[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
INTERNATIONAL POLAR YEAR:
THE SCIENTIFIC AGENDA AND
THE FEDERAL ROLE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 20, 2006
__________
Serial No. 109-61
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
29-850 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman
RALPH M. HALL, Texas BART GORDON, Tennessee
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DANA ROHRABACHER, California LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
KEN CALVERT, California DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland MARK UDALL, Colorado
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan DAVID WU, Oregon
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois BRAD SHERMAN, California
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
JO BONNER, Alabama JIM MATHESON, Utah
TOM FEENEY, Florida JIM COSTA, California
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas AL GREEN, Texas
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana DORIS MATSUI, California
JOHN J.H. ``JOE'' SCHWARZ, Michigan
MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
------
Subcommittee on Research
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina, Chairman
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
DANA ROHRABACHER, California BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington DORIS MATSUI, California
MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana VACANCY
MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas VACANCY
VACANCY BART GORDON, Tennessee
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York
ELIZABETH GROSSMAN Subcommittee Staff Director
JIM WILSON Democratic Professional Staff Member
MELE WILLIAMS Professional Staff Member/Chairman's Designee
RACHEL JAGODA BRUNETTE Professional Staff Member
AVITAL ``TALI'' BAR-SHALOM Professional Staff Member
MEGHAN HOUSEWRIGHT Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
September 20, 2006
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Bob Inglis, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Research, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives.. 8
Written Statement............................................ 9
Statement by Representative Darlene Hooley, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Research, Committee on Science, U.S.
House of Representatives....................................... 9
Written Statement............................................ 11
Witnesses:
Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director, National Science Foundation
Oral Statement............................................... 12
Written Statement............................................ 14
Biography.................................................... 38
Dr. Robin Elizabeth Bell, Doherty Senior Research Scientist,
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University
Oral Statement............................................... 38
Written Statement............................................ 41
Biography.................................................... 56
Financial Disclosure......................................... 58
Dr. Donal T. Manahan, Professor of Biology, University of
Southern California
Oral Statement............................................... 59
Written Statement............................................ 61
Biography.................................................... 63
Financial Disclosure......................................... 67
Mr. Mark S. McCaffrey, Associate Scientist and Science
Communications Expert, Cooperative Institute for Research in
Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder
Oral Statement............................................... 68
Written Statement............................................ 70
Biography.................................................... 77
Financial Disclosure......................................... 79
Dr. Kelly Kenison Falkner, Professor of Chemical Oceanography,
Oregon State University
Oral Statement............................................... 80
Written Statement............................................ 81
Biography.................................................... 86
Financial Disclosure......................................... 88
Discussion....................................................... 89
Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director, National Science Foundation.. 106
INTERNATIONAL POLAR YEAR: THE SCIENTIFIC AGENDA AND THE FEDERAL ROLE
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2006
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Research,
Committee on Science,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bob Inglis
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
hearing charter
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
International Polar Year:
The Scientific Agenda and
the Federal Role
wednesday, september 20, 2006
10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
1. Purpose
On Wednesday, September 20, 2006, the Research Subcommittee of the
Committee on Science of the House of Representatives will hold a
hearing to examine the research planned for the upcoming International
Polar Year (IPY) and the U.S. role in the IPY.
2. Witnesses
Dr. Arden Bement is the Director of the National Science Foundation
(NSF).
Dr. Robin Bell is a Doherty Senior Research Scientist at the Lamont-
Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University. She chairs both the
Polar Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S.
Committee to the IPY and serves as Vice-Chair of the International
Council for Science (ICSU, based on the French acronym) Planning Group
for the IPY.
Dr. Kelly K. Falkner is a Professor of Chemical Oceanography at Oregon
State University and is a member of the Advisory Committee to the NSF
Office of Polar Programs.
Dr. Donal T. Manahan is a Professor of Biology at the University of
Southern California and runs an NSF-funded program to provide graduate
students with research experience in Antarctica.
Mr. Mark S. McCaffrey is an associate scientist and science
communications specialist at the Cooperative Institute for Research in
Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at University of Colorado, Boulder. He
is a member of the ICSU IPY Education, Outreach, and Communications
Subcommittee.
3. Overarching Questions
What are the most critical unanswered questions that
we hope to resolve with the research conducted during this IPY?
What are the societal benefits of this research? What has been
learned from polar research and IPYs in the past?
What role will each of the federal agencies play in
the IPY? What is the U.S. role in the IPY, and how does the
U.S. collaborate with international participants?
4. Brief Overview
The IPY will consist of an intense, internationally
coordinated effort of polar observations, research and analysis
in many scientific fields, including study of how the Earth's
remote polar regions influence global climate systems. The IPY
also hopes to inspire the next generation of scientists and to
educate the public about the polar regions.
The IPY will begin in March 2007 and run through
March 2009 so that scientists have the opportunity to work in
both polar regions during the IPY or to study the poles during
both summer and winter seasons. This is the fourth IPY, and it
celebrates the 50th anniversary of the International
Geophysical Year.
To date, 38 nations have expressed interest in
participating in the IPY. International coordination occurs
through the ICSU and the World Meteorological Organization
(WMO). In the U.S., the federal agencies actively involved in
IPY are NSF, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), the Department of Energy (DOE), the
Department of Defense (DOD), the National Institutes of Health
(NIH), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Department of the
Interior (DOI) and the Smithsonian Institution.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Other U.S. agencies and organizations that have sponsored or
participated in IPY planning workshops, are members of the Interagency
Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC), and/or have interests in the
polar regions include the Department of Agriculture, the Department of
Education, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State
and the Environmental Protection Agency.
The White House has designated NSF, which manages the
U.S. Antarctic Program and chairs the Interagency Arctic
Research Policy Committee, to be the lead federal agency for
the IPY. NSF's fiscal year 2007 (FY07) budget request includes
$62 million for research related to the IPY, including research
on how the Arctic environment is changing, the history and
dynamics of polar ice sheets, and how life forms adapt to harsh
polar environments, and funding for associated logistics,
infrastructure, and education and outreach activities. (NSF has
funded research in these areas for many years, but is
increasing its focus on, and funding for them in concert with
the IPY.) Overall, the proposed NSF budget for FY07 is $6.0
billion, of which $438 million is for polar research programs
and logistical support; both House and Senate appropriators
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
have provided NSF with the requested overall level for FY07.
5. U.S. Agencies and the IPY
While the IPY is in an international effort, the approval of
individual research projects is left up to each nation. ICSU, an
international, non-governmental science organization, and the WMO are
coordinating the IPY through a joint committee and a program office.
That committee has enumerated themes for IPY research. Scientists
wishing to undertake IPY research can submit their proposals to the
committee, which then decides, based on the topic, whether the research
can be considered an IPY activity. The application process is
essentially over, and the committee has endorsed about 225 projects and
is reviewing another 900 or so. Committee approval is not based on a
review of the quality of the project, and few applications are
rejected. (The committee also establishes guidelines for sharing of
data and other aspects of research conduct.)
Federal research agencies in the U.S. have begun to solicit
research proposals for the IPY (primarily through existing research
programs), and it is not clear how the review process will take into
account whether a project has already been designated as an IPY project
through the ICSU-WMO process.
Of the federal agencies involved in the IPY--NSF, NOAA, NASA and
DOE--only NSF's FY07 budget request specifically describes funds to be
dedicated to IPY activities. These funds will go to expand support for
ongoing research in areas related to the IPY. NSF has proposed spending
$62 million on IPY activities in FY07, an increase of $8.3 million over
FY06 levels for research in those areas.
NSF will distribute IPY funding both through ongoing programs and
via IPY-specific solicitations seeking project proposals in high-
priority research areas, such as Arctic climate monitoring, and IPY-
related education and outreach activities. The first such solicitation
was released in January 2006 (to distribute $12 million in FY06 funds),
and NSF is expected to announce this fall which projects were selected
for funding. Proposed projects must include a description of their
relevance to the IPY, but they are not required to have been endorsed
by the ICSU-WMO process.
6. Background
History of IPY
Over the past 125 years, there have been three occasions when
scientists from all over the world gathered together to concentrate on
research in the polar regions. Each occasion was marked by significant
breakthroughs in scientific knowledge, provided benefits to society,
sparked continued collaboration among participants, and set the stage
for several political accords.
The first IPY took place in 1882-1883 when it was agreed that one
nation alone could not adequately study the geophysical attributes of
the polar regions. Twelve countries participated, with 13 expeditions
to the Arctic and two expeditions to the Antarctic. The international
legacy of this first IPY was that it set a precedent for international
science cooperation. For the U.S., an immediate result was the creation
of a permanent science station at Point Barrow, Alaska, the
northernmost point of the U.S. To support this first IPY, Congress
appropriated $33,000 to the Army Signal Corps of the War Department.
In 1932, a second IPY was proposed by the forerunner of the World
Metrological Organization (WMO) in an effort to study the implications
of the newly discovered jet stream. Forty nations participated in this
IPY, which led to advances in meteorology, atmospheric sciences, and
understanding of the Earth's magnetic field. Research findings on the
nature and structure of the ionosphere surrounding the Earth also
enabled significant improvements in radio communications. Part of the
U.S. contribution to this IPY was the Byrd Antarctic expedition, which
created the first inland research station (a winter-long meteorological
station) in Antarctica. In addition, 40 permanent observation stations
were established in the Arctic. The total U.S. investment for the 1932
IPY was approximately $100,000.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Of the $100,000 U.S. investment in the second IPY, $30,000 was
federal funds from the Department of State. Other funding came from
university and private sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps the most notable of the IPYs, and what the upcoming IPY
hopes to build on, was the 1957-1958 International Geophysical Year
(IGY). Originally referred to as the third IPY, organizers expanded the
research opportunities beyond the polar regions and changed the named
to the IGY in an effort to garner more international participation.
Sixty-seven nations and over 80,000 scientists participated in the IGY.
Part of the impetus for the IGY came from World War II physicists who
wanted to redirect newer technologies from the war (radar and rockets)
toward research applications, specifically the study of the upper
atmosphere. Among the scientific successes of the IGY were the first
informed estimates of the total size of Antarctica's ice mass, the
confirmation of the phenomenon of continental drift, and the discovery
of the Van Allen Radiation Belt surrounding Earth. Politically, the
relationships developed during the IGY and the successes of the
scientific collaborations helped lead to the ratification of the
Antarctic Treaty in 1961. Much of today's polar research builds upon
discoveries made during the IGY.
In the U.S., federal support for IGY primarily flowed through NSF,
which was established in 1950. Between 1955 and 1961, NSF spent $59
million on IGY activities.\3\ Additional funds were spent by other
government agencies,\4\ universities, and private laboratories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In the early years, IGY was a significant piece of NSF's
budget; in 1956 nearly half of NSF funding was dedicated to IGY.
\4\ Other agencies providing support for IGY in some capacity
included the Department of Defense, the State Department, the Commerce
Department, the Atomic Energy Commission, and the Office of Defense
Mobilization.
Upcoming IPY (2007-2008)
In A Vision for the International Polar Year 2007-2008,\5\ the U.S.
National Committee for IPY, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences,
identified five scientific challenges for the U.S. to address:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ A Vision for the International Polar Year 2007-2008, National
Academy of Sciences, 2004; available online at http://newton.nap.edu/
html/ipr2007-2008/0309092124.pdf.
1. Assessing large-scale environmental change in the polar
regions, with questions looking at both the physical and human
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
dimensions of change and its impacts.
2. Conducting scientific exploration of new frontiers, whether
these are once inaccessible places such as the sea floor, or
areas of inquiry that are now open because of advances in
technology, such as how the tools of genomics now allow
exploration of previously unanswerable questions about
biological adaptation.
3. Observing the polar regions in depth, with adequate
coverage of the vast and challenging landscape, to provide a
description of current conditions and allow for better future
understanding of variability and change.
4. Understanding human-environmental dynamics in a region
where the connections are intimate and where the impacts of
change are clear.
5. Creating new connections between science and the public,
using these regions that are inherently intriguing.
Education and outreach is a key focus of the upcoming IPY. IPY
participants plan to share the research experiences with K-12 students,
people who live in the polar regions, decision-makers, and the general
public. Specific activities planned include web sites, workshops,
newsletters, press kits, classroom remote participation and interactive
programs, and polar theme contests and class lessons.
NSF Polar Research Programs
NSF is the lead federal agency supporting research at the North and
South Poles. As an example, a recent survey of polar ice sheet's
drainage basins provided a wealth of data for scientists studying the
process of and reasons for the disappearance of glaciers. Ongoing
research also includes studies on how the Antarctic mountain ranges
formed and seismic and geochemical monitoring of Mt. Erebus, the
world's southernmost active volcano.
In addition to projects that study the polar continents themselves,
NSF also supports research in a variety of fields that can be conducted
only at the poles. For example, the cold, dry climate and high altitude
at the South Pole provide an excellent environment in which to make
certain astrophysics measurements (such as looking at faint signals of
radiation from when the universe was young). Finally, NSF also provides
logistical and infrastructure support for polar research, including
permanent and temporary research stations at the poles, research
vessels, interagency leadership for research planning, and management
of all U.S. activities in Antarctica. For FY07, the NSF budget request
for polar research programs and logistical support is $438 million, $49
million over the FY06 level.
For the IPY, NSF will continue and expand ongoing polar research
activities as well as provide logistical support. Specifically,
research programs on how the Arctic environment is changing, the
history and dynamics of polar ice sheets, and how life forms adapt to
harsh polar environments have been identified as priorities for IPY and
beyond. In FY06, the NSF budget for IPY planning activities was $12.4
million, and the FY07 NSF budget request includes $61.6 million to
begin funding IPY research.
Projects to gather data on and model the Arctic climate will be
part of the interagency Study of Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH)
program, a long-term program in which NSF, NOAA, and NASA are building
a network of observing sites to monitor environmental change in the
Arctic and supporting research on causes and impacts of the change.
During the IPY, NSF will support the development of an international
network to measure climate throughout the Arctic and to tap the
knowledge of indigenous peoples about their environment.
Research on glaciers will occur under the Polar Ice Sheet Dynamics
and Stability Program and is aimed at better understanding the ice
sheets' impact on global climate change. A primary focus will be
drilling projects to obtain samples from deep within the Antarctic ice
sheets, mountain ranges, and ocean floors to improve our understanding
of Antarctic climate over the past 40,000 years and gather data that
can be compared to changes that occurred in the Arctic.
Studies on how life forms are able to adapt and survive the harsh
temperatures and darkness of the polar regions are supported under
NSF's program on Life in the Cold and Dark. Research projects will
focus on studying how organisms have changed at the cellular and
genomic levels and include investigations of human adaptation and how
infectious diseases evolve due to climate change. During IPY, NSF will
support research in this area at Toolik field station in Alaska, at
Summit, Greenland; and in the McMurdo Dry Valleys of Antarctica.
In addition to these priority areas, other NSF initiatives planned
for the IPY include efforts to improve climate modeling and upper
atmosphere studies to better understand space weather. NSF's education
and outreach plans include support for museum exhibits and film,
television and radio documentaries; development and distribution of
classroom materials for teaching about polar research; and polar
research field experiences for undergraduate and graduate students and
K-12 educators. One museum exhibit of photographs by the recipient of
an NSF Antarctic Artists and Writers Program grant, Wondrous Cold: An
Antarctic Journey, has already been displayed at the Smithsonian Museum
of Natural History and is currently traveling around the country.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ For details about the exhibit and its travel schedule, see
http://www.sites.si.edu/exhibitions/exhibits/wondrous/main.htm.
Other Federal Agency Polar Programs and IPY Activities under Science
Committee Jurisdiction
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOAA's FY07 proposed budget does not include new funds specifically
for the IPY, but it does include $9.27 million for ongoing NOAA
activities in the polar regions. These activities are consistent with
the international goals for the IPY, and NOAA plans to coordinate their
projects with other U.S. and international IPY activities. The planned
NOAA projects include exploration of polar oceans, research on how to
improve prediction and modeling of polar climates, polar atmospheric
and stratospheric observations, studies on causes and impacts of
Pacific Arctic change, and surveying of Antarctic marine life.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
In addition to ongoing activities in support of the SEARCH program,
NASA has a variety of education and outreach plans for during the IPY.
For example, NASA is collaborating with NSF and NOAA on three IPY
education and outreach symposia. These symposia are designed for
educators and will focus on ways to teach about polar topics, such as
the fragile ice, life in the cold and dark, and the effect of the water
and energy cycle on polar regions and climate change. Existing NASA
funds will be used for these activities.
Department of Energy
While no federal funds have been specifically requested for IPY
activities at DOE, the DOE Office of Science has committed to deploy an
Atmospheric Radiation Measurement mobile facility to the Arctic during
the IPY to study the impact of clouds, aerosols and surface
characteristics on the Arctic climate. The FY07 budget request for this
activity is $3.5 million.
7. Witness Questions
The witnesses were asked to address the following questions in
their testimony:
Questions for Dr. Arden Bement and Dr. Robin Bell:
What has been learned from polar research and the
IPYs in the past, and what do we hope to learn during this IPY?
How will research conducted during this IPY relate to
ongoing polar research programs at NSF?
What is the U.S. role in the IPY, and how does the
U.S. collaborate with international participants? What role
will each of the federal agencies play in the IPY?
What are the most critical unanswered questions that
you hope to resolve with the research conducted during this
IPY? What are the societal benefits of this research?
Questions for Dr. Kelly Falkner and Dr. Donal Manahan:
What has been learned from polar research and the
IPYs in the past, and what do we hope to learn during this IPY?
What are the most critical unanswered questions that
you hope to resolve with the research conducted during this
IPY? What are the societal benefits of this research?
Questions for Mr. Mark McCaffrey:
What has been the impact of polar research and the
IPYs on students and the public in the past?
What education and outreach activities are planned
for this IPY? What are the goals and expected societal benefits
of these activities?
Chairman Inglis. Well, good morning, everyone. I would like
to call this hearing to order. And we are very excited about
hearing from our panelists, and I would recognize myself for
the purpose of an opening statement.
I want to welcome everybody here and thank you for joining
us for this hearing on the International Polar Year: The
Scientific Agenda and the Federal Role.
The International Polar Year does not begin officially
until March 2007, but the immense planning and coordination for
it began more than three years ago. The purpose of this
morning's hearing is fairly simple: to learn all we can about
the International Polar Year, what role the United States will
play in the upcoming one, and how this will be a benefit to the
Nation.
Most of us in this room are familiar, at least somewhat
familiar, with the International Polar Year and its immediate
predecessor, the International Geophysical Year. But I wonder
how much of the general public knows about all of the
incredible scientific discoveries and advances that were made
during the IGY. I am pleased to see that education and outreach
is a major component of the upcoming International Polar Year.
It is also important that we take this opportunity to instill
excitement about science in our students and motivate future
generations of scientists, much like the results of the IGY
inspired those who we will be hearing from today to enter the
fields that they did.
I have recently learned of one such educational program in
my home State of South Carolina. As you could imagine, we are
not necessarily known as the epicenter of polar studies. It is
a little bit warm in South Carolina for that, but USC
geologist, Dr. Doug Williams and his team at the EdVenture
children's museum in Columbia, South Carolina, created a ``Go
Polar!'' program that is quite impressive. While not IPY-
specific, this program has made a variety of arctic research
accessible and easily understandable to children under the age
of 12 and their families. It has provided opportunities for
children to meet and hear directly from scientists working in
the arctic about their experiences. This kind of interaction
inspires children and serves as a good model for how IPY
research can be incorporated informally at our nation's
museums, zoos, and aquariums.
I am looking forward to hearing what our witnesses have to
say to us about the U.S. role in the IPY and some of the neat
work that is being--that has been planned or will be enacted
over the next two years and beyond in the polar region.
I am also reminded that in January, Ms. Hooley and I and
others had the opportunity to travel to Antarctica, and what an
experience it was. I went, knowing that we would see incredible
scenery. I expected that, and that happened. I knew we would
see impressive science, and that happened. The thing that was
sort of surprising was the people. The people were absolutely
fascinating. And with the help of the NSF, we met a lot of
wonderful people down there.
One of them is before us today: Dr. Manahan. I must say--I
have sent him a note afterwards saying this is a master
teacher, somebody who held us all in rapt attention. I think
that if I had had a teacher like that in seventh grade,
Darlene, I might have stuck with science. As it was, you know,
political science sort of came easier than those formulas and
things like that.
But it is wonderful to have you with us. It is also
wonderful to have the rest of the panel with us. Dr. Bement,
especially, it is wonderful to see you. We are excited about
hearing from each of you. I will introduce you in a moment, but
I just want to share with you my excitement and enthusiasm for
the International Polar Year. And it comes, in large measure,
from the opportunity to have been in Antarctica and to see that
incredible science that is being done there and to see the very
impressive people that are so committed to what they are doing.
If we could--what I think I wrote to Kathie and Dr. Bement and
others is if we could just bottle up that enthusiasm that I
sensed in Antarctica among the scientists and bring it to
Congress, who knows what we could accomplish in this place.
So one of those people that saw that is Ms. Hooley, the
Ranking Member of this subcommittee, and I would yield to her
for an opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Inglis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Bob Inglis
Good morning. I want to welcome everyone, and thank you for coming
to this morning's hearing on International Polar Year: The Scientific
Agenda and the Federal Role.
IPY does not begin officially until March 2007, but the immense
planning and coordination for it began more than three years ago. The
purpose for this morning's hearing is fairly simple. . .to learn all we
can about International Polar Year (IPY), what role the U.S. will play
in the upcoming one, and how this will be of benefit to the Nation.
Most of us in this room are familiar, or at least somewhat
familiar, with IPY and its immediate predecessor, the International
Geophysical Year (IGY), but I wonder how much of the general public
knows about all of the incredible scientific discoveries and advances
that were made during IGY? I am pleased to see that education and
outreach is a major component of the upcoming IPY. It is so important
that we take this opportunity to instill excitement about science in
our children and motivate future generations of scientists, much like
the results of IGY inspired those we will be hearing from today to
enter the fields that they did.
I've recently learned of one such educational program in my home
State of South Carolina. As you can imagine, we are not necessarily
known as the epicenter of polar studies, but USC Geologist Dr. Doug
Williams and his team at the EdVenture Children's Museum in Columbia,
SC, created a Go Polar! program that was simply impressive. While not
IPY-specific, this program has made a variety of Arctic research
accessible and easily understandable to children under the age of 12
and their families. It has provided opportunities for children to meet
and hear directly from the scientists working in the Arctic about their
experiences. This kind of interaction inspires children and serves as a
good model for how IPY research can be incorporated informally at our
nation's museums, zoos and aquariums.
I'm looking forward to hearing from our witnesses about the U.S.
role in IPY and some of the neat work that is being planned for the
next two years and beyond in the polar regions.
With the encouragement of the Chairman, I had the opportunity to
travel with the Science Committee to Antarctica in January. I knew the
scenery would be awesome, and it was. I knew the science would be
impressive, and it was. The thing I didn't anticipate was the people.
They are impressive folks doing amazing work. Some of those impressive
folks are before us today. We look forward to hearing from them.
I recognize the Ranking Democratic Member, Mrs. Hooley, for any
opening statement she may have.
Ms. Hooley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I just want to echo what you said and talk about a
wonderful teacher. I think all of us could have sat for at
least ten hours and listen to you speak.
So it was an exciting trip. It was sort of an once-in-a-
lifetime kind of experience for me, and it was--it is amazing
the work you are doing there.
And I am excited also about the International Polar Year.
And what I am looking forward to is how do we also spread that
excitement to our children, our classrooms, the teachers that
are there every single day with our young students. How do we
get the public involved? And those are some of the things I
would like to hear from you today as we are--as we go on with
this.
But I welcome all of you to this hearing. I know this
International Polar Year will be the fourth in a series of
international cooperative scientific ventures focused on the
polar regions that have occurred in the last 125 years. The
last one was almost 50 years ago, and, I mean, there was a real
legacy that was made with the International Polar Year 50 years
ago, so I would want to know, what is our legacy going to be
this time. What are we aiming for? What is going to--what is
our legacy?
And then before that, you had--and that resulted--the last
one resulted, as you know, in the Antarctic Treaty System,
which has preserved that continent for peaceful purposes, for
scientific research. I think that is a major accomplishment.
The first ones were for exploration of those regions. As we
learn more about the role of the polar regions in affecting
such things as global scale, atmospheric, and oceanic
processes, it has become clear that understanding the physical
mechanisms at work at the poles is important to understanding
the evolution of global warming. This lends urgency to
accelerate the research needed to unlock the secrets that
control climate on a global scale.
Research results from the IPY initiative and from other
ongoing polar research is important to help guide public policy
choices surrounding the global warming debate. And of course,
increased knowledge and understanding of changes in northern
high latitudes are of even greater interest and concern to the
people that live there.
I am pleased the Subcommittee has the opportunity this
morning to hear about the planning process that has been
underway for IPY and about the research and education goals
that will be pursued.
I would like to better understand what we may hope to
achieve at this time from an intensified research effort in
polar regions and what legacy we may expect from this IPY.
I would also like to take a moment to extend a special
greeting to Dr. Kelley Falkner. She is a Professor at Oregon
State University at the College of Oceanic and Atmospheric
Sciences. An inorganic chemist by training, Dr. Falkner applies
her expertise to problems such as tracking the fate of river
water in the Arctic. She has participated in 24 major seagoing
lake and river expeditions, seven times as chief scientist. Dr.
Falkner is a graduate of Reed College, which is in Oregon, and
received her Ph.D. from MIT-Woods Hole Joint Program in
Oceanography while holding an NSF Graduate Fellowship. She was
a recipient of an Office of Naval Research Young Investigator
Award and the NSF Arctic Service Award. She currently serves on
the Advisory Committee for NSF's Office of Polar Programs.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for calling this hearing,
and I want to thank our witnesses for appearing before the
Subcommittee today. And really, I am looking forward to what
you have to say.
Thanks.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hooley follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Darlene Hooley
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join you in welcoming our witnesses
today to this hearing to review the status of planning for the
International Polar Year scheduled to begin next March.
This IPY will be the fourth in a series of international,
cooperative scientific ventures focused on the polar regions that have
occurred over the past 125 years. The last IPY was the International
Geophysical Year of 1957-58. It was remarkable in its success in
achieving international cooperation and good will at the height of the
Cold War. It was also significant in laying the ground work for the
development of the Antarctic Treaty system, which has successfully
preserved that continent as a sanctuary for scientific research and
other peaceful purposes.
The early IPYs were explorations to provide basic information about
the most remote and forbidding regions of the globe. As we learned more
about the role of the polar regions in affecting such things as global-
scale atmospheric and oceanic processes, it has become clear that
understanding the physical mechanisms at work at the poles is important
to understanding the evolution of global warming. This lends urgency to
accelerate the research needed to unlock the secrets that control
climate on a global scale.
Research results from the IPY initiative, and from other ongoing
polar research, is important to help guide public policy choices
surrounding the global warming debate. And of course, increased
knowledge and understanding of changes in northern high latitudes is of
even greater interest and concern for the people living there.
I am pleased the Subcommittee has the opportunity this morning to
hear about the planning process that has been underway for the IPY and
about the research and education goals that will be pursued. I would
like to better understand what we may hope to achieve at this time from
an intensified research effort in polar regions and what legacy we may
expect from this IPY.
In addition, I am interested in how the U.S. IPY activities will be
integrated within the international program, and how the U.S. agencies
that sponsor IPY-related research will coordinate their activities.
Since NSF is the lead federal agency for U.S. participation in the IPY,
is a major federal sponsor of research in polar regions, and fulfills a
key role in providing research infrastructure and logistical support, I
am happy to welcome Dr. Bement to this morning's hearing.
Also, I would like to take a moment to extend a special greeting to
Dr. Kelly Falkner. She is a Professor in the College of Oceanic and
Atmospheric Sciences at Oregon State University. An inorganic chemist
by training, Dr. Falkner applies her expertise to aqueous geochemical
problems, such as tracking the fate of river water in the Arctic. She
has participated in 24 major seagoing, lake and river expeditions--
seven times as chief scientist.
Dr. Falkner is a graduate of Reed College and received her Ph.D.
from the MIT-Woods Hole Joint Program in Oceanography, while holding an
NSF Graduate Fellowship. She was the recipient of an Office of Naval
Research Young Investigator Award and the NSF Arctic Service Award. She
currently serves on the Advisory Committee for NSF's Office of Polar
Programs.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for calling this hearing and
thank our witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee today. I look
forward to our discussion.
Chairman Inglis. Thank you, Ms. Hooley.
And I have only one correction to what you said, and that
is let us hope it is not an once-in-a-lifetime opportunity
about Antarctica.
Ms. Hooley. Oh, you are right. Okay. I agree. I am ready to
go back.
Chairman Inglis. Me, too. I was just saying, it might be
fun to be down there in the winter. What do you think?
Ms. Hooley. I don't think so.
Chairman Inglis. But----
Ms. Hooley. I would like to go in the summer again.
Chairman Inglis. Kathie suggested that maybe I should go in
a dark room and see if it is light, but----
Ms. Hooley. She is right.
Chairman Inglis.--anyway, before I introduce the panelists,
let me apologize in advance. There is a markup going on in the
Judiciary Committee with some very contentious bills. They will
be very close votes. And so if you see me leaving quickly, it
won't be that I got offended by something you said. It is that
I am literally going to have to run to that markup. If we don't
have someone to take the Chair, we will have to recess the
hearing. If that happens, I apologize in advance for having to
do that. It is terribly inconvenient for everyone. Let us hope
it doesn't happen, but just to put you on notice.
Now may I introduce the panelists?
First, we are going to hear from Dr. Arden Bement, the
Director of the National Science Foundation and who needs no
further introduction except to say we very much appreciate his
fine work at the NSF.
We will also hear from Dr. Robin Bell. She is the Doherty
Senior Research Scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth
Observatory at Columbia University. She chairs both the Polar
Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S.
Committee to the IPY and serves as Vice-Chair of the
International Council for Science Planning Group for the IPY.
We will next hear from who I have already called a master
teacher. By the way, I am sure the others are master teachers,
too. We will find that out as you speak. And so we very much
appreciate the opportunity to hear from Dr. Manahan. He is
Professor of Biology at the University of Southern California
and runs an NSF-funded program to provide graduate students
with research experience in Antarctica.
Then we will hear from Mr. Mark McCaffrey, an Associate
Scientist and Science Communications Specialist at the
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at
the University of Colorado, Boulder. He is a member of the ICSU
IPY Education, Outreach, and Communications Subcommittee.
And finally, we will hear from Dr. Kelly Falkner. She is a
Professor of Chemical Oceanography at Oregon State University
and a member of the Advisory Committee to the NSF for the
Office of Polar Programs.
So we would be happy to recognize each of you in series
here for five-minute statements. And so that you will be
reminded, the green means you have got time, yellow means start
summing up, and red means the guy--the person next to you
really wants you to conclude. So we will look forward to
hearing from you.
We recognize you first, Dr. Bement.
STATEMENT OF DR. ARDEN L. BEMENT, JR., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Dr. Bement. Thank you, Chairman Inglis and Ranking Member
Hooley, for the opportunity to testify on the upcoming
International Polar Year and on how NSF and our sister agencies
are addressing this important opportunity. Our job is to enable
U.S. scientists and educators to realize these opportunities,
opportunities that members of today's distinguished panel will
be speaking to in more detail.
Fifty years ago, the Third International Polar Year and
International Geophysical Year entranced America's youth and
galvanized America's innovative powers in ways that created a
legacy that lives on today. That legacy ranges from scientific
Earth satellites to the development of a generation of world-
class scientists and engineers whose interest in research was
peaked by news coverage of polar research. We intend for the
International Polar Year period to be a time to explore new
frontiers in polar sciences, improve our understanding of the
critical role of the Earth's polar regions and global
processes, create a legacy of infrastructure and data for
future generations of scientists, expand international
cooperation, engage the public in polar discovery, and help
attract and educate the next generation of scientists and
engineers.
The impacts of climate change on northern peoples, and more
generally on ecosystems and polar environments, strongly
motivate a broader focus than that of the last IPY. Thus, NSF
will focus particular attention on three scientific themes and
will couple them to education and outreach: first, the extremes
of polar environments combined with the new technology of
genomics provide unique opportunities to study how organisms
adapt to climate extremes, how they evolved at the genomic
level, and how gene expression depends on a physical
environment; a Circum-Arctic Observation Network is needed to
provide the missing data essential to faithfully model arctic
climate change and to predict it; and multi-national efforts to
understand changes in the Earth's great ice sheets, changes
that could have profound effects on global conditions,
including global sea level.
This emphasis on the relationships between the physical
environment and living systems, and especially on people, will
be one of the distinguishing features of IPY. NSF's Office of
Polar Programs and the Directorate for Education and Human
Resources combined to jumpstart IPY preparations by committing
$12 million from the fiscal year 2006 appropriations for a
special IPY proposal solicitation. The solicitation attracted
research, education, and public outreach proposals amounting to
over $150 million. Approximately one-third focused on outreach
and education. And of these, we were able to fund nine truly
outstanding projects. We are releasing the details of those
projects at today's hearing.
I truly share Chairman Boehlert's enthusiasm and your
enthusiasm as well, both Mr. Chairman and Ms. Ranking Member,
for these remarkable and creative projects. They will launch
our IPY effort in great style.
Beginning in fiscal year 2007, NSF's IPY effort will be
agency-wide, with significant participation by the disciplinary
directorates as well as the Office of International Science and
Engineering, the Directorate for Education and Human Resources,
and the Office of Polar Programs. NSF is working with other
federal agencies and countries to exercise the IPY leadership
role assigned to it by OSTP. We are working with NASA to
coordinate our ground-based observations with those from space
in order to provide a comprehensive body of benchmark data.
NASA has initiated discussions with space agencies around the
world to bring the worldwide satellite fleet to bear on this
effort. We are working with NOAA to integrate their support
with ours for the land and ocean-based Circum-Arctic Observing
Network, or AON. Data from AON will enable scientists working
in the U.S. multi-agency program search and study of
environmental arctic change for years to come.
My written testimony contains more comprehensive
information on how these and our other sister agencies are
planning to help provide world leadership in IPY.
The Circum-Arctic system requires active contributions from
countries around the Arctic rim. We have already developed
strong links for coordination with the $30 million European
program called DAMOCLES [Developing Arctic Modeling and
Observing Capabilities for Long-term Environmental Studies]. We
have joined with Norway, Sweden, Germany, and Russia to
establish an IPY office in St. Petersburg that will help link
Russian activities to AON. And we are working actively with the
European Polar Board and with Canadian officials to build IPY
partnerships. Indeed, part of the IPY impact will be the
enduring partnerships established among scientists in the 35
countries that have formed national committees for the IPY.
Countries around the world have seized on the 50-year
anniversary of IPY-3 and IGY to create a new legacy of
scientific understanding and a new generation of scientists and
engineers.
Mr. Chairman, earlier I alluded to the education component
of IPY. This effort has the potential to create a legacy for
decades, one that will benefit the Nation as well as the
science and engineering community more specifically.
Thank you, again, for providing an opportunity to highlight
NSF's role in the coming International Polar Year, and I would
be pleased to answer any of your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Bement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Arden L. Bement, Jr.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify before the
Committee concerning the upcoming International Polar Year (IPY) and on
how NSF and our sister agencies are addressing this important
opportunity. Our job is to enable U.S. scientists and educators to
realize these opportunities, opportunities that members of today's
distinguished panel will be speaking to in more detail.
We intend for the International Polar Year period--which has been
declared by the International Council of Science (ICSU) and the U.S.
National Academies (NAS) to be from March 2007 through March 2009--to
explore new frontiers in polar sciences; improve our understanding of
the critical role of the Earth's polar regions in global processes;
create a legacy of infrastructure and data for future generations of
scientists; expand international cooperation; engage the public in
polar discovery; and help attract and educate the next generation of
scientists and engineers.
Fifty years ago, the Third International Polar Year and
International Geophysical Year entranced America's youth and galvanized
America's innovative powers in ways that created a legacy that lives on
today. That legacy ranges from scientific Earth satellites to the
development of a generation of world-class scientists and engineers who
drove our knowledge-based economy forward for the next half-century.
Advances in instrumentation and technology, the realization that
polar regions are critical in the changing global climate system, and
linkages among international research organizations offer opportunities
for breakthrough developments both in fundamental disciplinary science
and in science for policy during IPY. In addition, the impacts of
climate change on northern communities, and more generally, on
ecosystems in polar environments strongly motivate a broader focus than
the last IPY had. The NSF tradition of linking research and education
offers the further opportunity to engage America's youth in this period
of discovery and awaken them to the excitement of a career in science
and engineering.
In his introduction to the ``American Competitiveness Initiative,
Leading the World in Innovation,'' President George Bush stated that a
``well-educated and skilled workforce is the bedrock of America's
competitiveness.'' U.S. institutions of higher learning remain the envy
of the world, but the global economy has greatly increased the
competition for the best and brightest students. America must ensure
that its best and brightest young people give appropriate consideration
to careers in science and engineering and that they take advantage of
the fact that ours is the most open educational system in the world.
NSF, its sister agencies and IPY have a key role to play in achieving
this goal.
NSF has been tasked by the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy to provide leadership for the U.S. in IPY. And, the
agency is poised to do exactly that, both domestically and on the broad
international stage. We have worked closely with our colleagues in
other federal agencies and with the NAS to that end over the last two
and a half years. Back in July 2004, I was pleased to be invited to
deliver the keynote address at a meeting organized by the three
Presidents of the NAS that was devoted to IPY planning. With your
permission, I would like to enter my remarks for the record. As I said
then, and I quote:
Both the National Academy of Sciences and the International
Council of Science have made a compelling case for why we
should launch an international polar year in 2007. NSF is in
full agreement. In the polar regions, we are discerning the
outlines of environmental change, from sea ice extent,
retreating glaciers, shifting patterns in flora and fauna, to
environmental observations by Arctic natives.
What is more, such change--whether environmental, biological
or social--has implications for the rest of the globe. Polar
change ripples across the planet on a spectrum of time scales,
through the atmosphere, oceans, and living systems.
We do not yet fully understand the causes of what we are
observing. Now is the time to change this, for new tools make
possible the needed observations and synthesis. They range from
satellites to ships to sensors, and from genomics to
nanotechnology, information technology, and advances in remote
and robotic technologies.
The NAS subsequently conducted a year-long study to develop a
Vision for the International Polar Year, one that would take advantage
of the broad expertise of the U.S. scientific community; position the
U.S. for world leadership in IPY; and most importantly, create a long-
term legacy that would not otherwise exist. This Vision is providing a
framework for IPY planning among the federal agencies. It was developed
under the leadership of Dr. Mary Albert of the U.S. Army Cold Regions
Research and Engineering Laboratory in Hanover, New Hampshire, and I
believe my colleague on the panel, Dr. Robin Bell, will outline its
recommendations in more detail. Robin chairs the NAS/National Research
Council (NRC) Polar Research Board that oversaw the work of Mary's
committee. They both have earned our continuing gratitude and
congratulations.
In exercising NSF's leadership role, I also convened several
meetings of the policy-level officials to discuss IPY planning. These
activities resulted in a report we provided to the Congress last year
and a number of agencies have taken the opportunity to update their
sections of the report for this hearing. With your permission, Mr.
Chairman, I would like to submit a copy for the record and mention a
few highlights.
NASA is holding discussions with space agencies around the world to
organize a coordinated program to map the polar regions using today's
sophisticated satellites. NSF and NASA are working together to
coordinate space- and ground-based observations in order to provide
future generations of scientists and others with a comprehensive body
of benchmarked data. These data will greatly increase our ability to
discern change on a regional basis--a basis that relates directly to
the different environments in which people work and live.
The Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) and NSF are developing atmospheric, land and
ocean-based environmental monitoring capabilities that will be key
components of the planned circum-Arctic Observing Network (AON), which
will significantly enhance our observing capability in the Arctic
region beyond that currently available. Data from this AON will enable
the U.S. multi-agency program SEARCH--the Study of Environmental Arctic
Change--developed under the Interagency Arctic Research Policy
Committee to get a handle on Arctic environmental change.
Here, too, the NAS have helped significantly with an NSF-funded
study of how best to implement AON. A circum-Arctic system requires
active contributions from countries around the Arctic rim. We have
already developed strong links for coordination with the $30 million
European program called DAMOCLES; have initiated discussions with our
Canadian colleagues; and have joined with Norway, Sweden and Germany
and Russia in establishing an office in St. Petersburg to assist with
linking Russian activities to AON. NOAA has led an effort to build
U.S.-Russian Federation collaboration in ocean and polar region
studies, as highlighted by the Russian American Long-term Census of the
Arctic RUSALCA program. This will be a key U.S.-Russian component of
the IPY. NOAA in collaboration with NSF, also leads the U.S.
participation in the IPY International Arctic System for Observing the
Atmosphere.
Additional IPY efforts by NOAA, NASA and other sister agencies are
described in the attached document entitled, ``The International Polar
Years 2007-2009.''
NSF's Office of Polar Programs (OPP) and the Directorate for
Education and Human Resources (EHR) combined to jump start IPY
preparations by committing $12 million from their FY06 appropriations
to a special IPY proposal solicitation. The solicitation drew a very
strong response from U.S. scholars; taken together the proposals
requested over $150 million in the four focus areas (three science
areas and education).
We chose to focus on areas that for one reason or another needed
extra lead time for preparation and that would represent a good start
toward realizing the NAS/NRC Vision. The NSF merit review of the
education proposals was completed just a few days ago, and the results
exemplify the creativity and the enthusiasm of our educators and
scientists. I expect to be able to announce the results from the three
research areas by the end of October. Meanwhile, the program officers
overseeing the merit review process tell me the quality of the
proposals is outstanding.
Building on this excellent FY06 start, NSF Program Officers from
the agency's disciplinary directorates are working with OPP to
formulate how best to respond to IPY opportunities in FY07 and FY08. On
the basis of their work, the Administration requested $62 million in
FY07. And, I'm very happy that both Houses of Congress have signaled
their agreement with our IPY agenda.
The strong partnership created with EHR in developing the FY06
solicitation is the very first legacy of IPY; it will ensure an
effective outreach and education effort throughout the upcoming two
years and well into the future. A strong partnership with the NSF's
Office of International Science and Engineering (OISE) is enabling
rapid development of new international links as well as a strengthening
of existing ones. IPY planning by the Biological and Social,
Behavioral, and Economic Sciences Directorates and studies by the NAS/
NRC have identified an exciting group of leading-edge research subjects
in biology and the social sciences, ones that with strong IPY support
and focus could create 21st century legacies. The Geosciences
Directorate and OPP have a long history of joint cooperation for
proposals, and IPY provides a strong basis for developing new
partnerships in key focus areas such as climate studies. The
Mathematical and Physical Sciences Directorate and OPP have an
outstanding partnership in astrophysics at the South Pole, another
excellent IPY building block. Thus, there is great potential for
creating legacies through research achievements, a new generation of
American scientists and engineers, and new networks of international
collaborations.
The aforementioned solicitation identified three science themes and
a strong education focus as key investment areas for special emphasis
during FY06. These themes will be developed further during FY07 and
FY08. A cross-directorate working group is evaluating the extent to
which the original focus areas will have been addressed by the FY06
solicitation and how they can be broadened to address more of the
Vision developed by the NAS. NSF and the Office of Management and
Budget will soon discuss how to address these focus areas in the FY08
budget request to Congress.
The first of these research themes addresses climate change in the
Arctic by contributing to building the Circum-Arctic Observing Network
(AON) that I mentioned earlier. This program was organized under the
direction of the U.S. Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee
chaired by the NSF Director and involves partnership with NOAA, NASA,
DOI, DOE, NIH, DOD, USDA and the Smithsonian Institution.
During the past few decades, the Arctic has experienced significant
environmental changes that could have broad-reaching consequences for
human and animal populations in the form of impacts on local
ecosystems, as well as on global climate. The AON will provide a
network of observations that will facilitate our understanding of the
profound change that is occurring in the Arctic. To achieve this goal,
Cyberinfrastructure (CI) will need to be developed to provide inter-
operability between the various elements of the observing network,
seamless broadband communications capabilities at the poles, data
storage and archive capabilities, and timely access to data. This
initiative will not only support the Foundation's broader CI interests,
it also supports the broader administration goal of developing a Global
Earth Observing System (GEOS). Any CI communications technology that is
developed to support the AON could potentially be used to enhance
communications capabilities at the South Pole.
A second broad theme addresses research on what we're calling Life
in the Cold and Dark. Relatively recent developments in instrumentation
and technology offer the opportunity to study the mechanisms by which
organisms adapt to the climate extremes they face in polar
environments, how they have evolved at the genomic level and how gene
expression depends on the physical environment. A recent NAS report,
``Frontiers in Polar Biology in the Genomics Era,'' outlines the
opportunities and challenges, and describes the ecological relevance
and research benefits of these tools of modern biology. The Life in the
Cold and Dark theme also encompasses research on the interactions
between living and physical systems at all levels and brings together
researchers trained in the Biological and Social Sciences.
The last International Polar Year in 1957-58 focused almost
entirely on physical science but IPY 2007-2009 will be different. Many
northern languages are now spoken by only small numbers of elderly
people and NSF will partner with the National Endowments for the
Humanities in the U.S. and with Canada and other countries in
sponsoring work to document those endangered languages in Alaska and
throughout the Arctic.
NSF-supported research also will address issues associated with
environmental change that are of critical importance to people living
in the North. These studies, sponsored jointly by NSF and NIH, will
seek to determine not only what causes change and predicting it more
accurately, but also how change allows infectious diseases to move into
new areas where vulnerability is high because the people and wildlife
will not have developed resistance to the novel pathogens that will be
moving into these regions.
The third broad theme addresses changes in the Earth's great ice
sheets, changes that could have profound impacts on global conditions
including global sea level. Recent data indicate that the Greenland ice
sheet is thinning at the edges but thickening at the center. Some ice
streams draining the West Antarctic Ice Sheet have slowed while at
least one other is accelerating. Relatively small changes in the mass
balance of these ice sheets can raise global sea level significantly
while complete loss of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet would raise global
sea level by over five meters. Furthermore, a combination of ground-
based, airborne, and satellite observations shows that surface melt
water can penetrate the ice sheet at thicknesses of a kilometer and
accelerate flow beyond previously suspected rates. Research supported
by NSF, NASA and other agencies under this theme will combine with work
supported by many other countries to develop a much more complete
understanding of the behavior of these ice sheets and how changes in
this behavior might evolve. The theme will also address further studies
of ice sheet changes that occurred over geological time and the causes
and effects of those changes.
The overall scientific impact of IPY will only become apparent
through synthesis activity that brings together results from disparate
research groups addressing different aspects of these broad themes. NSF
recognizes the critical importance of funding workshops and related
activities to that end, and will do so well beyond the end of the two-
year IPY period.
The education focus has the potential to create a legacy for the
decades, one that will benefit the Nation as well as the science and
engineering community more specifically. By linking the public's
fascination with things polar to outreach that conveys the excitement
of research and discovery, we hope to attract a new generation of
Americans into S&E careers while contributing to a more informed
public.
With the jump start provided by the EHR/OPP FY06 solicitation NSF
will enter the IPY period well-placed to make major impacts during the
ensuing two-year period. A multi-year outreach and education strategy
will have substantially greater impact than one limited to a single
year, while the international collaborations that can greatly enhance
the reach and impact of NSF-supported research will also hinge on
continued support.
While our outreach and education strategy will be focused on U.S.
students, parents and families, we recognize that IPY also brings the
opportunity to demonstrate to them how research and understanding can
result when people from many nations work together on problems of
global interest. The many international scientist-to-scientist
collaborations now developing will help us carry that story to our
public and to others around the world.
Indeed, part of the IPY impact will be the enduring partnerships
established among scientists in the over 30 countries that have
signaled their intention to provide funding for IPY activity. Countries
around the world have seized on the 50 year anniversary of IPY-3/IGY to
create a new legacy of scientific understanding and a new generation of
scientists and engineers. We understand that Canada has committed $150
million over six years to its IPY effort, Korea--$150 million, Japan--
$460 million for a new icebreaker, China--$60 million for
infrastructure and research. Among the EU commitments one exceeds $30
million for a project closely linked to the U.S. IPY centerpiece
addressing climate change in the Arctic.
The 1957-1958 International Polar Year culminated in an
international meeting in Washington called by the State Department to
frame what became the Antarctic Treaty. As President Reagan noted in
1970, ``. . .the Antarctic is the only continent where science serves
as the principal expression of national policy and interest.'' The
State Department plans to host the annual meeting of the Antarctic
Treaty Consultative Parties in 2009, which will spotlight the historic
diplomatic achievement by the Treaty Parties 50 years ago. We expect
this new IPY to create a further legacy of international partnerships
in the interest of advancing scientific research and understanding.
The U.S. research community is poised to provide worldwide
leadership throughout IPY, and NSF is committed to enabling that to the
best of our ability.
The International Polar Years 2007-2009
Report on U.S. Federal Agencies' Planning
September 18, 2006
The years 2007-2009 will mark the 50th anniversary of the
International Geophysical Year (IGY) and of the third International
Polar Year. This period has been designated the fourth International
Polar Year (IPY) by the National Academies of Sciences (NAS), the
International Council of Science (ICSU), the World Meteorological
Organization (WMO), the Arctic Council and by many other international
organizations. The National Science Foundation (NSF) was designated by
the President's Office of Science and Technology to be the lead U.S.
agency in organizing IPY activities.
Preparations are underway worldwide to make IPY a period of intense
activity that promises, in the words of the NAS publication A Vision
for the International Polar Year, to ``further our understanding of
physical and social processes in the polar regions, examine their
globally-connected role in the climate system, and establish research
infrastructure for the future, (and). . .serve as a mechanism to
attract and develop a new generation of scientists and engineers with
the versatility to tackle complex global issues'' (see http://
books.nap.edu/catalog/11013.html).
The 1957-1958 IGY and IPY activities greatly increased our
knowledge of the world around us and provided profound legacies that
continue to benefit research and researchers today. These activities
also resulted in the 1959 Antarctic Treaty, which ``promotes
international scientific cooperation including the exchange of research
plans and personnel and requires that results of research be made
freely available.'' The U.S. played a leading role in shaping and
implementing the 1957-1958 IGY activities and plans to do so again in
2007-2009. IPY activities planned for this period are consistent with
Agency missions and the NAS report of an implementation workshop
(Planning for the International Polar Year: Report of the
Implementation Workshop, http://books.nap.edu/catalog/11110.html). U.S.
activities during IPY 2007-2009 will focus on research, education and
public outreach efforts, and will be coordinated among the federal
agencies and international partners that support research in polar
regions.
NSF is creating a website as part of its work to coordinate IPY
activities among the agencies: http://www.us-ipy.gov/. This site
includes updates on the various agencies' programs, as well as
information on IPY for a general audience and for scientists interested
in obtaining IPY funding from the U.S. Government.
The following is an updated (since May 18, 2005) discussion of
federal agency planning for the International Polar Year.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
The upcoming International Polar Year is a unique opportunity to
continue the legacy of international science years of the past,
including IPY 1882-1883, IPY 1932-1933, and the International
Geophysical Year of 1957-1958. Each of these bursts of internationally
coordinated research and exploration opened the polar regions for
exploration and science, led to significant discoveries about our
planet, and left a long-term legacy of data and observations for future
generations. In particular, the IGY of 1957-58 brought a tremendous
increase in our ability to predict weather worldwide, to measure the
thickness of the antarctic ice sheets, and to understand the dynamics
of the Earth's magnetosphere. However, there are still significant gaps
in our understanding of the polar regions and the processes that
structure polar environments. For example, the relationships between
processes that drive long-term and short-term climate change in the
Arctic are not well understood, nor do we have empirical observations
sufficient to sort them out. In the Antarctic and in Greenland, the ice
sheets that contain 70 percent of the fresh water on Earth are moving
and thinning. In both polar regions, many organisms are adapted to
withstand prolonged periods of darkness and extreme cold, yet we do not
understand how these adaptations evolved or how these organisms may
respond to increased variability in the polar environment.
The National Science Foundation has initiated support for the
International Polar Year in a variety of ways, emphasizing three major
research areas and also education and outreach in an Announcement of
Opportunity that was released in January 2006. These areas of emphasis
will help implement the goals developed by ICSU and the U.S. National
Academies. They have evolved within the research community as high-
priority topics derived from workshops and existing science programs.
Education and outreach are also areas where NSF, with its partners in
other agencies, can make a significant impact on the understanding of
how polar regions influence society and the global environment. Thus,
NSF has a particular interest in conducting activities in the polar
regions that will leave a lasting legacy of data, observing
capabilities, and educational resources for scientists and educators of
the future.
Within NSF, the Office of Polar Programs will take the leadership
role in implementing these activities. Partnerships for IPY will occur
at many levels - within NSF, through interagency collaborations, and in
the international arena. All the NSF directorates and the Office of
International Science and Engineering have expressed interest in
collaborating with OPP on IPY activities. Federal agencies such as
NOAA, NASA, NIH, USGS, DOE, EPA, and the Smithsonian Institution, as
well as the national science agencies of other countries, have closely
related interests. Thus, maximizing the value from partnerships is a
key overarching theme for NSF as we plan for IPY.
NSF and IPY in FY06
The Office of Polar Programs (OPP) and the Directorate for
Education and Human Resources (EHR) committed over $12 million in FY06
to initiate activities in four major areas:
Establishment of a multi-national circum-Arctic observing system, with
emphasis on the Study of Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH)
Program
SEARCH is a broad interdisciplinary, multi-scale interagency
program with the core goal of achieving a predictive understanding of
recent and ongoing changes in the arctic environment. In addition to
understanding how changes in the Arctic are interrelated, SEARCH will
investigate the links between arctic change and global processes and
will assess the impacts that arctic change may have throughout the
Northern Hemisphere. SEARCH will evaluate the possibility that observed
changes in the Arctic can be used to anticipate changes elsewhere on
the globe.
For the period of the IPY, NSF's principal interest related to
SEARCH is the implementation of an Arctic Observing Network (AON). The
purpose of AON will be to understand environmental change in the Arctic
System and its interplay with global oceanic and atmospheric
circulation. AON will employ an arctic-wide coverage of standard
integrated measurements, long-term observations, and modeling and
analysis.
Research related to the Bering Ecosystem Study (BEST) is underway
under the IPY umbrella. The Bering Sea supports one of the most
productive fisheries in the world, contributing about 40 percent of all
finfish and shellfish landings in the United States, yet it is one of
the least-studied areas of U.S. waters. In recent years, it has become
evident that this seasonally ice-covered sea is subject to decadal
changes in climate that have resulted in abrupt and unexpected changes
in the ecosystem. Of particular concern is the possibility that the
combined effects of climate change and fisheries removals may shift
marine ecosystems into alternate stable states that may have a lower
yield of species valuable to people. Identifying the mechanisms driving
ecosystem change, including social and cultural factors, in the Bering
Sea is a key research need.
Ice Sheet Stability, Dynamics and History
The global ice sheets are dynamic features that contain
unprecedented records of climate over the past several hundred thousand
years. Future changes in the ice sheets of both polar regions will
affect sea level, and this is one of the major uncertainties in
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) climate models. In
Antarctica, we expect to emphasize studies of the stability and history
of the major ice sheets. How do they work, how fast are they changing,
and what will they be like in the future decadal to century time frame?
Inquiry into these questions involves direct studies of ice sheet
dynamics but also includes work to understand processes important for
interaction of ice sheets with the lithosphere, oceans, and atmosphere.
The combination of space-based and surface-based studies is critical to
success in this area.
A detailed study of changes in the behavior of the Antarctic and
Greenland ice sheets is also a topic of IPY research. One component of
this comparative work includes obtaining a high-temporal resolution ice
core in West Antarctica for comparison with the climate records
obtained from the Greenland ice cores. There will likely be an
opportunity to leverage logistics support to the ice core camp with
support for other ground-based activity in West Antarctica and to
couple detailed ground- and space-based observations. The work in West
Antarctica might include traverse-based studies, or other types of work
that will be possible from our logistical hubs, that could be linked to
related work in East Antarctica as well as study of change in the Ross
Sea region.
Because of the long lead time required for developing and
implementing ice coring programs, NSF is also looking at the IPY as an
avenue to create an international collaborative framework to facilitate
international ice coring projects beyond the IPY. The Center for Remote
Sensing of Ice Sheets (CReSIS), a Science and Technology Center led by
the University of Kansas and supported jointly by NSF and NASA, will
conduct and foster multi-disciplinary research that will result in
technology and models necessary to achieve a better understanding of
the mass balance of the polar ice sheets (e.g., Greenland and
Antarctica) and their contributions to sea level rise. The focus areas
for CReSIS relate closely to the goals of IPY.
The Antarctic drilling program (ANDRILL) is a multi-national ocean
drilling program currently underway that is focused on extracting
sediment cores from the Antarctic continental shelf. This activity will
also contribute to the broader IPY goal of understanding ice sheet
dynamics.
Frontiers In Polar Biology: Life in Extreme Cold and Prolonged Darkness
Ecologically important biogeochemical processes begin before the
traditional operational season in polar regions and continue beyond the
end of the traditional field season. Living organisms are known to
continue functioning at temperatures well below freezing and during
periods of prolonged darkness. New technologies (genomics, proteomics,
etc.) offer the opportunity to gain a deep understanding of how
organisms have adapted to these extreme environments. The Long Term
Ecological Research (LTER) sites at Toolik Field Station in Alaska, at
Palmer Station on the Antarctic Peninsula, and in the McMurdo Dry
Valleys, as well as research platforms operating in the Arctic and
Southern Oceans, offer the opportunity to bring these new technologies
to bear in research on the polar regions. A recent NAS report,
Frontiers in Polar Biology in the Genomics Era (http://books.nap.edu/
catalog/10623.html) describes potential research benefits of these new
tools. Within NSF, there is interest in OPP and in the Biological
Sciences and Geosciences Directorates in this area of research. OPP has
examined the technical feasibility of extending antarctic operations
into the austral fall and early winter and may be able to implement
this capability by 2007. Supporting winter work elsewhere in the polar
regions will require evaluation of options on a case-by-case basis.
Education and Outreach
OPP has maintained strong support for linking research in the polar
regions with formal education and outreach to the public. NSF has
fostered U.S. scientists' interests in sharing their research with
broad audiences. Many polar researchers have been successful in seeking
support from education programs for more directed efforts, such as
NSF's IGERT and GK-12 programs as well as Arctic Research and Education
and Geosciences Education. Strong international partnerships in
educational activities have developed in association with research
programs in both polar regions. In the Arctic, such partnerships
include U.S. collaboration with groups from Russia, Greenland, Iceland,
Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. In the Antarctic,
partnerships include U.S. collaborations with many nations that
participate in the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR).
OPP sponsored a workshop in June 2004 (www.ldeo.columbia.edu/ mkt/
PolarED-Web.htm) to bring together educators, researchers,
media and museum outreach experts, agency representatives, and others
to discuss effective mechanisms to conduct education and outreach in
support of the IPY. The workshop highlighted many of the education and
outreach efforts that have already been supported by OPP, including
Teachers Experiencing Antarctica and the Arctic (TEA), which was co-
funded with NSF's Elementary, Secondary and Informal Education
Division, Teachers and Researchers Exploring and Collaborating (TREC),
Antarctic Artists and Writers Program, various journalists in the
field, museum exhibits, and Research Experiences for Undergraduates
(REU).
There is significant interest within NSF's Education and Human
Resources (EHR) directorate in utilizing the inherently interesting
features of the polar regions, including their remoteness and extreme
conditions, to direct attention to scientific research and the
importance of the polar regions to the global system. Other agencies
such as NASA and NOAA have robust polar research and education programs
interested in supporting IPY efforts. NSF is developing the foundation
for international and interagency partnerships to bring together
support and expertise from the community of researchers and educators.
Another area where NSF can have a significant IPY impact is in research
on distant education, both in terms of technology and in terms of the
science of learning as it applies to different cultures. The aim of
these efforts is to develop highly visible, long-lived education and
outreach products for IPY research and to provide opportunities for
educating the next generation of polar researchers, the public, and
policy-makers.
As this document goes to print, OPP and EHR are set to make the
education awards resulting from the FY06 IPY solicitation. The science
awards from the FY06 solicitation are on track to be announced before
the end of October.
NSF and IPY in FY07
The Directorates of Biological Sciences, Geosciences, Social,
Behavioral and Economic Sciences, and the Office of International
Science and Engineering have joined OPP and EHR in expanding the four
foci established for FY06. The Agency has requested $61.57 million in
its Budget Request for this purpose.
NSF is preparing a second solicitation that will support IPY
science and education proposals in FY07. This solicitation will build
on the momentum of the FY06 solicitation and broaden the science
themes. For example, research on life in the cold and dark will expand
to address human and biotic systems, providing opportunities for
scientists to address fundamental questions about social, behavioural,
and/or natural systems that will increase our understanding of how
humans and other organisms function in the extreme environments of the
polar regions. Studies on environmental change will specifically take
advantage of the Arctic Observing Network developed during FY06 to
support research that advances the understanding of the physical,
geological, chemical, human, and biological drivers of environmental
change at the poles, their relationship to the climate system, their
impact on ecosystems, and their linkages to global processes.
In addition to large-scale projects such as those mentioned above,
NSF plans to support IPY activities that address the ICSU and NAS
guidelines in a broad spectrum of areas, particularly research that
addresses opportunities in the social sciences, systematic and biotic
diversity surveys (e.g., the ongoing Census of Marine Life),
implementation of observing systems, and research in the Southern Ocean
on the transport and fate of nutrients and carbon.
One example of research in the social sciences is the study of
endangered languages in arctic cultures, where we have the opportunity
to create a legacy of knowledge that will inform future generations of
scholars while at the same time strengthening local cultures. The
Documenting Endangered Languages (DEL) program is a multi-year funding
partnership between NSF and the National Endowment for the Humanities
(NEH) to support projects to develop and advance knowledge concerning
endangered human languages. This program is made urgent by the imminent
death of an estimated half of the 6000-7000 currently used human
languages. Working with the SBE Linguistics Program, the OPP Arctic
Social Sciences Program has identified DEL as a natural IPY project.
The unfortunate situation of the estimated 52 arctic indigenous
languages is no exception to the international prognosis. Following the
first DEL Announcement of Opportunity, over 10 percent of the proposals
were to research arctic languages and the DEL Management Group
anticipates over 10 percent of the recommended proposals to be for
research in the arctic region. NSF and NEH have agreed to funding for
DEL for three years with an evaluation and possibility for renewal in
2008. Thus, IPY provides an opportunity to bring publicity and
resources to the pressing issue of endangered languages in the Arctic.
With regard to the implementation of observing systems, the
National Ocean Partnership Program, through the Ocean-U.S. office, is
pursuing the establishment of an Integrated Ocean Observatory System
(IOOS). The IOOS is planned to include three ``Regional Associations''
in Alaska, including the Chukchi Sea and North Slope, Bering Sea, and
NE Pacific. NSF is working with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and local groups to identify and to support these
regional associations. NSF is working with the research community in
Barrow, Alaska, to develop a plan for a major observatory to be located
in that community, with an emphasis on research that contributes to
SEARCH and other high-priority arctic programs. Within NSF,
participants in these activities include OPP, CISE, and ENG. To enable
the IOOS and to provide for a new generation of polar research, NSF is
committed to supporting work in developing and deploying novel
instrumentation. New work is especially needed in chemical and
biological sensors (for example, nutrients and plankton). In addition,
a new set of platforms that must be developed for making and
transmitting observations from under the ice pack, including both
gliders and autonomous underwater vehicles. Finally, NSF's experience
in deploying the first shore-based polar observatory off Palmer Station
in January 2006 will be invaluable in planning other polar coastal
observatories.
Strong emphasis is again placed on education and outreach, which
will support stand-alone education proposals that specifically
invigorate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
education in the context of the IPY: formal science education projects
at the K-12, undergraduate, or graduate level; informal science
education projects for the broader public; and coordination and
communication for IPY education projects. IPY provides a timely
opportunity to advance the goals of the American Competitiveness
Initiative (ACI).
Logistics Support
Arctic and Antarctic Research Support and Logistics are supported
through contracts and other agreements. These arrangements provide
flexible mechanisms that are capable of supporting a wide range of
potential science and educational activities. NSF also works with the
U.S. Coast Guard, NOAA, University-National Oceanographic Laboratory
System (UNOLS), the Canadian Coast Guard and others to provide
shipboard facilities for marine research in both polar regions. Other
support is available in the Arctic through a cooperative agreement with
the Barrow Arctic Science Consortium (BASC) in Barrow, Alaska, to
provide research support and logistics for researchers working on the
North Slope of Alaska and a cooperative agreement with the Institute of
Arctic Biology at the University of Alaska Fairbanks to support
operation of the Toolik Field Station, an NSF LTER site. Cooperation
with other national polar research programs offers an avenue for
supporting international projects.
One aspect of logistics support that is being explored is the
feasibility of supporting year-round research or extending the research
season at additional locations in the polar regions (currently only
South Pole, McMurdo, and Palmer stations in the Antarctic and Summit,
Greenland are staffed for year-round research activities). Year-round
research and research in remote areas is complicated and expensive to
execute, yet is necessary to provide adequate spatial and temporal
coverage to address research questions. Evolving technology has made it
possible to collect many measurements remotely through instrumentation
or through the use of remotely operated vehicles. There are many
improvements to be made to the technology to ensure consistency of data
collection under extreme conditions and make use of renewable energy
sources. Sensors could be integrated into a network that upload data
via satellites in real-time. Upgrades and improvements of existing
infrastructure include: improvements in the information technology
infrastructure at research hubs such as Barrow, Alaska; development of
unmanned sensor networks in the Arctic and Antarctic; development of
remote power for sensors, particularly using renewable resources; and
improvements in field research facilities (e.g., laboratory space and
equipment, living quarters, communications and safety).
Data Management
The legacy of data created during IGY was instrumental in enabling
many of the scientific advances in the decades following the IGY.
Likewise, comprehensive management of the volumes of data to be
generated during the IPY will be critical to ensuring that it is useful
and available to future researchers and educators.
Archival and distribution functions for data required for support
of arctic and antarctic IPY research are distributed among all the U.S.
national data centers. These data are held in global archives at the
National Climatic Data Center (climatology and meteorology), at the
National Oceanographic Data Center (oceanography), at the National
Geophysical Data Center (seismology, geomagnetism, marine geology and
geophysics, solar and ionospheric studies, ecosystems, topography, and
paleoclimatology), and at the National Center for Atmospheric Research
(upper atmosphere and ionospheric studies). Data sets for a vast array
of cryosphere-specific variables in the Arctic (sea ice, snow cover,
permafrost, etc.) are archived and distributed through the National
Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) and the World Data Center for
Glaciology in Boulder, Colorado (http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/wdc/). These
also include satellite-derived measurements, in-situ observations, and
ancillary information from the Antarctic and the Arctic that have been
supported by NASA, NOAA, and NSF. NOAA/NESDIS/NCDC in Asheville, NC
holds the global satellite data archives for polar-orbiting satellites.
For data management, a new focus on ``Virtual Observatories'' is
being developed and promoted by the ``Electronic Geophysical initiative
Year'' (http://www.eGY.org). As more researchers provide their data on
individual or institutional Web or FTP sites, rather than submitting to
data centers, the current ``push data'' approach (where the data must
be submitted to the National and World Data Centers System) is now
becoming more difficult to implement. Therefore, the worldwide data
management community is focusing on providing more effective access to
globally distributed data sets via the ``pull data'' concept. The eGY
group and the ICSU World Data Centers Panel are working toward a
convergence of data centers into ``data clearinghouses,'' while the
Virtual Observatories are developing a network of interconnected data
holdings and retrieving/visualizing software that constitutes the
worldwide ``data fabric.'' NSF is supporting, under the broader
umbrella of CyberInfrastructure, the concept of Virtual Observatories
as a means of managing relevant data for IPY.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE)
DOE is planning to support the International Polar Year in a
variety of important ways through the following programs:
Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program
Climate Change Prediction Program
ATMOSPHERIC RADIATION MEASUREMENT PROGRAM (ARM)
The ARM Program will continue its year round operation at the North
Slope of Alaska (NSA) site. This site is providing data about cloud and
radiative processes at high latitudes. These data are being used to
refine models and parameterizations as they relate to the Arctic. The
NSA site is centered at Barrow and extends to the south to the vicinity
of Atqasuk, and to the east to Oliktok Point. DOE will also support
IPY-related proposals to conduct experiments using either the NSA site
and/or the ARM Mobile Facility.
CLIMATE CHANGE PREDICTION PROGRAM (CCPP)
The CCPP will continue research to develop coupled climate models.
The CCPP is developing ocean and sea ice models that are components of
the Community Climate System Model (CCSM). In addition to coupled
climate simulations, researchers apply the ocean and sea ice models to
a variety of ocean and sea ice problems, including eddy-resolving ocean
simulations, studies of the thermohaline circulation, and polar ice
feedbacks. CCPP also supports analyses of the causes and consequences
of biases in the mean climate and circulation of the Arctic.
ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
(NOAA) THAT SUPPORT THE OBJECTIVES OF THE
INTERNATIONAL POLAR YEAR (IPY) MARCH 2007-MARCH
2009
NOAA began planning for IPY activities in the fall of 2004. Initial
ideas were packaged into 11 broader themes and submitted to the IPY
International Program Office in January 2005 as ``expressions of
intent.'' Over the next few months, the IPY International Program
Office encouraged scientists to prepare more collaborative proposals,
resulting in around 200 ``integrated projects'' that now define the
international effort for the IPY. All of NOAA's original submissions
are included in these integrated projects. This document summarizes the
initial plans and provides an update to expected IPY activities during
FY 2007 to FY 2009.
EXPLORATION
1. Ocean Exploration in Polar Regions
NOAA's Office of Ocean Exploration (OE) may support multiple
projects in both the Arctic and Antarctic in conjunction with the
International Polar Year (IPY). OE solicited specific projects for IPY
via Federal Register announcements in calendar years 2005 and 2006. OE
also expects to solicit IPY-related projects during the calendar year
2007 Federal Register notice. Ocean Exploration together with the NOAA
Arctic Research Program and the Russian Academy of Sciences plan to
facilitate an expedition to the Pacific Arctic in 2008, as part of the
ongoing RUSALCA (Russian American Long-term Census of the Arctic)
program.
OBSERVATIONS
2. Causes and Impacts of Recent Changes in the Pacific Arctic
Unprecedented minima of sea ice area have occurred in the Pacific
Arctic during the four most recent summers. Summer 2003 and 2004
brought record forest fires and drought to eastern Siberia and Alaska
after a decade of warm springtime temperature anomalies. In surrounding
seas there has been a northward shift of ice-dependent marine animals,
with pelagic species such as pollock favored over bottom-feeding
flatfish. Many Pacific Arctic changes are continuing, despite the
observation that climate indices such as the Arctic Oscillation were
negative or neutral for six of the last nine years. The Pacific Arctic
may be having a larger role in shaping the persistence of Arctic change
than has been previously recognized. We will work with our partners to
carry out observations in this area to measure movement of water
through the Bering Strait, gather observations about physical change in
the state of the ocean in the Bering and Chukchi Seas, and study
impacts of physical change on marine ecosystems in this region. Bering
Strait mooring programs will be conducted, as well as mooring and ship-
board studies in the eastern Bering Sea. Limited ship-board studies
will be made in ice-free areas in the vicinity of Bering Strait and
Chukchi Sea in association with mooring cruises.
3. Polar Atmospheric Observatories and Field Campaigns
As part of the IPY project ``International Arctic System for
Observing the Atmosphere,'' a system of strategically located, long-
term Atmospheric Observatories will be developed around the Arctic to
carry out both routine measurements made at meteorological stations and
intensive measurements at the surface and through the depth of the
atmosphere. Measured quantities can include solar radiation, aerosols,
air chemistry, trace gases, cloud properties, water vapour, ozone,
temperatures, winds, precipitation, surface albedo and stratospheric
properties. These measurements are essential to calibrate and validate
satellite sensors and to improve the reliability of climate models. The
Atmospheric Observatory partnership includes the United States, Canada,
Russia, Norway, Finland, and China. NOAA's existing baseline
observatories at Barrow Alaska and South Pole will continue to focus on
measurements of trace gases and aerosols. The flask-sampling program
has 15 polar stations that collect atmospheric samples for trace gas
measurement. The Climate Research Program supports investigations of
atmospheric processes that affect climate in polar regions. In the
Arctic, a new observatory at Eureka Canada will operate during the IPY
and the observatory at Barrow Alaska will continue. The observatory at
Tiksi Russia will be partially operational. These three observatories
will focus on measurements of clouds, radiation, and trace gases. Both
Barrow and South Pole will offer logistic support to scientists for IPY
projects if they can provide their own science support. The flask-
sampling program will continue and research efforts will be supported
on ozone, haze and aerosol/cloud/climate interactions in the Arctic.
NOAA/NCDC plans to install a Climate Reference Network (CRN) site
configuration at the Russian Arctic observing site in Tiksi (dependent
on final FY07 budget). Preliminary planning has already begun in
concert with the IPY's International Arctic Systems for Observing the
Atmosphere (IASOA), and installation is tentatively planned for the
summer building season in the August/September 2007 timeframe. This
installation is not only in support of the IPY, but is also in line
with a longer term effort on the part of the U.S. GCOS Program Office
to install reference surface observing sites in unique high elevation
and high latitude location environments.
4. Polar stratospheric Ozone Depletion Observations
As a part of the International Geophysical Year in 1957, column
ozone measurements were initiated at South Pole, Antarctica using
Dobson spectrometers. In 1985, the annual stratospheric ozone depletion
over Antarctica--the ``Antarctic Ozone Hole''--was identified. In less
than five years it was proven that the ozone hole was caused by human
emitted fluorochlorocarbons (CFCs) and the ozone hole has become a
globally recognized ``poster child'' for showing how humans can cause
global scale changes. The Arctic stratospheric ozone changes, though
lesser in magnitude than the Antarctic ozone hole, are by no means of
lesser importance. Key studies will be undertaken in the Arctic to
monitor these changes. Routine observations of ozone will continue at
Barrow and South Pole during the IPY.
5. Antarctic Living Marine Resource (AMLR) Survey
The principal objective of the NOAA AMLR research program is to
collect the scientific information needed to detect, monitor, and
predict the effects of harvesting and associated activities on target,
dependent, and related species and populations of the Antarctic marine
living resources and the ecosystem(s) of which they are a part. A 35-
day ship-based research program is planned for FY07.
PREDICTION AND MODELING
6. Short-term Arctic Predictability (STAP)
This scientific study will explore the variability, and associated
predictability of weather, sea ice, ocean wave, and land surface
processes in the Arctic region in the 3-90 days time range, with
special emphasis on improving forecast guidance for high impact events
in the 3-14 day lead time range. NOAA will complete a study of
northwest Alaskan coastal waves during the IPY. NOAA will also
participate in sea ice studies at both poles aimed at improving
measurement of ice thickness and forecasting. The NOAA THORPEX program
is expected to make observations and introduce forecast products to
improve weather and intraseasonal forecasts for the Arctic.
7. Advances in Satellite Products and Their Use in Numerical Weather
Prediction
Spatially comprehensive observations of the atmosphere in the data-
sparse polar regions significantly and positively impact high latitude
numerical weather predictions. In addition, errors in model forecasts
for the high latitudes often propagate to the mid-latitudes, implying
that improvements to high latitude forecasts will result in better mid-
latitude forecasts. These findings provide the motivation to improve
our ability to measure the state of the polar regions with satellites
and to expand the use of these data in Numerical Weather Prediction
systems. NOAA will participate in IPY projects to improve the
application of satellite sensors to environmental problems in the polar
regions.
8. Arctic Climate Modeling
The general goal of this project is to improve predictions of the
Arctic environment on timescales ranging from seasonal to climate
change. Thus, our research will focus on analyzing and modeling the
physical processes and connections between the Arctic and the rest of
the globe. NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory will continue
to improve global climate models that including polar processes.
9. Arctic System Re-analysis (ASR)
A concerted effort during the IPY (2007-2008) to construct pan-
Arctic atmosphere-ocean-ice-land data sets, and to assimilate and
enhance these with a high-resolution (coupled) reanalysis system
optimized for the Arctic region, will provide researchers with an
unprecedented description of the Arctic environment over the past
several decades. The operational analysis system (post 2008) expected
to be a legacy of this activity would provide constantly updated
depictions of the Arctic environment, and foster improved short- and
medium-range weather forecasts as well as seasonal climate outlooks.
Improved understanding of Arctic climate processes resulting from
development of the ASR will lead to better global climate models, in
turn reducing uncertainty in projected future climate states of the
Arctic. The ASR will also serve as a vehicle for diagnostic evaluation
of ongoing changes in the Arctic system.
DATA, OUTREACH AND DECISION SUPPORT
10. NOAA's Data, Information, and Change Detection Strategy for the
IPY
NOAA's fundamental data management responsibilities will be to
securely archive IPY datasets and ensure that these and relevant polar
data are easily accessible for current and future users. NOAA will
utilize the existing World Data Center (WDC) System and NOAA's National
Geophysical Data Centers in order to serve as a clearinghouse and
facilitator for data-management issues and will work with IPY
participants to ensure that International Council of Scientific Unions/
World Meteorological Organization (ICSU/WMO) IPY Data Committee
guidelines are followed. NOAA will also ensure that international
standards such as the Open Archival Information System Reference Model
and the ISO19115 metadata standards are met.
NOAA intends to build and maintain a pan-Arctic view of climate
variability and change that will serve decision-makers with information
products. These range from baseline atlases against which future
assessments can be carried out, to the Near Realtime Arctic Change
Indicator Website, where information on the present state of Arctic
ecosystems and climate is given in historical context. NOAA data
centers will assist NOAA scientists to archive their IPY data. NOAA
will continue to acquire historical data and present it on the Arctic
Change Indicator Website to describe the state of the Arctic climate
over the past 150 years, allowing a better context for new data
collected during the IPY.
11. Decision support for increasing adaptive capacity to climate
change and variability in Alaska and the Arctic.
The cornerstone of the National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration's (NOAA) Regional Climate Decision Support program for
Alaska and the Arctic is to establish an integrated program spanning
stakeholder-influenced research and development of decision-support
tools for the sustained delivery of customer services. This includes
establishing in Alaska a Regional Integrated Sciences & Assessments
(RISA) and a Regional Climate Center (RCC) with formal liaisons to
NOAA's National Weather Service and the State Climatologist Office to
foster growth of climate services.
NOAA is part of the U.S. presence in the Arctic Council (AC). The
AC plans to conduct several assessments during the IPY period,
including the Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment, an assessment of the
Arctic carbon cycle, and others. NOAA will provide expertise and
financial support within available resources. NOAA plans to initiate
the Alaska RISA soon through the Univ. of Alaska, and as a five-year
effort, it will operate during the IPY, but not at the full-performance
level. Through the Regional Climate Centers program, an ``Alaska desk''
may be established in association with the Alaska RISA. NOAA expects to
contribute staff time and limited financial support to the Arctic
Council climate-related assessment tasks during the IPY.
The National Ice Center (NIC) is a U.S. Government agency that
brings together elements from the Department of Commerce--NOAA , the
Department of Defense--NAVY, and the Department of Homeland Security--
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) to support coastal and marine sea ice
operations and research globally. The mission of the NIC is to provide
the highest quality strategic and tactical ice services tailored to
meet operational requirements of U.S. national interests. Over the
Arctic, particularly, the NIC provides operational strategic basin-
scale sea ice charting with the production of a hemispheric and over 30
individual regional charts, sea ice tactical ice navigation support,
Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea ice seasonal forecasts, support for the
development of a sea ice climatology for the Arctic, and management of
the U.S. Interagency Arctic Buoy Program (USIABP). NIC is participating
directly or indirectly in an increased number of research and
application cooperative projects with other national and international
groups as part of International Polar Year (IPY) activities throughout
2007 and 2008.
NOAA's National Data Centers handle a wide variety of Arctic data.
An affiliated data center, the National Snow and Ice Data Center
(NSIDC), CIRES, University of Colorado, has a NOAA NESDIS supported
program (nsidc.org/noaa/) to produce and manage selected data sets.
Significant data sets are the Online Glacier Photograph Collection of
over 3000 photographs dating to the late 1800s; upward looking sonar
data from submarines, providing estimates of sea ice thickness; and the
Sea Ice Index, a site that shows, with graphical products, trends and
anomalies in sea ice cover. Overall, the NOAA@NSIDC program emphasizes
data rescue and in situ data. This emphasis helps collect and maintain
the long time series with broad spatial coverage that is necessary to
track and attribute arctic change. The program complements the
activities of the Distributed Active Archive Center, a NASA funded
center at NSIDC that supports the bulk of NSIDC's activities. In
addition to data activities, NOAA supports approximately half of the
operating cost of the World Data Center for Glaciology, Boulder,
library. The archival activities of this library are becoming more
visible as preparations for IPY gather momentum.
12. Formal and Informal Education
The Climate Program Office is leading a NOAA-wide effort with
respect to the IPY. The Climate Literacy Working Group (CLWG), based at
the Climate Program Office, is coordinating NOAA-wide IPY education and
outreach activities with the NOAA Office of Education. The NOAA IPY
effort is part of the NSF led interagency IPY education effort and will
collaborate and coordinate their efforts with agencies participating in
the forth IPY. Several formal and informal education initiatives are
focusing primarily on teacher professional and science center or museum
exhibitions, however several formal lesson plans will be developed as
part of our IPY efforts. Several current example IPY efforts are listed
below:
IPY/NSTA Symposia: These are exciting Symposia designed for
grade 5-8 educators in celebration of the International Polar
Year (IPY), will delve into science content and educational
activities developed by NASA, NOAA, and NSF. These symposia
will happen at the NSTA national conference in March 2007.
http://institute.nsta.org/fall06/ipyice/symposium.asp
IGLO is a project of the Association of Science-Technology
Centers, an international organization of science centers and
museums dedicated to furthering the public understanding of
science. IGLO's goals are to raise public awareness about the
impact of global warming and the state of climate science,
position science centers globally as recognized leaders in
public engagement with science and support the aims and
objectives of the IPY. NOAA, NASA and NSF are sponsors of the
initiative.
http://www.astc.org/iglo/
Climate Change in the Arctic Ocean is a teacher professional
development and mass media project aboard the NABOS 2006 Arctic
Expedition aboard Icebreaker Kapitan Dranitsyn.
http://www.naturalsciences.org/education/arctic/
13. Public Outreach--
NOAA's Climate Program has expanded its Regional Integrated
Sciences and Assessments (RISA) program to Alaska. The Alaska RISA is a
five-year program designed to address regionally important climate
issues to aid policy- and decision-making. The Alaska RISA program
could contribute significant results to our understanding of key
climate related challenges facing the state and would allow for
innovative partnerships with neighboring countries.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (DHHS)
Arctic Human Health Initiative (AHHI)
The Arctic Human Health Initiative (AHHI) will advance the joint
research agenda of the Arctic Council, an eight-nation inter-
governmental forum for sustainable development and environmental
protection, in the areas of infectious disease monitoring, prevention,
and response; the effects of anthropogenic pollution, UV radiation, and
climate variability on human health; and telehealth innovations.
Specifically, the leaders of these research programs will build on
their years of circumpolar collaboration to extend the International
Circumpolar Surveillance network of hospitals and public health
facilities into Russia and include additional infectious diseases of
concern, to continue monitoring contaminants in human blood and tissues
to reveal temporal and spatial trends and to combine experiences from
the rapidly expanding disciplines of biomarker research and molecular
epidemiology with these monitoring programs, and to extend circumpolar
cooperation on telehealth, particularly to Arctic regions in the
Russian Federation. In addition, the AHHI will draw on the outstanding
leadership of the Arctic Council member states' national and
international research programs in the areas of human genomics,
hypothermia/hibernation, and health impacts of climate change
(including spread of zoonotic and arboviral diseases in the Arctic).
Fogarty International Center (FIC) has been the designated focal
point for Arctic issues at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). One
of FIC's key roles is advancing bilateral and multilateral ties between
and among governments, institutions, and scientists working on
circumpolar issues. In this, FIC has been collaborating with other NIH
Institutes and DHHS agencies in the development of symposiums and
research programs, as well as actively exploring other opportunities
for trans-NIH and interagency collaboration (e.g., with NSF, NASA,
etc.), such as mental health. As an example, two major conferences on
inhalant abuse and suicide were spearheaded by FIC with partnership
from National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) and National Institute on
Mental Health (NIMH) in 2004 and 2005. With mental health being one of
the most significant concerns for the AHHI, FIC has been working with
the Polar Research Board at the National Academies of Science in the
development of a study focused on mental health in the Arctic. In
addition to these activities, in FY05, NIH spent 22 million on research
programs in the Arctic. Some of the major areas of research included
interactions of genetics and environment, cancer, cardiovascular and
mental health disease burdens. Overall, across DHHS, multiple agencies
have been engaged in working on the improvement of health and health
care in the Arctic. For example, SAMHSA spent 21.2 million in FY05, as
it continues to provide services directed at the prevention and
treatment of mental health and substance abuse problems in the Arctic.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), one of the
leading agencies at DHHS has been developing partnerships and
collaborations in the Arctic focused on improvement of public health
and healthcare provision. In addition, CDC has been the leader of the
AHHI steering group, which has been working with the International
Union for Circumpolar Health (IUCH), FIC and other stakeholders in the
development of outreach and public education programs focused on the
promotion of good health for Arctic residents and better integration of
the findings of Arctic health research.
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (USGS)
The U.S. Geological Survey serves the United States by providing
reliable scientific information to
Describe and understand the Earth
Minimize loss of life and property from natural
disasters
Manage water, biological, energy, and mineral
resources; and
Enhance and protect our quality of life.
The USGS will participate in the IPY through extension and
enhancement of programmatic activities in research, assessment, and
monitoring in the polar regions that support the scientific mission of
the organization and address the themes and goals of the IPY. These
activities span the biologic, geologic, hydrologic, geographic, and
information sciences. While planning is still ongoing, we anticipate
our major IPY activities will include:
Products to be released by the USGS during IPY:
Satellite Image Atlas of Glaciers of Asia, Alaska,
and Iceland (http://www.glaciers.er.usgs.gov/html/
chapters.html)
State of the Earth's Cryosphere at the Beginning of
the 21st Century: Glaciers, Snow Cover, Floating Ice, and
Permafrost
Petroleum Resource Assessment of the Arctic
USGS World Petroleum Assessment of 2000 estimated that
approximately 25 percent of the remaining oil and gas
resources of the world reside in the Arctic. This
follow-on study will examine Arctic basins in more
detail and report on oil and gas resource potential of
unexplored basins, and the initial results should be
completed during the IPY.
Landsat 7 Image Map of Antarctica (LIMA)
The LIMA will create three high-quality remotely-
sensed mosaics of Antarctica from more than 1200+
Landsat scenes in cooperation with the British
Antarctic Survey, funded by the National Science
Foundation.
Analysis of long-term monitoring from the polar regions:
The USGS has been monitoring permafrost temperature in the Arctic,
three Benchmark Glaciers for climate change, glacier geometry, glacier
mass balance, glacier motion, and stream runoff, and marine mammals for
many decades. The results of those monitoring efforts will be examined,
analyzed and reported on during the IPY.
Permafrost Temperature Monitoring
Benchmark Glaciers
Marine Mammals: polar bears and walruses
Sea Ice
Initiation of new study:
Yukon River Basin--Rates and Effects of Permafrost Thawing in the
Arctic.
The USGS is working with a consortium of U.S. and Canadian Federal,
State, and Provincial agencies, university scientists, and tribal
organizations to initiate a major project to understand and predict
climate-induced changes to the air, water, land, and biota within the
Yukon River Basin (YRB). This collaborative scientific effort, using
the YRB and adjacent coastal ocean as a representative landscape unit,
will provide a benchmark for tracking and understanding changes
occurring throughout the Arctic and Sub-arctic region.
USGS will be highlighting our Facilities and Resources for Arctic and
Antarctic Research
U.S. National Ice Core Laboratory, USGS, Denver, CO
The U.S. National Ice Core Laboratory (NICL) stores,
curates, and facilitates study of ice cores recovered from the
polar regions of the world. It provides scientists with the
capability to conduct examinations and measurements on ice
cores, and it preserves the integrity of these ice cores in a
long-term repository for current and future investigations. Ice
cores contain an abundance of climate information--more so than
any other natural recorder of climate such as tree rings or
sediment layers. http://nicl.usgs.gov/
U.S. Antarctic Resource Center, USGS, Reston, VA
The U.S. Antarctic Resource Center (USARC) is the Nation's
depository for Antarctic maps, charts, geodetic ground control,
satellite images, aerial photographs, publications, slides, and
video tapes. These resources are items produced by Antarctic
Treaty nations in support of their activities in Antarctica and
provided to the USARC in compliance with a standing resolution
of the treaty providing for exchange of information.
usarc.usgs.gov
USGS Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, AK
A Center of Excellence for the Department of the Interior to
address important natural resources issues and natural hazards
assessments in Alaska and circumpolar regions through long-term
data collection and monitoring, research and development, and
assessments and applications. Their mission is to provide
scientific leadership and accurate, objective, and timely data,
information, and research findings about the Earth and its
flora and fauna to federal and State resource managers and
policy-makers, local government, and the public to support
sound decision-making regarding natural resources, natural
hazards, and ecosystems in Alaska and circumpolar regions.
http://alaska.usgs.gov/index.php
McMurdo Long Term Research (LTER) Program
The USGS provides cooperative support to the McMurdo Long-
Term Research program for water resources data collection and
related activities. The support provided is in the form of
field assistance, guidance, and review of surface-water data
collection by INSTAAR and University of Colorado researchers in
the McMurdo Dry Valleys (Taylor Valley and Wright Valley) of
Antarctica. Cooperation is also provided in the form of
guidance and support for and access to USGS databases and
streamflow-records processing applications.
Antarctic Seismic Data Library System (SDLS)
The SDLS is an Antarctic-Treaty-mandated effort under the
auspices of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
(SCAR) to collate and make openly available for research
purposes all marine multi-channel seismic reflection data (MCS)
acquired in Antarctic regions (i.e., south of 60 degrees
South). The SDLS was implemented in 1991 under USGS
sponsorship, but since about 1996, the SDLS has been run
jointly by USGS (with NSF-OPP and USGS funding) and
Osservatorio Geofisico Sperimentale (OGS, Trieste, Italy). The
seismic library has branches in 10 countries, with two branches
in the U.S. MCS data are sent to the SDLS by data collectors,
are put onto CD-ROM and distributed to SDLS branches where they
can be viewed and used under the SDLS guidelines specified in
SCAR Report #9 (and addendums). To date, 60 CD-Roms holding
more than 120,000 km of stacked MCS data have been produced for
SDLS branches.
Web-enabling the US Antarctic Photography Collection
from the USGS Earth Resources Observation Science (EROS) Center
For more the 30 years, it has been USGS's privilege to
archive and serve the U.S. Antarctic Program, the international
Antarctic research community, and the public with access to the
U.S. Antarctic aerial photography collection held at the USGS
Center for Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS)
center at http://eros.usgs.gov/. This collection consists of an
estimated 400,000 frames of historical aerial photography
dating back to the 1940s. This collection is the best
collection of Antarctic aerial photography held by any country
and that its value to the Antarctic research community will
only increase with time as work and research continues in
Antarctica.
However, neither online metadata, browse images,
photographs nor film products are available via the Internet
for the USAP Antarctic aerial photography collection. New
technology and improved digitizing methods have made it
possible to digitize the original aerial film rolls creating
browse and medium resolution images of each frame. We propose
to link the digitized USAP aerial photography browse and medium
resolution image files to the USARC paper map-line plots and
web-enable the digitized collection in such a way that users
could download images over the Internet at no cost to the user.
Implementation of the proposal will result in an integrated on-
line query, browsing and delivery capability for all historical
USARC photography in the USGS EROS Center.
Antarctic Geographic Placenames
The USGS operates the U.S. Board on Geographic Names in
conjointly with other federal agencies. In accordance with
recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Antarctic Names
(ACAN), United States Board on Geographic Names (USBGN)
approves all new names to be used in government use in
Antarctica by the United States.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA)
NASA's contributions to IPY likely will involve ongoing activities
(operating satellites, continuing ground networks, and scientific
research), some episodic activities (satellite snapshots and field
campaigns), new efforts related to the development and deployment of
sub-orbital capabilities (aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicles), and
coordination of remote sensing observations with in situ measurements
supported both by NASA and other agencies--primarily the National
Science Foundation.
Currently, NASA operates nearly 20 satellites that collect
information about the polar regions. The Ice Cloud and Land Elevation
Satellite (ICESat) was specifically designed to measure changes in the
elevation of the Earth's great ice sheets and the ice sheet processes
that are manifest in the surface topography in unprecedented detail. In
addition, the mission has revealed new information about recent
thickness characteristics of sea ice in the entire Arctic and Antarctic
regions. Other recently-launched Cloudsat and Calipso missions are
providing 3-dimensional information on the structure of the Earth's
atmosphere, and as with all near-polar orbiting satellites, coverage
will be maximum in the polar regions.
NASA has demonstrated success in the past in developing
comprehensive polar observations through international collaborations
with the Canadian Space Agency (CSA) to carry out the Antarctic Mapping
Mission and the Arctic Snapshot of Arctic sea ice characteristics at
very high spatial resolution. We expect to continue to develop these
international efforts through a coordination of activities with our
colleagues at space agencies in other countries.
NASA also has polar missions that reach beyond Earth, including the
PHOENIX Mission that will land near Mars North Pole in 2008, the Lunar
Recon Orbiter that will map lunar polar regions for the first time in
2008, and the Mars Recon Orbiter (MRO) that will explore Martian polar
regions from orbit. Polar analogues in Mars exploration are vital; for
instance, scientists have used Earth's polar regions to simulate Mars
for over 30 years. For instance, the Dry Valleys of Antarctica are the
best ``Mars analogue'' known on Earth, and activities in support of
human exploration of space have been conducted in the Canadian Arctic.
These polar environments continue to serve as important test-beds in
support of activities related to NASA's Vision for Space Exploration.
NASA issued a solicitation for IPY research proposals in 2006.
Specific research topics solicited were:
1. Integrated analysis of multiple satellite data sets,
enhanced validation of NASA satellite data sets in polar
regions needed for improving their interpretation by models,
and/or the integrated analysis of satellite and related sub-
orbital data addressing the scientific questions defined by
NASA in its Earth Science Enterprise Strategy (at http://
earth.nasa.gov/visions/ESE-Strategy2003.pdf) that
can be addressed in the context of IPY;
2. Individual U.S. investigator participation in field
activities carried out as part of IPY, especially U.S.
participation in multi-national field campaigns to take place
in the primary IPY timeframe from March 2007-March 2009.
3. Integrated regional modeling of the polar regions
(including the terrestrial, oceanic, atmospheric, biospheric,
and cryospheric components of these regions and their
interactions) that takes advantage of synergies between the
enhanced international observational capabilities that will be
available during the IPY time frame and NASA satellites;
4. Definition studies for potential U.S.-led, focused IPY
activities that integrate field work (typically using NASA-
provided sub-orbital platforms), satellite data analysis, and
modeling to address IPY-related science questions and provide
enhanced validation for NASA satellite data products in the
unique geophysical and/or biogeochemical conditions found in
the polar areas. At this point in time, proposals for conduct
of and/or participation in significant multi-investigator,
U.S.-led field-based activities beyond these definition studies
are not solicited; and
5. Development of remote-sensing instruments suitable for
implementation on uninhabited aerial vehicles (UAVs) such as
are likely to be available for use during the IPY time frame
(March 2007-March 2009). Such instruments would make
contributions to IPY contributing to our knowledge of the
unique geophysical and/or biogeochemical conditions found in
polar regions in one or more areas, including: (a) providing
early demonstration of instrumental approaches that may be
suitable for use on future satellites, (b) providing enhanced
calibration/validation information for NASA satellites (and/or
those of our international partners), (c) providing more
comprehensive information about polar regions that complements
that available from satellite sensors to be operating in the
IPY time frame, or (d) any combination of the above. Given the
limited time and funding available, it is expected that such
development would be based on currently available airborne
instrumentation with significant heritage aboard onboard-
piloted platforms, but for which modification to meet the
requirements of potential UAVs would be required. Proposers
should identify potential UAV platforms as part of their
proposals, but need not make arrangements for their use. If
proposals in this area are selected, NASA would provide and pay
for any flight opportunities involving the use of the newly
developed instrument during the IPY time frame.
The evaluation of proposals submitted in response to this
solicitation is still underway, but proposals selected from responses
to our IPY solicitation will form the basis of a significant portion of
our IPY research portfolio. In the context of The Vision for Space
Exploration, other areas of investment may include:
-- Utilizing polar regions as a stepping stone to exploring
other planetary environments
-- Understanding poles of other planets and similarities and
differences to those on Earth.
NASA continues to study the Earth as a system through the unique
sampling capability afforded by remote sensing. During the IPY and
beyond, we will continue to develop this capability to understand polar
processes, the role of the polar regions in the Earth's environment,
and the nature of poles on other planets in our solar system.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA)
The U.S. Department of Agriculture plans to continue its mission
related activities in the Alaska region through its various mission
areas, in particular through the Research, Extension and Economics
Mission Area and the Natural Resources and Environment Mission Area.
The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) will continue its work
towards preserving Alaskan plant diversity through its preservation and
archiving of high latitude plant germplasm through traditional seed
collocation and modern molecular methods. The U.S. Forest Service
through the Pacific Northwest Research Station is responsible for the
management of the Alaskan boreal forest and will continue its
commitment in support of the Bonanza Creek LTER, which takes place at
the Bonanza Creek Experimental Forest. The Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) will continue to provide assistance to
state, Native Alaskan, and private landowners through the USDA Farm
Bill. The Forest Service and NRCS will continue their joint activities
in permafrost and wetland soil research. The Cooperative State
Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES) will continue its
research support for the Agricultural Experimental Research Stations
and educational support for the University of Alaska, the Alaska land-
grant institution. Legislated funding for research, education and
extension activities through the Hatch Act, Evans-Allen Act and the
McIntire-Stennis Act will continue to be administered by CSREES.
Competitive funding for research through the National Research
Initiative and for education such as the Alaska-Native and Native-
Hawaiian Educational Grants Program will be offered by various CSREES
programs. CSREES will also continue its extension activities through
the Alaska Cooperative Extension Service. CSREES is currently
contributing to the interagency Study of Environmental Arctic Change
(SEARCH) by providing resources to a 2006-2007 joint solicitation with
EPA and NASA for proposals on climate change, land use and invasive
species. SEARCH is one of the primary activities of NSF for the IPY and
the USDA will continue to work with the interagency working group of
SEARCH to promote joint interests in Alaska.
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION (SI)
The Smithsonian is prepared to engage in a variety of research,
education, and outreach programs in support of IPY-4. Some of the
following plans--all of which have been developed with interagency
collaboration--are already underway; others need further discussion and
are offered here as ideas for consideration.
1. Of all U.S. Governmental agencies, the Smithsonian probably
has the longest record of association with IPY activities,
because of its critical role in the First U.S. IPY field
expeditions of 1881-1884, in caring for its collections, and
publishing its proceedings. Hence SI participation in IPY 2007-
8 will include both historical and contemporary dimensions.
2. The SI contribution will be based upon the Institution's
time-tested strengths: (1) the research of its scientific
personnel; (2) special value of its museum collections as
national treasures; and (3) its broad public outreach program,
coupled with the unique position of Smithsonian museums on the
National Mall and their special attraction to the general
public and the Nation.
3. On the scientific side, the SI is already playing the
leading role in framing the U.S. socio-cultural and Native
studies programs based upon staff expertise through the NMNH
Arctic Studies Center and the value of its ethnological
collections (see below). An ASC Arctic ethnologist is playing a
key role for planning the IPY 2007-2008 socio-cultural agenda
as a member of both the U.S. National IPY Committee and the
main ICSU-WMO Joint Committee for the International Polar Year.
The ASC will continue its leading role in the socio-cultural
planning through its meetings, symposia, publications,
exhibits, coordination activities, and other means.
4. Smithsonian scholars are also active in other fields of
Arctic and Antarctic research, particularly in biology,
paleontology, ocean, and astrophysics studies that will be
included in the Institution's IPY program. SI is also curates
the U.S. National Antarctic Meteorite collection.
5. The Smithsonian offers to organize and host a national IPY
symposium at the beginning of the IPY 2007-2008 activities,
with the participation of the leading SI scientists and
representatives of other agencies and research institutions.
6. SI is eager to offer its Arctic and Antarctic collections
(ethnological, botanical, zoological, mineral, films and
archival materials, etc.) and to facilitate all types of IPY
collection research as its contribution to the interagency IPY
2007-2008 program. Of particular value are the ethnological and
biological collections from Barrow, Alaska and Ellesmere Island
(Greeley Expedition) Arctic Canada from the First IPY 1881-1884
expeditions, as well as scientific instrument collections and
records of the early IPY stations; and the instrument
collections from the IGY at the Air and Space Museum.
7. SI offers its space and personnel resources to serve as the
key IPY interagency hub for Education, Outreach, and Public
Communication during 2007-2008 (and even earlier), through its
museum programs, outreach, and exhibit ventures.
8. Proposed IPY Events for the National Mall:
a) The first event will be the opening of the new
Smithsonian exhibit, The Arctic: A Friend Acting
Strangely (June 2005), focused on the current impacts
and science of arctic environmental change. This
exhibit has been produced with financial support from
NOAA and NSF will be a part of the NMNH ``Global
Links'' Exhibition Program.
b) As noted above, we propose organizing a national
IPY symposium at the beginning of the IPY period
(2007).
c) As part of this symposium, SI will organize a small
exhibit on the history of the early U.S. IPY efforts
based upon its collections, instruments, and
photographic and documentary records. We invite other
agencies to join us in exhibiting objects or graphic
materials related to their own contributions to the
U.S. IPY efforts.
d) In collaboration with the University of Colorado
(INSTAAR) we propose mounting a special exhibit called
Artifacts On Ice: The Emerging Archeology of Glaciers,
featuring the 8000 year old evidence of humans,
artifacts, animals, and climate science being recovered
from melting high-altitude glaciers in the Pacific
Northwest.
e) The fifth--and the major--Smithsonian public
contribution could be a much larger exhibit, such as
Science at the Poles: IPY 2007-2008, to publicize its
preliminary results and major accomplishments. This
might take place in early or mid-2010, and as a major
public venture, would have to be supported by
substantial agency contributions.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)
EPA plans to support other agencies' IPY efforts through its
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP), and its
involvement in the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS).
For 15 years, EMAP has developed cost-effective and policy relevant
probabilistic sampling approaches for freshwater and marine resources.
EPA has supported monitoring of coastal resources in South Central and
Southeastern Alaska, as well as freshwater monitoring in Central
Alaska. The state of Alaska has submitted an IPY ``Expression of
Intent'' for Arctic and Bering Sea Coastal Assessments. EPA will give
non-budgetary support to this proposal. Other agencies also may wish to
support this effort, and perhaps support a larger potential effort of
developing a circumarctic or even circumpolar coastal monitoring
program using EMAP approaches, to obtain baseline conditions. This
larger effort could be done in the context of IPY 2007-2008.
EPA is involved in GEOSS as a data collector, integrator, and user.
Also, EPA is co-chair of the GEO Secretariat's User Requirements and
Outreach Subgroup. EPA is interested in how the oceans observing
network is expected to be included under GEOSS, and how all the other
Earth observations overlap with IPY. EPA looks forward to collaborating
with other agencies in GEOSS activities related to the IPY.
Biography for Arden L. Bement, Jr.
Arden L. Bement, Jr., became Director of the National Science
Foundation on November 24, 2004. He had been Acting Director since
February 22, 2004.
He joined NSF from the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, where he had been Director since Dec. 7, 2001. As head of
NIST, he oversaw an agency with an annual budget of about $773 million
and an on-site research and administrative staff of about 3,000,
complemented by a NIST-sponsored network of 2,000 locally managed
manufacturing and business specialists serving smaller manufacturers
across the United States. Prior to his appointment as NIST director,
Bement served as the David A. Ross Distinguished Professor of Nuclear
Engineering and head of the School of Nuclear Engineering at Purdue
University. He has held appointments at Purdue University in the
schools of Nuclear Engineering, Materials Engineering, and Electrical
and Computer Engineering, as well as a courtesy appointment in the
Krannert School of Management. He was director of the Midwest
Superconductivity Consortium and the Consortium for the Intelligent
Management of the Electrical Power Grid.
Bement came to the position as NIST director having previously
served as head of that agency's Visiting Committee on Advanced
Technology, the agency's primary private-sector policy adviser; as head
of the advisory committee for NIST's Advanced Technology Program; and
on the Board of Overseers for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality
Award.
Along with his NIST advisory roles, Bement served as a member of
the U.S. National Science Board from 1989 to 1995. The board guides NSF
activities and also serves as a policy advisory body to the President
and Congress. As NSF director, Bement now serves as an ex officio
member of the NSB.
He also chaired the Commission for Engineering and Technical
Studies and the National Materials Advisory Board of the National
Research Council; was a member of the Space Station Utilization
Advisory Subcommittee and the Commercialization and Technology Advisory
Committee for NASA; and consulted for the Department of Energy's
Argonne National Laboratory and the Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory.
He currently serves as a member of the U.S. National Commission for
UNESCO and serves as the Vice-Chair of the Commission's Natural
Sciences and Engineering Committee.
Bement joined the Purdue faculty in 1992 after a 39-year career in
industry, government, and academia. These positions included: Vice
President of technical resources and of science and technology for TRW
Inc. (1980-1992); Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Research and
Engineering (1979-1980); Director, Office of Materials Science, DARPA
(1976-1979); Professor of nuclear materials, MIT (1970-1976); Manager,
Fuels and Materials Department and the Metallurgy Research Department,
Battelle Northwest Laboratories (1965-1970); and senior research
associate, General Electric Co. (1954-1965).
He has been a director of Keithley Instruments Inc. and the Lord
Corp. and was a member of the Science and Technology Advisory Committee
for the Howmet Corp. (a division of ALCOA).
Bement holds an engineer of metallurgy degree from the Colorado
School of Mines, a Master's degree in metallurgical engineering from
the University of Idaho, a doctorate degree in metallurgical
engineering from the University of Michigan, an honorary doctorate
degree in engineering from Cleveland State University, an honorary
doctorate degree in science from Case Western Reserve University, an
honorary doctorate degree in engineering from the Colorado School of
Mines, and a Chinese Academy of Sciences Graduate School Honorary
Professorship. He is a member of the U.S. National Academy of
Engineering and a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Chairman Inglis. Thank you, Dr. Bement.
Dr. Bell.
STATEMENT OF DR. ROBIN ELIZABETH BELL, DOHERTY SENIOR RESEARCH
SCIENTIST, LAMONT-DOHERTY EARTH OBSERVATORY, COLUMBIA
UNIVERSITY
Dr. Bell. Good morning. Thank you very much for inviting me
to speak on International Polar Year. I consider it the
scientific opportunity of a generation for our nation, our
society, and our planet.
I am Robin Bell, and I am from Columbia University's
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory where I run programs looking
at the stability of the ice sheets and sub-glacial links using
geophysical techniques, so I am a geophysicist. I also chair
the Polar Research Board of the National Research Council,
which acts as the national coordinating committee for IPY, and
I have been active internationally in the planning process
pretty much since the beginning.
[Slide.]
You might wonder why, in this day of connectivity,
scientists are so excited about this concept, a concept that
was developed when this is what the map of the world looked
like. And at that point, the big white spot in the middle, we
didn't know whether that was a continent or the ocean--or an
ocean. There were still truly unknown frontiers. And the
cutting-edge communication was the telegraph.
So today, our maps are much richer. We actually know that
one pole is a continent and one is an ocean, but there is still
a fundamental need to push our limits of knowledge,
particularly because environmental change and variability are
part of the natural pattern of the Earth, but environmental
change at the poles is much more pronounced than what is going
on at the tropics. We know that arctic sea ice is decreasing.
Some of the ice shelves, as you see on the left, in Antarctica
are retreating and thinning. The glaciers are shrinking, and
the ecosystems are changing. In some places, the plants are
flowering significantly early.
These changes do have human impacts, both locally and
globally. Alaskan villages have been moved to higher ground.
Buildings in northern communities have had to be moved. And
rising sea level continues to be a global concern.
Understanding the poles is important for understanding the
inclinations of environmental change.
So one motivation is environmental change.
But although we have made tremendous progress in science,
and although the maps I showed you are much richer than they
were 100 years ago, the maps aren't blank, and the--but the
frontiers and the unknowns have actually gotten broader. We now
know that there are frontiers from the molecular scale, like
Donal's studies, to the continental scale, like I study.
Questions like how can certain nematodes survive at -2 degrees
Fahrenheit? How is it that polar fish evolve antifreeze
proteins in their cells? And what will happen to the under-ice
ecological communities as we see the environment change? And
what happens to the water beneath these large lakes in
Antarctica? There are still fundamental limits to our
knowledge. These are the frontier questions that the science
community is planning to address during the International Polar
Year.
The planning process identified five major challenges.
First is the one I have alluded to, the large-scale
environmental change. What is happening at the ends of our
planet, and how does it affect the rest of our planet?
The second is looking at conducting scientific exploration
of these new frontiers, molecular to continental.
Third is observing the polar regions in depth.
Fourth is looking at the human dimensions of the
environment, recognizing that now, we, as humans, are a
discreet part of this environment.
And finally, looking for those new connections, looking at
how we can reach out to the public to build new connections
between the science and the public.
So one of the distinct differences of this polar year is
the inclusion of the human face. We will, in fact, as a science
community, be looking more at how human beings are part of the
global community and how the communities in the north are part
of the global system.
So what is going to be the outcome?
I think, in essence, we should be thinking about what the
societal benefits of the International Polar Year are. As it is
emerging, the science programs are multi-faceted and multi-
disciplinary, and so the results and the benefits will be both
multi-faceted and multi-disciplinary. So it is going to advance
our fundamental understanding of the planet. It is going to--
whether it is the polar ecosystems or sub-glacial terrains. It
will improve our understanding of the processes of change that
are--and how they are influencing society, especially the
inhabitants of the north. It will inspire the spirit of
discovery across all ages and help us develop the next
generation of our leaders in science, engineering, industry,
commerce, and government. It will also demonstrate that, even
in the most difficult times, science can be a very powerful
arena for international cooperation.
So why should the vast majority of us who live in warmer
parts of the Earth, whether it is New York or South Carolina,
care about IPY? The poles are physically distinctive, but they
are critical links. So I would like you to think about this. I
am going to do this experiment, but I would like you to think
about what happens. If you hold an ice cube in your hand, you
know, just imagine holding it. What you start to feel is you
start to feel the melting at the ends. While your fingers are
melting at the ends, you can actually feel the water dripping
down across the ice cube and down your arm. The changes from
the warmth of your fingers are actually being conducted to the
ice cube.
The relationship between the poles and the rest of the
planet is very similar to that ice cube. The relation--the
polar oceans play a critical role in maintaining ocean currents
that keep coastal Europe warm and the ice cover that covers
both continents reflects much of the solar energy and is a
critical part of the equation of how our planet remains
habitable. Melting ice sheets will raise sea levels and
threaten the global communities around the world. Polar regions
are the integral component of the Earth system that respond to
and drive changes elsewhere.
So, in conclusion, from assessing long-scale environmental
change in the polar regions, to pushing the frontiers of
science, the International Polar Year really is a scientific
opportunity for everyone.
Thank you very much, and I am more than welcome to address
questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Bell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robin Elizabeth Bell
INTERNATIONAL POLAR YEAR 2007-2008:
THE OPPORTUNITY OF A GENERATION
Good Morning. Thank you very much for inviting me to speak about
International Polar Year 2007-2008. The International Polar Year (IPY)
is the scientific opportunity of a generation for our nation, for our
society, and for our planet.
My name is Robin E. Bell, Ph.D. from Columbia University's Lamont-
Doherty Earth Observatory, where I am a Doherty Senior Research
Scientist. I am a geophysicist by training and at Columbia I lead major
geophysical programs on the stability of ice sheets including
subglacial lakes. I also direct Columbia's NSF sponsored ADVANCE
program, aimed at recruiting and retaining women in science. I was the
first women to lead a major aerogeophysical program from the Antarctic
continent, and this has been the focus of much of my research for the
past two decades.
In addition to my research, I chair the National Research Council's
Polar Research Board, which acts as the national coordinating committee
for IPY. The Research Council is the operating arm of the National
Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute
of Medicine, chartered by Congress in 1863 to advise the government on
matters of science and technology. I served as the Co-Chair of the
International Council for Science's (ICSU) initial IPY Planning Group,
which developed the first major international IPY planning document,
``A Framework for International Polar Year.'' I currently serve on the
ICSU-WMO Joint Committee for IPY, the main international planning
group.
Today I will provide an overview of why IPY is happening and why
it's important to us here in the United States. What has motivated more
than 5000 scientists from some 63 nations to decide to participate in a
year devoted to polar studies and education? I'll highlight the major
science questions that will be addressed, outline the role that U.S.
scientists and science managers have been playing developing IPY, and
conclude with thoughts on the many societal benefits that can result
from the IPY.
In this era of instant communications and global connectivity, it
might seem surprising that the global scientific community is so
excited by a scientific strategy that was developed more than 100 years
ago. Because it was indeed back in 1882-1883 that the idea of holding a
focused, internationally-coordinated year of polar research--an
International Polar Year--was first developed. At that point in
history, the poles were blank white spaces on maps and the cutting edge
communications technology was the telegraph. The decision to coordinate
with other nations rather than compete, and to focus on research to
understand polar phenomena rather than acquisition of territory, was
something new and exciting. That first IPY in 1882-83 and subsequent
ones in 1932-33 and the International Geophysical Year (IGY) in 1957-
58, drew great minds and generated great leaders; these ``international
years'' set a precedent of cooperation in science that, while
innovative at the time, is considered the norm today.
Today's scientists are similarly motivated by society's need for
integrated global knowledge. There is still a fundamental human need to
push the limits of our understanding about polar phenomena. The polar
regions are integral components of the Earth system. As the heat sinks
of the climate system they both respond to and drive changes elsewhere
on the planet. While environmental change and variability are part of
the natural pattern on Earth, the environmental changes currently
witnessed in the polar regions are in many cases more pronounced than
changes observed in the mid-latitudes or tropics. The Arctic sea ice
cover is decreasing; some ice shelves in Antarctica are retreating and
thinning; glaciers are shrinking; and ecosystems are changing, for
instance, with plants flowering at earlier times. These changes are
having human impacts: some Alaskan villages have been moved to higher
ground in response to rising sea levels, and thawing of permafrost is
undermining roads and buildings in northern communities around the
world. We must understand the implications of environmental change for
the future of our global society.
Although we've made tremendous progress in all science over the
past 100 years, the polar regions are still at the frontiers of human
knowledge. The maps aren't quite as blank, but the frontiers and
unknowns have actually increased, and range from the molecular, to the
ecological, to the continental. How is it that certain microbes can
survive at minus two degrees Fahrenheit, that certain nematodes live
even when ice forms in their cells, that polar fish species have
evolved with an antifreeze protein in their blood? What will happen to
the unique under-ice ecological communities of the Arctic, which are
the base of the Arctic food web, as ice conditions change and new
species arrive from southern waters? In just the last 10 years we
discovered more than 150 subglacial lakes that exist under the ice in
Antarctica. These range in size from something similar to the
reflecting pool on the Mall to a lake the size of Lake Ontario. Why are
these lakes important? They are thought to contain exotic ecosystems;
the water in these lakes is part of the subglacial plumbing system that
can be thought of as the lubricant that makes the ice sheet flow
faster.
At its most fundamental level, IPY 2007-2008 is envisioned to be an
intense, coordinated field campaign of polar observations, research,
and analysis that will be multi-disciplinary in scope and international
in participation. IPY will provide a framework to undertake projects
that normally could not be achieved by any single nation. It allows us
to think beyond traditional borders--whether national borders or
disciplinary constraints--toward a new level of integrated, cooperative
science. A coordinated international approach maximizes both impact and
cost effectiveness, and the international collaborations started today
will build relationships and understanding that will bring long-term
benefits. Within this context, IPY will seek to galvanize new and
innovative observations and research while at the same time building on
and enhancing existing initiatives. IPY will serve as a mechanism to
attract and develop a new generation of scientists and engineers with
the versatility to tackle complex global issues.
In addition, IPY is clearly an opportunity to organize a range of
education and outreach activities designed to excite and engage the
public, with a presence in classrooms around the world and in the media
in varied and innovative formats. The IPY will use today's powerful
research tools to better understand the key roles of the polar regions
in global processes. Automatic observatories, satellite-based remote
sensing, autonomous vehicles, Internet, and genomics are just a few of
the innovative approaches for studying previously inaccessible realms.
IPY 2007-2008 will be fundamentally broader than past international
years because it will explicitly incorporate multi-disciplinary and
interdisciplinary studies, including biological, ecological, and social
science elements.
IPY 2007-2008 is an opportunity to deepen our understanding of the
polar regions and their global linkages and impacts, and to communicate
these insights to the public. IPY planners have identified five broad
scientific challenges to be addressed:
Assessing large-scale environmental change in the
polar regions, with questions looking at both the physical and
human dimensions of change and its impacts.
Conducting scientific exploration of ``new''
frontiers, whether these are once inaccessible places beneath
the ice sheet, or areas of inquiry that are now open because of
advances in technology, such as how the tools of genomics now
allow exploration of previously unanswerable questions about
biological adaptation.
Observing the polar regions in depth, with adequate
coverage of the vast and challenging landscape, to provide a
description of current conditions and allow for better future
understanding of variability and change.
Understanding human-environmental dynamics in a
region where the connections are intimate and where the impacts
of change are clear.
Creating new connections between science and the
public, using these regions that are inherently intriguing.
One of the major differences between the first two IPYs and IGY and
our upcoming IPY 2007-2008 is the recognition that the physical world
and the biological world and human society are intimately interrelated.
This upcoming IPY is inherently about not just science, but science in
support of human interests. It includes work in engineering, medicine,
sociology, and human-environment interactions. The present map of 225
IPY projects highlights the geographic and discipline breadth of the
IPY 2007-2008. Each cell represents a major program with an
international team of scientists working together to advance our
knowledge of our planet--producing a tremendous multiplicative effect.
The net result will be a huge leap forward in our understanding of
polar processes--physical, biological and social--and their global
connections.
Previous IPY efforts were characterized by very top down planning
and generally driven by the military. For example, under the oversight
of Abraham Lincoln's son, Robert Todd Lincoln, then head of the
Department of War, the U.S. participation in the first IPY in 1882-83
was led by the Army. The science priorities for our upcoming IPY, on
the other hand, emerged from grass roots planning, international
scientific groups, U.S. agency input, and help from the U.S. National
Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering.
Beginning in 2002, with the support of more than two dozen members,
the National Academies invested some of its own endowment funds to
launch the IPY planning process within the U.S. The chair of that first
effort was Dr. Mary Albert of the Army's Cold Regions Research and
Engineering Laboratory. She led a committee that sought wide input on
whether the U.S. should participate in IPY and, if so, what we should
hope to accomplish. The committee led a series of web discussions, gave
talks at numerous professional meetings, met with agency leaders,
hosted a multi-day workshop, and compiled contributions from 13 federal
agencies into an initial planning document. The report, ``A Vision for
International Polar Year 2007-2008,'' was released early in 2004 and
came to be the foundation for much of the international planning as
well. (A summary of this report is attached to my testimony.) This
early investment of financial and intellectual capital put the U.S. in
a position to play a leadership role in planning the IPY
internationally.
Today, four years after the planning for IPY began, over 225
projects have been proposed as part of IPY around the globe. Of these,
the U.S. plays a leadership role in 52 projects (20 percent) and is
participating in 80 percent. This ``honeycomb diagram'' provides an
illustration of the breadth of activities, with projects at both poles,
across disciplines, and across nations. Right now, everything is still
conceptual--what will actually happen on the ground is still being
determined, both here and in other nations. There is an international
IPY Programme Office, staffed by Dr. David Carlson and hosted in
Cambridge, England, by the British Antarctic Survey. There is also an
international planning committee, called the Joint Committee, of which
I am a member, and various subcommittees devoted to data management,
observation systems, and education and outreach. It's a very lean
administrative organization for such a complex undertaking.
While planning for IPY started with the scientific community, all
the federal agencies with cold regions responsibilities are having
roles in implementation. When the National Academies hosted a workshop
to encourage agency coordination in 2004, 13 agencies participated. At
the request of the White House, the National Science Foundation is
serving as the lead federal agency. (In Alaska, the University of
Alaska Fairbanks has stepped forward as the state-wide leader.) NSF has
shown real leadership in its role, holding interagency planning
meetings, initiating a multi-agency web site, and establishing
mechanisms so that science and education/outreach proposals are in the
process of being funded. The National Academies continues to provide
coordination through the Polar Research Board, which acts as the U.S.
National Committee for IPY. The Polar Research Board hosts an IPY web
site, distributes an IPY e-newsletter, communicates information to and
from the international Joint Committee, and holds meetings as needed to
accomplish IPY planning and coordination. Continuing to serve in this
coordinating role, in early October, the Polar Research Board will be
hosting a meeting of the IPY secretariats so the staff working on IPY
behind-the-scenes have an opportunity to coordinate.
In conclusion, I want to think ahead about the societal benefits of
the International Polar Year. Just as the IPY and the emerging science
programs are multifaceted and multi-disciplinary, the benefits of the
IPY will be multifaceted and multi-disciplinary. The IPY will advance
our fundamental understanding of our planet--from the polar ecosystems
to the subglacial terrains. The IPY will improve our understanding of
the processes of change and that complex double-edged sword of how
society is influencing change and how change is influencing society--
especially the inhabitants of the north. The IPY will inspire a spirit
of discovery across all ages and help us develop the next generation of
our nation's leaders in science, engineering, education, industry,
commerce, and government. At the international level, IPY will again
show that even in the most difficult times, science can be an arena of
international cooperation. IPY will foster the continued peaceful use
of the polar regions, engage new partners in the global science
community, and leverage precious scientific and logistical resources so
that, in essence, we get more from our investments.
Why should the vast majority of us, who live in the warmer regions
of the Earth, care about IPY? The polar regions, while physically
distant, are critical links in the global climate system. Does this
matter for the rest of the planet? Imagine holding an ice cube between
your thumb and your forefinger. Beneath your fingers a pool of water
forms quickly. The water will drip down your arms and down the ice
cube. The changes at the end driven by the warmth of your fingers are
transferred across the entire ice cube. The relationship between the
poles to the rest of the globe are the same. The polar oceans play a
critical role in maintaining ocean currents that keep coastal Europe
much warmer than it would be otherwise, and the sea ice cover modifies
Earth's surface temperature by reflecting solar energy. Melting ice
sheets will raise sea levels, threatening coastal communities around
the world. The polar regions are integral components of the Earth
system that both respond to and drive changes elsewhere on the planet.
The polar regions also hold unique information of Earth's past
climate history, and they are growing in economic and geopolitical
importance. They are a unique vantage point for studies that will help
scientists understand environmental changes in the context of past
changes, which in turn will help us make informed choices for our
future. The exploration of new scientific frontiers in the polar
regions also will lead to new discoveries, insights, and theories
potentially important to all people.
In summary, International Polar Year 2007-2008 will leave us
important legacies:
-- an improved understanding of environmental status and
change,
-- more comprehensive data and the ability to understand
trends in the future,
-- improved observation systems to capture future
environmental change,
-- a continued spirit of exploration into new frontiers of
science,
-- a new and inspired generation of scientifically literate
citizens and leaders,
-- an enhanced level of international cooperation to address
global scale issues.
Thank you for your time. I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Biography for Robin Elizabeth Bell
Born: May 29, 1958, Keene, New Hampshire, U.S. Citizen
(A) PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION:
1977-1980 Middlebury College, B.A. (magna cum laude), Geology, 1980
1982-1989 Columbia University, M.S., M. Phil, Ph.D., May 1989
2006 Honorary Doctor of Science Degree Middlebury College
(B) APPOINTMENTS:
1999-present Doherty Senior Research Scientist, Lamont-Doherty Earth
Observatory of Columbia University (LDEO); Director, Columbia
University Earth Institute's Center for River and Estuaries
(2003-present); Director, Earth Institute ADVANCE Initiative
(2004-present)
1994-2000 Co-Director, Support Office for Aerogeophysical Research,
(SOAR), Institute for Geophysics, University of Texas at Austin
1996-1999 Research Scientist, LDEO
1991-1996 Associate Research Scientist, LDEO
1989-1991 Post-Doctoral Research Associate, LDEO
1982-1989 Graduate Research Assistant, LDEO
1980-1982 Geophysicist, U.S.G.S., Marine Office, Woods Hole, MA.
(C) PUBLICATIONS:
Related Publications:
2006 Bell, R.E., M. Studinger, M.A. Fahnestock, and C.A. Shuman,
Tectonically controlled subglacial lakes on the flanks of the
Gamburtsev Subglacial Mountains, East Antarctica, Geophys. Res. Lett.
33 (2) L02504 10.1029/2005GL025207.
2005 R.E. Bell, M. Studinger, A. Tikku, J.D. Castello, Ancient Ice and
Subglacial Lake Environments: Lake Vostok as an Example. In: Life in
Ancient Ice Proc., edited by J.D. Castello, and S.O. Rogers Princeton
University Press, ISBN: 0-691-07475-5, pp. 251-267.
2004 Studinger, R.E. Bell, A.A. Tikku, Estimating the depth and shape
of subglacial Lake Vostok's water cavity from aerogravity data,
Geophys. Res. Lett. 31, doi:10.1029/2004GL019801.
2003 M. Studinger, R.E. Bell, G.D. Karner, A.A. Tikku, J.W. Holt, D.L.
Morse, T.G. Richter, S.D. Kempf, M.E. Peters, D.D. Blankenship, R.E.
Sweeney and V.L. Rystrom, Ice cover, landscape setting, and geological
framework of Lake Vostok, East Antarctica, Earth and Planetary Science
Letters 205(3-4), pp. 195-210.
2004 M. Studinger., Bell, R.E., Buck, W.R., Karner,G.D., and
Blankenship, D.D., Sub-ice geology inland of the Transantarctic
Mountains in light of new aerogeophysical data, Earth Planet. 220, pp.
391-408.
Other Significant Publications
2005 Bell, R.E., Studinger, M., Karner, G.D., Finn, C.A., and
Blankenship, D.D., Identifying Major Sedimentary Basins Beneath the
West Antarctic Ice Sheet from Aeromagnetic Data Analysis, in
Antarctica, Contributions to Global Earth Science, Proceedings of the
9th ISAES, Springer Verlag, pp. 117-121.
2002 R.E. Bell, M. Studinger, A. Tikku, G.K.C. Clarke, M.M. Gutner, C.
Meertens, Origin and fate of Lake Vostok water frozen to the base of
the East Antarctic ice sheet, Nature 417, pp. 307-310, 2002.
2001 M. Studinger., Bell, R.E., Blankenship, D.D., Finn, C.A., Arko,
R.A., Morse, D.L., and Joughin, I. Subglacial Sediments: A Regional
Geological Template for Ice Flow in West Antarctica, Geophys. Res.
Lett. 28(18), pp. 3493-3496, 2001.
1998 R.E. Bell, D.D. Blankenship, C.A. Finn, D. Morse, T. Scambos,
J.M. Brozena, and S.M. Hodge, Influence of Subglacial Geology on the
Onset of a West Antarctic Ice Stream from Aerogeophysical Observations,
Nature 394, pp. 58-62.
1993 D.D. Blankenship, R.E. Bell, S.M. Hodge, J.M. Brozena, J.C.
Behrendt, C.A. Finn, Active volcanism beneath the West Antarctic ice
sheet and implications for ice-sheet stability, Nature 361, pp. 526-
529.
(D) SYNERGISTIC ACTIVITIES
(i) Committees:
2004-present Member, ICSU WMO IPY Joint Committee
2003-2004 Co-Chair for the ICSU International Polar Year 2007/8
Planning Group
2002-present Chair, Polar Research Board, National Academy of Sciences
Polar Research Board (member 2001-present)
1999-present Steering Committee, SCAR Committee on Subglacial Lake
Exploration
1998-present U.S. representative to the Scientific Committee on
Antarctic Research Geophysics Section.
(ii) Recent Invited Talks:
Antarctic Treaty Meeting in South Africa--IPY, IPY Keynote Speakers
for XXVIII SCAR Meeting Bremen, Germany, Interagency Working Group for
IPY--Guest Lecturer, American Museum of Natural History-Biodiversity,
New York State Department of Dredging and Disposal, SCAR Lake Vostok
Meeting, AAAS--Frontiers in Polar Science, New York State Department of
Conservation, Institute for Ecosystem Studies, National Maritime
Historical Society, NY League of Conservation Voters Hudson Forum.
(iii) Instructor:
Barnard College, ``Exploring the Poles,'' Columbia, ``Geophysics.''
(iv) Other Activities:
Reviewer--Geophysics, NSF, NASA and JGR.
(E) COLLABORATORS
(i) Collaborators: M. Bain (Cornell), D. Blankenship (UTIG), J. Brozena
(NRL), S. Cande (SIO), R. Cerrato (SUNY), G. Clarke (UBC), S.
Findlay (IES), C. Finn (USGS), R. Flood (SUNY), C.A. Raymond
(JPL), M. Siegert (Bristol), D. Strayer (IES), U. ten Brink
(USGS).
(ii) Advisors: A.B. Watts (Oxford).
(iii) Advisees: Vicki Childers (NRL).
Chairman Inglis. Thank you, Dr. Bell.
Dr. Manahan.
STATEMENT OF DR. DONAL T. MANAHAN, PROFESSOR OF BIOLOGY,
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Dr. Manahan. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Hooley. Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak to you
today. And thank you, too, for your fine comments about my
efforts as a teacher. I hope I won't let you down here this
morning in a couple of moments.
Chairman Inglis. The pressure is on, isn't it?
Dr. Manahan. Indeed, yes.
My name is Donal Manahan. I am a professor of biological
sciences at the University of Southern California. I have
conduced research as a chief scientist and field-team project
leader in Antarctica for over 20 years. What I am going to talk
about today is the upcoming IPY, the International Polar Year.
And I am going to do that under the context of four questions:
what are the most critical unanswered questions that we need to
resolve during this IPY, why educational and research
activities during IPY are important to us here in the United
States, and the general societal benefits from IPY. I will
focus most of my comments on Antarctica, as other colleagues on
the panel here today will discuss other aspects and regions of
polar research.
Think of this. Even after centuries of geographic
exploration of the human spirit, it was really only about 50
years ago that we came to grapple with the seventh continent,
as illustrated here by this National Geographic front page of
this magazine published in the 1960s where it says, ``We are
filling in the blank spaces in Antarctica. The map we are
showing is a revolution in understanding this seventh
continent.'' And that, frankly, 40 to 50 years ago was in--
within my lifetime. That is a remarkable issue that Antarctica
has taken us this long to really get a handle on. And this is
just describing its geography.
Shoot forward 40 years later, and what we are learning from
this continent and for polar regions in general, is illustrated
on this front page of Science Magazine published a few years
ago, and it discusses polar science in general and its
importance. and the lessons we have learned from the studies of
the pole is two-fold: first, it has really surprised scientists
at how quickly things have changed down there, the ``ozone
hole'' 20 years ago really dumbfounded and surprised many
scientists it occurred so fast; secondly, issues of rising
temperatures collapsing ice sheets. All of these issues, which
have really come to the forefront in the last few years in a
consensus among the scientific community, are of enormous
societal benefit, no matter where you live on this planet.
As it is picked up in terms of explaining this to the
public in general, I draw to your attention this interesting
issue of Time Magazine, which discussed the whole concept and
put it very bluntly on the front page: ``Be Worried. Be Very
Worried'', to use their words. This threatens your health. It
affects you, your kids, and your kids' kids. And they
introduced the concept of a tipping point.
Now when I was in graduate school 20 years ago, I was
informed that these kinds of changes took thousands to perhaps
millions of years to occur. Now we know they can occur on
timescales of perhaps 10 to 100 years, the lifetimes--life
spans of single human beings. This is the concept of the
tipping point. We need to know more about these tipping points
to have any hope of being able to predict the massive changes
that may occur on our planet.
What have we learned in the last 50 years?
Well, if we go back 50 years to the International
Geophysical Year, this illustrates, I think, two points in a
nutshell. Firstly, it was mainly focused on the geosciences,
trying to understand Earth as a system. And it introduced,
also, a very important concept. Look at this beautiful, lonely
planet sitting out in dark space. These things had a huge
impact on me as a kid, actually as a kid growing up in Ireland,
with the Apollo programs, seeing America as the dominant player
in science at the time and to this day, watching to see how
this whole concept of understanding planet Earth was being so
pioneered by the scientists here in the United States when I
was a young kid.
When I look at this now where we are going in the future,
what I see IPY doing is building upon that but expanding it in
some very important ways: introducing the concept of cross-
disciplinary research; looking at the life sciences, the
chemical sciences, the physical sciences, and also, most
importantly, the social sciences; and looking at all of these
in the context of complex systems, spanning all of the way from
bio-systems, whether it be a human or organisms where we would
look at, perhaps, issues of adaptation at the cellular and the
molecular level, all of the way up through ecosystems of the
geosystems. They are all interconnected.
It is very important to emphasize the educational issues
here. And here, if you may allow me to put in a personal note,
I am a father of two young boys in school. I am a scientist. I
am a professor. And I am also highly aware of the fact,
especially as an immigrant to this country, that I have been
treated very well. I have received taxpayers' money for a long
time to conduct research in these isolated environments. I feel
very passionately about needing to communicate this back into
the general community and the public at large. And here we have
a great opportunity. Of the thousands of lectures that I have
probably given in a quarter of a century of my time in America,
few have the impact on little kids all of the way up to retired
citizens as when I talk about my polar research. I do genomics,
molecular biology, biochemistry. ``Yes, yes, yes, Professor
Manahan, but what about your polar research?'' This really
grabs people, as I think it did when you visited the ice
yourself. And that is a big opportunity we have with IPY to
educate the U.S. population in the issues of excitement in
science, technology, and literacy.
But we also have a very large challenge, and that challenge
is how do we train the next generation? It is very easy for me
to sit here and say, ``Think across disciplines: physics,
chemistry, biology, social sciences, and off you go and do your
stuff, next generation.'' Our challenge is to find new,
innovative ways to keep Americans ahead of the international
competitive race in science and learning and education. And one
way we are going to do this during International Polar Year is
we are going to bring some of the best and the brightest
students in the United States to Antarctica to have the
experience that you had, to be there, not just for four days,
but for a month or so, to live and work and understand this
environment, to actually do on-the-ice training. And we think
this is a very important component.
[Slide.]
The pictures you see here are some programs we have done in
the past. NSF has taken a remarkable lead in this over previous
years. The first country in the world to offer a graduate-level
course on the seventh continent was sponsored by the leadership
of the National Science Foundation. All of the students you see
here were part of previous courses, with the obvious exception
of the penguins, of course, who were less cooperative.
If I may conclude with a couple of comments.
Firstly, I want to say that, in my opinion, the timing of
launching a new International Polar Year is perfect. The
reasons for this go far beyond that it is just merely the 50th
anniversary of IGY, although that, in itself, is a very valued
reason. The general public is certainly highly aware that the
study of polar regions is critical to understanding our Earth.
Scientific interest is very high in wanting to have accurate
information about polar regions and their role in climate
stability and global processes. That is the key issue with
respect to societal impact. In addition, of course, we have
unique educational opportunities that are both vast and
exciting.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I
would be pleased to address any questions that you may have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Manahan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Donal T. Manahan
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank you
for the opportunity to speak to you today as you consider the
scientific agenda and the federal role for the International Polar
Year.
My name is Donal Manahan. I am a Professor of Biological Sciences
at the University of Southern California (USC). I have conduced
research as a chief scientist and field-team project leader in
Antarctica for over 20 years. I have previously served as the Chair of
the National Research Council's Polar Research Board for three years
(1999 to 2002). The National Research Council is the operating arm of
the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and
the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, chartered by
Congress in 1863 to advise the government on matters of science and
technology. In addition to my teaching and research experiences at my
university, I have served as Director of environmental science programs
for both undergraduate education and graduate research; have been the
Chair of the USC Department of Biological Sciences; and Dean of
Research for the USC College of Letters, Arts, and sciences.
My comments today will address the upcoming International Polar
Year (IPY, March 2007 through March 2009) in the context of (i) what
has been learned from polar research and IPYs in the past; (ii) what
are the most critical unanswered questions that we hope to resolve
during this IPY; (iii) why educational and research activities during
IPY are important to us here in the U.S.; and (iv) the societal
benefits of IPY. I will focus most of my comments on Antarctica. I
believe my colleagues on this panel will address other aspects and
regions of polar research.
Regarding current impact from past IPYs, accurate scientific
knowledge and current public awareness of the importance of polar
regions to our planet as a whole is still a fairly recent occurrence.
For instance, in 1963 National Geographic released a map of Antarctica
that [quote] ``revolutionizes our conception of its geography.'' Taken
in the context of the many centuries of geographic exploration of our
Earth, it is quite remarkable that it was only about 40 years ago that
more accurate maps of Antarctica emerged. Such maps still continue to
be refined to this day. Antarctica has long been considered to be the
``last and loneliest of the seven continents'' (National Geographic,
1963). Following the ``Heroic Age'' of early exploration of polar
regions in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, the modern
understanding of Antarctica began in earnest with the great
international effort of IPY3--The International Geophysical Year of
1957-58. Yet the growth of awareness of the importance of polar regions
by many educators, scientists, and the public in general (i.e., by
those not already living in polar regions) is a fairly recent
occurrence. I will expand further on this point, as I believe it is
important in the context and timing of the next IPY.
Both polar regions of our planet are now known to be capable of
undergoing very rapid change. In the mid-1980s, the rapid opening of
the ``Ozone Hole'' over Antarctica was certainly one of the great
surprises in environmental science during the latter part of the 20th
Century. Rapid rates of change for important processes in polar
regions, such as ice sheet stability, ozone chemistry and biological
rates, have surprised many scientists. Announcements of these rapid
changes have also surprised the public at large. Today phrases and
concepts such as ``Abrupt Climate Change'' and ``Surprises'' regarding
our environment are now in common use in scientific publications, in
media presentations, and in educational settings. The recent National
Academy Press publication on ``Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable
Surprises'' provides an excellent report on this subject of rapid
change. There is no doubt in my mind that further research in polar
regions is absolutely essential for understanding our planet and for
being better able to predict environmental change and its impact on
life on Earth.
The specific research questions that will be addressed during this
next IPY are still under review through our own national agencies and
through collaborations with international partners. As I believe will
be highlighted by others during this hearing, the current list of
potential educational and research projects is extensive. Here I would
like to compliment NSF, the National Academies' Polar Research Board
and other polar scientific groups and agencies for doing an excellent
job of coordinating these complex national and international activities
and for helping raise awareness of the importance of polar research.
Regarding the approach to undertaking future research, one
important point that I do want to emphasize is that the next IPY will
differ from previous ones in enhancing our understanding of polar
regions through novel, cross-disciplinary research. For instance,
during the International Geophysical Year in the 1950s, the focus then
was more on the physical sciences. For the next IPY, the scientific
focus will be more cross-disciplinary--involving biological, chemical,
physical, and social sciences to better understand polar regions. In my
own area of expertise, the biological sciences, I foresee an exciting
interplay between the physical and the life sciences. An example of
such collaboration is that as physical scientists provide a better
understanding and predictability of temperature change, biologists will
be better able to undertake more realistic experiments to define
biological responses of organisms to such changes (e.g., temperature
adaptation, timing of life cycles, and other ecological changes).
Research during IPY will certainly span from the scale of individual
molecules and genes to the larger scale of whole oceans and continents.
A point that is not often widely appreciated is that most of the
potential habitats where life might exist on our planet are cold. By
volume, the ``Cold Biosphere'' represents approximately 90 percent of
the living biosphere on Earth, with temperatures less that four degrees
C (``home refrigerator'' temperatures). Most of this cold biosphere is
in the deep sea (79 percent by volume of the biosphere: Broad, 1998)
and in polar regions. Further biological research in polar regions will
substantially increase our understanding of the ``Cold Biosphere'' and
its role in the sustainability of life on Earth. New research themes
under consideration for IPY, such as NSF's ``Life in the Cold and
Dark,'' will be key to understanding critical questions regarding life
in polar regions and in the cold biosphere in general.
A major success of past IPYs, and in particular IGY, was the
important legacy that continued into the future from training the next
generation of scientific leaders in the U.S. This legacy of excellent
science and training from IGY, started about 50 years ago, is still
active today. For the next IPY, we must strongly encourage the active
involvement and advanced training of the next generation of polar
scientists. This, of course, must include outreach and educational
activities to students of all ages, and to the general public, to
encourage interest and careers in science and engineering.
Additionally, during IPY we need to develop innovative educational and
training programs designed to bring young scientists at the Ph.D. level
to polar regions. We need to actively engage these young scientists in
polar research by having them actually work ``on the ice'' during IPY.
To this end, an international training program in Antarctic science
(NSF-funded: ``Integrative Biology and Adaptation of Antarctic
Organisms'') is planned for January 2008 at the U.S. Antarctic
Program's McMurdo Station in Antarctica. This program (that I have
directed in the past and will continue to direct in IPY 2008) will
involve bringing highly-qualified young investigators, selected from
universities all over the U.S. and some from international
institutions, to Antarctica for the first time in their scientific
careers. This next generation of potential leaders in polar science
will be provided with intense training programs during which they will
be exposed to the unique research opportunities in Antarctica. Training
these individuals to conduct science in Antarctica ``on the ice'' will
be a very different experience from learning about polar science from
traditional classroom settings in the U.S.
I believe the societal benefits from undertaking further polar
research will be immense. First, Antarctica holds a fascination for the
general public. Second, there has been a dramatic recent increase in
the public's awareness of the importance of polar regions in impacting
events on a global scale (e.g., strong media coverage of ice sheet
stability, with obvious implications for potential sea-level rise
globally). Third, further research in polar regions will yield
important insights into the connectivity of polar regions to the rest
of Earth. In fact, the polar regions often drive fundamental processes
in other parts of the world (e.g., major ocean currents and oceanic
circulation patterns, with global implications for climate stability).
As a Principal Investigator and polar scientist myself, I will add
a few comments here from my own experiences. In my more than 20 years
of working in Antarctica, I have never before personally experienced
such a widespread and intense interest by the general public in
research in polar regions. In addition to increased interest in polar
biology at scientific conferences and professional meetings, I receive
numerous requests to speak about polar science at career days of
elementary, middle, and high schools; to speak in a wide range of
university settings, including discipline groups outside of the natural
sciences; to address communities of retired citizens; and to present at
natural history and community science museums. I attribute much of this
recent surge in public interest about the state of our environment to
be the result of highly publicized scientific discoveries in physics,
chemistry and biology of polar regions.
I will conclude my comments here today by saying that, in my
opinion, the timing is now most appropriate to launch a new IPY. The
reasons for this go far beyond the timing of the 50th anniversary of
IGY, although that is a valued reason too. The general public is
certainly highly aware that the study of polar regions is critical to
understanding our Earth. Scientific interest is high in wanting to have
accurate information about polar regions and their role in climate
stability and global processes.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I
would be pleased to address any questions that the members of the
Subcommittee may have.
References:
Broad, W.J., 1998. The Universe Below: Discovering the Secrets of the
Deep Sea, 432 pp.
National Geographic, 1963. Filling in Antarctica's Blank Spaces, Volume
123: 297-298.
National Research Council, 2002. Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable
Surprises, National Academy Press, Washington D.C. 230 pp.
Biography for Donal T. Manahan
Education and Professional Preparation:
Undergraduate Institution: BA, from Trinity College, Univ. of Dublin,
Ireland; Area of Focus: Zoology; Years: 1972-1976.
Graduate Institution: Ph.D., from University of Wales, Bangor, UK; Area
of Focus: Marine Physiology; Years: 1976-1980. Advisor: Prof.
D.J. Crisp, F.R.S.
Postdoctoral Institution: University of California, Irvine; Area of
Focus: Cellular Physiology; Years: 1980-1983. Advisor: Dr.
Grover C. Stephens.
Academic Appointments:
1983 to present: Assistant, to Associate, to Full Professor. Department
of Biological Sciences, University of Southern California, Los
Angeles, California 90089-0371.
Sept. 1992 to Sept. 1993: Visiting Faculty, Division of Biology,
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California
(sabbatical year in the laboratory of Dr. Eric Davidson).
Some Senior Administrative and Service Positions Held:
NSF, Internal Advisory Committee, Director of NSF's
Office of Polar Programs (appointed February 2006).
Chair, U.S. National Academies' National Research
Council's Polar Research Board (1999-2002) (member of Board,
1995-2002).
NSF, Decadal Group--Planning Committee for Ocean
Sciences 2000 (1998-2001).
Dean of Research, USC College of Letters, Arts and
Sciences (July 2000-June 2005).
Chair/Vice Chair, USC Department of Biological
Sciences (Sept 1999-July 2000).
Director, USC Research Division of Marine
Environmental Biology (1995-2000).
Science Director, USC's Environmental Studies Program
(1995-2000).
Recent Awards:
For Service (2000 to present):
2000--a 6000-foot mountain in Antarctica named ``Manahan Peak'' for
contributions to Antarctic research, education, and service to
the science community.
2001--appointed a lifetime ``National Associate'' of the United States'
National Academies in recognition of [quote] ``extraordinary
service to the National Academies in their role as advisors to
the Nation in matters of science, engineering, and health.''
2005--University of Southern California, College of Letters, Arts and
Sciences Award for ``Outstanding Leadership and Service.''
Recent Awards for Research Papers (2000 to present):
Pace, D. and Manahan, D.T., 2000. Genetic variance and feeding rates in
bivalve larvae. National Shellfisheries Association Annual
Meeting, Seattle, Washington. Best Paper Award.
Green, A.J. and D.T. Manahan, 2004. Metabolic efficiency in fast-
growing bivalve larvae. Society of Integrative and Comparative
Biology. Best Paper Award in Comparative Physiology and
Biochemistry.
Green, A.J. and D.T. Manahan, D.T., 2004. High growth efficiencies in
Antarctic larvae. Ocean Science Research Conference, American
Society of Limnology and Oceanography. Outstanding Poster
Award.
Yu, P.C., A.L. Moran and D.T. Manahan, 2004. Genetic variation in
survival and growth recovery following prolonged starvation of
invertebrate larvae. Ocean Science Research Conference,
American Society of Limnology and Oceanography. Outstanding
Poster Award.
Meyer, E., D. Hedgecock, and D.T. Manahan, 2006. Genomic analysis of
growth in larvae of the Crassostrea gigas. Annual Meeting of
National Shellfisheries Association, Monterey, California. Best
Paper Award.
Recent Grants and Funded Research Projects (active during 2000 to
present):
1. NSF. Larval Dispersal at Hydrothermal Vents. Co-investigators: L.
Mullineaux (Woods Hole, MA), C. Young (Harbor Branch Oce. Inst.).
Duration: April 1997 to Mar 2002.
2. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. Improving Pacific Oyster Broodstocks for
Aquaculture. Co-investigators: D. Hedgecock (USC), C. Langdon (Oregon
State Univ.). Duration: April 1997 to March 2002.
3. NSF. Integrative Biology and Adaptation of Antarctic Marine
Organisms. Duration: March 1998 to February 2006.
4. W.M. Keck Foundation. Experimental Research in Evolutionary
Biology. Co-investigators: M. Waterman, N. Arnheim, M. Nordborg (all at
USC). Duration: January 2002 to February 2006.
5. NSF. Energetics of Protein Metabolism during Development of
Antarctic Echinoderms. Duration: April 2002 to March 2007.
6. NSF. Genomic Approaches to Understanding Variation in Marine Larval
Recruitment. Co-investigators: D. Hedgecock (USC), E. Hofmann (Old
Dominion), E. Powell (Rutgers). Duration: July 2004 to June 2008.
7. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. Crossbreeding Pacific oysters for high
yield. Co-investigators: D. Hedgecock (USC), C. Langdon (Oregon State
Univ.). Duration: July 2004 to June 2008.
8. NSF. Integrative Biology and Adaptation of Antarctic Marine
Organisms. Graduate training grant with co-investigators. Duration:
August 2005 to September 2010.
Five Selected Publications (past five years--2001 to 2006):
Pace, D.A., A.G. Marsh, P.K. Leong, A.J. Green, D. Hedgecock, and D.T.
Manahan, 2006. Physiological bases of genetically determined
variation in growth of marine invertebrate larvae: A study of
growth heterosis in the bivalve Crassostrea gigas. Journal of
Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 335: 188-209.
Pace, D.A. and D.T. Manahan, 2006. Fixed metabolic costs for highly
variable rates of protein synthesis in sea urchin embryos and
larvae. Journal of Experimental Biology 209: 158-170.
Moran, A.L. and D.T. Manahan, 2004. Physiological recovery from
prolonged starvation in larvae of Pacific oyster Crassostrea
gigas. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 306:
17-36.
Marsh, A.G., L.S. Mullineaux, C.M. Young and D.T. Manahan, 2001. Larval
dispersal potential of the tubeworm Riftia pachyptila at deep-
sea hydrothermal vents. Nature 411: 77-80.
Marsh, A.G., R. Maxson and D.T. Manahan, 2001. High macromolecular
synthesis with low metabolic cost in Antarctic sea urchin
embryos. Science 291: 1950-1952.
Five other selected publications (2000 and before):
Marsh, A.G., P.K.K. Leong, and D.T. Manahan, 2000. Gene expression and
enzyme activities of the sodium pump during sea urchin
development: Implications for indices of physiological state.
Biological Bulletin 199: 100-107.
Vavra, J.S. and D.T. Manahan, 1999. Protein metabolism in
lecithotrophic larvae (Gastropoda: Haliotis rufescens).
Biological Bulletin 196: 177-186.
Hoegh-Guldberg, O. and D.T. Manahan, 1995. Coulometric measurement of
oxygen consumption during development of marine invertebrate
embryos and larvae. Journal of Experimental Biology 198: 19-30.
Manahan, D.T., 1990. Adaptations by invertebrate larvae for nutrient
acquisition from seawater. American Zoologist 30: 147-160.
Manahan, D.T., J.P. Davis, and G.C. Stephens, 1983. Bacteria-free sea
urchin larvae: Selective uptake of neutral amino acids from
seawater. Science 220: 204-206.
Teaching and Service Activities:
Research Statement: My work bridges the fields of animal physiology,
developmental biology, and molecular biology--all studied in an
environmental context. Most animals have complex life history
strategies and early developmental stages (embryos, larvae) that are,
in general, less well understood in comparison to adult phases of life
cycles. I study developmental biology from the perspective of
environmental biochemistry and physiology, in particular how
developmental stages ``work'' in contrasting and `extreme'
environments. Some of the implications of such research for basic
science, include--understanding the molecular biology and physiology of
growth and development of cells and animals, and defining the
biological mechanisms that set differences in metabolism. There are
also `applied' aspects to this research--e.g., the search for ways to
improve the production of food from the ocean for human consumption,
through the application of ``hybrid vigor'' to enhance growth rates of
marine animals (cf. ``Green Revolution'' in agriculture) and the search
for novel biochemical processes in `extreme' environments (Antarctica).
Teaching Statement: I have taught at the university level for over 25
years. The undergraduate courses for which I specifically developed new
curricular materials include: Animal Biochemistry and Physiology;
Biological Diversity and Adaptation; Cellular Physiology; Humans and
their Environment; and Introductory Biology (latter are large courses
with several hundred students). Graduate (Ph.D.-level) courses include:
Developmental Biology; Integrative Biology and Evolutionary Adaptation;
Physiology and Metabolic Plasticity; Oceanography and Biology; and
History of Science. For over a decade, I have also directed
international biology training programs for Ph.D.-level students and
postdoctoral-level scientists in Antarctica. These NSF-funded
educational programs have focused on themes of major and current
interest in environmental science (e.g., global warming and the ``ozone
hole'' ) and biological adaptations to environmental change, studied
from different biological levels of analyses (from whole-organism to
single genes). The individuals who have participated in these training
programs were from 120 different research institutions, representing
over 20 different countries.
Chairman Inglis. Thank you, Dr. Manahan.
Mr. McCaffrey.
STATEMENT OF MR. MARK S. McCAFFREY, ASSOCIATE SCIENTIST AND
SCIENCE COMMUNICATIONS EXPERT, COOPERATIVE INSTITUTE FOR
RESEARCH IN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO,
BOULDER
Mr. McCaffrey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the
Committee. It is a huge honor to be here.
And my name is Mark McCaffrey. I am an Associate Scientist
at the University of Colorado at Boulder and a member of the
IPY Education, Outreach, and Communication Subcommittee, or IPY
EOC, as we call it for short. And over the next few minutes, I
would like to give you a whirlwind tour of some of the things
that are planned for Education, Outreach, and Communication
efforts with the International Polar Year. I feel like I am a
little bit of an anomaly here, because I have never actually
been to a polar place. I grew up in Colorado, and the closest I
have been to the polar experience, I think, is up on the
Continental Divide in the middle of winter, which gives you a
little taste, I think, of the polar experience.
But over the next couple minutes, I just want to give you a
little taste of what is in store with our plans for the
Education, Outreach, and Communication efforts, particularly at
the international level.
You could write a book about the impact of past IPY and
polar science on society, and actually, Michael Robinson from
the University of Hartford has written a book called ``The
Coldest Crucible'' that just came out that I think some of
you--some of us in this room might be interested in checking
out.
But I recently did a Google search on ``International
Year'', and I got 1.6 billion responses. And I had to scroll
all of the way down to number 55 to get to International Polar
Year, IPY.org. And of course, from the IPY.org website, we
linked to all of the national websites, including the U.S.
site. But it is good to remember that the very first
international year was the International Polar Year. We have
thousands of international years out there these days, but IPY
was the original, and it was the vision of Karl Weyprecht, who
in the 1870s was frustrated by the fact that international
collaborations were not very successful because nations were
going off on their own and maybe doing a little bit of science
but it was much more in the exploratory and territory
acquisition mode, if you will. So Weyprecht had the vision of
international cooperation in collecting data, and the first IPY
in the United States was actually led by Abraham Lincoln's son,
Robert Todd Lincoln. And there were a lot of incredible
adventures in research and some mishaps along the way. But in
my mind, I think of IPYs, starting with the very first one, and
then, of course, the second one in the 1930s, and then IGY in
the 1950s as benchmarks that we can look back and see the
evolution of science and technology, particularly in the polar
regions, of course. But the world has changed at each IPY. And
I would like to thank--and I think there is some evidence that
the IPYs have changed the world in small ways and maybe even,
looking back, in some profound ways.
The second IPY actually focused a lot on communication,
wireless communication issues, because in polar regions, the
ionosphere and the magnetosphere don't behave the way they do
in other parts of the planet. And of course, we talk a lot
about IGY and the fact that Sputnik and Explorer programs were
a part of that effort, but I think of it also as the launch of
the modern science education movement, certainly in the United
States, efforts led by the National Academies and the films
that they produced and the curriculum materials that they
helped develop and the magnificent posters that I think some of
you have seen around. These are all fantastic artifacts that we
can actually take--make use of today. In fact, on the National
Academy's website, they--you can download one of the curriculum
materials from IGY. And these are terrific resources for
teachers and students today.
There are so many education outreach activities planned.
How many of them actually will be funded and deployed is a
question at this point, but there has been a lot of work
through a series of workshops that--the first one, ``Bridging
the Poles,'' that Robin and Stephanie Ferman organized that was
held here in 2004 in Washington. Then the ``Poles Together''
workshop that we held in Boulder last summer. There have been,
also, workshops in Europe that were inspirited by the workshops
here to try to come up with an integrated approach
internationally for some of these education efforts. The
International Polar Foundation has been very involved. And of
course, their--they have designed the Belgian station in
Antarctica that is zero emissions, and it will be built during
the IPY. We had an online workshop funded through NSF and NOAA
back in March. And one of the outcomes of the ice workshop was
a series of polar literacy themes that evolved. And I have got
more details on this in the written testimony. But peoples and
stories were something that came up over and over again. There
is so much passion and the whole narrative approach of being
able to share information through stories is an extremely
powerful way to communicate.
I have touched on just a few of the recommendations that
have come out of these workshops in the written comments, but
blending art and science is a very powerful way to communicate
to broad audiences. And the use of narrative, as I mentioned
before, is extremely powerful. There is--the four themes of
research--of education that NSF is funding, we have the
honeycomb chart that I think you all are familiar with, or I
hope you will be. And the United States is involved as leaders
on about--over 50 of these 250 projects on here. And then the
United States is also a partner on another 125. So the
honeycomb is a powerful outreach tool in itself that can help
teachers find information, learn more about particular
projects.
And to sum up here, we have a lot of plans for launch
events during the IPY, the ice hotel up in Sweden has offered
to help in some of the launch events, polar art exhibits. And
of course, in terms of the societal benefits, the polar science
is really the tip of the iceberg. We can foster a
scientifically-savvy society, I think, through IPY efforts and
support these international partnerships, because there is so
much power in the polar, if you will, both in terms of the
survival, when you see ``March of the Penguins'' and ``Eight
Below'' and movies like that. There is the emotional resonance
that people inherently feel towards polar places. And of
course, the polar perspective challenges us intellectually.
These spectacular images from NASA, the blue marble with a
polar perspective, I think, are--they should be on posters in
every classroom in the country with the question: ``What is
wrong with this picture?'' Because as spectacular as these
images are, they make it look like the sun is shining directly
down on the poles, which, of course, is not the case. So I
think these can be powerful learning tools in classrooms.
And with that, I thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McCaffrey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark S. McCaffrey
POLAR POWER: EDUCATION, OUTREACH AND COMMUNICATION AND THE
INTERNATIONAL POLAR YEAR
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank you
for the opportunity to speak to you today regarding IPY EOC, education,
outreach and communication relating to the International Polar Year. My
name is Mark McCaffrey. I am an Associate Scientist at the University
of Colorado at Boulder and a member of the IPY EOC Subcommittee, which
is currently made up of representatives from eleven of the 66 nations
currently participating in IPY. I also have been involved with
organizing several recent IPY EOC-related workshops and will share some
of the findings of these workshops with you in a few minutes. What I'm
really here to talk to you about today is polar power: the potential
for IPY and polar people, places and science, to change the world, as
it has in the past.
I am deeply honored to be here today with this esteemed group of
polar scientists and distinguished individuals whose lives were in some
way changed by the third IPY, the International Geophysical Year of
half a century ago. But I confess I feel like an anomaly here. I am not
really part of the polar research community. I've never been above the
Arctic or Antarctic circles. My background is in environmental science
education, and over the years I have worked with a variety to research
scientists to develop strategies and programs to help translate their
research for non-specialists and, hopefully, make it more accessible
and meaningful to students, teachers, and the general public. But I've
long been fascinated by the power of the polar realm to challenge us at
deep emotional, intellectual, even, spiritual levels.
I am also a child of the IGY, and I remember watching some of the
IGY films that the National Academies produced, and reading about
scientists in Antarctica in my Weekly Reader newsletter in the early
1960s. I also recall it was a somewhat terrifying time, with ``duck and
cover'' air-raid drills at school, and neighbors up the street building
bomb shelters in preparation for possible Soviet missile attacks. And
in the midst of it all, scientists around the world embarked to the
ends of the world, measuring change, sharing data, developing networks
and relationships that led to massive jumps in our understanding of the
Earth as a system, and fostered a robust international scientific
community that, while still dependent on national support, transcends
national agendas and benefits our global society.
In my opinion, the upcoming International Polar Year, if
sufficiently funded and well coordinated at grassroots, national and
international levels, will be a revolutionary catalyst for informing,
engaging and inspiring a more scientifically savvy and literate
society, forging new and strengthening existing national and
international collaborations and partnerships, leveraging the 125
legacy of IPY--the first, the original international year--and building
on the tremendous preparation and energy that has gone into planning
the education, outreach and communication efforts for IPY.
But with less than six months before the launch of this
International Polar Year, there is no guarantee that the rich potential
will be realized. Without appropriate funding and coordination, the
International Polar Year risks becoming yet another well-intentioned
program insufficiently supported, yet another international year in a
sea of other international years that will fail to live up to its
potential. For IPY to make the splash that is could, that it should,
for it to trigger a ripple effect lasting for generations to come, it
is urgent that the United States, which has played a crucial, integral
role in planning IPY research and EOC, steps up and enables this
important endeavor to achieve its vision and goals.
IPY EOC is certainly about explaining what scientists know--and
don't know--about the accelerated surge of melting snow and ice and its
global significance. It is also all about learning from the experiences
and insights of the over four million people living in the Arctic. And
it is about examining the carbon cycle and how it relates to seasonal
cycles, the hydrosphere, the biosphere, the atmosphere, and its
intrinsic role in the global climate system, which is amplified in the
polar regions due to their seasonal extremes.
Fundamentally, IPY EOC is about exploring how polar regions and
polar research is vitally important to all people on Earth. But IPY is
also about exploring the role of technology in our society, and
demystifying and articulating how science itself is conducted, how data
are collected, analyzed, modeled, reviewed and communicated. It is
about showcasing the state of the art research and phenomenal
technology of modern scientific research into the planet's complexities
via high-definition television programs, 3D Imax movies, video logs and
web casts from teachers at the poles, radio programs, science center
and children's museum exhibits, and good, old fashioned lectures from
scientists and stories from polar people with their compelling, tales
of adventure and insights into what they have learned about our
changing planet.
Running from March 2007 to March 2009, the International Polar Year
2007-2008 will involve hundreds of projects and thousands of scientists
and will leverage billions of dollars of infrastructure and prior
research. Organizers of this IPY recognized from the start that
ultimate success of the upcoming IPY would depend as much on
effectively communicating the project's activities and findings to
broad audiences as it would on the quantity or quality of the science.
Just as IGY is remembered, at least in the United States, for helping
to inspire a new generation of scientists through the films, media and
posters as much as it is for launching the first Earth observing
satellites and breakthroughs in science and politics, the legacy and
success of the upcoming IPY may be measured in the public realm by its
societal impacts from EOC efforts more than it will its data archives
or scientific publications.
I have been specifically asked to address three questions. The
first is ``what has been the impact of polar research and IPYs on
students ad the public in the past?'' Obviously, this is an enormous
question which one could write a book about. And in fact, Michael
Robinson, a history professor at the University of Hartford, has
recently written a book entitled ``The Coldest Crucible: Arctic
Exploration and American Culture,'' which explores the phenomenon of
``Arctic Fever'' that was part of 19th century American culture. I am
not a historian, but I do have a few thoughts about the legacy of the
first IPYs. Most significantly, IPY is the original international year,
dating back to the first IPY in 1882-83. Today, there are literally
thousands of international years. A recent Google search on the phrase
``international years'' netted over 1.5 billion results, and down at
number fifty-five was IPY.org, the homepage from the IPY Programme
Office in Cambridge, UK, which links to the U.S. and other national IPY
Web sites.
The concept of an international polar year, which has become the
model for the proliferation of international years, was originally the
vision of Lt. Karl Weyprecht, an Arctic explorer and scientist in the
Austro-Hungarian navy. The idea was born out of the frustration that
Weyprecht experienced on several Arctic expeditions when he realized
that nationally led efforts to explore and acquire territory were not
the ideal way to collect observational data of polar processes that
would help scientists understand global climate dynamics. In
Weyprecht's view, the only way to really understand polar regions and
their global connections would be through a coordinated, international
effort of at least one full year of seasonal fluctuations that would
include the extremes of winter, when solar radiation was minimal, and
life in the cold and dark the most challenging.
Weyprecht called on nations to put aside their national agendas for
the sake of scientific progress and an improved understanding of the
natural world. While international scientific collaboration was not
unheard of at the time, the concept of an intensive, coordinated, year-
long research effort was. Participants agreed to share their data and
use compatible formats. They built a network of Arctic stations with
the aim of better understanding of global climate processes, polar
geography and seasonal processes, and phenomenon such as auroras.
Weyprecht died in 1881 before he was able to see his vision of
international year fulfilled, but others, especially Georg von
Neumayer, kept the vision alive. In the United States, Abraham
Lincoln's son, Robert Todd Lincoln, then Secretary of War, headed the
U.S. activities during the first IPY, which included establishing
several stations, one at Point Barrow, Alaska.
I mention the history of IPY and its 125 year legacy and lineage
not only because it has become the model for the plethora of
international years that have spun-off from Weyprecht's vision, but
also because we can use the history of IPY science and technology to
support the aims articulated in National Science Standards and other
benchmarks and frameworks that emphasize the importance of inquiry and
the history of science. The three past and upcoming IPYs themselves can
serve as a conceptual scaffold and timeline to examine at how science
and technology, and the world itself, has changed in a few short
generations.
Incidentally, a complete analysis of the meteorological data
collected during the first IPY in the Arctic has not been fully
completed until recently when two NOAA Scientists, Kevin Wood and Jim
Overland, completed a thorough analysis which will be published soon in
the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. Their article,
which will be an excellent outreach tool for the upcoming IPY, provides
an superb overview of the first IPY and, for the first time, presents a
detailed analysis of the combined Arctic data sets, offering a baseline
of Arctic climate at the time. This analysis will make an excellent
``data story'' using the data from the first IPY as a baseline to
compare subsequent data. (See Wood & Overland, in press. Also see
Luedecke 2004, The First International Polar Year (1882-83): A big
science experiment with small science equipment.)
In the fifty years between the first IPY and the second in 1932-33,
the world transformed in dramatic ways. Alternating current had begun
to electrify the world and radio was an increasingly important
communication medium. Internal combustion engines were revolutionizing
transportation, including air-travel. The North and South poles had
been reached in races that again drew widespread interest to the polar
regions among young and old alike. The world, with a global population
of two billion, had been through a Great War and devastating influenza
pandemic. And during the second IPY, the United States and other
nations were experiencing severe economic depression. Nevertheless,
forty nations managed to participate in the second IPY and the
development of an international network of stations and community of
scientists monitoring weather, auroras and other processes was
furthered.
A significant focus of the Second IPY was the Earth's ionosphere
and magnetosphere and their relationship to communication and
electrical technologies, an issue that is extremely relevant today with
our increased reliance on such technologies. We are currently working
with the Stanford Solar Center on a potential collaboration between IPY
and the International Heliophysical Year, IHY (one of several
international years overlapping with the upcoming IPY) to deploy
hundreds, potentially thousands, of ``sudden ionospheric disturbance''
(SID) monitors to schools and science clubs around the world. Developed
by the Stanford Solar Center, the SID monitors allow students and
amateur scientists to measure the diurnal, seasonal and solar cycle
variability of the ionosphere. Such a collaboration would link IPY
history with one of the centerpieces of the upcoming IHY education and
outreach efforts.
Twenty-five years after the third IPY, Weyprecht's IPY model was
used in organizing the IGY, which focused on the polar and equatorial
regions. Occurring in the middle of the Cold War, after a second World
War and advent of the Atomic age, IGY not only served as the medium for
the scientific and political breakthroughs previously mentioned, but
also marked the beginning of the modern era of science education. The
public read updates of IGY expeditions in newspapers and magazines,
while students read about IGY in their Weekly Reader newsletters.
During and after IGY, the National Academies, funded by NSF and the
Ford Foundation, led the development of curriculum and outreach
materials about IGY science, including a set of thematic posters, many
which are proudly displayed in science institutions around the world,
and a series of thirteen educational films shown in classrooms and on
educational television throughout the Nation. While behind the scenes
these pioneering efforts were beset with challenges (Korsmo 2004,
Korsmo & Sfraga 2003), they left an enduring impression on a generation
of citizens and scientists around the world.
I have also been asked to address what education and outreach
activities are planned for this IPY. Before getting into specifics, I
would like to take a moment to reflect on how the world has evolved
significantly in the fifty years since IGY: the planet's population and
energy usage has more than doubled; new tools, particularly the
Internet and wireless technologies, offer revolutionary means of
communication that will be harnessed for IPY, although, due to the
sheer proliferation of media, such efforts will be competing for
people's limited attention. Nevertheless, polar power has the ability
to grab people's attention and hold it.
In recent years, in part due to NSF's emphasis on integrating
research and education and the broader social impacts of science, there
has been increased collaboration between research scientists, educators
and various other media and communication experts. But numerous reports
and commissions, including the 2001 U.S. Commission on National
Security, warn of the long-term implications of neglecting our science
education programs, and funding for such integrating efforts, including
for the upcoming IPY, remain insufficient to meet the needs of the EOC
community and the citizens they serve. Science educators, vying against
each other for limited funds, face daunting odds in an ultra-
competitive environment.
Planning to make EOC an integral part of IPY began at the outset,
both at the national and international levels. Over the past two years,
a series of workshops has helped to build the IPY EOC community inside
and beyond the U.S., exploring the ways and means to maximize EOC
impact. The first workshop, entitled ``Bridging the Poles: Linking
Education with Research,'' was funded by NSF OPP and organized by Robin
Bell and Stephanie Pfirman of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty
Earth Observatory . Held in Washington, D.C., in June 2004, Bridging
the Poles brought together polar researchers, science educators, and
other polar enthusiasts to brainstorm potential strategies and
resources. Participants recommended that EOC efforts build on the
strength of polar research by focusing on three elements: ``a `sense of
place' for researchers, educators, students, and the general public;
`pride of place' for Arctic residents, especially indigenous Alaskans;
and a sense of connectedness [and] relevance.'' A full report on the
workshop, which describes the vast potential of IPY EOC, is available
online at http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/pi/
polar-workshop/.
One of the recommendations from the Bridging the Poles workshop was
for the IPY community to tap the expertise and resources of the
International Polar Foundation (IPF). Based in Brussels, Belgium, IPY
has been actively involved with polar science and related education
efforts, participating in all the IPY EOC workshops and assisting the
IPY Programme Office in the development and translation of the IPY
brochure and designing the IPY.org web site. In addition to offering a
wealth of education materials available online and available on CD in
multiple-language formats, IPF also been instrumental in the design the
new Belgian zero-emission Antarctic station that will be constructed
during IPY. (In the spirit of full disclosure, through a collaboration
between IPF and CU-Boulder, 20 percent of my salary is covered by IPF,
which allows me to continue to be involved in IPY activities.)
To build on the momentum of Bridging the Poles and re-access the
potential for IPY EOC, a second workshop, ``Poles Together:
Coordinating IPY Outreach and Education,'' was held in Boulder,
Colorado, in July 2005. Organized by the University of Colorado's
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Science (CIRES),
with in-kind support from NOAA and numerous volunteers, the workshop
drew more than 100 participants including researchers, teachers,
representatives from U.S. federal agencies (NOAA, NSF, USGS and NASA),
and representatives from the International Antarctic Institute in
Hobart, Australia, the International Polar Foundation, and members of
the Canadian, Swedish, Dutch, and German national IPY committees. David
Carlson, who had recently become Director of the International Polar
Year Programme Office (IPO) based in Cambridge, U.K., gave the keynote
address and discussed plans for IPY in general and EOC in particular.
The core of the workshop was a series of breakout discussions,
focusing initially on IPY science themes and key audiences. One idea
for EOC communication that emerged was identifying and addressing
common misconceptions about the Polar Regions, such as the differences
between Arctic and Antarctic geography, the real effect of Earth's
axial tilt on seasonal change, and the reason why polar bears don't eat
penguins.
Other recommendations included the call for a coordination office
for U.S. EOC efforts, and the development of a framework for polar
literacy, with key concepts and messages that could help in correlating
IPY activities and polar science to education standards and benchmarks.
One of the participants, Stan Ruttenberg, who had worked as a
science writer for many of the IGY films, commented that he was
impressed by the degree of excitement and enthusiasm of the
participants. Where IGY education efforts had been very much top-down,
it was clear to Stan that IPY EOC was, above all, tapping a tremendous
energy at the grass-roots level.
Some participants of the Poles Together workshop expressed concern
that, without sufficient funding for IPY, all the enthusiasm would lead
not only to failure of IPY EOC goals, but to disappointment and
disillusionment among the IPY science education community. A
representative of the NSF attending the workshop indicated that NSF,
the lead U.S. agency for IPY, would be able to fund only one to two
million dollars of education and outreach projects for fiscal year
2006. (As it turns out, nearly $6 million was made available, meaning
that the over 80 percent rate of proposals not funded could have been
far higher.) In order to seek a solution to the funding conundrum, a
group of interested individuals was formed to explore funding options
from corporations and foundations to augment IPY EOC projects that NSF
would not be able to fund. Several meetings were held in the fall of
2005 to explore funding options through corporate or foundations, but
after Hurricane Katrina, donor fatigue in the foundation community made
it necessary to put plans to seek alternative funding for IPY EOC
activities on the back burner. A full report of the workshop, funded
through support from the National Science Foundation Office of Polar
Programs (OPP) and NOAA Office of Education (OED), is available at
http://cires.colorado.edu/education/k12/ipyoe/.
To further the preparation for IPY EOC and prepare for the NSF IPY
solicitation, with it's strong focus on formal and informal education
and related coordination, the Integrated Collaborative Education (ICE)
workshop, (funded by NSF OPP and NOAA OED) was held in virtual space in
an asynchronous environment, allowing participants from around the
world and with varied work-schedules, to participate at their
convenience. More than 200 individuals from around the world
participated between March 17 and 31, using tools developed and
facilitated by the Virginia-based College of Exploration, which has
worked with NOAA and National Geographic in developing ocean literacy
priorities.
Like all the prior workshops, ICE served as an incubator for
collaboration and networking, helping to inspire and inform the broad
community of participants. Organized on a few weeks notice, ICE's
ambitious goals included the development of an initial framework for
polar literacy that could be linked with related ocean and
environmental literacy programs.
Participants focused on ten themes they considered integral to such
a framework: the uniqueness of the Polar Regions; the complex
interconnections of Earth systems; global climate change; the
importance of the Polar Regions to science; their history and culture;
places of extremes; new models of land ownership/stewardship,
international collaboration, and cooperation; the need and opportunity
to study holistically; ``what we don't know'' (i.e., the spaces between
disciplines and the gaps in our knowledge); and people and stories.
While these themes in many cases overlap with ``official'' IPY themes
and other science education frameworks, the community-based process
itself was valuable. A final report of the ICE workshop is available at
http://coexploration.net/ipy.
Inspired by the Poles Together workshop, the European Polar Board
of the European Science Foundation hosted a workshop in Brussels in
mid-March of 2006 to engage the European polar research and education
community. The workshop sparked later discussions of the EOC
subcommittee on how education, outreach and communication can be more
fully integrated since, all too often, they are considered separate,
unrelated domains.
The IPY Framework document called for the IPY Programme Office to
establish an Education, Outreach and Communication Subcommittee of the
ICSU-WMO Joint Committee, which would review EOC-related proposals,
help coordinate and integrate activities, and assist in establishing
the IPY Web site. The Subcommittee, made up of representatives from
eleven nations that will be expanded as IPY gets underway, began
meeting in early 2006 through monthly teleconferences and is focused on
coordinating launch events, developing the IPY.org web site, and
supporting international EOC collaborations.
The discussions at the Brussels European Polar Board workshop in
March, 2006 on linking education, outreach and communication helped to
inform the development of the IPY EOC Action Plan (still in
development), which explores how information from a particular IPY
research project--say, a study of seasonal and longer-term sea ice
fluctuations or of caribou migrations--might be customized and
repurposed for different audiences. Over the years, the terms
``education,'' ``outreach,'' and ``communications'' have become
separate, specialized domains, rarely overlapping or collaborating. The
concept of using IPY as an opportunity to begin to integrate these
different, sometimes competing realms while recognizing the unique
needs and expertise required to be effective in each area, has been an
emerging goal of the IPY EOC subcommittee. For example, we envision
that:
A short media summary of the research goal and its
methods used by public affairs or media specialists could also
be used to help a classroom teacher see at a glance whether a
specific project is relevant and of interest to her students.
A ``who, what, where, when, why, and how'' narrative
description or ``data story'' in non-technical language could
help a teacher, exhibit designer or curriculum developer
develop strategies for contextualizing the data.
A database of high-definition video clips could be
used by journalists, students, teachers, and exhibit developers
alike.
A blog from graduate students in the field could
assist students in the classroom virtually participate in the
project by providing a human context to how the research is
conducted and data are collected.
Mapping the science of the project to science
standards and frameworks, taking into account related
misconceptions, could help scientists calibrate their own
communication with non-technical audiences.
Reviewing and annotating existing background
materials and learning activities and linking them with
standards and curriculum could have benefits far beyond the
formal education realm.
To facilitate the integration of information that public affairs
and media relations officers, researchers, educators and students and
other polar enthusiasts can access, the IPY Programme Office is
developing a database that will include short summaries of IPY
projects, longer descriptions of the ``who, what, where, when, why, and
how'' involved, and, once funded and deployed, can be augmented with
audio and video clips, blogs and journals, relevant curriculum and
education standards, and so forth. Ideally, this database will be
integrated into the IPY Data Information Service, or IPYDIS, which is a
U.S. led proposal headed by Mark Parsons of the National Snow and Ice
Data Center.
Dr. Bell has talked about the famous ``honeycomb chart,'' and I'd
like to share it with you again. It is in itself an invaluable outreach
tool and is included as an attachment to my written statement. Of the
233 proposals, many of them made up of numerous smaller projects, the
U.S. is involved in 183 of them, or 82 percent of the total, roughly 20
percent as the lead, in red on the chart (51), and 60 percent as a key
partner, in yellow (122). Again, I'd like to point out the IPY Data
Information Service as an integral part of the big plan, which the U.S.
is the lead on.
All of these cells of the honeycomb, which combine in some cases
multiple nationally funded projects, are subject to funding through
their national agencies. But there is no guarantee that they will be
funded at all, especially when budgets are tight and review criteria
between national and international programs differ. We now know that
some of the proposals approved at the international level will not be
funded by NSF, at least at this time, and we can anticipate that the
honeycomb chart will look significantly different a year from now.
The main point I'd like to make here is that those who did go
through the international process and were endorsed by the IPY Joint
Committee had to address the basic IPY EOC criteria, meaning they
needed to have a plan of how they would address EOC goals identified in
the IPY Framework document. They also needed to be international to
some degree, including the education proposals, of which there are 54,
the majority of which involve U.S. partners or leads. All have
international linkages and partners.
Which brings us to a question: Should EOC for IPY be only addressed
at the national level? The conventional wisdom seems to be, ``yes,''
that every nation has their own education systems and unique
communities with needs. But the decade-old GLOBE program, which has
just funded an IPY-related project looking at seasonal changes,
suggests otherwise. Indeed, learning from the experience of GLOBE, and
perhaps leveraging its network and those of the space science education
community of IHY, IPY EOC has the potential to forge a new, robust
international education network that will live on long after IPY is
completed. Rather than have every nation approach IPY EOC exclusively
internally, this is an opportunity for ``soft diplomacy'' that could,
in the spirit of Weyprecht's vision, truly transcend national agendas
and make a robust contribution to global awareness and cooperation.
Some nations, such as Canada and Norway, require that proposals
seeking funding for IPY first go through the international process,
which mandates international partnerships. The U.S. and most other
nations did not require IPY international endorsement. Funded projects
that did not go through the international process will still have an
opportunity to become part of the honeycomb, but they will be required
to go through the review process and either be linked with an existing
program in the honeycomb, or be endorsed as a new cell.
The final question I have been asked to address is: what are the
goals and expected societal benefits of these activities? At the level
of the Joint Committee, the U.S. National Committee, and NSF, the goals
have been primarily polar science-specific: ``to attract and develop
the next generation of polar scientists, engineers and to leaders and
to capture the interest of the public and decision-makers,'' (ICSU
2004a) , to increase ``public understanding and participation in polar
science'' (NRC 2004) and ``educate the public about the polar regions''
(NSF 2006).
But to many involved at the grassroots level of IPY EOC, including
many participants in workshops and on the IPY EOC Subcommittee, polar
science is merely the tip of the iceberg in terms of the potential for
this international endeavor to go beyond simply showcasing polar
science and its global relevance. As the recent draft IPY EOC Action
Plan suggests, IPY can also ``demonstrate the scientific process in
real-time by engaging the public with an exciting, enormous, and
diverse, interdisciplinary scientific investigation. It is an
opportunity for an open dialogue between scientists and society that
will demystify and increase accessibility of science. This will
strengthen the public's perception, understanding, and appreciation of
science and therefore empower them in making valid assessments of
scientific information.'' (IPY EOC 2006)
The goals of promoting polar science and recruiting new polar
scientists is, frankly, the easy part. The far broader goals of
fostering a more scientifically savvy society and forging new science
education partnerships at every level is much more daunting, and will
require robust funding and support to achieve the inherent potential of
IPY as a catalyst for positive change. There is a very small window--
right now--to seize this opportunity, devote the necessary, leadership,
resources and people power to meet the challenge, and set the wheels in
motion to allow IPY live up to its vast potential.
There is tremendous power in the polar realm to inspire, inform and
engage people of all ages and walks of life. At a gut level, the
extremes of the polar environment challenge us in terms of basic
survival; ask any child who has seen ``The March of the Penguins'' or
``Eight Below.'' It has been suggested that in the first two IPYs,
survival required 90 percent of the time and energy with science
requiring the remaining 10 percent. Polar regions will always remain
dangerous, forbidding places, no matter how sophisticated the
technologies. Now, with increased concern about human impacts on the
Earth's climatic and environmental systems, people look to the poles to
gain information about and insights into the survival of the planet
itself.
Polar power also has tremendous emotional resonance, appealing to
our sense of beauty and wonder. The stories and experience of people
from polar communities, including the millions of Arctic residents and
the scientists, explorers and teachers who have spent time in
Antarctica, are a powerful way of bringing a human dimension and
personal touch to IPY activities.
And, finally, the polar perspectives offer a unique way to engage
and challenge our intellects, whether at the cutting edge of the
scientific frontier, or addressing common misconceptions that students
have about the reason for seasonal change. I would love to see posters
of the spectacular polar ``night'' and ``day'' images from NASA
Goddard, part of the Blue Marble series, in every grade schools
everywhere with the title: ``What's Wrong With This Picture?'' These
wonderful photo-mosaics can leave the impression that the sun is
shining directly down on, or is directly behind, the north or south
pole, when in fact, that never occurs. There is never a time of day, or
time of year, when there is so much sunshine. . .or darkness. . .in the
north or south hemispheres. Realizing this, students can then consider
how the axial tilt impacts polar seasons.
There are countless international years but only one IPY. For IPY
to be more than just another international year in a crowded field and
live up to its huge potential, the support and leadership of the U.S.,
working in close collaboration with our international partners, is
imperative. The time for IPY is now.
References
ICSU IPY 2007-2008 Planning Group (2004a) Draft Education & Outreach
Position Paper.
International Council for Science. (2004). A Framework for the
International Polar Year 2007-2008, produced by the ICSU IPY
2007-2008 Planning Group.
IPY EOC Subcommittee (2006). IPY EOC Action Plan, draft v3.
Korsmo, F.L. (2004). Shaping Up Planet Earth. Science Communication
26:2.
Korsmo, F.L., Sfraga, M., (2003). From Interwar to Cold War: Selling
Field Science in the United States, 1920s through 1950s. Earth
Sciences History 22:1.
Luedecke, C. (2004). The First International Polar Year (1882-83): A
big science experiment with small science equipment.
Proceedings of the International Commission on History of
Meteorology 1.1.
National Science Foundation (2006). International Polar Year (IPY),
2007-2008, Information for the Research and Education
Communities: http://www.nsf.gov/od/opp/ipy/ipyinfo.jsp.
Robinson, M.F. (2006). The Coldest Crucible: Arctic Exploration and
American Culture. University of Chicago Press.
U.S. National Committee for the International Polar Year 2007-2008,
National Research Council. A Vision for the International Polar
Year 2007-2008.
Wood, K.R., Overland, J.E. (in press). Climate Lessons from the First
International Polar Year.
Biography for Mark S. McCaffrey
Professional Preparation
M.A.--Educational Leadership--University of Northern Colorado, Greeley,
CO, 1994
B.A.--Southwest Studies, Spanish Emphasis--Fort Lewis College, Durango,
CO, 1980
Relevant Appointments
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences
Associate Scientist, Professional Research Assistant, January 2001-
present
CIRES Outreach Program, August 2004-present
Co-Chair, Poles Together IPY Outreach and Education Workshop, July,
2005
Member, International Polar Year Education, Outreach, Communications
Subcommittee
Principal Investigator, Integrated Collaborative Education (ICE)
Strategic Planning Online Workshop
Principal Investigator, DLESE Climate Change Collection
Principal Investigator, NOAA Coral Reef Information System Data
Outreach Project
Managing Director, International Polar Foundation USA
NOAA Paleoclimatology Program, National Climatic Data Center
Science Communications Specialist, January 2001-July 2004
Principal Investigator, Climate TimeLine Information Tool
Lead Author, Paleo Perspective on Abrupt Climate Change
Project Manager, Spanish translations of Paleo Perspectives
Boulder Creek Watershed Initiative, 1996-2003
President, 2000-2003
Co-founder and Board Member, 1996-2003
Boulder Area Sustainability Information Network, 1998-2001
Co-PI and Communications Coordinator
University of Northern Colorado, ChemQuest Curriculum Project, 1996-
1999
Education Consultant and Curriculum Developer
The Naropa Institute, Environmental Leadership Masters Program, 1996-
1999
Adjunct Faculty and Developer--Boulder Creek Atlas Project
Front Range Community College, Environmental Sciences Department, 1995-
1996
Adjunct Faculty, Introduction to Environmental Science
Recent Publications, Presentations and Products
McCaffrey, M.S., Bishop, T., Lynds, S., Tuddenham, P. (2006). ICE: The
Integrated Collaborative Education Online Strategic Planning
Workshop Summary Report. Available: http://
www.coexploration.net/ipy/ice
McCaffrey, M.S., Lynds, S. (2006). Poles Together: Coordinating
International Polar Year (IPY) Outreach and Education Summary
Report. Available: http://cires.colorado.edu/education/k12/
ipyoe
McCaffrey, M.S., Anderson, D.M., Eakin, M.E., Morrill, C. (2004). A
PaleoPerspective on Abrupt Climate Change. NOAA
Paleoclimatology Program. Available: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/
paleo/abrupt/
McCaffrey, M.S., Kowal, D., Eakin, M. (2003). Climate timeline
information tool: exploring weather and climate change through
the powers of 10. Paleoclimatology Branch, NOAA's National
Climatic Data Center, Boulder, CO. Available: http://
www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/
McCaffrey, M.S. (2003). ``Using the climate timeline to frame inquiry
into climate change.'' NSTA National Convention, Philadelphia,
PA, March 27, 2003, National Science Teachers Association, 1840
Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA.
McCaffrey, M.S. (2000). ``BASIN.org, a case study on the use of
information technology in developing local watershed
networks.'' Stockholm International Water Symposium, Stockholm,
Sweden, August 2000.
McCaffrey, M.S., Murphy, S., (2000). ``Boulder Area Sustainability
Information Network (BASIN): One Community's Approach to
Gathering and Providing Environmental Data.'' U.S. EPA
Community Involvement Conference: The New Millennium: Community
Involvement and Effective Environmental Protection.'' San
Francisco, CA, August, 2000.
Synergistic Activities
Member, International Polar Year Education, Outreach and Communications
(EOC) Subcommittee and IPY.org Web Design Team--Contribute to
reviewing EOC-related proposals for the IPY Programme Office,
reporting to Director David Carlson, offering input and
recommendations on coordination efforts and design of the
IPY.org portal site.
Member, American Geophysical Union and European Geoscience Union--Co-
convener of upcoming IPY Education and Data Literacy sessions
at the AGU, December 2006. Have previously convened Education
sessions at past AGUs and assisted in organizing the GIFT
Workshop at Fall 2003 AGU on polar science and at the Spring
2005 in New Orleans on hurricanes and other natural hazards.
DLESE Working Group--Earth System Framework--Participant in working
group tasked with examining approaches to organizing resources
within DLESE using an Earth System framework and recommending
strategies and options to the Steering Committee.
Coral Reef Information System and Coral Reef Task Force Outreach--
Through involvement with the NOAA Coral Reef Information System
(CoRIS), serve as principal investigator of the CoRIS Data
Outreach project, facilitating stakeholder meetings with coral
reef communities. Participant in the Coral Reef Task Force's
Outreach and Education Committee.
Collaborators and Affiliations
Susan Buhr, CIRES, University of Colorado at Boulder
Linda Capper, British Antarctic Survey
David Carlson, International Polar Year Programme Office
Michelle Hall-Wallace, Science Education Solutions
Louise Huffman, Golden Apple Foundation
Martin Jeffries, University of Alaska, Fairbanks
Roberta Johnson, UCAR Education
Carol Knight, NOAA
Tamara Ledley, TERC
Susan Lynds, CIRES, University of Colorado at Boulder
Russanne Low, UCAR-DLESE
Cathy Manduca, Science Education Resource Center
Frank Niepold, NOAA Climate Program Office
Mark Parsons, National Snow and Ice Data Center
Stephanie Pfirman, Columbia University
Lesley Smith, CIRES, University of Colorado at Boulder
Peter Tuddenham, The College of Exploration
Daniel Zalles, SRI International
Graduate Advisor: Richard King, University of Northern Colorado.
Chairman Inglis. Thank you, sir.
Dr. Falkner.
STATEMENT OF DR. KELLY KENISON FALKNER, PROFESSOR OF CHEMICAL
OCEANOGRAPHY, OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Falkner. Thank you for the opportunity to testify this
morning.
My testimony draws from published reports from input from
the arctic community and 14 years of experience in arctic field
work.
The research projects to be sponsored during IPY have yet
to be finalized, as you heard earlier, but based on ideas
voiced during the IPY planning process, I suspect there will be
many more excellent research projects proposed and can be
supported by available U.S. funds.
Well, I was asked to address what did we learn from polar
science in past IPYs, and in the interest of time, I refer you
to my written testimony and the comments of my colleagues here,
but I also highly recommend that you consult the four weekly
issues of November 1960 Life Magazine, which reported to the
public the remarkable findings of the International Geophysical
Year.
So what do we hope to learn from this IPY?
As has been well publicized, the arctic has been undergoing
dramatic changes. Air temperatures are increasing and are now
higher than they have been in at least four centuries. Last
year, large portions of the arctic were four to seven degrees
Fahrenheit warmer than they had been in the previous 26 years.
Sea ice area and thickness are diminishing. Satellite records
show that summer sea ice area has decreased 20 percent, or
roughly twice the area of Texas, since 1979, with a record
minimum in 2005, and this year being very close to it.
Loss of sea ice cover will change the global heat balance
and will affect our global weather patterns. Sea ice retreat is
already posing severe habitat challenges to animals dependent
upon it, such as the polar bear. A changing ice cover also has
implications for shipping routes and access to resources, such
as offshore oil and gas.
Permafrost is thawing, posing serious challenges to
infrastructure, altering ecosystems, and increasing greenhouse
gas emissions. An article published two weeks ago in the
Journal of Nature reported far more of the potent greenhouse
gas methane being emitted from Siberian Fall Lakes than
previously estimated. Methane output from this vast terrain has
increased by 58 percent from 1974 to 2000. The Greenland ice
sheet is undergoing a net melting trend that shows signs of
accelerating due to processes we are only beginning to
understand. Realize that Greenland holds about 20 feet of
potential sea level rise. The arctic hydrologic system has been
altered such that large amounts of freshwater have made their
way into sensitive areas of circulation in the North Atlantic.
Now global system models that include greenhouse gases
predict amplified warming in the arctic. Detailed records of
climate change from ice cores show that change in the past has,
at times, been very abrupt. Several degrees of temperature
change and atmospheric circulation and precipitation
rearrangements have occurred during less than 10-year
timescales. Intensified research efforts during the IPY will
come none too soon.
In addition, there remain a number of basic science
questions that are under-explored in the arctic because of its
remoteness and harshness. We now have the ability to observe in
places and during seasons where we haven't before and at scales
ranging from the molecular to the global.
It is an exciting time to be embarking on an IPY. The
international science community has developed new approaches
and tools that are ripe for application, so intensified
research can be expected to foster new discoveries in realms,
such as sea floor dynamics, the Earth's magnetic field,
biology, and contaminant transport.
So it is also asked what are the most critical unanswered
questions that we hope to resolve with the research conducted
during the IPY.
The magnitude of the changes in the arctic raises the
possibility that the arctic system may be approaching a tipping
point, especially if amplification or irreversibility of
changes introduced through reinforcing feedback processes. Such
considerations led to the overarching question that is a main
driver of the Study of Environmental Arctic Change Program
(SEARCH): is the arctic transitioning toward a new state.
It is also important to ask: what new discoveries lie
ahead? What are the societal benefits of this research? If the
IPY is fully implemented, as envisioned, the arctic, as well as
Antarctic plans, address the future climate of our planet with
the intention of establishing observation networks that take us
into the future.
Concentrated efforts during the IPY will help to train the
next generation. As a mother, I am excited by the education
efforts centered on the IPY that are aiming to bring fun into
math and science so we can get our kids on track and capable of
competing in the global economy.
IPY findings will help to prepare the people of the north
for adapting to what appears to be inevitable further change
there. The findings should also help provide guidance for
further resource development possibilities.
Finally, a firm commitment by the United States to the
2007-2008 IPY will demonstrate to the world that the United
States is capable and willing to play a leading role in
assuring the quality of our collective environmental future.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Falkner follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kelly Kenison Falkner
I would like to begin by thanking the Committee for giving me this
opportunity to testify regarding the 2007-2008 International Polar
Year. I was specifically asked to address the following questions from
an Arctic research perspective:
What has been learned from polar research and IPYs in
the past and what do we hope to learn from this IPY?
What are the most critical unanswered questions that
you hope to resolve with the research conducted during the IPY?
What are the societal benefits of this research?
Before I address those questions, let me outline for you my
qualifications. In 1983, I was awarded a Bachelor's degree in Chemistry
from Reed College, followed by a Ph.D. in Chemical Oceanography in 1989
from the MIT-Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Joint Program.
Following this, I undertook postdoctoral work at MIT under an NSF
Women's Initiation Award and then continued my studies at the Centre
National D'Etudes Spatiales, Toulouse, France, under a NATO
Postdoctoral Fellowship. In 1992, I took a faculty position at the
College of Oceanic & Atmospheric Science at Oregon State University,
where I currently carry out research and teach as a Professor of
Chemical Oceanography. Shortly after arriving at OSU, I embarked on
studies in the Arctic with support of an ONR Young Investigator
Fellowship. My initial objective was to devise methods to track river
waters and other water types within the Arctic Ocean using naturally
occurring chemical signals. Since then my research group has been
applying these methods in numerous collaborative studies to document
the remarkable changes in Arctic Ocean circulation over the past
decade, including at the North Pole Environmental Observatory. Hence, I
have been traveling to the Arctic to conduct field-based research from
a variety of platforms for the past 14 years. I have served on numerous
Arctic related national and international science steering and review
committees. In addition, I am the mother of two children, ages six and
11.
In preparation for my testimony, I informed the Arctic research
community via the ArcticInfo listserv of this pending hearing and
requested their input via e-mail regarding the questions I was tasked
to address. The timing allowed five working days for the community to
respond during what is typically an active field season period for the
group. Nonetheless, I received 35 responses from a broad sampling of
the community. Without exception, all of the respondents endorse the
importance and timing of the IPY. They brought to my attention
significant issues I might have otherwise missed and so I am indebted
to them for their input.
Development of the overall vision for the 2007-2008 IPY was
strongly driven by community input. I personally took part in several
town hall discussions early in the process that took place at various
national and international science meetings. The 2004 National Research
Council Report, ``A Vision of the International Polar Year 2007-2008,''
nicely captured the input and presented a path by which to proceed. I
have drawn on aspects of that report for part of my testimony this
morning.
In addition, I am a signatory of an open letter that was circulated
in the science community beginning in 1995, proposing a program to
study Arctic change. As the scientific vision developed to a broad
initiative involving several federal agencies, it was galvanized under
the acronym SEARCH, standing for Study of ARctic Environmental CHange.
Under U.S. leadership, the international community was invited to an
open science meeting in Seattle, Washington in 2003, since it was clear
that SEARCH activities transcend the intellectual, infrastructural and
fiscal resources of any single nation. In response to our request to
foster an international effort on Arctic change, the International
Arctic Science Committee and Arctic Ocean Sciences Board initiated the
International Study of Arctic Change in 2004. This is the international
umbrella under which SEARCH is a national component. An Interagency
Program Management Committee consisting of eight U.S. federal agencies
have agreed to work together on implementing SEARCH. These are the
National Science Foundation (current chair), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Energy,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Smithsonian Institution and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
In May, 2005, over 80 members of the U.S. Arctic community met to
align research priorities for SEARCH with the evolving thinking in the
Arctic community at large. The criteria used to prioritize activities
included: importance to meeting SEARCH science objectives, fit with
international activities and readiness for implementation. The report
that resulted is entitled ``Study of Environmental Arctic Change: Plans
for Implementation During the International Polar Year and Beyond''
(2005, Arctic Research Consortium of the United States, Fairbanks
Alaska, 104 pp.). My testimony also draws from that report and I refer
you to it for further detail and original references. I would like to
note that the upcoming IPY marks the first time that northern residents
are being included directly in planning and implementation. The IPY
vision also includes integration of social and physical sciences in the
north in order to identify socioeconomic impacts of change and
adaptation and mitigation strategies.
One final point I would like to make before addressing the
questions is that decisions regarding the exact research programs to be
sponsored during IPY have yet to finalized by several participating
nations including the U.S. For example, science proposals submitted to
the U.S. National Science Foundation are currently under review and
decisions about the initial round of submissions are expected late this
fall. Once the initially funded projects have been identified, it is
intended that another call for proposals will ensue permitting gaps in
a coherent research portfolio to be addressed. The peer review process
should help to assure that the best possible ideas go forward. I am
aware of attempts to coordinate funding of projects that pass our merit
review system with efforts funded by other countries. This is not easy
to accomplish given diverse deadlines and funding cultures but IPY will
forge new ground in that direction. My answers to your questions are
what the community hoped to accomplish. Based on ideas voiced during
the international IPY planning process, I suspect there will be many
more excellent research programs proposed than can be supported by
available funds in the U.S. and our funding agencies will have some
difficult decisions to make.
What has been learned from polar research and IPYs in the past?
As already pointed out, the first IPY took place in 1882-1883 and
was primarily Arctic in focus. Coordinated observations were carried
out at widely spaced locations. The international community
demonstrated that it could collaborate in the name of science and that
collective efforts can pay handsome dividends. One of the more notable
findings was the first description of the large-scale motion of the
sea-ice with important implications for exploration that followed.
Priceless baseline data for anthropology and natural history were also
obtained during this era, preserving what we now know was in the
process of being lost to interactions with the lower latitude world.
The second IPY in 1932-33 heralded the beginnings of modern weather
related observations around the globe and including the Arctic.
Systematic Arctic Ocean observations began to be undertaken by the
Russians at this time, which they continued through to the 1980's.
While the Russian data collection efforts were aimed at informing their
cold-war activities, that data provide us today with an essential basis
for assessing the magnitude of recent changes in ice-ocean and
atmosphere conditions.
Fifty years later in 1957-58, the IGY expanded its focus to include
geophysical observations of the entire planet and outer space.
Scientists took advantages of technology that sprung from World War II,
such as rockets, satellites, radar, sonar, radio-communications,
diverse telescopes and seismic sounding, to make extraordinary advances
in our understanding of Earth and space science. Many of the
accomplishments around the globe involved a close collaboration between
the military and science communities. Although polar efforts were
focused more on the Antarctic, in the Arctic the first large-scale
determination of the sea floor relief was accomplished. The work on the
interaction of solar and cosmic particles and the Earth's magnetosphere
in a year of peak solar activity generated an appreciation of the cause
of radio communication disruptions at the poles. The first globally
synoptic weather observations were undertaken. The first submarine
based surveys of sea-ice thickness were undertaken in the Arctic.
Global carbon dioxide monitoring was initiated at the South Pole. The
first World Data Centers were established during IGY. This is but a
short list of the myriad IGY science accomplishments. The cooperative
spirit of generating new knowledge overrode international tensions of
the time and fostered enduring treaties regarding Antarctica and space.
The public was broadly engaged by numerous media reports on the science
and educational materials that evolved from it. Clearly IGY left many
positive and enduring legacies.
What do we hope to learn from this IPY?
One would have to be avoiding the popular media not to realize that
the Arctic has been subject to some remarkable changes over the last
few decades and that many of the changes appear to be linked and are
accelerating. Some of these changes are large and in certain cases,
unprecedented in the period of instrumental and satellite observations.
It is not an exaggeration to say that the magnitude and rapidity of
recent changes caught many scientists by surprise. Quasi-cyclical
atmospheric pressure patterns were initially thought to be driving many
of the changes but now departures from those relationships have many of
us wondering whether the Arctic is in transition to a new state
altogether. What are these changes?
Arctic air temperatures are increasing. Average air temperatures
have risen strongly in recent decades and are now higher than they have
been in at least four centuries. In 2005, large portions of the Arctic
were four to seven degrees Fahrenheit warmer than they have been over
the previous 26 years. Sea-ice area and thickness is diminishing. Over
the period of the satellite record, summer sea-ice extent has decreased
20 percent (twice the area of Texas) with a record minimum in 2005, and
2006 being very close to it. Snow-covered ice reflects most incoming
sunlight or as scientists like to say, has a high albedo, and water
absorbs light or has a low albedo. Thus the loss of sea will change the
global heat budget and so affect our global weather patterns. The ice
retreat is already posing severe habitat challenges to animals
dependent upon it such as the polar bear. The changing ice cover has
implications for shipping routes and access to resources such as
offshore oil and gas. Permafrost is warming and thawing, posing serious
challenges to infrastructure, altering ecosystems and greenhouse gas
emissions. Just two weeks ago, K. Walter from the University of Alaska
Fairbanks and colleagues reported (Nature, Sept. 7, Vol. 443, p. 71-75)
that lakes resulting from thawing in Siberian tundra probably emit 10-
60 percent more of the potent greenhouse gas methane than previously
estimated. Moreover their area has increased with the warming
increasing their methane output from 1974 to 2000 by 58 percent. Woody
shrubs are becoming larger and more abundant throughout the Arctic
tundra as they out compete other plants, interfering with caribou
migration and in some instances with oil exploration. Other plant and
animal species are beginning to appear in the Arctic that have been
previously unknown there. The Greenland Ice Sheet is undergoing a net
melting trend that shows signs of accelerating. There are signs of
concurrent ice-sheet losses in Antarctica. Recent observations
highlight more dynamic response factors in ice sheet behaviors than we
had previously appreciated. Realize that the Greenland Ice holds about
21 feet of potential sea-level rise; we need further observations and
model improvements that incorporate these dynamic factors to anticipate
the rate of future sea level changes. Freshwater cycling in the Arctic
hydrologic system has been altered such that large pulses of freshwater
have made their way into potentially sensitive areas of circulation in
the North Atlantic that can impact our regional and global climate.
Global climate system models that take into account greenhouse gas
forcing predict amplified change in the Arctic. Detailed records of
climate from ice cores have taught us that change in the past has at
times been very abrupt with multiple degrees of temperature change and
atmospheric circulation and precipitation rearrangements occurring on
less than 10 year time scales. Intensified research efforts during the
IPY will come none too soon.
The IPY affords us the opportunity to accelerate the implementation
of SEARCH, to provide leadership and to collaborate internationally to
understand and document the nature of these changes and their linkages
to each other within the Arctic and to our global climate system. It
appears that some amount of further change and challenges to ecosystems
and human systems in the North are inevitable. We need to understand
the changes to better chart their future course. What are the
foreseeable benefits and difficulties of Arctic and global warming? The
people of the north need answers to help them anticipate and cope with
change. The effects of changes in the Arctic on global climate may well
be disproportionate to its area. We need to push our understanding of
Arctic-global linkages so that people outside of the Arctic can know
what to expect under possible future greenhouse levels.
In addition to the very visible issue of Arctic change, there
remain a number of aspects of the Arctic that are under-explored
because remoteness and harsh conditions make for challenging logistics.
The science community has developed new approaches and tools that are
ripe for application during the IPY and so intensified research can be
expected to foster new discoveries in several realms. For example, the
Gakkel Ridge is the slowest spreading ridge in the world's oceans.
Preliminary evidence has shown that the nature of hydrothermal activity
associated with that feature spans the full range of that observed
elsewhere in the world's oceans. By current thinking, this is not
supposed to be the case. Further exploration offers the possibility of
entirely new insights in marine geology. Another example is that the
geomagnetic North Pole is currently on the rapid move. Recent studies
of marine and lake sediments have revealed similar shifts of the pole's
position and repeating patterns in the past that may lead to a better
understanding of the behavior of the Earth's core. IPY activities could
help unveil tantalizing links between the Earth's magnetic field
position, solar and cosmic particle flux and climate.
Another example is that much of what we know about past climate on
Earth comes from what we call proxies or signals preserved in ice
cores, sediments and organisms. There are plans to conduct scientific
drilling for the first time in ocean sediments in the Bering Sea region
to determine the climate and ecological impacts of the Bering Sea
Bridge that emerges during low sea-level stands as well as volcanic
eruptions in the region. The ice-coring community is hoping to obtain
the first complete ice record from Greenland that extends back through
the interglacial period at the Eem site. Advances in trace element and
isotope geochemistry offer the possibility of developing and applying
new proxies for teasing out the past conditions. The international
community has embraced a program called GEOTRACES to track the behavior
of such trace elements and isotopes in the world's oceans and has
targeted their initial observations in polar regions as part of the
IPY. GEOTRACES also aims to provide accurate baseline information for
micro-nutrients such as iron and problematic contaminants such as
mercury in the polar oceans.
The integration of biological sciences during this IPY offers many
new knowledge frontiers. For example, advances in molecular techniques
can be applied to characterizing the diversity of organisms both north
and south and potentially important functional genes such as anti-
freeze proteins and UV protection of DNA. Our European and Canadian
colleagues are planning to focus on migratory bird health, which has
important links to avian flu and global health.
It is an exciting time to be embarking on an IPY. We have the
ability to observe in seasons and places where we haven't before and at
scales ranging from the molecular to the global. We are bound to make
many new discoveries.
What are the most critical unanswered questions that you hope to
resolve with the research conducted during the IPY?
The magnitude of the changes in the Arctic raises the possibility
that the arctic system may be crossing a threshold or approaching a
tipping point, especially if amplification or irreversibility of change
is introduced through processes such as the ice-albedo-temperature
feedback. Such considerations lead to the overarching question that is
a main driver of the SEARCH program:
Is the arctic system moving to a new state?
Key questions that must be addressed in order to understand whether
the Arctic is moving into a new state include the following:
To what extent is the Arctic system predictable,
i.e., what are the potential accuracies and/or uncertainties in
predications of relevant arctic variables over different
timescales?
To what extent can recent and ongoing climate changes
in the Arctic be attributed to anthropogenic forcing, rather
than to natural modes of variability?
What is the direction and relative importance of
system feedbacks?
How are the terrestrial and marine ecosystems
services affected by environmental change and its interaction
with human activities?
How do cultural and socioeconomic systems interact
with Arctic environmental change?
What are the most consequential links between the
Arctic and the Earth systems?
In keeping with the spirit of previous IPY's, it is also important
to ask:
What new discoveries lie ahead?
What are the societal benefits of this research?
The Arctic is harbinger of global change and research community is
poised to make unprecedented advances in understanding of our climate
system at the present juncture. We will apply interdisciplinary
approaches to these complex issues in a manner that wasn't conceivable
during the IGY. Our observational tools have progressed dramatically.
Satellites can now provide us the larger scale view of numerous
essential system parameters. A wide array of in-situ sensor and
autonomous platforms have been developed which can be applied to
unmanned observations of the ocean, atmosphere, ice, biosphere, land,
the interior of the Earth and space. Modern computational, as well as
data storage and dissemination, capabilities will allow us to move and
share information in new ways. In fact, it is the hope of many of us
that the IPY might provide a very visible opportunity to develop and
showcase advances in cyberinfrastructure in a way the benefits the
larger science enterprise.
If the IPY is fully implemented as envisioned, the Arctic as well
as Antarctic plans address the future climate of our planet with the
intention of establishing observation networks that take us into the
future. Concentrated efforts during the IPY will help to entrain the
next generation into polar science and transfer unique operational and
logistics know-how to that new generation. As a mother, I am excited by
the education efforts centered on the IPY that are aiming to bring fun
into math and science so that we can get our kids on track and capable
of competing in the global economy. The findings from IPY and the
observation networks that result will help to prepare the people of the
north for adapting to what appears to be inevitable change. The
findings should help provide guidance for further resource development
possibilities in the north under a changing climate. IPY research will
provide data with which to assess environmental base line conditions
and future change. The IPY data set should also advance our knowledge
of past conditions on earth and improve the basis for predicting future
perturbations. Finally, a firm commitment by the U.S. to the 2007-2008
IPY will demonstrate to the world that the U.S. is capable and willing
to play a leading role in assuring the quality of our collective
future.
Biography for Kelly Kenison Falkner
Date & Place of Birth, Family: March 1, 1960; Lancaster, NH, USA;
Married, two children born 13 Sep 95 & 9 Nov 99.
EDUCATION
B.A., Chemistry with Russian minor, Reed College, 1983
Ph.D., Chemical Oceanography, M.I.T./W.H.O.I. Joint Program in
Oceanography, 1989
Languages: French & Russian
ACADEMIC POSITIONS
Postdoctoral Researcher, M.I.T., 1989-1990
NATO Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Groupe de Recherche Geodesie
Spatiale, Centre National D'Etudes Spatiales, Toulouse, France,
1990-1992
Assistant Professor, College of Oceanic & Atmospheric Sciences, OSU,
1992-1997
Associate Professor, College of Oceanic & Atmospheric Sciences, OSU,
1997-2005
Full Professor, College of Oceanic & Atmospheric Sciences, OSU, 2005-
present.
RECENT COMMITTEES, EDITORSHIPS, etc...
NSF office of Polar Programs, Office Advisory Committee, 2005-present
Arctic-Subarctic Ocean Fluxes Science Steering Committee, 2003-present
Associate Editor, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 2002-2006
UNOLS Arctic Icebreaker Coordinating Committee, 1996-2002
NSF Office of Polar Programs, Strategic Plan for Marine Science in the
Arctic, 1998-1999
NSF Office of Polar Programs, Ocean-Atm-Ice Interactions Steering
Committee, 1997-2001
RESEARCH INTERESTS
Application of inorganic elemental and isotopic measurements to aqueous
geochemical issues
This entails sampling of waters and associated solids of diverse
media including snow, ice, rivers, lakes, and the oceans and analysis
by state-of-the-art laboratory instrumentation, including ICPMS, TIMS &
IRMS. Current projects include tracing origins and pathways of river
waters and other water types to characterize the nature and causes of
variability in Arctic Ocean circulation and characterizing tributary
and main stem Salmon River (OR) chemistry as part of a collaborative
study of salmon life history as recorded in their otoliths.
HONORS
National Science Foundation Arctic Service Award, 2000
COAS Student Mentoring Award, 2000
Office of Naval Research Young Investigator Award, 1993
NATO Postdoctoral Fellowship, 1990
Association for Women in Science Predoctoral Award, 1987
National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship, 1984-87
Phi Beta Kappa, 1983
FIELDWORK
Participated in 25 major seagoing, lake and river expeditions, 1981-
2006
Served as Chief Scientist on seven of these missions.
REVIEW PANELS
NSERC Site Review Panel for acquisition of ICPMS at UVic, Victoria, BC,
January 1994
NSF Chemical Oceanography Panel, July 1993, May 1997 & November 1997
NSERC Earth and Environmental Sciences Grant Selection Committee, 1996-
1997
Committee of Visitors to evaluate NSF Office of Polar Programs, July,
2000
NOAA Russian U.S. Long-term Census of the Arctic, June 2006
RECENT PUBLICATIONS
Taylor, John Ryan, K. Kenison Falkner, U. Schauer, M. Meredith (2003).
Quantitative considerations of dissolved barium as a tracer in
the Arctic Ocean, J. Geophys. Res. Vol. 108, No. C12, 3374,
10.1029/2002JC001635.
Falkner, K. Kenison, M. Steele, R.A. Woodgate, J.H. Swift, K. Aagaard
and J. Morison (2005). Dissolved oxygen extrema in the Arctic
Ocean halocline from the North Pole to the Lincoln Sea, Deep-
Sea Res. I 52, 1138-1154.
Woodgate, R.A., K. Aagaard, J.H. Swift, K. Falkner and W.M. Smethie,
Jr. (2005). Pacific ventilation of the Arctic's lower halocline
by upwelling and diapycnal mixing over the continental margin,
Geophys. Res. Lett. 32(18), DOI 10.1029/2005GL023999.
Munchow, A., H. Melling and K.K. Falkner (2006) Volume and freshwater
fluxes in Nares Strait from observed salinity and velocity
fields, J. Phys. Oceanogr., in press.
Falkner, K.K., L. Bandstra, I. Royer, N. Ryckelynck, M. Wetz, D. Zima,
R. Collier, B. Hales, F. Prahl, C. Reimers, M. Torres, S.M.
Meyers and E. Volk (2005). A chemical study of the Oregon
Salmon River Estuary and tributaries, Estuary, in revision.
Woodgate, R.A., K. Aagaard, J.H. Swift, W.M. Smethie Jr. and K.K.
Falkner (2006). Atlantic water circulation over the Mendeleev
Ridge and Chukchi Borderland from thermohaline intrusions and
water mass properties, J. Geophys. Res., in press. (http://
psc.apl.washington.edu/HLD/CBL/Atlanticwaterzigzag paper.html)
Morison, J., M. Steele, T. Kikuchi, K. Falkner and W. Smethie (2006).
Relaxation of the central Arctic Ocean hydrography to pre-1990s
climatology, Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L17604, doi:10.1029/
2006GL026826.
K. Kenison Falkner, E. Carmack, P. Jones, F. McLaughlin, H. Melling, A.
Muenchow, M. O'Brien and P. Strain (2006). Implications of
nutrient variability in passages of the Canadian Archipelago
and Baffin Bay for freshwater through flow and local
productivity, Arctic Freshwater Cycle Special Issue of J.
Geophys. Res. Biogeocsi., in prep.
28 additional peer reviewed publications.
Discussion
Chairman Inglis. Thank you, Dr. Falkner.
We are expecting a vote on the House Floor soon, but we
have got a plan for how we will continue the hearing so that we
will keep you all on schedule. And now Ms. Hooley and I can
tell everybody in the audience that those pictures really are
for real. Those--if I hadn't been there, I am not sure I would
have believed the incredible beauty of those pictures, but
having been there, I can testify those are really actual shots.
You know, they look like they might be staged, sort of like the
moonwalk, you know, all that was staged, as you know, as many
people in my hometown believed for a long time. Maybe they
still do.
But it is--while we were on the ice, I actually had an
opportunity to--with Dr. Olsen's help and Tony Gibson's help,
to hook up some students in high school science classes with a
slideshow of--speaking of pictures, slideshow of shots that I
had taken. And we were actually able to interact. They were
watching. They were looking at them from a website that we had
loaded them up on, and then I was able to go through the shots,
rather than telling them what we were doing. It is fascinating
to see how interested the students became in that. And they
spoke to me afterwards about it. You know. I mean, that--my
kids would tell about a friend of theirs who was in one of
those science classes who really was very excited about the
whole thing. And it is--as you said, Dr. Manahan, there is
something about the poles that captivates the imagination.
And so what can we do to--here, in Congress--I will ask Dr.
Bement first and then anybody else. What can we do, here, in
Congress, to facilitate that, to make sure that that kind of
interaction takes place? I know you have plans in place to do
that kind of thing, and far better than the shots that I took,
I imagine. But--Dr. Bement.
Dr. Bement. Well, thank you, Congressman.
Let me say, first and foremost, it is part of our
appropriations for 2007----
Chairman Inglis. Yeah.
Dr. Bement.--because even though we have detailed plans in
what the other agencies plan to do, what they could actually do
will depend on that. But apart from that, I think promoting
visibility of IPY within your districts, and especially within
the schools is critically important. You know, visits. You have
been to the Antarctic, but have you been to the arctic?
Chairman Inglis. I have not.
Dr. Bement. There is a whole range of exciting things that
are going on in the arctic and the trans-arctic. Greenland, for
example, would be a very interesting place to visit. So getting
firsthand experience in what is happening in IPY and then
bringing that back, I think, would be critically important.
Chairman Inglis. Right.
Dr. Manahan, any thoughts on that?
Dr. Manahan. Absolutely. I couldn't agree more about that
comment that Director Bement made about promoting visibility
even within your own districts.
I think this message is just starting to get out that the
poles affect, potentially, everybody's lives. Even my mother
asks me these questions, and she rarely had asked me questions
for 26 years since I have been in America. She called me from
Ireland after news broke about possible melting of issues in
the north and pushing back the currents and cooling down
northern Europe and possibly northern America. It is a
speculative model, but it is remarkable how few people seem to
be aware of these issues. So--and promoting visibility as much
as you can, talking about it in your speeches when you talk
with your--anybody in your communities to get the word out,
because as you said, people in the Carolinas may say, ``Well,
is this really affecting me?''
Chairman Inglis. Right.
Dr. Manahan. Yes.
Chairman Inglis. Other suggestions about ways we can help
here, in Congress, to accomplish that? Mr. McCaffrey had the
good idea of making sure those posters are in every classroom
kind of thing. And maybe make ``March of the Penguins'' as
required viewing or something.
Mr. McCaffrey. You know, from my perspective, in kind of
the trenches of education, the science education world, a lot
of the incredibly talented folks are scrambling for funding.
And so I don't mean to come across like we are, you know,
desperate for funds, but I do feel , from the research I have
done and the people I have talked to, that we have a science
education crisis, particularly, I think, at the K-12 level in
this country. And some of it has to do with the preparations
for teachers. We actually have some exciting plans, for
instance, for the National Science Teacher Association meeting
this coming March 2007, which is perfect timing for the launch
of the IPY to have a number of symposia that NSF and other
agencies are organizing in St. Louis that, I think, will
actually make a big splash with a lot of the science teachers
out there. so if we can continue to leverage those types of
events and provide the training and the networking, not just
nationally here, but I--to my mind, one of the huge
opportunities of this is to have teachers network
internationally, along the lines of the Globe Program, which
you may be familiar with, that has a network of teachers around
the world where the students collect data and then share data
among themselves through the Internet. And----
Chairman Inglis. One suggestion to pass along to you--I was
excited to hear you mention the mission list module that--
research module. I speak--I presume to speak for Roscoe
Bartlett, who was also on the trip. He is a Member of Congress
from Maryland. He was asking in Antarctica about the use of
more windmills and the use of solar to produce some of the
power rather than diesel generators. It would be a neat way, if
that is possible, to hook the poles with alternative energy so
that it makes it much more interesting that here, in this
environment, we are keeping it pristine as much as we can by
producing energy from renewable sources. That would be pretty
exciting. You have got a lot of wind there and an awful lot of
sunshine, at least--well, not now. But I hope that happens.
I see my time is up, but let us see, Ms. Matsui.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to thank all of the distinguished witnesses
today for testifying before us.
And I realize in your testimony that I was probably, as a
young person, a beneficiary of the last polar year in the
education arena, the emphasis on science and excitement of it.
And I would like to see more of that happening, obviously, with
this IPY. Young people are very, very interested, and to get
them interested in this way is, I think, absolutely
fascinating.
To get to a very practical place, I represent Sacramento,
California. And after New Orleans, we are now the most at-risk
river city, as far as flooding. And so I am doing everything I
can, obviously, to protect my constituents. And an essential
component of that effort is to understand how global climate
change can be affecting the snow melts in the Sierra Nevada
Mountains and the weather patterns coming off the Pacific
Ocean. And from your testimony, it is clear that IPY has the
potential to yield valuable insight for my constituents and for
people all over the world. And I do look forward to working
with you, because, on a very practical level, I can see now
where this particular effort now is going to be really
meaningful for people in the community, in essence. I am
certainly making an effort. I live at the confluence of two
rivers. And we see every day that the weather patterns coming
off the Pacific are more intense now. We have more rain now and
not as much snow. And as the snow melt comes much faster, we
are going to be impacted. So for us, it is certainly something
of very much interest.
I would like to ask any of you if past research has
actually revealed what happens that polar regions drive,
actually, the fundamental processes of the globe and--such as
ocean circulation and the early signs of global climate change
in high latitudes. How will research, under the IPY, advance
understanding of these processes associated with climate
change? And are there any particular projects that you have in
mind or types of projects that would be enabled by this? I am
looking at very practical efforts here, because that is a way
to get our constituents and the people of this Nation really,
really involved.
Dr. Bell. Maybe I will answer, and then I think Kelly looks
like she has something to follow up on.
And one of the things that came out of the planning process
of the Academy was this similar sense of concern about
environmental change and our ability to monitor it. One of the
real goals is to come out of the IPY with two things: one, a
better understanding of how the polar environments are
changing; and two, the better capability of how to watch them
change so that we can both contribute to the models of change
and also understand how fast it is happening. So those are sort
of the two messages back to you that--both trying to understand
the basic physics and the rates and the processes and then
putting in place a system so we can see how the poles are
changing. We, as scientists, actually have been surprised at
how fast the poles and the planet is changing. I mean, my
little story is 20 years ago, when I entered graduate school,
the debate was whether or not we were going to enter an ice
age. It has taken, you know, five to seven years for the
community to swing. So we now, as a--fairly uniformly believe
that the planet is changing, and every year, we chock up more
information on how the poles are changing, and we realize we
haven't been looking at them carefully enough. And that is one
of the very fundamental tenets of what we hope will come out of
the IPY.
And I think Kelly looked like she wanted to follow this up.
Dr. Falkner. Yeah. There is an effort within the community
to try and assess what the impact of the loss of the ice cover
in the north would be, for example. The reason we need to be
concerned about that, with respect to the heat balance, is that
snow-covered ice reflects the majority of incoming light, and
water is a very efficient absorber of that. So you are going to
change things fairly dramatically. The work that has been done
to date suggests that it will have strong effects on regional
climate. I am aware of a study actually conducted in your
district by people who pointed out the possibility that the
loss of sea ice cover in the Barents Sea, all of the way around
the globe, is going to shift storm track patterns in the
Pacific north so that Alaska regions would receive more rain
and Oregon would become more like Sacramento. And again, there
are studies that are focused primarily on regional climate that
show, as you say, that the snow pack is diminishing. The timing
of our rain will change. These are the things that are in
models, and these models will be informed by the activities of
the IPY. The physical processes that we are using in these
models need to be improved for our confidence levels to go up,
and that is a major objective of IPY.
Ms. Matsui. Okay. Thank you very much.
I have to just say that, for my constituents, and I think
people in California, in particular, anyway, is that we are
greatly affected by this. And I think, for most of us in
California, we understand this, so we are aggressively trying
to figure this out. Obviously, in many cases, government works
very slowly, but what we are trying to do is incorporate some
of the scientific information into policy arenas as much as
possible. And as much as you could tailor your projects to look
at practical aspects, I think the better it is for all of us as
we move forward.
So I really thank you very much. I--would you also like to
comment? I am sorry. Do I have enough time or am I----
Mr. Sodrel. [Presiding.] Your time has----
Dr. Manahan. Mr. Chairman, can I comment?
Mr. Sodrel.--expired, but a very short comment.
Dr. Manahan. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry.
Dr. Bement. Yes. High visibility is a very important issue
to understand. We know that the ice sheet in the western
Antarctica is beginning to break up. Those ice sheets tend to
hold back the movement of land-based glaciers. As those ice
sheets break up, the glacier movement accelerates. We know the
surface water will penetrate as much as a kilometer down into
the ice and will lubricate the movement of glaciers. And we
know, as a matter of fact, that glaciers in Greenland, as a
result of this effect, are beginning to accelerate. Those are
the kinds of mechanisms we need to understand. We need to know
what the inter-relationship is near the oceans and lithosphere
as well as the ice sheet.
Mr. Sodrel. We are trying to keep on schedule while we are
also trying to vote, so I am going to yield to myself since we
are a little out of order here, but I will ask a question,
because I will have to have leave as soon as the Chairman comes
back.
You know, I attended a lot of trade associations when I was
in the private sector, and people would say, ``Boy, this is a
great meeting.'' Well, you don't know it is a great meeting
until you go home and see what develops as a result of the
meeting. And my question for you, if I might, is how will you
know the International Polar Year has been a success? What
would you like to see accomplished? And what is the desired
result that you would like to see at the end? And we will start
with Dr. Bement.
Dr. Bement. Well, first of all, we will understand
considerably more about the impact of climate change on the
ecology in the arctic and the Antarctic. We will understand
more about ocean flow patterns in the Arctic Sea and to the
Bering Sea and on into the North Pacific and how that affects
fish production, seafood production, in those regions. We will
understand more about the impact of global change on the native
populations in Alaska and on coastal erosion and also on the
thawing of the tundra, which is causing considerable damage not
only to housing but also infrastructure. In the Antarctic
region, we will understand more about paleoclimate change over
two million years. And we will also understand more about the
climate patterns that existed over the entire continent. In
some parts of Antarctic, the temperature is rising. In other
parts, it is cooling. In some parts of Greenland, at least on
the margins, we are seeing considerable melting, but in the
center of Greenland, we are seeing ice buildup. Those are
patterns that we need to be able to model in order to predict
better what the volume change of ice melting is likely to be
over time. And the work of NASA in helping us understand from
space what is happening on the surface of the ice sheet areas
compared to what we could measure on the ground will also be
critically important.
Mr. Sodrel. Dr. Bell.
Dr. Bell. In addition to the important inputs towards
understanding the planet and the change and looking at those
new frontiers, the other success will be if we stimulate both
the scientifically-literate public and the next generation.
That is really one of the long-lasting legacies of the previous
IPYs and people who went into science because of it and people
who were educated at an earlier age. So I think that is the
other clear benchmark that we have set for ourselves is the
scientifically-literate public and engaging the next generation
of leaders.
Dr. Manahan. And I think another matrix of success, in
addition, I would agree completely with what I have just heard,
would be a move towards a more interdisciplinary kind of
systems thinking that links life sciences and physical
sciences. As you know, for 50 years, those are often in
universities in separate buildings. They are separate graduate
program, separate undergraduate education. We have to start
linking the life and the physical sciences and in between, the
chemical sciences, et cetera, and that is going to be, I think,
at the graduate level, a very obvious matrix of success if we
start to see the emergence of new ways of training the next
generation of scientists and engineers.
Mr. Sodrel. Yes.
Mr. McCaffrey. I would just like to add that, in addition
to what Robin was saying about a science-literate society, I
think that this is an opportunity for people to gain skills in
understanding how science is conducted in terms of how
scientists go out and collect data and analyze the evidence and
so forth, because I think increasingly people are going to have
to become--they are going to have to start making decisions
and--along the lines of what Ms. Matsui was saying in terms of
her community and her constituents needing more scientific
information as they make decisions in their lives. I think IPY
is an incredible opportunity for us to kind of demystify how
science is conducted. And we know a lot about people's
misconceptions in terms of polar regions. People are
disappointed to learn that polar bears don't live in
Antarctica, for instance. And these types of misconceptions are
also an opportunity for us to sort of get them engaged and
excited about the science involved.
Dr. Falkner. I guess I have the last comment here.
I think we will be successful if, when you ask the general
public, the majority of them know, by the end of IPY, where
Antarctica is, where the arctic is, they don't mix them up, and
they know they are very important to the whole global system.
Mr. Sodrel. Thank you. The Chairman hasn't made it back. I
want--I have only got about five minutes or maybe a little less
to get to the Floor, so I would like to call a 10-minute
recess, because I am confident that the Chairman will be back
in 10 minutes.
Thank you.
[Recess.]
Chairman Inglis. Let us see. We will resume the hearing
now. I am aware that we don't have Ms. Hooley back yet, and she
hasn't had an opportunity to ask questions. But while we are
waiting for her, maybe I will go ahead and ask a question.
But Dr. Bement, you had something to add.
Dr. Bement. Yes. I was looking for an opportunity to tell
you about our alterative energy source that is----
Chairman Inglis. Oh, good.
Dr. Bement.--in our plans, and this----
Chairman Inglis. Yeah.
Dr. Bement.--might be a good time.
Chairman Inglis. Yeah, I--that would be a great time to do
it. Please.
Dr. Bement. We currently are using wind turbines to power
our satellite communications, and we plan to increase that. Now
we have, as part of our request for 2007, a planning exercise
to extend that type of alternative energy supply to include
photovoltaics and also biodiesel. So it is a very active part
of our program, and we appreciate your support on that.
Chairman Inglis. Yeah, what--and what do we need to do make
that happen in Congress?
Dr. Bement. Well, I think a little bit of hand-holding
would help, but we already have a good momentum to make this
happen. And of course, it will offset the use of diesel fuel.
So this will take place over time, but we are pursuing it.
Chairman Inglis. Right. Well, I am speaking in for Roscoe
Bartlett, who was very interested in whether there are also
some ways to handle waste differently than we are handling it
now at the--and perhaps advance systems for dealing with that.
Is that--any work being done on that?
Dr. Bement. On waste disposal or retrograde, as we like to
call it?
Chairman Inglis. Particularly sewage systems that might be
adapted for that environment. He had some thoughts that----
Dr. Bement. If I may, I would like to call on Dr. Erb to
answer that question.
Chairman Inglis. Sure.
Dr. Erb. Mr. Chairman, we--as I think you know, we have a
very--you probably remember all of the different waste baskets
you had to sort trash into.
Chairman Inglis. Right.
Dr. Erb. And as a result of that, we actually make money on
trash. It is so well sorted, that when we bring it back to the
States, we can actually sell it. Sewage treatment at McMurdo is
done through a--I think it is a three-stage biochemical waste
treatment plant. So we are in good shape there. We are well
ahead of most other countries and way in advance of what the
Antarctic Treaty requires. At the South Pole, we are interested
in seeing if we could develop a closed system. Closed systems
work in the space station, for example. And what we are looking
at is whether we can scale that kind of system up to a system
where you have 200 people creating waste.
Chairman Inglis. Right.
Dr. Erb. So we don't know if we can do that yet. It is
something that is on the agenda to continue to look at. Here in
the room today, one of the young people in our office, Maggie
Kanopp, has been discussing and attended a meeting in Australia
last year where she presented what we are doing in McMurdo and
talked to other countries, particularly the French, who are
also experimenting with this closed circuit system.
Chairman Inglis. Yeah. And I think Roscoe mentioned--Roscoe
Bartlett mentioned composting as a possibility. Is that the
kind of system--particularly in the field operations.
Dr. Erb. Yes, in the field operations, that is possible. We
have done that in some areas, and that is just a matter of
straightforward scale-up.
Chairman Inglis. Right. For the record, we have been
hearing from Dr. Karl Erb, who is Director of the NSF Office of
Polar Programs. We thank you----
Dr. Erb. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Inglis.--for answering that question.
And we are mostly waiting for Darlene Hooley, if she has an
opportunity to come back.
But I wonder if, while I was out handling that vote, I
wonder if there are other comments that you might want to add
that you feel deserve a little amplification.
Dr. Bell, you look like you have something to----
Dr. Bell. Well, I think the--you know, the interesting
question is, you know, are there any hurdles out there to keep
the International Polar Year from being a success.
Chairman Inglis. Right.
Dr. Bell. I mean, it has come a tremendous way in the four
years since the planning really started in earnest, mostly in
the United States and internationally. And when I stand back, I
think there seem to be sort of four potential hurdles or things
that could be improved, and I thought maybe I would share the--
--
Chairman Inglis. Yes.
Dr. Bell.--these with you. First is, NSF is doing a
tremendous job in their leadership in putting forward and
planning the International Polar Year. But I think it would
be--the polar year will be more likely to succeed if the
support from the agencies is deeper and broader. I think there
could be stronger engagement from more of the agencies.
I think the second one is, clearly, funding. Again, funding
at a greater level across the board, beyond NSF. I think it is
very clear that those two come together: the engagement of the
agencies and the funding specifically for projects within other
agencies.
Chairman Inglis. When you are speaking of ``other
agencies'', you mean, for example, EPA or somebody like that
or----
Dr. Bell. The ones that come to mind that I think would--
could strengthen their engagement would be NOAA and NASA. Those
are the big players that I think would--a stronger engagement,
because of the tools they bring to the table, or the potential
tools they bring to the table, a deeper engagement would
strengthen the outcome.
The third would be I think a little bit more coordination
nationally and internationally. It is something that much of
this has been done on a shoestring, on both levels, and I
think, again, science is very different now than it was in
1950s, or in 1882, when much of it was run by admirals,
captains. It was run by the military and it was very top-down.
The nature of science today is much--as you know, is much more
grass roots. And we are running the balance between how do you
have tremendous grass roots efforts and how do make sure you
coordinate it to maximize the output. So I think a little bit
more coordination.
And the fourth one is one that Dr. Manahan mentioned was
the need to continue to foster interdisciplinary research, that
that is really what is different about this IPY, and it is
something that our society will benefit from when we break down
these disciplinary boundaries, and so continuing to look for
ways to foster that process, because it is hard. It really is
hard for scientists and agencies to talk across those
disciplinary boundaries.
So those would be the four things that I think need a
little attention or thought.
Chairman Inglis. Do others want to add something to that?
Mr. McCaffrey. I would like to just make a follow-up to Dr.
Bell's comments. Within the international EOC Subcommittee, we
have been looking at how to try to integrate education,
outreach, and communication in new ways, because over the
years, those realms have become very specialized and often the
public affairs folks at agencies don't necessarily know what
the education people are doing. And then the informal education
folks working with museums and science centers don't
necessarily know what is happening with--in classrooms, for
instance. So this, I think, is also an opportunity to be
integrating at that level as well.
What Robin just mentioned about the grass roots aspect I
think is particularly true in education. And we--at the Poles
Together Workshop we held in Boulder last year, there were a
number of folks that had been students during IGY who, you
know, were retired or were still excited to be involved with
planning for the upcoming IPY, and they commented on how
different it is now than it was then in terms of just this
incredible enthusiasm at the grass roots level. And so whatever
we can do to continue to build that community and support that
community of, for instance, teachers who--that had been to
Antarctica through NSF programs and so forth, we need to really
do whatever we can to keep that enthusiasm alive, because
people get discouraged. And you know, I think NSF has done an
incredible job of providing leadership, and at the same time,
there is the reality that 80 percent of the proposals that were
submitted did not get funded. So there is more we could do to
support these efforts.
Chairman Inglis. And Dr. Manahan, what do you think about
the possibility of using the International Polar Year to
somehow reduce the political overtones in the climate change
debate? I mean, is this an opportunity to maybe sort of stick
to science and sort of turn down the heat on the political side
of things and turn up the emphasis and the heat on the science?
Could that be an outcome of the International Polar Year?
Dr. Manahan. That is a very, very insightful question.
I think you are absolutely right. I think it has to be made
clear that the scientific process always involves disagreements
and debates. And sometimes it is picked up as being that there
is not a consensus. And I think it is fair to say that there is
an enormous consensus that the globe is warming. And without
getting into the debates about causality, just that it is
warmer. And we have to deal with this. And just that step
alone, as a sort of a national or an international recognition,
I think would be extremely important. The debate about the
cause and all of those issues are secondary, but right now, it
is warmer, and we have to deal with this. And it is going to
require a different level of training of people to see its
impact. It is going to be a different kind of science. America
has led the world in graduate education for decades and decades
and decades, and it will continue to do so if we are very
forceful in coming up with new ways to educate at that graduate
level, so we will still be this great magnet to attract the
best and the brightest, you know, from around the world. I
would like to think that I am one of those who was attracted to
America for that very reason. And I--and we have a real
opportunity to hit two things here: one, to educate people
about the scientific consensus; and two, to excite graduate
students and younger students to come into the sciences in a
very interdisciplinary way.
Chairman Inglis. Does anybody else want to comment on that?
If not, we are very happy to have been joined by Ms.
Hooley.
Mr. McCaffrey. Actually, could I just make another brief
comment to follow up?
The Time Magazine article that Dr. Manahan showed, I think
the notion of being very, very worried is not necessarily very
effective for young people. Young people want to have the
tools. They want to have the insight, and they need the
scientific savvy to be able to understand these very complex
issues. You know, when we talk about climate change without
understanding climate, I think we are sometimes getting ahead
of ourselves. And there are some very, very fundamental issues
in terms of just understanding seasonality, you know, what
happens over the course of the year in terms of the water cycle
and the carbon cycle and how we use energy and so forth that
could be outcomes from IPY. You know, we are focusing on the
poles where the seasons are very extreme, but we can also use
that as an opportunity to just look at the basics of how we
live our lives and how we can use simple scientific
observations and data to become more sustainable and so forth.
Chairman Inglis. Yeah. And I would point out that--I am
really taking all kinds of license here with the time. I think
I have had more time to talk here than anybody else today.
But I point out that one of the strengths of the trip that
we took to Antarctica was being able to hear from people, very
knowledgeable people, who presented the facts, as they
understood them, or the observations that they have taken in a
non-hysterical way. Sometimes--well, I won't be--I don't want
to be too critical of Time Magazine's cover, but it sort of
begins to tend toward hysteria, which causes a reaction among,
particularly conservatives, who say, ``Wait a minute. Wait a
minute. Let us not get hysterical here.'' But to hear
presentations like we heard from Dr. Manahan, very thoughtful
presentations with observations that were clear, and I am sure
that there are some people that would doubt some of those
observations, and there are all kinds of debates about the
observations, but the weight seems to be there that the
observations are valid and they are worth considering, and
therefore, we should be taking some action. And it helps to
have it presented in that way. And so to have had that
opportunity was a real eye-opener for me and very helpful to my
understanding of the issue.
Dr. Bement, do you want to add something to that?
Dr. Bement. Yes, I just wanted to comment briefly that
there has been a revolutionary change that we have an
opportunity now to use very effectively since the last
geophysical year in 1957 and 1958. In those days, we could
inform the public, but we didn't have the capability to involve
the public. Now we can involve the public. We have the
Internet. We have I-pods. We have broadband communications. We
can bring, in real time, polar exploration into the classroom,
and we can involve the children directly in the activities
going on, either in Alaska or in Antarctica. That is a dramatic
shift in the way we can communicate and communicate broadly
across a whole nation.
Chairman Inglis. Yeah. And you know, it is interesting. I
want to get to yield to Ms. Hooley, but since coming back from
the trip, a number of times I would be passing through our
kitchen, and I would say to my kids, ``Let us see what is
happening on the webcam.'' You know. And it is just--I mean, it
is fascinating just to turn it on, and they would say, ``Oh,
that is so cool.'' You know. And I have kids that are somewhat
interested in science, not from their dad, from their mom, but,
you know--so, but my interest in the--in being there and
showing them the webcam caused them to get excited about
Antarctica. So school kids across the country being able to, as
you say, Dr. Bement, access the webcam and see what the weather
is looking like right now in Antarctica. Of course, they
wouldn't be very interesting pictures right now, but once the
sun comes up, there are some great shots.
So now, Ms. Hooley.
Ms. Hooley. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
For all of you, I just would like to ask, if we didn't have
the International Polar Year, what are some of the research
projects or type of projects that wouldn't get done, or would
they all get done whether we have it or not?
Anyone want to answer? Go ahead, Dr. Bement.
Dr. Bement. The one thing that has happened as a result of
IPY is international collaboration and the ability to work on a
much larger and higher level of complexity than what would
normally be possible. For example, we have an International
Trans-Antarctic Scientific Expedition [ITASE], which I believe
is involving 19 other nations working collaboratively to
understand, at least within the near surface of the ice, what
has happened over the last 200 years since the beginning of the
industrial revolution in climate change across all of
Antarctic, not just in one specific region. We could not have
done that before. We have developed new facilities in
preparation for IPY that will provide further outreach into
regions of Antarctic that would ordinarily not be accessible
for ice drilling and for other activities. We will be improving
our communications systems on a scale that would not have
happened otherwise, not only in the Antarctic, but also in
Alaska at their new global change laboratory.
So there are a number of things like this that I don't
believe would have happened otherwise.
Ms. Hooley. Okay.
Yes.
Dr. Manahan. I have a comment that struck me, as you were
saying, Mr. Chairman, about it would be--it would not be
interesting to look at Antarctica right now, because it is
dark. But just remember how many things are going on on planet
Earth in the dark. And I think this new initiative of NSF, Life
in the Cold and Dark, is an example of some very new thinking
about--in stimulating the life sciences to look into this cold,
dark biosphere. A number that is in my written testimony that I
didn't mention in my oral testimony is that if you look at
anywhere where anything can live on planet Earth, some 90-plus
percent of it has to live in the refrigerator. And so this is--
the most of this planet Earth is cold biosphere. Most of it is
cold.
Ms. Hooley. Ninety percent?
Dr. Manahan. Eighty percent alone is in the deep sea, which
is at about two to four Centigrade. Oceanographers have known
this for a while. And the link between the poles through the
deep sea, it is a huge biosphere. And looking into this dark,
cold biosphere in the poles is a great type of program that
will understand the cold biosphere, which ultimately, in a
cold, dark way that we don't even think about, many that are
microbiological processes, they are sustaining life on this
planet. And we need to know what they are doing in the dark.
Ms. Hooley. Dr. Bell.
Dr. Bell. When you ask, ``What would not have occurred
without the International Polar Year?'', Dr. Bement pointed to
a number of very international programs that wouldn't have
happened. But to--what has surprised me, and I think will be a
lasting legacy, is how putting this process on the table has
opened the doors for meaningful collaboration with places that
we wouldn't have been able to collaborate before, so that we
would have been going out, very similar to what was happening
in the 1880s with territory. We would have been going out and
doing our individual science, trying to go places, trying to
accomplish our goals, but in fact what this honeycomb that you
have seen has produced is a willingness across the world for
doors to be opened and conversations to be happening so that we
have a greater number of minds working on these problems. And
we are actually building a stronger international science
community. It is--I hadn't actually anticipated this as an
outcome, but I have found, through my own research, I found the
doors in China, for example, thrown open where I had not been
able to make in roads before.
So to me, that is one of the--it is difficult to point to
all of the individual projects, but I think it is the--what we
are going to see is the multiplicative effect. We are going to
get more off our investment. We are going to learn more,
because of the greater number of brains that are being applied,
and a variety of approaches.
So I think that is one of the precious nuggets that is
going to come out is sort of the enhancement of the science at
a level that we wouldn't have seen otherwise.
Ms. Hooley. Have you seen other countries willing to put in
additional money for this project where, I mean, they may have
allocated X amount of dollars but because an International
Polar Year they are putting in additional dollars for this?
Dr. Bell. Well, I think that--I mean, certainly, there are
the nations that have put in specific allocations for
International Polar Year: China, Canada, and the European Union
have put in significant new funds for the large scale. I don't
have any good examples off the top of my head of, you know,
places where individual projects have gotten significant
increments, but in terms of the whole umbrella, the--there has
been additional investment in the polar sciences.
Ms. Hooley. Dr. Bement.
Dr. Bement. Well, close to home, Canada has already made a
commitment for $150 million for International Polar Year, and
they are going to be one of our important partners in the
Arctic Exploratory Network, which we are putting together with
other arctic nations, such as Sweden, Finland, Denmark,
Greenland, Iceland, and Russia, to look at global climate
change as part of the search network. And so that will be a
collaborative activity that would not, again, have happened
otherwise.
Ms. Hooley. Yes, Mr. McCaffrey.
Mr. McCaffrey. In terms of the education, outreach, and
communication aspects of IPY, and referring, once again, to the
honeycomb, every single one of these cells on the honeycomb,
and some of these are made up of multiple projects, a dozen
projects in some cases, they all have their own education,
outreach, communications plans and strategies. And then there
are 54 programs over here on the side that are specifically
education outreach oriented. And none of this would have
happened if it weren't for IPY and the collaborative, sort of,
incubator that this whole process has provided. The process has
not been easy, and certainly not all nations have required
people to be involved at the national--at the international
level, but for those of us who have participated and had the
patience to stay involved, it has led to some unbelievable
partnerships that otherwise would never have happened.
Ms. Hooley. Yes.
Dr. Falkner. If I may speak, please. First off, I just want
to say it is really obvious to me we have got to get you to the
arctic. There is a cam up there that I am part of a party
putting out, so if you want to see the weather at the North
Pole, you can tune in there, too.
The comment I want to make regarding what we might not have
done without an IPY effort is that back in 1995, the arctic
science community wrote an open letter that I circulated, I was
a signatory of this, saying we are seeing remarkable changes.
They look well outside the scope of a highly variable
environment, so we are very concerned and we know we need to
address this. Now this has evolved to this broad interagency
initiative we are calling SEARCH, but the attempt to get SEARCH
really going has been more than 10 years in the making. What
IPY offers us is the chance to jumpstart what we know we need
to do in order to observe the changes in the arctic, which are
very dramatic and perhaps, you know, in some sense, more
dramatic than what you witnessed in Antarctica.
Ms. Hooley. Dr. Falkner, a question. You talked about if
you--if IPY is fully implemented as envisioned, that you would
see permanent observation networks. Do you see any sign that
IPY will not be implemented as envisioned? I mean, is there the
money to do it? That is always an issue.
Dr. Falkner. Certainly, that is true. The level that was
informally discussed is--among a board of people looking at
this, is a lot larger than what we have on the table. I
personally am concerned that, particularly the other agencies,
which do have as Robin pointed out, some important components
to contribute, are pointing to what they are doing in science
and don't necessarily have the means or the commitment to do
intensified research at the poles. So I think Robin summarized
nicely the concerns about the issues.
Ms. Hooley. Okay. Dr. Bement, let me ask you just a quick
question.
You are the lead agency. What does that entail? What does
that mean?
Dr. Bement. Well, we started planning in cooperation with
the National Academy of Sciences and Dr. Bell's research board
three years ago. In the course of coordinating with the
National Academy of Sciences and also with the International
Council for Scientific Union, we also had interagency workshops
and meetings. I hosted one of those at NSF in order to put all
our plans on the table. And we gathered those plans, and we
have been working on them since, and you now have an update of
what is currently being planned and roughly what the funding
is. So that is sort of a snapshot of where we are today, but
our planning will continue over the next year.
Also, in the terms of education and public outreach, we
have had workshops putting together the information officers of
all of the participating agencies to coordinate how best we can
communicate the results of IPY to the public and what kind of
educational initiatives we should be supporting. That has been
very helpful in our planning, and it has also led to a common
website on the Internet, which is available to anyone, which
will have all of the current outreach and educational
activities being planned by all of the participating agencies.
So those are some of the coordination mechanisms we have
responsibility for.
Ms. Hooley. I have one last question for all of you.
We have got your written testimony. We have asked
questions. Is there something that you think we need to hear or
know that you just can't wait to get out and we haven't asked
you the question?
Yes.
Dr. Bement. Just to put the hearing in a longer-term
perspective, the International Geophysical Year and the
International Polar Year III occurred 50 years ago, and that
led to a wealth of data and also a wealth of archived
photographs that is still being mined today. So there has been
a long-term legacy based on what happened 50 years ago. Our
outlet in IPY 2007 is to develop the legacy for the next 50
years, and there will be much more data generated. They will be
analyzed in terms of modeling and simulation, trying to get a
deeper understanding and be able to develop predictive tools of
where our planet is going over the next 50 years. And I think
that long-range perspective shouldn't be lost sight of.
Ms. Hooley. Dr. Bell.
Dr. Bell. I would like to second that in that I have a
paper in review that is using some data that grew out of an IPY
project that was never published, so you know--and somewhere
this is now new different data that no one has ever had a
chance to look at, but it shows you what a legacy this data
has, particularly when it is in these places that are so
difficult to get to. So I feel very strongly that the legacy of
the data is--scientists love data. It is their gems. It is
their truth. You know, we may not wear beautiful jewelry, but
that is what is our tenet. You know, that is on which we build
our results, so the data and the legacy of the data, besides
the other important legacy of the people. You know, people like
Dr. Bement, who--I believe one of the reasons he went into
science and engineering had to do with the lure of
International Geophysical Year. So those are the legacies that
we look at so preciously.
Dr. Bement. I hate to say I was getting my masters degree
at the time.
Dr. Manahan. I, too, would like to comment on this legacy
thing.
It is very important that we don't do this quick-burst, one
or two years and then say, you know, ``We are done now. Let us
move on.''
Ms. Hooley. Right.
Dr. Manahan. I work in a building that I am told there were
samples collected on big expeditions in the 1930s that aren't
still finally worked up. It is fairly easy, in environmental
science, to collect data and samples. It is the workup, as you
have heard. And so it might be worth even, you know, calling us
to order, if I may use that phrase, in years to come and say,
``Well, where are we five years, 10 years?'' There is going to
be a huge legacy of data that we have to keep an eye on and not
just, you know, cut off the funding support and say, ``Good.
You went there. You collected it. It is over.'' Decades and
decades of information is going to come out of this.
Ms. Hooley. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. McCaffrey. Excuse me. I--the legacy, to me, is a huge
opportunity, and recently, I read an article that Kevin Wood
and Jim Oberland from NOAA put together about the data from the
first IPY, and the focus on the arctic that--it is a
fascinating, sort of data story, if you will, a narrative
description of what went on during the first IPY in terms of
the number of stations and how the data were collected. And
then they actually do a reanalysis of the data, and, in effect,
they create a baseline data set, which was actually never
accomplished back in the first IPY, but looking back over 125
years at this reanalysis not only makes a fascinating
historical story that I think can help us understand the
history of science and technology certainly in the United
States and even internationally, but it also is a showcase for
how data from many, many years ago that was essentially
forgotten about can be resurrected and be very relevant to
today's studies.
So I think there are many, many opportunities like that
that we can begin to mine.
Ms. Hooley. Thank you.
Dr. Falkner. And I am very much hoping that the IPY serves
as a showcase for how we communicate science to the public and
how we engage the public. I think there are a lot of creative
ideas I am aware of. We don't know specifically which
directions we are going in yet, but I think there is a
tremendous potential there.
Ms. Hooley. Good. Thank you.
Chairman Inglis. Well, thank you very much to all of you
for testifying here today.
Dr. Falkner, I have got to get that webcam address from you
so that I can look at it. And Dr. Grossman has just pointed out
that the sun will be rising at the other one here soon, I
suppose, so I need to go look again at that--at the Antarctica
cam.
And I think, Ms. Hooley, that this was an engraved
invitation that we got from Dr. Bement to go to the North Pole,
don't you think?
Ms. Hooley. I absolutely believe that.
Chairman Inglis. I think that it is one that we should
accept as soon as we can.
So I thank you all for testifying. Thank you for the work
you are doing.
Ms. Hooley. Thank you.
Chairman Inglis. We are excited about it and we want to
help you make it a great success.
Ms. Hooley. It is really important.
Chairman Inglis. Hearing adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director, National Science
Foundation
Questions submitted by Representative Darlene Hooley
Q1. Has joint planning by the agencies participating in the
International Polar Year (IPY) produced a coordinated research agenda
with a corresponding budget? What is the total planned federal budget
for fiscal year (FY) 2007 in support of IPY activities, by agency?
A1. The National Academies of Science developed broad goals and
objectives for U.S. IPY activities. NSF and its sister agencies
participate in meetings devoted to discussing their plans for IPY
research, education and outreach. For example, several Interagency
Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC) meetings were devoted to
discussing the IPY plans of the federal agencies, as was a workshop at
the National Academies of Science.
One major coordinated program is SEARCH, the Study of Environmental
ARctic CHange. The IPY focus for this program will be on implementing
an Arctic Observing Network (AON). In FY 2006, NSF provided $4 million
toward AON. Subject to Congressional approval, NSF will provide up to
an additional $6 million toward AON in FY 2007. In this activity, NSF
is working primarily with NOAA and NASA, but opportunities are also
being explored with DOE and DOI. Network sites are being established,
with the U.S. playing a leading role in Alaska, Canada, Russia, and the
Arctic Ocean.
NSF will direct $31 million from ongoing programs to IPY, and its
FY 2007 budget requests an additional $30 million for IPY.
In recent data calls to other agencies, many indicated that they
would contribute on-going Arctic and Antarctic programs to IPY. See,
The International Polar Years 2007-2009--Report on U.S. Federal
Agencies' Planning, submitted with Dr. Bement's testimony at the
September 21, 2006 hearing on IPY, and the web site created by NSF as
part of its work to coordinate IPY activities among the agencies:
http://www.us-ipy.gov/. This site includes updates on the various
agencies' programs, as well as information on IPY for a general
audience, and for scientists and educators interested in obtaining IPY
funding from the U.S. Government.
Q2. Did the Administration give any direction through the Office of
Science and Technology Policy or the Office of Management and Budget
for agencies' funding targets for IPY activities for FY 2007?
A2. While the Administration is supportive of NSF's IPY activities, NSF
does not comment on OMB guidance or other predecisional discussions
with OMB.
Q3. How will individual research projects be selected and supported?
Does each agency do its own proposal reviews or are there joint
reviews? Are there any international projects planned with joint
reviews?
A3. Merit review is a critical component of NSF's decision-making
process for funding research and education projects. Through use of
rigorous, competitive merit review, NSF maintains high standards of
excellence and accountability. Merit review enables investments in
projects that couple the best ideas from the most capable researchers
and educators.
NSF and NASA referenced each other's solicitations in their own
solicitations. In addition, all participating agencies are
communicating about their prospective portfolios, and information about
proposals is exchanged so that related projects are properly
coordinated.
Countries around the world are actively planning their IPY
activities, and the International Council for Science and the World
Meteorological Organization are working to provide project integration
where appropriate. NSF expects that many proposals will be submitted to
NSF by U.S. scientists and to agencies in other countries by scientific
collaborators. U.S. program officers will coordinate international
programs with their foreign colleagues to determine the proposals that
best satisfy merit and IPY criteria. This coordination activity is
already beginning to take place between the United States, Canada, and
the European Union.
Q4. Dr. McCaffrey raised the concern that, since the National Science
Foundation (NSF) declined to fund a U.S. IPY coordinating center for
education, outreach and communications activities, teachers are without
a point of contact for information on IPY and researchers are without a
point of contact for sharing their research outcomes with educators and
the public. Why did NSF not support a coordination center for this
purpose?
A4. Scientists and educators proposing education and outreach
activities to NSF need to convince a panel of their peers that they
have effective outreach plans. NSF is committed to supporting the most
meritorious proposals, whether for scientific research or for education
and outreach. Where possible, NSF program officers work to build ties
between grantees where these would enhance the overall outreach effort
for the program, and NSF has initiated a series of meetings among
federal agency outreach officials to coordinate our various outreach
efforts.
NSF is highly committed to its mandate to educate the Nation's
future scientists, engineers, and mathematicians. NSF is planning a new
IPY solicitation in FY07, and we remain open to the possibility of
funding a high quality and well-reviewed proposal for an IPY
coordinating center for education.