Deliverable 2.10 Synthesis of gap analysis and exploitation of the existing Arctic observing systems

• Main Authors: Tjernström, Michael, Pirazzini, Roberta, Sandven, Stein, Sagen, Hanne, Hamre, Torill, Ludwigsen, Carsten, Beszczynska-Möller, Agnieszka, Gustafsson, David, Heygster, Georg, Sejr, Mikael K., Ahlstrøm, Andreas Peter, Navarro, Francisco, Goeckede, Mathias, Zona, Donatella, Buch, Erik, Johannessen, Truls, Sørensen, Mathilde B., Soltwedel, Thomas, Danielsen, Finn
• Format: Report
• Language: English
• Published: Zenodo 2019
• Subjects: Arctic; INTAROS; Observing Systems; Gap Analysis; Exploitation
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7050807

This report presents a synthesis of the substantial assessment of Arctic observations within INTAROS.Since the assessed systems mainly belong to the European partners in the project, the assessment is unavoidably biased towards the European sector of the Arctic. The detailed results of the assessment can be found in previous deliverables (D2.1, D2.2, D2.4, D2.5, D2.7, D2.8 and D2.12). Also some higher-level recommendations for future improvements of Arctic observing are taken into account. The assessment addresses a substantial subset of Arctic observing systems, data collections and satellite products across scientific disciplines, also including some data repositories and a brief scientific gap analysis. In the assessment we analyzed sustainability, including funding, technical maturity and data handling for the entire chain from observation to users, including metadata procedures and availability of data. The gap analysis includes both technical characteristics, such as spatial and temporal coverage and resolution or accuracy, and a smaller set of scientific gap analyses where models and observations were used synergistically. Each characteristic of the observing systems were ranked from maturity 1 (lowest score) to maturity 6 (highest score) based on the results of the survey. In the synthesis wefirst ranked the systems according to general sustainability and then other characteristics were used. The range in maturity of sustainability varied from 1 to 6, and so did the other characteristics. A noteworthy result was that systems with high sustainability scores tended to score high also on other characteristics, such as data handling and technical maturity. Moreover, many systems with high maturity in sustainability, as well as in data handling and data availability, are supported by national or international monitoring or infrastructure programs. It is also noteworthy that several of these are mostly present at mid-latitudes, but poorly represented in the Arctic. For observations over Arctic land, the ...