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 110
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 111
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 112
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 113
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 114
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 115
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 116
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 117
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 118
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 119
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 134
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 135
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 136
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 137
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 138
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 139
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 140
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 141
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 142
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 143
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 144
A spring sunset near Palmer Station. SOURCE: Mindy Piuk/NSF.
