U.S. GLOBEC Scientific Steering Committee Minutes

Boulder, CO --- 10-11 Mar 94

DAY ONE (Thursday, 10 March 1994; Damon Room, NCAR)

Present from the steering committee were: Powell (Chair), Costa, Durbin, Gaines, Hofmann, Hollowed, Huntley, Mountain, Olson, Ortner, Robinson. Steering committee members not present were Briscoe, Dickey, P.Smith and S. Smith. Others present at the meeting were Peterson (NOAA), Taylor (NSF), Eakin (NOAA), Garrison (NSF), Batchelder (U.S. GLOBEC SSC Office), Jaffe (SIO), Haidvogel (Rutgers), Doney (NCAR) and Gent (NCAR). After introductions, Powell noted several changes to the agenda: first, Rothschild will be unable to attend and asked Robinson to summarize the GLOBEC.INT meeting at Jekyl Island for him; Second, the order of some of the agenda items was rearranged in minor ways. Powell noted that the agenda reflected three issues that were to be covered: (1) modeling, (2) budget cuts, especially as they may affect the NW Atlantic Program, and (3) an implementation plan for the California Current.


The U.S. GLOBEC SSC office is moving (probably in May) from the University of California, Davis to the University of California, Berkeley. Batchelder has agreed to continue in his capacity at the new location. The administrative assistant position, held by Sharon Lynch, will have to be advertised and filled in Berkeley. Sharon prefered not to transition to Berkeley with the office and has taken a position as the Assistant to the Agriculture Dean on the Davis campus. Powell expressed to the SSC Sharon's regrets that she would no longer be working with such a wonderful group. We discussed the sites and dates of future SSC meetings. The next meeting will be held at Oregon State University in Corvallis, OR on 9-10 June. The fall meeting will be held on the 6-7 October 1994 in Washington, DC.

After discussion of the nominees for new membership to the SSC, it was moved, seconded and passed that the nominations of Ted Strub (Oregon State) and Paul Bentzen (Univ. Washington) be accepted.

Powell noted that there was a short summary of the Open Ocean Workshop (co-chaired by Larry Madin and Mike Landry) included in the briefing book. Powell expected that a full report of the workshop would be available for more complete discussion at the June meeting. Anyone wishing to convey comments on the draft summary of the report was requested to get their comments by March 25 to Batchelder, who would forward them to Madin for consideration. Powell summarized the status of the Long-Range Planning document as "essentially finished". There were comments from only two or three people following the presentation by Robinson at the October 1993 SSC meeting. The document is to be finalized and printed.


Ortner reviewed for the others the principal recommendations of the Sampling and Observation System (SOS) report of GLOBEC.INT. Ortner compared the findings of that report with that of the three U.S. GLOBEC reports (Molecular, Optical, Acoustic Technologies). It was pointed out that despite all of these workshops and a perceived need for further development and application of advanced technologies, there had been only a very small amount of GLOBEC dollars spent in these arenas. The SOS document has a much broader perspective than the three prior documents, but is very similar in technology and content; there are some entirely new things in the SOS document, such as technology for primary production and chlorophyll measurement, that were purposefully left out of the earlier U.S. GLOBEC documents. The concept of having a test bed for new technologies is a recurrent theme of the SOS document. Ortner felt that perhaps the test bed concept was inappropriate in some places and that rather what is needed is joint sampling using different technologies. Jaffe, who attended the SOS meeting, pointed out that the "test bed" concept was one of many recommendations from the SOS workshop, and that no specific recommendation should be considered higher in priority than any of the others.

Ortner pointed out that non-US scientists and engineers, especially those of Japan, France, Scandinavia and the U.K., have been very important in developing new technologies and instruments. Ortner felt that SOS conclusions 8-10 were the most important. Mountain made the analogy that oceanographic acousticians and opticians now might be at the point that current meter investigators were 15-20 years ago. Namely, there are the wizards (who understand the instruments and techniques to the nth degree), the cogniscenti (who rely on the wizards for interpretation and guidance) and the yahoos. What the community needs now is a mechanism to train the yahoos so they are more like the cogniscenti and the cogniscenti so they are more wizardry. In other words, access and understanding of existing technologies, as opposed to new technologies, is needed. We discussed how the Technology subcommittee should proceed and decided that it should undertake to review all of the technology reports of both U.S. GLOBEC and GLOBEC.INT. In addition, we developed a list of issues to be considered by the committee. They will act upon these items and provide recommendations on how U.S. GLOBEC should proceed with regard to technology issues by our October 1994 meeting.


Scott Doney and Peter Gent, both of NCAR, provided presentations on NCAR modeling activities. Doney summarized modeling that has been done recently in the oceanography section, including global ocean models, equatorial Pacific and North Atlantic models and upper ocean and flux models. He presented results from an upper ocean model of the JGOFS Bermuda time-series station investigating physical and biological factors regulating phytoplankton biomass. Physical forcings included surface forcing by heat flux and winds. The model he described is unique in that it, unlike other surface forced models, provides an accurate description of entrainment events and does well over the long-term (interannually). Grazing parameterization is tricky, and a fairly simple modified Ivlev function was used. Gent summarized some models of large-scale ocean circulation which incorporate mixing along isopycnals instead of horizontal (cross-isopycnal) mixing to parameterize eddies in a 4 degree longitude by 3 degree latitude resolution. The results indicate that the new model, using isopycnal mixing, does a better job in replicating the depth of the thermocline and the temperature of the deep ocean than do earlier models.

Dale Haidvogel described some of the problems and advances that he and his modeling group at Rutgers have been addressing. Major problems in circulation models are the complex geography and irregular bathymetry, out of date numerical algorithms, and open boundaries in regional modeling. He summarized the community ocean circulation models that have been developed and showed results from semi- primitive equation models and spectral finite element models. A difficult issue remaining is how to generate the most appropriate grid to model. One possibility is to overspecify the resolution and through an iterative process determine where the resolution can be decreased with relatively little adverse effect upon the models accuracy in predicting ocean circulation. Several of the models he discussed can make use of parallel architecture computers.

Hofmann summarized the results of a Workshop on Secondary Production Modelling held in February 1993. The four recommendations resulting from the workshop discussions were that (1) behavioral attributes of the species being modeled needed to be better known and included in models; (2) there needed to be an integration of models across a number of scales, including both temporo/spatial and biological (individual-population-community) organization; (3) a mechanistic model of the life-history of one (or several) animal(s) needed to be developed; and (4) that there needed to be stronger ties and communication between empiricists, experimenters, and modelers. The question was raised of whether U.S. GLOBEC should consider supporting a community- wide effort to distribute and develop biological modeling framework, much like the community circulation models developed and supported by Haidvogel's lab. Hofmann replied that she and George Jackson were submitting a proposal to ONR to support such an activity, but it was unclear how it would all come about and to what extent different languages/approaches to modeling would be supported.

Bill Buzbee, Sally Haerer and Dan Anderson (all of NCAR) gave a tag-team presentation of the computing facilities/resources of NCAR. The emphasis was on how smaller computers could be clustered to relieve the computing load on the supercomputer. Some types of models, e.g., community climate, CO2 transport, mesoscale, generalized coupled models and chemistry coded models are very well suited to parallel processing.

Robinson reported the results of the GLOBEC.INT working group (WG) on numerical modeling. The terms of reference for the working group were to (1) assess coupled interdisciplinary models and foster developments in them; (2) unify modeling and observational efforts and research and advance interdisciplinary data assimilation techniques; and (3) provide scientific oversight and guidance to international modeling programs. The latter would be accomplished by communications, workshops, and providing for intercomparisons, validations and the development of modular model components. Specific recommendations from the working group are that the variables selected for monitoring and modeling be relevant core variables. The WG felt that phytoplankton needed to be size-fractionated, that maximum zooplankton growth rates needed to be determined as a function of temperature at satiated food conditions, and that natural and predator based mortality rates had to be estimated. The working group recommends the design and implementation of a coupled model and observational network to include data assimilation, the development of an ecosystem model that is consistent with and can be evaluated using remotely sensed variables and an emphasis on observational system simulation experiments (OSSE's). Finally, the WG recommends that multiscale nested interdisciplinary models for data assimilation be developed, that annual workshops be held to discuss research issues and provide cross- disciplinary training, and that better data management and sharing are necessary to foster improved modeling and observations.


Phil Taylor and Bill Peterson gave short reports of the funding situation for U.S. GLOBEC. NSF has provided slightly >$4M for FY94, of which roughly $3.8M is going to the NW Atlantic program. For FY95, NSF has requested a $2.5M increase for U.S. GLOBEC, which, if it is received, will be devoted to U.S. GLOBEC activities like modeling, Southern Ocean, and California Current.

NOAA was able to provide only $1.3M in FY94 for Georges Bank due to onforeseen funding cuts (of $900K) received by the Office of Global Programs. An increase in funding is expected in FY95 which will permit NOAA to initiate some GLOBEC projects in the California Current. We had a lengthy discussion about why U.S. GLOBEC absorbed such a large funding cut in FY94 from OGP and what could be done about it.


Dave Mountain and Peter Ortner provided the SSC with an update on the planning activities and progress of the funded NW Atlantic investigators. In October 1993, the U.S. GLOBEC Georges Bank executive committee was formed; it consists of ten funded PI's and is chaired by Peter Wiebe. The GB ExecComm has met three times, and all of the funded PI's met once to plan the field programs for 1994 and 1995. Many of the funded PI's presented papers at the Ocean Sciences meeting in San Diego in a session on the Stratification Pilot Experiment, chaired by Wiebe and Mountain. The pilot data management program for GB has been initiated with the JGOFS distributed database system installed on some systems. [Since the meeting, a GLOBEC Georges Bank Information and Data system has been brought online; it us set up to use Mosaic, a public domain Internet information browser.] Wiebe and Dan Lynch attended the Canadian OPEN meeting held in March, with the intention of fostering and building relationships with Canadian scientists investigating the NW Atlantic region. Wiebe will provide a report of this meeting with the Canadians to the U.S. GLOBEC Steering Office. Finally, Mountain reviewed how the NW Atlantic PI's have been dealing with the funding crisis caused by the $900K cutback from NOAA. First, several of the senior PI's immediately traveled to Wash., DC to learn the seriousness of the problem and to discuss options. The GB ExecComm was tasked by Zack Powell at a meeting in San Diego (during the Ocean Sciences meeting) to restructure (with help from all of the PI's) the science program with the understanding that the program can not expect order $7M per year, but more likely ca. $5.5M per year. They agreed to assume this task and to have a PI meeting by the end of March 1994, which would provide recommendations to the program managers on how to restructure the program and reallocate resources. Options include postponing funding into future years, doing without specific science elements, and eliminating proposed tasks.


The U.S. GLOBEC Data Management Policy report has been published and was distributed to the SSC. Len Walstad has informed the SSC office that he is willing to remain chair on this subcommittee for another year; we were pleased to accept his offer. Now that the Policy has been published it was decided that perhaps it was time to re-evaluate the TOR of the data management committee. Ortner and Olson agreed to examine and modify as appropriate the TOR of this committee. We discussed (1) whether to pursue a joint (w/ JGOFS) data management office to be located at WHOI, (2) how to provide oversight for getting GLOBEC data into on-line databases so that it is accessible to other investigators, and (3) collaborations with NODC.

DAY TWO (Friday, 11 March 1994; Damon Room, NCAR)


In addition to those attending the first day, we were joined for day two discussions by Ted Strub (OSU) and Kevin Trenberth (NCAR). We spent most of the morning discussing the California Current (CC) planning document that Strub's writing team has produced. Strub provided an overview of how the planning document had been prepared, the climate rationale for working in the California Current, and the major elements of the program. The major elements are envisioned to be mesoscale and large-scale field programs, retrospective research and modeling studies, and augmented monitoring of physical and biological conditions of the California Current.

During the discussion of the planning document a number of issues arose. First, many of the SSC thought that the document was not specific enough to be called an Implementation Plan. Strub and Batchelder pointed out that the intent of the document was to provide the rationale, scientific questions, and a strategy for pursuing climate connections to animal populations in the California Current, and that the IP was purposefully kept general with the idea that there would be one (or more) more focused RFP(s) issued, perhaps in conjunction with the NSF sponsored CoOP program.

Eakin noted that a general CC IP might be damaging to U.S. GLOBEC at the funding decision level, because it would not be viewed as a clean, saleable program. Trenberth noted that the document needs to be more compelling, perhaps by addressing more clearly the impacts on the biology of several specific climate change scenarios. He also expressed concern about how GLOBEC would be able to distinguish fishery effects from climate effects in a system, like the California Current, subject to severe human impacts. Costa commented that a core hypothesis should be identified that can be answered with the money available so that at the end of the program GLOBEC can provide evidence of an incremental increase in understanding of the problem. Huntley suggested adding a timeline to the CC document to provide a clear strategy for achieving the objectives. Several members made suggestions about changing specific sections, and/or rearranging sections to change the emphasis of the document. Specific changes are not detailed here. Several thought that a bold (testable) hypothesis should be included in the plan, but other members disagreed. Most thought that the document needed repackaging to place greater emphasis on some sections and especially, to tighten the connections between the largest question and the multitude of more specific questions. Finally, we agreed that this document should not be called an Implementation Plan, but rather a Science Plan. After all of these discussions, Durbin moved that the SSC approve a plan to proceed with repackaging the document to address the comments expressed at the SSC meeting and that the document be published after review. Robinson amended the motion to specify that the review be done by a group of three SSC members. The amended motion was seconded and passed without opposition. All comments on the California Current document are to be provided to Batchelder by 1 April.


Hollowed reviewed PICES activities in the North Pacific, especially their interests in a study of the salmon carrying capacity of the North Pacific. We decided to discuss this issue in greater detail at the June SSC meeting in Corvallis. It was suggested that Warren Wooster or Dan Ware or both be invited to the June meeting to provide overviews on PICES planning activities and interests.


Since Rothschild was unable to attend the meeting, Robinson summarized recent GLOBEC.INT planning activities. There have been five GI scientific planning meetings between February and August 1993: population dynamics and physical variability, sampling and observation systems, cod and climate change, southern ocean, and numerical modeling. The working group on retrospective studies (code named PRUDENCE) has not met yet. Other possible GLOBEC.INT initiatives may be a Black Sea GLOBEC study, and a tropical/subtropical blue water GLOBEC. Advanced interdisciplinary modeling and observation have emerged as a theme from all of the GI discussions that have occurred to date. A strategic planning meeting is planned for mid-July 1994 in Paris, after which GLOBEC.INT will make formal application to become a core program of IGBP. Robinson also reminded the SSC that GLOBEC.INT will have a one-day session on GLOBEC International/ICES following the August ICES Zooplankton production meeting in Plymouth. Also, there will be a meeting of the Small Pelagic Fish and Climate Change working group in June in La Paz, Mexico.


Jules Jaffe provided an overview on the acoustical and optical instruments that he has been developing with support from NSF's Ocean Technology/GLOBEC. He spoke of the difficulty in obtaining real-time size distribution information of scatterers using acoustics. He described the theory and application of multi-array sonars to provide three-dimensional images of targets. He showed a video of the acoustically determined tracks of individual euphausid- sized organisms from a cruise off the U.S. West coast. New optical technology is being developed to provide fine-scale (1 cm) resolution sensing of chlorophyll in three dimensional volumes. In conclusion he said that he is seeking applications for these instruments; e.g., What are the scientific questions? The instrumentation to answer the questions may be available already, or may be available in the near future.


Huntley reviewed the recommendations resulting from the GLOBEC.INT workshop in Norfolk, VA. There will be a second GLOBEC.INT Southern Ocean planning meeting, probably in Cambridge, UK in June 1994 [Subsequently, Huntley has informed me that this meeting is now scheduled for 6-8 June in Bremerhaven, Germany]. Issues that remain to be addressed include: what is the potential for interaction between GLOBEC and JGOFS in a Southern Ocean study, timing and location of a U.S. component of a Southern Ocean field program, and the timing and direction of an RFP to support modeling activities in the Southern Ocean [for release by the Office of Polar Programs]. He noted that he and Hofmann have provided agenda suggestions to Victor Smetacek for the Bremerhaven meeting.


We deferred discussion of blue-water items till the June meeting, when hopefully we will have available the full workshop report from the Blue Water meeting chaired by Larry Madin and Mike Landry. Peterson did note that one way in which GLOBEC might be able to get some Long-Term Blue water science and sampling done is by using the vessels which service the TOGA-TAO array in the equatorial Pacific.


Huntley reviewed activities of the outreach committee. First, the U.S. GLOBEC brochure has been completed and was distributed from an exhibition booth at the AGU/ASLO Ocean Sciences meeting. Olson suggested that the brochure be sent to all of the Sea Grant offices. Huntley reminded the committee of the results of his visit in October to the Global Change Meeting in Washington, DC, in which the emphasis in the global change community may shift from study of global change to amelioration of the impacts of global climate change. Huntley suggested that key scientists from the NW Atlantic program, Powell and others might meet with non-govermental organizations (e.g., fisheries groups, environmental groups, etc.) in Washington in a half-day mini- symposium to provide information about what U.S. GLOBEC is doing on Georges Bank. We discussed how to better publicize U.S. GLOBEC through the media. The suggestion was made that we prepare a press release which details what U.S. GLOBEC is doing on Georges Bank and how it may eventually provide information about the ecosystem that will be useful in better management of these commercially important groundfish stocks.


Peterson and Huntley reported on two zooplankton rate measurement calibration workshops that are being conducted this spring. The first will be held in Norway in April (Convenor, Bamstedt) and will evaluate several techniques and approaches to measurement of growth rates of Calanus finmarchicus in large enclosures. The second, organized by Huntley, will be in Hawaii in April 1994, specifically to compare a number of biochemical indices of growth with more conventional methods. It was proposed that a workshop be held between key members of the two groups to exchange results and recommendations and to prepare several articles for publication in the peer-reviewed literature. Huntley agreed to contact Skjoldahl about such a joint meeting.


Quote of the meeting....

	I apologize if I'm reinventing the wheel, but as long 
as its circular reasoning it is OK    ---Jules Jaffe


	When the facts are against you argue the law, when the 
law is against you argue the facts, when both the law and the 
facts are against you, call the guy names     ---Dave Mountain

homepage minutes contents previous next