NSIDC and asked
when they would be updated. They said October or November (i.e. now).
So I just want to make sure that they are actually going to do that.

· I like the NSIDC web site. I like the Sea Ice Index where you can
make plots of sea ice extent, etc. I like the new All About Sea Ice
web page, and their other "All About" stuff. Good job.

· Clearer navigation. I heard several complaints that your web site is hard to navigate.

· EG, let’s say I’m a new grad student, and I’ve been asked by my advisor to get some fields of arctic sea ice concentration. Say I’m a biologist studying phytoplankton, ie I really don’t know or care about various algorithm details. So here goes. I click as follows:

· “data products & services”

· “sea ice”

· “sea ice concentration”

· Uh oh! Now I’m looking at the really long list of confusing products. Maybe I get lucky and find “sea ice products at NSIDC” link. Maybe I don’t. Also, while I think this was a good try, it’s still not as helpful as it could be.

· How to get clearer navigation? Everyone at NSIDC is too close to the data. If you know what SSMI means, then you’re too close. You need to hire a scientifically literate, but disciplinarily ignorant person to review your entire web site and make it more logical to navigate. You need to keep this person on retainer or on staff, to review web sites before they are posted/updated. Ideally, they should be involved from the beginning. Maybe I just mean a scientifically literate editor type person…

· Actually, this person could get too close, again. So perhaps you need focus groups or some such. Get cheap labor by using undergrads at CU? Recently, the “all about sea ice” web page was created. A rough draft was sent to half a dozen scientists for comment. This could also be tried for all future web pages and updates.

· Science is increasingly becoming multi-disciplinary, which means, for example, the sea ice surface data is increasingly analyzed not only by itself (time series etc.) but also in combination with other, like atmospheric, data. I could imagine the it would be useful if, say, global atmospheric information could be extracted for the polar regions and gridded to the common polar grids. Although I have to admit I should check what is currently up there. It would actually be very interesting if somebody from User Services could give an overview where people/users have most problems with, what kind of data users inquiring about etc. This may be somewhat subjective, because you probably don’t keep a statistics on question topics, but an overall assessment/impression would be great.

3. How do you envision your role on the User Working Group as benefiting the NSIDC DAAC?

· Advise NSIDC from my personal perspective and the perspective of the user community I may represent. Learn about data activities in other areas.

· Listener

· I believe that I represent the interests of the following DAAC users- those with research interests in the Southern Hemisphere, and those in the climate modeling community. At Lamont-Doherty, I work closely both with researchers experienced with NSIDC and with graduate students who are not. The concerns of these users, particularly those who have not had previous contact with NSIDC, should be useful information for improving data dissemination to the larger community. I personally am a client of the non-EOS data sets at NSIDC that include in situ atmospheric observations. I envision my role on the UWG as someone who conveys the concerns of these current users and is able to identify better methods of data dissemination.

· Encouraging change in a transparent way to improve the ease with which users exploit the services and products.

· I am stepping down after the Asheville meeting. In the past few years, however, I feel that I have helped with the EOS-related issues.

· As both data users and data producers, the UWG can provide advice on the types of products and services that the DAAC can and should provide. Of course, there are many people who are not part of the UWG that can provide similar advice, so the UWG should represent interests of the broader community whenever possible. The desire of NSIDC’s funding agencies to have a UWG (I assume this was suggested or dictated by NASA) is to make sure the user community is independently represented.

· Advising on scatterometer data and their use for research and applications

· I represent the semi-ignorant user. In the past, I’ve also represented all of PSC users, but now that Axel Schweiger is on PoDAG, I probably should focus more on oceanographers. In that regard:

· I will continue to lobby to hold a PoDAG meeting at NODC. I think this meeting at NCDC is a good first step. I am also interested in a meeting at JPL, where the PODAAC resides.

· I attempted a survey of about 25 oceanographers and some sea ice people, all working in the US but not at PSC where I work. I received a total of ONE response in a week. I guess this makes my job kind of hard. Maybe it also means that arctic oceanographers are not that excited about NSIDC.

· The UWG is the first provider of external feedback and guidance to the DAAC. The idea is that the UWG consists of a representative mix of users of various disciplines. It is equally important to have some representatives of data providers in order to establish a dialogue (within the UWG) between users and data providers. I think that in the past this worked quite nicely. (I am stating sort-of the obvious here, am I not?)

4. What general and specific thoughts do you have for improving the role and efficacy of the NSIDC DAAC?

· See 2.. Will give this more thought over then next few months. Establishing mechanisms for data support between NSIDC and original data provider. Data provider (individual group, P.I.) often loose interest and ability in supporting data set once grant is expired. Transferring expertise with data set to NSIDC to provider isn’t always possible. Need to find ways to keep provider interested.

· General – NOAA has just set up a new Committee for WCRP THORPEX; despite 3-4 yrs of attempts to get CliC to same level pf recognition as CLIVAR and GEWEX in NOAA nothing has come to pass. May be someone else needs to take this up? NSIDC DAAC needs to continue interaction with CliC especially as I am coming off the SSG. (? Mark S)

· The consensus that I’ve received from experienced users is a great deal of satisfaction with NSIDC, while the consensus that I’ve received from first-time users has been one of at least some frustration. First, it is hoped that the level of support that has been a hallmark of NSIDC can be maintained over an extended period of time and through changes in personnel. Second, the display of data catalogs on the NSIDC webpage needs to be addressed with some discrimination of the data acquisition method- remote sensing, in situ field study, or model derived- as well as the spatial and temporal coverage. The added search engine has been shown to be useful, but it is not obviously highlighted and could become bogged down as the educational components of the web page become more voluminous. Third, there has been considerable discussion on the types of data format to be supported. While this continues to be an issue, it is clear that some formats such as machine-depended binary should be eliminated. Finally, NSIDC should continue to enhance and widely distribute NSIDC Notes, which appears to be the medium of choice for many users for hearing about newly available data sets