U.S. GLOBEC Scientific Steering Committee Minutes
Boulder, CO --- 10-11 Mar 94
DAY ONE (Thursday, 10 March 1994; Damon Room, NCAR)
Present from the steering committee were: Powell (Chair),
Costa, Durbin, Gaines, Hofmann, Hollowed, Huntley, Mountain,
Olson, Ortner, Robinson. Steering committee members not
present were Briscoe, Dickey, P.Smith and S. Smith. Others
present at the meeting were Peterson (NOAA), Taylor (NSF),
Eakin (NOAA), Garrison (NSF), Batchelder (U.S. GLOBEC SSC
Office), Jaffe (SIO), Haidvogel (Rutgers), Doney (NCAR) and
Gent (NCAR). After introductions, Powell noted several
changes to the agenda: first, Rothschild will be unable to
attend and asked Robinson to summarize the GLOBEC.INT meeting
at Jekyl Island for him; Second, the order of some of the
agenda items was rearranged in minor ways. Powell noted that
the agenda reflected three issues that were to be covered:
(1) modeling, (2) budget cuts, especially as they may affect
the NW Atlantic Program, and (3) an implementation plan for
the California Current.
CHAIR'S REPORT
The U.S. GLOBEC SSC office is moving (probably in May) from
the University of California, Davis to the University of
California, Berkeley. Batchelder has agreed to continue in
his capacity at the new location. The administrative
assistant position, held by Sharon Lynch, will have to be
advertised and filled in Berkeley. Sharon prefered not to
transition to Berkeley with the office and has taken a
position as the Assistant to the Agriculture Dean on the
Davis campus. Powell expressed to the SSC Sharon's regrets
that she would no longer be working with such a wonderful
group. We discussed the sites and dates of future SSC
meetings. The next meeting will be held at Oregon State
University in Corvallis, OR on 9-10 June. The fall meeting
will be held on the 6-7 October 1994 in Washington, DC.
After discussion of the nominees for new membership to the
SSC, it was moved, seconded and passed that the nominations
of Ted Strub (Oregon State) and Paul Bentzen (Univ.
Washington) be accepted.
Powell noted that there was a short summary of the Open Ocean
Workshop (co-chaired by Larry Madin and Mike Landry) included
in the briefing book. Powell expected that a full report of
the workshop would be available for more complete discussion
at the June meeting. Anyone wishing to convey comments on
the draft summary of the report was requested to get their
comments by March 25 to Batchelder, who would forward them to
Madin for consideration. Powell summarized the status of the
Long-Range Planning document as "essentially finished". There
were comments from only two or three people following the
presentation by Robinson at the October 1993 SSC meeting.
The document is to be finalized and printed.
SOS DISCUSSION
Ortner reviewed for the others the principal recommendations
of the Sampling and Observation System (SOS) report of
GLOBEC.INT. Ortner compared the findings of that report with
that of the three U.S. GLOBEC reports (Molecular, Optical,
Acoustic Technologies). It was pointed out that despite all
of these workshops and a perceived need for further
development and application of advanced technologies, there
had been only a very small amount of GLOBEC dollars spent in
these arenas. The SOS document has a much broader
perspective than the three prior documents, but is very
similar in technology and content; there are some entirely
new things in the SOS document, such as technology for
primary production and chlorophyll measurement, that were
purposefully left out of the earlier U.S. GLOBEC documents.
The concept of having a test bed for new technologies is a
recurrent theme of the SOS document. Ortner felt that perhaps
the test bed concept was inappropriate in some places and
that rather what is needed is joint sampling using different
technologies. Jaffe, who attended the SOS meeting, pointed
out that the "test bed" concept was one of many
recommendations from the SOS workshop, and that no specific
recommendation should be considered higher in priority than
any of the others.
Ortner pointed out that non-US scientists and engineers,
especially those of Japan, France, Scandinavia and the U.K.,
have been very important in developing new technologies and
instruments. Ortner felt that SOS conclusions 8-10 were the
most important. Mountain made the analogy that oceanographic
acousticians and opticians now might be at the point that
current meter investigators were 15-20 years ago. Namely,
there are the wizards (who understand the instruments and
techniques to the nth degree), the cogniscenti (who rely on
the wizards for interpretation and guidance) and the yahoos.
What the community needs now is a mechanism to train the
yahoos so they are more like the cogniscenti and the
cogniscenti so they are more wizardry. In other words,
access and understanding of existing technologies, as opposed
to new technologies, is needed. We discussed how the
Technology subcommittee should proceed and decided that it
should undertake to review all of the technology reports of
both U.S. GLOBEC and GLOBEC.INT. In addition, we developed a
list of issues to be considered by the committee. They will
act upon these items and provide recommendations on how U.S.
GLOBEC should proceed with regard to technology issues by our
October 1994 meeting.
MODELING
Scott Doney and Peter Gent, both of NCAR, provided
presentations on NCAR modeling activities. Doney summarized
modeling that has been done recently in the oceanography
section, including global ocean models, equatorial Pacific
and North Atlantic models and upper ocean and flux models.
He presented results from an upper ocean model of the JGOFS
Bermuda time-series station investigating physical and
biological factors regulating phytoplankton biomass.
Physical forcings included surface forcing by heat flux and
winds. The model he described is unique in that it, unlike
other surface forced models, provides an accurate description
of entrainment events and does well over the long-term
(interannually). Grazing parameterization is tricky, and a
fairly simple modified Ivlev function was used. Gent
summarized some models of large-scale ocean circulation which
incorporate mixing along isopycnals instead of horizontal
(cross-isopycnal) mixing to parameterize eddies in a 4 degree
longitude by 3 degree latitude resolution. The results
indicate that the new model, using isopycnal mixing, does a
better job in replicating the depth of the thermocline and
the temperature of the deep ocean than do earlier models.
Dale Haidvogel described some of the problems and advances
that he and his modeling group at Rutgers have been
addressing. Major problems in circulation models are the
complex geography and irregular bathymetry, out of date
numerical algorithms, and open boundaries in regional
modeling. He summarized the community ocean circulation
models that have been developed and showed results from semi-
primitive equation models and spectral finite element models.
A difficult issue remaining is how to generate the most
appropriate grid to model. One possibility is to overspecify
the resolution and through an iterative process determine
where the resolution can be decreased with relatively little
adverse effect upon the models accuracy in predicting ocean
circulation. Several of the models he discussed can make use
of parallel architecture computers.
Hofmann summarized the results of a Workshop on Secondary
Production Modelling held in February 1993. The four
recommendations resulting from the workshop discussions were
that (1) behavioral attributes of the species being modeled
needed to be better known and included in models; (2) there
needed to be an integration of models across a number of
scales, including both temporo/spatial and biological
(individual-population-community) organization; (3) a
mechanistic model of the life-history of one (or several)
animal(s) needed to be developed; and (4) that there needed
to be stronger ties and communication between empiricists,
experimenters, and modelers. The question was raised of
whether U.S. GLOBEC should consider supporting a community-
wide effort to distribute and develop biological modeling
framework, much like the community circulation models
developed and supported by Haidvogel's lab. Hofmann replied
that she and George Jackson were submitting a proposal to ONR
to support such an activity, but it was unclear how it would
all come about and to what extent different
languages/approaches to modeling would be supported.
Bill Buzbee, Sally Haerer and Dan Anderson (all of NCAR) gave
a tag-team presentation of the computing facilities/resources
of NCAR. The emphasis was on how smaller computers could be
clustered to relieve the computing load on the supercomputer.
Some types of models, e.g., community climate, CO2 transport,
mesoscale, generalized coupled models and chemistry coded
models are very well suited to parallel processing.
Robinson reported the results of the GLOBEC.INT working group
(WG) on numerical modeling. The terms of reference for the
working group were to (1) assess coupled interdisciplinary
models and foster developments in them; (2) unify modeling
and observational efforts and research and advance
interdisciplinary data assimilation techniques; and (3)
provide scientific oversight and guidance to international
modeling programs. The latter would be accomplished by
communications, workshops, and providing for
intercomparisons, validations and the development of modular
model components. Specific recommendations from the working
group are that the variables selected for monitoring and
modeling be relevant core variables. The WG felt that
phytoplankton needed to be size-fractionated, that maximum
zooplankton growth rates needed to be determined as a
function of temperature at satiated food conditions, and that
natural and predator based mortality rates had to be
estimated. The working group recommends the design and
implementation of a coupled model and observational network
to include data assimilation, the development of an ecosystem
model that is consistent with and can be evaluated using
remotely sensed variables and an emphasis on observational
system simulation experiments (OSSE's). Finally, the WG
recommends that multiscale nested interdisciplinary models
for data assimilation be developed, that annual workshops be
held to discuss research issues and provide cross-
disciplinary training, and that better data management and
sharing are necessary to foster improved modeling and
observations.
AGENCY REPORTS
Phil Taylor and Bill Peterson gave short reports of the
funding situation for U.S. GLOBEC. NSF has provided slightly
>$4M for FY94, of which roughly $3.8M is going to the NW
Atlantic program. For FY95, NSF has requested a $2.5M
increase for U.S. GLOBEC, which, if it is received, will be
devoted to U.S. GLOBEC activities like modeling, Southern
Ocean, and California Current.
NOAA was able to provide only $1.3M in FY94 for Georges Bank
due to onforeseen funding cuts (of $900K) received by the
Office of Global Programs. An increase in funding is
expected in FY95 which will permit NOAA to initiate some
GLOBEC projects in the California Current. We had a lengthy
discussion about why U.S. GLOBEC absorbed such a large
funding cut in FY94 from OGP and what could be done about it.
NW ATLANTIC UPDATE
Dave Mountain and Peter Ortner provided the SSC with an
update on the planning activities and progress of the funded
NW Atlantic investigators. In October 1993, the U.S. GLOBEC
Georges Bank executive committee was formed; it consists of
ten funded PI's and is chaired by Peter Wiebe. The GB
ExecComm has met three times, and all of the funded PI's met
once to plan the field programs for 1994 and 1995. Many of
the funded PI's presented papers at the Ocean Sciences
meeting in San Diego in a session on the Stratification Pilot
Experiment, chaired by Wiebe and Mountain. The pilot data
management program for GB has been initiated with the JGOFS
distributed database system installed on some systems.
[Since the meeting, a GLOBEC Georges Bank Information and
Data system has been brought online; it us set up to use
Mosaic, a public domain Internet information browser.] Wiebe
and Dan Lynch attended the Canadian OPEN meeting held in
March, with the intention of fostering and building
relationships with Canadian scientists investigating the NW
Atlantic region. Wiebe will provide a report of this meeting
with the Canadians to the U.S. GLOBEC Steering Office.
Finally, Mountain reviewed how the NW Atlantic PI's have been
dealing with the funding crisis caused by the $900K cutback
from NOAA. First, several of the senior PI's immediately
traveled to Wash., DC to learn the seriousness of the problem
and to discuss options. The GB ExecComm was tasked by Zack
Powell at a meeting in San Diego (during the Ocean Sciences
meeting) to restructure (with help from all of the PI's) the
science program with the understanding that the program can
not expect order $7M per year, but more likely ca. $5.5M per
year. They agreed to assume this task and to have a PI
meeting by the end of March 1994, which would provide
recommendations to the program managers on how to restructure
the program and reallocate resources. Options include
postponing funding into future years, doing without specific
science elements, and eliminating proposed tasks.
DATA MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
The U.S. GLOBEC Data Management Policy report has been
published and was distributed to the SSC. Len Walstad has
informed the SSC office that he is willing to remain chair on
this subcommittee for another year; we were pleased to accept
his offer. Now that the Policy has been published it was
decided that perhaps it was time to re-evaluate the TOR of
the data management committee. Ortner and Olson agreed to
examine and modify as appropriate the TOR of this committee.
We discussed (1) whether to pursue a joint (w/ JGOFS) data
management office to be located at WHOI, (2) how to provide
oversight for getting GLOBEC data into on-line databases so
that it is accessible to other investigators, and (3)
collaborations with NODC.
DAY TWO (Friday, 11 March 1994; Damon Room, NCAR)
CALIFORNIA CURRENT
In addition to those attending the first day, we were joined
for day two discussions by Ted Strub (OSU) and Kevin
Trenberth (NCAR). We spent most of the morning discussing
the California Current (CC) planning document that Strub's
writing team has produced. Strub provided an overview of how
the planning document had been prepared, the climate
rationale for working in the California Current, and the
major elements of the program. The major elements are
envisioned to be mesoscale and large-scale field programs,
retrospective research and modeling studies, and augmented
monitoring of physical and biological conditions of the
California Current.
During the discussion of the planning document a number of
issues arose. First, many of the SSC thought that the
document was not specific enough to be called an
Implementation Plan. Strub and Batchelder pointed out that
the intent of the document was to provide the rationale,
scientific questions, and a strategy for pursuing climate
connections to animal populations in the California Current,
and that the IP was purposefully kept general with the idea
that there would be one (or more) more focused RFP(s) issued,
perhaps in conjunction with the NSF sponsored CoOP program.
Eakin noted that a general CC IP might be damaging to U.S.
GLOBEC at the funding decision level, because it would not be
viewed as a clean, saleable program. Trenberth noted that
the document needs to be more compelling, perhaps by
addressing more clearly the impacts on the biology of several
specific climate change scenarios. He also expressed concern
about how GLOBEC would be able to distinguish fishery effects
from climate effects in a system, like the California
Current, subject to severe human impacts. Costa commented
that a core hypothesis should be identified that can be
answered with the money available so that at the end of the
program GLOBEC can provide evidence of an incremental
increase in understanding of the problem. Huntley suggested
adding a timeline to the CC document to provide a clear
strategy for achieving the objectives. Several members made
suggestions about changing specific sections, and/or
rearranging sections to change the emphasis of the document.
Specific changes are not detailed here. Several thought that
a bold (testable) hypothesis should be included in the plan,
but other members disagreed. Most thought that the document
needed repackaging to place greater emphasis on some sections
and especially, to tighten the connections between the
largest question and the multitude of more specific
questions. Finally, we agreed that this document should not
be called an Implementation Plan, but rather a Science Plan.
After all of these discussions, Durbin moved that the SSC
approve a plan to proceed with repackaging the document to
address the comments expressed at the SSC meeting and that
the document be published after review. Robinson amended the
motion to specify that the review be done by a group of three
SSC members. The amended motion was seconded and passed
without opposition. All comments on the California Current
document are to be provided to Batchelder by 1 April.
PICES
Hollowed reviewed PICES activities in the North Pacific,
especially their interests in a study of the salmon carrying
capacity of the North Pacific. We decided to discuss this
issue in greater detail at the June SSC meeting in Corvallis.
It was suggested that Warren Wooster or Dan Ware or both be
invited to the June meeting to provide overviews on PICES
planning activities and interests.
GLOBEC INTERNATIONAL
Since Rothschild was unable to attend the meeting, Robinson
summarized recent GLOBEC.INT planning activities. There have
been five GI scientific planning meetings between February
and August 1993: population dynamics and physical
variability, sampling and observation systems, cod and
climate change, southern ocean, and numerical modeling. The
working group on retrospective studies (code named PRUDENCE)
has not met yet. Other possible GLOBEC.INT initiatives may
be a Black Sea GLOBEC study, and a tropical/subtropical blue
water GLOBEC. Advanced interdisciplinary modeling and
observation have emerged as a theme from all of the GI
discussions that have occurred to date. A strategic planning
meeting is planned for mid-July 1994 in Paris, after which
GLOBEC.INT will make formal application to become a core
program of IGBP. Robinson also reminded the SSC that
GLOBEC.INT will have a one-day session on GLOBEC
International/ICES following the August ICES Zooplankton
production meeting in Plymouth. Also, there will be a
meeting of the Small Pelagic Fish and Climate Change working
group in June in La Paz, Mexico.
SCIENCE TALK
Jules Jaffe provided an overview on the acoustical and
optical instruments that he has been developing with support
from NSF's Ocean Technology/GLOBEC. He spoke of the
difficulty in obtaining real-time size distribution
information of scatterers using acoustics. He described the
theory and application of multi-array sonars to provide
three-dimensional images of targets. He showed a video of
the acoustically determined tracks of individual euphausid-
sized organisms from a cruise off the U.S. West coast. New
optical technology is being developed to provide fine-scale
(1 cm) resolution sensing of chlorophyll in three dimensional
volumes. In conclusion he said that he is seeking
applications for these instruments; e.g., What are the
scientific questions? The instrumentation to answer the
questions may be available already, or may be available in
the near future.
SOUTHERN OCEAN
Huntley reviewed the recommendations resulting from the
GLOBEC.INT workshop in Norfolk, VA. There will be a second
GLOBEC.INT Southern Ocean planning meeting, probably in
Cambridge, UK in June 1994 [Subsequently, Huntley has
informed me that this meeting is now scheduled for 6-8 June
in Bremerhaven, Germany]. Issues that remain to be addressed
include: what is the potential for interaction between GLOBEC
and JGOFS in a Southern Ocean study, timing and location of a
U.S. component of a Southern Ocean field program, and the
timing and direction of an RFP to support modeling activities
in the Southern Ocean [for release by the Office of Polar
Programs]. He noted that he and Hofmann have provided agenda
suggestions to Victor Smetacek for the Bremerhaven meeting.
BLUE WATER
We deferred discussion of blue-water items till the June
meeting, when hopefully we will have available the full
workshop report from the Blue Water meeting chaired by Larry
Madin and Mike Landry. Peterson did note that one way in
which GLOBEC might be able to get some Long-Term Blue water
science and sampling done is by using the vessels which
service the TOGA-TAO array in the equatorial Pacific.
OUTREACH
Huntley reviewed activities of the outreach committee.
First, the U.S. GLOBEC brochure has been completed and was
distributed from an exhibition booth at the AGU/ASLO Ocean
Sciences meeting. Olson suggested that the brochure be sent
to all of the Sea Grant offices. Huntley reminded the
committee of the results of his visit in October to the
Global Change Meeting in Washington, DC, in which the
emphasis in the global change community may shift from study
of global change to amelioration of the impacts of global
climate change. Huntley suggested that key scientists from
the NW Atlantic program, Powell and others might meet with
non-govermental organizations (e.g., fisheries groups,
environmental groups, etc.) in Washington in a half-day mini-
symposium to provide information about what U.S. GLOBEC is
doing on Georges Bank. We discussed how to better publicize
U.S. GLOBEC through the media. The suggestion was made that
we prepare a press release which details what U.S. GLOBEC is
doing on Georges Bank and how it may eventually provide
information about the ecosystem that will be useful in better
management of these commercially important groundfish stocks.
OTHER ITEMS
Peterson and Huntley reported on two zooplankton rate
measurement calibration workshops that are being conducted
this spring. The first will be held in Norway in April
(Convenor, Bamstedt) and will evaluate several techniques and
approaches to measurement of growth rates of Calanus
finmarchicus in large enclosures. The second, organized by
Huntley, will be in Hawaii in April 1994, specifically to
compare a number of biochemical indices of growth with more
conventional methods. It was proposed that a workshop be
held between key members of the two groups to exchange
results and recommendations and to prepare several articles
for publication in the peer-reviewed literature. Huntley
agreed to contact Skjoldahl about such a joint meeting.
ADJOURN AT 1552
Quote of the meeting....
I apologize if I'm reinventing the wheel, but as long
as its circular reasoning it is OK ---Jules Jaffe
Runner-up....
When the facts are against you argue the law, when the
law is against you argue the facts, when both the law and the
facts are against you, call the guy names ---Dave Mountain
