Ocean Observing Subpanel December 7, 2010 recommendations

Ocean Observing Subpanel December 7, 2010 recommendations

to full ORRAP

2011 Subpanel Work Plan– Develop white paper/recommendations on

role of ocean observing in new National Ocean Policy

– Help identify, document & prioritize socioeconomic benefits of ocean observing, including benefits to industry

– Monitor implementation of ICOOS Act: FACA committee charter, certification, build-out plan, independent cost analysis, & gap analysis

– Monitor IOOS/OOI collaborations

• Needs new ORRAP members –champions of ocean observing member must be chair or vice-chair

• Include members of other ocean observing committees (UNOLS ocean obscommittee, IOOS Program FACA committee, OOI advisory committee, other?)

• Add new members with ocean observing expertise – users of ocean obs products

Subpanel changes

Accelerating the Decision Making Process for Renewable Ocean Energy Projects: A Forum to be Hosted by the

ORRAP Industry Sub-panel

The Industry Sub-panel of the Ocean Research and Resources Advisory Panel (ORRAP) will hold a collaborative forum to identify methods to accelerate the decision making process for ocean renewable energy projects. The Forum will be held in April 2011, in Washington, D.C., at the offices of the Consortium for Ocean Leadership.

Purpose

There is increasing social and government focus on encouraging the development of non-traditional energy sources, including harnessing ocean renewable energy. However, the present state of federal, state and local processes for deploying offshore renewable energy projects, to be sited in either coastal or outer continental shelf waters, while evolving, remains complex and, sometimes, poorly coordinated. The Forum will bring together regulators and individuals with real-world experience to discuss pervasive impediments to the development of projects. The outcome of this Forum will be specific suggestions, for ways to expedite the decision making process for ocean renewable energy projects, with results to be forwarded by ORRAP as policy guidance to the Administration.

ORRAP Education Sub-panel Priorities-Recommendations for the National

Ocean Council1-Ocean literacy in the general population – Public, informal education and outreach. Example opportunities include:•Get children out into nature (No Child Left Inside) as a means for teaching environmental principles •Educate the public on the interrelatedness of oceans and climatechange, especially through aquariums and other informal science education venues.•Educate upstream populations about their waterways’connections to ocean and coastal systems•Include the Great Lakes in discussions about the oceans and coasts•Engage under-represented and under-served communities, especially in recognition of changing demographic patterns

2-Workforce development. Example opportunities include:•Use results from the NOPP-funded MATE Center study to promote workforce development•Enhance websites and recruitment tools to aid applicants in applying for federal jobs


Ocean Council- Cntd.

3-Investment needs and policies. Priority opportunities include:•Broaden the outdated thinking of “ocean-atmosphere coupling” to include oceans, atmosphere, inland water, and social sciences•Recognize the value of knowledge from traditional communities•Coordinate content of new and existing education reports


Ocean Council- Cntd.

Opportunities for the New Administration• Restore America’s strength in STEM disciplines by making ocean,

coastal, and Great Lakes EOE a priority on par with research priorities at all relevant federal agencies.

• Designate NOAA as the lead agency to coordinate the integration and evaluation of ocean EOE nationally to maximize the impact of federal investments across all agencies.

• Establish standards and evaluate EOE effectiveness to ensure that EOE priorities and outcomes are documented and reported by federal agencies to the appropriate advisory/oversight groups.

• Engage the private sector and governmental agencies at all levels to work collaboratively with colleges and universities to retrain and retool our existing workforce.

ORRAP Education Sub-panel Priorities- Recommendations for the National Ocean Council1. Ocean literacy in the general population – Public, informal

education and outreach.2. Workforce development.3. Investment needs and policies.

Update on the Ocean Acidification Task ForceUpdate on the Ocean Acidification Task Force

IWGOA

OATF?

IWGOA OATF

OATF AccomplishmentsOATF Accomplishments IWGOA Incorporated OATF Recommendations into IWGOA Incorporated OATF Recommendations into

Strategic PlanStrategic Plan•• National Program OfficeNational Program Office

•• Not housed within a federal agencyNot housed within a federal agency•• Inclusive of academia, industry, NGOs, foundations, Inclusive of academia, industry, NGOs, foundations,

federal agenciesfederal agencies•• Exact structure TBDExact structure TBD

•• Enhanced CommunicationEnhanced Communication•• Significant existing international collaboration and Significant existing international collaboration and

interactionsinteractions•• Discussions of international meetingDiscussions of international meeting•• PI meeting of funded OA researchers at WHOI in March PI meeting of funded OA researchers at WHOI in March

2011 planned, approx. 150 to attend2011 planned, approx. 150 to attend

IWGIWG--OA questions for the OA questions for the ORRAP OA Task ForceORRAP OA Task Force

1) Assuming there will be a National Program Office 1) Assuming there will be a National Program Office with a Steering Committee, how we might best with a Steering Committee, how we might best structure it to get input from academia, industry, structure it to get input from academia, industry, NGOs, private foundations, state and local NGOs, private foundations, state and local governments, etc.?governments, etc.?

2) How we might foster international collaborations on 2) How we might foster international collaborations on OA research that go beyond the range of Southern OA research that go beyond the range of Southern Ocean, EPOCA and SOLASOcean, EPOCA and SOLAS--IMBER coordinated IMBER coordinated activities. Are there other OA communities and activities. Are there other OA communities and stakeholders we should be contacting as well?stakeholders we should be contacting as well?

OATF Foundation InteractionOATF Foundation Interaction•• Sven Huseby represented OATF at Foundation Sven Huseby represented OATF at Foundation

meetings on OAmeetings on OA–– October 2010: Palo Alto, CAOctober 2010: Palo Alto, CA

–– November 2010: London, UKNovember 2010: London, UK

–– December 15, 2010: NYCDecember 15, 2010: NYC

Foundations Seeking advice of what to supportFoundations Seeking advice of what to support International collaboration (travel, bilateral research)International collaboration (travel, bilateral research)

Centers for Excellence (COE) on OA (similar to PISCO) Centers for Excellence (COE) on OA (similar to PISCO) should be established to jumpstart OA research in the USshould be established to jumpstart OA research in the US

Foundations will hire a coordinator on OAFoundations will hire a coordinator on OA Should be on OATF and on National Program Should be on OATF and on National Program SSCSSC

Future OATF Tasks Future OATF Tasks ––Renew TOR To Continue until National Program Office is Renew TOR To Continue until National Program Office is

Instituted, or 12 monthsInstituted, or 12 months

•• Asked by IWGOA to Review IWGOA Strategic PlanAsked by IWGOA to Review IWGOA Strategic PlanMarch 2011 releaseMarch 2011 releaseNRC will reviewNRC will review

•• Update OATF Report Update OATF Report Field is progressing quicklyField is progressing quicklyNRC report was not available when OATF report writtenNRC report was not available when OATF report writtenAvailable for Review at March 2011 ORRAP meetingAvailable for Review at March 2011 ORRAP meeting

•• Act as FACA oversightAct as FACA oversightProvide continuity of advice to IWGOA until National Provide continuity of advice to IWGOA until National Program Office is implementedProgram Office is implementedEnsures access to individuals outside of Federal agenciesEnsures access to individuals outside of Federal agenciesCould continue on telecon basisCould continue on telecon basis

Pacific Northwest Oyster Emergency

Alan Barton• Failure of larval oyster recruitments in recent years

• Hatchery failure threatens $100M industry

• Ocean acidification a potential factor in failures

• Larval oyster may be “canary in coal mine” for nearshore acidification

• NOAA administered emergency funds ($500K) to Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association for equipment and monitoring of water quality at oyster hatcheries in OR & WA

06/06 06/16 06/26 07/06 07/16 07/26-15

0

15

N S

win

d (m

/s)

06/06 06/16 06/26 07/06 07/16 07/2628

30

32

34

Sal

inity

(ppt

)

06/06 06/16 06/26 07/06 07/16 07/26-5

0

5

Per

form

ance

of S

mal

lLa

rvae

(<12

0 m

icro

ns)

Growth Survival

06/06 06/16 06/26 07/06 07/16 07/260.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

A

rago

nite

Sat

urat

ion

Sta

te

South winds produce downwelling

Lower salinityΩ>>1 (easy to form shell)Fast growth and good survival of small larvae

North winds produce upwelling

Higher salinityΩ <= 1 (difficult or impossible to build shell)Poor growth and mass mortality of small larvae

Willapa Bay

Slides courtesy of Alan Barton, Whiskey Creek Hatchery Consultant

Managing around the problem• Put small larvae into tanks filledin the afternoon or overnight

‐Works if the suns out

• 24 hour notice‐ Upwelling takes a day or two to start up, so when winds from the North, fill tanks late in the day and spawn like crazy

SPAWNLOTS!

DON’TSPAWN!

Egg Development – delayed mortality

Treated Seawater Control(buffered and degassed) (untreated)

pCO2= 349uatm @ 25°C, pCO2=759uatm @25°CpH=8.25, tCO2=2580.97 pH=7.80, tCO2=2159.54

Initial Survival– 76.7% 65.8%Survival at Day 10- 66.0% 0%

*Seawater conditions were manipulated for egg development ONLYAfter the first water change (t=48hrs), all larvae in the experiment were stored in

untreated seawater, and both groups saw identical water conditions until day 10The Control larvae in this experiment were irreparably damaged during egg development,

but mortality was not observed until day 10Data shown are average values from two replicate 6000 gallon tanks per treatment

Dabob Bay, WA‐ Taylor Shellfish Hatchery

NOAA, UW, PCSGA, PSRF partnershipNewton, Feely, Sabine,etc.

Bellingham, WA‐ Lummi Hatchery


Gray’s Harbor, WA‐ setting stations

Willapa Bay, WA‐Tokeland, Bay Center, andNahcotta monitoring stations

Netarts Bay, OR‐Whiskey Creek Shellfish Hatchery

2011 Monitoring Stations

Willapa Bay, WA‐Tokeland, Bay Center, andNahcotta monitoring stations

UW,PSI,WDFW,WRF partnershipTrimble,Suhrbier,Kaufman, etc.


NOAA, UW, PCSGA, PSRF partnershipNewton, Feely, Sabine,etc.

Questions?Questions?

The National Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP) 2009-2010 Update

Ocean Research and Resources Advisory Panel, 8-9 December 2010

Overview of Presentation

• Brief history of NOPP & ORRAP Legislation• NOPP and the National Ocean Policy• NOPP Funded Research• Looking forward

NOPP LegislationThe 1997 Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 104-201) established the National Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP) for two purposes:

1 To promote national goals of assuring national security, advancing economic development, protecting quality of life, and strengthening science education and communication through improved knowledge of the ocean; and

2 To coordinate and strengthen oceanographic efforts in support of those goals by:

a) Identifying and carrying out partnerships among federal agencies, academia, industry, and other members of the oceanographic scientific community in the areas of data, resources, education, and communication, andb) Reporting annually to Congress on the Program.

NOPP LegislationThe 1998 Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 105-85) defined responsibilities of ORAP [now ORRAP]:

RESPONSIBILITIES.—The Council [NORLC] shall assign the following responsibilities to the Advisory Panel:1 To advise the Council on policies and procedures to implement the National Oceanographic Partnership Program.2 To advise the Council on selection of partnership projects and allocation of funds for partnership projects for implementation under the program.3 To advise the Council on matters relating to national oceanographic data requirements.4 Any additional responsibilities that the Council considers appropriate.

NOPP and the National Ocean PolicyNOPP is an effective forum for development of new interagency initiatives and priorities that transcend single agency agendas. As strategic action plans are developed for each of the National Priority Objectives of the National Ocean Policy, it is critical that the interagency ocean community recognize that partnerships and collaboration are critical for the execution of the national priority objectives.

• NOPP and IWG-OP have demonstrated success at Coordinating & Supporting (4) management of our marine environments.

• NOPP and IWG-OP have focused and dedicated resources to Ocean, Coastal, and Great Lakes Observations, Mapping and Infrastructure (9)

• Informing Decisions and Improving Understanding (3) is strongly related to one of the goals from the NOPP strategic plan to promote lifelong ocean education

• The NOPP and IWG-OP agencies have held a long interest in the Changing Conditions in the Arctic (8)

NOPP Funding CriteriaTwo or more agencies collaborate on the funding announcement. This collaboration can include in-kind support.

For Proposers - Team efforts are required among two of the three sectors: academia, industry (including NGOs), and government (including State and Local).

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009

Year

NOPP Funding By Agency and Year

USCGUSACE

USGS

NavyNSF

NOAA

NASA

BOEMREEPA

DOE

ONR

Distribution of NOPP Funding by Sector

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Averag

e

Fiscal Year Project StartAcademia Government Industry/NGOs/Other

59%

17%

24%

NOPP ResearchBetween 1997 and 2010, $312.4 million** was spent on 163 research projects.

Figure: FY 1997-2009 investment in NOPP-Funded Activities, including both NOPP-Solicited Projects and NOPP-Managed Activities. Note that the dollar amounts shown are those spent each year; out-year commitments are not shown.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Fiscal Year

$M

NOPP-Solicited Projects NOPP-Managed Activities

NOPP ProjectsExamples of the diverse range of NOPP-funded research topics include:

• Long Term Impacts of Deployments of Tags on Whales

• Atlantic Deepwater Canyons• Offshore Renewable Energy• Acoustic Technologies to

Monitor Aquatic Organisms• Autonomous Sensors for

Measurement of Chemical & Biological Properties of Ocean

• Many others!0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

# of Projects Funded

Fiscal Year

FY09 NOPP-Funded TopicsFY09

• Improving Wind Wave Predictions: Global to Regional Scale

• Sensors for Measurement of Biological, Bio-Optical, Optical or Chemical properties of the ocean

• Improving Tropical Cyclone Intensity Forecasting

Results

•19 total funded projects

•$18.7 M in total funding

•USACE, BOEMRE (formerly MMS), NASA, NOAA, NSF, and ONR sponsoredMore detailed information available at www.nopp.org/funded-projects/.

FY10 NOPP-Funded TopicsFY10

•Improving Attachments of Electronic Data Loggers to Cetaceans

•Developing Environmental Protocols and Monitoring to Support Ocean Renewable Energy and Stewardship

•Exploration and Research of Mid-Atlantic Deepwater Hard Bottom Habitats and Shipwrecks with Emphasis on Canyons and Coral Communities

Results

•13 total funded projects

• $21.7 M in total funding (~$27 M with in-kind contributions)

• BOEMRE, DOE, Exxon-Mobil, NFWF, NOAA, NSF, ONR, USGS sponsoredMore detailed information available at www.nopp.org/funded-projects/.

Case Study: Federal Leveraging

• NOPP FY 2010 Topic- Exploration and Research of Mid-Atlantic Deepwater Hard Bottom Habitats and Shipwrecks with Emphasis on Canyons and Coral Communities

• $3M funding contribution from BOEMRE• $3M contribution from NOAA OER for research vessels

and Jason ROV (3 cruises)• $3.4M contribution from USGS for 4 PIs and associate

staff time for 4 years• While the awarded project, led by CSA International,

receives $3M in funding, the total project worth is $9.4M

Development of NOPP-Funded Topics• Typically initiated via interactions among agency program

managers.• Member agencies (plural!) informally propose NOPP research

topics to IWG-OP, which encourages or discourages.• Preliminary interagency partnerships are formed, tentative

levels of support are pledged, and draft solicitation (Broad Agency Announcement or Request for Proposals) language is developed.

• IWG-OP approves funding announcement language, which is then announced by the lead agency as a BAA or RFP.

• Then comes the hard part…

NOPP Funding ProcessResearch topics developed by agencies.

Funding agreements, selection and announcement of funded projects.

Review of panel scores by agency program managers.

In-person panelists meeting led by program managers.

Written reviews submitted for each proposal by panelists.

Peer reviewers (panel) solicited.

Proposal processing by lead agency and NOPP Office.

Submission deadline.

Announcement for funding.

Proposal discussion and scoring made by panel

Excellence in Partnering Award

A core principle in NOPP collaborations has been cross-sector researcher partnerships and multiple agency funding partnerships.

Toward a predictive model of Arctic coastal retreat in a warming climate, Beaufort Sea, Alaska

• Research partners include the University of Colorado (Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences & Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research), Naval Postgraduate School, U.S. Dept. of Interior

• Funding partners for this topic included ONR, BOEMRE, NSF, and Shell

• FY 2011 Marine Mammal Detection and Monitoring Funding Period just closed; __ proposals submitted

Looking into the Future• Currently reviewing FY 2011 U.S. Integrated Ocean

Observing System submitted Proposals

• Currently developing a NOPP funding opportunity on near term research for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill

• Developing a NOPP fast response mechanism

Long-term collaboration of federal agencies motivated by common needs

The NOPP ApproachIdentify areas that are important to two or more agencies, and that would most benefit from a partnership approachValue PropositionWorking together achieves more, and does so more efficiently, than working alone

What is the bottom line?

Questions/Discussion?

Photo by Tom Weingartner

Reference Slides

Why is Partnering Important?1) Address critical national priorities that cannot be accomplished

by a single agency or sector;

2) Address priority issues that bridge the mandates of individual federal agencies;

3) Contribute to the cutting edge or forefront of interdisciplinary and intersector science and technology;

4) Help ensure that institutional resources are invested and leveraged wisely, while planning for the future; and

5) Provide the necessary flexibility for supporting new, emerging issues that may not yet be part of a “mandate” but are of interest and value to many.

NOPP Funding ProcessResearch topics developed by agencies.

Funding agreements, selection and announcement of funded projects.

Review of panel scores by agency program managers.

In-person panelists meeting led by program managers.

Written reviews submitted for each proposal by panelists.

Peer reviewers (panel) solicited.

Proposal processing by lead agency and NOPP Office.

Submission deadline.

Announcement for funding.

Proposal discussion and scoring made by panel

Proposal Review CriteriaProposals are reviewed based on:• Relevance of the proposed research to NOPP objectives; • Overall scientific and technical merits of the proposal;• Level of support of critical research objectives or

operational goals;• Quality of proposed partnerships;• The offeror’s capabilities, related experience, and facilities

that are critical to the proposal objectives;• The long-commitment of the partners to the proposed

objectives;• The qualifications and experience of the proposed PI and

key personnel; and • Reasonableness of cost.

“Give me half a tanker of iron and I’ll give you the next ice age”J. Martin,quote from WHOItalk in 1988

Ken BuesselerWoods Hole Oceanographic Institution

http://cafethorium.whoi.edu

Summary of Ocean Geoengineering & C mitigation options1. Ocean fertilization to increase carbon sequestration adding iron, nitrogen, other nutrients

- ocean pumps to bring deep water nutrients (and CO2) to surface1b. Ocean fertilization to increase DMS production

- dimethyl sulfide stimulates cloud formation

2. Dispose of carbon in the deep sea (or below sea floor)- liquid CO2, crop wastes, charcoal/biochar- must also consider impacts/costs of massive C removal from land

3. Change ocean chemistry to increase CO2 uptake- takes mega tons of chemical reagents to change alkalinity

4. Make the ocean white (clouds/floats)- treats climate symptoms, so no decrease in CO2 - ocean acidification is not improved by solar management- decreases light, hence algal CO2 uptake decreases

Natural pathway for rapid carbon sequestration in deep sea

Small changes to biopump can have big impacts10 Gt C/yrincrease remineralization depth by 24 meters, decrease atmos. CO2by 10-27 ppm

Can iron (dust) enhance ocean’s “biological pump”?

1. “Just add iron” -small amounts of iron enhance algal growth in some locations

2. Can iron increase ocean carbon sequestration?

most carbon does not reach deep sea, <10%(range 1-50%)

deeper = longer sequestrationcenturies

decades

seasons

P. W. Boyd et al., Science 315, 612 -617 (2007)

13 major iron fertilization experiments since 1993& studies of natural Fe sources

Map of surface ocean nitrate

Chlorophyll (mg m-3)

0 1 2 3 4 5

Dep

th (m

)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Day 6 Day 11 Day 12 Day 15 Day 21

Pre fertilization

R. Barber et al.

Increase in phytoplankton seen after iron additionday day

before 6 15 21

1. add iron2. see “bloom”

- 13 experiments3. see CO2 decrease

- but only in surface

sunlight

What controls the ocean response to iron?“Location, location, location…”

Phil Boyd- U. Dunedin, NZ

Initial conditions matter both for C uptake andC sequestration

- light- temperature- season- winds- biota- currents etc.

0

24

68

10

1214

1618

20

Ironex

-1Iro

nex-2

Soiree

Eisenex

Seeds

SofexN

orthSofe

xSouth

Series

Eifex

Experiment

Max

imum

Chl

a [m

g.m

-3]

De Baar et al., 2005

Multiple iron experiments resulted in variable biomass & CO2 uptake

- what about other consequences?

T1171Day 12 .3

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

95 105 115% N2O s a tu ra tion

Dep

th (m

)

2 6 .9 27 .1 27 .3 27 .5Dens ity ( t)

Numerous biogeochemical and biophysical “side effects”. Some may help combatclimate change, some exacerbate it

Andrew Watson- Univ. East Anglia

- other greenhouse gases (DMS, CH4, N2O)

- biophysical effects (light)

Law and Ling, 2001

0 5 10 15 20 25

Days0 5 10 15 20 25

POC

flux

mm

ol/m

2/d

0

10

20

30

40

50

Boyd et al. 2004

What happens below the surface?

Add ironhere

Collect C on sinking particleshere

- not so easy to measure- need longer experiments

Science is certain regarding-1.Small iron additions can stimulate algal blooms & CO2 uptake2.Natural iron rich seas are productive & sequester more CO2

Science is uncertain regarding-1. Will it work?

how much CO2 & how long (potential- 100’s million tons C/yr)

2. What are the ecologicalconsequences?

intended & unintended

3. What is variability & predictability?

especially at larger & longer scales

Ocean Iron Fertilization

What comes next?

Scientific research priorities are clear Larger & longer experiments Follow subsurface fate of C Study ecological consequences Studies of other gases- O2, N2O, CH4, DMS Improve models But who will step up to the plate? NSF? NOAA? DOE? commercial?

International regulation important- London Convention

Science Jan. 2008

Some new science results- Indian/German cruise Jan. 2009

Science News Jan. 2009Controversy in Their Wake, Geoengineering Experiment in Southern Ocean to Begin

ETC 2009

detailed biogeochemical observations35 dayspost Fe addition

V. Smetacek& Naqvi et al.

Some scientific conclusions of LOHAFEX

1. Iron addition stimulated production. Accumulation rates of phytoplankton increased for a very short time only (if at all) because of heavy grazing pressure by zooplankton.

2. LOHAFEX showed that iron fertilization of nutrient-rich (NO3,PO4) waters does not necessarily lead to carbon export and thus CO2 uptake

-> Only diatoms, which are protected against grazing, are able totransport large amounts of carbon to the deep sea.

3. The state and functioning of the whole ecosystem plays an essential role; in particular: the plankton assemblage (initial conditions) and the amount of silicic acid.

Iron fertilization makes no sense here! (from C. Klaas, July ‘10)

DISCOVERY April 2009Adding Iron to Ocean Won't Stop Warming

What can be learned from natural OIF events?

Volcanic ash fuels anomalous plankton bloom in subarctic NE Pacific Hamme et al. GRL Sept. 2010

August, 2008

DISCOVER Oct. 2010Volcano Blast Creates a Natural Test of a Geoengineering Scheme–Which Fails“Despite the huge area of iron addition and the optimal time of year when there was plenty of sunlight, the impact of this August 2008 event in terms of carbon dioxide absorption was quite small,” Hamme said.

BUT0.01 Pg C sequestered = 0.01 Gt C = 40 million tons CO2

or equivalent to 85 million barrels of oil;940 million tree seedlings grown for 10 years

- no harmful effects (no reported decline O2, increase HABs)- pH increased from 8.08 to 8.12 (reduces acidification)- “some evidence” that much of the 0.01 Pg C was exported from the surface ocean- short event/small area

ANDNature, Oct. 2010Sparks fly over theory that volcano caused salmon boom- Could volcanic ash feed ailing fish populations?

“Tim Parsons, one of Canada's most eminent fisheries researchers, has suggested that iron in the ash from the volcanic eruption on Kasatochi island, which spurred a phytoplankton bloom, could have indirectly provided a feast for the salmon”

PNAS March, 2010

Still some skeptical voices-

“The findings establish potential consequences for developing toxic algal blooms in pelagic ecosystems”

“The specific effects of global-scale ocean fertilization are hard to predict, because ocean’s response is dependent upon scale…. Small-scale experiments are inherently inadequate to verify model predictions”

Nature Sept. 2009

Workshop on Ocean Iron Fertilization ResearchJuly 12-14, 2010, Woods Hole (WHOI sponsored)

An international group of scientists met to discuss the scientific motivation for future ocean iron fertilization (OIF) research.

The development of ocean observing systems now make this assessment of OIF possible.

A long-term, large-scale effort will be required to resolve many of the critical questions about OIF and carbon sequestration.

Importantly, OIF type experiments provide unique ways to study how the ocean functions, and have advanced our field in many ways.

A Consortium is being formulated to coordinate research, provide oversight, seek funding and communicate results.

Workshop participants list

Last First InstitutionBuesseler Ken WHOI, Woods Hole Oceanographic Inst.Campos Edmo Inst. Oceanografico U. San Paulo, BrazilChai Fei U. MaineChavez Francisco MBARI, Monterey Bay Aquarium Res. Inst.Dai Minhan U. Xiamen, ChinaGray Les Morgan Group LLCKlaas Christine AWI, GermanyLampitt Richard NOC Southampton UKLeinen Margaret Climate Response FundLohan Maeve U. Plymouth UKMcGillicuddy Dennis WHOIPopova Katya NOC Southampton UKRothstein Lew U. Rhode IslandSaito Mak WHOISaito Hiroaki Fisheries Research Agency, Shiogama JapanStuermer Dan WHOI Office of Applied OceanographyTrull Tom U. Tasmania AustraliaWanninkhof Rik AOML NOAA, MiamiWatson Andrew U. East Anglia, UKWinslow Chris WHOI CFOWhaley Dan ClimosWuebbles Don U. Illinois

Mission statement:

To resolve the impact of iron fertilization on marine ecosystems, to quantify its potential for removal of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and to improve our collective understanding of the changing ocean

ISIS Consortiumseeking government, private, corporate sponsorsmulti Institutional, internationalopen research, peer review, independent participantswork within London Convention/London Protocol

An Introduction to Geoengineering by “Solar Radiation Management”

(SRM)

Phil Rasch, (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory)email: philip -dot- rasch – at – pnl –dot- gov

With thanks to Graham Feingold, John Latham, Alan Robock, Hailong Wang, Rob Wood

Tidbits from four or five papers appearing inPhilosophical Transactions AGeophys. Res. LettersEnv. Res. Letters

CostEffectivenessPerturbation on a natural phenomenaReadiness

May want to combine approaches

Cut emissionsSuck out CO2Brighten Planet

New Scientist

Some Geoengineering ApproachesAssessed as a

“possibly attractive scheme”

Cooling after Pinatubo

Soden et al 2002

Important processes for stratospheric aerosols(from SPARC Assessment of Stratospheric Aerosols, 2006

Sulfate during June, July, August

Impact on Sfc Temperature (JJA)

Rasch et al. (2008)

Robock (2000), Dutton and Bodhaine (2001)

+ 140 W m-2

- 175 W m-2- 34 %

Ozone change due to geoengineeringwith – without geo-engineering (Tilmes et al, 2009)

% change in O3

11

Humans do affect clouds

Simple theory suggests

More aerosol more drops smaller drops more reflective

clouds

•CO2 doubling compensated by (Slingo, 1990):•120% increase in droplet concentrations•40% decrease in cloud drop size•12% increase in oceanic cloud cover

Geoengineering by seeding boundary layer clouds

First suggested by John Latham in 1990 Subsequently explored in a few studies over the last 20 years

The idea is toTake some seawaterConvert it to very small dropletsIntroduce these tiny droplets near the ocean surface. They will evaporate and make tiny salt particles that can act as the Cloud Condensation Nuclei (CCN)Design the aerosol particles to be optimal CCN that will “outcompete” Natural Aerosols” to make cloud drops.

If we decided to seed 30% of the globe, where might we seed?

(number of months we seed at each location)

Implied Radiative Effect (ΔSWCF --- not exactly forcing because feedbacks are occurring)

JJA

DJF

Surface Temperature Change (compared to control)

2xCO2

+ seeding 20% of the ocean

+ seeding 70% of the ocean

Sea Ice is affected by global warming and geoengineering

Summer sea ice goes away with a doubling

of CO2

Ice returns with geoengineering

It is possible to overdo the effect

Precipitation Change(compared to today)

Change from geoengineering by

seeding 20% of the ocean

Precipitation Today

Jones et al 2009

Possible Influences on Ocean Ecosystems:

TemperaturePrecipitation /freshwater & salinityMixingOcean circulations

UpwellingENSOMOC

Total SunlightDirect/diffuse sunlightUVB

19

LIMITED AREA FIELD EXPERIMENT: EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Rob Wood, Chris Bretherton: University of Washington

Hugh Coe, Keith Bower, Tom Choularton: University of Manchester

Phil Rasch: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Graham Feingold, NOAA ESRL

Phase 1: Injection and Dispersion of salt aerosols in the marine boundary layer

Injection stack Aerosol plume

Stacks of runs, different distances

Do the aerosols get bigger?Where do they go?– Can we locate them entering a cloud?How long do they last?Can we see their effect on the cloud?

Phase 2:Single source

cloud responses (“salt‐track”)

Aerosol plume

Satellites

Cloud layer

Aircraft 2: Radiation, remote sensingradar, lidar, spectral and broadband SW and LW radiometers, microwave rad.)

Aircraft 1: In-situ measurementcloud and aerosol chemistry and microphysics, turbulence, atmospheric state

Phase 3:Cloud responses in a 100x100 km limited area

Aerosol plume

Satellites

Cloud layer

Aircraft 3: Radiation, remote sensingradar, lidar, spectral and broadband SW and LW radiometers, microwave rad.)

Aircraft 1/2: In‐situ measurementcloud and aerosol chemistry and microphysics, turbulence, atmospheric state

Ship, mobile facility

Jerry Miller, OSTP Michael Weiss, CEQ

Ocean Research and Resources Advisory PanelDecember 9, 2010

National Ocean Council1

www.WhiteHouse.gov/oceans

2

An America whose stewardship ensures that the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes are

healthy and resilient, safe and productive,

and understood and treasured so as to promote the well-being, prosperity, and

security of present and future generations


• Establishes our Nation’s first ever National Policy for Stewardship of the Ocean, our Coasts, and the Great Lakes

• Creates an interagency National Ocean Council to provide sustained, high-level, and coordinated attention to advance the National Policy

• Prioritizes 9 categories for action that seek to address the most pressing challenges facing the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes

• Establishes a flexible framework for effective coastal and marine spatial planning to address conservation, economic activity, user conflict, and sustainable use of ecosystem services

3National Ocean Council

• Establish any new regulations

• Restrict any ocean uses or activities

• Include a zoning plan or map

• Slow down or halt current or pending actions


5

(1) our Nation’s first ever National Policy for the Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes (National Policy);

(2) a strengthened governance structure to provide sustained, high‐level, and coordinated attention to ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes issues

(3) a targeted implementation strategy that identifies and prioritizes nine categories for action that the United States should pursue

(4) a framework for effective coastal and marine spatial planning (CMSP) that establishes a comprehensive, integrated, ecosystem‐based

approach to address conservation, economic activity, user conflict, and sustainable use


6

• Protect, maintain, and restore the health and biological diversity of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems and resources;

• Improve the resiliency of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems, communities, and economies;

• Bolster the conservation and sustainable uses of land in ways that will improve the health of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes

ecosystems; and

• Use the best available science and knowledge to inform decisions affecting the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes, and enhance

humanity’s capacity to understand, respond, and adapt to a changing global environment.



• Support sustainable, safe, secure, and productive access to, and uses of, the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes;

• Respect and preserve our Nation’s maritime heritage, including our social, cultural, recreational, and historical values; and

• Exercise rights and jurisdiction and perform duties in accordancewith applicable international law, including respect for and preservation of navigational rights and freedoms, which are essential for the global economy and international peace

and security.

7


• Increase scientific understanding of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems as part of the global interconnected systems of air, land, ice, and water, including their relationships to humans and their activities;

• Improve our understanding and awareness of changing environmental conditions, trends, and their causes, and of human activities taking place in ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes waters; and

• Foster a public understanding of the value of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes to build a foundation for improved stewardship.

8

• Establishes a National Ocean Council

• Stronger decision-making and dispute-resolution process

• Formally engage state, tribal, and local entities through establishment of a coordinating committee

• Strengthen the link between science and management through a establishment of a steering committee

• Renewed and sustained high-level engagement with clear requirements for meetings


National Ocean CouncilNational Ocean CouncilPrincipals/DeputiesPrincipals/DeputiesCoCo‐‐Chairs: CEQ/OSTPChairs: CEQ/OSTP

Steering CommitteeSteering Committee(CEQ, OSTP, Staff Director, (CEQ, OSTP, Staff Director,

and Chairs of the IPC)and Chairs of the IPC)

National Economic National Economic Council Council

National Security National Security CouncilCouncil

Governance Coordinating Governance Coordinating CommitteeCommittee

State/Tribal/LocalState/Tribal/Local

Ocean Research and Ocean Research and Resources Advisory PanelResources Advisory Panel

Ocean Resource Management Ocean Resource Management Interagency Policy CommitteeInteragency Policy Committee

Chair/CoChair/Co‐‐ChairChair

Ocean Science and Technology Ocean Science and Technology Interagency Policy CommitteeInteragency Policy Committee

Chair/CoChair/Co‐‐ChairsChairs

Working groups could be retained or established as standing or ad hoc Sub-Interagency Policy Committees (IPCs): e.g., Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning, Ocean Acidification, Ocean Observations, Mapping, Ocean Education, Climate Resiliency and Adaptation, Regional Ecosystem Protection and Restoration, Water Quality and Sustainable Practices on Land, and Arctic.

The Extended Continental Shelf Task Force and other designated interagency committees, as appropriate, would report to the Steering Committee and coordinate with the two IPCs.

ReportingCoordinationCommunication

one State representative each from:

AlaskaCaribbean

Great Lakes RegionGulf of Mexico Region

Mid-Atlantic RegionNortheast Region

Pacific IslandsSouth Atlantic RegionWest Coast Region

(9)

11

• Four priority objectives to improve the way we do business:✓Ecosystem-based management✓Coastal and marine spatial planning✓ Inform decisions and improve understanding✓Coordinate and support

• Five areas of special focus:✓Resiliency/adaptation to climate change and ocean acidification✓Regional ecosystem protection and restoration✓Water quality and sustainable practices on land✓Changing conditions in the Arctic Ocean✓Ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes observations and infrastructure


12

13

Rather than managing for individual species

Considers the entire ecosystem

14

Implement comprehensive, integrated, ecosystem‐based coastal and marine spatial planning and management in the United States

15

Increase knowledge to continually inform and improve management and policy decisions

Better educate the public through formal and informal programs

16

Better coordinate and support Federal, State, tribal, local, and regional management

Improve coordination and integration across the Federal Government

• Four priority objectives to improve the way we do business:✓Ecosystem-based management✓Coastal and marine spatial planning✓ Inform decisions and improve understanding✓Coordinate and support

• Five areas of special focus:✓Resiliency/adaptation to climate change and ocean acidification✓Regional ecosystem protection and restoration✓Water quality and sustainable practices on land✓Changing conditions in the Arctic Ocean✓Ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes observations and infrastructure


18

Strengthen resiliency of coastal communities and marine and Great Lake environments

Strengthen their abilities to adapt to climate change impacts and ocean acidification

19

Establish and implement an integrated ecosystem protection and restoration strategy that is science‐based and aligns conservation and restoration goals

20

Enhance water quality in the ocean, along our coasts, and in the Great Lakes by promoting and implementing sustainable practices on land

21

Address environmental stewardship needs in the Arctic Ocean and adjacent coastal areas in the face of climate‐induced and other environmental changes

22

Strengthen and integrate Federal and non‐Federal ocean observing systems, sensors, data collection platforms, data management, and mapping capabilities into a national system and integrate that system into international observation efforts

Photo credit: Rutgers

Take such action as necessary to implement the policy set forth in the executive order and the stewardship principles and national priority objectives as set forth in the Final Recommendations and subsequent guidance from the Council

Participate in the process for coastal and marine spatial planning and comply with Council certified coastal and marine spatial plans, as described in the Final Recommendations and subsequent guidance from the Council

Prepare an annual report of actions taken to implement the order

Coordinate and contribute resources, as appropriate, to assist in establishing a common information management system

Provide assistance to the Council upon request


• NOC Deputies met September 24; Principals met November 9

• Governance Coordinating Committee nominations are under consideration

• Establishing the Ocean Resource Management Interagency Policy Committee

• Incorporating the Ocean Science and Technology Interagency Policy Committee

• Planning CMSP workshop for Spring 2011

• Meeting with stakeholders, experts, and interest groups

• Developing processes for engaging the stakeholders and the general public in various aspects of NOC activities


• Lines of Communication between NOC and ORRAP• NOC Principal level, Deputy level and Steering

Committee • NOC Meeting Schedule• Relationship of NOC Subcommittees and JSOST

and SIMOR• State of the IWGs• NOC Staff Selection• NOC’s Initial Issue to Tackle


National Ocean Council

“America's stewardship of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes is intrinsically linked to environmental sustainability, human health and well-being, national prosperity, adaptation to climate and other environmental changes, social justice, international diplomacy, and national and homeland security.”

-President Barack ObamaExecutive Order 13547

www.WhiteHouse.gov/oceans

26

Documents

Ocean Observing Subpanel December 7, 2010 recommendations