HEADLINE: HEARING OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES SUBJECT: OVERSIGHT ON THE STATUS OF OCEAN OBSERVING SYSTEMS IN THE UNITED STATES
CHAIRED BY: REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE T. GILCHREST (R-MD)
WITNESSES PANEL I: RICHARD W. SPINRAD, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE, NOAA;
MARGARET S. LEINEN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR GEOSCIENCES, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION;
ROBERT WINOKUR, TECHNICAL DIRECTOR, OCEANOGRAPHER OF THE NAVY; ROBERT A. WELLER, SENIOR SCIENTIST, DIRECTOR, COOPERATIVE INSTITUTE FOR CLIMATE AND OCEAN RESEARCH , WOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTION;
DONALD F. BOESCH, PRESIDENT, CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND;
PANEL II: NEWELL "TOBY" GARFIELD, SAN FRANCISCO STATE UNIVERSITY, CENTER FOR INTEGRATIVE COASTAL OBSERVATION, RESEARCH AND EDUCATION; MOLLY MCCAMMON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA OCEAN OBSERVING SYSTEM;
EVAN RICHERT, PRESIDENT, GULF OF MAINE OCEAN OBSERVING SYSTEM; CORTIS COOPER, METOCEAN CONSULTANT, ENERGY TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, CHEVRON TEXACO;
J. FREDERICK GRASSLE, DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE OF MARINE AND COASTAL SCIENCES, RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY; HELEN A. BROHL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MARITIME ORGANIZATIONS LOCATION: 1334 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.
TIME: 10:00 A.M.
BODY:
REP. WAYNE T. GILCHREST (R-MD): The subcommittee will come to order. Good morning and welcome. We thank all of you for coming this morning and we look forward to hearing our witnesses. We have not seen or heard from Don Boesch yet. But when he comes in, we'll welcome him with open arms, I'm sure. The balloon on the ceiling is to test the atmosphere at the top of the hearing room. We have a technology to be able to detect hot air from really good information.
So, anyway, welcome all of you to our hearing this morning. The topic for today is oversight hearing as the need for and the nation's progress regarding the development and implementation of integrated and sustained ocean-observing systems.
Dr. Boesch, welcome. You may come up to the front table, sir. We just barely got started. Thank you for coming and good morning to you.
The Ocean Commission recently released its draft governors' report and recommended the development of national integrated ocean- observing system and many states have commented that this type of integrated system is a high priority. The commission stated that forecasting an observational capacity of these systems and the products produced by the information collected should be as useful and analogous to the benefits received by the general public to the national weather forecasting and warning network.
Over 150 years ago, the nation embarked on a mission to create a comprehensive weather forecasting and warning system. It took a lot of ingenuity, manpower and extraordinary amounts of funding. But our nation was successful in this endeavor and today people cannot live without a daily, if not hourly, update of weather reports. Our nation has also put space exploration as a high priority and we know more today about the moon, Mars and other planets in our solar system than we did 40 years ago.
The development of rockets and shuttles, satellites, telescopes, lunar modules and many other technologies have allowed us to go into space, land on the moon, send land rovers to Mars and glean valuable information that would have been impossible to collect otherwise. Our space exploration and our weather program show that when our scientists and the nation support a program and devote time, money and, more importantly, the human mind to these types of endeavors, we are highly successful.
What has occurred in our atmosphere and in space has not occurred in our oceans. The ocean has been referred to as the last frontier, a place where we still find new organisms and species in its deepest depths. It's quite amazing that there are still places on our planet where a creature awaits discovery or where we struggle to understand the implication of climate change and the causes of those changes. Global climate change has been in the news for quite some time and the information and misinformation available to the public can be quite alarming.
Recently, Hollywood produced a feature film, "The Day After Tomorrow." When I was watching that film, I would have preferred to stay in New York City after the cold weather had. But "The Day After Tomorrow" about climate change where the world's climate changed radically in a four-day time span. Most people understand the Earth's climate would not change this quickly. But there have also been reports of climate change occurring within decades, which may be a somewhat new phenomenon.
Changes in our climate could affect the North Atlantic oscillation and thermohaline circulation. And we look forward to discussing these issues with our prestigious witnesses here today. We are also interested and hope to get a better understanding of how regional, coastal, national and global ocean-observing systems will help us understanding the chemical, physical and biological processes in our oceans. I would like to get a better understanding of the technologies used to run these systems, the type of physical, chemical and biological data collected, the products developed from this data and the users of these products.
In addition, I would like to discuss how these systems will help us understand the ocean's involvement in the changes to the Earth's climate. In particular, I would like to know if these ocean observation systems can assist in determining whether changes are occurring due to human influences, natural processes or both. I understand that there are up to 40 coastal ocean-observing systems throughout the United States that are running fairly independently and that a plan has been developed by federal agencies to coordinate the functions of these regional systems to support a national ocean- observing system.
I also understand that we can have an integrated system. We face a number of hurdles, including limitations in our data management systems and predictive model capabilities. Today's hearing should shed some light on the current status of ocean-observing systems and the critical first steps necessary to see an integrated ocean- observing system come into fruition in the very near future. And we, as members of Congress, would like to be partners in that what we believe is most extraordinary necessary effort.
Thank you for coming this morning. I will yield this time to my good friend from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. GILCHREST: Thank you, Mr. Pallone. And we'll see if we can work to try to avoid the conflicts of the hearing schedule in the future. I would also like to say I'd like to work with you and other members on both sides of the aisle in dealing with ocean issues and this one in particular that we're hearing testimony today. There are a whole range of scientific endeavors that Congress supports, whether it's healthcare, diseases, manned exploration, non-manned exploration of space and a variety of oceans issues.
It would be important for us to prioritize all of these research and scientific endeavors so that we can allocate the funds to the things that are most needed in the near future. And I think ocean issues, the full range of what the Navy does, what the scientific community does, dealing with the health of the planet, climate change, fisheries, coastal areas, those things probably, in my judgment, should take priority and the ocean has always been a little bit of a setback to the Congress. But I think, working together, we can help make that priority for oceans a reality.
We are very happy this morning to have Dr. Richard Spinrad from NOAA, the assistant administrator. Welcome, sir. Dr. Margaret Leinen, National Science Foundation. Mr. Robert Winokur from Oceanographer for the Navy. Thank you very much for coming this morning. Dr. Robert Weller, senior scientist, Woods Hole. Thank you for coming down from Massachusetts. And Dr. Donald Boesch, president, Center for Environmental Science from the University of Maryland. Welcome to all of you. We'll start with Dr. Richard Spinrad.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. GILCHREST: Thank you very much, Mr. Spinrad. We have some, on the lower dais, a number of seats here. So the people standing in the back, if you want to come up and sit down here, you're welcome to. We're not going to ask to change political affiliation or anything like that. If you do want to sit up here, you're welcome to sit up here.
Dr. Leinen.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. GILCHREST: Thank you very much, Dr. Leinen.
Mr. Winokur.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. GILCHREST: Thank you, Mr. Winokur.
Dr. Weller.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. GILCHREST: Dr. Weller, could you say that again? I didn't hear about the interaction --
DR. WELLER: Well, seismic activity on the seafloor. For example, the release of carbon dioxide or methane -
REP. GILCHREST: -- from the opening of the-
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. GILCHREST: Thank you very much, Dr. Weller. Dr. Boesch, welcome.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. GILCHREST: Thank you, Dr. Boesch.
I want to thank all of you for your testimony. There is a lot of extraordinary things happening out there. There is enormous amounts of information as you presented to us this morning. And we would really like to work with all of you to coordinate your testimony, that information, your background, to bring in this ocean-observing system as a premier tool of the United States to monitor 70 percent of the Earth's surface, and then integrate that with the rest of the world and set the stage for a new generation of understanding.
Dr. Spinrad, in your testimony, you talked about an ocean- observing system that could, I guess, if I'm hearing right, detect areas of hypoxia, see beach closures necessary before they happen, determine or detect, in a better manner, over-fished stocks, invasive species, harmful algal blooms, storm damage, erosion, et cetera. How far are we right now away from determining those things in a timely manner? How far are we from - with the existing system that we have right now, how integrated is it, how fragmented is it, how far are we away from being able to, in a real-time fashion, monitor and then predict the management necessary to deal with those issues?
DR. SPINRAD: In many of the cases, Mr. Chairman, we've been able to demonstrate through pilot studies a capability in targeted areas, in very specific examples, some dramatic improvements in our abilities. For example, with harmful algal blooms in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, we are at NOAA in a pre-operational mode intend to go operational within the next six to nine months to provide coastal managers in the Gulf of Mexico with that kind of forecast capability.
REP. GILCHREST: To forecast where the hypoxic areas are going to be?
DR. SPINRAD: Where and when we expect, not the hypoxia, the harmful algal bloom from the Eastern Gulf of Mexico.
REP. GILCHREST: So in six to nine months, you'll be able to predict that there is going to be a harmful algal bloom outbreak?
DR. SPINRAD: In six to nine months, we will be going-our capability to provide forecasts on a days to weeks kind of timeframe.
REP. GILCHREST: If there is going to be a red tide or something like that. When you have that capability of predicting that that's going to happen, do you know why that happens?
DR. SPINRAD: Well, this is where the connection with the research community is so critical. We do have good fundamental understanding of primary productivity that is trophic interactions, what influence injection of nutrients will have to result in productivity of those kind of algal blooms and then which algal blooms themselves are the toxic algal blooms. We have a good basis of research. But this is a classic example of working with NSF, the Office of Naval Research to define what the user community, in this case coastal managers, need in terms of duration of forecast, what kinds of specific events they care about, that is, those that are most influential on the shellfishery and therefore be able to define what sorts of research requirements we have for the Integrated Ocean Observing System.
REP. GILCHREST: So in six to nine months, there will be operational capability to begin to predict those types of harmful algal blooms and get that information to coastal managers?
DR. SPINRAD: That's correct. In the Gulf of Mexico.
REP. GILCHREST: In the Gulf of Mexico.
Is there then an understanding as to the contribution to those outbreaks of harmful algal blooms from the Mississippi River, from the coastal community itself, from the sources that-I guess, is there a distinction between the kinds of natural algal blooms that were out there 500 years ago and the type of algal blooms that are there now, possibly as a result of industry, sewer plants, just a whole range of human activity?
DR. SPINRAD: I don't think we're at the point now where we can conclusively break out, say what the anthropogenically influenced harmful algal blooms might be versus those that were occurring over long periods of history. Clearly, we have a much better understanding of the factors that contribute to the onset and also to the dispersion of these blooms. But we're not at the stage where we can make that clear a discrimination.
REP. GILCHREST: Is there some discrimination or understanding between harmful algal blooms and hypoxic waters?
DR. SPINRAD: Those really are treated somewhat independently although obviously, one of the critical factors is the physical forcing mechanisms, the mixing, the distribution of the waters, and in fact, the hypoxia events, again in the Gulf of Mexico, - -- or for that matter, in Chesapeake Bay-are predictable to a certain extent. But unless you incorporate the real-time weather information as well, as we saw just this year in the Gulf of Mexico, where the forecasts were somewhat controverted, if you will, by the late onset of storm- mixing events which introduced oxygen where we had forecast stronger hypoxic events. So it calls out the real critical need, not just to build an Integrated Ocean Observing System, but that system has got to be well integrated with our meteorological observations as well.
REP. GILCHREST: So would you call this, what you're doing, this integrated system in the Gulf of Mexico, the first stage of a long- range project to do this type of ocean-observing or create this type of system throughout the United States.
DR. SPINRAD: Very much so. Yes. From the standpoint that one of the things that we consider critical in the development of the Integrated Ocean Observing System is having a clear continuum from the basic research through pilot projects, it's a pre-operational and then operational capabilities. The other thing that particular example calls out nicely is that we do have specific regional interests and the reason why you've heard each of the witnesses allude to the regional observing system capabilities is because there are specific priorities. There are general needs for backbone kinds of observations, like water level observations. But then there are specific regional priorities. And, for example, the Gulf of Mexico hypoxia and harmful algal bloom priorities are different from the kind of priorities we may have in other parts of the country.
REP. GILCHREST: I understand. I have a few more questions. But at this point, I'll yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. GILCHREST: Thank you, Mr. Pallone.
Just a-this is not exactly a clarification, but in reference to the $400 million cut that NOAA received for the '05 budget on the House side, in the '03 appropriation-well, in '03, when we appropriated for '04, the NOAA budget was increased by 15 percent, and that was good. That was for this year. And we supported that. The '05 budget, as a result of that increase, we were told by our good friends on the Appropriations, that they were sustaining in a much more equitable fashion, given all of the other government programs of the $2 trillion that we spend. It was to get NOAA back to where they normally would be and still be able to fund the programs that they felt were necessary.
While we all support it at 15 percent, we didn't necessarily support the $400 cut, even though it was a huge increase. And if you got a 6 percent or 7 percent increase, that would have been good. And then that would have been matched by another 7 percent increase these year. So NOAA basically fared, given the last two years of appropriations, fairly well. A long way, though, from where we want to go, and we're competing with dollars for a man on Mars, a man on the moon, and all of those other things.
So I would like to say to the gentleman from New Jersey that long before we have an appropriations for the '06 budget, where we generally go to the appropriators a week before it comes to the House floor, we probably should have a strategy, starting in January, to visit the chairman and ranking member of that particular Appropriations Subcommittee to bring in some of the people that are testifying before us here today to talk about the need and the essential requirement for our understanding of how the ocean works, and this ocean-observing system, how far along we can go with it with a few extra dollars. And maybe we can postpone the landing on Mars for a few years, set these priorities.
NASA is a wonderful agency and we do know that a lot of these ocean-observing systems are coordinated with NASA. But I think maybe you can I and some other members can begin the process of talking to the appropriators, starting in January.
I had a couple of questions for Dr. Leinen. You talked about the necessity of long-term ocean observations, whether it's a year, 10 years, even out to centuries. Now, I'm going to play the devil's advocate here, even though I agree with you 1,000 percent. I wish we could dump about $20 billion in the next appropriation process, just for the system. But we have to deal in a different, very peculiar reality up here on Capitol Hill, because people are here for a lot of different reasons other than ocean-observing systems.
So if I tell my good colleagues that an ocean-observing system is absolutely essential, they're going to ask me why. And if you could come up with-you know, it seems obvious for all of you here, even in this room, why an ocean-observing system deals with a whole range of things that Dr. Spinrad discussed. What would you tell a member of Congress that has no frame of reference to oceans, has never heard of an ocean-observing system, doesn't have any idea that the climate is affected by the ocean because he was in a different business? So what would you say to him as to the importance of an ocean-observing system?
DR. LEINEN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think that my comment was that we understood that the processes take place over, up to, centuries. I think some wonderful examples, changes that we have documented as a result of looking at longer term observations include our knowledge from sustained biological and chemical observations off Hawaii and Bermuda that show basic change in the life support system of the north Pacific Ocean from nitrogen limitation. For example, we fertilize our lawns with nitrogen. The north Pacific is changing from nitrogen limitation to phosphorus limitation.
REP. GILCHREST: So let me ask you, the biological/chemical makeup of the ocean is changing over time, I would guess, and when you say it's changing from nitrogen limitation to phosphorus limitation, what does that mean?
DR. LEINEN: It means that over the last 20 years or so, as a result of looking at measurements of the biology, of the chemistry, including the phosphorus and nitrogen chemistry of the North Pacific. We have determined-or the scientists have determined that the basic life support, the plankton of the North Pacific used to be limited by nitrogen. Now they appear to be limited by phosphorus.
REP. GILCHREST: Why is that?
DR. LEINEN: We don't know why that is yet. We know that --
REP. GILCHREST: But that's going to affect the plankton in that area of the ocean?
DR. LEINEN: It affects the plankton in that area of the ocean, it affects everything that lives on the plankton, which is essentially the entire trophic structure of the ocean. It also affects the chemistry of the ocean because the chemistry is so strongly influenced by the phytoplankton. There are also indications from the studies in the Atlantic that parts of the Atlantic may be moving from nitrogen limitation to phosphorus limitation.
Now, a wonderful question is why is this happening? Is this a regular alternation that has something to do with one of the decadal cycles that you mentioned in your remarks, or is this something else that's going on? In order to make those sorts of determinations, first we need to be able to link these observations and these findings to other parts of the ocean. We also need to be able to look at the ocean for a longer period of time to see whether the North Pacific, for example, switches back to nitrogen limitation.
In addition, measurements of the salinity over the past several decades show that tropical ocean waters have become dramatically saltier over the past 40 years, while ocean waters closer to the poles have become fresher. One of the reasons that this is an important observation is that the formation of deep water in the North Atlantic and its relation to climate are very, very strongly influenced by the salinity, by how fresh the waters are in the North Atlantic. This is a change which appears to have taken place over about 40 years.
REP. GILCHREST: So is that as a result of warming temperatures?
DR. LEINEN: It is not necessarily directly a result of warming temperatures. There is certainly indications that the North Atlantic has warmed as well, but obviously the salinity is related both to how much precipitation takes place, rainfall, and how much evaporation takes place. And so this balance has changed.
REP. GILCHREST: So that's related to warming temperatures?
DR. LEINEN: It could be related to warming temperatures. Those are excellent examples.
In the latter, for example, a recent paper by Ruth Curry (ph) that talks about these processes really points out the data limitation that's there. Her records had many gaps in the records, although this 40-year trend was quite clear, and that points out the tremendous need that we have for these sustained observations and for observations over a greater part of the ocean. Those are just two examples.
A third would be an example of looking at the fisheries catch in the oceans over the last 50 years or so. Measurements in the Pacific show that shifts in the air and ocean temperatures affect the biological productivity and fisheries off Japan, California, Peru and Chile. Obviously those fisheries are affected by how many fish are removed from them as well. But it's only with those kinds of observations that we can tell whether the fisheries are responding primarily to the physical forcing of the ocean, the temperature and so forth, whether they're responding primarily to our removal of fish from the fishery, and how they're related on various parts of the ocean. So those are three reasons I would give a Congressman who might ask that question.
REP. GILCHREST: Thank you very much. We're going to use those.
Mr. Pallone.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. GILCHREST: Thank you, Mr. Pallone.
Dr. Leinen, one more question. You mentioned in your testimony about the-and I'm going to paraphrase. It's not an exact quote.
I hope I didn't get it completely wrong. How do you discriminate-you said with an ocean-observing system you would be better able to discriminate between man-made CO2 contributions, or greenhouse gas contributions, and those from natural variability, for the natural causes for CO2 in the atmosphere, or greenhouse gases. So how do you-can you, in fact, make a distinction between what comes from volcanoes or other areas and what comes out of the tailpipe of SUVs?
DR. LEINEN: What I said was that an ocean-observing system would allow us to look at the question of climate change and which portions of that were naturally occurring climate change where it had happened in the past, versus those that might be related to anthropogenic change, not specifically CO2. There I think the biggest issue is that, as I mentioned before, that the ocean is very data-poor, compared to measurements on land. And even those records that I talked about as wonderful examples of places in which we had seen substantial changes, have been characterized by observations in one place or in a very restricted area, and, again, over a period of maybe a couple of decades, or at the most, 40 years.
You alluded to the fact that we see a lot of naturally occurring cycles like the North Atlantic Oscillation or the ENSO cycles. And in order for us to understand whether the changes that we see are related to those cycles or whether they're related to changes that are accompanying anthropogenic change, we have to be able to look at the ocean in enough detail and over a long enough period to be able to discriminate a decadal oscillation or a decadal variability from something that is either an abrupt change or a change that is related to man's activity.
Dr. Weller showed several examples of what oceanographers are able to do, tracing man-made substances that go into the ocean, used their examples both from chlorofluorocarbons, from bomb tritium and so forth. And oceanographers have been able to link specific kinds of other changes in the ocean to the time scales of those changes. So that's another example where the observation, linked with things that we know are anthropogenic, can allow us to discriminate between natural cycles or natural changes and anthropogenic changes.
REP. GILCHREST: So we can detect some of those differences now that over a period of time, with a better integrated national and international ocean-observing system, that those mysteries will be a little more clear.
DR. LEINEN: Not only will they be a little more clear, but the implications or the impacts of those changes will be clearer. And Dr. Weller gave a wonderful example with that he had related to the modeling that he talked about in his presentation, with the link between drought on land and changes in the ocean. There are many such linkages that oceanographers believe are important and believe are there, but we're unable to document them with the present observational capability.
REP. GILCHREST: Thank you.
Dr. Weller, the statement you made about the Dust Bowl of the 1930s being related to sea surface temperatures and then your other comment about warming in the Indian Ocean affects temperatures in the North Atlantic, those are observations that are known, that because of sea surface temperatures, you can say categorically that there was a drought in the Midwest? There's a pretty clear link?
DR. WELLER: Yes. In the first result, Sieg Schubert and modelers at NASA Goddard, what they did is they took observed sea surface temperature fields over time, took a variety of state-of-the- art atmospheric models, used the observed sea surface temperature fields and ran the models to do a hindcast of precipitation over the United States. And what they saw was that the models agreed and agreed in the average over all the models quite well with predicting the drought in that 1930 period. And then they went in and looked for what was anomalous in that sea temperature forcing field and unique to that 1930s. And what stood out was that the picture I had showed of cold water off the coast of Japan and warm water in the North Atlantic.
Now, I think the North Atlantic result you could understand in the context of the North Atlantic Oscillation, where temperature anomalies in the Atlantic Ocean modify the balance of low and high pressure systems and the storm tracks and how things would enter into the middle of the United States, whether storms would come in and drop rain. The surprising thing in their result is the link to the cold temperatures very close to the coast of Japan. That's an unexpected result. That's not something I can give you an answer for.
One of the things we have to be up-front about is we're building observations and we're trusting models, but a lot of the things built into the models, for example, how ocean and atmosphere exchange heat and moisture in a model, we just need more observations to get that right.
REP. GILCHREST: Right. Okay. Let me ask you sort of an ancient question. The conveyer belt in the North Atlantic, that heat pump that drives the current, there's a lot of discussion round here about whether or not there is climate change, global warming. Some people in high offices will say this science is a sham and it's the Europeans trying to subvert the U.S. economy. That's the beginning and the end of the conversation. There will be people who are saying there's a discerning effect out there that can be observed that human activity is causing or adding to the global warming.
One of the topics that come up for conversation is that this heat pump conveyer-belt type thing in the North Atlantic shut down 10,000 or 11,000 years ago. And since it shut down, if in fact it did-and I'm not that familiar with this kind of issue. But if, in fact, it did shut down 10,000 or 11,000 years ago and you had some type of ice age that lasted several hundred years, it's only normal that the potential for it to shutdown is because of natural causes and not human causes. And besides, nobody knows what caused it to shut down 10,000 or 11,000 years ago.
And so I've been sort of wondering, does somebody know why it was possibly shut down 10,000 or 11,000 years ago so they can tell this potential person that we do know why it shut down? And, you know, more complicated than that, but did it shut down 10,000 or 11,000 years ago, and do we know the reason it did?
DR. WELLER: My understanding, talking to people like Ruth Curry and her husband Bill Curry, who's a paleo-oceanographer, is that in the paleo record, I mean the record in the sediments and things, we do have evidence of shutdowns, slowing and warming, changes and that. And, indeed, the early results of some of the Atlantic observations now, in addition to the changes in temperature and salinity, suggest that that thermohaline circulation is changing its rate.
I think the thing you have to get across to people in these discussions is that, against the backdrop of the natural variability and the hydrologic cycle and the temperatures, is we're doing an experiment now where we are going into some place where we haven't been before with the amount of greenhouse gases and things. And when I talk to people who study high latitudes, they say, you know, we're really surprised at the dramatic rate of loss of glacial ice and icecaps and new results are showing that when it gets warm enough to have water flowing underneath the ice, between the ice and the land, that you can rapidly accelerate the loss of ice. I think the questions we should ask are, in this place where we've never been before, if you took most of the ice away and so you changed the role of (reflectivity?), I think there's a chance we'll never get back to where we were historically.
And I think those are the things we have to worry about and better understand.
REP. GILCHREST: Thank you very much. I might have this person call the (Currys ?) and have this conversation.
Dr. Boesch, you mentioned, you know, the need for-not only the need for an ocean-observing system but also for these regional associations to be able to manage this type of activity a little bit better. So I have two questions. Are there regional associations-or how many regional observing systems are currently operational right now, and what type of data are they collecting and for what purpose?
So where are those regional associations right now? And the other thing is, as we move toward a more integrated system, would they be better able then to predict a storm like Isabel that we experienced last fall in the Mid-Atlantic states and in small communities on the upper Eastern Shore saw tide rise eight or nine feet above normal? And then last night, for example, in Havre de Grace, northeast parts of northern Kent County, they ranged from four-and-a-half inches in less than an hour to close to eight inches of rain. A pretty dramatic event.
So are those kinds of things-will they be-now, that's a quick rush thunderstorm. And can you predict that kind of thing a day in advance? You know, we heard yesterday that there's 60 percent chance of afternoon thundershowers. And all of a sudden, boom, we really had some thundershowers.
But also, let me also go into-as we collect this data we want to improve water quality. We want to improve that whole ecosystem out there. And when we look at the issues affecting water quality around the country, the Chesapeake Bay in particular, as we see hypoxic areas, we see alga blooms. As soon as it gets warm we see this massive green freckle system move into those little tidal basins.
We're trying to improve the sewer plants as far as their nitrogen phosphorus contributions, and we are improving those wastewater treatment plants. Maryland now has this flush fee, flush tax or whatever. But as we improve the percentage of release of these nutrients, while the percentage might stay the same, then we have this relatively huge increase in little communities from 100 people to 500 people, from 3,000 people to 12,000 people up and down the Delmarva Peninsula.
So that's adding to the sewage treatment output of nutrients, while not changing the percentage based on the volume. Then we have development and you have powerboats. And when you travel out of some of these little tidal basins to some of the larger estuaries that reach into the Chesapeake Bay, it's like 495 on the weekend, the number of boats that are out there. And a whole other range of reduced forest cover.
So we know that specific human activity is having an effect on that local ecosystem. With this more integrated ocean-observing system, with these regional associations, can you get that kind of information to the people who determine land use, how it's going to be used? So do you see foresee a better way to get this information in a timely fashion to planning, zoning, to county commissions, local government, to make use of this information?
DR. BOESCH: Boy, there are a lot of questions there.
REP. GILCHREST: Sorry. I figured you had the ability to answer all that in about 30 seconds.
DR. BOESCH: Let me start there by just amending Bob on your other question about your fictitious friend who's skeptic. I would recommend, highly recommend today --
REP. GILCHREST: He's not fictitious. This is a real human being.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. GILCHREST: Let me just interject one quick item. And I do remember hearing, you know, yesterday that there was potential flash flooding in several of the counties where there eventually was flash flooding. I guess, is there some way that these ocean-observing systems, as they get more sophisticated, can pinpoint why this particular storm is occurring?
DR. BOESCH: Right.
REP. GILCHREST: Can that be fine-tuned, based on what happened in the 1930s with the sea's temperature?
DR. BOESCH: I think the models that are used in the weather forecasts are the "why." They're deterministic models that are based upon a lot of scientific understanding of the processes. With respect to the specific example you used of Hurricane Isabel and the surprise that many Bay communities got during this last year because of the higher than projected storm surge, here again is where we have the-where these observing systems could play a very critical role, because they could give you estimates, and to correct the misunderstanding that we normally have of how do we project storm surge with a lead time of some hours in advance. So, yes, indeed, I think if we had a functioning integrated observing system for the Chesapeake Bay we would have had better warning, better forecasts about tidal flooding due to Hurricane Isabel.
You mentioned the water quality issue, and interestingly maybe it'll come out soon in the Post. I was just interviewed yesterday by a reporter who was questioning what some of us believe might be an over reliance on models to judge the state of the Chesapeake Bay. You know, you read in the paper that, well, the Bay program estimates that nitrogen levels are down 20 percent. Well, how do we really know that, because it's based upon some estimates, some models that they do?
And the example-the metaphor I use, and unfortunately I might be quoted by it, is that, you know, it's like a weather situation. We use weather forecast models, and they're very sophisticated, all the time to make plans and judgments.
But if we want to know what it's doing right now, I don't just look at the newspaper and say, well, it should be raining. I look out the window. And so that's why you need to couple these with the observing systems to help us understand the dynamics, whether it's navigating up the Houston ship channel or the Chesapeake Bay, in real time, to correct the imperfection of our understanding that underpins the models.
REP. GILCHREST: I see. Thank you very much, Dr. Boesch.
DR. SPINRAD: Mr. Chairman, if I can add something to Dr. Boesch's comments? And it gets right back to the example that you cited of Hurricane Isabel, and it also brings to mind some of the comments that the panelists have made with respect to education. In fact, as a direct result of some of the Chesapeake Bay observing system stations, that Dr. Boesch alluded to, as well as NOAA's water level observations scattered throughout the bay, we were able to provide the best, most accurate forecasts of storm surge for Hurricane Isabel that we've ever seen, in terms of intensity, timing, location.
What we found-and if you ask constituents they will tell you this-is that there was a very low credibility for those forecasts. And consequently, the actions taken by the public were not consistent with the quality of the forecasts. So part of this is in fact improving the modeling and the forecast capability, but an awful lot of it is enhancing the education and outreach to the community.
REP. GILCHREST: A lot of those people know that now.
DR. SPINRAD: They do.
REP. GILCHREST: They're going to move their cars.
I'll end with the last question. What we're going to do after this last question is take a 10 minute break before the next panel so people can stretch their legs.
I guess anyone can answer this question. As far as limited budgets are concerned, we've got this big budget deficit, we have a lot of other interest area priorities. So given the realistic limitations upon which we operate up here, how would you suggest, as far as an ocean-observing system is concerned and the difficulty of trying to fund that and make it really integrated, how would you suggest we proceed with the limited funding that is out there?
And if you have any suggestions for how to prioritize moving forward with this, we'd appreciate it.
DR. SPINRAD: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I think one of the very first things that we need to do is adequately convey the cost avoidances and the cost savings associated with having a fully implemented Integrated Ocean Observing System. We've got some anecdotal and some preliminary information, economic studies and analyses which suggest that there would be extraordinary benefits and gains from such a system, but I don't think we have adequately made that compelling argument.
So in effect what I'm saying is we cannot afford not to develop an integrated ocean-observing system, and we need to develop those studies in a more effective and compelling manner.
Thank you.
REP. GILCHREST: Mr. Winokur.
MR. WINOKUR: I would just add, in addition to doing that type of analysis, the cost benefit studies, which I think would probably show the benefits and the costs that are involved, that one of the key activities I believe that we all alluded to is the leveraging. And so we've seen, certainly over the last few years with the advent of the National Oceanographic Partnership Program a willingness on the part of all of the agencies to really band together and work together on this issue, since I think we all collectively see it as a national issue.
And that's just an individual agency issue, so that as we move forward and, as again alluded to by the panelists, we meet regularly, at least once a month the agencies get together and actually really invest a lot of time and energy in trying to put together a true national program and not just an individual agency program.
So I think you see a significant amount of cooperation going on right now that probably heretofore didn't exist 10 years ago.
REP. GILCHREST: Thank you very much, Mr. Winokur.
Dr. Weller.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. GILCHREST: Thank you very much.
Dr. Boesch.
DR. BOESCH: Congressman, I'd like to suggest that-put the ball in your court. And say that --
REP. GILCHREST: Put the ball in our court.
DR. BOESCH: And say that what could be done to help make the right decisions, making the right steps, the first steps and the right investments, is a framework that we all-that would empower the federal agencies to do what's being discussed here and to commit Congress to working with the executive branch to meet those ends. And I think that mechanism is some version of an enabling legislation, paralleling S1400.
As you know, Mr. Weldon is developing such a bill and he's spent a lot of time trying to engage the-accommodate the interest of members of Congress, make it consistent with the U.S. Ocean Commission recommendations, make it consistent with what the Ocean Leadership Council is doing through Ocean.US. And having that in place will give us a mechanism to make sure that we're making the right investments, the right steps in a logical way, rather than a disorganized way without a real process to organize, to make it truly integrated.
Put the I in IOOS.
REP. GILCHREST: Thank you, Dr. Boesch. And I think the Ocean Commission Report puts forth that kind of framework in a very workable fashion.
Dr. Leinen.