Transcript Why Geoinformatics? (The view of a working class geophysicist)

Why Cyberinfrastructure/Geoinformatics?
(The view of a working class geophysicist)
G. Randy Keller - University of Oklahoma
It is too hard to find and work with data that already exist,
and too much data is in effect lost.
It is too hard to acquire software and make it work.
We have too little access to modern IT tools that would
accelerate scientific progress.
The result is too little time for science!
To remedy this situation, a number of geoscience
groups are being supported by the National Science
Foundation to develop the cyberinfrastructure needed
to move us forward.
What is Geoinformatics?
Geoinformatics is a science which develops and uses information science
infrastructure to address the problems of geosciences and related branches
of engineering.
The three main tasks of geoinformatics are:
･development and management of databases of geodata
･analysis and modeling of geodata
･development and integration of computer tools and software for the first
two tasks.
From Wikipedia
Geoinformatics is related to geocomputation and to the development and
use of geographic information systems or Spatial Decision Support
Systems
Applications･An object-relational database (ORD) or object-relational
database management system (ORDBMS)･Object-relational mapping (or
O/RM)･Geostatistics
Geoinformatics Research & EducationGeoinformatics Research Group,
School of Civil Engineering & Geosciences, Newcastle University, UK
The View from the NSF
• Geoinformatics is a term that appears to have been independently
coined by several groups around the world to describe a variety of
efforts to promote collaboration between computer science and the
geosciences to solve complex scientific questions. Fostered by the
leadership within the National Science Foundation (NSF),
Geoinformatics has emerged as an initiative within the Earth
Sciences Division to address the growing recognition that the Earth
functions as a complex system and that existing information science
infrastructure and practice used by the geoscience community are
inadequate to address the many difficult problems posed by this
system. In addition, there is now widespread recognition that
successfully addressing these problems requires integrative and
innovative approaches to analyzing, modeling, and developing
extensive and diverse data sets. However, recent advances in fields
such as computational methods, visualization, and database
interoperability provide practical means to overcome such problems.
Thus, Geoinformatics can be thought as the field in which
geoscientists and computer scientists are working together to provide
the means to address a variety of complex scientific questions using
advanced information technologies and integrated analysis.
Cyberinfrastructure defined
Cyberinfrastructure is a new term that refers to the
information technology infrastructure that is needed to: 1)
manage, preserve, and efficiently access the vast amounts of
Earth Science data that exist now and the vast data flows that
will be coming online as projects such as EarthScope
(www.earthscope.org) get underway; 2) foster integrated scientific
studies that are required to address the increasingly complex
scientific problems that face our scientific community; 3)
accelerate the pace of scientific discovery and facilitate
innovation; 4) create an environment in which data and
software developed with public funds are preserved and made
available in a timely fashion; and 5) provide easy access to
high-end computational power, visualization and open source
software to researchers and students.
Cyberinfrastructure - NSF Blue Ribbon Panel
Report
The Panel’s overarching finding is that a new age has dawned in scientific
and engineering research, pushed by continuing progress in computing,
information, and communication technology, and pulled by the expanding
complexity, scope, and scale of today’s challenges. The capacity of this
technology has crossed thresholds that now make possible a
comprehensive “cyberinfrastructure” on which to build new types of scientific
and engineering knowledge environments and organizations and to pursue
research in new ways and with increased efficacy.
Such environments and organizations, enabled by cyberinfrastructure, are
increasingly required to address national and global priorities, such as
understanding global climate change, protecting our natural environment,
applying genomics-proteomics to human health, maintaining national
security, mastering the world of nanotechnology, and predicting and
protecting against natural and human disasters, as well as to address some
of our most fundamental intellectual questions such as the formation of the
universe and the fundamental character of matter.
Plate Tectonics - A true scientific revolution that
has affected all of the geological sciences and
our best example of “transformative science”
There was an evolution of thought from continental drift to
sea floor spreading to plate tectonics.
Plate tectonics helps explain countless geological
phenomena (e.g., mountain building/orogenesis, the regime
of large geologic structures, most seismicity, magnetic
stripes in the oceans, stress observations, GPS
measurements, fossil distributions, the dispersal of glacial
deposits, paleoclimates, sequence stratigraphy, many
petrologic observations, the locations of many mineral
deposits, volcanoes, the evolution of most sedimentary
basins, etc.)
It started from a
simple observation
German climatologist and geophysicist
who, in 1915, published as expanded
version of his 1912 book The Origin of
Continents and Oceans. This work
was one of the first to suggest
continental drift and plate tectonics. He
suggested that a supercontinent he
called Pangaea had existed in the
past, broke up starting 200 million
years ago, and that the pieces ‘drifted’
to their present positions. He cited the
fit of South America and Africa, ancient
climate similarities, fossil evidence
(such as the fern Glossopteris and
mesosaurus), and similarity of rock
structures. The American F. B. Taylor
had published a rather speculative
paper suggesting continental drift in
1910 which, however, had attracted
relatively little attention, as had
previous such suggestions by Humbolt
and Fisher . The book was translated
to English in 1924, when it aroused
hostile criticism. The proposal
remained controversial until the 1960s.
Wegner’s
continental
fit
University of Leeds
Mountain Belts of the World
Geosynclinal theory was the goofy (but widely accepted)
explanation for mountain building prior to plate tectonics.
Miogeocinclines are passive margins; eugeosynclines are
island arcs.
What we observe
The geosynclinal interpretation Marshall Kay (1948) North American
Geosynclines
Figures from
Steve Dutch
Modern interpretations
We can create the observed
structure in place via
subduction
Or by terrane accretion
The Ring of Fire
Seismicity become well known in the 1960’s
Benioff/Wadati
Zone of Japan
Focal Mechanisms
Transform
vs
Strike-slip
The offset
looks like it is
right lateral, but
it is really left
lateral.
Focal mechanisms for transform faults were
a big part of the story
Magnetic
stripes in the
oceans and the
discovery of
magnetic field
reversals was
an independent
line of evidence.
The area south of
Iceland and correlation
with the emerging time
scale for magnetic
field reversals told the
story
The ocean floor was a “magnetic recorder”
EarthScope Instrumentation
• 3.2 km borehole into the
San Andreas Fault
• 875 permanent GPS stations
• 175 borehole strainmeters
• 5 laser strainmeters
• 39 Permanent seismic stations
• 400 transportable seismic stations
occupying 2000 sites (”BigFoot”)
• 30 magneto-telluric systems
• 100 campaign GPS stations
• 2400 campaign seismic stations
(“LittleFoot”)
from Greg Van der Vink
An Integrated Geologic Framework for EarthScope’s
USArray (one goal of Geoinformatics and the GeoSwath)
GeoTraverse
http://tapestry.usgs.gov/
Some Thoughts About Data (sets, bases, systems)
•The Geosciences are a discipline that is strongly data driven,
and large data sets are often developed by researchers and
government agencies and disseminated widely.
•Geoscientists have a tradition of sharing of data, but being
willing to share data if asked or even maintaining a website
accomplishes little. Also we have few mechanisms to share the
work that has been done when a third party cleans up,
reorganizes or embellishes an existing database.
•We waste a large amount of human capital in duplicative efforts
and fall further behind by having no mechanism for existing
databases to grow and evolve via community input.
•The goal is for data to evolve into information and then into
knowledge as quickly and effectively as possible.
CYBERINFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE GEOSCIENCES
www.geongrid.org
Data layers that are easily available
(in the US)
DEM (USGS, SRTM)
Geology (mostly 1:500,000)
Landsat 7 / ASTER
Petrology/Geochron. (e.g. NAVDAT)
Drilling data (State surveys, USGS)
Magnetics
Gravity
……….
Provide input
to
geodynamic
models
CYBERINFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE GEOSCIENCES
www.geongrid.org
A Scientific Effort Vector
Background
Research
Background
Research
Data Collection and
Compilation/
Software issues
Data
Collection
and
Compilation/
Software
Issues
Science
Science
Science - Analysis, Modeling, Interpretation, Discovery
CYBERINFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE GEOSCIENCES
www.geongrid.org
4-D Evolution of Continents
The Accretionary orogen perspective
High
Level --Plate Tectonics
--Crustal Growth Through Time
--Terranes
--Terrane Recognition
--Integration of Distributed Databases
--Knowledge Representation of Domains
--Domain Ontology
--Databases
--Data Providers
Data Level
The flow from data to knowledge
CYBERINFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE GEOSCIENCES
www.geongrid.org
Some examples of databases needed
Geological maps
Faults
Geochronology
Petrology/Geochemistry
Gravity anomalies
Magnetic anomalies
Stratigraphy
Basin history
Paleontology
Seismic images/crust
Seismic images/mantle Physical properties
Stress indicators/equakes
GPS vectors
Paleoelevation
Paleomagnetic
Metamorphic history
DEM
Remote sensing
……….
CYBERINFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE GEOSCIENCES
www.geongrid.org
Some examples of domain
cybertools needed
Visualization -- 1 to 4-D
Domain modeling (processes, geometry)
Geodynamic modeling
Integration (visual and computational models)
Analysis of certainty and error propagation
……
CYBERINFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE GEOSCIENCES
www.geongrid.org
Science Challenges
Rocky Mountain Testbed
The Rocky Mountain region is the apex of a broad
dynamic orogenic plateau that lies between the
stable interior of North America and the active
plate margin along the west coast.
For the past 1.8 billion years, the Rocky Mountain
region has been the focus of repeated tectonic
activity and has experienced complex intraplate
deformation for the past 300 million years.
During the Phanerozoic, the main deformation
effects were the Ancestral Rocky Mountain
orogeny, the Laramide Orogeny, and late
Cenozoic uplift and extension that is still active.
In each case, the processes involved are the
subject of considerable debate.
CYBERINFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE GEOSCIENCES
www.geongrid.org
Science Questions
Rocky Mountain Testbed
The nature or the processes that formed the continent during
the Proterozoic
Influence of old structures on the location and evolution of
younger ones
What processes were at work during the numerous phases of
intraplate deformation
What caused the uplift of the mountains and high plateaus that
are seen in this region today
What were the effects of mountain building on the distribution of
mineral, energy, and water resources
 What is the nature of interactions among Paleozoic, Laramide,
and late Cenozoic basins
CYBERINFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE GEOSCIENCES
www.geongrid.org
Crustal
Domains
In the Proterozoic, a
series of island arc and/or
oceanic terranes were
accreted to the rifted
margin of the Archean
Wyoming craton.
Following this period of
accretion, extensive
magmatism (1.4Ga)
spread across Laurentia
and adjacent portions of
Baltica probably creating
an extensive mafic
underplate.
The following
Grenville/Sveconorwegian orogeny largely
completed the formation
of Rodinia.
CYBERINFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE GEOSCIENCES
www.geongrid.org
Paleozoic
The early/middle
Paleozoic was a
time of stability.
Passive margins
formed around
the edges of
Laurentia.
The late
Paleozoic
Ancestral Rocky
Mountain
orogeny included
the Southern
Oklahoma
aulacogen and
represents
extensive
deformation of
the foreland.
CYBERINFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE GEOSCIENCES
www.geongrid.org
Isostatic residual map
CYBERINFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE GEOSCIENCES
www.geongrid.org
SOA index
CYBERINFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE GEOSCIENCES
www.geongrid.org
Crustal model
derived by
integrated
analysis of
seismic,
geologic, and
gravity data
CYBERINFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE GEOSCIENCES
www.geongrid.org
Mesozoic
Cenozoic
The Cordilleran
orogenic plateau that
includes the Southern
Rocky Mountains can
in part be traced back
to Laramide time. Its
history is a continuing
controversy.
Mid-Tertiary
magmatism was
extensive.
Late Cenozoic
extension (Basin and
Range/Rio Grande
rift) followed the
Laramide orogeny.
CYBERINFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE GEOSCIENCES
www.geongrid.org
Rio Grande Rift
Similar to Kenya rift in most respects
Deep (up to 7 km), linked basins
Extension increases, crust thins, and
elevation decreases from Colorado
southward
Magmatism and magmatic modification of
the crust are minor if “mid-Tertiary” volcanic
centers are considered pre-rift
Deep crustal structure correlates well with
near-surface geologic manifestations
(symmetrical)
Differences (volume of volcanism, amount
of uplift?, mantle anomaly?)
CYBERINFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE GEOSCIENCES
www.geongrid.org
Depth to
Moho
(Crustal
Thickness)
Isostatic residual map
CYBERINFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE GEOSCIENCES
www.geongrid.org
Integrated
lithospheric
model
Albuquerque
area
CYBERINFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE GEOSCIENCES
www.geongrid.org
LA RISTRA
CYBERINFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE GEOSCIENCES
www.geongrid.org
SHEAR WAVE TOMOGRAPHY
West et al. 2004
CYBERINFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE GEOSCIENCES
www.geongrid.org
Kenya
vs
Rio Grande
rifts
CYBERINFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE GEOSCIENCES
www.geongrid.org
A COMMUNITY WORKSHOP AND EMERGING
ORGANIZATION TO SUPPORT A NATIONAL
GEOINFORMATICS SYSTEM IN THE UNITED
STATES
G. Randy Keller (University of Oklahoma), David Maidment
(University of Texas at Austin), J. Douglas Walker (University of
Kansas), Lee Allison (Arizona Geological Survey, Linda C.
Gunderson (U. S. Geological Survey), and Tamara Dickinson
(U. S. Geological Survey)
Geoscience data and techniques are hugely
diverse and heterogeneous
(so are the people involved)
Conodont
stratigraphy
aulacogen
lahar
xenolith
Shear wave
splitting
paleomagmatism
offlap
dacite
Poisson’s
ratio
breccia
isostatic
residual
The Motivation for the Meeting
At the request of the Earth Sciences Division of the
National Science Foundation a meeting was held in
March of 2007 to explore what direction the
Geoinformatics community in the United States should
be taking in terms of developing a National
Geoinformatics System.
It was clear that developing such a system should involve a
partnership between academia (in particular efforts
supported by the NSF), government, and industry that
should be closely connected to the efforts of the U. S.
Geological Survey and the state geological surveys that
were discussed at a workshop in February of 2007.
The Meeting’s Goals
1.
Define the content of a National Geoinformatics
System
2.
Identify the technology via which such a system
could be created
3.
Create a process for moving forward to jointly plan
and develop such a system.
50 individuals from 37 different organizations and 15 states attended
Some attributes of the Geoinformatics
academic community in the U. S.
 We need culture change (data, IT, standards, disciplinary focus,
competition vs. collaboration, etc.)
 U. S. geoscience is large and hypercompetitive due to funding limitations
- new initiatives are often viewed as threats to traditional programs
 The need for integrated multidisciplinary approaches is widely recognized
 Interagency cooperation is generally good, but academics often do not
have a service mentality
 Incentives for data, software, and CI contributions are needed; otherwise
Geoinformatics is an unfunded mandate
 Many individuals and groups are supportive; others are supportive but
circumspect; but we are near the tipping point
The Major Conclusion
The Geoinformatics community should
proceed to investigate setting up a
formal organization that is a community
of informatics providers and scientists
whose aim is to enable transformative
science across the earth and natural
sciences.
A tentative name for this organization is the National Earth
Science Information System (NESIS)
How do we enable transformative science
across the earth and natural sciences?
We do it by forming a community of practice whose goals are:
•Fostering communication and collaboration globally
•Enabling science through informatics
•Engaging other communities (scientific domains and other informatics groups globally)
•Helping its members work to be more effective science information providers
•Sharing resources and expertise
•Enabling interoperability
•Sustaining service to the community over the long haul
•Providing a mechanism for our community to speak with a united voice
“Communities of practice are groups of people who share a concern or a
passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact
regularly”
To Bring the Community Together to
Effectively Create a NESIS We Must:
Generate an organizational
structure that is appropriate to
the objectives and character of
the NESIS community
What might this organizational
structure look like?
A federation of existing projects?
A consortium?
A corporation?
Thank You!
CYBERINFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE GEOSCIENCES
www.geongrid.org