Why the Geological Sciences Need Cyberinfrastructure (Geoinformatics) (The view of a working class geophysicist)

1
Why the Geological Sciences Need
Cyberinfrastructure (Geoinformatics) (The view
of a working class geophysicist)
G. Randy Keller University of Oklahoma
Cyberinfrastructure is a very broad term in
regard to both information technologies and
scientific discipline. Geoinformatics is also a
term that many geoscientists and geospatial
scientist employ. However this term is used
within the Earth Science division at NSF, and
there is an funding competition in this field.
2
This is why!
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.
GEON is only one such project.
3
A Scientific Effort Vector
A visualization of why

Background Research
Data Collection and Compilation/
Software issues
Science
Back- ground Research
Data Collection and
Compilation/ Software Issues

Science
Science - Analysis, Modeling, Interpretation,
Discovery
4
Another reason why is that what we do has very
broad application to many significant issues
beyond our own intellectual curiosity.

• Environmental studies (pollution, site
  characterization, .)
• Natural hazards (earthquakes, floods, landslides,
  .)
• Natural resources (petroleum, geothermal,
  nuclear, .)
• Water resources (groundwater, surface water, .)
• Mineral resources (metals, industrial, uranium,
  .)
• National security (CTBT monitoring, tunnel
  detection, .)
• Engineering studies (dams, bridges, buildings, .)

5
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. 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
Education Geoinformatics Research Group, School
of Civil Engineering Geosciences, Newcastle
University, UK
From Wikipedia
6
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.

7
Geoinformatics - Some key elements

• A strong partnership between domain experts
  (geoscientists) and computer scientists
• A shared goal of doing better (and more) science
• A desire to create products that the scientific
  community actually needs and will use (not what
  you think they need or should want)
• Always give credit to original sources of data,
  software, etc.
• A desire to preserve data, make it easily used
  and discovered, and create living databases
• A desire to create user friendly and platform
  independent software
• A desire to facilitate data integration
• A desire to create cyberinfrastructure
  breakthroughs (e.g., visualization, 3-D model
  building editing, etc.)
• A desire to democratize the use of cutting edge
  technology in geoscience research and education

8
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 scientific data that
  exist now and the vast data flows that are
  produced by projects such as EarthScope
  (www.earthscope.org) 2) foster integrated
  scientific studies that are required to address
  the increasingly complex scientific problems that
  face the 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.
• Democratization of science is one
  goal.

9
Cyberinfrastructure - NSF Blue Ribbon Panel Report

• The Panels 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 todays
  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. Geoinformatics

10
The EarthScope Project is a big driver in the
geological sciences for CI/Geoinformatics

• 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
• 1700 4000 campaign seismic stations
  (LittleFoot)

from Greg Van der Vink
11
The EarthScope Scientific Vision
To understand the structure (evolution) and
deformation of the North American continent in
four dimensions (x,y,z,t)
12
Cyberinfrastructure for the GeosciencesWhy does
EarthScope need it?
Future research opportunities in the geosciences
will be significantly affected both by the
availability and utilization of Information
Technology. Understanding the rock record that
preserves 4.5 billion years of history, Earth
structure, and the processes at work is the key
to answering scientific questions associated with
studies of biodiversity, climate change,
planetary processes, natural resources and
hazards, and the 4-D architecture and evolution
of continents. It has become evident that we can
only answer these complex questions through the
integration of all the data we have at hand and
that this will require the application of modern
IT tools.
13
USArray
14
Just a little geological background
15
Plate Tectonics - A true late 20th Century
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.)
16
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.
Wegners continental fit
University of Leeds
17
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.
18
What we observe
The geosynclinal interpretation Marshall Kay
(1948) North American Geosynclines
19
Modern interpretations
Figures from Steve Dutch
We can create the observed structure in place via
subduction
Or by terrane accretion
20
The Ring of Fire
21
Seismicity become well known in the 1960s
22
Benioff/Wadati Zone of Japan
23
Focal Mechanisms
These beach balls tell us the stress directions
in the earth, and if we have some geologic
control, the direction the fault moved.
24
Transform vs Strike-slip
The offset looks like it is right lateral, but
it is really left lateral.
25
Focal mechanisms for transform faults were a big
part of the story
26
Magnetic stripes in the oceans and the discovery
of magnetic field reversals was an independent
line of evidence.
27
The area south of Iceland and correlation with
the emerging time scale for magnetic field
reversals told the story
28
The ocean floor was a magnetic recorder
29
Putting all of these results together allowed us
to define relatively rigid plates that formed a
spherical jigsaw puzzle of the the Earths
surface. The discovery of plate tectonics is a
classic example of the power of data integration.

30
Plates-topo-East-hemi
31
Plates-topo-West-hemi
32
Crust, Lithosphere, Asthenosphere
The Moho is the base of the crust The uppermost
mantle is part of the lithosphere
The 3rd Dimension
http//csmres.jmu.edu/geollab/Fichter/PlateTect/li
thosphere.html
33
Deep Earth Structure
The mantle transition zone (410 and 660 km)
34
A summary of deep Earth structure
The mantle transition zone (410 and 660 km)
35
Types of Plate Boundaries
Divergent / Rifts / Extension Convergent /
Collisional / Compression Transform / Strike-slip
/ Shear
36
Even with all the EarthScope data, we need lots
of other geological and geophysical data.

• 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
37
An Integrated Geologic Framework for EarthScopes
USArray (one goal of Geoinformatics and the
GeoSwath)
http//tapestry.usgs.gov/
38
An example of the role of data4-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
A flow from data to knowledge
39
Science ChallengesRocky Mountain Testbed
Some examples of integration from a GEON 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.
40
Some Key Science QuestionsRocky Mountain Testbed

• What is the nature of the processes that formed
  the continent during the Proterozoic?
• What is the 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?

Time is the 4th dimension
41
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.
42
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.
43
Isostatic residual map
44
Cambrian
By Ron Blakey (Northern Arizona University)
45
By Ron Blakey (Northern Arizona University)
46
By Ron Blakey (Northern Arizona University)
47
By Ron Blakey (Northern Arizona University)
48
Penn
By Ron Blakey (Northern Arizona University)
49
The AncestralRockies
Collision along the Ouachita continental margin
has long been the favored but debated explanation
for their development, but .
1500 km
Ye et al.
Kluth and Coney
50
The Ancestral Rocky Mountains
The ARM formed in the late Paleozoic and are a
globally significant example of intraplate
deformation. The processes that formed them are
the subject of considerable debate and a major
tectonic paradox. The basins and structures that
formed during the ARM deformation constitute a
major potential petroleum province whose deep
structure and lateral extent are not a well known
as is often assumed. The EarthScope initiative is
an opportunity to work together to better
understand this tectonic paradox.
51
From Whitmeyer and Karlstrom GEOSPHERE
Proterozoic growth of Laurentia
535 Ma
Rodinia breakup Rifting of Argentine
Precordillera from Texas embayment Opening
of Oklahoma Aulacogen, Reelfoot Rift
Eastern rifting
52
Precambrian Terranes and Rifts
The rifts cut across the Precambrian structural
grain
Isostatic Residual
53
Ouachita Orogenic Belt
54
Location of Integrated Models of Crustal Structure
PASSCAL experiment
Llano profile
Residual gravity anomalies
55
PASSCAL Experiment Integrated Model
Where is the evidence for a strong collision
that would cause intraplate deformation?
North
56
The Trans-European Suture Zone (TESZ) region in
Central Europe has been the focus of massive
recent seismic experiments and the results
provide useful analogies to the Ancestral Rocky
Mountains and Ouachita Orogenic belt.
P4 seismic profile
57
Baltican and Laurentian Margins Compared
Bohemian Massif
The Variscan orogeny in Central Europe appears to
be another relatively soft collision but the
intraplate deformation in Baltica is minimal.
58
Locations of Integrated Models of Crustal
Structure
PASSCAL experiment
Llano profile
Residual gravity anomalies
59
Llano Uplift Profile
Yucatan probably rifted off of this area in the
early Mesozoic
60
Wichita. Amarillo index
The Southern Oklahoma aulacogen
The key ARM structure
61
Afar vs. SOA Triple Junctions
The scales are approximately the same
62
SOA experiment index
UTD/UTEP Refraction/WAR Experiment AMOCO Research
Crew 21 large shots
63
SOA Velocity Model-Upper Crust
64
Crustal model derived by integrated analysis of
seismic, geologic, and gravity data

• The mafic core of the Wichita uplift resides
  almost completely in the upper plate of the
  Mountain View thrust system (45o dip).
• The Anadarko basin is 15 km deep.
• Is the Proterozoic basin an exploration
  opportunity?

2.6
Thrust
2.7
2.9
65
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.
66
Rio Grande Rift
Similar to Kenya rift in most respectsDeep (up
to 7 km), linked basins Extension 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?)
67
Depth to Moho (Crustal Thickness)
Based on the subjective integration of a wide
variety of seismic measurements. Our goal is
quantitative integration that reveals the
uncertainties and areas where more data are
needed.

68
Isostatic residual map
69
Integrated lithospheric model the Albuquerque
area based on gravity, seismic reflection,
seismic refraction, drilling, and geologic
data.Nice enough, but only 2-D!
70
LA RISTRA
71
SHEAR WAVE TOMOGRAPHY
New information resolving issues about the mantle
- still only 2-D
West et al., 2004
72
Kenya vs. Rio Grande rifts
73
A COMMUNITY WORKSHOP AND EMERGING ORGANIZATION TO
SUPPORT A NATIONAL GEOINFORMATICS SYSTEM IN THE
UNITED STATES
An Example of What the Geological Community is
doing to advance Geoinformatics

• 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)

74
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
Poissons ratio
isostatic residual
breccia
75
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.

76
The Meetings 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
77
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

78
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)
79
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

80
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
81
What might this organizational structure look
like?

• A federation of existing projects?
• A consortium?
• A corporation?

Try to imagine herding cats!
82
Thank You!