Loading...
 
ESA > Join & Share > Forums > Sentinel Forum - Land Surface Research > Review of SEN4SCI Land (& solid Earth) document

Sentinel Forum - Land Surface Research

Help

Show posts:
Jump to forum:

Review of SEN4SCI Land (& solid Earth) document

Dear reader,
attached to this message you can find manuscript of the Land document (including also solid Earth research), which has been created based on literature review and up-dated according to the discussions at the first SEN4SCI ESA workshop in March 2011 (Frascati, Italy). Please, download the attached document and provide us here in this forum with either general feedback or specific comments referring to the particular line and page numbers until the end of September 2011. Thank you for your constructive suggestions that will help us to improve and further develop this document --- SEN4SCI team.


SAR for hydrology

Dear authors,

First, I would like to congratulate the study authors for the very comprehensive study concerning the Land & Solid Earth Sentinel products.

Sentinel-1 introduces the first ever operational SAR sensor. The important role of SAR sensors for monitoring of soil moisture and inundation has been successfully demonstrated but hampered by the low revisit period of existing SAR sensors (i.e. ERS SAR, ENVISAT ASAR). This will be resolved with Sentinel-1 mission. We have now a great opportunity to generate soil moisture and inundation product from SAR on operational bases. This further opens the potential for assimilation of these products into hydrological, atmospherically or crop yield models as has been demonstrated with i.e. ERS/AMSR-E microwave data.

best regards,

Marcela Doubkova


Re: SAR for hydrology

Dear Marcela,
thank you for your remark. We will take it into account when preparing an up-date of this document --- SEN4SCI team.



Re: Review of SEN4SCI Land (& solid Earth) document

Dear Team,

The report conscientiously collects observation requirements expressed by a range of international programmes and initiatives. These are organized using a variable-based approach, for example the ECVs. This approach is perfectly reasonable and provides a product-oriented expression of need that can be traced back to lower levels of data (level 1b and lower) and eventually instrument characteristics and performance.

What I am missing is the link between product requirements and the four scientific challenges formulated at the outset: how will the products (to which the Sentinels will hopefully contribute) be exactly used to respond to these challenges? It is not enough to ensure products are to spec and then hope they will be taken up.

Try to be more specific whether the products will:
- be assimilated in a model
- validate model output
- be used standalone to support analysis
- used as global/regional/local products (and how is this connected to resolution and in-situ validation?)
- are there cases where land surface or climate modellers may prefer using level1b data instead of level2 and higher products? if yes, is this captured in this requirements document?

These remarks may also apply to the other Sen4Sci reports out for review (I did not have time to look at Oceans and Cryo, pls check).

The GCOS process, for its part, has undisputed merits in defining ECVs and requirements. It is deficient though in going beyond generalities in expressing the exact usage of the products that are asked for. The CCI currently informs on that very point. Groups under WCRP and IGBP also. I would hope the Sen4Sci process can add to this discussion.

Finally, a more general remark: how will scientific findings resulting from Sen4Sci / using Sentinel data inform operational Sentinel product generation? Should the answer to this question be given here?

Best regards,

Stephan Bojinski (WMO)


Re: Re: Review of SEN4SCI Land (& solid Earth) document

Dear Stephan,

thank you for your valuable comments.

I fully agree that an additional table mapping potential Sentinel
products to the Living Planet challenges would help improving the
clarity of the document. However, I fear that linking product
requirements on engineering levels to potential utilisation methods,
is currently still not possible.

Product requirements so far are based on an intensive literature
review which the SEN4SCI team tried to prioritise and consolidate
during the SEN4SCI WS and this open web discussion. These requirements
are indeed very difficult to assess as many initiative do not specify
product requirements and if specified at all, often a clear
tracability is lacking.

This is not surprising as product requirements are not only dependant
the different disciplines but also on the selected methodology which
is part of the science itself. Thus, specifying product requirements
on an engineering level may limit and constraint the underlying
science. Therefore science groups rather tend to provide higher level
requirements or ranges of requirements.

The SEN4SCI activity has to be seen as a starting point for the
discussion on how to utilise of the family of Sentinel missions for
addressing open scientific questions. Following this, a range of
scientific activities has to be performed supporting different
disciplines. In support of Earth system /Climate models, activities
would need to take into account the most important high level product
requirements as outlined by this community, which is long-term data
availability, uncertainty estimates on all product levels and product
consistency. In particular long-term data availability and uncertainty
estimates will strongly benefit from the utilisation of an operational
framework with strong reliability requirements.
Accomponying science activities would cover development of innovative
products by utilising synergies and complementarities of the different
sensor systems together with a rigorous error assessment, noval data
ingestion/assimilation methods, detailed impact assessments
(supporting detailed product requirements definition) and the
demonstration of their utilisation within pilot projects. Ultimatively
the operational programmes will benefit from these activities by
knowledge transfer into the application domain.It is being believed
that these scientific endeavours will become the central point for the
success of the sustainability of the operational programmes.

In short - follow-on SEN4SCI activities certainly would support and
add to the discussions which already started within CCI and by other
groups concerning detailed product requirements in relationship to their
usage but at this point in time, I think it would be too early.


Best regards,

Michael


> Dear Team,
>
> The report conscientiously collects observation requirements expressed by a range of international programmes and initiatives. These are organized using a variable-based approach, for example the ECVs. This approach is perfectly reasonable and provides a product-oriented expression of need that can be traced back to lower levels of data (level 1b and lower) and eventually instrument characteristics and performance.
>
> What I am missing is the link between product requirements and the four scientific challenges formulated at the outset: how will the products (to which the Sentinels will hopefully contribute) be exactly used to respond to these challenges? It is not enough to ensure products are to spec and then hope they will be taken up.
>
> Try to be more specific whether the products will:
> - be assimilated in a model
> - validate model output
> - be used standalone to support analysis
> - used as global/regional/local products (and how is this connected to resolution and in-situ validation?)
> - are there cases where land surface or climate modellers may prefer using level1b data instead of level2 and higher products? if yes, is this captured in this requirements document?
>
> These remarks may also apply to the other Sen4Sci reports out for review (I did not have time to look at Oceans and Cryo, pls check).
>
> The GCOS process, for its part, has undisputed merits in defining ECVs and requirements. It is deficient though in going beyond generalities in expressing the exact usage of the products that are asked for. The CCI currently informs on that very point. Groups under WCRP and IGBP also. I would hope the Sen4Sci process can add to this discussion.
>
> Finally, a more general remark: how will scientific findings resulting from Sen4Sci / using Sentinel data inform operational Sentinel product generation? Should the answer to this question be given here?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Stephan Bojinski (WMO)



needs for FRP & AOD

Dear authors,

Please find a compilation of comments from MACC(-II) in the attached file. Note in particular that the future GMES atmospheric services crucially depend on a continuation of the MODIS fire radiative power (FRP) and aerosol optical depth (AOD) products that needs to be, and can be, provided by Sentinel-3 SLSTR.

Best regards,

Johannes Kaiser, ECMWF
(MACC-II fire sub-project leader, email: j.kaiser at ecmwf.int)
Vincent-Henri Peuch, ECMWF (MACC-II coordinator)
Martin Wooster, KCL, UK
Jean-Jacques Morcrette, ECMWF
Angela Benedetti, ECMWF


Re: needs for FRP & AOD

2nd try to attach file.

Re: Re: needs for FRP & AOD

Here are our comments in ASCII since file attachment does not work:

Review of
Review of SEN4SCI Land (& solid Earth) document

30 September 2011

Dear authors,

Thank you very much for producing this very nice overview of scientific needs for Sentinel 1-2-3 land and solid earth products. While the GMES land monitoring service is covered with Geoland2, there are also scientific land product requirements in other GMES services, namely the atmospheric services implemented in the MACC and MACC-II projects. Therefore, we think that the relevant requirements from MACC-II and, possibly, further GMES service projects need to be included in the report, too.

MACC - Monitoring Atmospheric Composition and Climate - is the current pre-operational atmospheric service of the European GMES programme. MACC provides data records on atmospheric composition for recent years, data for monitoring present conditions and forecasts of the distribution of key constituents for a few days ahead. MACC combines state-of-the-art atmospheric modeling with Earth observation data to provide information services covering European Air Quality, Global Atmospheric Composition, Climate, and UV and Solar Energy. Its follow-up project, MACC-II is currently awaiting contract signature for a start in November 2011. The services are accessible and documented at http://gmes-atmosphere.eu/.

MACC and MACC-II include a sub-project on fire emission monitoring. Its service will need suitable fire radiative power (FRP) products from Sentinal-3 as a continuation of the currently available MODIS products. The MACC fire emission service is documented at http://gmes-atmosphere.eu/fire and in Kaiser et al. (2011) Biogeosciences Discuss., 8(4):7339–7398. During the future GMES operational phase, the availability of the fire emission service will crucially depend on the availability of suitable FRP products from Sentinel-3 SLSTR. The requirements may be reflected in your report with the following modifications:

1. Include a paragraph on MACC-II in Section 2.2.
2. Include the following fire radiative power (FRP) observational requirements in Table 1:
a. spatial resolution: goal 1 km, threshold 10 km
b. temporal resolution: goal 1 hour, threshold 3 days
c. accuracy: goal 10%, threshold 30%
d. detection threshold: goal 5 W, threshold 50 W
3. Assign high priority to the FRP products.
4. Update Tables 3 and 5 correspondingly.

MACC and MACC-II also include a sub-project on aerosol. Atmospheric aerosols are indeed key to several products of obvious societal relevance: long-range transport of pollutants, radiation and visibility, climate monitoring and Numerical Weather Prediction. This service will require (AOD) products from Sentinal-3 as a continuation of the currently available MODIS products. The MACC aerosol service is documented at http://www.gmes-atmosphere.eu/about/project_structure/global/g_aer/ and in Morcrette et al. (2009), J. Geophys. Res., 114, D13205, doi:10.1029/2008JD011115 and Benedetti et al. (2009), J. Geophys. Res., 114, D06206, doi:10.1029/2008JD011235. While AOD is obviously not a land product, there seems to be no review of the scientific requirements on atmospheric products from Sentinel 1-2-3. Since in particular the availability of AOD products is of great importance for the GMES atmospheric service, we would very much appreciate if you could feed it into ESA’s review process as a miscellaneous note to your report. It would be essential for the GMES atmospheric service to get a globally consistent AOD product that is valid at the same wavelength(s) over land and over ocean. This will also be the main topic of an important forthcoming meeting between ESA and ECMWF (ESRIN, October 2011).

Furthermore, please note the following comments:

a. A "fire temperature" product is listed in the report. However, the Sentinel-3 SLSTR product that KCL is mandated to develop for ESA will not deliver this. Table 3 states that AATSR delivers such a product but that is not the case. SLSTR has a better chance, but there are various instrument design issues with SLSTR that mean the 'dozier' algorithm may not be applicable (for one the 'fire' channels at 3.7 and 11 micron don't exactly view the same place on earth's surface so we've been told). We think "active fire equivalent area" and "active fire equivalent temperature" would be better terms - to indicate that they are not "true" estimates of the area and temperature.

b. In Table 1, we would also recommend to adjust the following:

Active Fire Equivalent Temperature
0.01 - 5 km
10 - 250 km (250 km sounds a bit large - may be adjust to 50 km. The same applies to the burnt area product!)
0.25 d
1 - 12 d
50 - 500 K (We would suggest 50 - 200 K)
200-1000 K (We would suggest 200 - 500 K)
WMO (High resolution NWP, Nowcasting)


Thank you for considering all the various requirements from so many disciplines!

Dr. Johannes Kaiser, ECMWF (MACC-II fire sub-project leader, email: j.kaiser at ecmwf.int)
Dr. Vincent-Henri Peuch, ECMWF (MACC-II coordinator)
Prof. Martin Wooster, KCL, UK
Dr. Jean-Jacques Morcrette, ECMWF
Dr. Angela Benedetti, ECMWF


Re: Re: Re: needs for FRP & AOD

Dear Johannes & Co-Authors,

first, let me clarify that the SEN4SCI activity so far concentrated on Land &
Solid Earth, Ocean and Cryosphere (LOC) sciences but is not
limited on LOC products. This was stressed at the opening address of the
SEN4SCI WS. Furthermore, we are currently discussing an extension for covering Atmospheric sciences with an envisaged discussion/consolidation WS in 2012. As the previous WS was not limited on LOC products, this WS would not be limited to atmospheric products. Thus, I assume that your comments would be more valid for the follow-on activity.

I also would like to stress that the SEN4SCI activity focusses on the science
products beyond those which will be provided operationally acknowledging at
the same time that some services will serve the science community. As FRP
seems to be an essential input for some MACC services, product requirements
therefore should be channelled through the GMES implementation teams. Please
note that the SEN4SCI activity is a starting point for discussing the utilisation of the Sentinel data stream for science and has no means to generate products in an operational manner.


Regards,


Michael

> Here are our comments in ASCII since file attachment does not work:
>
> Review of
> Review of SEN4SCI Land (& solid Earth) document
>
> 30 September 2011
>
> Dear authors,
>
> Thank you very much for producing this very nice overview of scientific needs for Sentinel 1-2-3 land and solid earth products. While the GMES land monitoring service is covered with Geoland2, there are also scientific land product requirements in other GMES services, namely the atmospheric services implemented in the MACC and MACC-II projects. Therefore, we think that the relevant requirements from MACC-II and, possibly, further GMES service projects need to be included in the report, too.
>
> MACC - Monitoring Atmospheric Composition and Climate - is the current pre-operational atmospheric service of the European GMES programme. MACC provides data records on atmospheric composition for recent years, data for monitoring present conditions and forecasts of the distribution of key constituents for a few days ahead. MACC combines state-of-the-art atmospheric modeling with Earth observation data to provide information services covering European Air Quality, Global Atmospheric Composition, Climate, and UV and Solar Energy. Its follow-up project, MACC-II is currently awaiting contract signature for a start in November 2011. The services are accessible and documented at http://gmes-atmosphere.eu/.
>
> MACC and MACC-II include a sub-project on fire emission monitoring. Its service will need suitable fire radiative power (FRP) products from Sentinal-3 as a continuation of the currently available MODIS products. The MACC fire emission service is documented at http://gmes-atmosphere.eu/fire and in Kaiser et al. (2011) Biogeosciences Discuss., 8(4):7339–7398. During the future GMES operational phase, the availability of the fire emission service will crucially depend on the availability of suitable FRP products from Sentinel-3 SLSTR. The requirements may be reflected in your report with the following modifications:
>
> 1. Include a paragraph on MACC-II in Section 2.2.
> 2. Include the following fire radiative power (FRP) observational requirements in Table 1:
> a. spatial resolution: goal 1 km, threshold 10 km
> b. temporal resolution: goal 1 hour, threshold 3 days
> c. accuracy: goal 10%, threshold 30%
> d. detection threshold: goal 5 W, threshold 50 W
> 3. Assign high priority to the FRP products.
> 4. Update Tables 3 and 5 correspondingly.
>
> MACC and MACC-II also include a sub-project on aerosol. Atmospheric aerosols are indeed key to several products of obvious societal relevance: long-range transport of pollutants, radiation and visibility, climate monitoring and Numerical Weather Prediction. This service will require (AOD) products from Sentinal-3 as a continuation of the currently available MODIS products. The MACC aerosol service is documented at http://www.gmes-atmosphere.eu/about/project_structure/global/g_aer/ and in Morcrette et al. (2009), J. Geophys. Res., 114, D13205, doi:10.1029/2008JD011115 and Benedetti et al. (2009), J. Geophys. Res., 114, D06206, doi:10.1029/2008JD011235. While AOD is obviously not a land product, there seems to be no review of the scientific requirements on atmospheric products from Sentinel 1-2-3. Since in particular the availability of AOD products is of great importance for the GMES atmospheric service, we would very much appreciate if you could feed it into ESA’s review process as a miscellaneous note to your report. It would be essential for the GMES atmospheric service to get a globally consistent AOD product that is valid at the same wavelength(s) over land and over ocean. This will also be the main topic of an important forthcoming meeting between ESA and ECMWF (ESRIN, October 2011).
>
> Furthermore, please note the following comments:
>
> a. A "fire temperature" product is listed in the report. However, the Sentinel-3 SLSTR product that KCL is mandated to develop for ESA will not deliver this. Table 3 states that AATSR delivers such a product but that is not the case. SLSTR has a better chance, but there are various instrument design issues with SLSTR that mean the 'dozier' algorithm may not be applicable (for one the 'fire' channels at 3.7 and 11 micron don't exactly view the same place on earth's surface so we've been told). We think "active fire equivalent area" and "active fire equivalent temperature" would be better terms - to indicate that they are not "true" estimates of the area and temperature.
>
> b. In Table 1, we would also recommend to adjust the following:
>
> Active Fire Equivalent Temperature
> 0.01 - 5 km
> 10 - 250 km (250 km sounds a bit large - may be adjust to 50 km. The same applies to the burnt area product!)
> 0.25 d
> 1 - 12 d
> 50 - 500 K (We would suggest 50 - 200 K)
> 200-1000 K (We would suggest 200 - 500 K)
> WMO (High resolution NWP, Nowcasting)
>
>
> Thank you for considering all the various requirements from so many disciplines!
>
> Dr. Johannes Kaiser, ECMWF (MACC-II fire sub-project leader, email: j.kaiser at ecmwf.int)
> Dr. Vincent-Henri Peuch, ECMWF (MACC-II coordinator)
> Prof. Martin Wooster, KCL, UK
> Dr. Jean-Jacques Morcrette, ECMWF
> Dr. Angela Benedetti, ECMWF


Re: Re: Re: Re: needs for FRP & AOD

Dear Michael,

Thank you for this information. Including atmospheric sciences explicitly in the next WS will certainly be helpful. We will also follow your advice to contact the GMES implementation team.

Concerning FRP, may I add that (1) FRP is also very actively being used in the *land* science community for the investigation of biomass burning, and (2) MACC cannot afford to rely solely on "operational" products; instead "science" products also being used whenever suitable. Therefore, I cannot follow the argument that the comments concerning FRP should not be valid for this discussion.

Concerning AOD, I agree with you that it is not a scientific land product. It just seems appropriate to make ESA aware of the anticipated gap in the plans for EO data as early as possible.

Best regards,
Johannes

> Dear Johannes & Co-Authors,
>
> first, let me clarify that the SEN4SCI activity so far concentrated on Land &
> Solid Earth, Ocean and Cryosphere (LOC) sciences but is not
> limited on LOC products. This was stressed at the opening address of the
> SEN4SCI WS. Furthermore, we are currently discussing an extension for covering Atmospheric sciences with an envisaged discussion/consolidation WS in 2012. As the previous WS was not limited on LOC products, this WS would not be limited to atmospheric products. Thus, I assume that your comments would be more valid for the follow-on activity.
>
> I also would like to stress that the SEN4SCI activity focusses on the science
> products beyond those which will be provided operationally acknowledging at
> the same time that some services will serve the science community. As FRP
> seems to be an essential input for some MACC services, product requirements
> therefore should be channelled through the GMES implementation teams. Please
> note that the SEN4SCI activity is a starting point for discussing the utilisation of the Sentinel data stream for science and has no means to generate products in an operational manner.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Michael


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: needs for FRP & AOD

Dear Johannes,

yes - I agree that FRP is a very interesting product for Land and definetly should be included in particular if it is not covered by operational means.
Let us discuss the relationship and limitations to the MACC services at the forthcoming WS.

Regards,

Michael



Show posts:
Jump to forum: