U.S. GLOBEC Scientific Steering Committee Meeting Minutes

The National Science Foundation

Conference Room

North Arlington, Virginia

15-16 December 2005

Thursday, 15 December 2005

Members in attendance were Dale Haidvogel, Chairperson  (Rutgers), Michael Alexander (NOAA-CIRES), Nick Bond (NOAA), Kendra Daly (USF), Michael Fogarty (NOAA/NMFS), Jonathan Hare (NOAA), Eileen Hofmann (ODU), Dennis McGillicuddy (WHOI), Arthur Miller (Scripps), David Mountain (NMSF/NOAA), Jeff Polovina (NOAA/NMFS), Ted Strub (OSU), Francisco Werner (UNC), and Peter Wiebe (WHOI)

Guests in attendance included Hal Batcheldar (OSU), Enrique Curchister (Lamont), Madeline Gazzale (Rutgers), Linda Lagle (WHOI), Phil Taylor (NSF), Beth Turner (NOAA). Mary-Elena Carr (NSF), Scott Bors (NSF), Marie Bundy (NSF), Robert Marinelli (NSF), Polly Penhale (NSF), Bernhard Lettau (NSF), Eric Itswiere (NSF).

Members not in attendance were David Ainley (H.T. Harvey), Jennifer Burns (UA Anchorage), Yochanan Kushnir (Lamont), Pat Livingston (NMFS/NOAA), Steven Murawski (NOAA/ NMSF), Thomas (Zack) Powell (UC Berkeley), and Suzanne Strom (WWU).

Dale Haidvogel, Chairperson of the SSC, called the meeting to order at 0900 hours. 

He reviewed the two main tasks of the day’s agenda which include a review of the current status of the synthesis phase for each of the three regional programs and the discussion of the end phase of GLOBEC including the kinds of legacy projects and products that will be undertaken between now and the end of the program.  Connections with the major climate modeling centers, skill assessment, ecosystem management, synthesis implementation and books will be discussed.  SSC member introductions were made as were introductions of several visitors from NSF.

     Agency Report:  NOAA

     Beth Turner started the NOAA Report by stating that going into the budget conference $27-$28M was earmarked for extramural research.  Unfortunately, the actual funding was cut to $10M. GLOBEC funding is in jeopardy since it is not identified as a specific line item under “Extramural Research” in the budget as in the past.  GLOBEC has been lumped into the general extramural budget.    Beth’s office is trying to get an additional eight million dollars put into the extramural fund. 

The good news is that NOAA is committed to fund continuations on GLOBEC projects. These include projects that NOAA committed to in FY 2005.  All of the work in the California Current system will continue to be funded.  Unfortunately, some of the new AO for the Northwest Atlantic and the Gulf of Alaska Programs are not considered continuations by Beth’s superiors and will not be grandfather into the spending plan.  There is an indication that these projects will be funded at some level.  NOAA wants to continue funding GLOBEC, but at what level is still an unknown.   

The question was raised as to what GLOBEC can do to insure that projects are considered continuation and not new starts. Beth noted that GLOBEC is always welcomed to communicate with upper level NOAA.  There is a lot of competition for the money that is in the budget.  Although GLOBEC is recognized as an important program so are all of the other programs. 

Beth noted that the House and the Senate marks this year show that they believe in GLOBEC. The reason GLOBEC lost its line item at the last minute was due to the consolidation of NOAA budget lines. 

It was mentioned that a group of GLOBEC PIs did go to the Hill in the spring and spoke to legislators and the budget office.    The suggestion was made that the SSC should go to the Hill each year and should also have a letter writing campaign. 

The comment was made that GLOBEC should push for additional extramural funds for science across the board not just for GLOBEC projects. 

There was also some discussion of the letter that was sent by Dale Haidvogel on behalf of GLOBEC to Admiral Lautenbacher.  A copy of the letter was given to each SSC member. It was stated that these letters are important in getting the GLOBEC message out there.

     Agency Report:  NSF

     Phil Taylor presented the NSF Budget Report.  He stated that there is no budget as of yet this year.  There are no funded projects at this point, but several projects have been slated for funding when funds become available.  There are budget problems at NSF regarding issues of ship time due to the rise in fuel costs. 

GLOBEC funding is expected to be approximately $7M. 

     Northwest Atlantic Georges Bank Program

     Peter Wiebe presented an update of the Phase IV Synthesis Activities for the Georges Bank Program.  He began by giving an outline of his presentation which included discussions of the activities outline, Current Phase IVA and New Phase IVB Projects, Ocean Science Meeting – GLOBEC Sessions, DSR –II, Overview of GB December PI Meeting and EXCO.  He reviewed the highlights of the Time Line that he has been updating since the inception of the program in 1992.  There have been several DSR Volumes and one JGR Volume.  There have been numerous workshops and meetings throughout the program which he briefly highlighted.

The four Phase IV- A Synthesis Projects that are currently funded are:  1) The Physical Oceanography of Georges Bank and Its Impact on Biology; 2) Zooplankton Population Dynamics on Georges Bank: Model and Data Synthesis; 3) Patterns of Energy Flow and Utilization on Georges Bank; and 4) Tidal Front Mixing and Exchange on Georges Bank: Controls on the Production of Phytoplankton, Zooplankton and Larval Fishes.   

He also listed six of the Phase IV – B Synthesis Projects that are nearly funded. Five of the project should receive funding, but this is yet to be determined.  These include: 1) U.S.-GLOBEC: NWA Georges Bank - Processes controlling abundance of dominant copepod species on Georges Bank: Local dynamics and large-scale forcing; 2) US GLOBEC: NWA Georges Bank: Impacts of Climate and Basin-Scale Variability on Seeding and Production of Calanus finmarchicus in the Gulf of Maine/Georges Bank Region; 3) US GLOBEC: NWA Georges Bank: Effects of climate variability on Calanus dormancy patterns and population dynamics in the Northwest Atlantic; 4) US GLOBEC: NWA Georges Bank. Factors determining early-life-stage survival & recruitment variability in N. Atlantic cod: a comparison between NW Atlantic & Norwegian Sea Systems; 5) US GLOBEC: NWA/Georges Bank - Marine Ecosystem Responses to Climate-Associated Remote Forcing from the Labrador Sea; 6) US GLOBEC: NWA GEORGES BANK - Effects of marine reserves on cod and haddock population dynamics: application of GLOBEC results to ecosystem management.

He then spoke about U. S. GLOBEC’s participation at the upcoming Ocean Sciences Meeting which will be held in Honolulu, Hawaii from February 20-24, 2006.  There will be three oral sessions with six talks per session and a poster session with 27 posters.  The oral session topics are 1) Biological and Physical Processes in Northeast Pacific Coastal Regions 2) Dynamics of Plankton and Nekton in the Georges Bank and Western Antarctic Peninsula 3) Climate and environmental influences on euphausiids and the poster session’s topic is Recent Results from Studies of Coastal Ecosystems.

There have been 20 manuscripts submitted to the Special Issue of the Deep-Sea Research II Volume.  This is the third volume that has been produced by the Northwest Atlantic GLOBEC Program.  Peter provided a list of manuscript titles and the names of the authors.  The manuscripts were grouped into different topic sections within the volume. Peter then encouraged all the SSC members to go into the U. S. GLOBEC website and update the status of their publications.  Many manuscripts need to be updated. 

Peter then gave a brief review of the six projects that are likely to receive funding.  The first project he spoke about was the Processes controlling abundance of dominant copepod species on Georges Bank:  Local dynamics and large-scale forcing.   He showed a slide of the model domain that they will be using which contains physical forcings including FVCOM, local dynamics, large-scale forcing, SW Intrusions and upwelling.   The target species are calanus, pseudocalanus, temora, oitona and centropages.  The working hypothesis states that the seasonal evolution of characteristic spatial patterns of each dominant copepod species on GB is predictable from the interaction between its characteristic life-history traits and physical transport.  Other hypotheses are:  H10:  The abundance of copepod species on the bank is controlled by food availability (bottom-up control) with an alternative hypotheses of predatory control (top-down), combination of food-limitation and predation and physical control including direct effects of temperature on vital rates and multi-scale advection-diffusion processes. H20:  Copepod populations on GB and/or the GOM region are not self-sustaining. H30:  Catastrophic warming causes a regime shift from cold-water copepod species to warm-water ones.

The overall objective is to understand the underlying biological-physical mechanisms controlling the seasonal development of spatial patterns of dominant copepod species on Georges Bank. More specifically it is to examine how local dynamics and external forcing control the abundance of these species on Georges Bank determine the degree to which top-down versus bottom up processes control the dominant copepod species on Georges Bank. FVCOM together with GLOBEC and other data sets are used to conduct targeted numerical experiments that explore the likelihood of the hypotheses.

Impacts of Climate and basin-scale variability on the seeding and production of Calanus finmarchicus in the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank was the next project that Peter spoke about.  The goals and objectives are to probe the connections between Calanus finmarchicus distributions and the physical oceanographic properties, climate variability, and basin-scale circulation changes that are likely to affect the copepod’s transport onto Georges Bank.  This will be done by using a combination of numerical model simulations and observational data.

The approach will be to set up and run an individual based model (IBM) for the Northwest Atlantic, using the high-NAO (1980-1993) and low-NAO (1962-1971) forced physical fields from an eddy-resolving North Atlantic simulation. Also, they will perform a set of eddy-resolving basin-scale model simulations during 1988-1999 starting from already existing high-NAO simulations (from the ongoing NASA project) and run the IBM to study the interannual variability of C. finmarchicus seeding and production in this region.  They will analyze long-term in-situ physical and biological datasets and satellite-derived sea surface temperature (SST) along with in-situ physical, biological, and chemical data collected during the GLOBEC core-measurement period (1995-1999), and validate the basin-scale physical and biological fields to develop a broader understanding of C. finmarchicus seeding and production. Four-dimensional high-resolution (5-km) physical fields using basin-scale fields and available data during 1993-1999 will be generated, and a series of IBM simulations at higher resolution will be run in order to address questions relating ecosystem variability on the Scotian Shelf, on Slope Sea and within the Gulf of Maine and on Georges Bank to the large-scale fluctuations of the NAO. Proposed simulations for GLOBEC include the basin-scale simulation for 1993-1999 starting from decadal simulations from the NASA project.  These will be forced with monthly NCEP reanalysis fields. 

The bio-physical hypothesis states:  The occurrence of large populations of Calanus finmarchicus in the coupled GB/GoM system requires (1) high seed stocks (supply) of diapausing C.finmarchicus in the deeper ocean regions nearby (GOM basins and the Slope Sea), (2) that the deep C. finmarchicus stocks terminate diapause at the appropriate time to be synchronous with continental shelf spring blooms, and (3) a nutrient enriched, highly productive ecosystem in the GB/GoM to sustain high growth and survival rates of Calanus that will provide seed for the subsequent year.  Prediction A states: Overwintering Calanus finmarchicus seed stocks are LOW and GB/GoM productivity is high when the water masses of the Slope Sea have little influence (input) from Labrador-Irminger Gyre (Labrador Slope Water) water masses (due to the relatively nutrient replete bottom waters and low Calanus supply in Warm Slope Waters), but C. finmarchicus recruitment is good because of a near-perfect match between the time of diapause awakening and the time of the spring bloom, the latter of which is large because of the higher concentration of nutrients in deep warm slope waters. Prediction B states: Overwintering C.  finmarchicus seed stocks are HIGH and GB/GoM productivity is low when the water masses of the Slope Sea have a large proportion of Labrador Sea water (due to the relatively nutrient-depleted bottom waters and high C. finmarchicus supply in cold Labrador Slope Water), but recruitment and productivity are poor because of the generally low springtime productivity (low nutrients) and a timing mismatch between diapause awakening, ascent and reproduction and the NW Atlantic spring bloom.

In summary, the NASA-funded basin-scale simulation is in progress. The wind forcing fields during 1988-1999 are ready.  This set-up will be used to start GLOBEC period simulations and the Biological IBM will be used to understanding impact of climate and basin scale variability on calfin seeding and production.

The third project was Effects of Climate Variability on Calanus Dormancy Patterns and Population Dynamics in the Northwest Atlantic.  The overall goal of this project is to increase the ability to predict the population response of Calanus species to interannual and longer-term variability in water column temperature and food supply.  The two objectives that will be met are to identify environmental conditions that control onset of dormancy and duration of dormancy and to evaluate how year-to-year and longer-term climate variability in environmental conditions interact with dormancy-control mechanisms to control the life cycle and subsequent population dynamics of Calanus.

The working hypothesis for this project states that regional differences in seasonal population dynamics are driven by common dormancy and physiological rate responses to regional differences in environmental conditions.  He then showed some slides of data sets of different areas within the bank showing the different patterns of Calanus January to December within a given year. 

The next highlighted project was U.S. GLOBEC: NWA Georges Bank, Factors determining early-life stage survival & recruitment variability in North Atlantic cod: a comparison between NW Atlantic & Norwegian Sea Systems.  Peter started with a slide of the Atlantic cod distribution and spawning areas with the mean annual isotherms (oC) indicated.   He pointed out the spawn areas for the cod populations.  The larvae migrate along the Norwegian current flow which is dominated by Atlantic water up into the Bering Sea where they develop and grow.  He then discussed the things that are the same and different between the two regimes.

Georges Bank vs Barents Sea

         High ambient temperature

         Tidally induced turbulence

         Weakly stratified by May due to solar insolation

         Diel light cycle 11-17h

         Significant offshore larval loss

         GB cod mature age 2-3

         Vertical distribution different due to egg buoyancy, mixing

         Principal prey Pseudocalanus, Oithona spp. 

         Advection of prey from Gulf of Maine  

         Adult diet varied

         Low ambient temperature

         Wind induced turbulence

         NwCC strongly stratified due to freshwater runoff

         Continuous light end of May

         Minimal larval loss

         A-N cod mature age 6

         Vertical distribution different due to egg buoyancy, mixing

         Principal prey Calanus finmarchicus

         Advection of Calanus from Norwegian Sea to Barents Sea

         Adult diet depends on Capelin

There are two hypotheses for the NW Atlantic and Norwegian Sea Systems which are: Hypothesis 1: strong and early influx of Scotian Shelf water to GOM leads to an early phytoplankton boom with increased zooplankton abundance downstream to Georges Bank resulting in increased larval cod/haddock growth; and Hypothesis 2: Advection of warm, zooplankton-rich Atlantic water from the Norwegian Sea onto the shelves (Barents Sea) results in increased larval cod growth and survival.

The collaborative implementation within this project includes:

         Modeled basin-scale circulation fields with increased resolution within the regional domains of the two ecosystems,

         Lagrangian (particle tracking) models for application within the regional domains,

         Individual-based trophodynamic models for larval and early juvenile fish growth to be embedded in the regional circulation models,

         Hybrid (full life-cycle) recruitment models that build on results and understanding gained from the detailed process studies and biophysical models.

The selected years of emphasis for the Northwest Atlantic/ Georges Bank include:

         The 1998 field season recorded minimum salinity due to the intrusion of Labrador Slope Water which was observed in the Northeast Channel and eventually came on to Georges Bank from the Gulf of Maine.  High Calanus abundance also was noted that year from the broadscale surveys, as well as high haddock survival.

         The 1999 season was warmer, more stratified, and an earlier Calanus bloom was noted which may have led to a 3rd generation (Durbin et al. 2003).  Contrasting 1999 with 1998, where haddock survival also was high, will serve to check the hypotheses relating recruitment to secondary production.

         The 1995 season had low haddock and cod survival during a warm year where Scotian Shelf intrusion was observed in March and the shelf/slope front moved on-bank to the 60-m isobaths during May.  What effect did these large physical events have on the residing populations?

The selected years of emphasis for the Norwegian Shelf include:

         The 1985 season O-group cod abundance higher, center of biomass displaced further west, distribution covered a broader area, and average length/weight higher.

         The 1986 season O-group cod abundance lower, center of biomass further east, distribution covered a more restricted area, and average length/weight lower.

         Common recent year for basin-scale comparison of climate effects will be selected.

The fifth project discussed was the US-GLOBEC:  NWA/Georges Bank

Marine Ecosystem Responses to Climate-Associated Remote Forcing from the Labrador Sea.  The two hypotheses are 1) Remote forcing of ecosystem processes in the SS/GOM/GB region is mediated not only by the Coupled Slope Waters, but also through the enhanced transport of lower salinity shelf waters derived from upstream sources, including the Labrador Sea.  This focuses on decadal salinity variability (e.g., ‘Great Salinity Anomalies’) and Interannual variability related to the NAO.  2) Remote forcing from the Labrador Sea impacts ecosystem processes not only in the SS/GOM/GB region but also in the Middle Atlantic Bight (MAB). This focuses on Phytoplankton (CPR color index) and Zooplankton variability (CPR and net-based time-series).

There is a Northwest Regional working group of physicists and biologists that have the relevant data and will advise on specific analysis.  There also will be two graduate students who will undertake the analyses in collaboration with the working group members.  A proposal was submitted to the National Center for Ecological Analysis (NCEAS) for methods to incorporate climate variability into fisheries recruitment models. There will be an international working group for this project.  It is anticipated that there will be a close cooperation between these two efforts.  GLOBEC will provide important input to the NCEAS analyses and NCEAS results would provide broader impact for GLOBEC findings. This program has an eighteen month timeline from Spring 2006 until Winter 2008.

The last proposal briefly highlighted by Jon Hare was the U.S. GLOBEC: NWA GEORGES BANK - Effects Of Marine Reserves On Cod And Haddock Population Dynamics: Application Of GLOBEC Results To Ecosystem Management.  The proposal will use the GLOBEC results and ideas to look at the effects of marine reserves on the cod and haddock populations in the ecosystem, while also considering the effects on changes in fishing pressure and environmental variability.  In the mid 1990’s large areas of Georges Bank were closed off to fishing, and the fishing effort was also greatly reduced.  There were also environmental variabilities that affected recruitment to the population.  The purpose of the proposal is to look at these three forcing functions on the dynamics cod and haddock relations in the ecosystem.  The approach was to develop a box model for cod and haddock.  He went on to explain some specifics of how this model would be set up.

Peter then listed the Current and New EXCO members.  The new members are based on the recommended funding.  There is some overlap between the groups.  When asked if he viewed any gaps in the program, Peter noted that he believes there is a lack of focus on the basin as a real target when looking at the dynamics of the target populations.  He noted that this may have to wait until the basin-scale modeling phase. 

     Northeast Pacific Program

     Ted Strub presented an update of the Northeast Pacific Program focusing on the Coastal Gulf of Alaska Synthesis.   Ted began with a slide that showed the areas that make up the Gulf of Alaska area for the benefit of the new SSC members.  These areas include Prince William Sound, the shelf and the line used by the Long-Term Ocean Observing Program (LTOP.)

He went on to restate the three NEP central hypotheses which are:

  1. Production regimes in the Coastal Gulf of Alaska and the California Current System covary, and are coupled through atmospheric and ocean forcing;
  2. Spatial and temporal variability in mesoscale circulation constitutes the dominant physical forcing on zooplankton biomass, production, distribution, species interactions, and retention and loss in coastal regions;
  3. Ocean survival of salmon is primarily determined by survival of the juveniles in coastal regions, and is affected by interannual and interdecadal changes in physical forcing and by changes in ecosystem food web dynamics.

Ted believes the present gap in the NEP program lies with hypothesis two because the focus on zooplankton ecosystem does not involve fish.

Ted went on to review the text that was in the Announcement of Opportunity (AO) which stated that they would like to understand, model and manage the system.  The specific goals of the program are to 1) understand the potential impacts of climate variability and change on the dynamics of shelf ecosystems and on the distribution, abundance and production of several specific target species; 2) embody this understanding in conceptual and quantitative models capable of capturing ecosystems and population level responses over a broad range of spatial and temporal scales; and 3) improve the predictability and management of U. S. living marine resources.  The anticipated products are improved knowledge, robust and reliable coupled biophysical models, detailed and quality controlled datasets, new tools, indices and strategies for management of “key resources.

The five specific research emphases in the AO were:

         How climatic changes in basin-scale winds and buoyancy forcing affects spatial and temporal variability in mesoscale circulation and water column structure.

          How physical features impact zooplankton biomass, production, distribution and their retention and loss from the shelf ecosystem; how these affect juvenile salmon mortality.

         Quantification of key physical and biological processes that affect juvenile salmon growth and survival in the coastal ocean (fresh-water runoff and stratification; primary and secondary production; cross-shelf transport; shelf-slope eddies; timing of seasonal transitions).

          Whether and how the mortality of juvenile salmon determines adult population sizes; how this mortality is related to climate variability.

          Comparison of these questions in the CCS and CGOA.

Ted went on to state that the “appropriate topics” used in the announcement were synthesis of data sets, physical-biological modeling, broader-scale effects influenced by climate change and comparative regional studies (ENSO, “Victoria pattern”, etc.) and development of metrics that characterize environmental and ecosystem status and change.

The seven CGOA Synthesis Projects slated for funding are:

  1. US GLOBEC Northeast Pacific Coordinating and Synthesis Office - Batchelder, Casillas
  2. A synthesis of climate-forced variability on mesoscale structure in the CGOA with direct comparisons to the CCS - Thomas, Schwing, Bograd, Mendelssohn, Strub
  3. Bottom-up control of lower-trophic variability: A synthesis of atmospheric, oceanic and ecosystem observations - Bond, Mordy, Napp, Stabeno
  4. Habitat effects on feeding, condition, growth and survival of juvenile pink salmon in the northern Gulf of Alaska - Haldorson, Adkinson
  5. Synthesis of biophysical observations at multiple trophic levels using spatially nested, data-assimilating models of the coastal Gulf of Alaska - Hermann, Stabeno, Hinckley, DiLorenzo, Rand, Moore, Powell
  6. Modeling the effects of spatial-temporal environmental variability on stage-specific growth and survival of pink salmon in the coastal Gulf of Alaska  - Beauchamp, Armstrong, Myers, Cokelet, Moss
  7. Environmental influences on growth and survival of Southeast Alaska coho salmon in contrast with other Northeast Pacific regions - Botsford, Hastings, Bond, Batchelder, Wertheimer, Adkinson

Ted then listed the CCS Synthesis Projects that were funded a year ago.  They are:

  1. Effects of Meso- and Basin-Scale Variability on Zooplankton Populations in the CCS using Data-Assimilative, Physical-Ecosystem Models - Haidvogel, Powell, Curchitser, Hermann, Allen, Egbert, Kurapov, Miller
  2. Large-scale Influences on Mesoscale Structure in the CCS, A Synthesis of Climate-forced Variability in Coastal Ecosystems - Schwing, Bograd, Mendelssohn, Palacios, Stegman, Strub
  3. Changing Ocean Conditions in Northern California Current-Effects on Primary Production and Salmon - Huyer, Kosro, Smith, Wheeler
  4. Latitudinal variation of upwelling, retention, nutrient supply and freshwater effects in the California Current System - Kosro, Hickey, Ramp
  5. Coupled physical-biological dynamics in the Northern California Current System: A Synthesis of Seasonal and Interannual Mesoscale Variability and its Links to Regional Climate Change - Cowles, Barth, Letelier, Spitz, Zhou
  6. Synthesis of Euphausiid Population Dynamics, Production, Retention and Loss under Variable Climatic Conditions - Peterson, Batchelder
  7. Juvenile Salmon Habitat Utilization in the Northern California Current-Synthesis and Prediction - Casillas, Batchelder, Peterson, Brodeur, Jacobson, Wainwright, Rau, Pearcy, Fisher, Teel, Beckman
  8. Effects of climate variability on Calanus dormancy patterns and population dynamics within the California Current - Leising, Runge, Johnson
  9. Scale-dependent Dynamics of Top Trophic Predators and Prey: Toward Predicting Predator Response to Climate Change - Tynan, Ainley

Ted then showed a chart highlighting how the science projects slated for funding this year meet the five research goals that were stated in the “Announcement of Opportunity” as well as meeting the requirements for the specific topics and products that should be developed from each project.  A second chart cross-referenced each individual project’s research goals, topics and products.  Two additional charts cross-referenced elements included in the proposals such as ecosystem/trophic levels/mesoscale circulation, climate and broader impacts with the six selected projects.  When taking a closer look at the trophic levels Ted noted that there are not enough projects that look at the zooplankton ecosystem structure and rates of zooplankton.  There are one to two projects that address each of these from a modeling aspect.  The other trophic levels were covered.  All the charts were color coded to show NOAA researchers versus NEP’s researchers.

Ted then pointed out that the panel wrote a memo to the SSC requesting the combination of typical oceanographic models with recruitment assessment models.  This was not proposed so the panel asked that this be done in the future.   

Panel advice to the SSC also stated that new modeling approaches need to be developed that merge traditional oceanographic and fisheries models… Thus, it is important for GLOBEC to solicit and fund collaborative, interdisciplinary modeling research that merges these disparate approaches … traditional oceanographic and fisheries modeling approaches - mechanistic, lower trophic-level ecosystem modeling and fisheries / recruitment / management modeling approaches…This gap reflects the current state of the science … This problem reflects the current disciplinary and intellectual divide between oceanographic / biogeochemical modelers and fisheries scientists/ managers who are often physically separated in academic and government laboratories, respectively. … it might involve the extension of mechanistic, lower trophic level biogeochemical models to include explicit representations of various life stages of key fish species. Doing so may require combining Eulerian and Lagrangian approaches and/or mechanistic and empirical models. … might involve developing management models that generate harvest guidelines based on ecosystem or climate information.

… by fisheries scientists, including those that originally framed the NEP program.”

There was some discussion as to what models should be used.  One suggestion was to use the IBM Models throughout.  Another suggestion was made to build a closer coupling with NEP’s scientists that run the assessment models.  It was also noted that there is a working group that is just starting to deal with this kind of data.  This is a critical issue.  NOAA needs to have products like these come out of programs like GLOBEC.

Ted then highlighted the anticipated products from this announcement which include 1) improved knowledge of the impact of climate variability on marine ecosystems of the eastern North Pacific; 2) development and /or refinement of coupled biophysical models; 3) the ground work for future research; and 4) a new basis for resource management.

He went on to point out that there is emphasis on zooplankton, but from the fish level down in one case, from the bottom up in one case, and no one is using the zooplankton rate data that was collected.  Modelers are expressing their concern that they don’t have the information they need to run the models. 

Ted then asked how the SSC committee would like to respond to the panel’s advice.  There were follow-on questions regarding additional AOs, levels of underdevelopment of models, a community ready to respond to a new AO.  There have been several calls for Ecological Forecasting Proposals by NOAA and NASA, but these are not restrictive to fish.  There are groups out there thinking about these issues.  These proposals are being sent through review. 

The GLOBEC/CGOA panel recognized significant gaps in the pool of proposals submitted to the CGOA synthesis RFP.  Namely, there were only two mechanistic ecosystem modeling efforts, both of which were judged deficient in important respects, i.e., neither proposed to simulate larvaceans and/or pteropods which are two of the most important prey items for young of the year of pink salmon.  Moreover, there were no proposals that attempted to bridge the gap between mechanistic, lower trophic-level ecosystem modeling and fisheries/ recruitment/ management modeling approaches.

The discussion continued regarding how to fill this narrow gap between mechanistic, lower trophic-levels ecosystem modeling and fisheries/ recruitment/ management modeling approaches. This should be the short-term goal.  Modelers need to pay attention to zooplankton rate data.  The other gap recognized by the panel is more of a long-term issue.  People need to think about ways to bridge these gaps. 

Dale had then addressed the question of which two actions on the part of the SSC would be beneficial to the panel.  Would it be guidance on the current proposals that are slated for funding or guidance on the structure and language in the new AO to fill the gaps in the program? It was noted that the language in an AO should beprovided.  The program manager needs to know what is critical. 

Hal Batchelder then spoke about the upcoming NEP Scientific Investigator Meeting that will be held from 10-12 January 2006 at the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle, Washington.  There will be a workshop at the conclusion of this two and a half day meeting entitled “Unusual 2005 Conditions.”  Hal also reviewed the agendas and format of this workshop.

He then gave an update of the cruise reports for the CCS and CGOA.  He noted what cruise data sets are available on-line and which ones are not and what information is available.  Hal will be working with Bob Groman to insure that all cruise reports get on-line as soon as possible. There is a need for a cruise report event log.

Hal then gave a brief update on the Climate Change and Carrying Capacity Program (CCCCs) symposium of PICES.  This is one of the major synthesis activities for the NEP region.  The meeting will be held in April in Honolulu.    The three themes of the symposium are regime shifts, ecosystem structure and Pan-Pacific comparisons.  Ninety-three abstracts were received.  The entire meeting is plenary; there will be 39 speaking slots along with poster presentations.  He went on to give the breaking down of the abstracts received.  There were 30 for regime shifts, 34 for ecosystem structures and 29 for Pan-Pacific comparisons.  He then went over who will be giving presentations.

     Southern Ocean

     Eileen Hoffman provided an update of the Southern Ocean GLOBEC activities.  Eileen started by showing a host of different logos that show all the International Players that are involved.  Southern Ocean GLOBEC is an international GLOBEC program.  The U. S. Southern Ocean GLOBEC program is the U. S. contribution to that program.  The International Whaling Commission (IWC) has been a big player in Southern Ocean GLOBEC as well as the Science Committee on Ocean Research (SCOR), SCAR, National Science Foundation (NSF) and IGBP.

Eileen gave a brief outline for her presentation which included U.S. SO GLOBEC program developments, the second SO GLOBEC DSR II volume, upcoming meetings, joint IWC-SO GLOBEC Synthesis Workshop, and the developments in the ICED Program.

A schematic was shown of what GLOBEC has been working on for years.  Planning for GLOBEC began on 1990.  Antarctic krill is the target organism for Southern Ocean GLOBEC.  It has been the focus of the program. The program has involved the predators and competitors and prey for krill which include microbes, whales, plankton, seals, fish, penguins and seabirds.  The program also focuses on food web interactions, animal energetics, atmospheric and ocean forcing, transport retention mixing, sea ice effects, nutrients and food availability, behavior/aggregation and population characteristics.

The U.S. SO GLOBEC program released an AO last fall for synthesis and modeling. Proposal went in this year and funding decisions are underway.  The program office has been funded.  The proposals that were submitted focused their efforts on atmospheric and ocean forcing transport retention mixing, sea ice effect on krill, whales, seals, penguins and seabirds. There is no study that focuses explicitly on the analysis, synthesis or integration of the data sets collected from the U. S. program.  This will compromise the synthesis effort and will limit the ability of the U. S. program to participate in the synthesis activities at the international level.  Discussion continued on ways to improve this situation. 

The second SO GLOBEC DSR II volume is in progress.  Manuscripts are now due, but this deadline may be extended until March of 2006. 

Upcoming meetings include the Ocean Sciences Meeting in February 2006 in Honolulu, Hawaii.  There will be three oral and one poster sessions devoted to GLOBEC science.  There will be a SCAR Open Science Meeting in July 2006 in Hobart, Tasmania. There was a special session on circum-Antarctic studies, convened by Murphy & Hofmann.  A joint IWC-SO GLOBEC Synthesis Workshop was held at CCPO, Norfolk, VA, on 2-4 November 2005.  About 15 participants from U.S., Brazil, and Australia attended; half of these were students/postdocs.  Cetacean biology, physical oceanography, sea ice processes, prey field distribution and abundance, acoustic samplings of cetaceans were the focus.  The objective of the workshop was to identify needs for the next generation of surveys/field work in the Southern Ocean and Antarctic waters and to develop sampling plans and strategies for cetacean research that can be incorporated into the next generation of Southern Ocean surveys/field work

Products developed from this workshop include a concept paper on future of cetacean-ecosystem studies in the Southern Ocean.  This paper has been outlined and is being developed for MEPS.  The development of a time table for modeling efforts and needed data analyses is underway.  Some of the modeling/data analysis has started.  An article describing the workshop is being prepared for the next issue of the International GLOBEC newsletter and a shorter article about the workshop is being prepared for the next issue of the CCPO newsletter.

Eileen then spoke about the Integrated Analysis of Circumpolar Climate Interactions and Ecosystem Dynamics in the Southern Ocean (ICED).  This program is a joint initiative between SCOR, IMBER and International GLOBEC.  There was a workshop held on 24-26 of May at the British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, England.  There were about 30 participants at this meeting which was international in scope.  It was funded by SCOR, SCAR, and EUR-OCEANS.  The main objective was to put together a science plan for ICED and to coordinate upcoming SO programs.

ICED Objectives are:  1) to implement a circumpolar, interdisciplinary approach to understand climate interactions in the SO and implications for ecosystem function and feedbacks to biogeochemical cycles; 2) to implement circumpolar instrumentation and field studies; 3) to extend and further develop circulation, ecosystem, and biogeochemical models; and 4) to stimulate capacity building.  The challenge is to combine the ecosystem and biogeochemical communities.

ICED was proposed as part of the IPY program.  It was accepted as lead project.  It will coordinate 9 projects with ecosystem and biogeochemical science objectives and will attempt to focus the science in these programs on large-scale circumpolar questions. 

Eileen also spoke briefly about what took place at the workshop, including the science themes, data synthesis and availability, and modeling.  In the short term ICED would like to coordinate existing field activities to have a focus on ICED science themes – IPY, provides input to Census of Marine Life and CASO transects that will include biological and physical measurements and develop and upgrade existing monitoring sites (CEMP sites.)  In the long term, there will be a look at comparative studies between regions of the Southern Ocean - Ross Sea, East Antarctica, West Antarctic Peninsula (now showing different responses to climate change) with focus on WAP that extends east and west from there - strongest climate change signal - west gets upstream effects - east get downstream results.  It was thought to look at a targeted program for Amundsen-Bellingshausen Seas region because this area is essentially unstudied.  Circumpolar monitoring arrays, passive acoustics array for cetaceans, cabled observatories will be developed and drifter programs with inclusion of biological sensors will be enhanced.

A workshop report will be out by fall 2005.  A draft sent to steering group and participants for comments.  This report will be developed into a science plan that was discussed with International GLOBEC and IMBER Executive Committees in late October 2005.  A formal request to be a program of International GLOBEC and IMBER was made.  A steering group will be appointed.  A program web site is ongoing at BAS.  The development of key review papers on conceptual food webs/cetacean distributions will be ongoing.  There will be an ICED session SCAR Open Science Meeting in 2006.  There will also be an ICED presentation at IMBER SSC in May of 2006 and Int. GLOBEC SSC in April of 2006.

     Making the Climate Connection:

     National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) Community Climate System

     Model (CCSM) Effort-Initial Simulations

     A presentation entitled “Making the Climate Connection” was presented by Enrique Curchitser from Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University.  The idea is to make a connection between the academic climate modeling communities and GLOBEC.      

Climate variability spans a wide range of temporal and spatial scales.  These scales are not trivially separable.  Meso- and micro-scale processes both develop in, and influence, the physical environment set by the large-scale.  Resolving this interaction of scales is necessary for understanding climate variability.  GLOBEC biological and physical studies concentrate on shelf and coastal processes.  Nevertheless, these have been linked to ENSO, regime shifts, and PDO and NAO. 

So, why is the climate community interested in what GLOBEC is doing?  Considerable research effort is now under way to unravel the complex interaction and feedback among climate, atmospheric chemistry, biogeochemistry, and ecosystem dynamics under past, present, and potential future conditions.  The climate community’s knowledge of many natural phenomena is insufficient to confidently determine their intrinsic predictability.  

Enrique went on to say that the climate community knows that a central question in oceanography is what role mesoscale ocean processes play in establishing the mean climate, its variability, and the response to climate forcing. The majority of the kinetic energy of motions in the ocean exists at scales substantially smaller than those resolved by current versions of ocean component models being used.  These motions include both the time-varying mesoscale ocean eddies and many dominant features of the time-mean general circulation: western boundary currents, eastern boundary upwelling zones, and frontal features.   

It is also known that in order to improve the understanding of ocean mesoscale processes in the global climate system, and to make progress toward refining existing and developing new eddy parameterizations, these models must explicitly resolve these oceanic scales. A suite of simulations in ocean-alone, coupled ocean-ice, and fully coupled mode is needed to investigate the range of scientific questions outlined above.

Distinctive physical features of the land-sea margin, including wind alignment and shear, oceanic surface temperature, and oceanic stratus and orographic cumulus cloud regimes, have important large-scale climate impacts, but they are poorly resolved in present global climate simulations. These effects are particularly significant in tropical, subtropical, and ocean eastern-boundary upwelling regions but may be important in other regions as well. Distinctive biological features of the land-sea margin, including high primary productivity, river/wetland influences, and rapid biogeochemical cycling, have important large-scale impacts on the distributions of the chemical components of the atmosphere and ocean, hence on climate. Again the upwelling regions are conspicuous. Regional climate, ecosystem functioning, and land-surface exchanges in general have significant variance on scales smaller than are well resolved in present global climate simulations. Thus, to assess the regional consequences of global climate change, a means of simulating the downscale influences is necessary, and it is equally important to systematically investigate the possibly important feedbacks onto the large-scale climate from these active interaction zones.

Several slides showing sea surface temperature averaged over five years were shown and discussed as they related to GLOBEC research.  When it comes to downscaling, GLOBEC regions need output from global models to attempt climate-scale integrations.  Studies in GLOBEC regions are also targets of improvements for the global models in upscaling.  Capabilities developed and used by GLOBEC modeling efforts include state-of-the-art regional models, nesting capabilities, biological modeling and data assimilation of physical and biological data.  These are all recent developments that GLOBCE can bring to the climate community.

Enrique then showed numerous slides of previous climate modeling simulations depicting mesoscale features, velocity section, regime shift, cold anomaly, and biology.  These GLOBEC models have been shown around the climate community and have sparked interest.  The GLOBEC connections to climate centers are with GFDL and NCAR.  GFDL has provided some seed money for an FTE to work on a down-scaled U.S. east coast model.  NCAR has already provided seed money for one workshop and will be funding another.  NCAR has also provided a massive computational allocation on their new computer.  This computer is not yet open to the community.  Enrique has been given access to this system and has been running the GLOBEC North Pacific basin model.  At the present time they are looking to come up with:

         “Best” ocean-only hindcasts

         Basin-to-coastal domains forced at the boundaries with existing (global) data sets.

         Coastal domains with high-resolution forcing data (WRF).

         Ocean-only forced by coupled (global) model products (climate scenarios).

         Fully coupled high-resolution atmosphere-ocean embedded in a coupled global model.

Ultimately, the ROMS model will be fully incorporated into the NCAR community climate model (CCMS.)  Enrique then showed slides depicting simulations that are now being run.  He noted that open boundary assimilations are not easy to do.

Don’t forget the ecosystems:

         Assess ecosystem variability with a regime shift (i.e., prove concept based on known changes)

         Assess changes in pre/post-industrial world

         Predict future variability

The GLOBEC Legacy:

         Biological response to climate change -- Societal and economic consequences, contribution to fisheries management.

         Importance of coastal ocean to the climate system

         Technological:  Use of state-of-the-art models

Dale noted that the interest of both the climate community and GLOBEC are now coincident to the extent that the climate community is funding a significant part of GLOBEC research by allowing Enrique to carry out his calculations.  NCAR has provided perhaps the equivalent of one million dollars worth of computer time to carry out this calculation.  Both groups are benefiting from this share of resources. 

     GFDL Collaboration

     Dale spoke about a NOAA sponsored organization project that is in place from The Ocean and Coastal Research in Cooperative Institute for Climate Science (CICS) at Princeton University.  This is the focus of a collaboration between Princeton University and GFDL and several academic partners.  The aim is to be a world leader in understanding and predicting the climate and its societal impacts.

During this past year there was an open solicitation for an academic partner with interests in regional coastal modeling and observations.  The thinking is very similar to the thinking that lay behind bringing ROMS to bear on the NCAR Community Climate Mode and to provide a mechanism for downscaling results of the GDFL climate modeling system into coastal regions.    

He then gave a brief review of a CICS review that was prepared by Princeton University.  The research themes: of CICS include:      

         Core ocean model development: building the foundation for the next GFDL ocean model;

         Parameterization of small-scale ocean processes: improving large-scale ocean and climate simulations by better representation of sub-grid scale physics.

         Studies of the large-scale ocean circulation: using the models to understand the ocean;

         Coastal/regional ocean modeling: developing techniques for interfacing between models, understanding local impacts of large-scale climate variations;

         Unification of these themes through the development of a ‘backbone’ model: A single model for research and operations.

GFDL is now developing an ultimate single ocean model with multiple components.  These include large-scale ocean circulation studies, parameterization of small-scale processes, eddy-mixed layer interactions, overflows and regional and coastal modeling. 

Highlights of this backbone ocean model include:

         A common tool for ocean modeling applications NOAA-wide to be developed over next few years;

         A high-resolution ~5km global ocean model;

         A data assimilation system.

         Nesting capability;

         Application to a wide range of applications within NOAA: global climate; global now-casting; boundary conditions for regional simulations, including climate impact studies and regional forecasting; and

         Incorporation of progress made in previously described themes, e.g. new dynamical core, new parameterizations.

There has been a convergence of interest from NOAA, GFDL and Rutgers to integrate ROMS into the backbone model. 

     U. S. GLOBEC Synthesis Activities

     Skill Assessment

     The synthesis activities of the skill assessment group were presented by Dennis McGillicuddy. He started by stating that there have been many interesting discussions concerning the need to take GLOBEC Models and transition them to operational use that feeds directly into management decisions.   This presupposes that these models have skill that will be useful to management.  It is fair to say that the evaluation of the skill of the ecologic forecast models is a research topic at this point.  It is still not entirely clear what the matrix of skill assessment should be and how models should be prepared.  Is one better than the other?  Does one match the data better than the other?  These things are subtle, but need to be thought about in terms of how to compare the models with observations.

As an example, Dennis showed a slide of two models from the famous 1948 Stommel paper on the Gulf Stream.  One model was noticeably better than the other.  The qualitative comparisons with observations tell a lot about the fundamental processes that are going on in the ocean.  Dennis then showed other examples of models showing wonderful meanders and eddies and all the things that like to be seen in a realistic Gulf Stream.   The physical oceanographic community has gotten sophisticated in the assessment of the skill of the model and how well it represents the variability that’s observed in nature.  The weather forecasting community has showed us a lot about how to assess skill.  In terms of assessing coupled physical biological models Dennis suggests that GLOBEC has to take their models to the next step in order to feed into management decisions.    

Dennis provided a brief summary of what transpired at the May 2005 SSC Meeting.  GLOBEC has generated high-quality data sets that are being actively used in models.  There is the need to move beyond qualitative phenomenological evaluation not only for the science, but also for management.  Methods for quantitave skill assessment of coupled models are in their infancy. Workshops and publication on this topic would be timely.  Therefore, the development of an implementation plan for site-specific Model Intercomparison and Evaluation Projects (MIEPs) has led to a workshop proposal.

A workshop entitled A Coupled Biological/Physical Models:  Skill Assessment and Planning for Regional Test bed Project” will be lead by Lynch, McGillicuddy, and Werner. The goals of the workshop will be to:

         assess the state-of-the-art in quantitative evaluation of coupled physical-biological models; and

         provide recommendations for future progress in this area in support of NOAA’s Ecosystem Based Management and Ecological Forecasting initiative.

Deliverables that will be produced will include:

         a special volume in a refereed journal;

         a report to NOAA: recommendations for assessment of models to be used in

support of Ecosystems Based Management and Ecological Forecasting activities;


         an implementation plan for a model intercomparison and evaluation project.

The first workshop will be a symposium to which individuals from various application areas including carbon cycle, harmful algal blooms, ecosystem dynamics and fisheries and water quality will be present.  The conceptual underpinnings of how we compare our models to observations are similar amongst these applications. 

The agenda for this three-day workshop will include a symposium on the first day with 30 minute talks by each participant.  On the second day the working groups will meet, and on day three the working group reports will be finalized and synthesized.

Dennis welcomed feedback to the five charges assigned to the working groups which include:

1)      Define the underlying coupled physical-biological dynamic of interest;

2)      Describe modeling approaches and data products;

3)      Describe approaches to skill assessment [terminology];

4)      Identify the most critical needs for further progress in this area; and

5)      Identify the infrastructure (data, models, and people) is available to undertake a model intercomparison and evaluation project.

Products from this workshop will include:

1.      A list of manuscripts to be prepared for special issue (authors, titles, short abstract);

            2.  A roadmap to publication

                        a. Journal (e.g. CSR, DSR-II, DAO, etc.)

                        b. Commitment to timeline

                        c. Venue, timing for workshop #2.

3.  Working group reports.

4.  A collection of power point presentation files from presentations; and

5.  A website to serve the above.

There would then be an additional workshop the following year to present the completed manuscripts, expand on the working group reports based on knowledge gained, and synthesize recommendations for NOAA. 

The anticipated timeline for this workshop will have the invitations mailed in December of 2005 with the first workshop being held in March 2006.  The deadline for manuscript submissions for review will be September 2006 with reviews completed by December 2006.  The second proposed workshop will be held in March of 2007 with the final manuscripts due to editors by August 2007.  The publication will go to the printer in September 2007 at which time a report also goes to NOAA.  The volume should be in print by December 2007. 

Dennis then went on to review the potential invitees in each of the five following categories of carbon cycle, harmful algal blooms, ecosystem dynamics and fisheries,

water quality, data assimilators and others that would be beneficial to have present.  He asked the SSC for feedback on whom to invite to the workshops.  Suggestions were made to add people from coral reef, water quality, USGS, weather, NASA, and the Chesapeake group.  Dennis asked the question of whether or not there should be a management aspect to this workshop so that scientists and management can be on the same page.  Dennis asked for specific recommendation of who to invite from management. A discussion of who to invite, and what research they are involved in took place.  Names were given to Dennis and additional names will be forwarded. 

Each person who attends the workshop will be required to answer the five questions and will sign-on to use the data sets that they have in hand based on what they learned from all the other groups about how we actually measure skill to write a cutting edge research paper on evaluating the skill of their models.  Dennis is looking to invite approximately 25 to 30 people to the workshops.  The report that comes out of this workshop will be published as a GLOBEC report.  After today’s lengthy discussion of who exactly to invite, Dennis is now thinking that it may be more realistic to hold the workshop meeting in July.

     Synthesis Implementation Plan

     Mike Fogarty started by noting that at the last SSC Meeting there was a lengthy discussion of the Synthesis Implementation Plan.  Therefore, today’s discussion will revolve around the changes that were made to the plan and the levels of control the SSC should exert in terms of synthesis.  Resulting from the last discussion, and SSC suggestions, a section on data simulation and model skill evaluation have been added.  Revised copies of the Synthesis Implementation Plan were distributed to each SSC member.

This document attempts to focus on moving forward by looking at comparisons across our GLOBEC regional study sites in an effort to view the larger picture of how climate is influencing these systems.  These GLOBEC sites were chosen because it was perceived that we could look at the specific physical processes and their influences on selected target organisms that are thought to be sensitive to different types of climate forcing.  So, in order to come away with a broader view of what climate may be doing in these systems we need to draw a lesson from each of these, but we also need to recognize that we have to go beyond the GLOBEC studies and follow up with regional analysis in other areas.  Mike briefly reviewed the contents and concepts of the document.

Mike believes that what needs to be done in terms of synthesis in the regional programs is well defined.  GLOBEC needs to map the studies that it under took in the different areas and map them into the different classes of models.

The SSC needs to think about the level of control that they should exert in this pan regional synthesis phase.  A few things have emerged from today’s discussions. In particular, there are issues that relate to gaps in the program.  This document should help the SSC to see if this element is so important that a senior level person is hired to track the synthesis.  The SSC needs to track what is going on during the synthesis so that in the end we come up with all the lessons and comparisons that could be drawn.  

This top down control is a different approach to the way the program has been run.  Therefore, this will merit some discussion.  Mike then asked for comments.  Dale questioned if the SSC has determined what Pan Regional Synthesis is and if the goals of the Pan Regional Synthesis are defined in the document?  Mike noted that there is an attempt to try to define Pan Regional Synthesis.  The nature of the contrasts and the lessons you could hope to learn from these contrasts are included.  One could use these contrasts to show how things operate and their importance to the systems. 

The question of how much control the SSC can impose was asked.  Annual calls for proposals do not guarantee that you get the types of proposals that you desire.  At the onset of the program the fact that you did not get the desired proposals may not have mattered all that much, but now at this stages it is very important to get the right kind of proposals.

If a Senior Scientist is hired this person will be in charge of insuring that theses types of concerns are being met.  The person would have to look for the potential gaps that are emerging.  Although there is a part that the SSC does not have full control over, the SSC needs to see that control has to be exerted to fill in the gaps in the program.  The SSC has to follow the lead of the review panel in insuring that the program gaps are filled.

SSC members also questioned how narrow and specific the submitted request for the proposals can be.  Suggestions were made that announcements can be structured as the SSC sees fit.  Perhaps funding could occur for one proposal in each of the categories, but this runs the risk of possibly having proposals that are not considered fundable in one or more categories.  It is an option as is funding teams of researchers.  It was noted that in all past discussions concerning synthesis the GLOBEC SSC always said that they wanted to fund the larger community to reach out beyond the people that were funded during the field season. 

During synthesis the SSC wants to have new ideas and can look at things in a new way rather than just funding people that have been funded in the past.  However, when the proposals come in they are usually from the same people. The SSC has to reach out to the community and let them know that it is open funding.  Some SSC members felt that it may be hard to come in fresh if you weren’t involved with the collection of the data or modeling it; one may not have the correct context.  The level of synthesis that will be on top of the regional synthesis is important.  Mike then mentioned JGOFS and the fact that numerous new PI’s did come in during the synthesis phase. 

Workshops could foster the interest of new PI’s. There needs to be on going workshops as well as annual calls for modeling and synthesis to adjust the playing field.   Proposals can be written for workshop and support cost for participants who are interested in writing papers.  It was noted by one SSC member that identifying the gaps in the program is not an issue.  The gaps are obvious and who better to identify the gaps than the leaders of the regional programs.   He went on to stress the importance of continued announcements of opportunities for the GLOBEC Program as it approaches the synthesis phase.  We need to continue to have announcements of opportunity where people can respond and we can have peer review competition.  This is the way to get the best science.

Another suggestion was made that perhaps the synthesis phase would be most effective if it was run similar to the very beginning stages of GLOBEC where plans were developed for field programs and people came to workshops because specific activities on a certain topic were going to be discussed.  People got excited and continued to work on these activities during the interim period, not just at the workshops.  This model provided a lot of flexibility.  It was less work in some ways than having annual calls for papers and annual reviews.  This steering committee made the decision of what was a high priority and what was going to be done. Money was in the budget for unspecified workshops for high priority items.  This is also easier for the funding agencies because they would not have to continuously evaluate proposals. The SSC must make sure that it does not stifle innovation.      

It was also stated that GLOBEC has already made choices as to what they were going to study and why they were going to study it.  Synthesis has to take advantage of the effort that was put into these different areas and the questions that were addressed.  It is no longer a wide open question.  GLOBEC has invested a lot of time and effort and it has to make sure that there is a strategy in place to pull the pieces together. 

Some SSC members were skeptical about keeping synthesis within the inner circle of GLOBEC.  It was felt that the program may miss out on some creativity.  Others felt that people who were never involved with the program may not know what is wanted in the synthesis phase. All SSC members were in agreement that workshops are needed as a first step for synthesis. 

The discussion continued as to when to hold the first Pan Regional Workshop.  It was originally thought that it should be held in the fall either adjacent to the SSC Meeting or another like-minded meeting.  A suggestion was made to hold this workshop in conjunction with the regional program meetings.  The regional programs would meet for a few days to discuss their regional programs and then everyone would meet together for a few days to discuss synthesis.    This would be an open workshop meeting. Dale then addressed the issue of when and where the regional meetings will be held in 2006. 

The SSC needs to address how to get people to come to a week-long meeting and the best time to hold the workshop.  The excitement of the science may keep people there Monday through Friday.  The topic of Pan Regional Synthesis may keep people there all week.  It was agreed that summer may be best time to hold this meeting to elevate conflicts with teaching schedules. 

The question was then asked as to what extent programs outside of the U. S. should be considered as a guide.  It was noted that on page 40 of the Strategies for Pan-Regional Synthesis in U.S. GLOBEC paper lists opportunities that exist for intercomparison between US GLOBEC results and those of other national and international research programs concentrating on the role of environmental forcing on the dynamics of selected marine taxa.  These programs include GLOBEC Canada, Northern Cod Recovery Program, ICES Cod and Climate Change Program, TransAtlantic Study of Calanus (TASC), Exxon Valdize Oil Spill (EVOS) Program, PICES Climate Change & Carrying Capacity (CCCC), Ocean Carrying Capacity (OCC) Program, Commission for Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) and Southern Ocean GLOBEC Programs. 

There was also a question of funding and when it actually ends.  It was also noted that funds will be needed for travel.  Beth noted that there has never been a scoping out of the financial resources that will be needed to fund Pan Regional Workshops. There is some money allocated for workshops to pay participant costs. 

The timeline was also questioned regarding calls for proposals and ending of the program.  It was agreed that the timeline in relation to funding for workshops and the regional and national offices needs to be discussed further at a later date.

The meeting adjourned at 1700.

U.S. GLOBEC Scientific Steering Committee Meeting Minutes

The National Science Foundation

Conference Room

North Arlington, Virginia

15-16 December 2005

Friday, 16 December 2005

Members in attendance were Dale Haidvogel, Chairperson  (Rutgers), Michael Alexander (NOAA-CIRES), Nick Bond (NOAA), Kendra Daly (USF), Michael Fogarty (NOAA/NMFS), Jonathan Hare (NOAA), Eileen Hofmann (ODU), Dennis McGillicuddy (WHOI), Arthur Miller (Scripps), David Mountain (NMSF/NOAA), Jeff Polovina (NOAA/NMFS), Ted Strub (OSU), Francisco Werner (UNC), and Peter Wiebe (WHOI)

Guests in attendance included Hal Batcheldar (OSU), Madeline Gazzale (Rutgers), Linda Lagle (WHOI), Phil Taylor (NSF), Beth Turner (NOAA). Mary-Elena Carr (NSF).

Members not in attendance were David Ainley (H.T. Harvey), Jennifer Burns (UA Anchorage), Yochanan Kushnir (Lamont), Pat Livingston (NMFS/NOAA), Steven Murawski (NOAA/ NMSF), Thomas (Zack) Powell (UC Berkeley), and Suzanne Strom (WWU).

Dale Haidvogel, Chairperson of the SSC, called the meeting to order at 0830 hours and gave a brief overview of the day’s agenda. 


Jon Hare lead the discussion of potential types of publications that should result from the US GLOBEC Program.  On display were various examples of the types of books that could be published.  Jon began with a review of the direction synthesis should take and presented the following objectives:

         Undertake regional and pan-regional synthesis and comparisons among U.S. GLOBEC study locations and international programs to understand the impacts of climate change and variability on selected target species and marine ecosystems

         Integrate process-oriented study, observational, and retrospective studies through conceptual and mathematical models

         Bridge the nested spatial temporal scales of these GLOBEC program elements through modeling to understand climate-scale impacts

         Develop tools necessary to predict the responses of populations and ecosystems to climate change and climate variability

         Contribute to management of living marine resources in an ecosystem context.

Jon noted that the above is a draft of the goals of synthesis as they are now identified.  In terms of synthesis products, it was stated that multi-authored books for each region with chapters aimed at broad synthesis in identified topic areas will be published as well as a book devoted to pan-regional synthesis in U.S. GLOBEC. 

Jon went on to discuss the program objectives of each of the three regional programs.  1) Northwest Atlantic-Georges Bank:  The U. S. GLOBEC Georges Bank Program is a large multi-disciplinary multi-year oceanographic effort.  The proximate goal is to understand the population dynamics of key species on the bank which are cod, haddock and two species of zooplankton (Calanus finmarchicus and Pseudocalanus) in terms of their coupling to the physical environment and in terms of their predators and prey.  The ultimate goal is to be able to predict changes in the distribution and abundance of these species as a result of changes in their physical and biotic environmental as well as to anticipate how their populations might respond to climate change.  2) Southern Ocean: the primary objective of the Southern Ocean GLOBEC program is to understand the physical and biological factors that contribute to enhance Antarctic krill growth, reproduction, recruitment, and survivorship throughout the year.  This objective also includes the predators and competitors of Antarctic krill, such as penguins, seals, cetaceans, fish and other zooplankton.  3) Northeast Pacific:  The goal here is to understand the effects of climate variability and climate change on the distribution, abundance and production of marine animals (including commercially important living marine resources) in the eastern North Pacific and to embody this understanding in diagnostic and prognostic ecosystem models, capable of capturing the ecosystem response to major climate fluctuations.

Jon went on to state that based on feedback from the two previous SSC meetings each regional program should publish a book, and that a pan-regional book would also be produced.  Therefore, the GLOBEC Program will produce four books.  The SSC needs to determine the target audience for these books.  This will determine the type of book that will be written.  Also questioned was whether or not the target audience should be the same or different for each regional book and the pan regional book.  The books that would be published could have different topics such as oceanography, climate, fisheries or ecology.  The books need to be interdisciplinary and broad. 

Jon then spoke about the potential types of publications which include non-fiction, textbook, essay, collected papers, integrated collection and treatise.  These are some examples of ways the synthesis book could be developed. A book review on The Norwegian Sea Ecosystem was handed out as an example. 

Who will be the authors and editors of these books?  These people should get involved as soon as possible.  The type of book or books that are chosen will influence the cost and publisher of the books.  The issue of funding should not dictate the type of books that are published.  

A comment was made that the process should be started in each of the regional programs to see what type of book would best serve the individual programs. Beth Turner noted that there is a big push for ecosystem based management and a recognized need for ecosystem research.  It would be beneficial to have a compendium of the type of ecosystem research, different models, what works, what doesn’t work.  At this point it would be sensible for the funded synthesis PIs to meet with the regional program directors and the SSC to discuss what types of books should be published. 

Jon then went back and readdressed the issue of whether or not each regional program should have its own book or if it should just be a pan-regional book targeted at a broader audience.  The question of who the target audience is needs to be answered before any book or books can be written.  Dale stated that if at the end of this program the book or books only appeal to the people sitting around this table, then the effort would have failed.

Cisco Werner mentioned that International GLOBEC will be submitting a book to IGP. The SSC agreed that US GLOBEC should make a solid contribution to this International GLOBEC book.  The SSC needs to determine the most important goal of the U. S. GLOBEC Program and needs to look at this as a synthesis product that should be fully integrated.  These books will mostly be published after the end of the program.

The suggestion was made to invite someone who has written different types of book to give a presentation at the next SSC Meeting.

International GLOBEC Programs: Cisco Werner

International GLOBEC is part of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program (IGBP) which started tens years ago.  Now, in 2005 there is a recasting of new questions and structure with a focus on biogeochemical sciences with relevance to issues of societal concern, interdisciplinary as well as integration of the Earth System context. 

The IGBP has an atmosphere, land and ocean component with cross interfacing between Land-Atmosphere, Atmosphere-Ocean and Land Ocean.  Within the Ocean division is a partnership involving GLOBEC and the new IMBER (Integrated Marine Biogeochemistry and Ecosystem Research). It is an integrated approach to linking biogeochemistry and ecosystems, across all trophic levels and links to chemical-physical and human dimensions of global change.  IMBER is viewed as the long-term IGBP Program.  This program will end in 2014, while International GLOBEC will end in 2009.   IGBP itself is also part of the Earth System Science Partnership which is an integrated study of the Earth System focusing on the changes occurring to the system, and the implications for global sustainability.

Cisco then referred back to the specifics of how International GLOBEC works and its synthesis activities. There is an International Office and Regional Programs which include PICES, ICES, Southern Ocean, Small Pelagic Fish and Climate Change (SPAC), Ecosystem Studies of Sub-Artic Seas (ESSAS), and Climate Impacts on Ocean Top Predators (CLIOTOP.)  There are also Research Working Groups which include Retrospective Analysis, Process Studies, Prediction and Modeling, and Feedback from Ecosystem Changes.   There are also many national and multi-national activities and a Steering Committee. 

He then showed the geographical distribution of the synthesis of the regional programs.    Both CLIOTOP and ESSAS have had their science plans approved which are posted on the web.  The goal of CLIOTOP is to organize a large-scale comparative effort to determine the impact of climate variability on the structure and function of open ocean pelagic ecosystems and their top predators.   The goal of ESSAS is to compare, quantify and predict the impact of climate variability on the productivity and sustainability of sub-arctic marine ecosystems.

Integration and Syntheses have been spoken about during the last two GLOBEC SSC meetings and also at the International level.  What is integration and synthesis?

Integration is the act or process of making whole or entire; the process by which the manifold is compacted into the relatively simple and permanent.  Synthesis is the art or process of making a compound by putting the ingredients together, as contrasted with analysis; thus, water is made by synthesis from hydrogen and oxygen.

Within its timeline, International GLOBEC is now in the Integration Phase.  The Implementation Phase was from 1999 until 2005.  In 2005 the program moved into the Integration Phase.  Part of this phase is the merger with IMBER.  The scientific plans for IMBER Phase 2 will be developed by GLOBEC and IMBER.  If IMBER becomes principally biogeochemical,  then some of the higher trophic level questions may not be asked.  Therefore, this issue has to be addressed.

GLOBEC’s Blueprint to Integration and Synthesis asks the following:

What encapsulates GLOBEC’s philosophy?

         Multi/ interdisciplinary international collaboration

         Physical-biological interactions

         From key species to ecosystems/ from individuals to populations

         Coupled models as integrative tools

         Multi-scale (time, space, institutional) analysis

What body of knowledge does GLOBEC contribute to?

         Ecosystem Structure and Function

1.      How are ecosystems structured and how does structure affect function?

2.      Demonstrate the role of climate variability in affecting marine ecosystem changes.

3.      Identify the relative role of ecosystem components (plankton, fish, humans) in ecosystem functioning

4.      Enhanced understanding of the role of high trophic levels and top-down controls (hierarchical)


1.      Determine the space/time modes of variability in natural climate processes

2.      Highlight the mechanisms behind ecosystem teleconnections

3.      Recognise the role of Humans as forces of change

         Physical/ Biological/ Human interactions and Feedbacks

What innovative methodologies is GLOBEC introducing/ advancing?

         Sampling and technological advances in support of GLOBEC science

         Coupled models (trophic, scale, time) to investigate structure, function and variability

         Retrospective studies (particularly multidecadal to centennial) on past ecosystem states

         Comparative approach (mostly regional)

What are the Efforts for transferring information to management bodies?

         Policy (providing conceptual understanding of ecosystem function)

         Managers (providing tools to incorporate climate-driven variability)

         Communities (enhancing communication on GEC and marine sustainability)

What education/outreach objectives are we conducting?

         Curriculum development

         Web-based approaches

         Animations (scenarios)

         Lessons learned

Some of the above have been accomplished and some have not.  GLOBEC Synthesis has included targeted workshops with key people, task teams, synthesis books, a final science brochure, and a summary for policy-makers.  The task team will help to decide how to do integrations of models from lower to higher trophic levels.

Cisco then showed several slides as examples of what these task teams have developed thus far at these workshops.  One team came up with combined rhomboid models which focused on the regions of interest.  The question then is how do you couple across rhomboids. 

The SPACC Workshop on the economics of small pelagics and climate change has resulted in the publishing of a book.  There is also another workshop that looked at long-term variability of small pelagics across various systems.  There was also a regime shift workshop. 

Cisco then reviewed the International website with the SSC and the link that leads to funding for proposed activities.  He also reviewed the upcoming meetings, workshops, symposia and activities for all the International GLOBEC groups.  This schedule is posted on the International GLOBEC website.  The final International GLOBEC closing meeting is scheduled for 2009. The suggestion was made that U. S. GLOBEC should think about joining this meeting. 

     BASIN:  Peter Wiebe

     The Basin-scale Analysis, Synthesis, and INtegration (BASIN) of oceanographic and climate-related processes and the dynamics of plankton and fish populations in the North Atlantic Ocean Workshop was held in Reykjavik, Iceland in March, 2005.  This was a cooperative project that involved individuals from European and North American countries.  The intent of the workshop was to establish connections from physical conditions to chlorophyll to zooplankton to larval growth and survival to recruitment.  The coupling between physical and biological processes is being translated through models into assessments and predictions of climate change on marine resources and marine ecosystems. The BASIN Steering Committee included Olafur Astthorsson – Iceland, Francios Carlotti – France, Brad deYoung – Canada, Dale Haidvogel – USA, Roger Harris – UK, Mike St. John – Germany, Cisco Werner – USA and Peter Wiebe – USA.

The aim of the BASIN workshop was to understand and simulate the population structure and dynamics of broadly distributed and trophically important plankton and fish species in the North Atlantic Ocean to resolve the impacts of climate variability on marine ecosystems, and thereby to contribute to ocean management.  The objectives included:

         Integration and synthesis of existing basin-wide data sets.

         Assessment of  the current state of the art in bio-physical modeling.

         Hindcast modelling studies to understand the observed historical variability of the North Atlantic ecosystem.

         Construction of scenarios of possible ecosystem changes in response to future climate variability.

         Identification of data gaps that limit process understanding and contribute to uncertainty in model results and collect new data to fill the gaps.

         Conduct of observation and process studies needed to establish population structure and dynamics across the Deep Ocean and shelves.

The rhomboid approach was adopted early in the meeting.  The rhomboids indicate

conceptual characteristics for models with different species and differing areas of primary focus.  A rhomboid is the broadest model which has its greatest functional complexity at the level of the target organism.  The emphasis of the program will be determined by the ecological requirements to achieve the understanding required to simulate the population dynamics of the selected targeted organisms. Rhomboids were done for each of the systems.  Several slides showed the types of rhomboid that were done for the structural components required for a basin-scale study which focused on phytoplankton, zooplankton, planktivorus fish and demersal fish. 

The conclusions that came out of this workshop are: 1) continental shelf and marginal sea ecosystems are affected by basin-scale forcing on decadal scales and cannot be studied in isolation; 2) advances in modeling marine ecosystems will require coupling numerical formulations across trophic levels that have differing degrees of resolution and embedding these in a basin-scale representation of the physics and biogeochemistry; 3) there is no single, fully integrated model that can simulate all possible ocean ecosystem states; 4) key steps in representing extended food webs in complex marine systems are to concentrate the biological resolution, or detail of representation, in the main target species, and to make increasing simplifications, or decrease the resolution, with distance both up and down the trophic scale from the target species. 

A meeting report is being generated and will be available shortly.

A structural impediment in doing basin-scale work has been identified.  At present there is no way to write a proposal generated by people from both sides of the ocean and have it reviewed and funded.  Therefore, a meeting was held in Brussels, Belgium in October, 2005 with Pierre Mathy, Phil Taylor, Mike St. John, Roger Harris, Cisco Werner, and Peter Wiebe to discuss tactics for funding a joint program and possible development of a specific support action for BASIN.  It was recommended that a SSA (SPECIFIC SUPPORT ACTIONS) proposal be submitted to 6th Framework Global Change of Ecosystems proposal call by November 3, 2005.  A proposal entitled “Resolving the impact of climatic processes on ecosystems of the North Atlantic basin and shelf seas: Integrating and advancing observation, monitoring, and prediction” was submitted to the Sixth Framework Program Sub-Priority The partnering institutions are University of Hamburg, Institute of Hydrobiology and Fishery Science (UniHH), Germany; Plymouth Marine Laboratory (PML), United Kingdom;

Affiliated scientists with external funding, i.e. by US NSF and Canadian NSERC; Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, USA (WHOI); University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA (UNC-CH);and the Memorial University, Canada (MU).

The principle objective of the BASIN Specific Support Action is to develop a joint EU-North American research program in the field of ocean ecosystems in support of the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) initiative. To do so, the BASIN SSA will support four workshops to: 1) identify and document the state of the art of climate-related ecosystem research in the North Atlantic basin and associated shelf seas; 2) assess the feasibility of developing a joint EU-North American basin-scale research program focusing on the ecosystems of the North Atlantic; 3) to seek to develop an implementation plan whereby joint research initiatives involving the EU and other nations (e.g. USA, Canada, Japan, China) can be developed and funded.

The workshop activities were to: 1) assess and report on the status of climate-related ecosystem research in the North Atlantic basin and associated shelf seas (from Georges Bank to the Barents Sea and the North Sea shelf) conducted intensively over the past decade particularly through national GLOBEC programs (US, Canada, UK, Germany), GLOBEC- related projects (ICES, Mare Cognitum), and EU projects, particularly ICOS and TASC; 2) identify and document gaps in systematic observations and process understanding of atmospheric and oceanic parameters, necessary to improve forecasting of ecosystems in the North Atlantic and associated shelves; 3) identify via the development of a meta-database the potential for consolidation of long-term observations from EU and international databases for the modeling and in particular prediction of the dynamics of North Atlantic and associated shelf ecosystems and their services (biogeochemical and exploited resources); 4) determine and report on the feasibly of developing a joint EU-US-Canadian research program in the field of ocean ecosystems focused on the effects of climate processes on the North Atlantic basin and associated shelf sea ecosystems; 5) develop in concert with representatives from the EU DG Research (and others as appropriate) and program managers from the US National Science Foundation and the Canadian NSERC, an implementation plan for the development of jointly funded EU-North American research programs; and 6) produce a proposal for submission to The EU 7th Framework Program and the US NSF and Canadian NSERC.  This proposal will focus on:

          resolving the natural variability, potential impacts and feedbacks of global change on the structure, function, and dynamics of the ecosystems of the North Atlantic Basin and associated shelf seas;

          improving the understanding of marine ecosystem functioning in North Atlantic Basin and associated shelf seas; and

         developing ecosystem based management strategies that incorporate the effects of global change and hence contribute to the sustainable use of the marine resources of the North Atlantic Basin and associated shelf seas.

Peter then highlighted the program facilitation and implementation plan.  North Atlantic oceanographic science programs are normally funded nationally or regionally (e.g. by the European Commission) and funding has usually been limited to residents from that country or region. There is a strong motivation and necessity for individual scientists of different nationalities to work together on projects beyond the scale of funding or resources presently available for national or regional programs. The absence of a coherent funding structure is a serious impediment to accomplishing the ultimate goals of Earth System Science and management particularly when addressing geographical areas as large as the entire North Atlantic basin. In order to eliminate such structural impediments two actions are needed: 1) collaborative international workshops to facilitate exchanges of ideas and to build working partnerships among the scientists involved in or interested in conducting the basin-scale synthesis/modeling research; and

2) definition and implementation of appropriate joint mechanisms to enable the

funding of collaborative studies involving international multi-disciplinary teams

of researchers.

The four workshops that are being proposed are as follows:

1) European workshop on the synthesis and integration of pan-Atlantic climate related ecosystem research: 20 participants will be invited to a 4-day workshop in month 6 of the project, of which approximately 15 European researchers will be funded by BASIN, and 5 North American scientists supported by their national science foundations.  2) North American workshop the synthesis and integration of pan-Atlantic climate-related ecosystem research: 20 participants will be invited to a 4-day workshop in month 9 of the project, of which approximately 5 European researchers will be funded by BASIN, and 15 North American scientists supported by their national science foundations.  3) Working group on developing implementation plans for joint research Programs: A meeting will be convened with the principle scientists funded by the BASIN SSA and North American counterparts as well as program managers from the EU, NSF and NSERC (Note: other national funding agencies (e.g. Japan, China, Korea, Russia) will be contacted and invited to attend) to develop a report on: a) Existing protocols for the development of co-financed multinational research programs, and b) Establishment of mechanisms by which joint research programs can be implemented. 4) Working group on producing a joint proposal for pan-Atlantic climate related ecosystem research: A meeting will be held including the principle scientists of the BASIN SSA as well as key players from the scientific communities of the EU, US, and Canada to: a) finalize, based on the outcomes of  (1) and (2), the scientific activities to be performed inside the North Atlantic basin-scale research program; b) develop a joint research proposal following an implementation approach agreed upon by the funding agencies, based on highlighted scientific gaps, and employing state-of-the-art observational and modeling approaches identified in (1) and (2).

Peter then showed two conceptual funding strategies which included aUnified Process and a Separate Process for funding for US and European Proposals.  It is a realization that the Unified Process is unlikely.  But there are major issues with the Separate Process.  The separate process makes it more difficult to coordinate the preparation of joint proposals. The timing of proposal deadlines and evaluation of proposals may be months out of phase. And it is possible to have jointly proposed work funded by one side, but not the other.  It is very difficult and almost impossible to collaborate internationally from a funding standpoint.  A major goal is to get to a place where international science research can be done.  Discussion continued to go back and forth as to how to accomplish this and if it can be done at all. 

    U. S. GLOBEC Meeting Calendar

     Dale led the discussion of the U. S. GLOBEC meeting calendar regarding when and where to hold the upcoming meetings and who would provide the financial support. The next three SSC Meeting will be held as follows:

  1. Spring 06 – San Francisco Bay Area
  2. Fall 06 – Chicago
  3. Spring 07 – Anchorage, Alaska (not May 26-June1)

After reviewing dates of other meetings it was decided that possible dates for the May 06 meeting would be May 23-26. Possible dates for the Fall 06 meeting may include the latter part of October 23-27, but this will be determined at a later date.  The SSC members will be surveyed regarding their individual preferences within each of these timeframes.

Dale then moved on to a discussion of the first Pan Regional Workshop that will be held the summer of 2006.  The conveners for this workshop will be the U. S. Office and the three regional chairs.  This will be a one-week workshop held over the summer in mid July to mid August to avoid conflicts with other meeting dates.  Possible invitee will include PIs from the three regional programs.  The framework of the workshop will be to work during the day with evenings free to meet informally.  Possible places to hold this workshop will be surveyed for availability.  These venues include Alton Jones, Aerlie House, Asilomar, Salvia Regina, Colby Sawyer, Keystone, Boulder (NCAR), University of North Carolina or Arrowhead. 

The national office will do the majority of the leg work for this workshop and will receive support form the three regional chairs.  International GLOBEC will also be involved.  Funding will be provided by the U. S. Office, International GLOBEC and the Regional Programs.

Follow-on topics that should come out of this workshop are 1) a draft AO for Pan-Regional Synthesis, 2) an outline for the book/books with possible authors, and 3) identification of the gaps in the program.

The National Office will be Co-Sponsoring the Climate change and Carrying Capacity Program (CCCCs) Synthesis Symposium in April.  There are eight Co-Sponsors for this meeting. 

     SSC Elections

     Dale opened the SSC Elections discussion by noting that his two-year term as Chair has expired, but offered to stay on as Chair.  This was unanimously accepted by all SSC members that were present.

The SSC is in need of two members to replace David Ainley and Yochanan Kushnir.  To areas of importance to consider for possible replacement are ecosystem-based management and climate modeling.  Dale mentioned the idea of looking for a person affiliated with GFDL or NCAR.  Other areas to consider include ESSAS, high latitude, fisheries management, and coupled modeling (IBM’s). 

The election process was reviewed.  It starts with the selection of candidates.  Two people will run against each other for each open seat. Election by acclamation is possible.  The SSC member that has the most familiarity with the selected candidates will contact them to ask them to stand for election. The election will then follow.

The SSC then put forth the names of people they felt were qualified to stand for a three-year term.  Each person’s qualifications were reviewed in relation to the activities that need to be addressed during synthesis. The field was narrowed to five people.  One of these was nominated by acclamation.  The four other people will be approached to see if they would like to run for election. 

     U. S. Office Activities/Business

     Executive Scientist

     The Executive Scientist position was discussed.  Dale commented that the SSC will be well served if the candidate has experience and can provide deliverables with ecosystem based management and/or has connections to the academic climate modeling community.  Other thoughts include a possible NOAA employee, an IPA person or an academic person.  Even though this position is usually based out of the national office this person could take up residency in Seattle, Woods Hole or at Rutgers University.  The location is flexible providing there are local cohorts of GLOBEC.  This is a three to four year full-time position.  This person would work closely with the chairperson of the SSC.


     Also discussed was the U. S. GLOBEC website. The Who’s Who in GLOBEC data base needs to be fully populated with the names of all people associated with the GLOBEC program from its inception.  This would include all PIs, SSC members, graduate students, postdocs, etc.  A strong effort is needed in acquiring this information.  Several members expressed interest in helping to obtain this information. 

It was mentioned that Mike Reeve of NSF is a historian of U. S. GLOBEC and was involved at the start up and coined the acronym GLOBEC.  A copy of an article entitled The History of GLOBEC written by Mike Reeve was distributed to the SSC.

Long-term storage of the actual collected data for the GLOBEC program was discussed.  A list of where the actual samples are located needs to be compiled.  These samples need to be preserved. The original policy was that these samples had to be stored for twenty years.  What will happen to the samples after that is unknown.  At present no one is aware of any GLOBEC samples being discarded.

An additional legacy item discussed was the cruise reports.  All cruise reports should be completed at this time and the SSC will work to insure that all PIs submit these reports.  A request was made of the SSC to provide an official letter stating that it is unacceptable for any PI within the program to withhold cruise reports and event logs.  The SSC Chairperson and several committee members will pen a letter to send to the PIs in order to obtain the missing information.  Several of the regional offices requested a copy of this letter be distributed to PIs working with their regions.

The last item discussed was the Spotlight on GLOBEC section of the website.  Dale has reviewed the first go round of a public friendly piece on Nate.  The question of target audience and description level is still unclear and needs to be addressed before this project can move forward.    

     Action Items:

  1. SSC to take a look at Mike Fogarty’s White Paper - Implementation Plan and make comments and send to Mike or Dale by January 10, 2006.
  1. US Office will look into venues for the Pan Regional 2006 Meeting.
  1. Peter Wiebe, Hal Batchelder and Dale Haidvogel will work together on obtaining all cruise reports.
  1. Hal and Ted will identify the NEP synthesis gap or gaps for GOA for discussion at the January Meeting.
  1. New member invitees will be contacted by various SSC Members.
  1. SSC members will contact upper level NOAA personal regarding GLOBEC issues.  Beth will provide names of people to send GLOBEC letter to asking for continued funding while entering the synthesis phase. 
  1. Annualize the extramural congressional staffers funding bandwagon meeting.
  1. Regional programs continue/begin to consider books and outline.
  1. Move ahead on invitations to Skill Assessment Workshop.
  1. Assemble the rationale for the phasing of the remaining calls for synthesis for the program.
  1. Update timeline in Mike’s White Paper Implementation Plan. (Early 2007 – AO; funding 2008)
  1. Peter Wiebe will work on identifying where the GLOBEC data samples are and who is responsible for these samples.

Dale thanked everyone for coming to yet another successful SSC meeting.  The meeting adjourned at 1500.