Comprehensive Quality Assessment of recent Climate Data Records for ECVs NO₂, HCHO and CO

International audienc

The Operational Sentinel-5 Precursor Geophysical Products and Perspectives for Sentinel-4

The Sentinel-5 Precursor (S5P) mission, launched in October 2017, started the operational atmospheric composition measurements from space as part of the European Copernicus programme. The payload of the S5P mission is the TROPOspheric Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI) that provides key information on air quality, climate and the ozone layer with high spatial resolution and daily global coverage. In this presentation we provide an overview of the operational TROPOMI geophysical products including O3, NO2, SO2, HCHO, CO, CH4, as well as UV, cloud and aerosol properties. The European teams responsible for the operational products are organized in three groups covering: (i) retrieval algorithms, (ii) data processors being used in the S5P ground-segment for the generation of the operational TROPOMI products, and (iii) routine validation of S5P products using fiducial reference measurements. It is planned to maintain this project organization during the complete mission in order to ensure the timely provision of state-of-science data products that are continuously improved and validated. Initial versions of the TROPOMI products were already available a few weeks after launch and were presented at the first light event that took place in December 2017. The retrieval algorithms and data processors were optimized during the commissioning phase that lasted until April 2018 and the results of the preliminary validation were presented in June 2018. Finally the first set of operational S5P products was released to the public in July 2018. The release of the remaining S5P products is organized in a staggered approach and will take place during the second part of 2018 and early 2019. The work on TROPOMI/S5P geophysical products is funded by EU Copernicus, ESA and national contributions from The Netherlands, Germany, Belgium and Finland

The Difficult Reception of Rigorous Descriptive Social Science in the Law

Mutual disdain is an effective border patrol at the demarcation lines between disciplines. Social scientists tend to react with disdain when they observe how their findings are routinely stripped of all the caveats, assumptions and careful limitations once they travel into law. Likewise, lawyers tend to react with disdain when they read all the laborious proofs and checks for what looks to them like a minuscule detail in a much larger picture. But mutual disdain comes at a high price. All cross-border intellectual trade is stifled. This paper explores the social science/law border from the legal side. The natural barriers turn out to be significant, but not insurmountable.Specifically the paper looks at the challenges of integrating rigorous descriptive social science into the application of the law in force by courts and administrative authorities. This is where the gap is most difficult to bridge. The main impediments are implicit value judgments inherent in models, conceptual languages and strictly controlled ways of generating empirical evidence; the difference between explanation, hypothesis testing and prediction, on the one hand, and decision-making, on the other; the ensuing difference between theoretical and practical reasoning, and the judicial tradition of engaging in holistic thinking; last but not least, the strife of the legal system for autonomy, in order to maintain its viability.If a legal academic assumes the position of an outside observer, she may entirely ignore all these concerns and simply follow the methodological standards of descriptive social science. This is, for instance, what most of law and economics does. The legal academic may, instead, choose to contribute to the making of new law. She will then find it advisable to partly ignore the strictures of rigorous methodology in order to be open to more aspects of the regulatory issue. But it is not difficult, at least, to follow the standards of the social sciences for analysing the core problem. The integration is most difficult if an academic does doctrinal work. But it is precisely here where the division of intellectual labour between legal practice and legal academia is most important. Academics who themselves are versatile in the respective social science translate the decisive insights into suggestions for a better reading of statutory provisions or case law