Why Cyberinfrastructure/Geoinformatics? (The view of a working class geophysicist) G. Randy Keller - University of Oklah

1. 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 neededto move us forward.

2. 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. 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 What is Geoinformatics? From Wikipedia

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.)

7. 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

8. 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.

9. What we observe The geosynclinal interpretationMarshall Kay (1948) North American Geosynclines

10. Figures from Steve Dutch Modern interpretations We can create the observed structure in place via subduction Or by terrane accretion

11. The Ring of Fire

12. Seismicity become well known in the 1960’s

13. Benioff/Wadati Zone of Japan

14. Focal Mechanisms

15. Transform vs Strike-slip The offset looks like it is right lateral, but it is really left lateral.

16. Focal mechanisms for transform faults were a big part of the story

17. Magnetic stripes in the oceans and the discovery of magnetic field reversals was an independent line of evidence.

18. The area south of Iceland and correlation with the emerging time scale for magnetic field reversals told the story

19. The ocean floor was a “magnetic recorder”

20. 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

21. An Integrated Geologic Framework for EarthScope’s USArray (one goal of Geoinformatics and the GeoSwath) GeoTraverse http://tapestry.usgs.gov/

22. SomeThoughts 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. www.geongrid.org

23. 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 www.geongrid.org

24. A Scientific Effort Vector Background Research Data Collection and Compilation/ Software issues Science Back- ground Research Data Collection and Compilation/ Software Issues Science Science - Analysis, Modeling, Interpretation, Discovery www.geongrid.org

25. 4-D Evolution of ContinentsThe 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 www.geongrid.org

26. 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 ………. www.geongrid.org

27. 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 …… www.geongrid.org

28. Science ChallengesRocky 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. www.geongrid.org

29. Science QuestionsRocky 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 www.geongrid.org

30. 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/Sveco-norwegian orogeny largely completed the formation of Rodinia. www.geongrid.org

31. 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. www.geongrid.org

32. Isostatic residual map www.geongrid.org

33. SOA index www.geongrid.org

34. Crustal model derived by integrated analysis of seismic, geologic, and gravity data www.geongrid.org

35. MesozoicCenozoic 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. www.geongrid.org

36. Rio Grande Rift Similar to Kenya rift in most respectsDeep (up to 7 km), linked basinsExtension increases, crust thins, and elevation decreases from Colorado southwardMagmatism 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?) www.geongrid.org

37. Depth to Moho (Crustal Thickness)

38. Isostatic residual map www.geongrid.org

39. Integrated lithospheric model Albuquerque area www.geongrid.org

40. LA RISTRA www.geongrid.org

41. SHEAR WAVE TOMOGRAPHY West et al. 2004 www.geongrid.org

42. Kenya vs Rio Grande rifts www.geongrid.org

43. 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)

44. Geoscience data and techniques are hugely diverse and heterogeneous (so are the people involved) Conodont stratigraphy aulacogen lahar xenolith Shear wave splitting offlap dacite paleomagmatism Poisson’s ratio isostatic residual breccia

45. 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.

46. The Meeting’s Goals • Define the content of a National Geoinformatics System • Identify the technology via which such a system could be created • Create a process for moving forward to jointly plan and develop such a system. 50 individuals from 37 different organizations and 15 states attended

47. 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

48. 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)

49. 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”

50. 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