Click for next page ( 110


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 109
CHAPTER FOUR Opportunities to Enhance Research in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean A s the foregoing chapters have noted, Antarctica and the Southern Ocean provide extraordinary opportunities to study questions that go deep within and across many disciplines. This chapter examines opportunities to enhance future scientific research in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean through collabora- tion; energy, technology, and infrastructure; and education. This chapter also describes a proposed initiative for an observing network with data integration and enhanced scientific modeling. 4.1 COLLABORATION In the first half of the 20th century, many of the nations that were interested in Ant- arctica were primarily concerned with claiming territory. Since then, as Antarctica has become a haven for science, research in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean has grown into a large and successful international scientific enterprise. Throughout this evolu- tion, collaboration has played a valuable role. This includes collaboration in several senses: across national borders, across disciplinary boundaries, between public- and private-sector entities, and between scientists and the logistical support providers who facilitate the conduct of science in these harsh environments. Each of these is explored in this section, but the general observation on the necessity of collaboration is as simple as stating that by working together new things can be done, and be done more affordably. Moreover, increasingly collaboration across any one of these areas encourages collaboration in others. International Collaboration One of the easiest places to see the growth in collaboration is among nations. The Ant- arctic Treaty process, led in part by the United States in 1959, has to date enrolled 48 countries, more than 20 of which operate more than 40 permanent, manned science bases on the continent (Box 4.1, Table 4.1, Figure 4.1). Many of these countries were 109

OCR for page 109
F U T U R E S C I E N C E O P P O R T U N I T I E S I N A N TA R C T I C A A N D T H E S O U T H E R N O C E A N BOX 4.1 THE ANTARCTIC TREATY SYSTEM The Antarctic Treaty System originated in 1961 during the height of the Cold War, and al- though the Cold War effectively ended more than two decades ago, the Antarctic Treaty System remains in force. The countries that are signatories to the Antarctic Treaty System are listed in the table below. One might argue, given the importance of Antarctica and the Southern Ocean for the conditions of the larger world, that the treaty system is now more important than ever. The Antarctic Treaty System provides the foundation for treating the continent of Antarctica as a scientific research zone, while excluding hostile military activity and territorial conquest. Subsequent additions to the Antarctic Treaty System of the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resource, which manages fishing in the Southern Ocean, and the Environmental Protocol provide explicit regulations to maintain the comparatively pristine conditions of the continent. TABLE Signatories of the Antarctic Treaty System, Country and Date Joined (as of 2011) Argentina 23-6-61* Japan 23-6-61* Australia 23-6-61* Korea DPRK 21-1-87 Austria 25-8-87 Korea ROK 28-11-76 Belgium 23-6-61* Monaco 30-5-08 Belarus 27-12-06 Netherlands 30-3-67 Brazil 16-5-75 New Zealand 23-6-61* Bulgaria 11-9-78 Norway 23-6-61* Canada 04-5-88 Papua New Guinea 16-9-75 Chile 23-6-61* Peru 10-4-81 China 08-6-83 Poland 23-6-61 Colombia 31-1-89 Portugal 29-1-10 Cuba 6-8-84 Romania 15-9-71 Czech Republic 01-9-93 Russian Federation 23-6-61* Denmark 20-5-65 Slovak Republic 01-1-93 Ecuador 15-9-87 South Africa 23-6-61* Estonia 17-5-01 Spain 31-3-82 Finland 15-5-84 Sweden 24-4-84 France 23-6-61* Switzerland 15-11-90 Germany 05-2-79 Turkey 24-1-96 Greece 08-1-87 Ukraine 28-10-92 Guatemala 31-7-91 United Kingdom 23-6-61* Hungary 27-1-84 United States 23-6-61* India 19-8-83 Uruguay 11-1-80 Italy 18-3-81 Venezuela 24-3-99 *Original signatory. SOURCE: Information from Antarctic Treaty Secretariat. 110

OCR for page 109
Opportunities to Enhance Research TABLE 4.1 Permanent Manned Stations in Antarctica: Country and Base Names (as of 2011) Country Station Argentina Belgrano II, Esperanza, Jubany, Marambio, Orcadas, San Martín Australia Casey, Davis, Mawson Brazil Comandante Ferraz Chile Arturo Prat, Bernardo O’Higgins, Eduardo Frei, Estación marítima Antártica, Julio Escudero, Rodolfo Marsh China Great Wall, Zhongshan France Dumont d’Urville, Concordia (with Italy) Germany Neumayer India Maitri, Bharathi (to open in 2012) Italy Concordia (with France) Japan Syowa Korea King Sejong New Zealand Scott Base Norway Troll Poland Arctowski Russia Bellingshausen, Mirny, Novolazarevskaya, Progress 2, Vostok South Africa SANAE IV Ukraine Vernadsky United Kingdom Halley, Rothera United States Amundsen-Scott, McMurdo, Palmer Uruguay Artigas SOURCE: Adapted from COMNAP. motivated by reasons of national pride to establish new stations to advance their na- tional interests. But a broader perspective and increased emphasis on collaboration is now evident as nations consider the cost of running stations, the need for geographic flexibility, and the environmental regulations involved in operating stations since the Protocol on Environmental Protection (signed in Madrid in 1991) went into effect in 1998 (Orheim, 2011). In many ways, Antarctic science provides a glimpse of how na- (Orheim, 2011). In tional and international scientific collaboration can proceed successfully in the future. Increased international collaboration has been driven by recognition that many Antarctic science questions are too large to be solved by any single nation. The com- mittee has attempted to identify areas of science that will drive research in the com- ing decades in Chapters 2 and 3, drawn from a number of reports (see Box 1.2). Many nations that are active in Antarctic research have published future research priorities 111

OCR for page 109
F U T U R E S C I E N C E O P P O R T U N I T I E S I N A N TA R C T I C A A N D T H E S O U T H E R N O C E A N Produced by the Australian Antarctic Data Centre 0° Stations as listed at http://www.comnap.aq/facilities STATIONS IN ANTARCTICA Hillshading from RAMP DEM v2 Coastline from ADD v5 - 10m Published September 2009 Map Catalogue No 13698 60 Orcadas (Argentina) Signy (UK) °S Troll Dakshin Gangotri (India) (Norway) Neumayer (Germany) Maitri (India), Novolazarevskaya (Russia) SANAE IV (South Africa) Tor Asuka (Japan) (Norway) Syowa (Japan) Aboa (Finland) See inset Princess Wasa (Sweden) Molodezhnaya Kohnen Elisabeth (Russia) (Germany) (Belgium) Mizuho Brown (Argentina) (Japan) Halley (UK) Gabriel González Videla (Chile) Melchior Yelcho (Chile) Belgrano II (Argentina) Mawson Vernadsky (Ukraine) (Argentina) Dome Fuji (Japan) Palmer (Australia) (USA) San Martín (Argentina) Rothera (UK) Soyuz (Russia) Sobral (Argentina) RONNE Druzhnaya 4 (Russia) Luis Carvajal ICE SHELF Law - Racovita (Australia/Romania) (Chile) Davis Proposed station (India) (Australia) Progress 2 (Russia) Kunlun (China) Zhongshan (China) Arturo Parodi (Chile) Amundsen-Scott (USA) 90° W 90° E Mirny (Russia) Vostok (Russia) Concordia Casey ROSS (France/Italy) (Australia) ICE SHELF Russkaya McMurdo (USA) Scott Base (Russia) (NZ) Gondwana (Germany) Mario Zucchelli (Italy) Legend Year-round station Dumont d'Urville Seasonal station (France) Leningradskaya Closed station (Russia) Proposed station Year-round stations Seasonal stations 1 Comandante Ferraz (Brazil) 15 Macchu Picchu (Peru) 2 Arctowski (Poland) 16 Dallman (Germany) 3 Jubany (Argentina) 17 Julio Ripamonti (Chile) 4 King Sejong (Korea) 18 Maldonado (Ecuador) Petrel 5 Artigas (Uruguay) 19 Guillermo Mann (Chile) (Argentina) 6 Bellingshausen (Russia) 20 Juan Carlos I (Spain) 1,15 2 21 Ohridiski (Bulgaria) 7 Eduardo Frei (Chile) 13, 24 5,6,7,8, 3,4,16 8 Julio Escudero (Chile) 22 Decepcíon (Argentina) 9,10,17 12 14 9 Estación marítima Antártica (Chile) 23 Gabriel de Castilla (Spain) 11,17, 25 10 Great Wall (China) 24 T/N Ruperto Elichiribehety Island Macquarie (Uruguay) 11 18,26 11 Arturo Prat (Chile) 25 Gregor Mendel (Czech Republic) 20,21 12 Bernado O'Higgins (Chile) 19 Closed station 13 Esperanza (Argentina) 22,23 14 Marambio (Argentina) 26 Luis Risopatron (Chile) Matienzo Primavera (Argentina) 180° (Argentina) FIGURE 4.1 Map of Antarctic research stations from various countries. SOURCE: Australian Antarctic Data Figure 4-1.eps Centre. bitmap (wedged) w vector clipping paths, rules & type 112

OCR for page 109
Opportunities to Enhance Research for the long term because such research requires heavy investments in logistics and infrastructure and necessitates long-term planning. A survey of plans of the European Polar Board (EPB), British Antarctic Survey, Alfred Wegener Institute (Germany), Austral- ian Antarctic Division, and the Antarctic research organizations of New Zealand, Korea, and Norway is summarized in Table 4.2. The United States and the EPB, represent- ing a consortium of European nations, are both involved in all elements of Antarctic research. Although the United States currently possesses the human capital, financial resources, and logistic strength to be able to take part in all segments of Antarctic TABLE 4.2 Areas of Science Considered Priorities for Study in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean for the United States and a Sampling of Other Nations British Ant Survey EU Polar Board United States* New Zealand Germany Australia Norway China Korea India Climate change and impacts X X X X X X X X X Paleoclimate X X X X X X X X X Ice sheet and sea level change X X X X X X X X X X Crustal structure and subglacial X X X X X X geology Deep sea ecosystems X X X X X X X X Earth system modeling X X X X X X X Astrophysics X X X X X X X X X X X Space physics X X Basic and applied life sciences X X X X X X X X X X Atmospheric dynamics X X X X X X X X Terrestrial ecology X X X X X X X X X *Priorities for the United States identified by the committee (Priorities for other nations and the EU Polar Board based on available documentation). SOURCES: AWI, 2009; Australian Antarctic Division, 2011; British Antarctic Survey Science Programme, 2009; European Polar Board, 2010; Gupta, 2010; Lee, 2010; Ministry of Earth Sciences India, 2011; National Science Foundation, 2009; National Science Foundation Office of Polar Programs, 2011; New Zealand Antarctic and Southern Ocean Science Program, 2010; Polar Research Institute of China, 2006; Research Council of Norway, 2010. 113

OCR for page 109
F U T U R E S C I E N C E O P P O R T U N I T I E S I N A N TA R C T I C A A N D T H E S O U T H E R N O C E A N research, the overlapping scientific priorities of the United States with those of other nations present numerous opportunities for collaboration. Many new nations entered into Antarctic research in the 1980s, driven in part by inter- est in Antarctic mineral resources, national pride, and the chance to join an exclusive club of nations leading the world in scientific research. Internationally, the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) has been supplemented by regional organi- zations such as the EPB and the Asian Forum for Polar Sciences. Antarctic science pub- lications have been growing more quickly than publications in other areas of science, tripling between 1981 and 2009 (Figure 4.2) (Aksnes and Hessen, 2009). Although U.S. scientists contributed the largest portion of articles, this 2009 bibliographic analysis of 65,000 “polar” articles published in the peer-reviewed literature showed that the U.S. share declined from 34 percent in 1981-1983 to 24 percent in 2005-2007, and the share of the second-most-active country, the United Kingdom, declined from 17 to 11 45% 40% Proportion international co-authorship 35% 30% 25% Arctic Antarctic 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 89 91 81 83 85 87 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 FIGURE 4.2 International co-authorship of Arctic and Antarctic publications, 1981-2007. SOURCE: Aksnes and Hessen, 2009. Figure 4-2.eps 114

OCR for page 109
Opportunities to Enhance Research percent. Australia and Germany held their own, while countries like Italy, Spain, China, and Argentina increased their shares. In short, there is a greater diversity of nations participating in Antarctic science. There is also noteworthy growth in partnerships: col- laboration within European Union (EU) countries has increased from 27 to 35 percent, between scientists in the EU and other nations from 12 to 24 percent, and among non- U.S. and non-EU nations from 3 to 6 percent. The International Polar Year (IPY) from 2007 to 2008 led to increased international collaboration, as did the U.S. National Sci- led collaboration, ence Foundation (NSF) requirement that IPY awards involve international partnerships (Krupnik et al., 2011; National Science Board, 2010; National Science Foundation, 2010). International collaboration in Antarctica has produced spectacular results. One ex- ample is the joint drilling and analysis of the Vostok ice core by scientists from France, Russia, and the United States that led to publication in 1999 of a 400,000-year record of proxy temperatures and carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) concentrations. This was one of the most important climate research results of the past decade. Other examples of successful international collaborations include the following: EPICA1 (European Program for Ice Coring in Antarctica) on Dome C and • Kohnen station, which collects information on climate variations over the past 1 million years; ANDRILL2 (Antarctic Geologic Drilling) project involving Germany, Italy, New • Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States, which studies the evolu- tion of the Antarctic ice sheets during the past 40 million years; • Concordia astronomical observatory involving France, Italy, and others, which aims to open new spectral windows at infrared and submillimeter wavelengths; • Gamburtsev solid Earth investigations involving the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany, Japan, Australia, and China, which studies this very large subglacial mountain range; CAML3 (Census of Antarctic Marine Life) led by Australia, involving 17 ships • and scientists from 20 nations, which investigates the distribution and abun- dance of Antarctica’s marine life; AMPS4 (Antarctic Mesoscale Prediction System) provides tailored numerical • weather predictions that support aircraft operations, field programs, and fun- damental Antarctic atmospheric research. It is a U.S. program but with active participation of 17 countries; and 1 See http://www.esf.org/index.php?id=855. 2 See http://www.andrill.org/. 3 See http://www.caml.aq/. 4 See http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/rt/amps/. 115

OCR for page 109
F U T U R E S C I E N C E O P P O R T U N I T I E S I N A N TA R C T I C A A N D T H E S O U T H E R N O C E A N IODP5 (Integrated Ocean Drilling Program) supported by 24 countries, which • advances scientific understanding by monitoring, drilling, sampling, and ana- lyzing subseafloor environments. The organization of Antarctic research within countries can facilitate collaboration. In many nations, the presence of a central institute with responsibility for both logistics and science makes for rapid decision making once the case for cooperation has been accepted. Most nations engaged in Antarctic research need to collaborate to tackle large scientific questions. The U.S. Antarctic Program (USAP) has been large enough to undertake major projects alone, but, for reasons elaborated below, the USAP will probably collaborate more in the future to enable U.S. scientists to stay at the forefront of Antarctic and Southern Ocean science. Specifically, collaboration can benefit U.S. scientists when • Research needs to be done in geographic areas where logistic support from other nations is practical and feasible; • Other nations have instruments or other technical or logistic resources ex- ceeding those available to U.S. scientists (e.g., see icebreaking capability below); • Scientists in other nations are ahead of U.S. scientists and collaboration can raise the quality of U.S. Antarctic science; and • The United States has a personpower shortage in given subject areas, and scientists from other countries can make up for that shortage. U.S. collaborations with other strong Antarctic science communities can help achieve critical mass and density of observations to answer particular questions. Increasing international collaboration can be achieved without moving funds across national borders. Sometimes, nations can contribute in-kind portions of the total needs for a project, such as one nation supplying the aircraft and another supplying the fuel. The most important factors in increasing international collaborations are sufficient will to increase such collaborations and flexibility in meeting the needs of the science. Interdisciplinary Collaboration As explained in Chapters 2 and 3, science in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean is increasingly tied to research questions that cut across traditional disciplinary bound- aries. A good example of this is the growing perspective of Earth system science that incorporates a wide set of the physical sciences, and the concept of ecological change 5 See http://www.iodp.org/. 116

OCR for page 109
Opportunities to Enhance Research that incorporates many of the life sciences. Of course, the changes in the physi- cal systems affect the ecology, so these two broad realms of work are increasingly pulled together as well. As the policy implications of environmental change become apparent—the changing nature of fisheries in the Southern Ocean, for example—it becomes increasingly important to understand all aspects of the phenomena in question because mitigation strategies often have serious economic and social con- sequences and trade-offs. It is rapidly becoming unacceptable to ask policy makers to make difficult choices without good information on the consequences of their decisions. Discovery, as well, is increasingly interdisciplinary, where even seemingly disparate fields come together around some projects. For example, the IceCube neutrino detec- tor required the drilling of many deep holes in ice, and, as discussed elsewhere, drilling remains a major area of engineering investigation. Similarly, IceCube is highly depend- ent on cyberinfrastructure, as are most other areas of scientific inquiry, and research and development in cyberinfrastructure are important areas of cross-disciplinary inquiry. Given the extensive logistical support typically required to do research in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, the successful execution of interdisciplinary scientific work in this region often requires successful international collaboration. Addressing many of the future science questions in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean will benefit from integrated research projects and programs that are both international and interdisciplinary. Collaboration Between the Public Sector and Private Sector The private sector plays an important role in scientific research, and that role has been evolving and increasing in recent decades. The private sector makes major invest- ments in scientific research: pharmaceutical companies, agricultural chemical and seed suppliers, automobile manufacturers, and many other kinds of companies invest heavily in research to create or improve products and services. As of now, the private sector does not perform much scientific research of its own in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, but that may change in the future. Similarly, the private sector is a primary supplier of materials and equipment for scientific research of all kinds, includ- ing chemical reagents, laboratory animals, and special instruments used in research. As one example, more than 50 companies are listed as suppliers to the biotelemetry 117

OCR for page 109
F U T U R E S C I E N C E O P P O R T U N I T I E S I N A N TA R C T I C A A N D T H E S O U T H E R N O C E A N community.6 Some of these companies got their start by developing telemetry devices for tracking animals in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean. Historically, scientific work in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean was largely a public- sector affair. During the early days of U.S. research in the Antarctic region, the U.S. Navy provided most of the logistics support for U.S. scientific research. This has evolved over time to the point where logistical support is provided by contract with private companies. This is one example of the interaction of the private sector with research in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean. There are undoubtedly challenges associated with opening the activities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean to more private-sector involvement. The committee does not make a specific recommendation about the role of the private sector here; we simply note that this role is already changing and that it is doubtful that the situation will be reversed. The possibility of more collaboration across the public and private sectors can be viewed as an opportunity, and serious exploration of opportunities for and consequences of more public-private collaboration in the region is warranted. Collaboration Between Science and Logistics Personnel The Blue Ribbon Panel, which NSF has convened to look in detail at logistical issues, has an opportunity to evaluate the current approach of using a single large private contractor to support U.S. science in the Antarctic region, and to address the concerns this committee heard on the increasing difficulty and logistics-related stresses in conducting research in this region. The Blue Ribbon Panel can affect the future of sci- ence in significant ways by reconfiguring U.S. logistics to be more flexible, nimble, and synchronized with the needs of science. The rapidly evolving nature of the scientific questions facing society today demands this. Scientists working in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean want more direct input into the planning and conduct of logistics. Although many of the positive efficiency aspects of shifts in logistical support in the past two decades have been obtained by moving from military to commercial opera- tions, the Blue Ribbon Panel has an opportunity to consider how to improve logistical support so it enhances and expands science research and discovery capacities. The three U.S. bases are situated so as to foster access to much of the continent. The U.S. program possesses unique assets such as ski-equipped LC-130s and the heavy airdrop capability of the C-17. The Blue Ribbon Panel also has the opportunity to look into the places where the United States has fallen behind (e.g., in icebreaking capability) 6 See http://www.biotelem.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2&Itemid=2. 118

OCR for page 109
Opportunities to Enhance Research and where international collaboration could increase efficiencies in logistical sup- port. There is great future potential in emerging and innovative ways of conducting research, such as autonomous vehicles (underwater and airborne), miniaturization of sensors, development of novel sensors, engineering innovations for deep drilling systems, and innovative sampling strategies (e.g., instrumenting marine mammals). Improvements in communications, especially data transmission and continent-wide connectivity, will be crucial to support successful science in the future from the opera- tional needs of field parties to the movement of large quantities of data northward to U.S. laboratories. Considerations for how to enhance the efficiency, flexibility, and user friendliness of Antarctic logistical support should include discussions of appropriate relaxation of rigid fieldwork rules and fostering morale in field and base scientists. Overall, the Blue Ribbon Panel has an opportunity to examine these issues in looking to the future of logistical support for science in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean. 4.2 ENERGY, TECHNOLOGY, AND INFRASTRUCTURE There are significant opportunities related to energy, technology, and infrastructure that can facilitate the scientific research effort in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean and bring cost efficiencies to allow a greater proportion of funds to be used to sup- port scientific research projects directly. This section highlights a few examples of major emerging technologies; Appendix C provides a longer list of new technologies that can potentially enhance scientific research in the coming two decades. Energy The Antarctic region is cold, where high winds (>160 km/h) and low temperatures (<−50°C) are common. During the winter the continent is frequently icebound, and se- vere storms and darkness prevent most air operations and make lighting and heating for personnel a primary challenge. The Antarctic Treaty System and its Environmental Protocols require that much of what is brought to Antarctica be shipped home, so supply chain and waste management requires significant effort. Science operations in the Antarctic and Southern Ocean are energy intensive, a fact long understood by explorers and scientists. As a result, managers in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean are always looking for innovations related to energy production and use. For example, during the 1960s a small nuclear plant was built at McMurdo Station in an attempt to provide more reliable electric power generation. (Note that the Antarctic Treaty does not prohibit peaceful uses of nuclear science or nuclear power.) Unfortunately, the 1.75 megawatt PM-3A reactor developed mechanical problems, including leaks, and 119

OCR for page 109
F U T U R E S C I E N C E O P P O R T U N I T I E S I N A N TA R C T I C A A N D T H E S O U T H E R N O C E A N climate variability (McPhaden et al., 2010); and the World Ocean Circulation Experiment, which initiated the global drifter, profiling float, and ship-based observations that have continued and expanded, mainly with observations of physical properties. Within the United States, the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS14) is a major interagency portal and umbrella for physical and ecosystem observations. The IOOS provides an excellent model for an integrated observing system in the Southern Ocean, especially if such a framework is international, because it is inconceivable that the region could be adequately observed without major international partnerships. As part of the U.S. IOOS, a large new NSF program, the Ocean Observatories Initiative15 (OOI), will provide 25-30 years of sustained ocean measurements to study climate vari- ability, ocean circulation, ecosystem dynamics, air-sea exchange, seafloor processes, and plate-scale geodynamics. The OOI infrastructure includes cabled seafloor observa- tory nodes, moored sensors, AUVs, and gliders, as well as the supporting cyberinfra- structure for data and communications (National Science Foundation, 2005). The large OOI is representative of the magnitude of just part of the effort that will be required for comprehensive observation of the Southern Ocean. Looking to the future, the committee proposes a sustained, multinational, multidis- ciplinary effort to monitor ocean conditions in the Southern Ocean, including hy- drography, levels of carbon dioxide (CO2), and nutrients (Rintoul et al., 2011). Such an observing system would offer the opportunity for large-scale data collection covering huge areas of ocean (for an example of such a system, see Figure 4.5), producing large quantities of data that can be analyzed over time by researchers around the world. Community-based efforts for a Southern Ocean Observing System (SOOS; Rintoul et al., 2011) are well under way (Figure 4.6). Its present design addresses many of the major scientific questions identified in this report, including the role of the Southern Ocean in the planet’s heat and freshwater balance, the nature and stability of the Southern Ocean circulation, the interaction of the Southern Ocean with the glacial ice sheets of Antarctica and its effect on their contribution to sea level rise, the stability of the Southern Ocean sea-ice cover, the impact of Southern Ocean carbon uptake regionally and globally, and the future of Southern Ocean ecosystems. Such efforts, or parts thereof, can form the nucleus of a comprehensive cross-disciplinary, system- scale, long-term Southern Ocean observing initiative. In ecology, the U.S. NSF Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) Network is a coupled, multidisciplinary system of 26 observing sites, each focusing on a specific ecosys- tem (e.g., grasslands, coastal marine, forests), including the McMurdo Dry Valleys and 14 See http://www.ioos.gov/. 15 See http://www.oceanobservatories.org/. 134

OCR for page 109
Opportunities to Enhance Research FIGURE 4.5 Time series of mean carbonic acid system measurements within selected depth layers at Sta- Time series tion ALOHA, 1988-2007. (First image) PartialFigure 4-5.eps seawater calculated from DIC and TA (blue pressure of CO2 in bitmap symbols) and in water-saturated air at in situ seawater temperature (red symbols). Linear regressions of the sea and air PCO2 values are represented by solid and dashed lines, respectively (second, third, and fourth images). In situ pH, based on direct measurements (orange symbols) or as calculated from DIC and TA (green symbols), in the surface layer and within layers centered at 250 and 1,000 m. Linear regres- sions of the calculated and measured pH values are represented by solid and dashed lines, respectively. SOURCE: Dore et al., 2009, © 2009 National Academy of Sciences. 135

OCR for page 109
F U T U R E S C I E N C E O P P O R T U N I T I E S I N A N TA R C T I C A A N D T H E S O U T H E R N O C E A N FIGURE 4.6 Repeat hydrographic section to be occupied by SOOS. Symbols indicate the WOCE/CLIVAR designations for each line. SOURCE: Rintoul et al., 2011. only.eps Figure 4-6 top bitmap Palmer LTER Sites in Antarctica (Hobbie et al., 2003). The LTER Network was established in 1980 with six sites that now have more than 30 years of sustained data collection. Sites share common measurements and participate in a unified data system. Some sites build on previously initiated time series such as the California Current Ecosystem LTER, drawing on the legacy and ongoing observations of the California Cooperative Fisheries Investigation started in 1950 (Ducklow et al., 2009). The LTER sites investigate a wide range of ecological phenomena, but common themes like climate change, biogeochemical cycling, and invasive species characterize many sites as diverse as a tropical rainforest and an Antarctic pelagic marine ecosystem. The LTER Network pro- vides a model for just a part of the proposed Antarctic observing system (the ecologi- cal component, anchored by the Palmer and McMurdo sites). 136

OCR for page 109
Opportunities to Enhance Research There are a number of measurements that can only be made from space. Remote sens- ing allows the measurement of variables over greater geographic areas. The Integrated Global Observing Strategy initiated a Cryosphere Theme16 as part of the IPY in 2007- 2008. The summary report from 200717 contained a number of recommendations for future developments in remote sensing that could enhance the envisioned Antarctic observing system. A closer model to the committee’s vision for Antarctica and the Southern Ocean is the currently evolving Arctic Observing Network18 (AON) that includes many of the needed elements. AON is an NSF-supported system of atmospheric, land-, and ocean- based environmental monitoring capabilities with four main objectives: • record the full suite of environmental changes; • understand the causes and consequences of the changes under way; • predict the course, magnitude, and consequences of future changes; and • develop adaptive responses to future change. The need for an Arctic Observing System was conceived by the Arctic research com- munity in response to system-scale changes in all domains of the Arctic system. It was included as a recommendation in the final report on the 1998 workshop Opportunities in Arctic Research that stated, “If we are to understand the implications and effects of the changes in the Arctic, we must first of all track them into the future by establish- ing long-term, systematic observation programs.” It was developed and promoted during the design of Arctic Environmental Change programs such as the Study of Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH) or the International Study of Arctic Change (Murray et al., 2010; Schofield et al., 2001) and the development of recommendations for Arctic research support and logistics (Schlosser et al., 2003). Major impetus for its implementation came from the IPY and the NRC report A Vision for the International Polar Year 2007-2008 (National Research Council, 2004), which recommended that IPY “should be used as an opportunity to design and implement multidisciplinary polar observing networks that will provide a long-term perspective.” Later, in a follow-up report from the Polar Research Board, Toward an Integrated Arctic Observing Network (National Research Council, 2006), a committee recommended that development of an Arctic Observing Network aided by Observing System Simulation Experiments should get under way immediately to take advantage of IPY. Currently in the United States, AON has 35 funded projects pursuing research on the Arctic atmosphere, ocean and sea ice, hydrology and cryosphere, terrestrial ecosystems, and human dimensions. A 16 See http://igos-cryosphere.org/index.html. 17 See http://igos-cryosphere.org/docs/cryos_theme_report.pdf. 18 See http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=109687. 137

OCR for page 109
F U T U R E S C I E N C E O P P O R T U N I T I E S I N A N TA R C T I C A A N D T H E S O U T H E R N O C E A N complementary international effort called Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks19 is presently being implemented with the goal to coordinate and facilitate implementa- tion of Arctic observing activities at the international level. Vision and Goals for an Observing System An Antarctic observing system—including in situ and remote measurements—would have many of the same goals as AON: to establish a new infrastructure for sustained observations capable of detecting and recording the full suite of environmental changes occurring over decades within the Antarctic system of atmosphere, oceans, land, and ice; to further the understanding of the causes and mechanisms of change and develop the capability to predict the course of future changes; and to better man- age the continent for future generations. The envisioned observation system would also share a number of the same goals as the proposed Pan-Antarctic Observation System (PAntOS) that hopes to “deliver a coherent set of pan-Antarctic, long-term, and multidisciplinary observations focused on the entire chain of effects from geospace to Earth’s surface.”20 PAntOS was proposed to be a SCAR Action Group in conjunction with the SCAR Open Science Conference in Hobart during 2006. The primary goal of the PAntOS Group was “to address the scope and implementation strategies for the follow-on development of the multidisciplinary Pan-Antarctic Observations Network encompassing the Antarctic Continent and the surrounding Southern Ocean.”21 Plan- ning continued into 2007 but did not result in the formation of an Action Group and no activities have taken place since. Inherent to this concept of an observational network is the need for sharing of data and information. Overall improvements by all institutes in the collection, manage- ment, archiving, and exchange of data and information will allow data that has been collected once to be used for multiple purposes by a variety of stakeholders reach- ing well beyond the scientific community. An observational network will require the efforts of more than one nation, and, as encouraged by the Antarctic Treaty, SCAR, and recently published science plans, it is important that data and information be shared at an international level. Initiatives like the Polar Information Commons22 are begin- ning to address this issue. The United States has played a leading role in supporting international data sharing and should continue in this role. Internationally shared data sets can become assets that are greater than the sum of their national parts. 19 See http://www.arcticobserving.org/. 20 See http://www.scar.org/researchgroups/physicalscience/PAntOS_Plan_Rev1.pdf. 21 Ibid. 22 See http://www.polarcommons.org/. 138

OCR for page 109
Opportunities to Enhance Research The increasing scope of Antarctic and Southern Ocean research envisioned for the coming years and decades will likely require diversification of its support. Presently, NSF is the primary agency supporting research in these regions, although current contributions from other agencies are adding significant capacity. The research activi- ties proposed by this committee for the coming decades include components that will require a higher level of participation by other agencies, including mission-oriented or operational agencies. Without the latter, implementation and maintenance of a cross- domain, long-term, system-scale observing system for Antarctica and the Southern Ocean will be at best extremely difficult and would have a major impact on the ability to sustain a balanced portfolio of new research programs. The same holds for other components, such as enhanced development and application of new technologies. A multiagency approach should include participation by NSF, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NASA, the Department of Defense (Office of Naval Research), the U.S. Geological Survey, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Institutes of Health, as well as any other agency whose mission fits the vision for future research in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean outlined in this report. Effective coordination among agencies will be a key requirement for success of a future Antarctic research support structure. Observing System Overview and Components An observation system has three major components: 1. a set of observations of selected properties being made repeatedly at selected locations or in specified areas over a sustained period; 2. cyberinfrastructure for collection, communication, and curation of data; and 3. a network of scientists, technicians, and students to further develop the tech- nology underpinning the system (e.g., novel and robust sensors), synthesize and analyze the data produced by the system, and predict future trajectories of the system grounded in observations. The Antarctic observing system would be most beneficial if it encompassed the major elements of the Earth system: the atmosphere, oceans, land surface, ice, and both ter- restrial and marine ecosystems that inhabit or are supported by these major geo- physical systems. Sensor deployment should be guided by model-based observing system design and optimization whenever possible and take advantage of multisen- sor platforms wherever feasible (including use of existing platforms and observatories where possible). Data delivery should be timely—in real time or as close to real time as possible. As data transfer is currently achieved by manually downloading data periodi- 139

OCR for page 109
F U T U R E S C I E N C E O P P O R T U N I T I E S I N A N TA R C T I C A A N D T H E S O U T H E R N O C E A N cally (often annually) or via low-bandwidth telecommunication systems (Iridium and Argos), a systemwide approach to improving data transfer could benefit both scien- tific observing needs and operational needs that rely on data transfer (e.g., opera- tional weather data). Once assembled, data from observing systems should be widely available through data centers and/or web pages for scientific use including modeling, as well as for use by the broad stakeholder community. The design of an Antarctic observing system would benefit from a deliberate planning process, similar to that for AON. As an initial step, the major requirements for the observing system are outlined briefly in Appendix E. Scientific Modeling Any observing system will be incomplete without the simultaneous development of new models that can assimilate the observational data and provide sophisticated tools for data analysis and synthesis. For example, sea level projections due to ice changes come mainly from ice sheet models that lack the appropriate initial and boundary conditions with inadequate understanding of the underlying ice physics. Capturing system-scale spatial patterns in multiple domains including the ocean, atmosphere, sea ice, glacial ice, and biology requires modeling on multiple timescales. It is also important that empirical, theoretical/dynamical, and simplified modeling ap- proaches be incorporated along with the execution of process studies to provide the scientific understanding from which to build better models. Data assimilation allows the merger of diverse observation types that are irregularly dispersed in space and time (such as from the ground and space) into a coherent three-dimensional and time-dependent framework. The technique was first developed by the atmospheric science community for use in numerical weather prediction and is currently being extended to many other disciplines. A short-term prediction from a numerical model provides an initial estimate of the behavior of the system, and that estimate is further modified by additional observations. Data assimilation has evolved through global retrospective analyses and reanalyses. For example, the latest reanalysis from the NOAA National Centers for Environmental Prediction features coupled assimilation of data on atmosphere, ocean, sea ice, and land surface (Saha et al., 2010). The next generation of reanalyses aims to develop an Integrated Earth System Analysis capability.23 Possible components contemplated for inclusion are greenhouse gases, aerosols, ocean biogeochemistry, and ecosystems. 23 See http://www.usclivar.org/Reanalysis2010.php. 140

OCR for page 109
Opportunities to Enhance Research Global reanalyses are essential tools for investigating Arctic and Antarctic climate system behavior, but high-quality results are difficult to obtain for the Southern Ocean and Antarctica because of insufficient ground-based observations, challenges of assimilating the available satellite data, limited realism of the physical descriptions employed in the models, and the perception that this unpopulated part of the world is less important than other areas such as the tropics or the northern midlatitudes. Better reanalyses of the Southern Ocean and Antarctica would greatly benefit international efforts at modeling, leading to development of an Earth system reanalysis framework that enables both regional and global understanding. Future conditions can be anticipated through models, and comprehensive Earth system models are the primary tools capable of projecting the behavior of the climate system as the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases increases. The outputs of these models are featured prominently in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports (IPCC, 2007). Today the coupled behavior of the atmosphere, oceans, sea ice, and land is simulated. Among other components that are being or still need to be included are the dynamic behavior of ice sheets, the global carbon and nitrogen cycles, ocean and land biogeochemistry and ecology, the role of interactive aerosols, and the changing vegetation patterns. These global models have limited realism over the Southern Ocean and Antarctica, and significant effort is needed to develop accu- rate predictive capabilities. The limited realism of the atmospheric simulations by Earth system models is illus- trated by the rapid surface temperature increase over Antarctica that they simulate in contrast to the much more muted observed change (Monaghan et al., 2008). More ac- curate stratospheric simulations, including interactive stratospheric chemistry, are re- quired to model the changing Antarctic ozone hole and the Southern Annular Mode. Improving Antarctic models also entails better representations of the Antarctic tro- posphere, including the ubiquitous stable boundary layer that, along with the surface topography, causes the katabatic winds. This necessitates high vertical resolution close to the ice sheet surface that is not available in any Earth system model. Higher hori- zontal resolution is required to resolve and place the strong coastal katabatic winds in the right locations for polynya formation. Antarctic clouds should not be modeled in the same manner as midlatitude clouds, but rather as tenuous ice clouds that nucleate on biological material and play an important role in determining the surface tempera- ture and snow accumulation on the ice sheet. Similarly, future space weather models that use data assimilation will need diagnostic information about the ionosphere, as well as the underlying neutral atmosphere that can drive ionospheric dynamics. 141

OCR for page 109
F U T U R E S C I E N C E O P P O R T U N I T I E S I N A N TA R C T I C A A N D T H E S O U T H E R N O C E A N Ice sheet models are starting to be included in Earth system models. Yet many aspects of ice sheet behavior are not well understood, such as ice streams, outlet glaciers, ice shelves and associated calving, and the flow of liquid water at the base. As a result ice sheet models currently show limited skill, but vigorous efforts at improvement are un- der way.24 Progress in modeling Antarctic outlet glacier behavior will have the added benefit of being directly applicable to Greenland, where outlet glaciers are showing rapid change. Earth system models do not capture the behavior of the Southern Ocean with much fidelity (Weijer et al., Forthcoming). Simulated sea ice behavior often shows large dif- ferences with respect to observations (e.g., Landrum et al., Forthcoming). Ice shelves are not included, so the formation of Antarctic Bottom Water is not well simulated. This is the densest water at the bottom of the global ocean and is part of the global oceanic overturning circulation that links the Southern and Northern hemispheres. This, along with Subantarctic Mode Water and Antarctic Intermediate Water, needs to be better understood to anticipate global climate change. Present models do not represent the transport across the Antarctic Circumpolar Current well, owing to their inability to resolve small-scale ocean processes. It is also important to understand the melting of ice shelves by warm ocean water (such as occurring in the rapidly retreat- ing Pine Island Glacier) and their contribution to sea level rise, as well as the role of ice shelf retreat on the inland ice sheet. For ecosystem models, a new generation of models is needed—one that can predict the effects of changes in species composition and ecosystem structure on ecosystem services (Reid, 2005), such as primary and secondary productivity, CO2 uptake, and climate regulation, which are derived from properly functioning ecosystems. Current models lack species diversity, trophodynamic complexity, and realistic linkages be- tween the lower trophic levels with their fast turnover times and upper-level preda- tors that live for decades and range over thousands of kilometers, crossing ecosystem boundaries and coupling remote subsystems of the Antarctic system. The many new physical processes that need to be understood at a process level and incorporated into models along with the fine spatial and temporal scales required indicate that regional climate system models will be required to make major progress in accurately predicting the broad-scale climate changes to be expected in Antarctica, not only for the long-term trends but also for the interannual and decadal variability. Successfully achieving such progress will require a major effort over the next 20 years. Regional Earth system models will need to be “nested” within the global Earth system 24 See http://oceans11.lanl.gov/trac/CISM. 142

OCR for page 109
Opportunities to Enhance Research models with simulation results flowing back and forth. Some work is already under way on this.25 Improved Earth system models for Antarctica and the Southern Ocean are urgently needed to strengthen the simulation and prediction of global climate patterns. Vision for the Future The committee envisions an observing network with data integration along the lines of that in AON or the proposed PAntOS, along with a sustained modeling effort that plans and evaluates observation locations, synthesizes large data sets, and improves predictive capability looking into the future. Expansion of these activities holds great opportunity for improved productivity in science and will require resources and a careful planning process. These efforts are important for national and international collaboration, because the observation network and modeling effort described here are inherently interdisciplinary and will cross agency and institutional boundaries. This is very much in line with the goals of NSF as society enters the “New Era of Observa- tion” as described by the NSF Director.26 The committee endorses the development of an observing network and an improved intercoupled system modeling effort as the best hope in answering the pressing scientific questions facing the globe. 25 See http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/working_groups/Polar/. 26 See http://www.nsf.gov/news/speeches/suresh/11/ss110214_nsfbudget.jsp. 143

OCR for page 109
A spring sunset near Palmer Station. SOURCE: Mindy Piuk/NSF.