First page Previous page 48 Next page Last page

June 2017

Special Issue on Autonomous and Lagrangian Platforms and Sensors (ALPS)

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

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

22°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

χ = 10–8.5

ε = 10–10

Increasing ε

Increasing

Dive 100, up

220 m

Dive 100, down

105 m

115 m

145 m

20°C

22°C

24°C

SPECIAL ISSUE ON

Autonomous and Lagrangian Platforms and Sensors:

Current and Future Directions in Ocean Sampling

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

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

TECHNOLOGY REPORT > Air-Deployable Profiling Floats

By S.R. Jayne and N.M. Bogue

TECHNOLOGY REPORT > Looking Ahead: A Profiling Float Micro-Rosette

By P. Bresnahan, T. Martz, J. de Almeida, B. Ward , and P. Maguire

TECHNOLOGY REPORT > ASIP: Profiling the Upper Ocean

By A. ten Doeschate, G. Sutherland, L. Esters, D. Wain, K. Walesby,

and B. Ward

TECHNOLOGY REPORT > A New Technology for Continuous Long-Range

Tracking of Fish and Lobster

By T. Rossby, G. Fischer, and M.M. Omand

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

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

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

TECHNOLOGY REPORT > KAUST’s Red Sea Observing System

By B.H. Jones and Y. Kattan

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

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

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

100

Tropical Cyclone Heat Potential (kJ cm–2)

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

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

TECHNOLOGY REPORT > Underwater Glider Observations and the

Representation of Western Boundary Currents in Numerical Models

By R.E. Todd and L. Locke-Wynn

TECHNOLOGY REPORT > Ocean Glider Observations Around Australia

By C. Pattiaratchi, L.M. Woo, P.G. Thomson, K.K. Hong, and D. Stanley

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

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

QUARTERDECK. Our Awesome, Inspiring US Park Rangers and

the Value of Public Service

By E.S. Kappel

FROM THE PRESIDENT. Follow the Money

By A.C. Mix

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

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

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

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$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

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.