With no exception, almost all ecosystems research has at some point used time series data from AVHRR, MODIS, SeaWiFS and/or other sensors. In most cases a single data source was used (AVHRR only, MODIS only, etc...), yet it is very clear that dealing with climate change and its impact and trends will necessitate braking that artificial barrier, i.e. mixing and fusing data sources. This continues to pose a challenge to most users and modelers and will only be properly addressed if the following issues are simultaneously considered and addressed: 1. NASA, as well as other agencies should consider the adoption of a new mission(s) design paradigm where continuity is a fundamental driving force and considered at the engineering/processing level. This will eliminate the largest source of divergences in these data sets. 2. As soon as possible adopt a list of quasi-fundamental measurements to be always generated by these missions. The list should be objective and goal oriented. In doing so, the process of generating these measurements needs to consider continuity also. This does not necessarily mean reprocess every thing every time new missions come along, but at least design the processing system to support continuity at its very basic level. 3. With these massive investments in hardware, processing, and new algorithms, why not equally invest in long term systematic field measurements also (including airborne). Basically consider in situ measurement as an integral part of mission planning. This should enable the generation of a long term baseline and serve as a foundation for true measurement continuity.
I do think of how future ecosystems research (50+ years from now) would reflect back on our work and may be ask “we wish they would have …”. Would it be short term innovative ideas and measurements only or long term (~70 yrs) consistent measurement.
Or should they still be struggle with how to harmonize this wealth of data. – submitted by Kamel Didan at 2008-05-02 12:05:25
Long Term Systematic Land Measurements are critical for this Focus Area yet they appear to be moving off the radar screen for NASA - the current back seat or no seat position of NASA in terms of the VIIRS, LDCM and the National Land Imager is I believe a serious problem for the science that the FA is claiming it will address in terms of impacts/mitigation/adaptation and the relevance of the science that we do. VIIRS requirements were driven by the operational agencies and the science requirements are now only partially met and if NASA is not involved then so will NLI. The response to the decadal survey has resulted in a series of one time experimental missions which although likely to deliver interesting science will not allow us to quantify trends and changes. There is a major imbalance which must be addressed.
In terms of near term steps - I would like to see the MOWG undertake an initiative to identify classes of models and focus area science questions and then have those communities develop basic requirements which would drive the Mission observations, ESDR'and Long Term Systematic Measurements that NASA will need to generate.
Once we have our requirements I would also suggest the FA Management undertake a hard look at what missions we are planning and then some very concrete negotiations and commitments with other agencies national and international to secure the observations that are needed. – submitted by Chris Justice at 2008-05-01 18:41:40
