Dear Michael and all, I fully agree with your approach and the steps you enumerate. Just a few notes: a) Your numbers 2, 3, and 4 are all in process, though of course more can be done on all of them. b) I have started creating a way to download the "latest snapshot" from the GLIMS database, such that one will receive the latest available outline for each glacier. In the future this could fill the needs now met by the RGI. We could also implement the downloading of other time slices, not just the latest. c) Some people prefer the RGI data model, where nunataks are represented by holes in outline polygons, rather than the GLIMS data model of using separate polygons for nunataks. I intend to write code to convert back and forth between these models. d) The funding level for GLIMS at NSIDC is currently still rather low. We're waiting to hear about one proposal in to NASA, and are keeping our fingers crossed. Best regards, Bruce 2013-11-30, 09:44: Michael Zemp wrote:
Dear Graham, Dear colleagues,
First of all, I highly appreciate the great efforts of the Randolph group towards an improved understanding of the global glacier distribution. It came just in time to compensate for the somehow slowing enthusiasm (and lack of operational manpower) of the GLIMS community.
I fully understand that the Randolph group is now looking for ways to secure the legacy of their efforts beyond IPCC AR5. At the same time, I would like to stress that in our mainly science-driven system there is not enough funding for running and regularly (and redundantly) updating more than one operational glacier inventory database. (We already went through that exercise when the GLIMS database operationally replaced the WGI database: then the solution was to include all new inventories with digital outlines into the GLIMS database and to only update the WGI when larger datasets in the WGI-format and without outlines become available.)
The GLIMS database is able storing multi-temporal datasets with exact time stamps and full metadata but has not yet global coverage. The Randolph dataset is designed as a temporal snapshot in time with global coverage but in many regions lacks of exact time stamps and comes with limited metadata.
In my view, the following approach would allow joining both Randolph and GLIMS efforts: (1) Freeze the Randolph dataset at the present or a later version (depending on available funding and manpower of the driving projects) and continue making it available from the GLIMS website (hosted at NSIDC). (2) Bring down the technical and manpower barriers for including glacier outlines into the GLIMS database (hosted at NSIDC). (3) Include the high-quality glacier outlines from the Randolph dataset (after adding time stamps and re-attribution; cf. Paul et al. 2009) into the GLIMS database. (4) Actively continue updating the GLIMS database with new glacier outlines at highest possible quality and metadata level. (5) Derive a new version of the Randolph dataset (other any other product) once another important event (e.g. IPCC AR6) comes along with a specific purpose and with the opportunity for getting additional funds.
I wish you a nice GLIMS dinner with fruitful discussions at AGU and I'm looking forward to a constructive joint solution implemented next year.
Best, Michael
Reference: Paul, F., Barry, R.G., Gogley, J.G., Frey, H., Haeberli, W., Ohmura, A., Ommanney, S.C.L., Raup, B., Rivera, A. and Zemp, M. (2009): Recommendations for the compilation of glacier inventory data from digital sources. Annals of Glaciology, 50 (53).
+ + + +
Michael Zemp
Director WGMS, Dr. sc. nat.
email: michael.zemp@geo.uzh.ch phone: +41 44 635 51 39
World Glacier Monitoring Service Department of Geography University of Zurich Winterthurerstrasse 190 8057 Zurich SWITZERLAND
wgms@geo.uzh.ch http://www.wgms.ch On 27.11.2013 19:14, Graham Cogley wrote:
Dear all - I sent an earlier version of the attached document to the authors of the paper about the Randolph Glacier Inventory, and one or two others, in September. The idea was to suggest that, with the imminent appearance of the GLIMS Book and (we hope) acceptance of the RGI paper, now is a good time to reflect on the future of both datasets, separately and together. GLIMS has evolved dramatically over its lifetime, and so has the RGI over its much shorter span.
I have not altered the original text about "GLIMS2?", but Bruce has set me straight on one or two points and he and I have had some discussion about others. However I have added the wish list from the conclusion of the RGI paper to indicate the direction in which the RGI authors think it might be heading.
Because I don't know who will be at the GLIMS dinner during AGU (evening of the Wednesday?), I am sending this to the whole GLIMS list with an invitation for comment/discussion - not about details but rather about generalities.
Graham.
J. Graham Cogley, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Geography, Department of Geography, Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario, CANADA K9J 7B8.
Tel +1 705-748-1011-x7686 Email gcogley@trentu.ca Web http://www.trentu.ca/geography/glaciology
_______________________________________________ GLIMS mailing list GLIMS@nsidc.org https://nsidc.org/mailman/listinfo/glims
-- Bruce H. RAUP National Snow and Ice Data Center University of Colorado 449 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309 Phone: 303-492-8814 http://cires.colorado.edu/~braup/