3. Your affiliation
University of Hawaii
4. Your discipline
5. Across all ocean science disciplines, please list 3 important scientific questions that you believe will drive ocean research over the decade.
Thank you committee members for your effort. But why do you have this form that limits our input to 1000 characters per box. WTF!
1. Understanding fluxes of carbon, nutrients & micronutrients to-from sea water at high spatial resolution, including, most importantly, fluxes through the sea bed. Multiple new discoveries of active volcanism, cold seeps, and other sources of fluid fluxes have major implications for total CO2 in deep water masses and need to be better understood to fully know how the marine carbon cycle operates.
2. detailed knowledge of local/regional changes in sea level over the past decades and millennia since the LGM to predict future sea level rise vulnerability. we must uncover still poorly understood geophysical and physical oceanographic parameters, and their timescales, soon to better model local sea level rise over the coming centuries.
3. Response of marine geochemical cycles and ecological feedbacks/interplays to changing climate.
6. Within your own discipline, please list 3 important scientific questions that you believe will drive ocean research over the next decade.
1. understand frequency, magnitude of heat/chemical fluxes from active submarine volcanism. Recent fundamental new discoveries include previously unknown large liquid CO2 input to the deep ocean. We need smart tools to autonomously detect active volcanism to drive in situ observations by AUV, ROV & HOV more efficiently than now
2. More observations of sea level change reconstruction from coral reefs over the last 20,000 yrs to predict future sea level change. There are currently only 3 complete records worldwide and yet these record, do not provide sufficient data coverage or quality to properly recover global sea level change, let alone local & regional change
3. Better & more compositional data, & data discovery tools on submarine volcanic rocks, particularly MOR, & relationships to the physical parameters that drive crustal formation, to understand present & past fluxes of heat & composition to the world’s oceans
7. Please list 3 ideas for programs, technology, infrastructure, or facilities that you believe will play a major role in addressing the above questions over the next decade. Please consider both existing and new technology/facilities/infrastructure/programs that could be deployed in this timeframe. What mechanisms might be identified to best leverage these investments (interagency collaborations, international partnerships, etc.)?
1. The surface fleet (UNOLS) is critical for sample collections to support these projects.
2. deep submergence tools (rov and hov) are both critical too.
3. Funding for curiosity-based, core science. extreme funding shortfalls (due to a combination of budget cuts and poor funds management within some programs within NSF-OCE (especially MGG program), have made it next to impossible to fund field programs like this for the past 5 years. NSF has increasingly directed more and more funds to infrastructure projects and overly-broad, large-number-of -researcher, poorly-defined, cross-disciplinary research efforts, decimating small PI projects funded through core programs. Ironically, core program research backed by independent and honest peer review are the main drivers of success at NSF, and the one thing that distinguishes it from other federal funding agencies. If we keep seeing all the money go to organized programs, blue sky ocean science will wither and die.
8. Other comments pertinent to the committee’s charge.
We are in an exciting time, as technological, navigational, and computational advances allow us to look at ever more complex problems in greater detail. It is ironic then that extreme lack of funds is squelching our community’s research efforts and discouraging the next generation of scientists. Of the many causes, one I wish to point out is poor stewardship and bad recent restructuring within NSF. Poor decision making has harmed the MGG program which I am familiar with as both a funded researcher for 20 yrs and as a panelist 6 times in the past 10). PMs recently decided to put roughly 40% of the core program budget into a single project (Cascadia OBS array), after which proposal success rates drop from 1 in 6 to 1 in 12 overnight 3 years ago and with no clear end in sight. This was a conscious decision never conveyed to the community. A project of this magnitude needed either a new funds or some sort of broader community buy-in. Failing to communicate to us worsened the situation.