[Senate Hearing 109-1160]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-1160
INTERNATIONAL POLAR YEAR
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
and the
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 26, 2006
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation and the Committee on Foreign Relations
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
71-960 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Co-
CONRAD BURNS, Montana Chairman
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas Virginia
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada BARBARA BOXER, California
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia BILL NELSON, Florida
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
Lisa J. Sutherland, Republican Staff Director
Christine Drager Kurth, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Kenneth R. Nahigian, Republican Chief Counsel
Margaret L. Cummisky, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Samuel E. Whitehorn, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and General
Counsel
Lila Harper Helms, Democratic Policy Director
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana, Chairman
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BARBARA BOXER, California
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire BILL NELSON, Florida
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska BARACK OBAMA, Illinois
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
Kenneth A. Myers, Jr., Staff Director
Antony J. Blinken, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 26, 2006............................... 1
Statement of Senator Murkowski................................... 2
Statement of Senator Stevens..................................... 1
Letter, dated September 14, 2006, from Syun Akasofu,
Director, International Arctic Research Center--University
of Alaska Fairbanks........................................ 25
Witnesses
Armstrong, Dr. Thomas R., Program Coordinator, Earth Surface
Dynamics, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Department of the
Interior....................................................... 59
Prepared statement........................................... 61
Bell, Robin E., Ph.D., Doherty Senior Research Scientist, Lamont-
Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University; Chair, Polar
Research Board, U.S. National Committee for International Polar
Year, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research
Council, The National Academies................................ 27
Prepared statement with attachments.......................... 29
Bement, Jr., Dr. Arden L., Director, National Science Foundation. 10
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Papp, Vice Admiral Robert, Chief of Staff, U.S. Coast Guard...... 16
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Parkinson, Alan J., Ph.D., Deputy Director, Arctic Investigations
Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department
of Health and Human Services................................... 54
Prepared statement........................................... 55
Sharpton, Dr. Virgil L. ``Buck'', Vice Chancellor for Research,
University of Alaska (UA) Fairbanks; UA President's Professor
of Remote Sensing.............................................. 46
Prepared statement........................................... 48
Treadwell, Mead, Chair, U.S. Arctic Research Commission.......... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Appendix
Inouye, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii, prepared
statement...................................................... 75
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey.......... 75
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Department of Commerce, prepared statement..................... 76
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell
to:
Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr...................................... 82
Vice Admiral Robert Papp..................................... 80
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye
to:
Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr...................................... 82
NOAA......................................................... 84
Vice Admiral Robert Papp..................................... 79
Mead Treadwell............................................... 86
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Frank R.
Lautenberg to:
Dr. Thomas Armstrong and Dr. Virgil L. ``Buck'' Sharpton..... 86
Robin E. Bell, Ph.D.......................................... 83
Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr...................................... 83
Vice Admiral Robert Papp..................................... 80
Mead Treadwell............................................... 86
INTERNATIONAL POLAR YEAR
----------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2006
U.S. Senate, Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, Meeting Jointly With the Committee
on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The Committees met, pursuant to notice, at 3:30 p.m. in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens,
Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Chairman Stevens. My apologies for being late. Gentlemen, I
do appreciate your being here. And we have had some questions
from the press concerning why we're holding this hearing. I
hope it will become apparent to them very quickly.
And I'm delighted that Senator Murkowski has joined in this
hearing. It is a joint hearing, with the Foreign Relations
Committee and our Commerce Committee. You're the first Senator
who was ever born in Alaska. So----
Senator Murkowski. That's right.
Chairman Stevens.--you're unique.
As we all know, the Earth is changing, and these changes
are happening in the polar regions faster than anywhere else in
the world. The upcoming International Polar Year will be a
critical opportunity for the world's science community to come
together and study the climactic changes and impacts on the
Arctic and Antarctic.
We feel we have a vested interest, as Alaskans, in the
findings of this IPY, because many of us--many of our people
live above the Arctic Circle, and those who don't, live in the
polar region anyway.
The research that will be done will, we hope, enable us to
make informed decisions on where we build schools, when and
where subsistence hunts take place, and what to do to prepare
for winter storms, or to, most importantly, determine what has
to be done to help people who have already been affected by the
changes that have taken place so far.
Now, this third IPY aims to involve not only young graduate
students, but K-12 students and indigenous people of the
Arctic. It's my hope that the IPY will have a lasting impact,
like that of the International Geophysical Year that took place
almost 50 years ago.
I look forward to the testimony you all are going to
present today. Again, I'm sorry to be late. It's been sort of a
strange day.
Do you have a statement, Senator?
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
I want to thank you, Senator Stevens, for agreeing to hold
this hearing--as you note, a joint hearing with the Foreign
Relations Committee today.
You know, this is a pretty significant consideration, when
we think of the international nature of IPY and, kind of, the
interrelating or overlapping interests among so many different
committees here in the Senate. So, again, I'm appreciative to
have this opportunity with you today.
Understanding the polar regions is obviously very important
to us in Alaska. The fact that you have two-thirds of the
Alaska delegation in attendance today should bear evidence to
that.
I would also like to note that Alaska will serve as the
host of the 2008 Conference of the Standing Committee of
Parliamentarians of the Arctic region. This is more commonly
referred to as the Arctic Parliamentarians. I've had the
pleasure of participating in this group as the U.S.
Representative now for 2 years, and I can report that each of
the delegates that I serve with is very much excited about the
upcoming IPY. In fact--and the fact that the 2008 Conference
comes on the tail end of IPY will give Alaska and the United
States an opportunity to demonstrate all that has been, and is
being, advanced through IPY.
But, just as the interest from the Arctic Parliamentarians
demonstrates, IPY isn't just about Alaska. It isn't just about
the United States. This is truly an international effort, and
that's what really makes it exciting--an international effort
involving researchers, from over 60 countries, whose projects
and data gathered over the next few years will have a--truly
global impact.
We're fortunate to have a talented group of scientists and
polar-region experts with us today from all over the country,
each of whom will play a key role in making IPY a success for
the United States and for the rest of the world, and I want to
thank all of you who have agreed to be with us today. I know
several of you have come from extremely long distances, whether
it's from the north or whether it's from Europe. So, thank you.
We appreciate your close attention to this.
With that, Senator Stevens, I'm prepared to move on to the
first panel.
Chairman Stevens. Yes, thank you very much.
We have two panels, and roughly, I think, about an hour and
a half-plus clearance from the floor, so again, we're delighted
that you all would come and join us.
And our first panel--our first witness will be Mead
Treadwell, Chairman of the Arctic Research Commission. Mead,
it's nice to see you here today, we appreciate your coming.
STATEMENT OF MEAD TREADWELL, CHAIR,
U.S. ARCTIC RESEARCH COMMISSION
Mr. Treadwell. Thank you, Senator Stevens, Senator
Murkowski.
On behalf of the Arctic Research Commission, thank you for
holding this hearing. The more people who know about the
exciting research going on in the polar regions during the
International Polar Year, the more likely we are to see the
legacy of a strong polar science program.
Today, I'd like to address actions Congress may want to
make, this session, that could make the IPY more successful.
And I'll also speak to the legacies of IPY that Congress may
want to help foster, which could mean a robust Arctic Research
Program for years to come.
The successful IPY will do more than gather vast knowledge
in the next 2 years. With IPY, we should establish long-term
monitoring networks and other science infrastructure, including
the ship- and land-based research platforms and remote sensing
technologies, to keep the knowledge coming. And within the
government itself, IPY will help us focus on our goals in the
Arctic, in science and in policy. The Commission believes we
must use IPY to craft a more coordinated and sustainable long-
term Arctic Research Program.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Murkowski, when I was designated
chair by the President, there were two immediate calendar items
that the Arctic Research Commission faces. First is the kickoff
for IPY, next March. It is--we're committed to making this a
successful broadening and strengthening of Arctic science in
many places and many disciplines. It's cooperation across
disciplines, between the poles, around the world, and will be
involved in outreach, as Senator Murkowski has suggested many
times. And with the Congress and within the Executive Branch,
we're encouraging a level of funding and participation
appropriate to this Nation's leadership in polar research.
The second calendar item that we've got is, we owe you a
Goals Report in January, and that Goals Report, which helps--is
really the first draft of the Arctic Research Program, which
the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee then vets and
finalizes into an Arctic Research Program. And that committee
is chaired by my colleague Dr. Bement, to my left. We are
hoping that that plan next year looks at the long-term research
and infrastructure needs that we have, and that that can be a
legacy of IPY.
Congress can work to make IPY a rousing success several
different ways. First is getting the word out. We encourage you
to have more hearings as IPY progresses. I've heard Senator
Murkowski tell the science community several times, that we
must share the excitement of exploration in polar regions. This
is a risky and adventurous frontier with great rewards from
solving its mysteries. We encourage you, in Congress, to visit
the field during IPY to see the scientific work firsthand. IPY
research will help human health, energy security, safer,
sounder homes, and assist in sustaining traditional cultures in
the north.
Second, we're hopeful enough funds and encouragement will
be provided to the other agencies to make sure we're able to
fulfill our commitments. The Administration's current proposal
for $62 million funding from NSF should be approved by Congress
this year. It remains to be seen what the President and NSF
will propose for next year, but if we're to move beyond
fragmented and leveraged funding for IPY, that number should be
significantly greater and should take into account the long-
term need for monitoring and data management.
Two agencies under the purview of the Senate Commerce
Committee, NOAA and NASA, could play a pivotal role in IPY. Mr.
Chairman, I should say I was appointed by the President, and
we're team players with the Administration, but, at the same
time, based on statute, legislative intent, and our oath to
support it, we're obliged to tell you in the Congress where the
Arctic Program funding request may not effectively meet the
Arctic--the Nation's Arctic Research Plan.
The Commission is sad that NOAA has recently eliminated its
Arctic office, reducing the visibility of its Arctic Research
Program, and just prior to the IPY. It has also had significant
budget reductions this year. But, nevertheless, there is a lot
of work being done at NOAA in the Arctic. And those are
detailed in my written testimony, and we can answer specifics
and questions.
At NASA, the pressure on the Earth Science budget is also
well documented. Much of NASA's current Earth-sensing
infrastructure is in polar orbits, meaning the coverage of the
Arctic and the Antarctic is robust, but, therefore, at greater
risk, with delays and cancellations of key remote-sensing
systems.
Japan's cooperation with the United States on Arctic
research could be much more productive if work being done at
the International Arctic Research Center in Fairbanks had
greater NASA participation. And Congress could help make that
happen.
Further, this is a great time for Congress to stress to
agencies that they identify their role in Arctic research and
integrate their work with other agencies. And I'm glad to say
that we're working closely with IARPC staff and the staff of
OMB to make sure that you get what the law calls for, which is
a unified Arctic research budget when the President's budget is
submitted.
The Arctic research budget has grown significantly in
recent years. It's now approaching $400 million a year and has
significant work going on in a variety of areas. At least 15
Federal agencies support this work, and the program benefits
from important partnerships with the State of Alaska, our
Arctic neighbors, the European community, Korea, China, and
Japan.
Last, Congress may want to encourage a discussion about
U.S. Arctic policy during IPY. The last time U.S. Government
agencies sat down to comprehensively review Arctic policy was
in 1994. And while the Presidential statement that survives
that process is in force today, much has changed. We know much
more about Arctic climate, and the change has brought
imperatives in security, housing, infrastructure,
transportation, and research.
Recently, just this afternoon, the House held a hearing on
a National Research Council study on icebreakers which called
for the construction of two new Polar Class icebreakers. And
that also requires a policy consideration.
The Commission is working hard on issues, in terms of
mapping of the Arctic Ocean floor, which relate to Article 76
of the Law of the Sea. And what we learned through Arctic
cooperation, whether through the Northern Forum, the Arctic
Council, or by other mechanisms, is that there are
opportunities for common development, common protection, and
common exploration. The long-held goal of using the Arctic
Ocean as a regular shipping route may be upon us soon, and
other nations have recently held public examinations of their
goals in the Arctic. And it's appropriate for us to do the
same.
Let me conclude by saying that our Goals Report, which will
be delivered to you in January, will look at the infrastructure
issues, the long-term legacies of Arctic research that's
necessary. You'll hear about icebreakers, research vessels,
submarines, satellites, and autonomous vehicles--underwater, in
the air. There are a number of tremendous things happening and
developing in improving Arctic research, but there's one key
infrastructure legacy at the top of everyone's list. The U.S.
will soon launch an Arctic Observing Network that must, and
will, be one of the key legacies of IPY. It'll be a network of
networks, actually, that will collect data in as close to
realtime with standards of measurement across the Arctic. While
the observation capabilities the U.S. supports in the field
today may be enough to declare that we have the Arctic
Observing Network going, the process of designing an improved
system, identifying gaps, setting standards, and managing data
has yet to take place. We urge the Congress to pay close
attention as this process begins.
As our explorers head to the field, I've heard Senator
Murkowski say, several times, that it's up to them to share the
excitement with the public. When I speak to kids about Arctic
exploration, we've got lots to discuss. NASA's animation of
receding ice cover, as seen from satellites in space, prompts a
discussion not only of climate change and shipping routes, but
whether the robot that took the picture had rockets in his
shoes. Alaskans used to landing at runway 6 at Ted Stevens
International Airport in Anchorage learned that it's now runway
7, because the magnetic North Pole is constantly moving, and
taking the Aurora Borealis with it. Reports of mid-ocean ridge
spreading in the Arctic Ocean bottom have forced instructors to
rewrite the textbook on plate tectonics, and recent coring near
the North Pole has revealed organic rift sediments that could
likely serve as source material for oil and gas deposits around
the Arctic margin. And if you get no further than the freezers
at the Institute of Arctic Biology at Fairbanks, you'll meet a
number of sleeping ground squirrels. And what we've learned
about them and hibernation may help in the fight against
cancer.
Mr. Chairman, there is much going on, and knowing about it
stimulates further curiosity, further interest in exploration,
and this discussion surely is to be continued.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Treadwell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mead Treadwell, Chair,
U.S. Arctic Research Commission
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committees:
On behalf of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission, thank you for
holding this hearing. The more people know about the exciting research
going on in the Polar Regions during the International Polar Year, the
more likely we are to see the legacy of a strong polar science program.
Today, I would like to address actions Congress may want to make
this session that could make the International Polar Year more
successful.
I will also speak to the legacies of IPY the Congress may want to
help foster, which could mean a robust Arctic research program for
years to come.
A successful IPY will do more than gather vast knowledge in the
next 2 years. With IPY, we should establish long-term monitoring
networks and other science infrastructure, including the ship- and
land-based research platforms as well as remote sensing technologies,
to keep the knowledge coming.
Within the government itself, IPY will help us focus on our goals
in the Arctic--in science and in policy. The Commission believe we must
use IPY to craft a more coordinated and sustainable long-term Arctic
research program.
Background on the U.S. Arctic Research Commission
I have had the honor of serving on the U.S. Arctic Research
Commission since 2001, and as Chair for less than 2 months. Six other
Commissioners, whose names are listed on the cover of this testimony,
also serve. This Commission, Mr. Chairman, reports to you in the
Congress and to the President, on goals and priorities for the U.S.
Arctic Research Program. With our counterpart, the Interagency Arctic
Research Policy Committee, (IARPC), we work to see those goals
accomplished. Much of that work is building cooperation--among U.S.
agencies, universities, the State of Alaska, the private sector,
indigenous and other Arctic residents, and other nations.
Two immediate calendar items face the Commission.
First is the kickoff for the International Polar Year. Within the
Commission, we're committed to making this a successful broadening and
strengthening of Arctic science in many places and many disciplines. It
is cooperation--across disciplines, between the poles, around the
world. We will participate in outreach. With the Congress and within
the Executive Branch, we're encouraging a level of funding and
participation in IPY appropriate to the Nation's leadership in polar
research.
Our Commission's second calendar item is a Goals Report due for
delivery to the Congress and the President in late January, as
specified by law. In formulating that Goals Report, Commissioners are
focused on how we can ensure that the excitement of IPY results in
long-term, sustainable legacies in Arctic research.
The International Polar Year
The first International Polar Year was in 1882-1883. The last
International Polar Year, in 1932-1933, helped inspire the first
International Geophysical Year fifty years ago, in 1957-1958. The
excitement surrounding this event was palpable, and while I recall
little of my reading in second grade, I do remember an article in ``My
Weekly Reader.''
Last time around, IPY and its global counterpart, the International
Geophysical Year, happened as the world entered the atomic age . . .
the jet age . . . the space age . . . and soon, the digital age. The
excitement of exploration--the assault on the unknown--was contagious.
This time, we hope for a similar epidemic--a continuing thirst for
knowledge.
Whatever we gain in knowledge this time around, this IPY has
important differences. Like never before, the IPY will involve the
people who live in the Arctic. Political barriers that existed during
the Cold War are behind us, and Arctic cooperation is strong. Physical
access barriers are disappearing, not just with receding ice, but also
with improved technology and navigation, at sea and in the air.
Communication barriers to exploration and data collection have
disappeared, with the availability of fiber networks and low-earth
orbiting communications networks like Iridium phone and data systems
that allow polar research to be conducted, literally, from afar.
Barriers in scientific disciplines, and those between ``western
science'' and traditional knowledge, are also fading. That trend
suggests that the knowledge we get, in the end, will itself be more
whole.
Thus, we begin this IPY with the prospect that its real legacy will
be a connected Arctic--one that will continue to reveal itself, know
itself, and share its mysteries.
Immediate Actions the Congress May Take in Support of IPY
There are two ways the Congress can help make the IPY a rousing
success.
First is getting the word out. We encourage you to have more
hearings, as IPY progresses. I have heard Senator Murkowski tell the
science community, several times; we must share the excitement of
exploration in the polar regions. This is a risky and adventurous
frontier, with great rewards from solving its mysteries.
We encourage Members of the Congress to visit the field during the
International Polar Year, to see the science firsthand, and to
understand the value of what we're learning. Understanding the Earth's
processes--and man's impact--is just the start. IPY research will help
human health, energy security, safer, sounder homes, and will increase
culture sustainability.
We believe the U.S. will be well represented in IPY if appropriate
funding is provided in several agency budgets. The Administration's
current proposal for $62 million funding from NSF should be approved by
the Congress this year. It remains to be seen what the President and
NSF will propose for next year. If we are to move beyond fragmented and
leveraged funding for IPY, that number should be significantly greater,
and should take into account the long-term need for monitoring and data
management.
Second, we're hopeful that enough funds and encouragement will be
provided to other agencies to make sure we are able to fulfill our
commitments. Two agencies under the purview of the Senate Commerce
Committee--NOAA and NASA--could play a pivotal role.
Mr. Chairman, I was appointed by the President, and we are team
players with the Administration. At the same time, based on statue,
legislative intent, and our oath to support it, we are obliged to tell
you and the Congress where the Arctic program funding requests may not
effectively meet the Nation's Arctic Research Plan.
NOAA has recently reduced its office, by eliminating the Arctic
Program, and just prior to the IPY. Nevertheless, NOAA has a lot of
work to do. Through negotiations on Capitol Hill in 1996, the Arctic
Research Commission convinced Congress to establish an Arctic Research
Initiative (ARI) within the budget of NOAA with the understanding that
the ARI would be institutionalized as part of NOAA's annual budget
request. Instead, the ARI, which provides funds for extramural research
through a competitive process that is managed by CIFAR (the Cooperative
Institute for Arctic Research), has been zeroed out in the past 2
years. Additionally, the Joint Russian-American Long Term Census of the
Arctic (RUSCALA), the result of the Memorandum of Understanding between
NOAA and the Russian Academy of Sciences in 2003, is an on-going
collaboration between U.S. and Russian scientists in the northern
Bering and Chukchi Sea. Funds are needed for this program to make
awards for proposals already competitively selected and approved by
NOAA for work beginning in FY07 for the next major Russian-American
cruise in 2008. Without the requisite commitments to such research
infrastructure--so critical to mobilize--in light of the upcoming IPY,
it will be difficult to ensure a strong U.S. presence in the
initiative.
NOAA funds sought for Arctic research in the coming year must
support further construction of the Barrow Global Climate Change
Research Facility. Funds provided must also support NOAA's leadership
of the Arctic Council's Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program, and
NOAA's participation in the development of integrated monitoring
networks. To make these things happen, the Arctic program of that
agency--recently downgraded--needs more visibility and support.
At NASA, the pressure on the Earth Science budget is well
documented. Much of NASA's current Earth sensing infrastructure is in
polar orbits, meaning that coverage of the Arctic and the Antarctic is
robust, but therefore at greater risk with delays and cancellations of
key remote sensing systems. Japan's cooperation with the United States
on Arctic research could be much more productive if the work being done
at the International Arctic Research Center in Fairbanks had greater
NASA participation. Congress can help make this happen.
Within our government, it is important to encourage each
appropriate agency of the U.S. Government to participate in IPY.
Further, this is a great time for Congress to stress to agencies that
they identify their role in Arctic research and integrate their work
with other agencies.
Toward that end, Congress has called for an integrated Arctic
research budget from Federal agencies since 1984, to be delivered in
enough time for your analysis and ours from the Commission. The data
call made this year, done only after Senator Murkowski's request,
lacked input from several key agencies. I'm happy to report that the
Commission, IARPC staff, and the staff of OMB are working together to
solve this problem. We will try again this year to see that the budget
presented to Congress in January clearly shows what we're up to during
the IPY. And even though the requirement is in the law, we are helped
in this process when Congress asks for the information.
The Commission believes that knowing what we're doing--across the
board--can promote much stronger cooperation.
What we have learned so far is that our Nation's commitment to
Arctic research has grown significantly in recent years. IARPC reports
that the U.S. Arctic Research Program, with expenditures approaching
$400 million a year, has significant work going on in a broad variety
of areas. At least fifteen Federal agencies support this work, and the
U.S. program benefits from important partnerships with the State of
Alaska, our Arctic neighbors, the European Community, Korea, China, and
Japan.
The Commission, for much of the last decade, has worked to focus
the U.S. Arctic Research Program on five key questions:
What is the changing climate of the Arctic, and how will it
affect the rest of the world?
What processes govern the world's richest fishery in the
Bering Sea?
What can be learned to enhance the health of Arctic
residents?
What are the vast resources of the Arctic that we own in
common?
What changes to Arctic infrastructure must we make in
response to changing climate?
To answer these questions, the research community has responded
with a set of integrated science programs, some of which are reflected
in budgets sent to Congress, and some of which exist as less formal
initiatives combining contributions from many sources.
SEARCH, the Study of Environmental Arctic Change, is the
Nation's integrated look at climate and environmental change in
the region. Funding is led by NSF, but agency contributions
come from a number of sources. Leadership exists both in the
academic community and in the government.
BEST, the Bering Ecosystem Study, is a part of SEARCH. It
focuses on the Bering Sea, and is just getting started under
NSF's leadership. The work of the North Pacific Research Board
is adding greatly to the capabilities of this science plan.
Arctic Health studies are coming together through a U.S.
initiative at the Arctic Council. Dr. Alan Parkinson, speaking
here today, can tell you how NIH and CDC are bringing a broad
base together to address very important questions, from
contaminants in the food chain to dealing with the high alcohol
and suicide problems in the Arctic populations.
The U.S. Geological Survey has taken the lead in the
Resource Assessment program called for in the U.S. Arctic
Research plan. Other agencies should join, and the Commission
is formulating specific recommendations in that area.
Infrastructure Research has no specific agency leader today,
and we hope yet for integration. Candidates to participate in
an integrated infrastructure research program include the Army
Corps of Engineers, the Department of Transportation, the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, the U.S.
Department of Energy, and the U.S. Geological Survey. The
Commission will be working with IARPC to bring this about.
Lastly, Congress may want to encourage a discussion about U.S.
Arctic policy during IPY. The last time U.S. Government agencies sat
down to comprehensively review Arctic policy was in 1994. While the
Presidential statement that survives that process is in force today,
much has changed. We know much more about Arctic climate--and the
change has brought imperatives in security, housing, infrastructure,
transportation, and research.
The world is looking to the Arctic much more now for its energy
security. The Commission has recommended that new support for oil spill
research programs, focusing both on prevention, detection, and
response, become a national priority.
Even as the Senate considers the Law of the Sea Treaty, the
Commission believes we should move forward with the mapping of the
Arctic Ocean floor which other nations have begun to claim under
Article 76. Congress could help make the submarine platforms available
to do it more quickly.
What we've learned through Arctic cooperation, whether through the
Northern Forum, the Arctic Council, or by other mechanisms, is that
there are opportunities for common development, common protection,
common exploration. The long-held goal of using the Arctic Ocean as a
regular shipping route may soon be upon us. Other nations have recently
held public examinations of their goals in the Arctic, and it is
appropriate for the U.S. to do the same.
An IPY Legacy: Monitoring and Other Infrastructure
At the U.S. Arctic Research Program, we believe the legacy of IPY
should be long-term, sustainable infrastructure for Arctic research.
As our past and present Commissioners deliberate with the science
community on what research infrastructure is needed in the 21st
century, there are a wide variety of needs.
Just this afternoon, a House Committee was briefed on a new
National Academy study on the Nation's needs for an icebreaker fleet.
In our upcoming Goals Report, you will hear much from us about
icebreakers, research vessels, submarines, satellites, and autonomous
vehicles under water and in the air.
The Bering Strait has been described as the ``choke point'' of the
Arctic and yet support for oceanographic moorings (that monitor
currents, temperature, salinity, various measures of productivity, and
nutrient status) in both Russian and American waters are funded on a
year-by-year basis and at present, hinges in part on funding for the
Alaska Ocean Observing System (AOOS). As an integral part of the Arctic
Observing Network, long-term support for the yearly recovery and
deployment of moorings in the Bering Strait is an essential part of our
IPY legacy and key to understanding how change will affect storm events
in our coastal communities, marine mammal and fisheries resources so
important to our citizens, as well as evolving transportation needs in
the Arctic.
We must sustain onshore research platforms in the Arctic, such as
the Barrow Global Climate Change Research Facility, or Toolik Lake in
the Brooks Range, or our cooperative facilities in Greenland, Russia,
or Svalbard.
Outside the Arctic, researchers rely on communications networks,
supercomputers, ice core repositories, carbon-14 dating laboratories in
Florida, and the National Ice Center here in Suitland, Maryland.
Mr. Chairman, there is hardly a member of the Senate who does not
represent facilities--and researchers--participating in the important
work of Arctic research.
But there is one key infrastructure legacy that is on the top of
everyone's list. The United States will soon launch an Arctic Observing
Network that must and will be one of the key legacies of IPY. It will
be a ``network of networks'' actually, that will collect data, in as
close to real time, with standards of measurement, across the Arctic.
The ambition of such a network--nurtured by the very effective
international cooperation which produced the Arctic Climate Impact
Assessment 2 years ago in the Arctic Council--is strong.
In the next few years, new technologies will bring datasets we
collect once a year to us in real time. Hydrology, humidity,
temperature, rainfall, winds, atmospheric gas composition, radiation,
ozone, ice thickness, currents, salinity--information collected by many
agencies in many places--will be more prolific, more immediate, and
most important, more organized.
While the observation capabilities the U.S. supports in the field
today may be enough to declare that we have the AON going, the process
of designing an improved system, identifying gaps, setting standards,
and managing data has yet to take place. We urge the Congress to pay
close attention as this process begins.
On so many key issues today, the Arctic is a bellwether for the
globe. With suitable support, this could be an excellent and early
working system of the networks envisioned as part of the Global Earth
Observing System of Systems (GEOSS). It supports the goals, as my
fellow Commissioner Dr. Charles Vorosmarty wrote, of the American
Competitiveness Initiative.
``Mobilizing and harmonizing major land, water, air, and space-
based observing systems across the pan-Arctic would also be an
important vehicle to entrain the U.S. private sector,
stimulating innovation through technology along the lines of
the American Competitiveness Initiative. The use of
miniaturized, state-of-the-art sensors provides an interesting
focal point private sector engagement. Training the next
generation of scientists and engineers also provides critical
long-term support to the ACI.
``What Congress could do: Call for an assessment (through the
National Academies Polar Research Board) of U.S. science and
technology capabilities in this realm with the express aim of
uniting academic, agency and private sector partners; stimulate
private investment in instrumentation, data broadcast
technologies, supercomputing, new mathematical and statistical
approaches; commit to make appropriate instrumentation
purchases . . .''
Exploration Under IPY: the Human Legacy
As our explorers head to the field, I've heard Senator Murkowski
say several times, it is up to them to share the excitement with the
public.
When I speak to kids about Arctic exploration, we've got lots to
discuss. NASA's animation of receding ice cover, as seen from
satellites in space, prompts a discussion not only of climate change
and shipping routes, but whether the robot that took the picture had
rockets in his shoes.
Alaskans, used to landing at runway 6 at Ted Stevens International
Airport in Anchorage, learned that it is now runway 7 because the
magnetic North Pole is constantly moving, and taking the Aurora
Borealis with it.
Reports of mid-ocean ridge spreading in the Arctic Ocean bottom
have forced instructors to rewrite the textbook on plate tectonics, and
recent coring near the North Pole has revealed organic-rich sediments
that could likely serve as source material for oil and gas deposits
around the Arctic margin.
If you get no further than the freezers at the Institute of Arctic
Biology at Fairbanks, you will meet a number of sleeping ground
squirrels. What we've learned about them may help in the fight against
cancer.
Mr. Chairman, there is much going on, and knowing about it
stimulates further curiosity, further interest in exploration. This
discussion, surely, is to be continued . . .
Thank you very much.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you, Mead. It's going to be a
stimulating period, there's no question about that.
Our next witness is Dr. Arden Bement, Director of the
National Science Foundation.
Doctor, it's nice to have you with us again.
STATEMENT OF DR. ARDEN L. BEMENT, JR., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Dr. Bement. Thank you, Chairman Stevens and Senator
Murkowski, for the opportunity to testify on the upcoming
International Polar Year and how NSF and our sister agencies
are addressing this important opportunity.
Fifty years ago, the Third International Polar Year and
International Geophysical Year entranced American's youth and
galvanized America's innovative powers. That effort left a
permanent legacy ranging from scientific Earth satellites to
the development of a generation of world-class scientists and
engineers whose interest in research was piqued by news
coverage of polar research. NSF has equally high aspirations
for the upcoming International Polar Year. We intend to create
a legacy of infrastructure and data for future generations of
scientists. We also intend to expand international cooperation.
And, finally, we hope to 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 emphasize three scientific themes, coupled with education
and outreach activities.
The extremes of polar environments provide unique
opportunities to advance our understanding of how organisms
adapt to climate extremes, how they have evolved, at the
genomic level, and how gene expression depends on the physical
environment. The development of a circum-Arctic Observing
Network, or AON, will provide the missing data essential to
faithfully model and predict Arctic climate change.
Multinational investigations of changes in the Earth's great
ice sheets will improve our understanding of how these affect
global conditions, including global sea level.
NSF's Office of Polar Programs and the Director for
Education and Human Resources have already funded nine truly
outstanding and creative projects in education and public
outreach that will launch our IPY efforts in great style. The
second round of projects will be funded early next year.
To fulfill the IPY leadership role assigned to NSF by OSTP,
we are cooperating with other Federal agencies. NSF and NASA
are working to coordinate ground-based and space-based
observations 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.
A circum-Arctic system requires active collaboration with
countries around the Arctic Rim. NSF has already developed
strong links with Norway, Sweden, Germany, and Russia to bring
their activities to bear on AON. We are working actively with
the European Polar Board and the Canadian officials to build
IPY partnerships.
In response to the recommendations of the Arctic Research
Commission, NSF is now working closely with the Northern
Pacific Research Board. We are aligning our Bering Sea
Ecosystems Program with NPRB's related studies and with NOAA's
long-term Bering Sea fisheries management activity. Through
these combined efforts, we aim to understand the response of
the Bering Sea ecosystem, the most productive fishery in the
U.S., to environmental change; most notably, to reductions in
seasonal sea ice.
Barrow was a key station in the first IPY, and we
anticipate it will be, again. U.S. contributions to an Arctic
Observing Network activity are expected to include Barrow's new
Global Climate Change Research facility, and investments to
improve a safe and effective year-round research capability to
the University of Alaska's Toolik Field Station.
NSF places high priority on securing funding to build a new
ice-strengthened ship to serve research needs in the waters
around Alaska. Subject to appropriations in Fiscal Year 2007,
construction will begin during the IPY. Designated the Alaska
Regional Research Vessel, the ship will conduct scientific
research cruises year-round in waters of the Gulf of Alaska and
southern Bering Sea, and, in the summer, as far north as the
Chukchi and the Beaufort Seas, during minimal ice cover.
Chairman Stevens and Chairwoman Murkowski, earlier I
mentioned the educational legacy created by IPY 50 years ago.
The current IPY effort has even greater potential. By linking
the public's fascination with things polar to outreach into
museums, homes, and classrooms that conveys the excitement of
research and discovery, we can attract a new generation of
Americans into science and engineering careers, while
contributing to a more informed public.
Thank you both, again, for providing an opportunity to
highlight NSF's role in the upcoming International Polar Year,
and I would be pleased to answer any of your questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Bement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director,
National Science Foundation
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify before the
Committee concerning the upcoming International Polar Year (IPY) and on
how the National Science Foundation (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 (IPY-3/IGY) 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 work force 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. We discuss
specific U.S. investments later.
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, 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, which began as a grass roots international activity under
the IPY umbrella that now has the potential to provide the climate
component of AON.
Responding to the recommendations of the Arctic Research
Commission's Goals Report, which I'm sure Mr. Treadwell will mention in
more detail, NSF is now working closely with the Northern Pacific
Research Board (NPRB) to align our Bering Sea Ecosystem Program (BEST)
with NPRB's related studies, as well as NOAA's long-term Bering Sea
fisheries management activity. Through these combined efforts we aim to
understand the response of the Bering Sea ecosystem, the most
productive fishery in the U.S., to environmental change, most notably,
reductions in seasonal sea ice.
I would like to note that plans have been underway for several
years for construction of a new ice-strengthened ship that would serve
research needs in the waters around Alaska. NSF has assigned high
priority to securing funding to build this ship, and subject to
appropriation of funding in Fiscal Year 2007, construction will begin
during the IPY. Designated the Alaska Regional Research Vessel (ARRV),
it would likely be operated by a university as a UNOLS vessel. It would
replace the Alpha Helix, and like that ship, it would conduct research
cruises year round in waters of the Gulf of Alaska and southern Bering
Sea. And in the summer, the ARRV would travel as far north as the
Chukchi and Beaufort Seas during minimum ice cover.
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 jumpstart 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 2 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. One example is that winter
sea and river ice--for centuries used by northern communities to
facilitate hunting and transportation and more recently for industrial
development--have become useable for shorter and shorter periods with
less predictability. Warmer winter temperature minimums have lead to
the spread of pests. For example, Spruce Bark Beetles once thrived only
in the lower 48 U.S. states, but now have become a threat to more
northerly communities by killing large stands of forest and increasing
the risk of significant fire damage to communities and habitats. But
new opportunities are also emerging. For example, significantly reduced
summer sea-ice minimums might mean that the Arctic finally becomes the
summer sea-transportation route once sought by early explorers.
The AON will provide a network of observations that will facilitate
this understanding of the profound change that is occurring in the
Arctic in a global context. To achieve this goal, Cyberinfrastructure
(CI) will need to be developed to provide interoperability 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--particularly for input into
large-scale coupled models. 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). The Chairman need not be reminded that Barrow was a key station
in the first IPY, and we anticipate it will be again. U.S.
contributions to a pan-Arctic AON activity are expected to include
Barrow's new Global Climate Change Research facility and investments to
provide a safe and effective year-round research capability to the
University of Alaska's Toolik Field Station.
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 1957-1958 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 jumpstart 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 under development 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 6 years to its IPY effort, Korea--$150 million, Japan--
$460 million for a new icebreaker, and 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 Nixon 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.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you, Doctor Bement. I'm sure we're
going to see a lot of each other in the years ahead here now,
but this is a very important function we're going to commence.
Our next witness is Vice Admiral Robert Papp, the Chief of
Staff of the U.S. Coast Guard.
Admiral?
STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL ROBERT PAPP,
CHIEF OF STAFF, U.S. COAST GUARD
Admiral Papp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon. And,
Senator Murkowski, good afternoon to you, as well. Thank you
for including the Coast Guard in this hearing this afternoon.
It's my pleasure today to discuss the Coast Guard's role in the
International Polar Year.
I'd like to submit my full statement for the record and
follow on with just a few brief comments.
Chairman Stevens. Yes, all statements will be printed in
full in the record. I noticed the others have abbreviated
theirs, too, but we appreciate your courtesy.
Admiral Papp. Thank you, sir.
The Coast Guard's committed to providing support to the
scientific community during the IPY to make it a success. We've
always maintained a presence in the Arctic, since 1867, when
President Andrew Johnson dispatched one of our cutters to
research and chart the waters of the Alaska coastline, while,
at the same time, enforcing United States sovereignty and laws,
and ensuring the safety of Americans in that newly acquired
territory.
Coast Guard missions to support safety, security, and
stewardship, as well as sovereignty in the Arctic and
Antarctic, have been continuous and sustained over the decades.
And in 1964, President Lyndon Johnson directed the Coast Guard
to become the sole agency with responsibility for Federal
icebreaking resources. That role was reaffirmed in 1990 by a
Presidential declaration, and then validated recently in the
Coast Guard Roles and Missions Study of 1999. Put simply, the
United States Coast Guard has the authority, the experience,
and the capabilities to support and sustain operations in the
polar regions.
Now, in terms of capabilities, 50 years ago four Wind-Class
Coast Guard icebreakers supported the U.S. efforts in the Third
International Polar Year and International Geophysical Year.
Coast Guard icebreakers also participated in the first
Operation Deep Freeze, in 1956, which established U.S. presence
on the Antarctic continent. Today, one heavy icebreaker, the
POLAR SEA, remains to support the U.S. Antarctic program
resupply effort. Her sister ship, POLAR STAR, is in caretaker
status, and would take up to 18 months to reactivate. One
medium Coast Guard polar icebreaker, HEALY, remains to provide
scientific and icebreaking support in the Arctic.
The Coast Guard is committed to working with the science
community and other Federal agencies to provide the support
needed to make the upcoming IPY a success. In accordance with
our existing Memorandum of Agreement, we'll support the
National Science Foundation and other agencies, as requested
and as funded.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today,
and I'd be delighted to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Papp follows:]
Prepared Statement of Vice Admiral Robert Papp,
Chief of Staff, U.S. Coast Guard
Introduction
Good afternoon Chairman Stevens, Chairman Lugar, Senator Inouye,
Senator Biden, and distinguished Members of the Committees. It is my
pleasure to appear before you today to discuss the Coast Guard's role
in the International Polar Year (IPY). The International Council of
Science (ICSU) and the U.S. National Academies have stated that the
goals of the International Polar Year (March 2007 through March 2009)
are: 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, four Wind Class Coast Guard icebreakers supported
U.S. efforts in the Third International Polar Year and International
Geophysical Year. Coast Guard polar icebreakers also participated in
the first Operation Deep Freeze in 1956, which established a stable
U.S. presence on the Antarctic continent by forging a path through the
challenging Antarctic ice belt, allowing a U.S. naval task force to
establish permanent bases at McMurdo and the South Pole. Today, one
heavy Coast Guard polar icebreaker, the Cutter POLAR SEA, remains to
support the U.S. Antarctic Program re-supply effort; the other heavy
polar icebreaker, the Cutter POLAR STAR is in caretaker status and
could be available for use with approximately 18 months advance notice,
due to extensive maintenance requirements. In the Arctic Region in
1957, the U.S. Coast Guard successfully sent the Cutters STORIS,
BRAMBLE, and SPAR through the Northwest Passage to determine the
feasibility of an emergency Defense Early Warning (DEW) line shipping
support route. Today, one medium Coast Guard polar icebreaker, the
Cutter HEALY, remains to provide science and icebreaking support in the
Arctic.
Since 1956, the Coast Guard has been a regular presence in the
polar regions. Significant historical events have been the catalyst
that influenced national polar policy decisions. These events have
included: the purchase of Alaska; World War II; the Cold War; the 1956-
1957 International Geophysical Year; the Antarctic Treaty; and the oil
crises of the 1970s. In addition to the planned IPY events, recent
focus on issues such as the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, increasing
world-wide demand for natural resources, changing shipping patterns
driven by a global economy, recent severe ice conditions in the
Antarctic, and changes in Arctic sea ice have fueled U.S. debate on
national polar policies and associated resource needs.
These recent and developing polar issues, coupled with U.S.
interests in both polar regions, demand heightened awareness of our
national polar missions. In particular, the United States must consider
the increasing international initiatives in the Arctic. Thus far, the
Arctic has witnessed a growing foreign polar presence in and more
frequent and assertive international claims on the Arctic.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has been tasked by the White
House to provide leadership for the U.S. in the IPY. As the Federal
agency charged with providing all U.S. polar icebreaker needs, the
Coast Guard is committed to working with the NSF, the science
community, and other Federal agencies to provide the support needed to
make the upcoming IPY a success. The NSF and other Federal agencies
have had general discussions with the Coast Guard about using polar
icebreakers for the upcoming IPY, but have not made any specific
requests outside of annually planned polar icebreaker activities in the
Arctic and Antarctic.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreakers
The Coast Guard polar icebreaker fleet currently consists of the
cutters POLAR SEA, POLAR STAR and HEALY. The POLAR SEA and POLAR STAR
were built and commissioned in the 1970s and are nearly thirty years in
age. The HEALY was commissioned in 1999 and has been actively
supporting annual Arctic research deployments ever since. Unlike the
older Polar class ships, HEALY was designed from the keel up as a
science platform, with due consideration of Coast Guard multi-mission
capabilities as well. Due to the harsh and remote polar environment and
operating procedures for polar icebreakers, all of these vessels
require durable marine engineering features in order to withstand years
of colliding with sea ice (typically having the characteristics of
concrete, found twenty feet thick or more, and at temperatures as low
as negative 60+F). The unique environment in which polar icebreakers
operate, coupled with their significant operating requirements, make
the vessels inherently costly to operate and maintain.
Conclusion
The Coast Guard is committed to working with the science community
and other Federal agencies to provide the support needed to make the
upcoming IPY a success. In accordance with our existing Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA), we will support the National Science Foundation, and
other agencies' IPY efforts as requested and as funded. Thank you for
the opportunity to testify before you today. I will be happy to answer
any questions you may have.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you very much, Admiral.
Mead, you say that there's already mapping going on, on the
floor of the Arctic Ocean?
Mr. Treadwell. Yes, sir. In fact, the mission that the
HEALY was doing when the two crew members were killed this
summer was a mapping mission. The Appropriations Committee has
provided for that, for a couple of years now.
We actually believe that the United States should develop
an overall mapping plan for the extended Outer Continental
Shelf, and we're glad to be participating in a workgroup that
the Department of State has had on developing this proposal.
The idea of having a claim available for--U.S. claim, under
Article 76, Law of the Sea, is one of the drivers. A scientific
driver is that it--while you've got the platforms out there,
you're learning much, much more, as well.
We believe it's important to have the robust icebreaker
platforms for this work, and, also, we've recommended
reinstating the use of submarine platforms also to support this
work.
Chairman Stevens. Admiral, we're all familiar with the loss
of your people up there, and we do express our regret about
that. Is this--is Mead right? Were they part of a mapping
program up there?
Admiral Papp. Yes, sir, that's what they were involved in.
They had to terminate that early, as you know, and return, to
deal with the deaths of the crew members, and then return to
home port for--to, sort of, recalibrate the crew. When that
will be rescheduled, a continuation of that project, remains
uncertain, at this time.
Chairman Stevens. How expensive is that program of mapping,
at this time?
Admiral Papp. I'm not sure how much that program costs,
sir. We get the money to operate the ship and take it out on
the missions. NSF provides us the funding for that. And I'm not
sure what the cost of that program is.
Chairman Stevens. Now, have we outlined mapping the whole
part of the Arctic adjacent to our State--Arctic Ocean adjacent
to our State?
Admiral Papp. I don't know that, sir. We've been dealing in
parts of that. I think probably NSF has a better handle on that
than we do.
Chairman Stevens. What do you know about it, Dr. Bement?
Dr. Bement. Yes. Senator, there are cartographic activities
under the AON initiative, and in order to do the whole survey
of the Arctic Ocean, that would be a multi-year activity that
wouldn't be completed during IPY, but there would be a good
start. And that would be an important area of research to
sustain in the years after IPY.
Chairman Stevens. Well, let me apologize for my ignorance,
but I would assume that could have been done digitally by the
equipment we have. Do we have to have divers to do that?
Admiral?
Dr. Bement. Well, I can't answer, on the operational
aspects of how that would be done.
Admiral Papp. No, sir, we don't have--the only reason we
carry divers on our icebreakers is for emergency procedures. If
there's something wrong, they become fouled in the ice, or if
there are equipment problems, we can put down divers to inspect
the hull, or, at times, if we have equipment--for instance, if
we're using a remotely operated vehicle to do some sort of work
underneath the ice, if there are some problems with the
equipment, we can put our divers down for that. But the divers
are provided only for emergency circumstances.
Chairman Stevens. Mead--my last question--you assume that
there's going to be some cooperation in preparing a proposed
plan for this IPY, as it affects the Arctic, in general, and
our state, in particular, as far as Federal agencies are
concerned?
Dr. Bement. Yes, sir. We do have an updated plan. It's
updated, as of September 18. And it includes activities in the
Fiscal Year 2007 request. And we'd be glad to present that, for
the record.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ The information can be found at http://www.nsf.gov/od/opp/ipy/
ipy_rept_us_fed_
agency_planning.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Stevens. I'd be pleased to have it. Have you made
submissions on that, Mead?
Mr. Treadwell. If you're talking to me--addressing me,
Senator, the Arctic Research Commission, every other year,
publishes a Goals Report. That Goals Report is referred to the
Congress and the President, and then the Interagency Arctic
Research Policy Committee takes that report and revises the 5-
year Arctic Research Plan. The United States Arctic Research
Program, we hope, basically runs against the plan that the
IARPC prepares.
In my written testimony, Senator, I referred to five key
goals that were in our last Goals Report that were in the plan,
two of which are very good programs underway, the SEARCH
program and the BEST program, which is just getting started.
You'll hear, from Dr. Parkinson later this afternoon, about the
first, really, interagency initiative on health. And we're
seeing some gaps in the others. But I can say, just as an
affirmative answer to your question, we are hoping that by the
time we bring a Goals Report back to the Congress this winter,
that that will stimulate a discussion of legacies of IPY
throughout the Government.
Chairman Stevens. Well, when did you submit the last Goals
Report?
Mr. Treadwell. The last Goals Report was submitted probably
the end of January 2005.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski?
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Admiral, I just want to make sure that I understand the
situation with the icebreakers. You say the POLAR STAR is in
this caretaker status. So, for purposes of this upcoming IPY,
we can assume that it will not be available for any research
that might be associated. Is that correct?
Admiral Papp. We have no plan for it to be available,
Senator. It's laid up right now, and our estimate is it would
take probably up to 18 months to reactivate the ship, at a cost
of probably about, roughly, $25 million.
Senator Murkowski. And then, the POLAR SEA is the one that
will be available down in the Antarctic. So, would that be
available at all in the Arctic regions, or is that exclusively
down south?
Admiral Papp. POLAR SEA's mission tasking is going to be
for the Antarctic resupply mission, and she has had some money
put into her to extend her anywhere from about 4 to 8 years. We
did the sustainment repairs that we would--that I was talking
about for the POLAR STAR. We accomplished that on POLAR SEA.
That should keep her running at least 4 to 8 more years. And we
envision her primarily used for the Antarctic resupply mission.
Senator Murkowski. So then, for any IPY activities in the
northern region, what we're looking at as the only available
icebreaker, then, is the HEALY? And will they be able to handle
anything that comes to them, as directed by NSF?
Admiral Papp. Yes, ma'am. That's the standard operation for
the HEALY, is the Arctic operations in support of NSF. HEALY's
back in port now, will be going through some minor repairs and
a dry-docking in the upcoming months, and then we'll prepare it
for the next season, and she will be devoted solely to the
support of NSF and the IPY.
Senator Murkowski. OK, thank you.
Doctor, in your testimony--and both you and Mr. Treadwell
both spoke to the legacy of IPY, and this is something that--I
really look forward, Mead, to the report coming out, and
further discussion about the specifics of the legacy and how we
make this happen, because it's one of those things--we do great
research, we have great things happening, but, at the end of
the International Polar Year, everyone's done and goes off on
their respective ways. We want to know that the legacy is in
place, whether it's through the socioeconomic effect on some of
our indigenous people, infrastructure, whether it's roads or
facilities. We want to see that. And, Doctor, you've spoken to
the educational legacy and an effort underway now to do an
education and public outreach. What types of programs is NSF
looking at right now for purposes of funding? And what kind of
prioritization do you go through for that?
Dr. Bement. Well, we give this very high priority. I can
talk about what NSF has currently funded, but I should also
point out that we're coordinating activities with other Federal
agencies, so that's--the overall effort will be larger than
what I'll represent. And I should also point out that this is
also international in scope, so our international partners are
also involved. In fact, almost all the grants that we have
issued to date have strong international participation. But we
issued nine grants, based on a current solicitation this year,
to jumpstart public outreach and education four are in the area
of informal education that would involve museums, the media,
bringing the experience of polar research into the classroom
and into the home. Three of them are in formal education, at
the graduate and undergraduate level, that deal with the
development of new courses and also involving broadening
participation of minorities. Two of them are in the K-12 area
and will involve students and teachers actually working with
researchers in both the Arctic and the Antarctic. And some of
this work will be brought to bear on teacher training, teacher
involvement, broadly. And so, we think that is a good spectrum
of activities to begin with, but I should point out we'll be
doing a second solicitation next year, and we expect to have an
additional spectrum of activities that will deal with both
public outreach and education.
Senator Murkowski. What efforts will be made to make sure
that you are working with the Alaskan native community?
Dr. Bement. Almost everything that we do in Alaska, from a
research point of view, and also from the social studies point
of view, will involve Native Alaskans. I should mention another
project that we have with the National Endowment for the
Humanities, which is focused on capturing endangered languages.
There are about 52 native languages in Alaska, and half of
those will disappear in another year or two. So, we're working
very actively--in fact, I think we have a grant with the
University of Alaska in Anchorage--to help not only document
those languages, but understand the culture and the history
that's embedded in those languages.
Senator Murkowski. Well, we recognize that we have some
challenges in education, the traditional education,
particularly out in some of our remote areas, and to know that
you can make science come alive, that you can make languages
come alive by the kids being the researchers, the kids being
the scientists. I mean, I think we've got some opportunity here
to help you, but to also help so many in our State.
It has been mentioned, certainly by Mead, and by you, as
well, the reality of multiple agencies, and then you throw in
over 60 different countries that you're dealing with. Can you
let me know how we're doing, in terms of the interagency
cooperation? Is it working? What do we need to be doing to make
it flow better, if it's not flowing well?
Dr. Bement. Well, today we've had several high-level
meetings. One meeting at the policy level was held last year.
And it was during those meetings that we began to formulate the
identification of all the activities that each of the agencies
are going to be engaged in and begin cross-correlating, through
interagency cooperation, to see that we get highest leverage of
those activities, especially to--with regard to the two major
activities identified by the Arctic Research Commission--
namely, the AON, the Arctic Observing Network, and also the
Bering Ecological Study, of the Bering Sea. Those two are very
critical. And its not only important that we get a good start
during IPY, but we also advocate for sustainability of those
activities so that they become stronger over time.
Senator Murkowski. Again, going to that legacy concept that
everyone's talking about.
Mr. Treadwell, you had mentioned in your testimony some of
this fragmented funding and some of the issues associated with
that. We certainly look forward to this unified Arctic research
budget. I think that will certainly help. I think getting this
Goals Report, as it comes due, is going to be--going to be very
important for all of us. But as far as the funding issues that
you have mentioned, you have--perhaps it's just politically
correct language, but in your testimony, you say, ``a level of
funding and participation appropriate to the Nation's
leadership in polar research.'' Do you have any idea what you
figure the appropriate level might be?
Mr. Treadwell. Well, Senator Murkowski, I don't have a
specific number in mind. I don't think the Commission has
discussed a specific number. And, in fact, if you track the
number that IARPC has collated for Arctic research over the
past several years, the Arctic research budget level of the
Government has grown, it's now approaching $400 million.
Where we're concerned--and, as I mentioned in my
testimony--we're concerned that some of the goals that were
adopted last time, after our Goals Report two years ago,
haven't been funded as yet, and also that some of the
programs--I mean, there is a general concern in the science
community that NOAA, by closing its Arctic office, so to speak,
is moving in the wrong direction.
Senator Murkowski. Is NOAA's perspective, if you will, that
it's a funding issue, and it's not for lack of interest in the
Office of Arctic Research?
Mr. Treadwell. I don't think it's for lack of interest. I
mean, the jobs that NOAA has taken on are tremendous. They
basically coordinate the international work on the AMAP program
through the Arctic Council, the monitoring program. They are
responsible for this mapping project that we talked about, all
of the funding for the Barrow Climate Change Research Facility
that--you know, I expect you to be involved in a ribbon-cutting
for that sometime this spring--is coming through NOAA. The--
NOAA is responsible for the--I believe it's the RUSCALA
program, but--the U.S./Russian cooperation on studies in the
Bering Sea, which is a very important window, given the access
problems that all of our researchers have with Russia. And to
have all of these NOAA responsibilities that they've taken on,
and they're appropriately taking on, at the same time to see
the budget reductions, is just a difficulty.
Senator Murkowski. Well, then how do we get these agencies,
whether they're NOAA or whether it's NASA, to get excited about
what we've got going with the potential for IPY so that they
are able to move forward with those goals that have been set
out?
Mr. Treadwell. I think we can both ask.
Senator Murkowski. We'll keep asking.
You mentioned the kickoff for the International Polar Year
for March 2007. And, Doctor, this might also be a question for
you. Do we have anything planned for the kickoff? Is there
anything that we're looking at doing? Should we be focusing on
that right now? That's coming up soon.
Dr. Bement. The one thing that we're trying to schedule, at
the present time, is a White House event on or at the time of
the beginning of IPY, which will be next March. We would also
like to have major events both at the--in the Arctic and the
Antarctic, and certainly in Alaska. We would like to be
involved in a kickoff in Alaska.
I should also mention, going back to the Barrow Global
Climate Change Research Facility, we recognize the importance
of that facility to support researchers who are going to be
doing research in that area, especially in connection with AON,
and their greatest need is going to be for cyberinfrastructure
and also for communications and data management tools, because
the amount of data that's going to be generated in the Arctic
is going to be enormous, especially in Alaska. So, we have put
in change orders during the construction of the building to
incorporate cabling and other facilities, so that at the time
we put in the cyberinfrastructure and also broadband
communications, the building will be fully equipped for that.
Senator Murkowski. Well, we've been given a copy of a
picture here of the Army Signal Corps building, built for the
first IPY, in Barrow, in 1888.
Dr. Bement. Yes.
Senator Murkowski. Hopefully it looks better than what
we've----
Dr. Bement. No, that has been----
Senator Murkowski.--were able to produce in 1888.
Dr. Bement.--has been fully renovated, and I've been in
that building.
Senator Murkowski. Yes. Well----
Mead, one last question for you. You raised the issue that
we really haven't updated our Arctic policy in over a decade
now, a decade-plus, and it's an issue that I have been trying
to raise to a level here where we can have a discussion about
Arctic policy. But, oftentimes, I get looked at by other
Senators or other colleagues and say, ``Well, I'm from Alabama,
or Arkansas, or Iowa. Why do I care about Arctic policy?'' And
I think what is happening--we're on the verge of pushing
forward with IPY--is an awareness that the issues in the Arctic
are not just isolated to the north, and then, of course, down
to the south, in the Antarctic. So, I'm hopeful that one of the
things that we will accomplish with this IPY is an
understanding as to this--you talk about the connectedness of
the Arctic, I think we also need to look to the connectedness
of the Arctic to the rest of the world. And if you want to just
take a minute and speak to that----
Mr. Treadwell. Well----
Senator Murkowski.--I'd appreciate your thoughts.
Mr. Treadwell.--since 1994, the last time the Arctic policy
interagency process produced that kind of a document, a
Presidential Decision document, it was just at the beginning of
the Arctic Council process. In fact, the Arctic Council hadn't
been formed, as yet. We had the beginnings of circumpolar
cooperation with the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy.
And, since then, we've had a robust Arctic Council process, a
robust northern forum process. The kinds of activities in this
whole panoply of research activities with IPY will reflect not
just geophysical science, which is extremely important, but
also the social science that you talked about. So, we have a
much more developed Arctic community.
The change in the Arctic since then--that statement really
did not address climate change, it didn't address the
opportunities or the problems of climate change in the Arctic,
and the opportunities are numerous. It's not just climate
change, but technology, which is going to make the Arctic Ocean
much more accessible. And if you think about it, an accessible
Arctic Ocean that has changes in boundaries coming with--
Article 76 of the Law of the Sea Treaty, has varying claims.
The Russians have claimed 45 percent of the Arctic Ocean under
that, that hasn't been adjudicated, as yet. It's important for
the United States to sit down and assess what it is. And I can
think of no better time, the Commission can think of no better
time, than during this IPY process to chew on these policy
issues at the same time.
So, with that, coming out of the other end we may find more
important commitments to science, the legacies that we've
talked about. You have a very tough policy decision on the
platforms, including the icebreakers, which--the report that
just came out this afternoon, issues of how much the United
States wants to promote transportation in the Arctic Ocean. And
these are the kinds of things that should be considered.
Senator Murkowski. Doctor?
Dr. Bement. Yes, if I may address your question. NSF
supports about 20 long-term ecological research sites, which
include Lake Toolik, Bonanza Creek in Alaska, but are
distributed across the United States, all the way to Puerto
Rico. And the purpose of these ecological research sites is to
look at ecological change, especially with regard to climate
change and other changes in the environment. Those sites,
collectively, will be able to determine how the changes in the
Arctic will ripple through the U.S. over time. Admittedly, the
changes are most dramatic and most easily seen in the
Antarctic, not only with regard to the flora and the fauna, but
also with regard to insect infestations, as you're well aware
of, the spruce bark beetle. But also the spread of infectious
diseases and the response of people who have not normally been
exposed to these types of diseases, as warming occurs, as these
viruses and so forth move north.
So, all these things are part of our ongoing study
involving the ecology.
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman, I could probably spend the
rest of the afternoon with these three, but I know that we have
an equally distinguished second panel, so I'm done with my
questions.
Thank you.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you very much.
Staff just gave me this. This is a planning document from
the Office of the IPY. And it lists studies for--related earth,
land, people, oceans, ice, atmosphere, space, and education,
and outreach. I mention it, because I had a personal letter
from my old friend, the Director of the International Arctic
Research Center in Fairbanks, at the university. And I'll print
the whole letter in the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
International Arctic Research Center--University of Alaska
Fairbanks
Fairbanks, AK, September 14, 2006
Hon. Ted Stevens,
Chairman,
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Dear Ted:
The idea of an International Polar Year (IPY) started as a
celebration of the 50th anniversary of the International Geophysical
Year (IGY) (1957-58), which was the largest geoscience enterprise in
history at that time. Sydney Chapman, who was my professor during my
Ph.D. student days, was the President of the IGY, and I am one of the
few ``survivors'' (still active) of that event. By working alongside
Professor Chapman during that period, I learned what it took to make
the IGY successful. Government support was necessarily easy.
From the beginning of the preparations for IPY, I have voiced my
opinion that the 2007 IPY is a rare opportunity for polar researchers
to demonstrate publicly that they are combining their talents for
studying a few crucial problems of the present global warming, which is
one of the major concerns of the people of the world. In this way, we
would gain a better understanding of climate change and also the
support of the people.
To be specific in terms of science, Arctic researchers should work
together in distinguishing between natural components and manmade
components in the present climate change; this is one of the most
difficult scientific problems. I am not saying that because this is
precisely what IARC is working toward but because, without succeeding
in this work, it is not possible to reduce uncertainty of climate
change prediction.
I believe that the IPY needs a few, focused projects.
Unfortunately, the present trend appears to be that individual Arctic
scientists want to satisfy their own curiosity by expecting special
funding for the IPY. Such projects are undoubtedly important, too, but
we would lose the rare opportunity for combining many talents in
pursuit of specific and focused programs.
When I expressed this opinion recently, one of the most respected
climatologists, John Walsh, who is Chief Scientist of IARC, called it
``excellent,'' saying that my written opinion saved him the time of
writing the opinion himself.
With best regards,
Syun Akasofu,
Director.
Chairman Stevens. But Dr. Akasofu says this, ``I believe
that the IPY needs a few focused projects. Unfortunately, the
present trend appears to be that individual Arctic scientists
want to satisfy their own curiosity by expecting special
funding for the IPY. Such projects are undoubtedly important,
too, but we would lose a rare opportunity for combining many
talents in pursuit of specific and focused programs.''
What do the three of you think about that comment?
Dr. Bement?
Dr. Bement. Well, I have a high regard for Dr. Akasofu. We
do communicate. I would remind him, however, that all of our
projects are merit-reviewed. We pick the best of the best. And
he happens to be one of them, in the work that he's doing at
IARC. So, I think that the statement is a bit extreme, but we
do pay attention to those details.
Chairman Stevens. Well, do we need some special--some
broad-gauge projects that encompass a series of studies, or are
we going to just pick individual studies, as we can afford
them?
Dr. Bement. Senator, we have some of both, and I think
you'll hear, in the next panel, some of the activities that we
are funding at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks that are
focused and involve multiple investigators. And those
investigators are collaborating with other investigators
throughout the United States. The broader-gauged programs that
are interagency and multinational tend to be the Arctic
Observing Network and the Bering Ecology--Ecological Study.
Chairman Stevens. Well, we're going to be very interested
in this. And it does get subjective. Before I came here, I had
a visit with--from three members of the Alaskan Native
community from the West Coast, three separate villages. And
they wanted to know what we were going to do to try and deal
with the causes of the change that they see, that many of them
have great fear of today.
Dr. Bement. Yes.
Chairman Stevens. We know that some of them have already
been impacted by enormous waves and storm conditions. But they
also see changes, in terms of the habits of the wildlife, of
the growth of trees, and other plants in the Arctic area, and
they see the permafrost thawing. So, they want some answers.
And I'm not sure how the IPY is going to function into getting
some of the answers to their questions--the people most
affected by the change we know of, in terms of our country. And
I think their questions are similar to those that would be in
Siberia and others areas of the Arctic throughout the world.
Are we going to find a way to try to do both, to look into the
long-range science and, at the same time, try to get some
answers for the people who are affected now?
Dr. Bement. The answer, Senator, is yes, we have involved
Native Alaskans in our studies. I have personally talked with
elders at Barrow. I understand their concerns. I understand the
trauma of trying to adapt to change that they're facing,
especially with regard to movement and hunting and whaling. The
answers to some of those issues are not going to be short term,
necessarily, but we are focused on dealing with climate change
through our SEARCH programs. And, of course, that's what the
AON is all about, in order to make those measurements on a
regional basis. And we are also interested in the effects of
ice sheet stability, on the possible climate change, as well as
ocean rise, over time. We have a fair amount of data, working
with NASA, on the recession of ice coverage in the Chukchi Sea
and also in the Beaufort Sea, and we'll be able to continue to
measure that over time. And that will affect the fetch of--
caused by storms. It will contribute to coastal erosion. We
understand some of those processes now. We'll be able to add
more information as time goes on.
In addition to that, we are looking at the effects of
extreme environments, especially the cold and the dark in the
Arctic regions, on the ecology, as well as on life forms. And
there are, in addition to that, social studies that will
involve not only individuals, but also communities to examine
the issues that have, with adaption to change among these--they
used to be nomadic, they're less nomadic now--but,
nevertheless, this is a community that has learned how to
adapt, over time. And we have to maintain very close
communication with that--with those native populations.
Chairman Stevens. Well, thank you very much. We thank all--
the three of you.
We're going to turn to the second panel now, if we may.
It's Dr. Robin Bell, Dr. Buck Sharpton, Dr. Alan Parkinson, and
Dr. Thomas Armstrong.
Thank you very much for coming, the first panel.
[Pause.]
Chairman Stevens. Thank you very much. Our first witness in
this panel is Dr. Robin Bell. She's Chairwoman of the Polar
Research Board for the National Academy of Science, and
Chairwoman of the USIPY Planning Committee.
Thank you for coming, Dr. Bell.
STATEMENT OF ROBIN E. BELL, Ph.D., DOHERTY SENIOR
RESEARCH SCIENTIST, LAMONT-DOHERTY EARTH
OBSERVATORY, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY; CHAIR, POLAR
RESEARCH BOARD, U.S. NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR
INTERNATIONAL POLAR YEAR, DIVISION ON EARTH AND
LIFE STUDIES, NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL,
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Dr. Bell. Good afternoon, Senator Stevens and Senator
Murkowski. Thank you very much for inviting me to speak about
the International Polar Year, which I see as a scientific
opportunity of a generation, for our Nation, for our society,
and for our planet.
I'm a geophysicist at Columbia University Lamont-Doherty
Earth Observatory, where I run major programs looking at the
stability of ice sheets and looking at subglacial lakes. So,
that's my passion, in terms of trying to understand our planet.
And I've been active in planning for the International Polar
Year, both nationally and internationally, since the inception
of the idea.
You may wonder why--in this era of instant communications,
why the scientific community has gotten excited about a
strategy that was developed 100 years ago, when maps of both
poles were empty, blank. We didn't even know if there was a
continent in the middle of the Arctic Ocean. You wonder if
we're arguing about what it looks like now; then, we still
thought there might be a continent sitting on top of the North
Pole. And our cutting-edge communication was the telegraph.
But, even though the maps are much richer today, the scientific
community is still motivated by our need to understand our
planet, as a whole.
While environmental change and variability are part of the
natural pattern on Earth, the environmental changes currently
witnessed in the polar regions are generally much more
pronounced than they are elsewhere in the world. The Arctic
Ocean sea ice is thinning. The ice shelves in Antarctica, in
some cases, are retreating and thinning. Glaciers are
shrinking, and ecosystems, as you know, are changing. These
changes have impacts locally and globally. Alaskan villages
have been moved. Permafrost is thawing and undermining roads.
Environmental change and rising sea level is really of impact
globally, even though it's at the poles. So, that's one of the
tremendous motivators, is the scientific community is very
concerned and wants to understand what's causing the change in
our planet.
Now, although we made tremendous progress in the last year
in coloring in those maps--those last hundred years--there are
still tremendous frontiers at the edges of scientific
knowledge. The maps aren't blank anymore, but the frontiers and
the unknowns have grown. They're no longer just spatial and
geographic, but they're actually at the molecular and, still,
at the continental scale. They're fundamental unknowns.
Through the planning process begun at the National Academy,
we've identified five major challenges. The first is to assess
the large-scale changes that are happening in the polar
regions. The second is to conduct scientific exploration of
these new frontiers, whether they're molecular or continental.
Third is to observe the polar regions in-depth, with adequate
knowledge, so we can look at what's causing the change. The
fourth is to understand the human/environment dynamics in an
environment where the interaction is very intimate. And,
finally, we want to create a new connection between the science
and the public.
And that's one of the major differences between this IPY
and the earlier IPYs, is the recognition that the physical
world and the biological world and the human society are
intimately interrelated. The upcoming IPY is inherently not
just about science, but science in support of human interests.
As you saw before, as you were holding up, Senator Stevens,
this is the present international map of the 225 projects that
highlights the geographic and discipline breadth of the IPY.
And while this looks a little overwhelming, this represents 63
nations and 6,000 scientists. So, this is really the global
view. And it's broken down so you can understand the breadth,
both discipline-wise and geographically, of this International
Polar Year. It provides an illustration of how their projects
have crossed both poles, crossed the disciplines, and crossed
the nations. Each cell is a major program with an international
team of scientists working together and producing a tremendous
multiplicative effect, far more than we would if it was simply
funded through our classic national funding process.
The net result will be a huge leap forward in our
understanding of polar processes--physical, biological, and
social--and the global connections.
Planning's proceeding, as you've heard today, at a rapid
pace with the official kickoff coming in March 2007. And there
are a couple of potential requirements that must be met if it's
going to meet the expectations. I think we need to see a
broadening and deepening of participation of the agencies,
increase in the level of funding, increase the coordination,
nationally and internationally, and fostering the
interdisciplinary work. How do we draw the linkages between
these columns? These issues are things that must be addressed
for a vibrant and successful International Polar Year.
In conclusion, I just want to address your questions about
what the societal benefits of the International Polar Year are
going to be.
Just as these science programs are multifaceted and
multidisciplinary, so are the benefits. It will advance our
fundamental understanding of our planet, from the polar
ecosystems to subglacial terrains. It 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 to the
inhabitants of the North. It will inspire a new spirit of
discovery across ages, and help us develop the next generation
of leaders in science, engineering, education, industry,
commerce, and, we hope, government.
At the international level, it'll show, again, even in the
most difficult times, that science can be a powerful arena for
international cooperation. Why should much of our Nation, who
primarily live in the warmer part of our Earth, care about IPY?
They think of the polar regions as being physically distinct,
and they don't understand the critical links to the global
climate system. I like to think of this simple experiment that
you can do--or you can just do in your mind, I can do right
now. Imagine holding an ice cube between your thumb and your
forefinger. As you hold it, your finger starts to melt the ice
cube, and you quickly feel the water dripping down across the
ice cube and down your hand. That's what the poles are like. We
know the poles are changing, but, as the poles change, it
impacts the rest of our planet, the rest of the ice cube. We
don't actually understand. And what we hope to understand is
what's causing the warming fingers on our planet. But on our
planet, the poles are causing the ocean currents to change--
that's what's keeping Europe warmer, presently. And the sea ice
is what modifies much of the climate as it reflects the solar
energy back. Melting the ice sheet will raise sea levels,
threaten coastal communities around the world. Polar regions
are integral parts of the Earth system and will respond to, and
drive, changes in the planet elsewhere.
So, from assessing large-scale environmental change to
exploring the new frontiers, the International Polar Year is a
scientific opportunity of a generation.
Thank you very much for your time, and I'm happy to address
any questions you have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Bell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robin E. Bell, Ph.D., Doherty Senior Research
Scientist, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University;
Chair, Polar Research Board, U.S. National Committee for International
Polar Year, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research
Council, The National Academies
Good afternoon. 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 woman 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,
and I currently serve as a member of the ICSU-World Meteorological
Organization (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 5,000 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 1882-1883
and subsequent ones in 1932-1933, and the International Geophysical
Year (IGY) in 1957-1958, 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 2 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 analyses that will be multidisciplinary 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
multidisciplinary 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:
Assess large-scale environmental change in the polar
regions, with questions looking at both the physical and human
dimensions of change and its impacts.
Conduct 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.
Observe 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.
Understand human-environmental dynamics in a region where
the connections are intimate and where the impacts of change
are clear.
Create new connections between science and the public, using
these regions that are inherently intriguing.
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 1882-1883
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, the National Academies became involved in a
serious dialog about whether there should be another International
Polar Year (following in the tradition of the year held in 1882-1883,
1932-1933, and 1957-1958) and whether it would be advantageous to
participate. We began talking with colleagues around the world to judge
international interest, as well. Here in the U.S., the Chair of that
first planning 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, wrote an
editorial for Science magazine (included as an attachment), 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 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 involvement put the U.S. in a leadership role in
planning the IPY internationally.
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 so-called ``honeycomb diagram'' (attached) highlights some 225
large groupings of projects that illustrate the geographic and
disciplinary breadth of IPY 2007-2008. Each cell represents a major
program with many participating projects involving international teams
of scientists. Working together, this research will produce a
tremendous leap forward in our understanding of polar processes
(physical, biological, and social) and their global connections.
Of the 225 projects, the U.S. plays a leadership role in 52
projects (20 percent) and is participating in 80 percent. Right now,
everything is still conceptual--what will actually happen on the ground
is still being determined, both here and in other nations. Significant
planning efforts are occurring in each of the participating nations; in
addition, 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 subcommittees
devoted to data management, observation systems, and education and
outreach.
Although 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, creating a multi-agency website, and starting the process of
soliciting proposals for the actual on-the-ground research and
education and outreach activities. (In fact, last week NSF announced
the first of the education and outreach activities to be funded, and
these provide an excellent first glimpse at the kinds of exciting
activities that will occur.)
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 focuses on communication and
coordination, in particular interacting with other nations and the
international Programme Office, communicating what's happening in the
U.S. science community, encouraging U.S. agencies to participate, and
looking for ways to bring other partners into IPY. For instance, as
part of its coordinating role, in early October, the Polar Research
Board will host a meeting of the heads of IPY secretariats so that the
staff working behind-the-scenes on IPY have an opportunity to
coordinate.
Planning for IPY is advancing at a continued, rapid pace, with the
official kick-off coming in March 2007. But there are some potential
requirements that must be met if the IPY is to meet expectations.
1. Broaden and deepen the participation of the agencies. NSF is
doing a stellar job leading and coordinating efforts, but other
key agencies with polar interests remain less engaged.
2. Increase the level of funding. The programs outlined in the
Vision document require a significant investment of funds both
to NSF and other Federal agencies.
3. Enhance coordination nationally and internationally. Early
IPYs were directed by the military. Today's grass-roots
approach provides great flexibility and innovation, but frankly
is more difficult to coordinate.
4. Foster multi-disciplinary work. While in the 1950's science
was very discipline-based and that met the needs of the times,
today's biggest scientific and societal challenges require a
more complex, systems-based approach.
These issues must be addressed to ensure a vibrant and successful
International Polar Year.
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 multi-faceted and multi-disciplinary, the benefits of the
IPY will be multifaceted and multidisciplinary. The IPY will advance
our fundamental understanding of our planet--from polar ecosystems to
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 the
following 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.
______
Science Magazine, March 5, 2004
The International Polar Year
by Mary R. Albert *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Mary R. Albert is Chair of the U.S. Planning Committee for IPY
2007-2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change is ubiquitous in Earth's history, and evidence is clear that
Earth's climate is changing rapidly now. The harbingers of change can
be seen vividly in the polar regions. The Arctic ice cover is melting,
ice shelves in Antarctica are crumbling, glaciers in temperate regions
are disappearing, some ecosystems are changing, and permafrost thawing
is causing the collapse of roads, buildings, and pipelines. Are we
witnesses to an extreme in natural variability, the threshold of an
abrupt change, or something more subtle? How will changes first seen in
the polar regions affect us all?
Plans are under way for the International Polar Year (IPY) 2007-
2008. Previous IPYs (1882-1883 and 1932-1933) and the International
Geophysical Year (1957-1958) (which began as an IPY) produced
unprecedented exploration and discoveries in many fields of research,
and fundamentally changed how science was conducted in the polar
regions. IPY 2007-2008 will benefit society by exploring new frontiers
and increasing our understanding of the key roles of the polar regions
in globally linked systems. Recent technological developments give us a
new ability to investigate previously unexplored areas, using new tools
and new ways of looking to understand once-unanswerable questions.
Autonomous vehicles, genomics, and remote sensing instruments and
networks are just a few of the technologies providing new tools for
investigating previously inaccessible realms. The polar regions also
continue to loom large in facilitating our understanding of the
processes by which solar activity may seriously disturb Earth's space
environment, affecting the performance of modern technologies deployed
in space and on Earth. We believe that research is needed now, so that
future generations may mitigate vulnerabilities and adapt to potential
change.
Many important broad and interlinked research challenges exist
today. To name just one example, how and why are the changes in polar
regions occurring, and how can we predict and mitigate the outcome?
Changes in ice mass are linked with regional and global environments,
and atmospheric and oceanic processes; implementing polar observation
systems would help document these changes. Clues for understanding how
and why similar changes occurred in the past remain stored in polar
earth and ice; sediment and ice coring would help us understand past
changes. Polar changes are interlinked with the behavior and survival
of ecosystems, from microbial life to large organisms, including
humans; studies in polar biology are needed. Keys to fundamental
discoveries for understanding change may spring from new modes of
exploration that range from using autonomous underwater vehicles under
the ice to the use of genomics for investigating adaptation;
exploration reveals surprises. Communications technologies such as
television and the Internet, combined with changes in the environment,
are challenging traditional human lifestyles in our cold regions and
elsewhere. Yet, these same technologies hold the potential for sharing
ideas and experiences in both polar regions and for promoting global
understanding; Internet-based efforts in global data collection,
sharing, and education are needed.
Various international organizations and individual nations are
actively planning for the IPY. The International Council for Science
(ICSU) formed an international planning group to catalyze IPY
development across national boundaries. The World Meteorological
Organization also has identified IPY as a major new initiative. Other
endorsements to date include the Scientific Committee on Antarctic
Research, the International Arctic Science Committee, and the Arctic
Council. Interested countries have begun to form national committees
and develop a consensus regarding scientific themes that will form the
backbone of the activities. In the United States, the Polar Research
Board of the National Academies has formed a committee * to facilitate
IPY planning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The U.S. National Committee to the IPY actively welcomes input
from the science community (www.us-ipy.org).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a world of much uncertainty and change, citizens turn to science
for answers. The polar regions play an important role in providing
these answers. A framework such as the IPY can provide the impetus to
undertake projects that normally could not be achieved by any single
nation, reaching beyond our traditional borders toward a new level of
cooperative international science. Our vision for IPY 2007-2008 is that
it will be the dawn of a new era in polar science, kicked off by an
intense internationally coordinated campaign of activities. IPY 2007-
2008 will address research in both polar regions, which have strong
linkages to the rest of the globe. It will be multi- and
interdisciplinary in scope and truly international in participation. It
will educate and excite the public, and help produce the next
generation of engineers, scientists, and leaders.
______
Science Magazine, March 5, 2004
Polar Exploration--A Year To Remember at the Ends of the Earth
researchers charting a course for an international polar year in 2007-
2008 are hoping to recapture the glory of a similarly ambitious venture
a half-century ago
by Richard Stone and Gretchen Vogel
Cambridge, U.K. and Berlin
When Les Barclay and 20 intrepid fellow voyagers set out for
Antarctica in November 1956, they knew they were embarking on the
scientific adventure of a lifetime. After 5 weeks at sea, the
radiophysicist and his colleagues on the International Geophysical Year
(IGY) Antarctic Expedition put in at Halley Bay, then Britain's new
toehold on the Antarctic Peninsula. They had lugged all the equipment
they could possibly need there until the next ship called a year later.
``We went down without recourse to any facilities back home,'' says
Barclay.
For the next 2 years, he and counterparts across Antarctica and at
the other end of Earth, in the High Arctic, made some of the first
high-latitude measurements of the ionosphere and its most spectacular
phenomenon, the aurora. Barclay also teamed with W. Roy Piggott to
pioneer the use of radio waves for measuring the thickness of ice
shelves, a technique that led to ground-penetrating radar. Other major
finds of the $1 billion IGY of 1957-1958 include the discovery of the
Van Allen radiation belts and radical new estimates of ice volume on
Earth's surface. ``We learned a tremendous amount about the world,''
says Barclay, who now runs a consulting firm in Chelmsford, U.K.
Nearly a half-century later, researchers are marshalling forces for
another major assault on the poles. Under the auspices of the
International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU), the World
Meteorological Organization (WMO), and more than a dozen other
scientific groups, an ambitious plan is taking shape for an
International Polar Year (IPY) to kick off during the Arctic spring of
early 2007, and extend through the Antarctic fall of early 2008. ``We
want a real quantum jump in our understanding of how the poles work,''
says Chris Rapley, Director of the British Antarctic Survey and Chair
of ICSU's IPY planning board.
Rapley and other organizers now face the daunting task of
convincing countries to pitch in funding and logistical support beyond
that already committed to ongoing polar programs. The overall
investment could easily top $1 billion, organizers say, as dozens of
countries sign up to multilateral agreements that will govern IPY
projects.
The will be no shortage of ideas in search of funding, for
unanswered questions of polar research are legion. IPY's planning board
will try to winnow the field to a few major themes that promise to have
deep scientific impact and broad public resonance. ``One of the goals
is to get people to realize that . . . the cold ends of the sphere we
live on really do influence us,'' says ICSU IPY planning Vice Chair
Robin Bell of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in
Palisades, New York. And, like their predecessors, they intend to leave
a lasting legacy. ``We want to design a way to take the pulse of the
poles in 2007 and 2008,'' Bell says, ``but we also want to leave a
heart monitor in place so we can continue to see what's going on.''
From Cape Horn to Sputnik
The Polar Year of 2007-2008 will follow in the footsteps of
illustrious predecessors, each of which overhauled our understanding of
global processes. The first IPY, in 1882-1883, was largely the
brainchild of Karl Weyprecht, an Austrian naval lieutenant who
commanded a ship during the Austro-Hungarian Arctic Expedition of 1872-
1874. He argued that polar exploration required more than geographic
discovery and called for the establishment of a network of research
stations in the polar regions. The idea caught fire, and during the
first Polar Year, 11 nations established 14 stations--two at Cape Horn
and South Georgia Island in the South Atlantic and a dozen in the
Arctic--to record data on everything from meteorology to terrestrial
magnetism, and the aurora, findings that shaped later theories of the
ionosphere. ``It was the first big meteorological experiment,'' says
Cornelia Ludecke, a science historian at the University of Hamburg,
Germany.
The second IPY took place 50 years later, in 1932-1933. Despite a
global economic depression, 44 countries teamed up on nearly two dozen
dedicated expeditions to the Arctic and the Southern Hemisphere,
although like the previous IPY the effort did not reach as far south as
Antarctica. Technology had come a long way: Telephone, aircraft, and
radio sounding all were at the disposal of researchers. A major
achievement was obtaining detailed measurements of the upper
atmosphere, including the first maps of the jet stream.
Grand as those efforts were, they paled in comparison to the
massive undertaking of 1957-1958. Lloyd Berkner of the Carnegie
institution of Washington aired the IGY idea at a dinner party at the
home of space physicist James Van Allen in the spring of 1950. The
suggestion snowballed into one of the biggest global scientific
undertakings ever. Still, it was the depths of the Cold War, and
politics was never tar from the surface: The Soviet Union in 1956
announced that it would put the first satellite in orbit during the IGY
(Sputnik duly went up the next year), and China withdrew from the
effort after Taiwan was brought aboard. Antarctica was seen as a
potential Cold War battleground, with countries laying claim to slices
of the continent. An international research effort, some hoped, would
ease tensions--and indeed, the IGY is credited with fostering the
political climate for the Antarctic Treaty, in which signatories agreed
to share the continent in the name of ``peace and science.'' In all,
roughly 80,000 scientists and support staff from 67 countries took part
in the IGY.
``It was a thrilling time,'' recalls David Limbert, who confesses
that as a 29-year-old meteorologist he left several girlfriends in
England to join the Royal Society's IGY advance team, dispatched in
late 1955 to build the Halley Bay camp. ``We were there as pump
primers,'' he says. For the first several weeks he and the other
expedition members slept in tents as they built Halley beam by beam.
Halley and many of the other few dozen Antarctic bases established
during the IGY continue to produce world-class science. The IGY, says
Rapley, ``set the standard for what can be achieved.''
The Next Frontier
The IGY will be a hard act to follow. But the half-century of polar
science it ushered in has only deepened scientists' appreciation of the
complexity and importance of polar processes. What happens at the poles
is inextricably tied to patterns of cold and warmth, rainfall and
drought. To have any hope of understanding what is happening to global
climate today, and what might happen in the future, scientists need a
better picture of conditions at the poles and how they interact with
and influence ocean and air currents.
So far scientists have only the vaguest clues to how those
interactions work. ``We know the climate models don't get the polar
regions right, and there is a lot of work going on to understand why
that is,'' Rapley says. One puzzle, he notes, is that the models have
largely failed to predict the dramatic melting of the Antarctic ice
shelf And even state-of-the-art models vary widely in their predictions
for the severity of the warming that might occur in the Arctic.
One challenge is that the polar regions seem to be reacting more
dramatically than other latitudes to global climate changes. The three
fastest-warming regions in the last 2 decades have been Alaska,
Siberia, and parts of the Antarctic Ice Sheet, notes Rapley. But
whether that is the start of a long-term trend or a normal fluctuation
is unclear. Figuring this out ``is directly related to our ability to
collect data,'' Rapley says.
One likely project for the upcoming IPY will be updating an array
of monitoring stations strung across the Russian Arctic during the IGY.
In the last decade alone, many of those stations have fallen silent,
depriving meteorologists of key data on temperature and rainfall, for
example. According to the Russian Academy of Sciences, only 45 polar
hydrometeorological stations were functioning in 2002, a two-thirds
reduction over the past decade. Refurbishing the stations is a top
priority, says Eduard Sarukhanian, WMO's IPY Coordinator. However, adds
Rapley, ``what we're keen to do is make sure that doesn't just focus on
meteorology and hydrology but opens up new vistas on other research--
from any field that people can convince us is worthwhile.''
Opening new vistas may well be the driving theme of the IPY.
``There are subglacial lakes and the spreading ridges under the Arctic
that have never been explored,'' Bell says. And while biologists have
barely begun to catalog life in polar oceans, there are hints that
here, too, the frozen ends of Earth have a global influence.
One theory suggests that the Southern Ocean might have been a
source of much of the biodiversity in the deep oceans worldwide. When
the Antarctic continent broke away on its own, a girdle of swift-moving
ocean currents formed around it, trapping species in the chilly waters
of the Southern Ocean and forcing them to adapt to extreme conditions,
Rapley explains. Those creatures, then, may have hitched a ride to
other oceans. Brigitte Hilbig of Ruhr University in Bochum, Germany,
recently identified several worms in 5,000-meter-deep waters off Angola
that are nearly identical to one first identified in the Southern
Ocean, 5,000 kilometers away, suggesting that there may be important
connections between the life forms of polar oceans and seabed habitats
worldwide. To probe this further, Hilbig and colleagues have proposed
taking a zoological and genetic census of the Southern Ocean as part of
the IPY.
The Arctic waters, too, likely hold new surprises. An expedition in
2001 to the Gakkel Ridge, where the continental plates bearing Europe
and North America are spreading apart, turned up much more hydrothermal
activity than scientists expected, says Jorn Thiede of the Alfred
Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Bremerhaven,
Germany. As part of the IPY, he and his colleagues hope to send a
remote-controlled sub to survey the region.
IPY organizers also hope to attract interest from astronomers who
can use polar summers for uninterrupted views of the sun; medical
researchers who study human responses to extreme conditions; and social
and political scientists who could study the impact of Arctic warming
on northern Russia, Canada, and other Arctic Rim nations.
In an initial call, organizers received nearly 150 proposals.
``It's taking off like gangbusters,'' Rapley says. The ICSU committee
and its partners will settle on a handful of flagship projects by
autumn, he says. (Contributions are still welcome; see Editorial, p.
1437.) Rapley says that ICSU might try to coordinate three to five
large-scale efforts, such as major transects across the poles or large-
scale atmospheric or ocean surveys. He hopes the effort will inspire a
wellspring of multinational projects around the globe organized by
other scientists.
It's not yet clear whether such efforts will add up to the $1
billion infusion the last IGY enjoyed. Karl Erb, Director of the U.S.
National Science Foundation's Office of Polar Programs, estimates that
NSF might contribute up to $50 million in research funding and
logistical support for IPY-specific activities, from its nearly $400
million annual budget. Given the formidable base that the field is
building on, a smaller investment than that plowed into IGY could have
just as profound an impact, argues Chad Dick of the Norwegian Polar
Institute in Troms<, Norway. The onus will be on organizers to choose
projects with far-reaching payoffs. ``If all we do is have a blast for
2 years and nothing changes in our ability to monitor the poles for the
long term, we will have failed,'' he says. Considering the track record
of the first two IPYs and the IGY, failure would appear to be only a
remote possibility.
______
An Otherworldly Place to Hunt for Other Worlds
by Gretchen Vogel
High on Antarctica's frozen desert, astronomers have found some of
the best conditions on Earth for peering into space. The calm,
cloudless skies above Dome C, 3233 meters above sea level in the middle
of the main Antarctic ice sheet, make the isolated spot a stargazer's
dream. The site is the location of the newest permanent year-round
station in Antarctica, a joint French-Italian project called Concordia.
The main buildings, which will host 16 people over the 9-month
winter and twice as many in summer, are expected to be finished by the
Antarctic winter of 2005-2006, in ample time for the station to
participate fully in the International Polar Year (IPY) to begin in
2007 (see main text).
Concordia, perched on an ice dome, should entice scientists from a
range of disciplines. For example, researchers who use ice cores to
decipher dues to past climates expect to look deep into the last Ice
Age thanks to nearly 500,000 years of snow accumulation at Dome C. And
as the third permanent station on the continent's interior, located
more than 1,000 kilometers from its nearest neighbor, the United
States' Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, Concordia will help fill
gaps in measurements of Earth's magnetic and gravitational fields and
the continent's seismic activity.
Concordia is also set to rival the South Pole as a premier
astronomical outpost. Although there are not yet any full-size
telescopes at the site, measurements suggest it is an outstanding place
for optical and near-infrared astronomy. The air can be so still, says
Eric Fossat, an astronomer at the University of Nice in France, that
smoke rings from tractors at the construction site often linger for
tens of seconds before dissipating. The lack of wind and heat currents
makes the atmosphere extremely clear, cutting down on the shimmer that
disrupts Earth-based views of stars. Thus astronomers can look forward
to some of the best ``seeing'' anywhere on Earth. ``The indications are
that the seeing may be absolutely extraordinarily good,'' says
astronomer Tony Stark of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
Astrophysics, who has worked extensively at the South Pole.
That quality, combined with the site's aridity and average ambient
temperature of -50 +C, makes it a great spot for infrared astronomy--
perhaps the best on Earth for searching for planets similar to our own,
Fossat says. In the infrared, planets show up brighter and stars
dimmer, allowing astronomers to discern planets more easily. And, he
notes, there is half as much cloud cover as at the already impressively
clear South Pole Station. Astronomers are still securing funding, but
they hope to have the first telescope in place for the IPY in 2007. An
array of telescopes could come further down the road.
Concordia may even help humans reach for the stars. To simulate the
effects of long-duration space flight, researchers plan to study how
staff members cope with the Antarctic winter (Science, 15 August 2003,
p. 906). Fossat himself says he won't winter there. ``I'm too old for
that kind of sacrifice,'' he says. But with Concordia's astronomical
attributes, don't expect any shortage of volunteers.
______
A Vision for International Polar Year 2007-2008 *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* U.S. National Committee for the International Polar Year
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental change and variability are part of the natural
pattern on Earth. But 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.
Why should the vast majority of us, who live in the warmer regions
of the Earth, care? The polar regions, while physically distant, are
critical links in the global climate system. 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. These are just
a few of many global connections. 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. To better
understand these and other questions, nations around the world are
making plans to participate in International Polar Year (IPY) 2007-
2008.
IPY 2007-2008: Scope and Objectives
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 multidisciplinary in scope and international
in participation. IPY 2007-2008 will provide a framework and impetus 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 relevant 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 an
exciting 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 inter-disciplinary
studies, including biological, ecological, and social science elements.
It will run from March 1, 2007 until March 1, 2009, to allow two field
seasons of research in both the Arctic and the Antarctic.
What Will Happen During IPY?
During the window of IPY 2007-2008, scientists from many nations
will join together in expeditions and research projects designed to
meet the IPY objectives, coordinated at both the national and
international levels. They will work both in the Arctic and the
Antarctic, and in universities, laboratories, and observatories around
the world. The specific research projects have not yet been selected,
but we envision teams of researchers collecting coordinated
measurements to compile a snapshot of environmental conditions, which
can serve as a baseline for understanding future environmental change.
There might be an effort to coordinate satellites to gather consistent
data on ice extent. Ecologists might mount a massive effort to conduct
a census of marine life so that we better understand population trends
for important fisheries. Other groups might drill into the ocean floor
in search of sediment cores with evidence of past environments.
Multidisciplinary teams might document ecosystem changes in far
northern communities where traditional subsistence foods are important
to the local lifestyle, and try to understand how changes are affecting
the people of those communities. The next year is very important to IPY
planning, because it is time to sort through the many ideas that have
been suggested and see which are best to pursue.
Who's Involved in the IPY?
Enthusiasm for IPY 2007-2008 is strong and growing. In barely more
than a year, the science community has progressed from its earliest
discussions of possibilities for new international science endeavors to
serious planning of what an IPY might accomplish and what resources are
needed. More than 25 nations have formally declared the intent to
participate and many more have discussions in progress. Here in the
United States, scientists have been presenting talks and holding open
forums at professional meetings, and using an interactive website to
brainstorm ideas where U.S. leadership might ensure significant
contributions. A call to the science community for ideas about what
science themes to pursue brought forward hundreds of ideas, and this
input has been crucial in the IPY planning.
The U.S. Committee for the International Polar Year 2007-2008 was
formed by the Polar Research Board of the National Academies to
articulate a vision for U.S. participation in IPY 2007-2008, in
coordination with and on behalf of our Nation's scientific communities.
The Committee has worked closely with the U.S. science community using
a variety of mechanisms. It has worked with our international
colleagues, especially the International Council for Science's IPY
2007-2008 Planning Group, to identify the important science themes and
develop the detailed information needed to implement its many
contributing activities.
When IPY 2007-2008 gets underway, it will involve far more than
scientists. The hope is that many people--scout leaders, teachers,
museum directors, filmmakers, journalists, parents, and students of all
ages--will be involved. Some of the participation will be hands-on;
other involvement will take full advantage of the tremendous
opportunities for instantaneous communication offered by modern
technologies.
What Should We Do To Make IPY a Success?
The Committee recommends the following actions for ensuring a
successful IPY 2007-2008:
The U.S. scientific community and agencies should use the
IPY to initiate a sustained effort aimed at assessing large-
scale environmental change and variability in the polar
regions.
The U.S. scientific community and agencies should include
studies of coupled human-natural systems critical to societal,
economic, and strategic interests in the IPY.
The U.S. IPY effort should explore new scientific frontiers
from the molecular to the planetary scale.
The International Polar Year should be used as an
opportunity to design and implement multi-disciplinary polar
observing networks that will provide a long-term perspective.
The United States should invest in critical infrastructure
(both physical and human) and technology to guarantee that IPY
2007-2008 leaves enduring benefits for the Nation and for the
residents of northern regions.
The U.S. IPY program should excite and engage the public,
with the goal of increasing understanding of the importance of
polar regions in the global system and, at the same time,
advance general science literacy in the Nation.
The U.S. scientific community and agencies should
participate as leaders in International Polar Year 2007-2008.
Scientific Challenges
IPY 2007-2008 is an opportunity to deepen our understanding of the
physical, biological, and chemical processes in the polar regions and
their global linkages and impacts, and to communicate these insights to
the public. Five broad scientific challenges provide a framework for
organizing IPY activities:
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 such as the
seafloor, 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.
Previous International Years
International Polar Year 2007-2008 is an ambitious program
following in the footsteps of some past campaigns. There have been
three similar programs over the last 125 years. During the first
International Polar Year in 1882-1883, 12 countries launched 15
expeditions (13 in the Arctic and 2 in the Antarctic). As part of its
contribution, the United States established our northernmost scientific
station at Point Barrow, Alaska. The second International Polar Year in
1932-1933, even in the midst of the Great Depression, included
participants from 40 nations, and brought advances in meteorology,
atmospheric sciences, geomagnetism, and the ``mapping'' of ionospheric
phenomena that advanced radioscience and technology. The United States
established the first year-round research station inland from the
Antarctic coast.
The International Geophysical Year (IGY) in 1957-1958, in which 67
nations participated, was conceived as an effort to use technology
developed during World War II, such as rockets and radar, for
scientific research. IGY brought many ``firsts,'' such as the launch of
the world's first satellites. IGY had a strong polar component,
especially in the Antarctic: research stations were established and the
experience in international collaboration, even in tense political
times, led to ratification of the Antarctic Treaty in 1961. Each of
these campaigns produced unprecedented exploration of Earth and space
and led to discoveries in many fields of science. IPY 2007-2008 is
expected to leave a similar legacy of accomplishments.
U.S. National Committee for the International Polar Year: Mary
Albert, (Chair) ERDC Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory;
Robert Bindschadler, National Aeronautics and Space Administration--
Goddard Space Flight Center; Cecilia Bitz, University of Washington;
Jerry Bowen, CBS News; David Bromwich, The Ohio State University;
Richard Glenn, Arctic Slope Regional Corporation; Jacqueline Grebmeier,
University of Tennessee; John Kelley, University of Alaska Fairbanks;
Igor Krupnik, Smithsonian Institution; Louis Lanzerotti, Bell
Laboratories-Lucent Technologies; Peter Schlosser, Lamont-Doherty Earth
Observatory of Columbia University; Philip Smith, McGeary & Smith;
George Somero, Stanford University; Cristina Takacs-Vesbach, University
of New Mexico; Gunter Weller, University of Alaska Fairbanks; Douglas
Wiens, Washington University; Mahlon Kennicutt, (Ex-officio) Texas A&M
University; Patrick Webber, (Ex-officio) Michigan State University;
Terry Wilson, (Ex-officio) The Ohio State University; Sheldon Drobot,
(Study Director) Polar Research Board; Chris Elfring, (Board Director)
Polar Research Board; Kristen Averyt, (Christine Mirzayan Intern) Polar
Research Board; and Rachael Shiflett, (Program Assistant), Polar
Research Board.
This brief was prepared by the National Research Council based on
the Committee's report. For more information, contact the Polar
Research Board at 202-334-3479. A Vision for International Polar Year
2007-2008 is available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001; 800-624-6242 or 202-334-3313 (in the
Washington area); www.nap.edu.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you very much, and we thank you for
coming. I did not know that was an international chart. I thank
you for bringing that up. I will have some questions later. I
do appreciate the charts and slides that you have brought with
you. They're very informative.
Our next witness is Dr. Buck Sharpton. He's the Vice
Chancellor for Research of the University of Alaska in
Fairbanks.
Doctor, it's nice to have you with us.
STATEMENT OF DR. VIRGIL L. ``BUCK'' SHARPTON, VICE
CHANCELLOR FOR RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA (UA) FAIRBANKS;
UA PRESIDENT'S PROFESSOR OF REMOTE SENSING
Dr. Sharpton. Thank you, Chairman Stevens and Senator
Murkowski, for the opportunity to be here today.
Fifty years ago, the world embarked on the most ambitious
scientific program in history, the International Geophysical
Year. This 18-month-long series of internationally coordinated
observations returned untold dividends in the form of new
scientific knowledge: discovery of the Van Allen radiation
belts, sea-floor studies leading to the revolutionary theory of
plate tectonics, the Antarctic Treaty, and many, many more. And
our Nation derived other important benefits from this
investment, as well. IGY expanded national research funding
significantly and permanently, leading to tremendous payoffs in
intellectual property and societal benefits throughout the
latter half of the 20th century. IGY was also a much-needed
opportunity for the United States to exhibit, on the global
stage, its technological capabilities and political will to
work equitably and openly with the international scientific
community. We invested heavily; and, as a result, the world has
looked to the U.S. for scientific leadership ever since.
The upcoming IPY is a much-needed opportunity to reaffirm
our place as world leaders in science and technology, to
demonstrate that we are still committed to open international
programs that advance scientific knowledge, and to invest
wisely in activities that will inspire and train the next
generation of U.S. scientists and engineers.
Often, when the term ``polar'' is used, people gravitate
toward visions of Antarctica or the North Pole. Obviously, one
does not need to look that far. ``Polar,'' in United States
terms, means Alaska and its people.
Alaskans are in the midst of change. We are in immediate
need of IPY to more fully understand what's happening, and why,
to be able to reliably forecast events to come, to identify how
to hold on to our unique and valuable resources, such as
indigenous languages and culture, and to make informed
decisions to address the multitude of challenges before us.
The University of Alaska has been involved in IPY planning
and implementation for the past 3 years. Over 75 percent of our
research pertains to Alaska and the broader Arctic region, and
over 25 percent of all the research and educational proposals
endorsed by the IPY International Programme Office involve our
researchers. I've attached a list of those to my written
testimony.
Through our network of colleges across rural Alaska and
ongoing research programs, we have gained valuable experience
working with and for our Alaskan Native populations. This
experience is essential in ensuring that the upcoming IPY
addresses their issues, involves them as research partners and
astute observers, not just subjects, and returns to them the
results and rewards of these research activities.
Considerable financial resources will be needed if the
United States is to take a leading role in IPY. Other nations
have committed far more than ours, at least thus far. But we,
at the University of Alaska, are not waiting for outside funds
before we move forward. The University's president, Mark
Hamilton, has committed $3.5 million to support 13 IPY
postdoctoral fellows for 3 years. We look to these young
scientists, five of whom come from other countries, to broaden
our research capabilities and expand our connections around the
world as we engage in IPY.
Eighteen months ago, we launched an IPY strategy that
extends the research and educational opportunities afforded by
IPY across all sectors of Alaskan society. Through awards from
the State Department and NOAA's Cooperative Institute for
Arctic Research, we have the resources to initiate this plan,
the components of which are provided in my written testimony.
In conclusion, I would like to leave you with four
recommendations for investments that would yield lasting
returns to the Nation in our Nation's only Arctic State.
Further details are included in my written testimony.
First, approve the National Science Foundation's budget to
support IPY research and educational outreach.
Second, support the Arctic Observing Network.
Third, expand network connectivity infrastructure within
Alaska, and from Alaska to the U.S. mainland, to acceptable
national standards to promote economic growth and ensure equal
opportunities for all the residents of our State.
And, finally, please help us acquire high-resolution
digital imagery and elevation data for Alaska that meet
national standards and are currently available for every State
in our Nation except Alaska.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to present this
testimony today. And thank you very much for your interest in
the International Polar Year.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Sharpton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Virgil L. ``Buck'' Sharpton, Vice Chancellor
for Research, University of Alaska (UA) Fairbanks; UA President's
Professor of Remote Sensing
Thank you Chairman Stevens, Chairman Lugar, Senator Murkowski and
Members of both Senate Committees for the opportunity to be here today.
In my capacity as Vice Chancellor for the University of Alaska in
Fairbanks, I am responsible for developing and implementing the
University's strategy for participating in activities of the upcoming
4th International Polar Year. As a researcher and educator, and now the
Chief Research Officer of America's only Arctic University, I would
like to share my perspectives on why IPY is important to Alaska and our
Nation, how we have prepared ourselves to play key roles in these
activities, and leave you with recommendations for valuable legacies
that could result from IPY.
The upcoming IPY is staged to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the
International Geophysical Year, IGY, held in 1957-1958. IGY was modeled
on the two previous Polar Years, 1882-1883 and 1932-1933, where
coordinated scientific studies were conducted to understand our
planet's natural processes and cycles. IGY was originally planned to
take place at the centennial celebration of the first Polar Year in
1982-1983, but instead was held 25 years earlier to take advantage of
an unusually intense period of sunspot activity. Thus IGY came at a
most critical time for our Nation and the world. During World War II
and the early post-war era, technologies had been developed with the
potential for unimaginable devastation. Ideological differences between
the two multi-national superpowers heightened concerns that those
technologies might some day be used as tools of aggression. IGY was an
effort to develop peaceful uses of these post-war technologies in order
to improve knowledge about our planet--particularly its polar regions--
through an international campaign of coordinated scientific
observations. IGY was a tremendous success; over 30,000 scientists from
67 countries took part in what was the largest and most ambitious
scientific program ever attempted. Some of the scientific legacies left
by this effort include:
The discovery of the Van Allen radiation belts that ring the
earth and affect communication and spacecraft operations;
The charting of ocean depths and ocean currents;
A mapping of the magnetic characteristics of the ocean floor
that soon led to the revolutionary theory of plate tectonics;
The first rigorous study of the Antarctic continent and its
ice sheets;
The Antarctic Treaty, making the whole continent a place of
scientific research, free of national claims and international
rivalry.
But there were other important benefits that our Nation derived
from the investment we made in this program. IGY expanded national
research investments significantly and permanently, leading to
tremendous payoffs in intellectual property and societal benefits
throughout the latter half of the 20th century. Furthermore, IGY was a
much needed opportunity for the United States to exhibit, on the global
stage, its technological capabilities and the political will to work
equitably and openly with the international scientific community. We
invested heavily and, as a result, the world has looked to the U.S. for
scientific leadership ever since.
Now, on the eve of the 4th IPY, we face a different type of
scientific challenge: the challenge to understand how our circumpolar
regions are changing, and to develop reliable strategies for mitigating
the negative impacts and optimizing the opportunities that accompany
this change. You have undoubtedly heard testimony from others on the
various lines of evidence demonstrating that the Arctic is experiencing
dramatic climate-induced changes: retreating sea ice, melting
permafrost, and the migration of the Arctic tree line to higher
elevations and latitudes, to name a few. And this is not just a
regional issue affecting a relatively few Arctic inhabitants. The Polar
Regions play key roles in the global climate system; therefore a more
complete understanding of the Arctic and Antarctic is imperative if we
are to improve global climate models.
In addition, many of the benefits our Nation derived from IGY,
fifty years ago, apply today. The upcoming IPY is a much needed
opportunity to reaffirm to the world our place as leaders in science
and technology, to demonstrate that we are committed to open,
international research programs that advance scientific knowledge, and
to invest wisely in activities that will inspire and train the next
generation of U.S. scientists and engineers.
Often, when the term ``polar'' is used, people gravitate toward
visions of Antarctica or the North Pole, or exotic uninhabited places.
Obviously, one does not need to look that far. Polar, in United States
terms, means Alaska and its people.
Alaskans are in the midst of change; we are in immediate need of
IPY to more fully understand what is happening and why, to be able to
reliably forecast events to come, identify how to hold on to our unique
and valuable resources such as indigenous languages and culture, and
learn to make informed decisions so that we can address the multitude
of challenges before us.
As Alaska's Research University, the Fairbanks campus as well as
the University of Alaska's other campuses have been involved in IPY
planning and implementation for the past 3 years. We are well prepared
to play key roles in the upcoming activities. Over 75 percent of our
research pertains to Alaska and the broader Arctic region. This
commitment is reflected in the fact that over 25 percent of all the
research and educational proposals endorsed by the IPY International
Programme Office involve Fairbanks campus researchers. A list of the
endorsed research projects is appended to this testimony.
Our field research stations, such as the Toolik Field Station on
the North Slope, have been systematically gathering ecological and
biological data for nearly half a century. Those sites will undoubtedly
be important centers of IPY research. Through our network of colleges
across rural Alaska, and ongoing research programs such as the Center
for Alaska Native Health Research, we have gained valuable experience
working with and for our Alaska Native populations. This experience is
essential in ensuring that the upcoming IPY addresses their issues,
involves them as research partners and astute observers--not just
subjects--and returns to them the results and rewards of these research
activities.
Considerable financial resources will be needed if the United
States is to take a leading role in IPY. Other nations have committed
far more than ours, at least thus far. But we at the University of
Alaska are not waiting for outside funds before we move forward. The
University's President Mark Hamilton has committed $3.5 million to
support 13 IPY postdoctoral fellowships for 3 years. These young
researchers were chosen from 180 applicants from around the world to
work on IPY-related research projects at the 3 main campuses across the
UA system: 9 at Fairbanks, 3 at Anchorage, and 1 in Juneau. We look to
these young scientists--five of whom come from other countries--to
broaden our research capabilities, and expand our connections around
the world as we engage in the internationally coordinated research
activities of IPY.
Eighteen months ago we launched an IPY strategy that included
research coordination, educational outreach, community engagement, and
public relations. We have taken steps to ensure that the research and
educational opportunities afforded by IPY extend across all sectors of
Alaska society. Through awards from the Department of State, Bureau of
Educational and Cultural Affairs, and the NOAA Cooperative Institute
for Arctic Research, we have the resources to initiate this plan which
includes the following activities:
The IPY Education and Outreach Office in conjunction with
the University of the Arctic. UArctic is a cooperative network
of educational institutions committed to higher education and
research in the North. Its members share resources, facilities,
and expertise to build post-secondary education programs that
are relevant and accessible to northern students.
Graduate and undergraduate research grants for student
involvement in IPY research projects across the University
system.
A K-12 engagement plan built around two ``contests''
targeted toward K-12 students: the first is an IPY art contest
where students from across Alaska submit works of art that
capture the spirit of IPY. The best from each age group will be
brought to Fairbanks for an awards ceremony and their art will
be exhibited at our Museum of the North during IPY. The second
is a writing contest for high school students to submit their
research papers on the benefits of past IPY activities to
Alaska and the Arctic. Again, each age group will be judged and
the winners will give presentations at one of the public
functions during IPY.
Implementation of the Think Tank of the North. This is a
series of events that seeks to address critical issues facing
the Arctic such as climate change impacts, development and
mineral extraction issues, sustainable natural resource
management, natural hazard mitigation, cultural impacts, and
information technology infrastructure needs. The University
will sponsor leading researchers, educators, and policymakers
from around the world for week-long visits to brainstorm with
our faculty and engage the public in open discussions.
Planning for the Ninth International Conference on
Permafrost to be held late June-early July 2008, in Fairbanks.
Attendance at this event is expected to exceed 900 people.
The Helge Instad Memorial Symposium on Arctic Change held
September 8-10, 2006. More than 170 scientists from Alaska,
Norway, Russia, Canada, and the lower 48 gathered at Fairbanks
to commemorate the Norwegian explorer, scientist and author,
who spent time with the Nunamiut (Eskimo) people of Anaktuvuk
Pass, Alaska, and discuss common research areas across the
Arctic countries. The symposium was co-sponsored by the
Fairbanks campus and the Royal Norwegian Embassy and included a
celebration officially naming Ingstad Mountain in Anaktuvuk
Pass on September 10, 2006.
A series of public presentations extending through the end
of IPY, beginning with Jared Diamond (Collapse: How Societies
Choose to Fail or Succeed) last March, Peter Smith (The Martian
Arctic) June 27, and Dava Sobel (Latitude) March 19, 2007).
Others will be selected during the next few months.
Support for the Arctic Institute of North America to advance
the study of the North American and circumpolar Arctic through
the natural and social sciences, the arts and humanities and to
acquire, preserve and disseminate information on the physical,
environmental and social conditions in the North.
In conclusion, I would like to leave you with a few recommendations
for legacy investments that would yield lasting returns to the Nation
and our Nation's only Arctic state:
Approve the National Science Foundation's budget to support
IPY research and educational outreach. NSF is the ideal support
organization to lead our Nation's IPY activities with its
demonstrated commitment to polar research, and the development
of a U.S. research community that is globally engaged. This is
an investment that will pay huge scientific dividends, will
strengthen our academic institutions, and gain the world's
appreciation.
Support the Arctic Observing Network (AON). The tight
linkages between the physical, biological, and social systems
in the Arctic, and the intensity of current and projected
changes, call for a coordinated monitoring program that extends
across the Arctic and provides long-term, multi-disciplinary
observations. ``Without such a program, it is very difficult to
describe current conditions in the Arctic, let alone understand
the changes that are underway or their connections to the rest
of the Earth system.'' \1\ AON would include satellites,
terrestrial observatories, ocean buoys and moorings, weather
stations, hydrologic monitoring stations, ecological sampling
networks, Arctic residents, and other data sources, many of
which already exist or are being planned. IPY offers an
immediate opportunity for major progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Toward an Integrated Arctic Observing Network, Committee on
Designing an Arctic Observing Network, National Research Council, ISBN:
0-309-10052-6, 128 pages, 8\1/2\ x 11, paperback, 2006.
Expand network connectivity infrastructure within Alaska and
from Alaska to the U.S. mainland to acceptable national
standards. Currently, our main academic network connection to
the outside world is OC-3. The current standard for large
Internet Service Providers in the rest of the Nation is OC-192,
which is 64 times faster than our connection. But this is just
part of the problem. Our state is in desperate need of better
high-speed connections between rural communities to ensure
values that most U.S. citizens have grown accustomed to:
educational opportunities, employment opportunities, and access
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
to other information that could enrich their lives.
Update high-resolution digital imagery and elevation data
coverage for Alaska. These fundamental datasets are critically
important in emergency response, wildfire behavior modeling,
aviation safety, change detection, and making informed resource
management decisions. Yet, the most recent program to acquire
imagery and elevation data for Alaska was over 50 years ago.
Alaska has changed and technologies have improved to the point
that Alaska's maps are significantly below national standards.
This year, Alaska's Governor Frank Murkowski and the State
Legislature approved $2 million to initiate a Statewide Digital
Mapping Initiative to ``put some skin in the game.'' Some
Federal assistance would assist us in bringing our maps up to
national standards.
Thank you again for the opportunity to present this testimony
today, and thank you for your interest in the International Polar Year.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions.
Appendix: Endorsed IPY Projects With University of Alaska Participants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UA Faculty Member Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Igor Polyakov, UAF Integrated Arctic Ocean Observing
System
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hajo Eicken, Rolf Gradinger, Igor The Pan Arctic cluster for Climate
Dmitrenko, UAF forcing of the Arctic Marine
Ecosystem
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Fowell, UAF The Bering Strait, Rapid Change,
and Land Bridge Paleoecology
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Katrin Iken, UAF Impact of CLImate induced glacial
melting on marine and terrestric
COastal communities on a gradient
along the Western Antarctic
PENinsula (ClicOPEN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JingFeng Wu, UAF International Polar Year
GEOTRACES: An international study
of the biogeochemical cycles of
Trace Elements and Isotopes in
the Arctic and Southern Oceans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Nolan, UAF The dynamic response of Arctic
glaciers to global warming
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virgil L. (Buck) Sharpton, UAF International Polar Year (IPY)
Data and Information Service
(DIS) for Distributed Data
Management
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vladimir Romanovsky, Larry Hinzman, Permafrost Observatory Project: A
Gary Kofinas, Matt Nolan, Tom Contribution to the Thermal State
Osterkamp, Chien Lu Ping, Buck of Permafrost
Sharpton, Kenji Yoshikawa, Doug
Kane, Donald (Skip) Walker, UAF
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Schweitzer, Anne Sudkamp, UAF International Congress of Arctic
Social Sciences VI in Nuuk, 2007-
2008
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard Coakley, Sarah Fowell, Plate Tectonics and Polar Gateways
Leonard Johnson, UAF in Earth History
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Bailey, UAF Synchronized observations of Polar
Mesospheric Clouds (PMC), Aurora,
and other large-scale polar
phenomena from the International
Space Station (ISS) and ground
sites
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Atkinson, UAF Arctic Circum-Polar Coastal
Observatory Network
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hajo Eicken, Jennifer Hutchings, The state of the Arctic sea ice
Rudiger Gens, Rolf Gradinger, Mark cover: Physical and biological
Johnson, Virgil (Buck) Sharpton, properties and processes in a
UAF changing environment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Kane, UAF The Arctic Hydrological Cycle
Monitoring, Modelling and
Assessment Program
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Welker, UA; Craig Lingle, The State and Fate of the
UAF Cryosphere
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Truffer, UAF IPY in the Antarctic Peninsula--
Ice and Climate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ray Barnhardt, Oscar Kawagley, UAF Circumpolar Center for Learning
and Indigenous Knowledge Systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vladimir Romanovsky, UAF Deep Permafrost Scientific
Drilling
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerd Wendler, Martha Shulski, UAF Climate change in the Arctic with
special emphasis on Alaska
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russ R Hopcroft, UAF Ecosystem West Greenland
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence D. Kaplan, James Ruppert, Glocalization--Language,
Patrick Marlow, UAF Literature and Media among Inuit
and Sami people
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Nolan, UAF Bipolar Climate Machinery--A study
of the interplay of northern and
southern polar processes in
driving and amplifying global
climate as recorded in
paleoclimate archives and their
significance for the generation
of realistic estimates of future
climate and sea level development
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd O'Hara, UAF Polar bear (Ursus maritimus)
circumpolar health assessment in
relation to toxicants and climate
change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Hinzman, Vladimir Romanovsky, Cold Land Processes in the
Igor Semiletov, Donald (Skip) Northern Hemisphere continents
Walker, UAF and their Coastal Zone: Regional
and Global Climate and Societal-
Ecosystem Linkages and
Interactions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Donald (Skip) Walker, Andrew Balsar, Greening of the Arctic:
Uma Bhatt, Keith Boggs, Brian Circumpolar Biomass
Barnes, Rick Caulfield, Terry
Chapin, Craig Dorman, Hajo Eicken,
Brad Griffith, Tom Heinrichs, Larry
Hinzman, John Kelly, Gary Kofinas,
Hilmar Maier, Gary Michaelson,
Corinne Munger, Matt Nolan, Chien-
Lu Ping, Anupma Prakesh, Peter
Prokein, Martha Raynolds, Vladimir
Romanovsky, Mike Sfraga, Buck
Sharpton, John Walsh, UAF
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Willams, UAF High Performance Computing and
Mass Storage Resources for IPY
Research Support
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Kofinas, Perry Barboza, Brad Starting the clock for the CARMA
Griffith, Kris Hundertmark, Robert Network: Impacts on Human-
White, Greg Finstad, UAF Rangifer Systems in the
Circumarctic
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Norton, Martin Robards, UAF Sea Ice Knowledge and Use:
Assessing Arctic Environmental
and Social Change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Perdue, UAF; Kathy Murray, Arctic Human Health Initiative
Carl Hild, UAA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine F. Cahill, UAF POLAR-AOD: a network to
characterize the means,
variability, and trends of the
climate-forcing properties of
aerosols in polar regions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Hansen, Jeff Freymueller, UAF Polar Earth Observing Network
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Syndonia Bret-Harte, UAF International Tundra Experiment
(ITEX): impacts of long-term
experimental warming and climate
variability on tundra ecosystems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Jeffries, UAF The University of the Arctic:
Providing Higher Education and
Outreach Programs for the
International Polar Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Collins, UAF International Arctic Systems for
Observing the Atmosphere
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Hinzman, UAF The hydrological cycle of the
Canadian Polar Regions:
processes, parameterization,
prediction and change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Atkinson, UAF Impacts of Surface Fluxes on
Arctic Climate: Severe Storms,
Effects on Coastal Processes and
Relationships to Changing Climate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Boone, UAF Biodiversity of soil meso- and
macro-fauna and latitudinal
gradient impact assessment along
the proposed Alaska gas pipeline
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Collins, UAF The Structure and Evolution of the
Polar Stratosphere and Mesosphere
and Links to the Troposphere
during IPY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shusun Li, Martin Jeffries, Kim Assessment of surface albedo
Morris, UAF feedback and the variability of
surface radiation budget in the
Arctic climate system using
satellite and ground observations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Kruse, UAA The Political Economy of Northern
Development
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave McGuire, UAF Arctic Biosphere-Atmosphere
Coupling across multiple Scales
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Jeffries, UAF Bering Sea Sub-Network of
Community-Based Environmental
Monitoring, Observation and
Information Stations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chien-Lu Ping, UAF Response of Arctic and Subarctic
soils in a changing Earth:
dynamic and frontier studies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Truffer, UAF Remote sensing, monitoring, and
forecast of surging glaciers'
evolution with the investigation
of modern fluctuations of surging
glaciers of the Alaska, Svalbard
and high elevated Asia glaciers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stuart Chapin, UAF Polar Disturbance and Ecosystem
Services: Links between Climate
and Human Well-being
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Jeffries, UAF Consortium for coordination of
Observation and Monitoring of the
Arctic for Assessment and
Research
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maribeth Murray, UAF The Impacts of Oil and Gas
Activity on Peoples in the Arctic
Using a Multiple Securities
Perspective
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Jeffries, UAF Integrated Communication,
Education and Evaluation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rolf Gradinger, Russ Hopcroft, Bodil Arctic Ocean Diversity (ArcOD)
Bluhm, Falk Huettmann, Rob Cermak,
John Kelley, Stephen Jewett, UAF;
Oliver Hedgepeth, UA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Truffer, Roman Motyka, UAF Measurement and Attribution of
recent Greenland Ice sheet
chaNgeS (MARGINS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Goldsmith, UAA The Economy of the North
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chien-Lu Ping, Vladimir Romanovsky, Carbon Pools in Permafrost Regions
UAF
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Kruse, UAA Survey of Living Conditions in the
Arctic, SLiCA--Remote Access
Analysis System
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elena B. Sparrow, Donald A. (Skip) Biodiversity and Climate Induced
Walker, UAF Lifecycle Changes of Arctic
Spiders
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Kofinas, Patty Gray, UAF ANTLER Network Secretariat and
Workshop Series
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Schweitzer, UAF Moved by the State: Perspectives
on Relocation and Resettlement in
the Circumpolar North
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Sherman, Jean Flanagan Carlo, International Polar Year Arctic
UAF Nations Exhibition and Activities
including Symposia, Seminars,
Workshops, Residencies,
Documentation and Event
Coordination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd O'Hara, Alan Springer, UAF MERSAM
(MERcurySeabirdArticMonitoring)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Stevens. Thank you very much, Doctor.
Our next witness is Dr. Alan Parkinson, the Deputy Director
of the Arctic Investigation Program, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, in Anchorage.
Doctor, nice to have you with us.
STATEMENT OF ALAN J. PARKINSON, Ph.D., DEPUTY
DIRECTOR, ARCTIC INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM, CENTERS
FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Dr. Parkinson. Thank you very much, Chairman Stevens,
Senator Murkowski. I'm very pleased to be here today to
describe to you our national efforts to use the International
Polar Year and the Arctic Human Health Initiative to increase
the visibility of human health concerns of Arctic peoples.
Human health has not been a research theme of any previous
Polar Year, so we see this event as an opportunity for the
United States to take a leadership role in the International
Polar Year by supporting human health research, disease
prevention, and control activities that will improve the health
and well-being of Arctic residents.
While much has been achieved since the last Polar Year,
some 50 years ago, to improve the health of Arctic residents,
life expectancy is shorter, and infant mortality rates are
still higher among the indigenous Arctic residents. These
health disparities can be resolved with greater understanding
of their causes through research and by focused application of
existing health strategies.
The rapid pace of change in the Arctic is presenting new
challenges, as you heard earlier. Of particular concern are the
potential health impacts of climate change, environmental
pollutants, and economic development. The Arctic is unique in
many aspects, but one particularly important aspect is the
spirit of cross-border cooperation. And on issues of human
health, the international cooperation is facilitated through
the working groups of the International Union for Circumpolar
Health and the Arctic Council. Nationally, the U.S. interagency
cooperation on Arctic research is grounded in the Arctic
Research and Policy Act of 1984, which established the Arctic
Research Commission, which has emphasized human health as a
special interagency focus area.
These international and national partnerships have led to
the creation of the Arctic Human Health Initiative, which is an
Arctic Council IPY Project which is being led by the U.S.
Department of State, the CDC, and other U.S. interagencies and
international partners. And the goal of this initiative is to
use the Polar Year to really increase the public and political
awareness of the human health concerns of Arctic peoples, and
through international collaborative research, jointly develop
strategies that will--which will improve the health and well-
being of all Arctic residents.
The Arctic research programs of the CDC are focused on
improving public health in Arctic communities. Programs
currently are conducted by the National Center for Infectious
Disease, the National Center for Environmental Health, the
National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health
Promotion, and the National Institute of Occupational Safety
and Health. And these programs are conducted with--in
collaboration with partnerships with the State of Alaska
Division of Public Health, the Alaska Native Tribal Health
Consortium, regional tribal health corporations, the Indian
Health Service, the National Institutes of Health, University
of Alaska, and other state and local agencies.
The mission of the Arctic Investigations Program is
prevention and control of infectious diseases among the
residents of the Arctic and sub-Arctic. And we focus
particularly on the elimination of the health disparities
caused by infectious diseases that exist among indigenous
populations of these regions. The National Center for
Environmental Health is concluding studies of the levels of
human exposure to environmental pollutants in the Arctic and
the potential role of these contaminants as co-factors in
breast cancer in Alaskan Natives. The National Center for
Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion is actually
just beginning a study to generate new information on nicotine
carcinogens in commercial and homemade chewing tobacco. And, of
course, the Alaska Field Station of the National Institutes of
Occupational Health and Safety is continuing studies aiming at
decreasing the number of--and rate of work-related injuries
among industries that face the extreme hazards of the Arctic
environment.
In summary, the IPY presents us with a unique opportunity
to focus political and public attention on the health concerns
of Arctic communities and to develop collaborative
international programs, research programs, that will address
those concerns.
The improvements in the health status already achieved by
Arctic peoples provide hope that, through concerted effort,
clear vision, existing health challenges and disparities can be
overcome. We believe that the U.S. leadership and scientific
contributions of the International Polar Year and the Arctic
Human Health Initiative are an important step in this
direction.
Thank you for your attention, and I am happy to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Parkinson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Alan J. Parkinson, Ph.D., Deputy Director, Arctic
Investigations Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
Department of Health and Human Services
Good afternoon, Chairman Stevens, Chairman Lugar, and members of
both Committees. I am Alan Parkinson Deputy Director of the Centers for
Disease Control and Preventions, Arctic Investigations Program located
in Anchorage, Alaska. I am pleased to be here today to describe our
national efforts to use the International Polar Year (IPY) and the
Arctic Human Health Initiative (AHHI) to increase the visibility and
awareness of human health concerns of Arctic peoples and to coordinate
at the national and international level research programs that will
improve the health and well-being of Arctic residents. As you have
heard from previous speakers, the IPY is an intensive one year multi-
disciplinary program of collaborative international science, research,
education, and communication focusing on the Arctic and Antarctic
regions.
The years 2007-2008 will mark the 50th anniversary of the
International Geophysical Year, and the third IPY. This event has been
designated the 4th IPY by the National Academy of Science,
International Council of Science, the World Meteorological
Organization, the Arctic Council, and many other international
organizations. This period of focused activity promises to ``further
our understanding of the physical and social process in polar regions,
examine their globally-connected role in the climate system and
establish research infrastructure for the future, and serve to attract
and develop a new generation of scientists and engineers with the
versatility to tackle complex global issues.'' U.S. activities during
the IPY will focus on highlighting research, education, and public
outreach efforts, and will be coordinated among Federal agencies and
international partners that support research in Polar Regions. Human
health has not been a research theme for any previous Polar Year and we
see this event as an opportunity for the U.S. to take a leadership role
in the IPY by supporting research activities that will address the
human health concerns of Arctic communities and set the stage for an
integrated approach to Arctic human health research beyond 2009.
Human Health Concerns of Arctic Communities
Life expectancy in Arctic populations has greatly improved over the
last 50 years. In 1950, the life expectancy for an Alaska Native, the
indigenous people of Alaska, at birth was 47 years compared with 66
years for the general U.S. population. By 2000, the life expectancy for
Alaska Natives had increased to 69.5 years, a gain of over 20 years.
Much of this improvement can be attributed to health research and
public health programs that have resulted in a reduction in morbidity
and mortality from infectious diseases, such as tuberculosis, and the
vaccine-preventable diseases of childhood. Reductions in infectious
disease mortality for Alaska Natives have been especially dramatic. In
1950, 47 percent of deaths among Alaska Natives were due to infections,
as compared with only 3 percent for non-Native Alaskans. By 1990,
infectious diseases caused only 1.2 percent of the Alaska Native
deaths, very similar to the 1 percent seen for non-Natives. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Estimates on the proportion of mortality accounted for, by
infectious diseases, are based on a catchment population size of 34,000
and 87,000 Alaska Natives, in 1950 and 1990, respectively. The
estimated number of mortalities amongst Alaska Natives during these 2
years, was 575 and 565, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public health research has resulted in innovations such as the
provision of safe water supplies, sewage disposal, development of
community-based medical providers, that have contributed to improved
care and access to care for injuries and illness. Research on the
negative health effects of tobacco has lead to tobacco cessation and
education programs. Mortality rates for heart disease and overall
cancer rates are similar in Arctic indigenous residents in relation to
overall rates for the U.S., Canada, and northern European countries,
with some exceptions (i.e., higher incidence of gastric,
nasopharyngeal, renal cancers) not explained by known risk factors .
Despite improvements in these health indicators of Arctic
residents, life expectancy is shorter and infant mortality rates are
higher among indigenous Arctic residents in the U.S. Arctic, northern
Canada, and Greenland when compared to Arctic residents of Nordic
countries. For example, life expectancy for Alaska Natives still lags
behind the general U.S. population which was 76.5 years in 2000.
Similarly, indigenous residents of U.S. Arctic and Greenland have
higher mortality rates for injury and suicide, and hospitalization
rates for infants with pneumonia and respiratory infections; many of
these health disparities can be eliminated through the focused
application of existing public health strategies.
A common theme across the Arctic is the rapid pace of change and
its impact on the health and well-being of Arctic peoples. Some of the
major trends likely to affect the health status of Arctic peoples
include economic changes, improved transportation and communications,
environmental pollutants, and climate change.
Living conditions have and continue to change from an economy based
on subsistence hunting and gathering to a cash-based economy. Across
the circumpolar north there is increasing activity toward sustainable
development via local resource development, and widening involvement in
the global economy. The influence of such changes on the physical
health of Arctic residents on the one hand have been positive,
resulting in improved housing conditions, a more stable supply of food,
increased access to more western goods, and decreases in morbidity and
mortality from infectious diseases. But these changes in lifestyle
brought on by the move away from traditional subsistence hunting and
gathering, and the societal changes brought on by modernization, in
general, have resulted in an increase in prevalence of chronic diseases
such as diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and cardiovascular diseases.
In addition, it is well known that child abuse, alcohol abuse, drug
abuse, domestic violence, suicide, unintentional injury is also
connected to rapid cultural change, loss of cultural identity and self
esteem.
Globalization has meant improvements in the transportation
infrastructure and communications technologies such as the Internet and
telemedicine innovations. Many communities once isolated, are now
linked to major cities by air transportation, and are only one airplane
ride away from more densely populated urban centers. Consequently these
communities are now vulnerable to the importation of new and emerging
infectious diseases (such as influenza, SARS or SARS-like infectious
diseases, antibiotic-resistant pathogens such as multi-drug resistant
tuberculosis).
Environmental contaminants are a global problem. Contaminants such
as mercury, other heavy metals, PCBs, DDT, dioxins and other
organochlorines, mainly originate in the mid-latitude industrial and
agricultural areas of the globe, but have migrated to the Arctic via
atmospheric, river and ocean transport. Their subsequent bio-
magnification in the Arctic food webs, and appearance in subsistence
foods such as fish, waterfowl, marine and land mammals, and the
indigenous people who rely on these foods is of great concern to Arctic
residents. Potential human health effects include damage to the
developing brain, endocrine, and immune system. A new concern is the
role of mercury on cardiovascular diseases. Ongoing research will
identify the levels and human health effects of these contaminants in
Arctic residents and will provide public health guidance on both the
risks and benefits of consuming traditional foods.
The changing climate is affecting Arctic communities, and is
bringing economic and health threats, as well as possible
opportunities. The impacts of climate change on the health of Arctic
residents will vary depending on factors such as age, socioeconomic
status, lifestyle, culture, location, and capacity of the local health
infrastructure systems to adapt. It is likely that the most vulnerable
will be those living close to the land, living a traditional
subsistence lifestyle in remote communities, those already facing
health related changes. Direct health-related impacts, for example may
include an increase in injuries, hypothermia, and frostbite related to
travel, unpredictable ice and weather conditions, and heat stress in
summer. Indirect impacts include the potential changes in vector borne
diseases such as West Nile virus, zoonotic infectious diseases such as
brucellosis, tularemia or echinococcosis, changes in access to safe
water supplies, failure of the permafrost and damages to the sanitation
infrastructure, and infrastructure in general (buildings,
transportation, etc.) changes in the traditional food supply as the
migration patterns of subsistence species change in response to
changing habitats. Ongoing research will identify climate sensitive
indicators that will allow the prediction of health impacts and the
development of mitigation strategies.
The Arctic is unique in many aspects. It can be defined by
population, a population that is sparsely scattered over a very large
geographical area, by climate and latitude, by seasonal extremes of
temperature, light and dark, and by its spirit and history of cross-
border cooperation on issues of concern to Arctic communities.
International Cooperation on Arctic Human Health
There is a long history of international cooperation on many issues
affecting Arctic communities including human health and human health
research.
The International Union for Circumpolar Health (IUCH)
(www.iuch.org) is an organization comprised of the memberships of the
American Society for Circumpolar Health, the Canadian Society for
Circumpolar Health, the Nordic Society for Arctic Medicine, the
Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, and the
Danish/Greenlandic Society for Circumpolar Health. The IUCH promotes
international cooperation, research, scientific information exchange,
and education in the areas of Arctic Health Policy, Birth Defects &
Genetics, Cancer, Diet & Heart, Environmental Health & Subsistence Food
Security, Family Health, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, Health Surveys, HIV/
AIDS, STDs, Indigenous Peoples Health, Infectious Diseases, Injury
Prevention, Occupational Safety & Health, Population-Based Planning,
Tobacco & Health, and Women's Health.
The Arctic Council (www.arctic-council.org) is a ministerial forum
for cooperation between governments and indigenous peoples to address
concerns and challenges common to Arctic states. Members include: the
U.S. (represented by the State Department), Canada, Greenland/Denmark,
Iceland, Norway, Finland, Sweden, and the Russian Federation.
Indigenous peoples are represented as Permanent Participants and
include: Sami Council, Aleut International, Inuit Circumpolar
Conference, Russian Association Indigenous Peoples of the North, Arctic
Athabaskan Council, and Indigenous Peoples Association. Current Arctic
Council human health activities include monitoring the human health
impact of anthropogenic pollutants, climate variability, infectious
diseases, and the expansion and assessment of tele-health innovations
in Arctic regions.
National Cooperation on Arctic Human Health
The U.S. Congress passed the Arctic Research and Policy Act, in
July 1984, finding that ``Arctic Research expands knowledge, which can
enhance the lives of Arctic residents, increase opportunities for
international cooperation and can facilitate national policy on Arctic
Research.'' The Act established the Arctic Research Commission to
promote and recommend research priorities. The Commission recommended
an interagency program focusing on the health concerns of Arctic
residents, and designated that the National Institutes of Health (NIH)
lead this effort with assistance from other agencies. We look forward
to partnering with our sister agency on this recommendation.
Arctic research programs of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) are focused on improving public health in Arctic
communities. Programs are currently conducted by the National Center
for Infectious Disease (NCID), the National Center for Environmental
Health (NCEH), National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and
Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), and the National Institute of Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH). These programs are conducted in
collaboration with the State of Alaska Division of Public Health, the
Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, regional tribal health
organizations, the Indian Health Service, the National Institutes of
Health, and other state and local agencies and organizations.
The Arctic Investigations Program, located in Anchorage, Alaska, is
one of three U.S.-based field stations operated by the NCID. The
mission of AIP is the prevention and control of infectious diseases
among residents of the Arctic and sub-Arctic, and in particular the
elimination of health disparities caused by infectious disease that
exist among the indigenous populations of these regions. The AIP has
led efforts to eliminate Hepatitis A&B, and invasive diseases such as
meningitis caused by Haemophilus influenzae type b, and pneumonia
caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae in the U.S. Arctic. The Division of
Environmental Hazards and Health Effects of the NCEH together with the
Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium and the AIP are concluding
studies of the level of human exposure to environmental pollutants in
the Arctic, and the potential role of environmental contaminants as
cofactors in breast cancer in Alaska Natives. The NCCDPHP is beginning
a study to generate new information on nicotine and carcinogen exposure
in users of commercial and home-made chewing tobacco. The results will
be used to generate public health messages for local tobacco control
programs. The Alaska Field Station of the National Institutes of
Occupational Safety and Health was established to decrease the number
and rate of work-related injuries among industries that face extreme
hazards due to the Arctic environment. Through research, outreach with
industry and community partners, and active prevention activities has
resulted in a 60 percent decrease in the number of occupational
fatalities since 1990. These CDC Program accomplishments and plans are
reported biennially in the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee
Report of U.S. Arctic Research published by the National Science
Foundation Office of Polar Programs.
The AHHI and the International Polar Year
The Arctic Human Health Initiative (AHHI) is an IPY Arctic Council
project, led by the U.S. Department of State, and the CDC. The aim of
AHHI is to increase public and political awareness and visibility of
human health concerns of Arctic peoples, foster human health research,
promote health strategies that will improve the health and well-being
of all Arctic residents. The AHHI will coordinate IPY projects that
focus on Arctic human health research and that will advance the joint
circumpolar health research agendas of the Arctic Council and IUCH.
Priority IPY human health research needs of Arctic communities
includes studies that include the assessment and mitigation of human
health effects of:
Anthropogenic pollution in Arctic regions.
Oil, gas, and other sustainable development activities.
Contaminants and zoonotic infectious diseases on subsistence
species and the traditional food supply.
Climate variability.
Infectious diseases including tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS,
hepatitis, vaccine-preventable diseases, and emerging
infectious diseases such as Avian influenza.
Chronic diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular diseases,
obesity and diabetes.
Behavioral health issues, such as suicide, interpersonal
violence and substance abuse, and unintentional injuries.
Human health surveillance, monitoring and research networks allow
the monitoring of diseases of concern in Arctic communities through the
development of standardized study protocols, data collection,
laboratory methods, and data analysis. These networks allow the
monitoring of disease prevalence over time, the determination of risk
factors for disease and evaluation and implementation of disease
prevention and control strategies. For example, the CDC's AIP
coordinates the International Circumpolar Surveillance (ICS) of
infectious diseases, which links hospital clinical and public health
laboratories and institutes in the U.S. Arctic, northern Canada,
Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Finland, and northern Sweden for the
purposes of monitoring invasive bacterial diseases that cause
pneumonia, meningitis and blood stream infections. During the IPY this
system will be expanded to include the monitoring of tuberculosis in
Arctic countries, and include public health centers in 14 regions of
northern Russian Federation.
As of September 15, 2006, there have been more than 1,145
Expressions of Interest and 222 full proposals endorsed by the IPY
Joint Committee to undertake research projects during the IPY. A full
description of the AHHI (full proposal number 167) can be viewed at
www.ipy.org. The proposal has been designated by the IPY Joint
Committee as a coordinating proposal under which other human health
related research proposals will be managed. To date, 13 Expressions of
Intent and 8 full proposals from five of the eight Arctic countries
have been clustered within the AHHI.
The AHHI will coordinate research projects through an International
Steering Committee led by the CDC with representation from the
International Union for Circumpolar Health, Arctic Council human health
working groups, indigenous people's organizations, World Health
Organization, the Fogarty International Center of the National
Institutes of Health and other partners. The overall role of the
Steering Committee will be to carry out the aim of AHHI, review and
endorse proposals, identify research gaps, evaluate progress,
facilitate reporting of research findings to the research community,
communities at risk, policymakers and the general public, and guide the
direction of human health research beyond IPY.
The IPY presents a unique opportunity to focus public and political
attention on health concerns of Arctic communities and develop
collaborative, international research programs that will address those
concerns. The improvements in health status already achieved by Arctic
peoples provide hope that through concerted effort and clear vision,
existing health challenges and disparities can also be overcome. We
believe that U.S. leadership and scientific contributions to the
International Polar Year Arctic Human Health Initiative are an
important step.
Thank you for the opportunity to share this information with you. I
am happy to answer any questions.
Chairman Stevens. Well, thank you very much, Dr. Parkinson.
We will have some questions. I think you have a very
interesting role in the Arctic right now.
Our last witness is Dr. Thomas Armstrong, Earth Surface
Dynamics Program Coordinator for the USGS, in Reston, Virginia.
Doctor, it's nice to have you with us, too.
STATEMENT OF DR. THOMAS R. ARMSTRONG,
PROGRAM COORDINATOR, EARTH SURFACE DYNAMICS,
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (USGS),
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Dr. Armstrong. Thank you, Senator Stevens and Senator
Murkowski. Thank you for having me here today to talk to you
about the issue of the U.S. Geological Survey's and the
Department of the Interior's activities related to the
International Polar Year.
My name is Thomas Armstrong, and I am the Program
Coordinator for the Earth Surface Dynamics Program at USGS. I
also represent the USGS and the Department of the Interior on
the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program's Climate Working
Group and activities related to the Arctic Climate Impact
Assessment.
The USGS and other bureaus within DOI will participate in
the IPY through extension and enhancement of our existing
programmatic activities and research assessment and long-term
monitoring in the polar regions that support the missions of
our organizations and address the themes and goals of the IPY.
These activities span the biologic, geologic, hydrologic,
geographic, and information sciences. And some of the specific
activities include the development of a satellite image atlas
of glaciers of Asia, Alaska, and Iceland. Some of this work has
already been completed. Some of this work is in press now,
including the Atlas for Alaska Glaciers. The distribution of
ice sheets in the Arctic, sub-Arctic, and Antarctic are
critically linked to water availability for both human and
ecological needs, as well as changes in sea level worldwide,
and, therefore, have global-scale ecologic and socioeconomic
impacts. These images, as part of this atlas, are part of a
worldwide series that will help in assessing the current
distribution of glacial ice and rates of glacial ice retreat,
as well.
Another effort that's ongoing at USGS is the development of
the state of the Earth's cryosphere at the beginning of the
21st century. This long-term monitoring program of the Earth
has been a cornerstone of USGS throughout its history. The USGS
has been monitoring many physical and biological parameters in
the Arctic, and these include three benchmark glaciers for
climate change, the monitoring of stream runoff, and several
critical marine mammals and their health. The results of these
monitoring efforts will be examined, analyzed, and reported on
during the course of the IPY.
Another effort that we're conducting now, and is starting
to gain a lot of momentum, is the development of the Yukon
River Basin Project, which will address rates and effects of
permafrost thawing in the Arctic.
USGS scientists and managers are working with a consortium
of U.S. and Canadian Federal, State, and provincial agencies,
university scientists, including those from the University of
Alaska Fairbanks, and tribal organizations along the Yukon
River Basin to initiate a major project to understand and
predict climate-induced changes to the air, water, land, and
biota within the Yukon Basin. This effort will provide a
benchmark for tracking and understanding changes to biological
communities, stored carbon, the water cycle, and human
infrastructure as a consequence of climate-induced permafrost
thawing and landscape change. And I'd like to point out, in a
question Senator Stevens had to the first panel, we are also
pursuing the possibility of providing a science and education
outreach person in one of the native communities that will work
with all the communities on the Yukon Basin to help establish
an educational program and a stream--or a river-monitoring
program for water quality with the native population.
Another effort that's ongoing at the USGS is the petroleum
resource assessment of the Arctic. The USGS World Petroleum
Assessment of 2000 estimated that a significant portion 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. The initial results should be completed
during the course of the IPY.
And, finally, one other effort I'd like to talk about
briefly with you is the Landsat 7 Image Map of Antarctica, also
known as 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, the National Science Foundation, and NASA.
Other agencies within the Department of the Interior are
planning to carry out activities incorporating International
Polar Year components. Most notably, these include the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service as the lead agency for the
Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna Working Group, also
known as CAFF. This is part of the Arctic Council and the
international development of the Circumpolar Biodiversity
Monitoring Program, which will also serve to guide and
coordinate monitoring activities in the Arctic region,
facilitate methodologies, and address gaps in existing data on
status and trends.
The Circumpolar Seabird Information Network, another new
initiative led by the Service, will greatly expand the
international knowledge base of the Arctic Region and its
ability to address issues regarding bird species of
conservation concern.
And, finally, the Minerals Management Service will continue
to--its environmental and sociocultural research in and around
the Beaufort/Chukchi Seas of the Arctic to support management
of offshore gas and oil resources. Research planning activities
include collaboration with the National Oceanographic
Partnership Program, individual agencies, and research
scientists to incorporate IPY components, when feasible.
This concludes my testimony. My intention was to leave you
with a brief portrayal of just some of the Department of the
Interior's many science, monitoring, and assessment studies,
and related support infrastructure that are firmly within the
scope and spirit of the International Polar Year. I thank you
for the opportunity to speak with you today, and I look forward
to answering any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Armstrong follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Thomas Armstrong, Program Coordinator, Earth
Surface Dynamics, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Department of the
Interior
Thank you for the opportunity to address you, and the Committees,
on the issue of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) activities related to the
International Polar Year (IPY). My name is Thomas Armstrong, and I am
the Program Coordinator for the Earth Surface Dynamics Program at USGS.
I also represent USGS and the Department of the Interior (DOI) on the
Arctic Council's Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program's Climate
Working Group, and activities related to the Arctic Climate Impact
Assessment.
Background
The USGS 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. It
is within the spirit of this mission that the USGS has developed plans
for participation in the International Polar Year, working with
partners in DOI, with other Federal and State agencies, and with
scientific colleagues around the world.
The IPY will extend from March 2007 through March 2009. This period
will commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the 1957-1958
International Geophysical Year. The IGY, as it was called, was modelled
on the International Polar Years of 1882-1883 and 1932-1933, and was
intended to allow scientists from around the world to take part in a
series of coordinated observations of various geophysical phenomena.
The work of scientists from over 60 countries literally spanned the
globe from the North to the South Poles. Although much work was carried
out in the Arctic and equatorial regions, special attention was given
to the Antarctic, where research on ice depths yielded radically new
estimates of the earth's total ice content. In a similar spirit of
discovery and understanding, IPY 2007-2009 is envisioned as an intense
scientific campaign to explore new frontiers in polar science, and to
improve our understanding of the critical role of the polar regions in
global processes. Most significantly, IPY is envisioned as an
opportunity to engage the public in polar discovery and help attract
the next generation of earth scientists.
Within current funding amounts, 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 our organization, and address the themes and
goals of the IPY. These activities span the biologic, geologic,
hydrologic, geographic, and information sciences and will include but
not be limited to:
Research and monitoring of the status and distribution of
fish, wildlife and vegetation; determination of species at
risk; permafrost evaluation to include assessment of changes in
the thermal regime and feedbacks with the changing climate,
organic carbon characteristics and distribution; evaluation of
hydrologic inputs to the carbon budget--including the influence
of large river deltas on carbon flux to the marine system, snow
and water-borne contaminants and freshwater inputs; and the
evaluation of surficial and geochemical processes in
understanding the changing polar environment.
Integrated monitoring for assessing the relationship between
major stressors, like climate change, and regional changes in
the carbon cycle of Arctic watersheds; ground and satellite-
based monitoring of glaciers and icecaps for volumetric
changes, and monitoring of thermal changes in permafrost;
reconstruction of past climate cycles and evaluation of current
changes from sediment and ice core records; monitoring and
assessment of changes in rates of coastal erosion and surficial
processes; evaluation of changes in status and distribution of
circumpolar vegetation, fish and wildlife, and freshwater
discharges in the Arctic.
Evaluation of the nature of arctic/boreal hydrologic
interactions and the relationships between climate and plant
growth, productivity, permafrost depth, and resulting effects
on nutrient availability and atmospheric heat sources and
sinks.
Establishment or extension of permanent monitoring
infrastructure for permafrost, global seismicity, and
geomagnetic activity. Assessment of energy resources in the
circum-arctic area including oil, gas, coalbed methane and
methane hydrates.
While the USGS will not conduct specific social science
research as a part of IPY, several of our studies will have
implications for populations living in the Polar Regions. These
include our energy and mineral assessments, especially studies
of coalbed methane potential for providing energy to isolated
communities; natural hazards monitoring; studies of scour
modelling due to changes in hydrology and their impacts on
manmade structures; and 3-dimensional assessments of changes in
permafrost that may have serious impacts on Arctic road
networks and other forms of infrastructure.
An additional element will include the production of
geospatial information related to high-resolution elevation
data and digital ortho-imagery for Polar Regions of Alaska, and
the development of an IPY portal on the USGS public website.
The portal will provide one-stop access to USGS science
datasets; information products (e.g., maps and reports);
educational resources for teachers; and tools and applications
(e.g., geospatially referenced index of pertinent data,
bibliography of key references, scientific collaboration
tools). The USGS IPY portal will be linked to Geospatial One-
Stop (www.geodata.gov), in order to leverage geospatial data
and tools available from other agencies and organizations.
Beginning with the very first geophysical and geological surveys
carried out in Antarctica over a half-century ago, the USGS has
maintained a long tradition of scientific monitoring, assessment, and
research in the Polar Regions. The USGS has an extensive history of
activities including topographic mapping and geodetic control in
Antarctica, satellite and ground-based monitoring of glaciers and ice
caps, research on movements, distribution patterns and adaptation of
polar wildlife, operation of a seismic array at the South Pole,
estimations of energy resources of the circum-Arctic, mapping of the
distribution of circum-arctic vegetation, and the development of
paleoclimate records from Alaskan sediments and polar ice cores.
USGS participation in the International Polar Year allows the
Agency to celebrate this enduring tradition with the global polar
research community and to renew our commitment to polar science at a
time when the eyes of the world are focused on these fragile regions.
Numerous USGS programs are involved in research, assessment, and
monitoring in the Polar Regions that support the scientific mission of
the USGS and the Department of the Interior, and address the themes and
goals of the IPY. Some of these specific activities and related
products are listed below.
1. Research and Long-Term Monitoring of the Polar Regions
Products and activities include:
Satellite Image Atlas of Glaciers of Asia, Alaska, and
Iceland http://www.glaciers.er.usgs.gov/html/chapters.html
Glacial ice distribution, including major ice sheets in the
arctic, subarctic, and Antarctic, are critically linked to
water availability for both human and ecological needs, as well
as changes in sea level worldwide. Changes in these ice masses
therefore have global-scale ecological and socio-economic
impacts. Over the last several decades, the majority of the
world's glaciers have decreased in size and volume. These
images, part of a worldwide series, will help in assessing the
current distribution of glacial ice and rates of glacial ice
retreat worldwide.
State of the Earth's Cryosphere at the Beginning of the 21st
Century: Glaciers, Snow Cover, Floating Ice, Permafrost and
Their Impacts on Indigenous Marine Mammals
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.
Yukon River Basin--Rates and Effects of Permafrost Thawing
in the Arctic
USGS scientists and managers are 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. This collaborative scientific effort will provide a
benchmark for tracking and understanding changes occurring
throughout the Arctic and Sub-arctic region to biological
communities, stored carbon, the water cycle, and human
infrastructure as a consequence of climate-induced permafrost
thawing and landscape change.
Petroleum Resource Assessment of the Arctic
The USGS World Petroleum Assessment of 2000, estimated that a
significant portion 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. 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 1,200 Landsat scenes in
cooperation with the British Antarctic Survey. This work is
also funded by the National Science Foundation.
2. USGS Facilities and Resources for Arctic and Antarctic Research
The USGS includes numerous facilities throughout the United States
and Antarctica that are focused on activities that directly link to the
International Polar Year. These facilities include:
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 source of climate information 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 parties in support of their activities in Antarctica and
provided to the USARC in connection with a resolution of the
treaty providing for exchange of information. http://
usarc.usgs.gov.
USGS Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, AK
The USGS Alaska Science Center is 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 policymakers, local
government, and the public to support sound decisionmaking
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 effort under the auspices of
the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) to
collate and make openly available for research purposes all
marine multichannel 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 National
Science Foundation--Office of Polar Programs and USGS funding)
and Osservatorio Geofisico Sperimentale (OGS, Trieste, Italy).
The seismic library has branches in 10 countries, with two
branches in the United States. The MCS data are sent to the
SDLS by data collectors, 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 U.S. 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). 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 its value to the Antarctic
research community will only increase with time as work and
research continues in Antarctica.
However, neither online metadata, browser images, photographs,
nor film products are available via the Internet for the U.S.
Antarctic Program 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 Place Names
The USGS operates the U.S. Board on Geographic Names (USBGN)
conjointly with other Federal agencies. In accordance with
recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Antarctic Names
(ACAN), the USBGN approves all new names to be used in
Antarctica by the U.S. Government.
In addition to work being done by the USGS, other agencies within
the Department of the Interior are planning to carry out activities
incorporating International Polar Year components. Most notably:
Fish and Wildlife Service Initiatives With the Arctic
Council
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is the lead
agency for the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna Working
Group (CAFF) of the Arctic Council. As a contribution to the
International Polar Year, the Service has taken a lead role in
the international development and implementation of the
Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program, which will serve
to guide and coordinate monitoring activities in the Arctic
region, facilitate common methodologies, and address gaps in
existing data on status and trends. In addition, the Service,
in cooperation with representatives from other Arctic
countries, will convene an international group of experts to
develop an action plan for mapping the boreal forest, a
northern ecosystem critical to migratory birds and other trust
species. The Circumpolar Seabird Information Network, another
new initiative led by Service (and approved as well as jointly
funded by the Arctic Council countries), will greatly expand
the international knowledge base of the Arctic region, and it
ability to address issues regarding bird species of
conservation concern.
Minerals Management Service Research
The Minerals Management Service will continue its innovative
mission-focused environmental and sociocultural research in and
around the Beaufort-Chukchi Seas area of the Arctic to support
management and development of offshore gas and oil resources.
Research planning activities for Fiscal Year 2007-2009 include
collaboration with the National Oceanographic Partnership
Program, individual agencies and research scientists to
incorporate IPY components when feasible. Plans include studies
of marine mammals and birds and their ecosystems, mesoscale
meteorology, river plume transport processes, ocean
circulation, sea-ice modeling and potential collaboration with
the developing Arctic component of the Integrated Ocean
Observing System (IOOS).
This concludes my testimony. My intention was to leave you with an
accurate portrayal of just some of the Department of the Interior's
many science, monitoring, and assessment studies and related support
infrastructure that are firmly within the scope and spirit of the
International Polar Year. I thank you for the opportunity to speak with
you today, and I look forward to answering any questions that you may
have.
Chairman Stevens. Well, thank you very much, Doctor. I
remember so well when there were forces that tried to move USGS
out of Alaska. I'm delighted to know that you're coming back
and have a more robust program in our State. I think it's a
very important function for us to maintain.
I'm going to let Senator Murkowski start the questioning
off on this panel, please.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Dr. Armstrong, I'll just begin with you, since we just
finished up, there. You have detailed just a few of the ongoing
programs within not only USGS, but within Interior, as a whole.
So, we know that there are a lot of good things going on now.
We will assume that after IPY comes and goes, there will
continue to be good things.
Do you--is it the expectation that the level of
collaboration and sharing of the data that will be collected
during these years of IPY will continue so that you, within
USGS, can be working with--whether it's other agencies or other
countries, in the data that they have collected and, through
various programs, will continue to collect? Is that, kind of,
where you see this going?
Dr. Armstrong. Yes, Senator. I think one of the real
beauties of our participation in IPY is the fact that this is
all part of our current core program. And what IPY has been
able to provide us is a focus mechanism to really focus on
addressing some of the critical Arctic and polar issues, both
in Antarctica and the Arctic itself. The work that we're
talking about is long-term basic science, applied science,
long-term monitoring and assessment, including adaptive
assessment. I see this work going on well beyond the end of
IPY. I think, frankly, this is not even the beginning. We've
been doing a lot of this work for many years, and we'll
continue to promote this work for a long time to come.
Senator Murkowski. That was exactly the answer I wanted to
hear.
Dr. Bell, I want to understand--recognizing your position
on the International Planning Committee--if you've got some 63
different countries, each country perhaps having a--perhaps a
little bit different perspective, or looking for something a
little bit different, you have all of the programs that we are
hopeful will advance--in terms of how you coordinate all of
this to make sure that you don't have a multitude of different
projects all going after the same thing, everybody spending
their dollars, how do you make sure that we are collaborating
to the fullest extent possible so that we get the maximum for
the dollars that will be spent?
Dr. Bell. I think that's an excellent question. And one of
the tremendous differences between this International Polar
Year and IGY in 1958, and the earlier two, is that--the way in
which we do science. The earlier three were all--came directly
out of the military and were all very top-down. And it would
have been a lot easier--any one of us could have sat down and
written a science plan and come up with priorities, and then
shared it with people--similar people in other nations, and
just decided. But the process was very different. It was much
more of a grassroots process based on very much the way we run
science here in the U.S. And one of the nice things is, is that
the U.S. was actually ahead in the planning, and much of the
framework you see was set up by the U.S. science community.
It's important to remember, each of these little honeycombs is
a group of scientists somewhere between, say, 20 and a couple
of hundred--who have gotten together and recognized that this
is an unique opportunity for them to work together. And they
are working very hard to do exactly what you're asking, is to
leverage the resources, and to be able to go places and ask
questions and install monitoring systems that, without the IPY,
we wouldn't have the motivation to do.
Senator Murkowski. But who is coordinating so that the 20-
some-odd scientists that are at the top of the honeycomb over
here--who's telling them, ``Look, the same guys are--a
different group of guys are doing the same project down here.
Get together with them''? Is there that level of coordination
and collaboration?
Dr. Bell. There's no one sitting there--as much fun as it
would be to be the one sitting there telling everybody they
must work together, there's no one actually saying that groups
must work together. These were grouped--all the ideas were put
forward internationally. It was very much a sort of web-based
approach to this, almost like an international dating service
for scientists, in that all the ideas were put forward first,
scientists were able to search the database, look for people
who had similar ideas, and then out of that grew this
honeycomb. So, all along there has been an encouragement of the
community to work together, but--scientists don't always work
together, but all of these are having to go through their
national programs, and it's through the national programs, it's
through the NSFs, the NOAAs, the NASAs, who are--the agencies
are talking between nations. That's where much of the
coordination is actually happening. The ideas are coming out of
the scientists, and the coordination is happening at the agency
level.
Senator Murkowski. In your, kind of, summary, you've
indicated if there's something that needs to be done, we need
to have the participation, basically a buy-in by the agencies.
But your second point was, we've got to increase the
coordination between the projects and the countries. So, is the
coordination and the communication adequate, at this point? If
not, what more do we need to do?
Dr. Bell. I think it's barely adequate. It think it could
be better if there was, in essence, a little bit more
infrastructure working to encourage what you're asking.
Senator Murkowski. On the U.S., international----
Dr. Bell. I think both U.S. and international. I think both
of them are really being done on a shoestring, at this point.
Senator Murkowski. And does that go through NSF?
Dr. Bell. The international coordination is currently
housed at the British Antarctic Survey, some funding from the
British Government, a little bit from the Chinese, and the
National Academies just put forward some funds to encourage
that coordination office to move forward. Within the U.S., it's
really being spearheaded by NSF and through their interagency
coordination.
Senator Murkowski. And do you think that that's adequate?
Dr. Bell. Oh, I think there could be some more coordination
happening. And I think it really requires more funding. I mean,
they need a more dedicated effort.
Senator Murkowski. Dr. Parkinson, did you want to chime in
here?
Dr. Parkinson. Yes. Just, perhaps, as an example to help
clarify the coordination issue. If you look at the honeycomb
there, and project number 167 is the Arctic Human Health
Initiative, and that is the--that is a cluster project which is
the result of some 13 Letters of Intent and 8 full proposals
from researchers who want to do health in the Arctic. They have
submitted their proposals to the International Polar Year Joint
Committee, and they are now clustered under the Arctic Human
Health Initiative. And that is a coordinating--we are a
coordinating body for those projects, and we can help
coordinate the research and the results, and make sure the
results are distributed, as well.
Senator Murkowski. So, you didn't all come together with
the same idea. It was a group that was focused on similar
issues, and you were brought together, this dating service, as
Dr. Bell----
Dr. Parkinson. Yes, correct. We had some international
meetings. We had meetings in Alaska, we've been involved with
the native communities across the circumpolar north, to find
out what their vision was, what their ideas were for health and
health research in the IPY. And so, we came back with this
laundry list of concerns. You know, climate change is certainly
one; environmental contaminants, so on and so forth. And then,
individual researchers in various countries came forward with
proposals. And one of the requirements for the International
Polar Year, of course, is that it's international. And so, we
would link them up with other investigators in other countries,
so they're all working on the same project. And so, we'll have
a international collaborative project on pneumococcal disease
or environmental contaminants.
Senator Murkowski. So, for instance, in your comments
you've mentioned a few health concerns for Arctic people. You
mentioned the infectious diseases, breast cancer, work-related
injuries. Are these all areas that we are seeing proposals that
have been submitted for--to be approved for IPY projects, then,
through your cluster of scientists?
Dr. Parkinson. Not all of those are addressed. Those were--
that was just the list of concerns, and investigators with
interests in those areas can submit proposals----
Senator Murkowski. OK.
Dr. Parkinson.--apply for funding through their specific
funding sources in their particular country, and then undertake
collaborative research to answer questions in that health
arena.
Senator Murkowski. Well, that helps me understand, a little
bit better, how they come together.
Dr. Sharpton, I don't really have a question for you, but I
do just want to thank you for your statement about how you
envision that Alaskans and Alaska Natives will be involved, not
as subjects, you said, but as research partners. And I think we
view this as a real opportunity. We don't want to just welcome
the scientists to come up and use the hotels and charter the
air services, we want to help. And I hope that we will be
viewed as just exactly that: research partners. And I would
certainly encourage, in as many efforts as possible, if we can
get the kids involved in the research projects, if it's as
simple as going out and collecting bird feathers or whatever it
might be, or making observations in their scientific notebooks
in sixth grade, what we not only gain is the data that they
help us with, but you instill a lifetime of scientific
exploration in these kids, and you can help them make this
real, as I mentioned in the earlier panel. So, thank you for
including them as research partners, and we look forward to
working with you on that.
I commend the University of Alaska for their, just, great
efforts in moving this forward. There were a couple of
different issues that you had mentioned: the network
connectivity, needing to upgrade that. I think we recognize
that is something that we've got to do. The mapping is just so
obvious, I--I think it still stuns us to recognize how woefully
behind we are in our mapping. But we look forward to working
with you on those projects, as well.
Dr. Sharpton. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you very much, Senator.
Running through the comments today, there has been this
reference to maps. Now, I've been around for a little while,
and I've known some of the things the Navy did there in--during
the days of our standoff with the Soviet Union, and
particularly the submarines. Has anyone checked to see whether
the Navy has any specific maps that have been made of the areas
that we're concerned with, particularly around our State?
Dr. Sharpton. Are you addressing me, Senator?
Chairman Stevens. Whoever.
Dr. Sharpton. Well, actually, I think probably one of the
previous panelists would probably be more appropriate to answer
that.
My interest in maps really extends only to the land areas
that we have. I think that's--you know, you use an entirely
different type of technology for that.
Chairman Stevens. Well, I will ask the Coast Guard again,
but----
Dr. Sharpton. Yes.
Chairman Stevens.--it does seem to me that very clearly
there has been less of a demand for maps in the polar area of
the world, in terms of population demands. And there's a great
many people visiting--more people visiting Florida than there
are the beaches around Barrow, so we understand the lack of
maps. But I'm going to try to get a handle on, how important
are these maps to the proceedings under the IPY? Dr. Bell, do
you have any feeling about--how important are maps to us before
we complete this IPY?
Dr. Bell. Well, you're talking to somebody who, you know,
lives for understanding what's underneath ice sheets. So--and
maps are how I do it, so I'm terribly prejudiced on this front.
But one of--there a couple of issues, in terms of the North.
There is the mapping offshore, which is certainly something you
alluded to before. And there have been efforts to release some
of the Navy data. And there are a number of people who could
update you on exactly how much the Navy submarine data, at this
point, has been released.
Certainly, moving to where we better understand both poles,
in terms of what's underneath the ice, whether it's the
floating ice or the ice that's fixed, is one of those goals, I
think, that the science community has put forward as something
that would be wonderful to come out of the IPY. It's--in the
southern regions, there are actually features the size of the
Alps that we don't know about, because we only have one
profile. It's actually worse than Alaska, in Antarctica, in
terms of understanding what the basic topography of our planet
looks like. We understand Mars much better. So, it is one of
those tremendous outstanding needs of our planet, to know what
the fundamental shape of it is beneath both poles, because it's
what underneath that's going to control how ice is going to
move in the long run.
Chairman Stevens. And are you privy to the type of
technology base we have now for that mapping? Is it adequate to
do the mapping you want?
Dr. Bell. Oh, do we have the--the technology exists to do
it, it's really whether or not there are the focus programs
that are going to go out--well, I'm not--I've been primarily--I
have not talked about on-land mapping in Alaska.
Chairman Stevens. No, I'm not talking on----
Dr. Bell. OK.
Chairman Stevens. I----
Dr. Bell. You're talking----
Chairman Stevens. We are----
Dr. Bell.--underneath----
Chairman Stevens.--proceeding with the on-land mapping
through Interior on an annual----
Dr. Bell. Right.
Chairman Stevens.--basis. It's----
Dr. Bell. Right.
Chairman Stevens.--coming along pretty well.
Dr. Bell. Right.
Chairman Stevens. But the offshore, I don't think we have
ever had a request for any.
Dr. Bell. For mapping all of the offshore.
Chairman Stevens. Yes.
Dr. Bell. I don't think we have. I think you're right.
Chairman Stevens. You're----
Dr. Bell. It's been very much----
Chairman Stevens.--really interested in the characteristics
of the ocean floor----
Dr. Bell. Right.
Chairman Stevens.--right?
Dr. Bell. Right. Ocean floor and sub-ice. I'm continuing to
wear my hat of looking at both poles, and sub-ice in both poles
is a key unknown on our planet.
Chairman Stevens. Well, I shall ask the staff to prepare a
request from me from the--to the Department of the Navy to find
out precisely what they have and how classified it is.
Dr. Bell. Yes.
Chairman Stevens. I think that ought to be a starting
point.
Now, with regard to this IPY--again, running through the
testimony we've had is the question about a little bit more
urgency, in terms of funding. Each of your agencies that are--
each entity you have--not just entities, but--has some funding.
Is this something I should have asked Mead Treadwell's--who is
going to put together the proposal for the money that we--that
you all would like to have, as opposed to what you've got?
Dr. Armstrong?
Dr. Armstrong. Yes, you--again, going back to the USGS IPY
activities, these are part of our core program. This is work
that is either being conducted or will be conducted from our
appropriated funds. We typically--like with the Yukon Basin
study, we will be pursuing additional funding for that activity
as part of my Earth Surface Dynamics Program, but it's on a
program-by-program basis. But the activities that I outlined
today are activities that are currently funded within our core
program.
Chairman Stevens. Well, if I were to seek to add some money
to one of these appropriations bills, there would be another
scream about pork. Frozen pork, I guess would be this one.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Stevens. But are we to--are we going to see some
sort of collaboration with regard to how much money is needed
to make IPY a--really, the kind of function we want it to be,
and how those moneys would be allocated? Is that, again, a
question I should have asked the previous panel?
Dr. Bell. I think it would have been good to ask the
previous panel. And I can offer you the little bit of work we
did on this through the National Academies. We did two parts of
planning. We put together the Vision Report that very much
reflects the frontiers and the environmental change, themes I
put on the table today, plus involving the humans in the polar
regions. That came out of the Vision Report. But, following
that, we held an interagency workshop where we brought together
the agencies and had them discuss about what they do, and made
a wish list, you know, because, at that point, people were
being very conservative. And so, at that point there was a wish
list made, and an order-of-magnitude number put on the table,
but nobody's gone back and systematically looked through what's
possible to do now and what sort of numbers would be necessary.
Chairman Stevens. Do you need ships, surface ships, for
your type of--developing the kind of information you need?
Dr. Bell. Me, personally? I use----
Chairman Stevens. No----
Dr. Bell.--airplanes.
Chairman Stevens.--your part of this basic research.
Dr. Bell. Oh, on--the basic research will involve ships,
airplanes, and satellites. It will involve every tool--as well
as, you know, autonomous vehicles, whether they fly or swim. I
mean, the goal is to use all the technology that we have in our
toolbox today.
Chairman Stevens. Dr. Bement, you're still here, aren't
you, somewhere? He left? All right. Well, I'll send him a
letter and ask him about it. We just have a provision in a bill
that just is ready to pass, that the NSF must pay the Coast
Guard for the use of the vessels that they want to use in their
basic research projects. There's a problem there of one agency
assuming that the other agency is going to put up the money for
their functions. But I'm trying to get a grasp on the concepts
of what we need to make sure we--you go forward. How much
does--let me back up and say--I tried to build a new Arctic
Research Institute building in Barrow. I'm sure you all know
that. But we have not succeeded yet. Is that going to be needed
for this function? Is it necessary to have any more facilities
in Alaska to carry out the work that you would all like to see
being done?
Dr. Sharpton, what do you think?
Dr. Sharpton. Well, I think, with the new facility that's
being constructed, now, Senator Stevens, we probably have
ample, but not excessive, infrastructure for Barrow. The real
issue for Barrow, in my estimation, is providing the
connectivity with the rest of the world. I mean, you know, it
is going to be a site of tremendous scientific activity, and
we've got to be able to get that information from Barrow to the
rest of the world in an effective way. And so, having some
means of telecommunications that is reliable and broadband is
going to be absolutely essential.
Chairman Stevens. That would be simple to do if we could
get the communications bill that's currently stalled on the
floor of the Senate. But I will look into that, yes.
Are there--is there anything else that you all think that
is necessary to pursue this IPY that we do not have currently
scheduled for--in terms of funding?
[No response.]
Chairman Stevens. Any activities? Let me just go to Dr.
Bell.
Dr. Bell. Well, I think, in essence, what the science
community has been concerned about is whether or not--and this
is why I don't think you can--it would be called ``polar
pork''--is because what the science community is looking for is
funds to compete for--you know, funds that will go through the
peer-review process. And the science community is concerned
whether or not there will be any incremental new funds, and how
much new funds. The order-of-magnitude number that was talked
about at that workshop was on the order or $500 million new
funds across the agency.
Chairman Stevens. In what period of time?
Dr. Bell. Over the course of 4 years.
Chairman Stevens. All right. That's----
Dr. Bell. And----
Chairman Stevens.--a good figure. Dr.----
Dr. Bell. Right.
Chairman Stevens.--Sharpton, what do you think?
Dr. Sharpton. Well, as far as additional funding, we
certainly need to have the Arctic Region Research Vessel
funded. I think that's going to be an important element. It's
probably not going to come online--obviously, it won't come
online for IPY, but it can be considered one of those--one of
those legacies that fall out of global attention to polar
activity, polar issues during IPY.
Chairman Stevens. How would you--well, let me finish this
question first. What do you think, Dr. Parkinson?
Dr. Parkinson. In terms of funding, Senator?
Chairman Stevens. Yes.
Dr. Parkinson. I'm----
Chairman Stevens. What funding do you think we need that we
don't have?
Dr. Parkinson. I'm not aware of any specific funding for
health, so to speak. A number of agencies are involved in the
Arctic Human Health Initiative. What--the way we have been
looking at it up until now is that it's some--like a potluck,
where each agency brings something to the table, and we are
hoping that there's enough to go around.
Chairman Stevens. And you, Dr. Armstrong?
Dr. Armstrong. As I said, we have a substantial amount of
core funding in Arctic and Antarctic research, about $25
million, at USGS. We are trying to promote the establishment of
larger programs in the Arctic, in Alaska, in the sub-Arctic.
I--from a programmatic perspective, more money for monitoring--
we can, in Alaska, a State that's so important to understanding
climate change in sensitive areas, the need for more stream
gauges for carbon flex monitoring, those are examples of things
that we certainly need more of. And--but it's not just for USGS
or the Department of the Interior, it's in cooperation with our
partners at the universities--NASA, NOAA, NSF. And these are
discussions that are--we have at the Climate Change Science
Program, where we all get together and talk about priorities in
the Arctic and the Antarctic. So, it's--there's always a need
for more work to enhance what we're doing, and more funding for
that. But those are just a couple of examples of things that
are really needed in a place like Alaska, where, you know, for
the issues that we're talking about, there is a need for
substantial infrastructure.
Chairman Stevens. How do you think our contribution as a
nation to this IPY compares to other countries that are
involved? Have--anybody got any judgment on that? Do you, Dr.
Bell?
Dr. Bell. I think, intellectually, so far, we've been
playing a leading role. Many of the programs you're familiar
with--the SEARCH program, for example, the study of
environmental change in the Arctic--are an integral part of the
fabric and--of that overwhelming honeycomb diagram. That really
captures much of the planning that came out of the U.S. science
community.
I think--relative to putting the resources on the table, I
think we have not--the Canadians have put $125 million, the
Chinese have put $65 million, and a number of places are
building new ships or new stations. So, I don't think we've
quite stepped up to the plate as much as we can, as a nation,
or as much as we need to, financially, to assure the leadership
that we're, sort of, posed to grab.
Chairman Stevens. Mead, how long before that wish list of
yours will be ready?
Mr. Treadwell. We can give you an analysis of what's in the
Arctic plan and what's not in the budget soon. I've got an
analysis of what was appropriated in NOAA last year and not
requested this year, and we can get you those things.
Chairman Stevens. How long will that take to get together?
Mr. Treadwell. We can get you some numbers today, Senator.
Chairman Stevens. I don't need it today. I mean--in time.
Mr. Treadwell. The Commission will be meeting the 9th and
10th of October, and we could resolve something by that time.
Chairman Stevens. All right. My feeling is, we ought to
have, maybe, a teleconference session to really examine--when
Mead gets that together--to see whether you all agree, and then
we ought to try to see if we can get an appointment with OMB
and Josh Bolten to see how we can get some energy behind this
movement. I think we ought to be in the forefront of it. If
we're not, we're going to be left behind. I'm thinking about
the study that shows how we're far behind in educating our
people now. I don't think we can afford to get behind in this,
now. This is something we should stay ahead of. And it might be
a stimulus to help us play catch-up, in terms of some of the
education we need for science, math, and technology.
So, I'm going to--you deal with the substance, milady, I'll
try to deal with the money.
Senator Murkowski. That works for me, Senator.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Stevens. We thank you very much and appreciate
your courtesy of being with us. We look forward to working with
you. I think that this is a stimulating thing, as far as Alaska
is concerned, and we want to try and stay on top of it. But it
cannot turn into being just an Alaska item or it'll just be
knocked aside as another one of those, you know, things that
have four legs and a swirly tail. So----
Dr. Bell. That's why it's so important to consider both
poles as we move forward.
Chairman Stevens. I've been down to Antarctica.
Dr. Bell. Yes?
Chairman Stevens. We've got another scheduled trip down
there.
Dr. Bell. Good.
Chairman Stevens. We should go down again, and----
Dr. Bell. Good.
Chairman Stevens.--maybe some of you could go along with
us.
Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 5:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Hon. Daniel K. Inouye, U.S. Senator from Hawaii
Chairman Stevens, Senator Murkowski, thank you for calling
attention to the upcoming International Polar Year (IPY). I look
forward to celebrating 125 years of scientific achievement and
international collaboration and expanding on this legacy of polar
research in 2007 and 2008.
I am excited by the prospect that this upcoming `burst' in
scientific research will lead to a greater understanding of the
unprecedented environmental change currently underway at the polar
regions.
Today we face many environmental issues, but one of the greatest is
global climate change. The indigenous people of the Arctic already see
the effect of climate change on their lives, but it is only a matter of
time before the impact of these changes will be felt around the globe.
For example, as the Earth's temperature has increased, the melting
of icecaps and glaciers has become evident.
By 2100, sea levels could be several feet higher than they are now,
which would have devastating effects on coastal areas, including my
home State of Hawaii and the other Pacific Island nations.
We have already seen the powerful destruction a tsunami or severe
weather can have on our low-lying islands, and this damage will be
magnified under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
(NOAA) projections of a one to three foot rise in sea level.
The polar regions are important places for the United States to
research and I am pleased that the Committees will hear about the
United States' current plans to participate in the upcoming IPY, as
well as actions we still must take to ensure the United States
continues to support this significant research.
This effort also should attract a new generation of scientists to
the study of our Earth systems--and the oceanic and atmospheric forces
that drive the system.
However, I am concerned that the Administration has not provided
sufficient support to NOAA and the Coast Guard to make this IPY a true
success, and I hope our witnesses speak to that issue.
Adequate U.S. support for IPY is vital, not only because the
scientific findings from this IPY will encourage us to be better
stewards of the health of this planet, but because its true and lasting
legacy will be a new generation of Earth scientists--a generation that
will be tapped to reverse the awful trajectory of global warming.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg,
U.S. Senator from New Jersey
Let me thank both Chairs for today's hearing. I strongly support
America's participation in the upcoming International Polar Year. In
1882, twelve countries set out on fifteen expeditions in the First
International Polar Year. That expedition taught us lessons about
Earth's science and geography we still rely on. It also taught us the
value of international science cooperation--a legacy I hope we will
continue.
I have been to Antarctica and to the Arctic. I know that changes
are underway that can alter the marine life at both poles, raise each
region's temperatures, and increase the sea level across our planet.
Many of these changes are the result of global warming, and I hope the
coming International Polar Year will deepen our knowledge into the harm
global warming causes to our polar regions and globe.
Several Federal agencies will help contribute to the success of the
International Polar Year, including the NSF, the Coast Guard, and NOAA.
I hope the impacts of global warming, including its role in changing
the ocean food chain, will be a major part of our Nation's research
agenda for the International Polar Year.
I also want to talk about the condition of the Coast Guard's
icebreakers. We have three vessels which break polar ice and serve as
research platforms for our scientists. Two of these icebreakers are
thirty years old and rife with maintenance trouble. Congress has
provided insufficient funding for the Coast Guard in the past and I
hope we will not repeat that mistake. Let us give the Coast Guard the
money it needs, both for the Arctic and Antarctica, and for protection
of America's seas.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce
This statement for the record will provide a brief background on
International Polar Year (IPY), and discuss how the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) supports this important research
opportunity. IPY is an excellent opportunity to advance science and
Earth observations in the polar regions. Our statement summarizes our
initial plans and provides an update to expected IPY activities during
Fiscal Year 2007 to Fiscal Year 2009.
IPY has been declared by the International Council of Science
(ICSU) and the U.S. National Academies to extend from March 2007
through March 2009. The objectives of IPY are 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.
NOAA began planning for IPY activities in the Fall of 2004. NOAA's
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research and programs across NOAA are
using existing resources to conduct IPY-related activities. Our
statement highlights work on 11 NOAA IPY-related projects. Each of
these projects is associated with a formal International Council for
Science-World Meteorological Organization (ICSU-WMO) IPY-endorsed
project. These projects will contribute new data to Earth observing
efforts, such as the Global Earth Observation System of Systems
(GEOSS), and will advance understanding and predictability of the polar
environment in NOAA's mission areas.
IPY Activities
Ocean Exploration in Polar Regions
NOAA's Office of Ocean Exploration (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. OE, together with the NOAA
Arctic Research Program and the Russian Academy of Sciences, plans to
facilitate an expedition to the Arctic Ocean in 2008, as part of the
ongoing RUSALCA (Russian American Long-term Census of the Arctic)
program. The expedition will carry out a census of life in the unknown
waters of the Arctic north of the United States and Russia, from the
sea ice to the seafloor below. This information provides background
observations necessary for the monitoring of changing ecosystems in the
Pacific Region of the Arctic.
Causes and Impacts of Recent Changes in the Arctic Ocean
Unprecedented minima of sea ice area have occurred in the Arctic
Ocean 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.
Changes in the Arctic Ocean are continuing, despite the observation
that climate indices such as the Arctic Oscillation were negative or
neutral for six of the last 9 years. The Arctic Ocean may have 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. (For more information, see
www.arctic.noaa.gov.)
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 vapor, 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.
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. NOAA scientist, Susan Solomon, was the leading
scientist in identifying the cause of the annual stratospheric ozone
depletion over Antarctic known as the ozone hole, first observed in the
early 1980s. Solomon and her colleagues suggested that chemical
reactions involving man-made chlorine from chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)
interacting with icy clouds in the cold polar stratosphere could be
responsible for the unprecedented losses of ozone during the Antarctic
springtime. She then led two U.S. scientific expeditions to Antarctica
in 1986 and 1987 that succeeded in providing key observations
confirming the theory. 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 IPY. These projects are continuations of
NOAA's ongoing stratospheric ozone depletion measurement programs.
Antarctic Living Marine Resource Survey
The principal objective of the NOAA Antarctic Living Marine
Resource 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 Fiscal Year 2007.
Short-Term Arctic Predictability
A scientific study in short-term Arctic predictability 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 will make observations and introduce forecast products
to improve weather and intraseasonal forecasts for the Arctic.
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.
Arctic Climate Modeling
The general goal of the Arctic climate modeling project is to
improve predictions of the Arctic environment on timescales ranging
from seasonal to decadal. Thus, our research will focus on analyzing
and modeling the physical processes and connections between the Arctic
and the rest of the globe. NOAA will continue to improve global climate
models that include polar processes.
Arctic System Reanalysis
A concerted effort during IPY to construct pan-Arctic atmosphere-
ocean-ice-land datasets, 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
should 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 Arctic System Reanalysis
(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.
NOAA's Data, Information, and Change Detection Strategy for 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
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 decisionmakers with information
products. These range from baseline atlases against which future
assessments can be carried out, to the Near Real-time Arctic Change
Indicator website (http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/), 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 IPY.
Decision Support for Increasing Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change and
Variability in Alaska and the Arctic
The cornerstone of NOAA's 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) to foster growth of climate services. NOAA plans to
initiate the Alaska RISA, in 2006, through the University of Alaska.
The Alaska RISA is a 5-year program designed to address regionally
important climate issues to aid policy and decisionmaking. 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.
NOAA is part of the U.S. presence in the Arctic Council. The Arctic
Council 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 expects to
contribute to the Arctic Council climate-related assessment tasks
during IPY.
Other Activities
Ice Services
The National Ice Center (NIC) is a U.S. Government agency that
brings together elements from NOAA, the U.S. Navy, and the U.S. Coast
Guard 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.
The NIC products include a hemispheric and over 30 individual regional
charts, sea ice tactical ice navigation support, Chukchi Sea and
Beaufort Sea ice seasonal forecasts. In addition, the NIC supports the
development of sea ice climatology for the Arctic, and manages the U.S.
Interagency Arctic Buoy Program (USIABP). The 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 IPY activities throughout 2007 and 2008.
Snow and Ice Data
NOAA's National Data Centers handle a wide variety of Arctic data.
An affiliated data center, the National Snow and Ice Data Center
(NSIDC), part of the Cooperative Institute for Research in
Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at the University of Colorado, Boulder,
has a NOAA NESDIS supported program (http://nsidc.org/noaa/) to produce
and manage selected datasets. Significant datasets are the Online
Glacier Photograph Collection of over 3,000 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 team at the NSIDC 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.
Education
NOAA's Climate Program Office is leading a NOAA-wide effort with
respect to the IPY. The Climate Literacy Working Group, 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 IPY. Several formal and informal education
initiatives are focusing primarily on teacher professional and science
center or museum exhibitions. In addition, several formal lesson plans
will be developed as part of our IPY efforts.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
Vice Admiral Robert Papp
Question 1. How much would it cost and how long would it take to
replace the POLAR STAR and POLAR SEA?
Answer. Initial estimates to replace the POLAR STAR and POLAR SEA
are $600 to $700 million per vessel (2006 dollars). A more accurate
assessment of resource needs will be required after the capability and
initial design requirements are completed during the major acquisition
process.
Once funds are appropriated for a polar icebreaker major
acquisition, it will take approximately 8 to 10 years to complete
construction of the polar icebreakers and have them ready to support
polar operations.
Question 2. Can we expect funding in the Fiscal Year 2008 budget
request to begin the process of replacing these two icebreakers? If
not, why not?
Answer. No. Although the recently released National Research
Council's (NRC) report ``Polar Icebreakers in a Changing World: An
Assessment of U.S. Needs'' recommended the ``United States immediately
program, budget, design, and construct two new polar icebreakers to be
operated by the Coast Guard,'' the Coast Guard is seeking an updated
national policy on icebreaking before the service begins the
acquisition. The Coast Guard is in the process of requesting a revised
national policy from the National Security Council (NSC), and will be
poised to start the acquisition if the Administration identifies the
Coast Guard as the best Agency to continue providing national
icebreaking services.
Question 3. Does the Administration and Coast Guard have a plan for
how the United States is going to meet our immediate icebreaker needs
until the POLAR STAR and POLAR SEA can be replaced?
Answer. Provided a national policy decision is made that identifies
the Coast Guard as the lead agency for icebreaking operations, it will
take approximately 8-10 years to complete a major acquisition to
replace POLAR SEA and POLAR STAR.
In the interim, provided NSF will adequately fund, the Coast Guard
will:
1. Continue sustainment maintenance work on POLAR SEA to gain
additional years of service-life.
2. Recommend completing sustainment maintenance on POLAR STAR
similar to what has been completed on POLAR SEA. Over a 2 to 3
year period, this would likely require $25 to $30 million
additional funds but would extend the life of POLAR STAR by 4-8
years, and effectively restore the U.S. polar icebreaker fleet
to three vessels. This would reduce operational risk to the
U.S. Antarctic Program and would eliminate NSF's need to rely
on foreign icebreakers.
3. Investigate increasing HEALY's annual operating days. HEALY
currently operates at a Coast Guard standard 185 days away from
homeport each year with one crew. The Coast Guard is
investigating crewing options and resource requirements to
increase the annual use of HEALY in the Arctic.
Question 4. What does the Coast Guard recommend as a strategy to
fill our gaps in capacity during this transition period?
Answer. If a national policy decision were to be made that
identifies the Coast Guard as the lead agency for icebreaking
operations, it will take approximately 8-10 years to complete a major
acquisition to replace POLAR SEA and POLAR STAR.
If the Coast Guard is identified as the lead agency, then along
with continuing sustainment maintenance work on POLAR SEA, the Coast
Guard would also recommend:
1. Completing sustainment maintenance on POLAR STAR similar to
what has been completed on POLAR SEA. Over a 2 to 3 year
period, this would likely require $25 to $30 million additional
funds, but would extend the life of POLAR STAR by 4-8 years,
and effectively restore the U.S. polar icebreaker fleet to
three vessels. This would reduce operational risk to the U.S.
Antarctic Program and would eliminate NSF's need to rely on
foreign icebreakers.
2. Increasing HEALY's annual operating days. HEALY currently
operates at a Coast Guard standard 185 days away from homeport
each year with one crew. The Coast Guard is investigating
crewing options and resource requirements to increase the
annual use of HEALY in the Arctic.
3. Restoring budget authority for polar icebreakers to the
Coast Guard and funding the program to sufficiently support
three polar icebreakers.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg to
Vice Admiral Robert Papp
Question 1. Has funding been adequate to maintain all three of the
Coast Guard's icebreakers?
Answer. No. In order to fully support the HEALY and POLAR SEA's
operations and maintenance needs, the National Science Foundation (NSF)
decided to place POLAR STAR ``In Commission, Special'' caretaker
status.
Question 2. How is the Coast Guard going to carry out its polar
icebreaking mission now and in the future, given the state of the two
polar icebreakers?
Answer. Given that appropriations for polar icebreaking operations
were transferred to the National Science Foundation (NSF) in FY06, and
the NSF now pays the Coast Guard to operate and maintain the polar
icebreaking fleet, all missions are executed only after close
coordination between the NSF and Coast Guard.
To help preserve the Coast Guard's ability to be the sole U.S.
provider of polar icebreaking services, POLAR SEA recently completed
nearly 2 years of sustainment maintenance which should extend its
service life by approximately 4-8 years, depending on ice conditions
and annual use.
Historically, POLAR SEA and POLAR STAR would alternate Deep Freeze
missions due to the arduous nature of the ice conditions encountered,
and to allow a backup in case the primary vessel broke down. This
practice aligns with the 1990 Presidential Determination on polar
icebreakers, which the Coast Guard still considers to be sound policy.
With the POLAR STAR in caretaker status, the National Science
Foundation (NSF) plans to use foreign icebreakers to provide
contingency capability in the Antarctic, and therefore is willing to
accept a higher level of risk to the mission. To reengage POLAR STAR
for an extended period of time, it would require approximately 2 years
of sustainment maintenance similar to what POLAR SEA recently
completed.
HEALY was commissioned in 1999, and is operating well. The Coast
Guard is studying options to increase HEALY's annual Days Away from
Homeport (DAFHP) from the service-standard 185 to up to 300 days per
year to accommodate national polar research demands.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Vice Admiral Robert Papp
Question 1. In their recent report ``Polar Icebreakers in a
Changing World: An Assessment of U.S. Needs,'' The National Academy of
Sciences concludes that with repair work deferred due to inadequate
funding ``U.S. icebreaking capability is now at risk of being unable to
support national interests in the north and south.'' Does this
assessment fit with the Coast Guard's view of current icebreaking
operations? If so, what is the level of resources necessary in order to
ensure adequate icebreaking capacity?
Answer. Yes. By putting the POLAR STAR in caretaker status, the
National Science Foundation (NSF) has accepted a higher level of risk
to the U.S. Antarctic Program resupply effort.
To maintain an acceptable level of risk, two heavy icebreakers are
needed for the McMurdo icebreaker mission. Rather than keep POLAR STAR
in service, NSF has opted to contract with foreign icebreakers to
backup POLAR SEA. In 2005 and 2006, NSF contracted the Russian
icebreaker KRASIN, and NSF has contracted the Swedish icebreaker ODEN
for 2007. Not only are these icebreakers less capable than POLAR STAR,
they are also subject to being reprioritized by their company or
country to support non-U.S. missions.
In the long-term, three properly configured U.S. polar icebreakers
would be sufficient to support the annual U.S. Antarctic Program
resupply effort and maintain a continuous presence in the Arctic. To
further meet the needs of the polar research community the Coast Guard
is investigating options to increase HEALY operational days from 185 to
300 days per year. A fleet mix analysis is necessary, but additional
ice-strengthened vessels may also be required to preserve future
national interests in the Arctic.
Question 2. The POLAR SEA and the POLAR STAR are nearing the end of
their thirty-year design lives. The National Academy of Sciences
recommends that the Coast Guard ``immediately program, budget, design,
and construct two new polar icebreakers to be operated by the U.S.
Coast Guard'' to replace these aging assets. Do you agree with this
recommendation?
Answer. A national policy decision by the Administration would have
to identify the Coast Guard as the primary national service provider
for icebreaking before the service would commence a major acquisition
project to replace POLAR SEA and POLAR STAR.
Question 3. Has the Coast Guard begun to take steps to plan for the
long-term replacement or recapitalization of these unique assets, and
if so, could you please describe these steps for me?
Answer. Yes, to prepare for the Administration's revised national
policy decision, the Coast Guard has completed some preliminary steps
to support long-term replacement or recapitalization. In 2005, the
Coast Guard completed a mission analysis study and funded the National
Research Council's assessment of polar icebreaker needs in 2006. In
addition, the Coast Guard has completed some preliminary analysis on
Service Life Extension Project (SLEP) options for the POLAR SEA and
POLAR STAR. However, a national policy decision by the Administration
would have to identify the Coast Guard as the primary national service
provider for icebreaking before the service would commence a major
acquisition project to replace POLAR SEA and POLAR STAR.
Question 4. As you know, the Administration is again proposing that
funding for the Coast Guard's polar icebreaker fleet be routed through
the National Science Foundation (NSF), despite recommendations by the
National Research Council (NRC) that the Coast Guard should be budgeted
funds to maintain the fleet. Admiral, has this arrangement worked to
the satisfaction of the Coast Guard?
What steps will the Coast Guard take this year to ensure transfer
of funds from NSF in a timely fashion?
Answer. In the short-term, this arrangement has worked, since it
has isolated the polar icebreaker budget from other Coast Guard
programs.
In the long-term, NSF and several of their Congressional staffs
have stated that if the polar icebreaker budget authority remains with
NSF, then NSF should only be required to support NSF's mandates; not
all USCG mandates that pertain to use of the polar icebreakers (i.e.
Enforcement of Laws & Treaties, Search & Rescue, or Pollution
response). Since the frequency and importance of other USCG missions
are expected to expand in the Arctic and Antarctic, continued funding
through NSF could become more problematic. In addition, NSF has stated
that they prefer to contract polar icebreaker services. The Coast Guard
has already seen NSF reprioritize polar icebreaker funds to contract
for foreign icebreakers to support the U.S. Antarctic Program. Use of
foreign icebreakers weakens the U.S. polar icebreaker program and
diminishes our ability to project power and influence into the polar
regions at a time of growing interest, especially in the Arctic. The
NRC report, and the 1990 Presidential Determination on U.S. polar
icebreaker requirements, state that national sovereignty and projection
of power and influence are key aspects of the U.S. polar icebreaker
program.
For Fiscal Year 2007, the Coast Guard has submitted a spend plan to
NSF requesting $57 million. NSF is currently reviewing the spend plan.
Even though the spend plan is still being negotiated, NSF has given the
Coast Guard authority to spend $20 million during the first quarter of
FY07 while NSF operates under a continuing resolution.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr.
Question 1. The IPY envisions establishment of polar observing
equipment and monitoring systems that will eventually need to be taken
over and maintained after the close of the IPY, beginning in 2009.
What kind of fiscal burden will taking over these systems place on
NOAA?
Answer. NSF is aware that NOAA received the same question and they
are the lead agency to address this issue.
Question 2. To the best of your knowledge, what other Federal
agencies will be responsible for maintaining post-IPY observing and
monitoring activities?
Answer. NOAA is already supporting important components of the
system, particularly in establishing climate reference stations working
with Canadian and Russian counterparts. NOAA is also supporting key
observations in the Bering Strait. It is critically important that NOAA
support these activities beyond IPY. NASA will provide access to
critical remote sensing synoptic observations from satellites (also
with NOAA) during and beyond IPY. Continued support of DOE measurement
programs in Alaska is also important, as is a continuation of important
DOI (USGS) river discharge measurements. The U.S. Coast Guard, which
operates the Nation's fleet of polar icebreaking ships, has requested
that NOAA identify the polar icebreaker support required for
maintaining polar observing systems.
Question 3. What will happen to the scientific knowledge gained
through polar monitoring and research if we do not have resources to
continue monitoring during and after IPY?
Answer. Science results will be published and basic data will be
archived in National Data Centers. However, the core issues and
questions related to the changing Arctic cannot be resolved in such a
short time window as the IPY. Fundamentally, the rationale for an
Arctic Observing Network (AON) is for observations on decadal time
scales.
Question 4. The U.S. Antarctic Marine Living Resources (AMLR)
program, managed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS),
supports international efforts to protect the Antarctic and its marine
life through the Commission for Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living
Resources (CCAMLR). CCAMLR has planned a Southern Ocean synoptic
predator-prey study, formally recognized and designated as IPY's lead
project for the topic ``Natural Resources, Antarctic.'' At one point,
AMLR was prepared to offer ship time to the project.
At this time, what resources does the AMLR Program plan on
dedicating to IPY-related activities?
Question 5. Is that level sufficient to fulfill U.S. commitments in
support of CCAMLR?
Question 6. Is the level of participation the U.S. is currently
envisioning to dedicate through AMLR to this project likely to
compromise CCAMLR's ability to participate meaningfully in the IPY?
Answer to Questions 4-6. NSF is aware that NOAA received the same
three questions about its programs. They are the lead agency to address
these issues.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr.
Question. What steps will NSF take to ensure that funds for the
polar icebreaker fleet are transferred to the Coast Guard in a timely
fashion so that maintenance will not be delayed or compromised?
Answer. As outlined in the MOA between NSF and USCG, NSF annually
tasks the USCG polar icebreakers. USCG submits a corresponding budget.
NSF and USCG negotiate the budget and, once agreement is reached, NSF
approves the budget. NSF issues a Letter of Intent to USCG for the
approved budget, and reimburses USCG as expenses are incurred for
approved tasking. In cases where NSF is operating under a Continuing
Resolution, and, therefore, funds are limited (as has been the case for
the two years that NSF has had fiscal responsibility for the polar
icebreaker program), USCG submits its cash-flow requirements to NSF.
This document outlines the funds required on a monthly basis for
personnel, operations, and maintenance contracts. Provided NSF has
sufficient spending authority under the Continuing Resolution, NSF
reimburses USCG on a monthly basis. The working relationship between
USCG and NSF officials responsible for managing the MOA appears to be
effective.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg to
Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr.
Question 1. Why has the NSF spent appropriated funds for chartering
foreign vessels, rather than for operations and maintenance of the
Coast Guard's fleet of icebreakers?
Answer. Resupply of the McMurdo and South Pole Stations, as well as
temporary remote field stations in Antarctica, is necessary to meet
both research and longstanding U.S. geopolitical policy goals. It
depends on gaining access to the McMurdo pier through the sea ice in
McMurdo Sound. In most previous years, the channel was opened by one
U.S. Coast Guard Polar Class vessel (either the POLAR STAR or the POLAR
SEA), but more recently two icebreaking vessels have been needed due to
extreme ice conditions and concerns about the reliability of the aging
polar icebreakers.
NSF has made significant investments in maintenance of the USCG
polar icebreakers. Thus, the POLAR SEA is ready for duty and will be
used for the upcoming Antarctic break-in. However, USCG has recommended
that a backup vessel be available, and there is no U.S. icebreaker
capable of providing this assistance. NSF has therefore concluded a
charter for the Swedish icebreaker ODEN as back-up for the POLAR SEA
this December and January.
In addition, Presidential Memorandum 6646, as well as guidance from
Congressional appropriations committees, directs NSF to find the most
cost-effective, reliable means of achieving the national goals of the
U.S. Antarctic Program.
Question 2. The Bush Administration has already established a
record of censoring scientists with whom it disagrees on global
warming. How will you both ensure that the research for the
International Polar Year is selected, and conducted, without
interference from the White House?
Answer. The Administration values science as a basis for effective
action in its service to the public, and regards the timely, complete,
and accurate communication of scientific information an important part
of that service. Administration guidance has required Federal agencies
to develop, revise, or re-emphasize policies related to scientific
openness, and to ensure that employees and management understand their
rights and obligations under these policies.
Specific to NSF, the Foundation will determine which proposals to
fund by asking expert independent scientists, identified by cognizant
NSF staff, to assess the proposals' merits against the standard NSF
merit review criteria (intellectual merit; broader impacts) and the
guidelines established by the National Academies of Science National
Research Council. The latter guidelines were published in the NAS/NRC
document, ``A Vision for the International Polar Year 2007-2008.''
As with all other projects selected and supported by NSF, NSF does
not interfere with grantees' conduct of their research, other than to
monitor it to insure that it is being conducted as proposed. NSF does
not have its own research laboratories; and, therefore, the proposed
projects will come from independent scientists and engineers who are
not government scientists: but are from academic institutions.
Question 3. What assurances can you give us that the results of the
U.S. research will be communicated freely and clearly by U.S.
scientists, even if they conflict with the views of the White House and
the oil and automobile industries?
Answer. Since NSF does not have its own research laboratories, the
scientists and engineers we support are typicay members of
universities, colleges, and independent laboratories, not government
employees. NSF expects all grantees to publish their research results
in the open literature so that all research and education communities
have access to the data. NSF does not involve itself in the preparation
of the manuscripts. Scientists seeking support from NSF are evaluated
by their peers on the quality of the publications from prior support.
Therefore. to a large degree, the scientific community enforces open
publication of NSF-funded research.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg to
Robin E. Bell, Ph.D.
Question 1. I am concerned about the recent reports that global
warming is rapidly affecting the ocean's chemistry--making it more
acidic. Will our U.S. research effort include monitoring ocean
chemistry and its potential impacts on the food chain? Do we have any
sense of how bad things are already, or when we are likely to see the
impacts of acidification?
Answer. The topic of how global warming may affect the ocean's
chemistry, making it more acidic, is an important one. Among the
projects being proposed as part of International Polar Year are
activities that would include collection of sea water and measurement
of sea water carbon parameters. At this time, it is not yet known which
actual projects will be funded, either here or by other nations.
It is known that CO2 from the atmosphere dissolves and
forms an acid in seawater. In the past 200 years, the oceans have
absorbed about half of the CO2 produced by humans. As
seawater becomes more acidic, the capacity of the ocean to absorb
CO2 will decrease. One program, called the SEARCH program
(Study of ARctic Environmental CHange), intends to make these kinds of
measurements as part of the planned Arctic Observatory Network. Until
relatively recently, although studied by a small number of
oceanographers, ocean acidification has not been a critical national
concern, but the topic is moving onto the national agenda (e.g., it is
the subject of an article in November, in New Yorker magazine, as well
as recent Science and Nature papers and recent national and
international conferences). Oceans have a high capacity to buffer the
effects of additional carbon, but current research is suggesting that
the levels of anthropogenic CO2 input are so high that the
ocean has already become measurably more acidic. A more acidic ocean
inhibits the formation of calcium carbonate skeletons which form the
shells of many marine organisms, including corals and several key
planktonic species, including coccolithophores, a microcellular marine
algae common in subpolar regions.
Question 2. How does climate change or ocean warming affect the
ability of krill to resist over-harvesting? How much more vulnerable
does it make them? How much would a sharp decline in krill populations
affect other species and the food chain?
Answer. More than acidity, krill will be impacted by warming ocean
temperatures. Studies along the Western Antarctic Peninsula have
discovered that during low winter sea-ice years the plankton is
dominated by salps instead of krill. This is because krill heavily
depend on sea-algae as their food source. Krill, similar to other
marine organisms, are adapted to live in a limited range of pH, so any
extreme change in ocean acidity will affect these organisms. Krill and
copepods are key members of the marine food chain, so changes in their
populations can be expected to have potentially large impacts through
the ecosystems. Along the Antarctic coast, krill is the primary food
source for penguins, and many marine mammal species and a sharp decline
in krill's abundance would severely impact their populations. Potential
impacts on marine organisms directly relying on calcification, such as
those that make up commercial crustacean fisheries (shrimp, crab) and
mollusk fisheries (bivalves, gastropods) may be of economic concern in
the future.
The concern about increasing ocean acidity is one of the research
areas mentioned in the draft Ocean Research Priorities Plan prepared by
the Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology under the
National Science and Technology Council. Generally, this is an emerging
area of concern that has yet to be thoroughly studied. The National
Academies is currently considering developing a study on this topic.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
NOAA
Question 1. The IPY envisions establishment of polar observing
equipment and monitoring systems which will eventually need to be taken
over and maintained after the close of the IPY, beginning in 2009.
What kind of fiscal burden will taking over these systems place on
NOAA?
Answer. NOAA is making use of existing resources to conduct IPY
work, so continuing support for polar observations would be provided
through the President's budget without any additional fiscal burden.
In addition to other NOAA exploration, prediction, modeling, data,
outreach, and decision support IPY projects, the President's Fiscal
Year 2007 Budget Request includes funding for the following four polar
observation-specific projects:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pres Bud Fiscal
Project Year 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Causes and Impacts of Recent Changes in Pacific Arctic $3,650,000
Polar Atmospheric Observatories and Field Campaigns $2,675,000
Polar Stratospheric Ozone Depletion Observations included above
Antarctic Living Marine Resource Survey $1,467,000
-----------------
Total $7,792,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 1a. To the best of your knowledge, what other Federal
agencies will be responsible for maintaining post-IPY observing and
monitoring activities?
Answer. The Office of Science and Technology Policy assigned the
National Science Foundation the leadership role for coordinating
interagency IPY activities.
In Fiscal Year 2007, a new Arctic observatory in Eureka, Canada,
will operate during the IPY, and the observatory in Tiksi, Russia, will
be partially operational. Post-IPY, Canada will maintain and operate
the Eureka Observatory and NOAA will conduct measurements. At the site
in Tiksi, the National Science Foundation is contributing substantially
to the development of the infrastructure, and NOAA will assist in
providing instrumentation. Post-IPY, NOAA will maintain the Tiksi
Observatory as one of our Arctic Observation Network systems.
NOAA's existing baseline observatories at Barrow, Alaska, and the
South Pole will continue to focus on measurements of trace gases and
aerosols during IPY.
Question 1b. What will happen to the scientific knowledge gained
through polar monitoring and research if we do not have resources to
continue monitoring during and after IPY?
Answer. NOAA will be archiving NOAA datasets during IPY to ensure
that the scientific knowledge gained through polar monitoring and
research during IPY is available to benefit future polar research and
management. It is important that the Nation continue polar monitoring
after IPY to observe and understand the changing Arctic in the years to
come.
Question 2. The U.S. Antarctic Marine Living Resources (AMLR)
Program, managed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS),
supports international efforts to protect the Antarctic and its marine
life through the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Living
Marine Resources (CCAMLR). CCAMLR has planned a Southern Ocean synoptic
predator-prey study, formally recognized and designated as IPY's lead
project for the topic ``Natural Resources, Antarctic.'' At one point
AMLR was prepared to offer ship time to the project. At this time, what
resources does the AMLR Program plan on dedicating to IPYrelated
activities?
Answer. The International Polar Year (IPY) actually runs from March
2007 through March 2009 (two years; to ensure that researchers get the
opportunity to work in both polar regions or work summer and winter if
they wish). The Antarctic Marine Living Resources (AMLR) Program had
indicated an interest in supplying ship time and scientific expertise
to CCAMLR's survey starting in January 2008. However, the AMLR
Program's participation in Fiscal Year 2008 IPY-related activities is
contingent upon the availability of an ice-strengthened research vessel
with appropriate endurance.
NOAA only needs a 35-day cruise in 2008 to fulfill U.S.
requirements under CCAMLR. However, it is not clear that NOAA will be
able to lease the same vessel as in the past for such a short cruise.
NOAA is reviewing options should this ship become unavailable.
In Fiscal Year 2008, NOAA will evaluate all options for continuing
ship-based research that would enable the AMLR to contribute to
CCAMLR's IPY-related research activities in the Southern Ocean.
Question 2a. Is that level sufficient to fulfill US. commitments in
support of CCAMLR?
Answer. A 35-day cruise would be sufficient to fulfill U.S.
commitments in support of CCAMLR.
Question 2b. Is the level of participation the U.S. is currently
envisioning to dedicate through AMLR to this project likely to
compromise CCAMLR's ability to participate meaningfully in the IPY?
Answer. NOAA will evaluate all options for continuing ship-based
research that would enable the AMLR to contribute to CCAMLR's IPY-
related research activities. If AMLR is unable to secure an appropriate
vessel to conduct the survey, it will compromise CCAMLR's ability to
participate in the IPY synoptic survey.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
Mead Treadwell *
Question. The National Research Council (NRC) of the National
Academy of Sciences recently released their final report assessing
polar icebreaker roles and needs. The report recommends that the United
States replace the two older vessels, the POLAR STAR and POLAR SEA,
while maintaining and repairing the POLAR SEA and keeping the POLAR
STAR in caretaker status during the transition period.
Do you support the NRC's recommendations?
If the recommendation pertaining to icebreaker capabilities
were implemented would that level of icebreaker capacity be
sufficient to meet the needs of the U.S. Arctic Research
Program?
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg to
Mead Treadwell *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Reponse was not available at the time this hearing went to press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 1. How important are the Coast Guard's icebreakers as a
platform for scientific research during the International Polar Year
and beyond? Do you support the National Research Council's
recommendation to ensure long-term U.S. polar icebreaking capability?
Question 2. The Bush Administration has already established a
record of censoring scientists with whom it disagrees on global
warming. How will you both ensure that the research for the
International Polar Year is selected and conducted without political
interference from the White House?
Question 3. What assurances can you give us that the results of the
U.S. research will be communicated freely and clearly by U.S.
scientists, even if they conflict with the views of the White House and
the oil and automobile industries?
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg to
Dr. Thomas Armstrong and Dr. Virgil L. ``Buck'' Sharpton *
Question 1. I am concerned about the recent reports that global
warming is rapidly affecting the ocean's chemistry--making it more
acidic. Will our U.S. research effort include monitoring ocean
chemistry and its potential impacts on the food chain? Do we have any
sense of how bad things are already, or when we are likely to see the
impacts of acidification?
Question 2. How does climate change or ocean warming affect the
ability of krill to resist over-harvesting? How much more vulnerable
does it make them? How much would a sharp decline in krill populations
affect other species and the food chain?