A Plan for Data Management of In Situ Large-Scale

Oceanic Carbon Observations

Report of the Data Management Workshop

Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory

Seattle, Washington

25-26 October 2001

Edited by Richard A. Feely

and Christopher L. Sabine

NAT OI NAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRAT OI N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF CO M MERCE
NOAA OAR Special Report

A Plan for Data Management of In Situ Large-Scale

Oceanic Carbon Observations

Richard A. Feely1 and Christopher L. Sabine2 (editors)

Contributing Authors:

Thomas Boden, Robin Brown, John Bullister, Francisco Chavez, Margarita

Conkright, Andrew Dickson, Lisa Dilling, Scott Doney, Marjorie Friedrichs,

David Glover, Nicolas Gruber, Steve Hankin, Dennis Hansell, Matthew

Harrison, Greg Johnson, Robert Key, Joanie Kleypas, Alex Kozyr, Charles

McClain, Frank Millero, Calvin Mordy, Raymond Najjar, Tsung-Hung Peng,

Detlef Stammer, James Swift, Robbie Toggweiler, and Rik Wanninkhof

1Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory

7600 Sand Point Way NE

Seattle, WA 98115

2Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean (JISAO)

University of Washington

Box 351640

Seattle, WA 98195

February 2002

Contribution 2445 from NOAA/Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory
NOTICE

Mention of a commercial company or product does not constitute an endorsement by

NOAA/OAR. Use of information from this publication concerning proprietary products

or the tests of such products for publicity or advertising purposes is not authorized.

Contribution No. 2445 from NOAA/Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory

For sale by the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

ii
Contents iii

Contents

1. Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

3. The CO2 Science Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

4. Discrete Water Column Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

5. Autonomous and Semi-Autonomous Measurements . . . . 6

6. The Data Management Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

6.1 The National Data Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

6.2 The World Oceanographic Data Center . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

7. Data Accessibility for Carbon Cycle Ocean Measurements 9

8. Numerical Modeling and Data Assimilation . . . . . . . . . 11

9. Coordination with International Programs . . . . . . . . . . 13

Appendix I: Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Appendix II: Agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Appendix III: List of Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
iv Contents
A Plan for Data Management of In Situ Large-Scale Oceanic

Carbon Observations

Richard A. Feely1 and Christopher L. Sabine2 (editors)

1. Executive Summary

The primary goal of the Data Management Workshop was to formulate a

plan for data policy, institutional arrangements, and mechanisms for dealing

with new and historical oceanic CO2 data sets. The overall objective is to

provide the scientific community with easy access to high-quality historical

and near real-time CO2 and related data sets from the large-scale ocean

carbon observing system proposed in the LSCOP report. The workshop

consisted of 31 scientists, data managers, and program administrators from

federal agencies, universities, and private research institutions. Two major data types were considered in the workshop: (1) discrete data from the

large-scale Repeat Hydrography Program and time series stations; and (2)

high-frequency data streams from shipboard underway measurements and

autonomous measurements from fixed moorings and drifting buoys. The

workshop participants advocated the formation of a CO2 Science Team involving CO2 scientists and data managers to collaborate in the development

of standardized procedures for data reporting and quality assessment. They

also emphasized the need for rapid data distribution to the scientific community via the Internet and CD-ROMs. The data access system must include

a “Live Access Server” for on-line browsing that will include graphics tools

to provide plots and visualizations of the data.

The following outline lists the data management requirements for producing QCed versions of these data, and for assuring their easy access to the

scientific community. Rough estimates of the associated costs are included.

1. Discrete Data (including measurements made on discrete samples at

time-series stations)

(a) Processing of shipboard data

i. CO2 Science team will coordinate CO2 measurement program, establish measurement protocols and data formats, and

run intercomparison exercises as necessary to ensure highestquality measurements (30–40K/yr).

ii. One data management person on each survey cruise will be

responsible for merging and initial QC of all shipboard data.

(b) Production of locally QCed data

1NOAA/Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle,

WA 98115 2Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean (JISAO), University of

Washington, Box 351640, Seattle, WA 98195
2 Feely, R.A., and C.L. Sabine (eds.)

i. PI will be responsible for post-cruise processing of shipboard

data.

ii. CO2 Science team will assist PIs by developing techniques

and tools for post processing and will oversee and coordinate

public access to locally QCed data (25K/yr).

(c) Production of regionally QCed data

i. The National Data Center will be primarily responsible for

assessing quality of new data sets with respect to other highquality data sets in that region. They will also serve research

quality data to the public (50K/yr).

ii. CO2 Science team will assist the National Data Center in

quality assessment by providing scientific oversight.

iii. The World Oceanographic Data Center will archive all data

products and assist in data quality assessment (50K/yr).

iv. A “Live Access Server” will be developed to distribute the

data via the Internet (50K/yr).

2. Semi-autonomous and autonomous underway and buoy data

(a) Processing of data

i. CO2 Science team will coordinate CO2 measurement program, establish measurement protocols and data formats and

run intercomparison exercises as necessary to ensure highquality measurements (30-40K/yr).

ii. CO2 Science team will assist PIs by developing techniques

and tools for post-measurement data-quality assessment, but

PI will be responsible for implementing these procedures as

part of their measurement responsibilities.

iii. Data will be transferred to National Data Center within 1

month of reaching the PI.

(b) Distribution of data and production of integrated datasets

i. Data Management Group will be responsible for checking

that the data received from the PI are correctly formatted.

ii. The National Data Center will make data available publicly as soon as practical (typically within 1 week of receipt)

(50K/yr).

iii. CO2 Science team will assist Data Management Group by

providing scientific oversight and indicating how best to integrate such datasets.

iv. The World Oceanographic Data Center will ultimately archive

and distribute all national and international data products

(50K/yr).

v. A “Live Access Server” will be developed to distribute the

data via the Internet (50K/yr).
Oceanic Carbon Data Management Plan 3

2. Introduction

The U.S. Carbon Cycle Science Plan (Sarmiento and Wofsy, A U.S. Carbon

Cycle Science Plan. USGCRP, Washington, D.C., 69 pp., 1999), developed

under the auspices of the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP),

represents the beginning of intensive planning for the next decade of global

carbon cycle research in the United States. This document provides an

evaluation of the then-current state of knowledge of carbon processes in the

atmosphere and oceans including its anthropogenic aspects, and suggests a

course of coordinated federal action for advancing carbon cycle science.

The Plan emphasizes the need for coordinated and complementary programs of basic and applied research from the U.S. Federal agencies with

interests and responsibilities in global carbon cycle science. As a direct outgrowth of this original Plan, the U.S. Carbon Cycle Science Program (CCSP)

was established to foster community interest and planning in the area of carbon cycle research. Under the auspices of the CCSP, a recent NOAA report

by Bender et al. (2001)3 provides a U.S. implementation plan for large-scale

observations of CO2 and ancillary properties in the atmosphere and oceans

in direct support of upcoming research programs, such as the Climate Variability Program (CLIVAR) and the CCSP.

In support of this effort the NOAA Office of Global Programs commissioned a workshop at the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory of NOAA

on the requirements for data management, synthesis, and assimilation of the

potentially very large numbers of oceanic CO2 and related observational

data that will become a part of the ocean component of the CCSP. The

primary goal of the Data Management Workshop was to formulate a plan

for data policy, institutional arrangements, and mechanisms for dealing with

new and historical oceanic CO2 data sets. The ultimate objective is to provide the oceanographic community with easy access, via the internet and

CD-ROMs, to high-quality near real-time CO2 and related physical, chemical, and biological data sets from the large-scale ocean carbon observing

system proposed in the Large Scale CO2 Observing Plan (LSCOP) report.

It will also be desirable to provide equivalent access to high-quality historical

(pre-2001) data that can be used for comparison purposes.

The workshop consisted of 31 scientists, data managers, and program

administrators from federal agencies, universities, and private research institutions. The workshop was divided into nine plenary talks and nine discussion sessions, each led by a discussion leader and rapporteur (see attached agenda and participant list). Each discussion leader was responsible for a written report from which this summary was assembled. Two

major data types were considered in the workshop: (1) discrete data such

as will come from the large-scale CO2/CLIVAR Repeat Hydrography Program (see http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/ocd/repeathydro/); and (2) data

streams from semi-autonomous shipboard measurements and from auton3Bender, M., S. Doney, R. Feely, I. Fung, N. Gruber, D.E. Harrison, R. Keeling, J.R.

Moore, J. Sarmiento, E. Sarachik, K.B. Stephens, T. Takahashi, P. Tans, and R. Wanninkhof, A large-scale CO2 observing plan: Oceans and Atmosphere (LSCOP), NOAA

Special Report, in press.
4 Feely, R.A., and C.L. Sabine (eds.)

omous measurement systems on fixed moorings and drifting buoys. The

following summarizes the workshop recommendations for these activities.

3. The CO2 Science Team

The idea for a CO2 Science Team comes from the highly successful CO2 science team (supported by DOE and NOAA) that participated in the WOCE

Hydrographic Program global survey of CO2. This science team will be responsible for standardizing the techniques used for both the discrete and

autonomous measurement programs. The workshop participants felt that it

was important for the science team to be formed as soon as possible and to

meet regularly throughout the program. One of the first tasks of this science

team would be to generate a document that clearly outlines  the standard set of analytical methods that will be used,  standardized data formats,  minimum metadata reporting requirements,  procedures for quality control and assessment,  steps for post processing,  standardized guidelines for flagging data.

This document will provide the guidelines for U.S. participants in the

program. This document should be published and distributed widely to the

international community. The hope is that this document will encourage

international partners that are also making carbon measurements on repeat

sections, Volunteer Observing Ships (VOS), moorings, and drifting buoys

to adopt similar protocols. If they do, it will make future merging and

quality assessment of such non-U.S. data sets much easier. International

partners that are interested in working with the U.S. should also be invited

to participate in and contribute to the CO2 Science Team. Evaluation of

developing technologies and outreach programs, such as methods comparison

studies, should also be a part of the CO2 Science Team’s purview. These

activities will help ensure that the program stays state-of-the-art and will

encourage international participation and collaboration.

The workshop participants noted that the science team approach could

work well for other elements of the repeat section and autonomous measurements programs and that the CO2 Science Team should make a point

to include discussion of the hydrographic, nutrient, and tracer components

in their meetings. The group generally did not feel that one large multicomponent meeting would be the most efficient, but noted the need for clear

coordination and communication between the science teams responsible for

the various components.

These meetings should be held at regular intervals to encourage coordination between the CO2 community and other U.S. and international communities. Such periodic meetings would also allow the CO2 scientists to
Oceanic Carbon Data Management Plan 5

adapt the program strategies and approaches over time to take advantage of

developing technology, or new information gained from the ongoing program.

There should be enough flexibility built into the program to allow for decisions as to which section lines will be occupied by which group, or to adapt

to constantly changing VOS ship schedules and unforeseen opportunities for

participation in non-U.S. cruises.

The CO2 Science Team would also facilitate the processing of shipboard

data to the locally QCed level. It was pointed out that at-sea data processing

is the most effective but can be expensive. At a minimum, there should be

a data management person on board—for the entire shipboard analysis program, not just CO2. The CO2 Science Team will assist the PI by providing

data and metadata requirements, standards, etc., and by helping the PI to

oversee the process. Thus, the PIs doing individual cruises must include the

cost of such data processing in their proposals to conduct the at-sea work.

It was suggested that some level of quality assessment could be performed most efficiently at a central facility, perhaps in collaboration with

the data management group(s). The workshop participants also agreed that

the data should be released to the public as quickly as possible after a cruise.

One problem is that the carbon data cannot be fully processed until the hydrographic and nutrient data are available. It was noted that the routine

hydrographic and nutrient data should be available in near final form within

5 weeks of cruise completion. Given that time frame, the group agreed that

the discrete carbon data could be made available within 6 months of cruise

completion and autonomous data could be made available within about 1

month of data collection. The data should be served on the World Wide

Web with the necessary caveats about the data quality at that point. PIs

will be encouraged to submit data reports that can be cited by the data

users.

4. Discrete Water Column Measurements

The goal of the water column data management discussion was to develop

a structure that will facilitate the timely processing and public release of

high-quality data associated with the repeat survey program outlined in

the LSCOP report. The proposed occupation of 15 lines over a 10-year

repeating cycle will be a lower level of effort than the 1990’s global CO2

survey, but the long time frame and ambitious objectives of the program

make the need for a good data management plan important from the outset.

The plan must be able to maintain the continuity of the program while at

the same time keeping the flexibility to incorporate improvements in data

collection and analysis techniques and be able to respond to surprise findings.

The workshop participants emphasized the importance of keeping the PIs

involved in the processing of the data even after the cruise, working in concert

with the data management group. They thus proposed a two-stage data

management structure. This structure is designed to accommodate three

basic data types:  Shipboard Data—Complete data set resulting from a single cruise.
6 Feely, R.A., and C.L. Sabine (eds.)

These data would include the CO2 measurements and other appropriate ancillary information available at the completion of the cruise.  Locally QCed Data—Complete data set that has undergone post cruise

processing and has been examined for consistency with other parameters collected on that cruise. The PI will have the primary responsibility for this work in collaboration with the CO2 Science Team.  Regionally QCed Data—Complete data set, for which the “locally

QCed” data has been further examined for consistency with other data

from that region and is pronounced suitable for melding with other

“regionally QCed” data sets (perhaps after some identified adjustment

has been applied).

The workshop participants advocated that the CO2 Science Team would

facilitate the production of high-quality shipboard and locally QCed data as

a first stage of the proposed data-processing scheme. The regional level of

data assessment will then be handled primarily through the data management center(s) in collaboration with the CO2 Science Team.

By dividing the data processing into two distinct processes to be handled

by two communicating groups, we can standardize the approaches and reduce

duplicated efforts. The group felt that higher level data products, such as the

production of gridded carbon fields from the regionally QCed data, were still

research issues at this point and should not yet be put into an “operational”

structure.

5. Autonomous and Semi-Autonomous

Measurements

The LSCOP report envisions a variety of autonomous and semi-autonomous

measurement systems, particularly for the determination of the p(CO2) of

the surface ocean and of a variety of ancillary properties. These devices range

from shipboard systems (e.g., p(CO2) systems on VOS) that measure surface

ocean properties while a ship is underway, moorings and drifting buoys along

with their associated measurement systems. The proposed increase in the

number of such systems over the next decade will greatly improve our surface

seawater p(CO2) database.

The focus of discussions at the Workshop was thus on how to implement

a data system that would provide rapid availability of calibrated data of a

known quality, even as the number of measurement systems supplying such

data increases with time. The workshop participants felt that, in a wellfunctioning system, it should be possible to have the results made available

to other scientists within 1 month of the date when the data “reaches dry

land.” For autonomous shipboard systems, this would be the date when the

full data set is recovered from a shipboard system, e.g., at the end of a round

trip; for a buoy-mounted system it would be the date when the data were

telemetered to the operator from the instrument.
Oceanic Carbon Data Management Plan 7

Achievement of this rapid turnaround will require investments both in

the data acquisition systems and in the data management areas. Investments in instrument design and day-to-day operating procedures should be

aimed at minimizing the need for further “data processing”; i.e., ensuring

that the resulting measurements of p(CO2) and of any ancillary parameters

are well calibrated and of known quality. Initial investments in data management should focus on developing increased automation of the data-quality

assessment procedures used to evaluate such measurements. As the program continues, it is envisaged that the “unit cost” of these measurements

will decrease with time, as a consequence of the increased reliability of the

instrumentation and the automation of the data handling.

To make this practical, data must be stored in a standardized format

that makes all the measurements (including those of ancillary parameters),

together with their associated metadata, accessible electronically. Once the

data and metadata are in this standard form, they can be passed as a package

to a Data Management Group who will have the responsibility for verifying

the data format and for making the data available to the community as

quickly as is practical.

Achieving this utopian vision thus requires clear documents describing

1. the details of the proposed standardized data format, specifying what

constitutes essential ancillary information (e.g., time, place, S, T, ...),

2. the details of an electronically searchable metadata structure describing such data,

3. the data-quality assessment procedures that are used to select (or flag)

potentially problematic results,

4. the data submission schedule, and the role of the Data Management

Group in handling and distributing these data, and in preparing any

regional data products.

The workshop participants recommended that the CO2 Science Team should

take the responsibility for preparing these documents in concert with a designated Data Management Group. This initial set of documents would then

be updated as needed, and would be made openly available to potential

participants, both from the U.S. and abroad.

The necessary focus on measurement quality will also require documentation of the various measurement techniques being used, including details

of their calibration and quality control procedures. Wherever practical an

attempt should be made to standardize the measurement procedures being

used by different groups, and to work to improve their efficiency.

Furthermore, it will be essential to implement a structured system of

inter-laboratory method comparisons to ensure that the various measurement systems being employed in the field are capable of yielding comparable

results. The intent would be to have the Data Management structure available to those contributors (both U.S. and international) who are prepared to

work to conform to the proposed reporting formats, and who can adequately

document their procedures and data quality.
8 Feely, R.A., and C.L. Sabine (eds.)

Ultimately, as sufficient data are gathered to make basin-scale maps of

time-varying properties such as surface p(CO2), it will be necessary to advise

the Data Management Group how best to integrate the various datasets to

achieve such a goal. At this time, this task is still a research project and

needs significant scientific input from individuals with regional knowledge.

However, it seems likely that, as the years go by, it may become practical for

such datasets to be prepared by the designated Data Management Group in

collaboration with the CO2 Science Team.

6. The Data Management Groups

A national data center, such as the Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis

Center (CDIAC), and a world oceanographic data center (e.g., National

Ocean Data Center (NODC)) should be involved in the data management

process at all levels. They will participate in the CO2 Science Team meetings

described above and will provide assistance in generating the locally QCed

data wherever possible. Regional QC of the data will be primarily performed

by the data centers. As soon as the locally QCed data are released to the

public, they will also enter into this second level of QC processing. At

this point, they will also work closely with the CLIVAR hydrographic data

center to ensure that the carbon data are properly integrated with the other

hydrographic and tracer measurements.

There was consensus on the need for two complimentary organizations/

facilities for the processing and archival of carbon data and related parameters. Specifically, the workshop participants recommend the following responsibilities for the existing organizations:

6.1 The National Data Center

A National Data Center should provide a short- to medium-term repository

for carbon data. Their duties and responsibilities would include acquiring

carbon data from investigators, acquiring/confirming associated metadata,

format conversions, quality control/quality assurance with feedback from

investigators, version control for submitted datasets providing data access

“tools” as appropriate, preparation and distribution of datasets and data

products to meet requirements by the carbon data community.

These data will be evaluated with respect to both U.S. and international

data, and both modern and historical data. Although the National Data

Center will have primary responsibility for processing and maintaining the

regionally QCed research-quality data sets, NODC will be directly involved

at all levels of processing, lending their unique skills to this work. Once all

parties are satisfied with the quality of these data they will be posted to the

National Data Center WWW site as a research-quality data set, available

along with other U.S. and international research-quality data.

At this point, the preliminary locally QCed data will be removed from

the National Data Center web site to minimize confusion over different data

versions. The National Data Center will also produce their printed Numeric

Data Packages (NDPs) describing the regionally QCed data sets, to ensure
Oceanic Carbon Data Management Plan 9

availability of data even to those without web access. Over the long term

both NODC and the National Data Center will maintain the research-quality

data sets. The role outlined above also takes advantage of strong links with

international investigators and will help with the integration of atmospheric,

terrestrial, and ocean carbon data at the research level.

6.2 The World Oceanographic Data Center

The U.S. World Data Center A for Oceanography (NODC/WDC A) should

provide the permanent archival for ocean carbon and hydrographic data.

The duties and responsibilities would include acquiring data from data centers, acquiring/confirming associated metadata, providing quality assessment with feedback to the National Data Center, integration into large

oceanographic databases, allowing easy retrieval of general oceanographic

data and carbon data, as required, data exchange with other international

data centers, and preparation of large datasets, and their distribution to the

user community via the Internet and CD ROMs.

This split in activities and responsibilities makes the best use of each

organization’s strengths, exploiting strong working relationships at the investigator level and NODC’s expertise with very large databases and international data exchange. Investigators will not need to interact with both

agencies. The two organizations will need to coordinate version control and

data exchange procedures to make this process as efficient as possible.

There is also a need to make historical carbon data available to researchers. Many of the important data holdings remain in the hands of

a few investigators and are at risk of loss to the community when these investigators retire. The integration of historical data with modern data will

need a cautious approach. There are serious known problems with some

historical data, due primarily to limitations in methodology, a lack of appropriate standards, and insufficient metadata. There is substantial research

required to evaluate the accuracy and precision of some historical datasets

and to assess their applicability to questions of changes in the ocean carbon system over time. In the short to medium term, it would be useful to

develop an inventory of historical datasets and assign a priority for their

recovery and review.

7. Data Accessibility for Carbon Cycle Ocean

Measurements

The ocean carbon database must be maintained in a manner that makes it

accessible to a range of scientists, both inside and outside of the immediate

ocean carbon data measurement community. The data should be publicly

accessible through the Internet, as well as made available at suitable intervals on media that can be distributed to those that lack Internet access.

The web-based user interface for the data should be uniform across data

versions, measurement types, and to the greatest degree possible, should

include historical data and international datasets.
10 Feely, R.A., and C.L. Sabine (eds.)

Two types of data subsetting and downloading are required: (1) “largescale” subsetting in which the entire holdings for a particular group of parameters can be queried, based upon constraints such as latitude, longitude,

and depth range, date range, and/or seasonality; and (2) “per cruise” subsetting, in which users recover the measurements from a particular cruise or

mooring. The downloaded subsets should be made available in a variety of

user-specifiable formats. The list of formats to be supported should address

the range of applications commonly used by interested communities and may

need to be adapted with time as applications change.

The data access system must include on-line browsing and graphics tools

that allow users to quickly determine when and where measurements are

available and provide plots and visualizations to give the user a “quick look”

at the data. Such tools should enable a user to make quick comparisons of

repeat sections, underway tracks, and cross-over points. They should enable

a user to visualize changes to the data between update versions.

The Live Access Server (LAS) is a proven system that addresses the

community’s needs with respect to ease of use, uniformity of interface, data

download and visualization capabilities, and comparison/fusion capabilities. Both the discrete and underway/mooring data management discussion

groups recommended use of LAS as a web interface. Prototype systems

are already in operation at PMEL (e.g., http://ferret.wrc.noaa.gov/

underway/main.html). Enhancements to LAS are suggested to allow a comparison between measured and gridded data types, integrated presentation

of data with metadata, and on-the-fly merging of data from different sources.

Audit tracking of changes to the database is desirable as a tool to locate

the source of changes in results that are generated over time. Given the

need for continual updates to the databases it is recognized that thorough

audit tracking may be a costly demand to place upon the data management

system. To keep costs within acceptable bounds it was agreed that check

points (“time stamping”) should occur at intervals—either fixed intervals of

time or intervals measured in changes to the database. Determination of the

intervals to be used will occur only after the initial database management

strategy is determined.

Metadata management, which includes free text content such as shipboard logs, should be fully integrated into the data access system. It should

be possible to locate specific items of metadata based upon parameter type

and cruise (or location/date) without the need for a person to read through

large amounts of text.

In addition on-line “fusion” with historical data and databases maintained by international partners should be possible. The long-term responsibility for integration of U.S. ocean carbon measurements with historical and

international data sets is the responsibility of the NODC; however, there is

a need for quick-look “fusion” of data sources as a normal part of ongoing

research activities. The process of fusion through a Web interface should

be designed to ensure that the user is aware that data of varying quality

are being merged. The resulting output products (files and graphics) should

clearly document the multiple sources of data that were fused.

Two classes of gridded data were identified. (1) Gridded reference fields—
Oceanic Carbon Data Management Plan 11

created through research-driven, proposal funded efforts—should be made

available through the data access system in such a way that the observations

and gridded products can be compared. (2) For modelers it may be desirable

to generate gridded fields on the fly from observations, given suitable user

inputs of grid resolution and gridding parameters. The data management

system should provide a stable programmers’ interface, so it is accessible by

machine (other programs) as well as by users. This provides an essential level

of adaptability when considering alternative accessibility techniques over the

lifetime of the program.

8. Numerical Modeling and Data Assimilation

Given the large inherent space and time variability of the inorganic carbon system in the ocean, the ability to directly observe and document such

variations will remain limited by necessity. As a consequence, reaching the

goal of characterizing the regional to global distribution and seasonal to

decadal scale variability of carbon sinks and sources in the ocean from observations requires the use of interpolation, extrapolation, and other diagnostic

techniques. Diagnostic modeling (inverse models up to full data assimilation systems) provide an ideal means to address this issue by generating

complete, dynamically consistent ocean carbon fields that incorporate data

when and where they are available. Diagnostic modeling therefore provides

a natural framework for integrating the limited in situ observation with the

other elements of ocean carbon cycle research such as satellite remote sensing, process studies, and prognostic modeling. Diagnostic models and their

products have a long history in the atmospheric sciences in connection with

weather forecasts and reanalysis of climate variability and are increasingly

used in physical oceanography to estimate the state of the ocean circulation.

One such project is the ECCO Project (Estimating the Circulation and Climate of the Ocean), which is now routinely making their reanalysis products

available to the community (see http://www.ecco.ucsd.edu). However, diagnostic mathematical methods have only very recently begun to be used in

ocean carbon-cycle research and the experience is therefore limited. Nevertheless, it is expected that inverse modeling approaches will develop rapidly

over the next years and become standard tools for the analysis of the state

of the ocean carbon cycle and many other applications (see JGOFS Report

from IGBP/EU Meeting in Paris). This section outlines the data policy and

data management requirements from the perspective of diagnostic modeling.

Figure 1 shows the main components of the envisioned diagnostic modeling framework and how they interact with the other elements of an integrated

ocean carbon cycle program. The two central components are formed by the

ocean carbon data centers and the ocean carbon assimilation systems. Together they provide the structure by which the data streams originating from

the various observation platforms are collected, assimilated, and turned into

higher-level data products.

The data management centers play a crucial role in this diagnostic modeling framework, since they act as the collection points for the various types
12 Feely, R.A., and C.L. Sabine (eds.)

Intermediate level Obs

i.e. UW-pCO2, floats , buoys

Process level Obs.

i.e. NPP, NP, EP, etc

Large-scale Obs. i.e. atm. CO2, O2, δ13C

 sat Chl., sea level, SST,

Synthesized

 Data

INPUT PRODUCTS

linkage

Products

Process Studies

i.e. air-sea gas exchange,

biological processes, etc 

Research

i.e. model sensitivity studies, model 

development, data analyses, etc.

RESEARCH

Improved components 

 for predictive models

Reanalysis and 

 Interpretation

short term predictions

"initial value" problems

model fluxes and 

 state variables i.e. NPP, EP, ecosystem structure

OPERATIONAL RESEARCH

air-sea CO2 Fluxes

spatio-temporal variabillity

linkage

linkage

Feedback

 Evaluation

Feedback

 Evaluation

Feedback

 Evaluation

New Para-

 meterizations

linkage

Ocean C-Cycle

 Assimilation Systems

Data Management Centers

linkage

Figure 1: Conceptual diagram of the envisioned diagnostic modeling framework. At the center is an array

of diagnostic models that integrate the different types and spatio-temporal resolution of the data into their

model and produce “best” estimates of the present and past state of the CO2 fluxes across the air-sea

interface and of the state of the carbon system in the ocean in general. The preparation of the data that

stream into these diagnostics need the establishment and support of dedicated data management centers

that collect the data, perform additional quality control, and provide long-term availability of these data,

etc.
Oceanic Carbon Data Management Plan 13

and levels of data streams. For many types of data, particularly for those

collected on space-borne platforms, such centers are already in existence.

However, for many other data streams, for example, those associated with

the rapidly increasing number of underway p(CO2) data, such data centers

need to be established and supported. The data synthesis efforts at these

data centers should also include quality control procedures that extend beyond the initial quality control done at the level of the individual observations. This includes, for example, investigation of the internal consistency

of the data as well as testing for long-term precision and accuracy of the

data. High priority should also be given to fully documenting the various

data products and streams (metadata). This is particularly important, since

re-analysis projects in the future with substantially more sophisticated models than those existing today require that high-quality and well-documented

data are taken now. The multi-tier data management approach proposed in

this document appears to address the needs from the perspective of diagnostic modeling.

The requirements of diagnostic modeling studies with regard to data

policy are less stringent and depend on the particular aim of the project.

Forecast studies will require very rapid dissemination of the data, whereas

re-analysis projects don’t have such needs. For most diagnostic modeling

studies, the timeline of data dissemination proposed in this document seems

adequate. Once diagnostic models have advanced to the point where forecast studies could become important, faster availability of some of the data

streams might be helpful. Nevertheless, one needs to emphasize that fast

dissemination should not occur at the expense of data quality. Ensuring

highest quality already during the collection of the data and thereby eliminating the need for extensive post-calibration will be a very effective manner

to obtain fast and reliable data for inverse modeling studies.

The scope of diagnostic modeling extends beyond the optimal estimation of the state of the ocean carbon cycle. Such studies can also help to

address gaps in the knowledge and pinpoint areas in space and time that

need additional observations (through network optimization studies) as well

as indicate the need for new types of observations. Close interaction between

observational and the modeling communities are therefore of great benefit

for both communities and should be supported.

9. Coordination with International Programs

There was extensive discussion of the relationship between U.S. and nonU.S. programs. There was agreement that there was value to international

cooperation, although there are some issues such as timeliness of data availability that must be resolved. It was agreed that interagency and national

data sets should be made available with data from other countries. Attempts

to merge U.S. and non-U.S. data into a centralized database should weigh

several factors, the most important being the availability of information necessary to assess the quality of the data. The availability and submission of

accompanying metadata is essential to the successful integration of any out-
14 Feely, R.A., and C.L. Sabine (eds.)

side data set. Adherence to data reporting, metadata reporting, and quality

control requirements as set forth in this workshop report will help facilitate

the successful integration of data from other countries. Just as the workshop

participants agreed it was important to evaluate the quality and consistency

of U.S. carbon measurements, the participants emphasized the importance

of attempting to evaluate the quality and consistency of international measurements.

Discussion and recommendations could be grouped into two categories,

those aimed at improving international measurements before data submission to a central database and those aimed at evaluation after submission.

Recommendations aimed at improving international measurements directly

included making planned “procedures manuals” available to the international community, promoting the availability and use of Certified Reference

Materials (CRMs), and establishing formal intercomparison exercises. To

aid evaluation of international measurements after submission, it was recommended that international measurements be checked and flagged, using

the same strategy adopted for assessing U.S. measurements, and that these

assessment records too should become part of the centralized database. Inevitably researchers worldwide will compare U.S. measurements to non-U.S.

measurements and these comparisons, where possible, should be reflected in

the documentation for the central database.
Oceanic Carbon Data Management Plan 15

Appendix I

Acronyms

CDIAC Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (DOE)

CCSP U.S. Carbon Cycle Science Plan

CLIVAR Climate Variability and Predictability (WCRP program)

CO2 Carbon dioxide

CTD Conductivity/Temperature/Depth profiler

DIC Dissolved Inorganic Carbon

DOE Department of Energy

GOOS Global Ocean Observing System (WMO)

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NODC National Oceanographic Data Center

NSF National Science Foundation

OAR Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (NOAA)

OGP Office of Global Programs (NOAA)

p(CO2) partial pressure of carbon dioxide

PMEL Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (NOAA)

TA Total Alkalinity

TCO2 Total dissolved inorganic carbon

VOS Volunteer Observing Ships

WOCE World Ocean Circulation Experiment
16 Feely, R.A., and C.L. Sabine (eds.)

Appendix II

Ocean Carbon Cycle Data Management Workshop

Agenda

October 25–26, 2001

Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory

Seattle, Washington

25 October

0800–0830 Coffee

0830–0840 Welcome Eddie Bernard

0840–0850 Introduction and Logistics Dick Feely, Marilyn Roberts

0850–0920 Agency Perspectives: NOAA, NSF,

NASA Future program directions

Lisa Dilling, Mike Johnson, Don Rice,

Chuck McClain

0920–0945 Overview of Ocean Carbon Programs Dick Feely

0945–1000 Break

1000–1030 Water Column Data and QA/QC ProtocolsPlenary Talk: Chris Sabine

1030–1100 Underway Data and QA/QC ProtocolsPlenary Talk: Rik Wanninkhof

1100–1130 Mooring data and QA/QC Protocols Plenary Talk: Francisco Chavez

1130–1200 Data Assimilation into Models Plenary Talk: Niki Gruber

1200–1300 Lunch

1300–1330 Live Access Servers and Data ManagementPlenary Talk: Steve Hankin

1330–1400 Metadata Requirements Plenary Talk: Margarita Conkright

1400–1430 OA/QC Procedures at CDIAC Plenary Talk: Alex Kozyr

1430–1445 Break

1445–1600 Breakout Group I: Underway Data

Requirements

Discussion Leader: Rik Wanninkhof;

Rapporteur: Andrew Dickson

1445–1600 Breakout Group II: Water Column

Data Requirements

Discussion Leader: Chris Sabine; Rapporteur: Jim Swift

1445–1600 Breakout Group III: Mooring Data

Requirements

Discussion Leader: Nick Bates; Rapporteur: Francisco Chavez

1600–1615 Break

1615–1700 Breakout Group Reports Breakout Group Leaders

1700–1730 General Discussion Dick Feely

1730 Adjourn

1900–2100 Dinner at Anthony’s Home Port
Oceanic Carbon Data Management Plan 17

26 October

0800–0830 Coffee

0830–0930 Should there be one or more central

facilities responsible for archiving all

carbon and related parameter data?

If so, how should the data center(s)

be structured to meet the needs of the

community?

Discussion Leader: Robin Brown; Rapporteur: T.-H. Peng

0930–1000 How should the data management

center(s) interact with the PIs to assure that high quality CO2 data are

being archived? How should the scientists be acknowledged for including

their data in the databases?

Discussion Leader: Andrew Dickson;

Rapporteur: Chuck McClain

1000–1030 Break

1030–1130 Will there be public access to new

data sets that still need QA/QC

work before inclusion into long-term

databases? Should we develop improved WWW-based tools for data

display/distribution? What information should be provided by the server?

Discussion Leader: Steve Hankin; Rapporteur: Dave Glover

1130–1300 Lunch

1300–1400 Should the data management center(s) be responsible for providing

gridded data sets for modeling purposes? Will the gridded data sets be

developed in a uniform manner?

Discussion Leader: Joanie Kleypas;

Rapporteur: Bob Key

1400–1430 Should the historical data sets be integrated with the new Carbon Cycle Science Program database? If so, how?Discussion leader: Robin Brown; Rapporteur: Margarita Conkright

1430–1500 Break

1500–1530 How should the interagency and national data sets be integrated with

data from other countries?

Discussion Leader: Tom Boden; Rapporteur: Margarita Conkright

1530–1630 General Discussion and Summary Dick Feely

1630 Adjourn

Notes: Each discussion leader is required to provide a written report of their individual session.

Dick Feely and Chris Sabine will summarize the reports into a final workshop document.
18 Feely, R.A., and C.L. Sabine (eds.)

Appendix III

List of Participants

Nicholas R. Bates

Bermuda Biological Station for Res., Inc.

17 Biological Station Lane

Ferry Reach, GE 01

BERMUDA

Tel: 441-297-1880

Fax: 441-297-8143

E-mail: nick@sargasso.bbsr.edu

Thomas Boden

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

P.O. Box 2008, MS 6335

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6335

USA

Tel: 865-241-4842

Fax: 865-574-2232

E-mail: bodenta@ornl.gov

Robin Brown

Ocean Science and Productivity Division

Institute of Ocean Sciences

P.O. Box 6000

Sidney, BC V8L 4B2

CANADA

Tel: 250-363-6378

Fax: 250-363-6310

E-mail: BrownRo@pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca

John Bullister

NOAA/PMEL/OCRD

7600 Sand Point Way NE

Seattle, WA 98115-6349

USA

Tel: 206-526-6741

Fax: 206-526-6744

E-mail: bullister@pmel.noaa.gov

Alexander S. Bychkov

North Pacific Marine Science Organization

c/o Institute of Ocean Sciences

P.O. Box 6000

Sidney, BC V8L 4B2

CANADA

Tel: 250-363-6364

Fax: 250-363-6827

E-mail: bychkov@pices.int

Kenneth G. Caldeira

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Mail Stop L-103

7000 East Avenue

Livermore, CA 94550

USA

Tel: 925-423-4191

Fax: 925-422-6388

E-mail: kenc@llnl.gov

Francisco Chavez

Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute

P.O. Box 628

Moss Landing, CA 95039-0628

USA

Tel: 831-775-1709

Fax: 831-775-1645

E-mail: chfr@mbari.org

Margarita Conkright

NESDIS HQTR - E/OC5

Bldg: SSMC3 Rm 4350

1315 East-West Hwy

Silver Spring, MD 20910-3282

USA

Tel: 301-713-3290 x193

Fax: 301-713-3303

E-mail: Margarita.Gregg@noaa.gov

Catherine E. Cosca

NOAA/PMEL/OCRD (JISAO)

7600 Sand Point Way NE

Seattle, WA 98115-6349

USA

Tel: 206-526-6183

Fax: 206-526-6744

E-mail: cosca@pmel.noaa.gov

Michael DeGrandpre

Department of Chemistry

The University of Montana

Missoula, MT 59812

USA

Tel: 406-243-4118

Fax: 406-243-4227

E-mail: mdegrand@selway.umt.edu
Oceanic Carbon Data Management Plan 19

List of Participants (cont.)

Andrew Dickson

Marine Physical Laboratory

Scripps Institution of Oceanography

University of California, San Diego

Mail Code 0902

9500 Gilman Drive

La Jolla, CA 92093-0902

USA

Tel: 858-534-2582

Fax: 858-456-9079

E-mail: adickson@ucsd.edu

Lisa Dilling

NOAA/OAR - R/OGP

1100 Wayne Ave., Suite 1210

Silver Spring, MD 20910-5603

USA

Tel: 301-427-2089 x106

Fax: 301-427-2073

E-mail: dilling@ogp.noaa.gov

Scott C. Doney

Climate and Global Dynamics

National Center for Atmospheric Research

P.O. Box 3000

Boulder, CO 80307-3000

USA

Tel: 303-497-1639

Fax: 303-497-1700

E-mail: doney@ncar.ucar.edu

Rana A. Fine

RSMAS/MAS

University of Miami

4600 Rickenbacker Causeway

Miami, FL 33149-1098

USA

Tel: 305-361-4722

Fax: 305-361-4917

E-mail: rfine@rsmas.miami.edu

Marjorie A.M. Friedrichs

Center for Coastal Physical Oceanography

Old Dominion University

Crittenton Hall

Norfolk, VA 23529

USA

Tel: 757-683-5560

Fax: 757-683-5550

E-mail: marjy@ccpo.odu.edu

Dave Glover

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Dept. of Marine Chemistry and Geochemistry

MS #25

Woods Hole, MA 02543

USA

Tel: 508-289-2656

Fax: 508-457-2193

E-mail: david@whoi.edu

Dana Greeley

NOAA/PMEL/OCRD

7600 Sand Point Way NE

Seattle, WA 98115-6349

USA

Tel: 206-526-6693

Fax: 206-526-6744

E-mail: greeley@pmel.noaa.gov

Nicolas Gruber

Center for Earth Systems Research

University of California, Los Angeles

405 Hilgard Avenue

Los Angeles, CA 90095

USA

Tel: 310-825-4772

Fax: 310-206-3051

E-mail: ngruber@igpp.ucla.edu

Steve Hankin

NOAA/PMEL/OCRD

7600 Sand Point Way NE

Seattle, WA 98115-6349

USA

Tel: 206-526-6080

Fax: 206-526-6744

E-mail: hankin@pmel.noaa.gov

Dennis Hansell

RSMAS/University of Miami

Div. of Marine and Atmospheric Chemistry

4600 Rickenbacker Causeway

Miami, FL 33149

USA

Tel: 305-361-4078

Fax: 305-361-4689

E-mail: dhansell@rsmas.miami.edu
20 Feely, R.A., and C.L. Sabine (eds.)

List of Participants (cont.)

Matthew Harrison

NOAA/GFDL

PO Box 308

Princeton, NJ 08542-0308

USA

Tel: 609-452-6579

Fax: 609-987-5063

E-mail: Matthew.Harrison@noaa.gov

Gregory Johnson

NOAA/PMEL/OCRD

7600 Sand Point Way NE

Seattle, WA 98115-6349

USA

Tel: 206-526-6806

Fax: 206-526-6744

E-mail: gjohnson@pmel.noaa.gov

Michael Johnson

NOAA/OAR - R/OGP

1100 Wayne Ave., Suite 1210

Silver Spring, MD 20910-5603

USA

Tel: 301-427-2089 x169

Fax: 301-427-2073

E-mail: johnson@ogp.noaa.gov

Robert Key

Geosciences Department

Princeton University

B80 Guyot Hall

Princeton, NJ 08544

USA

Tel: 609-258-3595

Fax: 609-258-1274

E-mail: key@wiggler.Princeton.edu

Joanie A. Kleypas

UCAR

P.O. Box 3000

Boulder, CO 80307-3000

USA

Tel: 303-497-1316

Fax:

E-mail: kleypas@ucar.edu

Alexander Kozyr

CDIAC/Environmental Sciences Division

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

U.S. Department of Energy

Building 1509, Mail Stop 6335

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6335

USA

Tel: 865-576-8449

Fax: 865-574-2232

E-mail: ako@cdiac.esd.ornl.gov

Charles R. McClain

NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center

Mailstop 970.2, Building 28, Room W107

Greenbelt, MD 20771-0001

USA

Tel: 301-286-5377

Fax: 301-286-1755

E-mail: mcclain@calval.gsfc.nasa.gov

Frank Millero

RSMAS/University of Miami

Division of Marine and Atmospheric Chemistry

4600 Rickenbacker Causeway

Miami, FL 33149-1098

USA

Tel: 305-361-4731

Fax: 305-361-4689

E-mail: fmillero@rsmas.miami.edu

Calvin Mordy

NOAA/PMEL/OCRD

7600 Sand Point Way NE

Seattle, WA 98115-6349

USA

Tel: 206-526-6870

Fax: 206-526-6744

E-mail: mordy@pmel.noaa.gov

Raymond G. Najjar

Department of Meteorology

503 Walker Building

The Pennsylvania State University

University Park, PA 16802-5013

USA

Tel: 814-863-1586

Fax: 814-865-3663

E-mail: najjar@essc.psu.edu
Oceanic Carbon Data Management Plan 21

List of Participants (cont.)

Tsung-Hung Peng

NOAA/AOML - R/AOML/OCD

4301 Rickenbacker Causeway

Miami, FL 33149-1026

USA

Tel: 305-361-4399

Fax: 305-361-4392

E-mail: peng@aoml.noaa.gov

Marilyn Roberts

NOAA/PMEL/OCRD

7600 Sand Point Way NE

Seattle, WA 98115-6349

USA

Tel: 206-526-6252

Fax: 206-526-6744

E-mail: roberts@pmel.noaa.gov

Detlef B. Stammer

Physical Oceanography Research Division

Scripps Institution of Oceanography

9500 Gilman Drive

La Jolla, CA 92093-0230

USA

Tel: 858-822-3376

Fax: 858-534-9820

E-mail: dstammer@ucsd.edu

James Swift

WOCE Hydrographic Program Office

Physical Oceanography Research Division

SIO/University of California, San Diego

Mail Code 0214

9500 Gilman Drive

La Jolla, CA 92093-0214

USA

Tel: 858-534-3387

Fax:

E-mail: jswift@ucsd.edu

Robbie Toggweiler

NOAA/OAR - R/GFDL

P.O. Box 308

Princeton, NJ 08542-0308

USA

Tel: 609-452-6659

Fax: 609-987-5063

E-mail: jrt@gfdl.gov

Rik Wanninkhof

NOAA/AOML/OCD

4301 Rickenbacker Causeway

Miami, FL 33149-1026

USA

Tel: 305-361-4379

Fax: 305-361-4392

E-mail: wanninkhof@aoml.noaa.gov