Oceanography | June 2017
Oceanography
VOL.30, NO.2, JUNE 2017
Special Issue on
Autonomous and Lagrangian Platforms and Sensors
Current and Future Directions in Ocean Sampling
THE OFFICIAL MAGAZINE OF THE OCEANOGRAPHY SOCIETY
Oceanography | Vol.30, No.2
VOL. 30, NO. 2, JUNE 2017
seabird.com/hydrocat-ep
Multi-Parameter Water Quality Instrument
HydroCAT-EP
+1 425 643 9866
seabird@seabird.com
Scientifically Defensible Data
Multiple anti-fouling systems
enable long-term deployments
in biologically-rich environments
The HydroCAT-EP measures:
• Conductivity
• Temperature
• Pressure
• Dissolved Oxygen
• Chlorophyll
•
• Turbidity
• pH
2012−2013
Depth (m)
6-MONTH TIME SERIES OF DISSIPATION RATE
09/14
09/28
10/12
10/26
11/09
11/23
12/07
12/21
01/04
01/18
02/01
02/15
03/01
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
10–11
10–10
10–9
10–8
10–7
10–6
χ (K2 s–1)
25°00’N
24°30’N
24°00’N
38°30’W
38°00’W
37°30’W
Moorings
Glider profles
SPURS-1
20°C
20°C
22°C
22°C
24°C
24°C
χ = 10–8
ε = 10–8
χ = 10–9
ε = 10–10
χ = 10–11
ε = 10–11
REAL-TIME PROCESSING
FINAL PROCESSING
100
101
102
103
10–8
10–7
10–6
10–5
10–4
10–3
10–8
10–7
10–6
10–5
10–4
10–3
PSD [(dT/dz)2 per (cycles per meter)]
Wavenumber (cycles per meter)
Noise
Noise
χ = 10–8.5
ε = 10–10
Increasing ε
Increasing
χ
Dive 100, up
220 m
Dive 100, down
105 m
115 m
145 m
20°C
22°C
24°C
56
SPECIAL ISSUE ON
Autonomous and Lagrangian Platforms and Sensors:
Current and Future Directions in Ocean Sampling
15
FROM THE GUEST EDITORS > Autonomous Instruments Significantly
Expand Ocean Observing: An Introduction to the Special Issue
By C.M. Lee, T. Paluszkiewicz, D.L. Rudnick, M.M. Omand, and R.E. Todd
18
FEATURE > The Argo Program: Present and Future
By S.R. Jayne, D. Roemmich, N. Zilberman, S.C. Riser, K.S. Johnson,
G.C. Johnson, and S.R. Piotrowicz
29
TECHNOLOGY REPORT > Air-Deployable Profiling Floats
By S.R. Jayne and N.M. Bogue
32
TECHNOLOGY REPORT > Looking Ahead: A Profiling Float Micro-Rosette
By P. Bresnahan, T. Martz, J. de Almeida, B. Ward , and P. Maguire
33
TECHNOLOGY REPORT > ASIP: Profiling the Upper Ocean
By A. ten Doeschate, G. Sutherland, L. Esters, D. Wain, K. Walesby,
and B. Ward
36
TECHNOLOGY REPORT > A New Technology for Continuous Long-Range
Tracking of Fish and Lobster
By T. Rossby, G. Fischer, and M.M. Omand
38
FEATURE > Autonomous Multi-Platform Observations During the Salinity
Processes in the Upper-ocean Regional Study
By E.J. Lindstrom, A.Y. Shcherbina, L. Rainville, J.T. Farrar, L.R. Centurioni,
S. Dong, E.A. D’Asaro, C. Eriksen, D.M. Fratantoni, B.A. Hodges, V. Hormann,
W.S. Kessler, C.M. Lee, S.C. Riser, L. St. Laurent, and D.L. Volkov
49
TECHNOLOGY REPORT > Multi-Month Dissipation Estimates Using
Microstructure from Autonomous Underwater Gliders
By L. Rainville, J.I. Gobat, C.M. Lee, and G.B. Shilling
51
TECHNOLOGY REPORT > Observing Internal Tides in High-Risk Regions
Using Co-located Ocean Gliders and Moored ADCPs
By R.A. Hall, B. Berx, and M.E. Inall
53
TECHNOLOGY REPORT > KAUST’s Red Sea Observing System
By B.H. Jones and Y. Kattan
56
FEATURE > An Autonomous Approach to Observing the Seasonal Ice Zone
in the Western Arctic
By C.M. Lee, J. Thomson, and the Marginal Ice Zone and Arctic Sea
State Teams
69
TECHNOLOGY REPORT > On the Benefit of Current and Future ALPS Data
for Improving Arctic Coupled Ocean-Sea Ice State Estimation
By A.T. Nguyen, V. Ocaña, V. Garg, P. Heimbach, J.M. Toole, R.A. Krishfield,
C.M. Lee, and L. Rainville
contents
VOL. 30, NO. 2, JUNE 2017
38
29
49
Oceanography | June 2017
seabird.com/hydrocat-ep
Multi-Parameter Water Quality Instrument
HydroCAT-EP
+1 425 643 9866
seabird@seabird.com
Scientifically Defensible Data
Multiple anti-fouling systems
enable long-term deployments
in biologically-rich environments
The HydroCAT-EP measures:
• Conductivity
• Temperature
• Pressure
• Dissolved Oxygen
• Chlorophyll
•
• Turbidity
• pH
100˚W
90˚W
80˚W
70˚W
60˚W
50˚W
10˚N
20˚N
30˚N
40˚N
TC Intensifcation
Cat. 4–Cat. 5
Cat. 3–Cat. 4
Cat. 2–Cat. 3
Cat.1–Cat. 2
TS–Cat. 1
25
50
75
100
Tropical Cyclone Heat Potential (kJ cm–2)
CONTACT US
The Oceanography Society
P.O. Box 1931
Rockville, MD 20849-1931 USA
t: (1) 301-251-7708
f: (1) 301-251-7709
info@tos.org
HAVE YOU MOVED?
Send changes of address to info@tos.org
or go to https://tosmc.memberclicks.net,
click on Login, and update your profile.
ADVERTISING INFO
Please send advertising inquiries to
info@tos.org or go to https://tos.org/
oceanography/advertise.
CORRECTIONS
Please send corrections to magazine@tos.org.
Corrections will be printed in the next issue
of Oceanography.
SPECIAL ISSUE SPONSOR
Production of this issue of Oceanography
was supported by the Office of Naval
Research through a grant to Scripps
Institution of Oceangraphy, University of
California, San Diego.
SPECIAL ISSUE GUEST EDITORS
• Craig M. Lee, University of Washington
• Theresa Paluszkiewicz, Office of Naval
Research
• Daniel L. Rudnick, Scripps Institution
of Oceanography
• Melissa M. Omand, University of
Rhode Island
• Robert E. Todd, Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution
74
FEATURE > Northern Arabian Sea Circulation-Autonomous Research
(NASCar): A Research Initiative Based on Autonomous Sensors
By L.R. Centurioni, V. Hormann, L.D. Talley, I. Arzeno, L. Beal, M. Caruso,
P. Conry, R. Echols, H.J.S. Fernando, S.N. Giddings, A. Gordon, H. Graber,
R.R. Harcourt, S.R. Jayne, T.G. Jensen, C.M. Lee, P.F.J. Lermusiaux, P. L’Hegaret,
A.J. Lucas, A. Mahadevan, J.L. McClean, G. Pawlak, L. Rainville, S.C. Riser,
H. Seo, A.Y. Shcherbina, E. Skyllingstad, J. Sprintall, B. Subrahmanyam,
E. Terrill, R.E. Todd, C. Trott, H.N. Ulloa, and H. Wang
88
TECHNOLOGY REPORT > Underwater Glider Observations and the
Representation of Western Boundary Currents in Numerical Models
By R.E. Todd and L. Locke-Wynn
90
TECHNOLOGY REPORT > Ocean Glider Observations Around Australia
By C. Pattiaratchi, L.M. Woo, P.G. Thomson, K.K. Hong, and D. Stanley
92
FEATURE > Autonomous and Lagrangian Ocean Observations for Atlantic
Tropical Cyclone Studies and Forecasts
By G.J. Goni, R.E. Todd, S.R. Jayne, G. Halliwell, S. Glenn, J. Dong, R. Curry,
R. Domingues, F. Bringas, L. Centurioni, S.F. DiMarco, T. Miles, J. Morell,
L. Pomales, H.-S. Kim, P.E. Robbins, G.G. Gawarkiewicz, J. Wilkin, J. Heiderich,
B. Baltes, J.J. Cione, G. Seroka, K. Knee, and E.R. Sanabia
104 FEATURE > Sustained Measurements of Southern Ocean Air-Sea Coupling
from a Wave Glider Autonomous Surface Vehicle
By J. Thomson and J. Girton
110
TECHNOLOGY REPORT > Autonomous CTD Profiling from the Robotic
Oceanographic Surface Sampler
By J.D. Nash, J. Marion, N. McComb, J.S. Nahorniak, R.H. Jackson, C. Perren,
D. Winters, A. Pickering, J. Bruslind, O.L. Yong, and S.J.K. Lee
113
TECHNOLOGY REPORT > Advances in Ecosystem Research: Saildrone
Surveys of Oceanography, Fish, and Marine Mammals in the Bering Sea
By C.W. Mordy, E.D. Cokelet, A. De Robertis, R. Jenkins, C.E. Kuhn,
N. Lawrence-Slavas, C.L. Berchok, J.L. Crance, J.T. Sterling, J.N. Cross,
P.J. Stabeno, C. Meinig, H.M. Tabisola, W. Burgess, and I. Wangen
116
FEATURE > Measurements of Near-Surface Turbulence and Mixing
from Autonomous Ocean Gliders
By L. St. Laurent and S. Merrifield
126 TECHNOLOGY REPORT > Ocean Wave Energy for Long Endurance,
Broad Bandwidth Ocean Monitoring
By A.J. Lucas, R. Pinkel, and M. Alford
128 TECHNOLOGY REPORT > Using Bio-Optics to Reveal Phytoplankton
Physiology from a Wirewalker Autonomous Platform
By M.M. Omand, I. Cetinić, and A.J. Lucas
132 FEATURE > Marine Mammals Exploring the Oceans Pole to Pole:
A Review of the MEOP Consortium
By A.M. Treasure, F. Roquet, I.J. Ansorge, M.N. Bester, L. Boehme,
H. Bornemann, J.-B. Charrassin, D. Chevallier, D.P. Costa, M.A. Fedak,
C. Guinet, M.O. Hammill, R.G. Harcourt, M.A. Hindell, K.M. Kovacs,
M.-A. Lea, P. Lovell, A.D. Lowther, C. Lydersen, T. McIntyre, C.R. McMahon,
M.M.C. Muelbert, K. Nicholls, B. Picard, G. Reverdin, A.W. Trites,
G.D. Williams, and P.J.N. de Bruyn
139 TECHNOLOGY REPORT > Ocean Observations Using Tagged Animals
By F. Roquet, L. Boehme, B. Block, J.-B. Charrassin, D. Costa, C. Guinet,
R.G. Harcourt, M.A. Hindell, L.A. Hückstädt, C.R. McMahon, B. Woodward,
and M.A. Fedak
140 FEATURE > Do Southern Elephant Seals Behave Like Weather Buoys?
By D. Cazau, C. Pradalier, J. Bonnel, and C. Guinet
92
Oceanography | Vol.30, No.2
150 FEATURE > Project Recover: Extending the Applications of Unmanned
Platforms and Autonomy to Support Underwater MIA Searches
By E.J. Terrill, M.A. Moline, P.J. Scannon, E. Gallimore, T. Schramek, A. Nager ,
R. Hess, M. Cimino, P.L. Colin, A. Pietruszka, and M.R. Anderson
160 FEATURE > Satellites to Seafloor: Toward Fully Autonomous Ocean Sampling
By A.F. Thompson, Y. Chao, S. Chien, J. Kinsey, M.M. Flexas, Z.K. Erickson,
J. Farrara, D. Fratantoni, A. Branch, S. Chu, M. Troesch, B. Claus, and J. Kepper
169 TECHNOLOGY REPORT > Do AUVs Dream of Electric Eels?
By J.W. Kaeli
172 FEATURE > Optimal Planning and Sampling Predictions for Autonomous and
Lagrangian Platforms and Sensors in the Northern Arabian Sea
P.F.J. Lermusiaux, P.J. Haley Jr., S. Jana, A. Gupta, C.S. Kulkarni, C. Mirabito,
W.H. Ali, D.N. Subramani, A. Dutt, J. Lin, A.Y. Shcherbina, C.M. Lee,
and A. Gangopadhyay
REGULAR ISSUE FEATURES
186 Ambient Sound at Challenger Deep, Mariana Trench
By R.P. Dziak, J.H. Haxel, H. Matsumoto, T.-K. Lau, S. Heimlich, S. Nieukirk,
D.K. Mellinger, J. Osse, C. Meinig, N. Delich, and S. Stalin
198 Two-Stage Exams: A Powerful Tool for Reducing the Achievement Gap
in Undergraduate Oceanography and Geology Classes
By B.C. Bruno, J. Engels, G. Ito, J. Gillis-Davis, H. Dulai, G. Carter, C. Fletcher,
and D. Böttjer-Wilson
DEPARTMENTS
05
QUARTERDECK. Our Awesome, Inspiring US Park Rangers and
the Value of Public Service
By E.S. Kappel
07
FROM THE PRESIDENT. Follow the Money
By A.C. Mix
11
TRIBUTE. A Tribute to Mike Storms: August 30, 1947–May 6, 2017
By B. Clement, M. Malone, P. Delaney, R. Murray, L. Mayer, P. deMenocal,
and K. Miller
12
RIPPLE MARKS. Sushi Bait and Switch: What Fish Are You Really Eating?
By C.L. Dybas
209 ROGER REVELLE COMMEMORATIVE LECTURE. Swells, Soundings, and
Sustainability, but…“Here Be Monsters”
By D.J. Wright
222 HANDS-ON OCEANOGRAPHY. Observing the Ocean with Gliders:
Techniques for Data Visualization and Analysis
By C.E. Hanson, L.M. Woo, P.G. Thomson, and C.B. Pattiaratchi
228 BOOK REVIEW. A Sea of Glass: Searching for the Blaschkas’ Fragile Legacy
in an Ocean at Risk
Reviewed by B.H. Robison
230 CAREER PROFILES. Katy Hill, Scientific Officer for the Global Climate
Observing System and the Global Ocean Observing System, World
Meteorological Organization • Andrea Dell’Apa, Marine Restoration
Specialist, Ocean Conservancy’s Gulf Restoration Program
186
150
132
172
Oceanography | June 2017
Oceanography | Vol.30, No.2
ON THE COVER
Photos of several types of autonomous and
Lagrangian platforms and sensors (ALPS) currently
being deployed in the world ocean. 1. Propeller-
driven REMUS 100 unmanned underwater vehicle
used in Project Recover (from Terrill et al., 2017, in
this issue). 2. Onboard image from a Liquid Robotics
Wave Glider deployed off the coast of Iceland as part of
an Extreme SeaState Study (photo courtesy of Liquid
Robotics). 3. Wirewalker (photo courtesy of Tyler
Hughen, Scripps Institution of Oceanography; see
Lucas et al., and Omand et al., 2017, both in this issue).
4. Surface Velocity Program (SVP) drifter deployed in
the Gulf Stream (photo courtesy of Luca Centurioni,
Scripps Institution of Oceanography). 5. Air-Launched
Autonomous Micro Observer (ALAMO) being loaded
into the launch tube of a Hurricane Hunter C-130J
(photo courtesy of Maj. Marnee Losurdo, USAFR; see Jayne and Bogue, 2017, in this issue).
6. Seaglider in the waters off the Maldives (photo courtesy of Luc Rainville, University of
Washington). 7. Surface Wave Instrument Float with Tracking (SWIFT) in the Arctic (photo cour-
tesy of Jim Thomson, University of Washington). 8. Drone footage of the Robotic Oceanographic
Surface Sampler (ROSS) near a glacier in Alaska (photo courtesy of David Sutherland, University
of Oregon; see Nash et al., 2017, in this issue). 9. ALAMO float in the water off Miami (photo
courtesy of Robert Todd, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution).
Oceanography
VOL.30, NO.2, JUNE 2017
Special Issue on
Autonomous and Lagrangian Platforms and Sensors
Current and Future Directions in Ocean Sampling
THE OFFICIAL MAGAZINE OF THE OCEANOGRAPHY SOCIETY
December 2017
Celebrating 30 Years of Ocean Science
and Technology at the Monterey Bay
Aquarium Research Institute
March 2018
Ocean Observatories Initiative
June 2018
Ocean Warming
September 2018
Mathematical Aspects of Physical
Oceanography
In addition to the special issues articles,
Oceanography solicits and publishes:
• Peer-reviewed articles that chronicle
all aspects of ocean science and its
applications
• News and information, meeting reports,
hands-on laboratory exercises, career
profiles, and book reviews
• Editor-reviewed articles that address
public policy and education and how they
are affected by science and technology
• Breaking Waves articles that describe
novel approaches to multidisciplinary
problems in ocean science
Special Issues
Call for Submissions
https://tos.org/oceanography
Oceanography
Upcoming in
OFFICERS
PRESIDENT: Alan Mix
PRESIDENT-ELECT: Martin Visbeck
PAST-PRESIDENT: Susan Lozier
SECRETARY: Susan Cook
TREASURER: Susan Banahan
COUNCILLORS
AT-LARGE: Dennis McGillicuddy
APPLIED TECHNOLOGY: James Girton
BIOLOGICAL OCEANOGRAPHY: William M. Balch
CHEMICAL OCEANOGRAPHY: Peter Sedwick
EDUCATION: Lee Karp-Boss
GEOLOGY AND GEOPHYSICS: Richard Murray
PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHY: Julie Pullen
STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE: Stefanie Mack
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Jennifer Ramarui
CORPORATE AND INSTITUTIONAL MEMBERS
BAKER DONELSON
» https://www.bakerdonelson.com
SEA-BIRD SCIENTIFIC
» https://sea-birdscientific.com
TELEDYNE RD INSTRUMENTS
» http://www.teledynemarine.com/rdi
CONTACT INFO
The Oceanography Society
P.O. Box 1931
Rockville, MD 20849-1931 USA
t: (1) 301-251-7708
f: (1) 301-251-7709
email: info@tos.org
https://tos.org
https://tos.org
Oceanography | Vol.30, No.2
The Oceanography Society was founded in 1988
to advance oceanographic research, technol-
ogy, and education, and to disseminate knowl-
edge of oceanography and its application
through research and education. TOS promotes
the broad understanding of oceanography, facil-
itates consensus building across all the disci-
plines of the field, and informs the public about
ocean research, innovative technology, and edu-
cational opportunities throughout the spectrum
of oceanographic inquiry.
Oceanography | June 2017
Ellen S. Kappel, Editor
I first visited the national parks in the
southwestern United States in the late
1970s as a Cornell University undergrad-
uate enrolled in the geology department’s
six-week Western Field Course. Over the
decades, I’ve been back many times, as a
scientist and as a parent. In May, I revisited
many of these parks with my now young-
adult daughter, including the Grand
Canyon, Petrified Forest, and Saguaro
in Arizona, Arches and Canyonlands in
Utah, and Mesa Verde in Colorado. As
always, I was awed—awed not only by
the natural beauty of these places and
the geologic forces that carved them but
also by the US park rangers. These federal
government employees were knowledge-
able, personable, enthusiastic, and eager
to share information about the geologi-
cal or cultural history of the park or their
favorite hikes. They patiently answered
visitors’ questions, pointed lost wan-
derers in the right direction, and asked
where the visitors hailed from. It was
clear that the park rangers took pride
in their work and in the national parks
and monuments they served
and called home.
Their professionalism and dedication was
inspiring, and reflected a deep commit-
ment to public service in an era where
such service is not universally honored.
Unseen to the public eye are thousands
of other equally dedicated public servants,
many of whom are scientists working in
government laboratories, offices, and in
the field. Not that many decades ago, views
of the Grand Canyon and other magnifi-
cent sites were marred by smog. Today,
the views are usually clear, thanks to our
colleagues whose research helps to ensure
that the air is clean. Other government sci-
entists test for contaminants in our rivers
and aquifers to ensure that the water from
taps and fountains is potable. They mon-
itor earthquake and volcanic activity, and
forecast weather so that we have time to
get to safety should there be some immi-
nent threat. And so on. Agency scientists
contribute to the well-being of our nation
in so many ways that go unnoticed—and
are taken for granted—by people who
don’t know or appreciate what govern-
ment scientists do for them.
It’s budget season in Washington,
DC, with the new US Administration
and Congress engaged in a dialog about
whether to severely shrink the fed-
eral workforce, includ-
ing thousands of
workers in
agencies that employ scientists. No one
can accurately predict how many jobs
might be lost, or which scientific research
might be affected. But uncertainty has its
own consequences. One concern is main-
taining morale among the current staff
whose work is denigrated or severely cur-
tailed for lack of sufficient budgets or
staff. Another concern is failing to recruit
future generations of top students who
otherwise would consider federal ser-
vice their calling.
It’s probably impractical to pro-
pose that the Cabinet secretaries and
Congressional committee chairpersons
who will ultimately decide the fate of fed-
eral science take a field trip to the West.
But if my recent experience is any guide,
a lot of eyes would be opened by listen-
ing to a park ranger tell the story of the
cliff dwellings in Mesa Verde: how Native
Americans built them, gathered and
stored food and water in a relatively dry
climate, worshiped, and then abandoned
the mesa after living there for approxi-
mately 600 years.
Here’s hoping that visitors will continue
to be able to enjoy the beauty of the US
national parks and learn about their geo-
logical and cultural history for decades to
come, and that government-sponsored
science will be valued for its immense ser-
vice to our country and its people.
QUARTERDECK
Our Awesome, Inspiring US Park Rangers
and the Value of Public Service
Oceanography | June 2017
osm.agu.org
Abstract, Town Hall, Workshop,
and Auxiliary Event Submissions Open
mid-July2017
Abstract, Town Hall, Workshop,
and Auxiliary Event Submission Deadline
6 September 2017
Portland Oregon
Oceanography | June 2017
FROM THE PRESIDENT
The White House budget proposal for
FY2018 (OMB, 2017) includes substan-
tial cuts to scientific research programs.
Whether Congress enacts those propos-
als remains to be seen, but even if cur-
rent funding levels remain intact, ocean
(and other) scientists already believe
that research funding is tight. Are those
perceptions about tight funding really
true, or are we are imagining a rosy past
that didn’t really exist? Let’s see what
the data say.
This column builds on earlier efforts
in the “Sea Change” report (NRC, 2015),
which considered US National Science
Foundation (NSF) Ocean Sciences Divi-
sion (OCE) funding between 2000 and
2014 (with projections from 2015 to
2020). I also examine a longer data set
starting in 19701. This column is lim-
ited to NSF, which deserves credit for
transparency, as all of their data are pub-
licly available. I hope to look at other
US agencies and foreign governments
in future columns.
My starting point was dollars spent on
basic research by NSF-OCE (blue sym-
bols in Figure 1a, historical solid, projec-
tions open). Until recently, the numbers
generally rise through time. To correct
for inflation, I calculated 2016- equivalent
dollars from the US Consumer Price
Index (red symbols in Figure 1a). Those
inflation-corrected numbers correspond
with our gut feeling that times are tight:
the purchasing power for ocean sciences
research peaked in 2003–2004, and with
a few bumps has been declining for the
past 12 years.
Without question, budgets are far
below what they could have been had
they tracked a fixed percentage of the
US Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In
Figure 1a, the dashed lines (blue is con-
stant dollars, red is inflation corrected)
model potential NSF-OCE funding as
Follow the Money
0.0026% of GDP (the empirical average
percentage between 1970 and 2016).
The maximum purchasing power for
NSF-OCE occurred in the early 1970s,
during the International Decade of
Ocean Exploration (IDOE). From that
anomalously high peak, NSF-OCE fund-
ing fell by the early 1980s to near the con-
stant fraction of GDP lines. I was a grad-
uate student then and recall hearing the
grumblings about tight budgets and pro-
posal rejections.
A few years later, optimists dreamed
that science research would share in a
“peace dividend” following the collapse
of the former Soviet Union in 1991 and
the end of the Cold War. Sadly, that wind-
fall never happened for NSF-OCE, but
funding generally tracked GDP growth
until the mid-1990s.
When control of Congress changed in
the mid-1990s, the so-called “Gingrich
Revolution” and the “Contract for
America” led to a new era of funding cuts.
Even as economic growth led to increased
federal revenue (https:// www.whitehouse.
gov/ omb/ budget/ Historicals), funding for
ocean science fell below the percentage
of GDP model, and in inflation- corrected
terms actually declined slightly. By 1999
this reduction of funding was seen as a
crisis. President Clinton’s chief of staff
John Podesta said the cuts to science
were “threatening the potential progress
of innovation in America” (http://www.
nature.com/nature/journal/v401/n6749/
full/401103a0.html).
Proposals to double the NSF bud-
get over a five-year period never for-
mally passed as legislation (https://
www.aip.org/fyi/ 2002/congress- passes-
bill- authorizing- doubling-nsf-budget).
Nevertheless, Congress found ways to
invest in science between 2000 and 2003,
FIGURE 1. (a) History of NSF Ocean Sciences Division funding in constant dollars (blue symbols)
and inflation corrected values (2016-equivalent dollars, red symbols), along with hypothetical bud-
gets as 0.0026% of US GDP (constant dollars, blue dashed line; 2016-equivalent dollars, red dashed
line). (b) As in panel (a) but for total NSF research funding in all fields (dashed lines are 0.040% of
US GDP). (c) NSF OCE funding (blue, left axis) and NSF Total funding (green, right axis) as a vary-
ing % of US GDP. (d) NSF OCE as a percent of total NSF research funding.
$0.0
$200.0
$400.0
$600.0
$0.0
$200.0
$400.0
$600.0
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Constant Dollars (Millions)
Fiscal Year
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Constant Dollars (Millions)
Fiscal Year
0.01%
0.02%
0.03%
0.04%
0.05%
0.001%
0.002%
0.003%
0.004%
0.005%
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
NSF Total as % of US GDP
NSF OCE as % of US GDP
Fiscal Year
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0%
8.0%
9.0%
10.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0%
8.0%
9.0%
10.0%
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
NSF OCE as % of NSF Total
NSF OCE as % of NSF Total
Fiscal Year
NSF-OCE
NSF Total
% of GDP
% of NSF Total
Infation Adjusted 2016 Dollars
(Millions)
Infation Adjusted 2016 Dollars
(Millions)
Oceanography | Vol.30, No.2
and the NSF-OCE budget briefly grew
faster than inflation for the first time since
the early 1970s. Programs were launched
with great optimism. However, the actual
budget increases just got NSF-OCE fund-
ing levels out of a hole and back up the
level that tracked GDP growth.
Following the September 11, 2001, ter-
rorist attacks, a growing percentage of
federal funds were shifted to defense and
homeland security. Since 2004, inflation-
corrected purchasing power for ocean
sciences has declined steadily. If the OMB
2018 budget is enacted, NSF-OCE will
have been reduced to the purchasing
power it had in 1972 and 1992.
NSF details the implications of the
White House budget here: https://www.
nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2018/index.jsp;
the proposed cut for NSF-OCE is about
10.2% (9.8% cut in disciplinary and inter-
disciplinary science). In the absence of
reallocations of funding priorities within
NSF, if the OMB 2018 budget becomes
law, ocean infrastructure purchasing
power will be up about 20% relative to
2003 (due to cost inflation of fixed facil-
ities initiated when budgets were rising),
but science investigator funding (the
normal proposals we all write to do our
work) will be down 49%. We will have
lost nearly half the NSF science program
in oceanography over a 15-year period2.
Is this true of NSF as a whole? Yes
and no.
In Figure 1b, the red and blue sym-
bols are as before, but now for the total
NSF budget rather than just for OCE sci-
ence. As before, the dashed curves are
dollar amounts for a constant fraction of
GDP (here 0.04%, the average from 1970
to 2016). Figure 1b makes it clear that
until now, total NSF funding has more or
less tracked GDP growth since 1970. The
proposed cuts in the OMB 2018 budget
are not the first time NSF has seen cuts,
but they are severe and abrupt relative
to past history.
So why did NSF-OCE funding not
keep up with the overall NSF budget?
In Figure 1c, the blue curve is the NSF-
OCE funding as a percentage of GDP. In
the 1970s, NSF-OCE was allocated about
0.004% of GDP. That percentage dropped
precipitously in the late 1970s, is now less
than 0.002% of GDP, and is projected to
fall further to about 0.0015%. In contrast,
total NSF funding (the green curve) has
oscillated but overall has stayed relatively
constant as a fraction of GDP, recovering
after a dip during the Carter and Reagan
Administrations. The proposed FY2018
budget imposes on NSF a drop rela-
tive to GDP that is equivalent to those of
the Reagan years.
To make this even clearer, Figure 1d
shows what happened to OCE within
NSF. The percentage of NSF funds dedi-
cated to ocean sciences in the 1970s and
early 1980s ranged between about 8% and
9% of the total NSF effort. The sea change
for ocean sciences occurred even earlier
than the visible loss of dollars in the 1990s.
Ocean sciences appears to have dropped
in priority at NSF (i.e., as a percentage of
NSF’s budget) starting in the mid-1980s,
when NSF changed course to emphasize
investment in programs the agency con-
sidered most directly related to economic
competitiveness such as engineering and
computer science (Bloch, 1985). Since
that time, NSF has been gradually reduc-
ing its fractional commitment to ocean
sciences. OCE is now under 5% of NSF’s
overall effort.
Readers of Oceanography almost cer-
tainly share my belief that ocean sci-
ence is needed now more than ever, both
in the United States and globally. The
ocean remains the least explored part of
1 Data reported here are for funds committed by the National Science Foundation Ocean Sciences Division (NSF-OCE). The data source for the interval 2000–2014 comes
from NSF as part of the “Sea Change” report (NRC, 2015). Older data are gleaned from tables in the National Science Board Science and Engineering Indicators. Actual val-
ues from 2015 to 2017 are from the federal record. Projections are based on the White House proposed budget for FY2018. The numbers here reflect science operations
and activities within NSF-OCE; they exclude major infrastructure projects (so called MREFC funds) such as ship construction and the one-time, 2008 funds associated with
ARRA (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act). Some additional ocean sciences research occurs in other divisions, for example in NSF’s Office of Polar Programs
(OPP), and those funds are not included here.
A caveat in this analysis is that alternate databases on federal programs exist by subject area (https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/webcaspar), and in some cases give different val-
ues. Discrepancies appears to reflect the fact that fields specified in the ncsesdata product do not conform with NSF divisions, so a judgment must have been made about
how to translate NSF program data into ncsesdata categories. Inspection of the ncsesdata database reveals large and implausible oscillations in division budgets on the
order of $100 million; for example, in a single year (1991) the uncorrected oceanography budgets appear to shift down by $100 million while at the same time the combina-
tion of geology and environmental sciences budgets shift up by $100 million. The opposite shift occurs in 1996. Because of these discrepancies, the data provided directly
by NSF-OCE was used, gleaned mostly from biennial Science and Engineering Indicators reports. Categorizing these values correctly involved some decisions to avoid the
problem of funds jumping between pigeonholes. NSF staff kindly checked the estimates I made and agreed that they were reasonable. It should be noted, however, that
older values in the NSF database are not as complete or detailed as more recent values, so some errors may remain. It may no longer be possible to check the details in
the older data.
Inflation corrections were based on the US Consumer Price Index (https://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Consumer_Price_Index). Data on US Gross Domestic Product from
1970 to 2016 came from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis (https://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm). Projections from 2017 to 2020 are from the International Monetary
Fund IMF Projection (https://knoema.com/qhswwkc/us-gdp-growth-forecast-2015-2019-and-up-to-2060-data-and-charts).
There was no attempt here to evaluate dollars available per scientist requesting funds. Anecdotally, however, it appears that the pool of scientists working in oceanogra-
phy has grown substantially over the past several decades. For example, TOS was founded in 1978 with a few hundred members, and has grown by a factor of 10. Similarly,
membership in the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in 1980 was about 13,000, and now is over 60,000 (of course, not all AGU members are ocean scientists). If this popu-
lation growth in ocean sciences is correct, it implies less dollars of funding per scientist even if the amount of funding is stable or increasing, depending on the relative rates
of change in funding and population of scientists.
2 Calculation is as follows: in FY 2003, the NSF-OCE science budget was $301.47 million, and of that $114.69 million was for infrastructure support, and $186.77 million was for
science and related activities (NRC, 2015). Translated into inflation corrected 2016-equivalent dollars, these values would be $369.66, $150.91, and $245.75 million, respec-
tively. The values proposed in the FY2018 White House budget are $323.02, $190.77, and $132.25 million (constant dollars) or $307.49, $181.60, and $125.89 million (in
2016-equivalent dollars). Thus, in terms of purchasing power, the fractional changes from 2003 to the proposed FY2018 are a loss of 23% (total NSF-OCE) with a rise of 20%
for infrastructure support, and a loss of 49% in infrastructure and related activities. For comparison, the change in total NSF budget over the same period (in 2016-equivalent
dollars) is a loss of 10% in purchasing power, almost entirely due to the cuts proposed for 2018.