GEOTRACES SSC Meeting, 6th-8th November 2007, Barcelona
(No index is provided, but discussion follows the agenda listed in Appendix 1 on p34))
Attendees
Bob Anderson, Per Andersson, Philip Boyd, Ken Bruland, Greg Cutter, Minhan Dai, Hein de Baar, Martin Frank, Toshi Gamo, Gideon Henderson, Bill Jenkins, Pere Masque, Chris Measures, Felipe Niencheski, Kristin Orians, Jim Orr, Michiel Rutgers van der Loeff, Reiner Schlitzer, Sunil Singh, Ed Urban, Jing Zhang
Tuesday 6th November
National Interests
i. Introduction from Dolors Blasco
(Director, CMIMA – Centre Mediterrani d’Investigacions Marine i Ambientals)
This institute is part of CSIC, largest public research body in Spain, in the “Natural Resources” area. Consists of two institutes (ICM – Institut de Ciencies del Mar; UTM – Unidad Technologia Marina). Founded on present site in 2000. Publishes an open-access journal – Scientia Marina - four times a year.
Facilities includes experimental tank, basic chemical equipment, seismic, electron microscope, small coastal research vessel, biological reference collection, marine sediment core collection, coastal video monitoring system, satellite imaging station, experimental aquarium, flume, etc.
ii. Introduction from Marta Estrada
(Chair, SCOR-Spain)
Activities include: Contribution to Spanish Red Marina (Marine Network); maintain webpage; runs national working group on management and stewardship of marine data. Interacts with Spanish Committee on Global Change Research (CEICAG)
Co-operating Projects/Organizations
i. IMBER (informal input from Kristin Orians and Ed Urban)
No formal input to the meeting was provided by IMBER
Kristin attended SSC in Canada in June. A lot of the discussion at that meeting related to publicity of the programme. The IMBER focus is different from GEOTRACES because they adopt existing programmes rather than start their own.
Ed also reported on IMBER activities:
IMBER is planning an “IMBER imberzo” meeting with three parallel concurrent meetings on:
- Bathypelagic systems
- Mesopelagic systems
- End to end food webs
These meetings will come together to share information and hope to define future research directions
November 2008, Miami. Aim to have 50 people at each of meetings (so 150 total).
Data Management was discussed prior to their SSC and it has been proposed to use GEOTRACES to look after the trace metal data (to be discussed here under data management).
IMBER do have an endorsement procedure but are currently keen to recruit rather than exclude programmes. The major goal is to bring people already working in this field together.
Major foci of programme at present
ii. SOLAS (e-mail input from Jeff Hare and Alex Baker – see Appendix 1 - presented by Gideon Henderson)
SOLAS have a funded ESF COST Action dealing with diverse issues of air-sea exchange science within the European region. Much of this is not directly relevant to GEOTRACES, but one aspect is the collation of existing, and possibly future, aerosol data into a single database. This effort is led by Alex Baker (UEA, UK). Alex, on behalf of SOLAS, have requested support from GEOTRACES in this exercise, and has initiated discussion with Bill Landing.
The GEOTRACES SSC was entirely supportive of the aerosol data mining efforts. For new data, further discussion with SOLAS would be merited to ensure no overlap of effort, compatibility of data formats, etc, but the SSC was broadly supportive of these efforts too.
ACTION: Gideon Henderson to contact Alex Baker to seek input about whether the SOLAS COST Action is designed to be future data management as well as data mining? And to report to him that GEOTRACES is very supportive of data mining issue, but needs more thought about future data management of new aerosol data.
ACTION: Invite key players in SOLAS and GEOTRACES to form a Joint Task Team to address general issues of TEI fluxes from Atmosphere to the oceans. Alex Baker and Bill Landing to take lead for two programmes.
Alex had also mentioned that there was talk of setting up s dust sampling station on the Falkland Islands. This idea was supported by the SSC.
ACTION: Gideon Henderson to liase with Alex and remain informed about efforts to set up a Falklands dust sampling station.
It was also reported that there is a SOLAS, “Asian Dust in the Marine Ecosystem” Task Team which is hosting three workshops. G.Y. Shi is leader of this group and it would be worth contacting this team re. Pacific sections.
ACTION: Contact G.Y.Shi re. Asian Dust SOLAS task team.
iii. CLIVAR (no report)
Dick Feely has been approached and is keen to invite GEOTRACES to a forthcoming workshop of the hydrography group within CLIVAR (no date fixed yet). Nature of interactions between programmes is not yet clear but would be discussed as part of this workshop.
Chris and Bill’s work on CLIVAR cruises is not dependant on CLIVAR renewal proposal – their NSF funding is independent.
iv. IAEA (oral report from Jim Orr)
As introduction – Bob pointed out that many developing countries do not have sampling and/or analytical abilities to do GEOTRACES science and IAEA has significant interest in nuturing expertise in developing countries.
In report, Jim stated that Monaco lab is 2% of IAEA (only 9 scientists)
Potential IAEA funds for developing scientists could be for:
- participation in GEOTRACES cruises
- short-term training visits to laboratories
- workshops where IAEA funds some participants and/or some speakers (from developing nations)
These typically have a long (>2year) lead time
For Technical Cooperation projects:
- proposals are submitted by local scientists
- priorities are already formulated (e.g. latin America on health, food security, and environment)
- projects must both involve “atoms for peace” and have support from national agencies
Best way into these is to start by contacting Monaco
Felipe raised issue that equipment purchase is often easier than maintaining equipment, so long-term support for maintenance is particularly helpful.
Ed mentioned that there is a “Spare parts for Scientific Equipment” programme (see
Ed asked whether GEOTRACES could become involved in providing input to IAEA in response to IAEA desired meetings/programes.
Concrete idea was to hold a training workshop for Asian countries to share information about clean sampling and analysis. This could be possible if the focus was put on nuclear issues, and perhaps on pollutants and coastal zone.
Summer school student and presenter attendance could also be funded by IAEA. For one or two students such funding should be relatively easy, but for a larger contribution would take a long lead time again.
ACTION: Sunil Singh to contact IAEA to initiate discussion about a IAEA sponsored workshop to train Asian scientists in clean chemical sampling and analysis.
v. InterRidge (written report from Chris German available at – Report from InterRidge)
InterRidge and GEOTRACES have shared interests in chemical role of MOR activity and a particular goal of working on the EPR. Suggestion from InterRidge is that GEOTRACES continue to focus on a section in SE Pacific, while InterRidge focuses on process study of the vents. This strategy was endorsed by the SSC.
There is a “New Pot of Money” in the US – $12M – for interdisciplinary study. Could relationship between solid earth and ocean science be appropriate for this funding source?
ACTION: Bob Anderson. Is EPR work sufficiently interdisciplinary for the new NSF interdisciplinary research funding source.
Michiel advised all GEOTRACES cruises to think about prospects for finding hydrothermal impacts. These can require different measurement protocols than other TEI measurements. Arctic discovery of plume chemistry was not able to be fully exploited during recent IPY cruise due to insufficient sampling equipment and time on cruise.
Bob asked Toshi whether there was capability to add more stations to Japanese cruises in Indian ocean to investigate hydrothermal activity. This seems unlikely to be possible based on tight ship schedules.
vi. IMAGES (oral report from Martin Frank)
IMAGES is developing a new science plan.
Martin attended IMAGES Sci Com meeting in Shanghai. Interactions between programmes is not clear, but IMAGES is keen to see GEOTRACES representatives at IMAGES meetings. Next one of these is immediately before AGU in San Francisco – we should send a representative. It would be good to enthuse IMAGES about proxy calibration to help generate positive pressure for this GEOTRACES activity.
ACTION: Gideon Henderson. Contact IMAGES to suggest attendance at their AGU meeting (Ralf Schneider/Eelco Rohling)
IPO and DMO – Role, location, and funding
Discussion led by Ed Urban. His document distributed before the meeting (available at Background on International Project Offices) summarizes role of IPO and its typical size.
People in typical IPO:
- project executive officer (Ph.D. scientist in the relevant field).
- deputy executive officer/science officer/program officer (1 or 2 people): handles data management; website; newsletters; etc.
- project administrative assistant
With a separate DMO, we probably need a 2 or 3 person IPO. Ed considers DMO as higher priority to set up.
Location – US expects IPO to be outside US
Existing SCOR programmes - two IPOs in UK, one in France.
IGBP LOICZ office is in Germany (GKSS) and has five people
JGOFS office used to be in Bergen – they may be positive about hosting GEOTRACES IPO.
Normal route is that whole IPO is funded by the host country
Benefit for host nation is visibility – hosting of meetings, etc.
There was general discussion about the benefits/disadvantages of hosting the IPO in a country where there is little related GEOTRACES research. Consensus was that this was OK in highly interconnected world, and has an advantage in providing objective oversight, but that ideally it would be preferable to host in an institute with related research strength. For comparison, other IPOs:
GLOBEC – strong interactions with local community
SOLAS – similarly
IMBER – has made efforts to interact, but little input from institute
Should DMO and IPO be physically close to one another to ensure good links? Norway and UK are reasonably close (and have research links) so could attempt to propagate this.
ACTION: Martin Frank to find out how LOICZ secured large IPO in Germany
ACTION: Gideon Henderson. Investigate nature of UK-Norway links and whether this could be used to further IPO planning
Overall, consensus was that if Norway were able to come up with the funds, then we would be happy to accept, and would encourage Norway to see it as an opportunity to expand GEOTRACES type research within Norway, and links within Scandinavia and Europe more generally.
ACTION: Ed to contact Beatrice at Bergen to move this forward. If needed, Ed to initiate a delegation from the SSC to visit Bergen.
ACTION: Per Andersson to investigate Swedish input to IPO in Norway (e.g. NORDFORST)
Other options are important to make progress on in case Bergen does not come through.
Major EU institutes should investigate possibility of hosting and IPY. Sense was that these institutes might well host it, but could probably not provide funding for it – this would need to come from government.
ACTION: Martin Frank, Hein de Baar, Pere Masque, Michiel Rutgers van der Loeff, Catherine Jeandal, Gideon Henderson, Kristin Orians to raise issue with relevant institute directors and funding agencies. Could they host? And do they have advice about how to secure funding for IPO?
Average cost likely to be $250k per year for 2.5 person office based on other programmes.
ACTION: Ed Urban to write one page summary of costs and benefits of hosting IPO to help in approaching directors
Is it possible to split IPO between two sites? Consensus based on previous experience and on close working relationship required between IPO staff was that this was unworkable.
Alternative is for several countries to fund people, but put them in the same place. Hein raised point that this could be seen as positive experience and networking opportunity by countries sending people out.
Consensus that the IPO jobs should be advertised and staffed internationally (at least the lead role in the IPO).
Would a subscription system be a possible replacement. Problems are that office would probably move location every few years; couldn’t be requirement – would have to be voluntary; countries may not be willing to contribute because rewards less clear when not hosting.
Within context of subscription service, could host be a developing nation. Lead of IPO needs to be international (and might be funded by subscriptions) but secondary roles could be funded within developing nations. Both Minhan and Sunil were positive about possibility of securing funding for these secondary positions and space for offices. Minhan offered this as virtually 100% possible at Xiamen.
ACTION: Gideon Henderson. Find out how IMAGES and InterRidge subscription services work – how do they ensure they have sufficient funds to operate via this mechanism.
US are not keen to host. US are keen to see projects as truly international and, although willing to contribute to activities such as SSC funding, would prefer to see IPO outside US
ACTION: Bob Anderson. Will ask Don Rice whether US hosted IPO is an option of last resort and whether US would consider contributing to non-US IPO.
Possibility to share IPO with an existing programme was discussed. While workable in principle, this is unlikely to work by sharing with an existing programme. IMBER, for instance, has an office which is already busy and is a programme which works in a very different way from GEOTRACES.
We need an IPO. This is very clear and worth stressing. We should pursue every option to get one within the next year. Options, by priority are:
i.Bergen
ii.Elsewhere in Europe – to come from lobbying by SSC members. Maybe including exchange of personnel
iii.Subscription system (possibly involving Asian host country)
iv.US hosting
Standards and Intercalibration
Presented by Greg Cutter
Preliminary protocols document was briefly discussed (available at Draft Sampling and Sample-handling Protocols for GEOTRACES-related IPY Cruises, 2007-2008). Greg and the S&I subcommittee were thanked for doing an excellent comprehensive job on compiling this information so quickly.
The Data Management Subcommittee raised the issue that we also need preliminary metadata protocol for each measurement type.
Proposed action is: Get BCO-DMO metadata form; distribute to GEOTRACES scientists via S&I subcommittee and seek their input on what additional metadata is required; produce preliminary GEOTRACES metadata format for each measurement; pass this to DM subcommittee to check; use this metadata format for IPY and Intercalibration cruises; based on successes and failures of metadata format during those cruises, modify as required for further GEOTRACES cruises.
ACTION: Bob Anderson to secure BCO-DMO version of typical metadata and forward to Greg
ACTION: Greg Cutter to distribute BCO-DMO version of metadata and distribute to observationalists for input on additional metadata required for their measurement type and come up with recommended metadata for each measurement.
Greg provided information about forthcoming intercalibration meeting on 8th-9th December in San Francisco. The list of co-ordinated element measurements does not presently include DIC d13C.
ACTION: Greg Cutter to identify the people who might do d13C measurements and someone to co-ordinate this group, ideally to attend in December, but certainly to provide input by the first intercalibration cruise.
Dates for 2008 intercalibration cruise are 10 June to 13th July 2008 (although may still move one week forward). On board Knorr, 32 berths. Leg 1 from Norfolk to Bermuda, 20 days, testing and perfecting the new sampling system, including shipboard Fe, Zn, Hg and acquiring large volume samples for intercalibration. Leg 2 from Bermuda to Norfolk, 10 days, particle sampling methods and acquiring shallow and deep particles.
Equipment for the new sampling rosette and winch is being built and is confidently predicted to be ready in time for the cruise. GoFlos already delivered. Slightly new design of frame from Seabird.
There will also be a number of existing sampling devices on the ship (e.g. MITESS, vane, single Go-Flo, etc.).
Pump systems to be used on second leg include: Ken Buesseler, Phoebe Lam, maybe Jim Bishop will put pumps on the ship. Brad Moran’s pumps may also be available.
Berth spaces: total of 32 berths, two legs, so 64 people. Greg, Ken, Rob, need 16 berths on each leg for basics. Including these 16(x2) there are presently 42 people seeking berths. But these are very largely from the US (only other countries are Canada and UK – Francois, Lohan)
How should spare berths be filled. This cruise probably not appropriate for training (although 2009 cruise would be good target for this). Possible target would be to try to have at least one person on board from each country likely to run a GEOTRACES cruise.
ACTION: Greg to send out e-mail to all those that expressed interest in being on board ship initially to offer possible berth space. Include timeline for knowledge about berth space. If too much (or too little) demand, rely on priority list from San Francisco SSC meeting.