Difference between revisions of "Category:Lake Sediments Working Group"
Nick mckay (Talk | contribs) (Add initial depth discussion) |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
== Specific tasks == | == Specific tasks == | ||
| + | Thinking about data standards for lakes is a challenging task because of the incredible diversity of observations made on this archive. To start this process, the working group will focus on developing standards for the one variable in lake sediments that all scientists rely on: depth. | ||
| − | + | After we've done this process for depth, I suggest we reach out and broaden this group to include broad expertise of different sensor and observations types. A preliminary list is presented below. | |
| − | For | + | == Task 1: Depth == |
| + | How should we report depth? | ||
| + | |||
| + | For this discussion we recommend: | ||
* structuring discussions around what scientific questions one would want to ask of the data | * structuring discussions around what scientific questions one would want to ask of the data | ||
* listing essential, recommended, and optional information for: | * listing essential, recommended, and optional information for: | ||
| Line 18: | Line 22: | ||
* provide an '''ideal data table''' for each type of observation, so the community knows what to report and how to report it. | * provide an '''ideal data table''' for each type of observation, so the community knows what to report and how to report it. | ||
* provide separate recommendations for new and legacy datasets | * provide separate recommendations for new and legacy datasets | ||
| + | |||
| + | Initial thoughts on depth: | ||
| + | *We want to know both mid-point depth and thickness, or top and bottom depth. | ||
| + | **Top and bottom depth is more explicit and self explanatory, but typically requires an additional step to use for analysis | ||
| + | **Mid-point depth is more typically reported, and is what is needed for most age models, but can be ambiguous | ||
| + | <poll> | ||
| + | What should be the primary way of reporting depth of samples taken from lake sediments: | ||
| + | Mid-point depth and thickness | ||
| + | Top and bottom depth | ||
| + | Something else | ||
| + | </poll> | ||
| + | ** I suggest we allow both, and recognizing that conversion is staightforward | ||
| + | * We need to distinguish between measured depth and modeled depth, in the cases where a composite depth scale is used. | ||
| + | * We need to ensure a common reference. I suggest that depth always refers to depth below lake floor. | ||
| + | |||
== Sensors == | == Sensors == | ||
An initial recommendation is to focus on different sensors: | An initial recommendation is to focus on different sensors: | ||
| + | |||
=== Diatoms === | === Diatoms === | ||
| Line 32: | Line 52: | ||
Here are polls that the group might want to consider: | Here are polls that the group might want to consider: | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
<references \> | <references \> | ||
Revision as of 12:21, 21 September 2016
Contents
Overview
In the Linked Earth context, a working group (WG) is a self-organized coalition of knowledgeable experts, whose activities are governed herewith. This page is dedicated to the discussion of data and metadata standards for lake sediments, and aims to formulate a set of recommendations for such a standard. Note that chronological aspects should be discussed within the Chronologies WG.
Members of 'Lake Sediments Working Group'
This working group has 15 members.
Specific tasks
Thinking about data standards for lakes is a challenging task because of the incredible diversity of observations made on this archive. To start this process, the working group will focus on developing standards for the one variable in lake sediments that all scientists rely on: depth.
After we've done this process for depth, I suggest we reach out and broaden this group to include broad expertise of different sensor and observations types. A preliminary list is presented below.
Task 1: Depth
How should we report depth?
For this discussion we recommend:
- structuring discussions around what scientific questions one would want to ask of the data
- listing essential, recommended, and optional information for:
- the measurements themselves
- any inference made from the measurements (e.g. calibration to temperature)
- the underlying uncertainties, and what those numbers correspond to (e.g. 1-sigma or 2-sigma?)
- provide an ideal data table for each type of observation, so the community knows what to report and how to report it.
- provide separate recommendations for new and legacy datasets
Initial thoughts on depth:
- We want to know both mid-point depth and thickness, or top and bottom depth.
- Top and bottom depth is more explicit and self explanatory, but typically requires an additional step to use for analysis
- Mid-point depth is more typically reported, and is what is needed for most age models, but can be ambiguous
You are not entitled to view results of this poll.
- I suggest we allow both, and recognizing that conversion is staightforward
- We need to distinguish between measured depth and modeled depth, in the cases where a composite depth scale is used.
- We need to ensure a common reference. I suggest that depth always refers to depth below lake floor.
Sensors
An initial recommendation is to focus on different sensors:
Diatoms
Pollen
Leaf waxes
Polls
Here are polls that the group might want to consider:
References
This category currently contains no pages or media.
