1AC Plan The United States federal government should upgrade its nuclear non-military polar ocean fleet.
Scenario 1 is science leverage:
The race for scientific leadership is on – innovative science is vital to solving global impacts.
Colglazier, 13 (E. William, Science and Technology Advisor to the Secretary of State, “Remarks on Science and Diplomacy in the 21st Century,” 8/20/13, http://www.state.gov/e/stas/2013/213741.htm)
In 2010 the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development released a strategic blueprint to chart the course of the next four years. In this first Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, it was stated: “Science, engineering, technology, and innovation are the engines of modern society and a dominant force in globalization and international economic development.” The significance of this observation has been emphasized repeatedly to me over the past two years in conversations with representatives of many countries about science and technology. I have been struck by the fact that nearly every country has put at the very top of its agenda the role of science and technology for supporting innovation and economic development. This observation has been true for countries at every level of development – not only for countries like Germany, Japan, China, India, Brazil, South Korea, and Singapore, but also for countries like Mexico, Colombia, Chile, South Africa, Indonesia, Czech Republic, Malaysia, and Vietnam. They are all seeking insights regarding the right policies and investments to help their societies to become more innovative and competitive to ensure a more prosperous future for their citizens. Why does nearly every country now have a “laser-like” focus on improving its capabilities in science, technology, and innovation in order to be more competitive in this globalized, interconnected world? My guess is that most countries see two trends clearly: (1) science and technology have a major impact on the economic success of leading companies and countries and (2) the scientific and technological revolution has been accelerating. If countries do not become more capable in science and technology, they will be left behind. The upside is great if they can capitalize on the transformative potential of new and emerging technologies. As one example, the information and communication technology (ICT) revolution has shown the potential for developing countries to use new technologies to “leapfrog” over the development paths taken by developed countries, such as with mobile phones in Africa. Countries also recognize that almost every issue with which they are confronted on the national, regional, and global level has an important scientific and technological component. This is true whether the issue concerns health, environment, national security, homeland security, energy, communication, food, water, climate change, disaster preparedness, or education. Countries know they have smart, creative, entrepreneurial people. They believe their people can compete, even from a distance, if the right investments are made and the right policies are implemented. And they know that to become more capable in science and technology and to create innovation and knowledge-based societies, they must collaborate with the world leaders in science and technology. New and emerging technologies have also affected the trajectory of fundamental science and engineering research by creating new capabilities for exploring and understanding the natural world. We are only at the beginning of exploiting the potential of these new capabilities. This is another reason for the acceleration of the scientific and technological revolution, progressing at such an incredibly rapid pace that it is hard to imagine, much less predict, what new transformative possibilities will emerge within a decade. Scientists are not much better at predicting the future than anyone else. I am very envious of young people who will see amazing developments in their lifetimes. As renowned computer scientist Alan Kay said, “The best way to predict the future is to invent it.”
Science diplomacy is a vital tool in achieving growth and minimizing war.
Colglazier, 13 (E. William, Science and Technology Advisor to the Secretary of State, “Remarks on Science and Diplomacy in the 21st Century,” 8/20/13, http://www.state.gov/e/stas/2013/213741.htm)
Science diplomacy helps other countries to become more capable in science and technology. One might worry that this creates more capable competitors, but I believe that it is in the interest of technologically advanced societies like in the U.S. and Europe to encourage more knowledge-based societies worldwide that rely upon science. The only way to stay in the forefront of the scientific and technological revolution, which is where I want the U.S. to be, is to run faster and to work with the best scientists and engineers wherever they reside in the world. That is why I support more global scientific engagement by the U.S. with leading scientists and engineers around the world. The approach that I favor was captured well in the title of an article in the October 2012 issue of Scientific American: “A measure of the creativity of a nation is how well it works with those beyond its borders.” I believe that the world has a special opportunity in this decade since so many countries are focusing on improving their capabilities in science and technology and are willing to make fundamental changes in investments and policies so they can build more innovative societies. If we can minimize wars and conflicts with skillful diplomacy, the potential is there for more rapid economic growth, faster expansion of the middle class, and increased democratic governance in many countries as well as increased trade between countries. This is an optimistic scenario. A range of future scenarios, including some that are quite pessimistic, are laid out in the fascinating report Global Trends 2030, published by the U.S. National Intelligence Council in 2012.(8) I believe that we can make the hopeful scenario a reality. Science diplomacy is one of our most important tools in achieving the desired outcome.
Enhancing polar ocean fleet necessary for polar leadership
Sutley and Holdren 13
(Nancy H. Sutley John P. Holdren, Chair, Council on Environmental Quality Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Co-Chair, National Ocean Council Co-Chair, “National Ocean Council Federal Oceanographic Fleet Status report” pg online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/federal_oceanographic_fleet_status_report.pdf//sd)
Reports by the National research Council (NrC, 2011b), the White House Office of Science and technology policy (augustine et al., 2012), and Members of Congress2 stipulate that the United States should provide heavy icebreakers to support u.S. interests at both poles. For example, Future science opportunities in the Antarctica and southern ocean (NRC, 2011b) identifies the continued strong logistical support of Antarctic science, specifically calling out the need to “maintain and enhance the unique logistical assets of the united States, including…research vessels with increased icebreaking capabilities, and heavy icebreakers for reliable resupply of the U.S. Antarctic program.” More and Better science in Antarctica through increased logistical effectiveness (Augustine et al., 2012) specifically called out the need to “restore the u.S. polar ocean fleet (icebreakers, polar research vessels, mid-sized and smaller vessels) to support science, logistics, and national security in both polar regions over the long term. (Follow through on pending action in the president’s FY2013 Budget request for uSCG to initiate the design of a new icebreaker.)” the report included as one of its actions items (action 4.1-3): “aggressively pursue the acquisition of a new polar research vessel with enhanced capabilities to ensure U.S. leadership in pursuing scientific endeavors in the Southern ocean.”
Year-round polar presence shows US commitment to science diplomacy—more icebreakers are key
Spotts 5
(Peter, staff writer for Christian Science Monitor, “Icebreakers - on thin ice ; It is a priority to shore up the old US fleet as research demands grow, scientists say” pg online at proquest//sd)
Yet the ships' importance is expected to grow as climate change turns the ocean at the top of the world into an arena where countries vie for control over new shipping lanes, oil and gas exploration, and other economic activities. In Antarctica, America's year-round presence fulfills treaty obligations and ensures that the US continues to have a strong voice in efforts to keep the continent a model of international cooperation. Globally, roughly 40 icebreakers crunch their way through polar ice. About half of those belong to Russia, says Anita Jones, a University of Virginia computer scientist and former Pentagon official who heads the panel. Meanwhile, the US's fleet of three heavy icebreakers is sailing along at half steam. The US has one modern vessel, the Healy, which began operating in 2000 and typically remains in the Arctic. The other two - the Polar Star and the Polar Sea - were built in the 1970s and are nearing the end of their design lives. The Polar Star was out of commission for the 2003-2003 Antarctic resupply run, which fell to the Healy - delaying research projects in the Arctic. Over the past year, the Polar Sea has been tied to a dock with serious engine problems. The US Coast Guard and the National Science Foundation (NSF) reportedly have scrapped enough money together to get the Polar Sea underway by next fall. But the US was forced to contract with a Russian icebreaker to open the resupply channel during the 2004-2005 season. The three icebreakers also serve scientist as floating labs for polar research. And those demands are set to grow. Arctic countries, including the US, are asking scientists to continue to monitor environmental change in the Arctic. Moreover, polar scientists from around the world are planning the International Polar Year, from 2007 to 2008, a monumental research effort at the top and bottom of the Earth. Over the long term, without modern icebreakers in our own fleet, it could be harder for US researchers to take part in international work, researchers say.
Scenario 2 is Antarctic Research:
Warming is on a temporary slowdown but it’s still inevitable and catastrophic in the status quo – we assume all your warrants
The Economist 4/8/2014, (“Who pressed the pause button?”, [ http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21598610-slowdown-rising-temperatures-over-past-15-years-goes-being ] , //hss-RJ)
BETWEEN 1998 and 2013, the Earth’s surface temperature rose at a rate of 0.04°C a decade, far slower than the 0.18°C increase in the 1990s. Meanwhile, emissions of carbon dioxide (which would be expected to push temperatures up) rose uninterruptedly. This pause in warming has raised doubts in the public mind about climate change. A few sceptics say flatly that global warming has stopped. Others argue that scientists’ understanding of the climate is so flawed that their judgments about it cannot be accepted with any confidence. A convincing explanation of the pause therefore matters both to a proper understanding of the climate and to the credibility of climate science—and papers published over the past few weeks do their best to provide one. Indeed, they do almost too good a job. If all were correct, the pause would now be explained twice over. This is the opposite of what happened at first. As evidence piled up that temperatures were not rising much, some scientists dismissed it as a blip. The temperature, they pointed out, had fallen for much longer periods twice in the past century or so, in 1880-1910 and again in 1945-75 (see chart), even though the general trend was up. Variability is part of the climate system and a 15-year hiatus, they suggested, was not worth getting excited about. An alternative way of looking at the pause’s significance was to say that there had been a slowdown but not a big one. Most records, including one of the best known (kept by Britain’s Meteorological Office), do not include measurements from the Arctic, which has been warming faster than anywhere else in the world. Using satellite data to fill in the missing Arctic numbers, Kevin Cowtan of the University of York, in Britain, and Robert Way of the University of Ottawa, in Canada, put the overall rate of global warming at 0.12°C a decade between 1998 and 2012—not far from the 1990s rate. A study by NASA puts the “Arctic effect” over the same period somewhat lower, at 0.07°C a decade, but that is still not negligible. It is also worth remembering that average warming is not the only measure of climate change. According to a study just published by Sonia Seneviratne of the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, in Zurich, the number of hot days, the number of extremely hot days and the length of warm periods all increased during the pause (1998-2012). A more stable average temperature hides wider extremes. Still, attempts to explain away that stable average have not been convincing, partly because of the conflict between flat temperatures and rising CO2 emissions, and partly because observed temperatures are now falling outside the range climate models predict. The models embody the state of climate knowledge. If they are wrong, the knowledge is probably faulty, too. Hence attempts to explain the pause. Chilling news In September 2013 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change did so in terms of fluctuating solar output, atmospheric pollution and volcanoes. All three, it thought, were unusually influential. The sun’s power output fluctuates slightly over a cycle that lasts about 11 years. The current cycle seems to have gone on longer than normal and may have started from a lower base, so for the past decade less heat has been reaching Earth than usual. Pollution throws aerosols (particles such as soot, and suspended droplets of things like sulphuric acid) into the air, where they reflect sunlight back into space. The more there are, the greater their cooling effect—and pollution from Chinese coal-fired power plants, in particular, has been rising. Volcanoes do the same thing, so increased volcanic activity tends to reduce temperatures. Gavin Schmidt and two colleagues at NASA’s Goddard Institute quantify the effects of these trends in Nature Geoscience. They argue that climate models underplay the delayed and subdued solar cycle. They think the models do not fully account for the effects of pollution (specifically, nitrate pollution and indirect effects like interactions between aerosols and clouds). And they claim that the impact of volcanic activity since 2000 has been greater than previously thought. Adjusting for all this, they find that the difference between actual temperature readings and computer-generated ones largely disappears. The implication is that the solar cycle and aerosols explain much of the pause. Blowing hot and cold There is, however, another type of explanation. Much of the incoming heat is absorbed by oceans, especially the largest, the Pacific. Several new studies link the pause with changes in the Pacific and in the trade winds that influence the circulation of water within it. Trade winds blow east-west at tropical latitudes. In so doing they push warm surface water towards Asia and draw cooler, deep water to the surface in the central and eastern Pacific, which chills the atmosphere. Water movement at the surface also speeds up a giant churn in the ocean. This pulls some warm water downwards, sequestering heat at greater depth. In a study published in Nature in 2013, Yu Kosaka and Shang-Ping Xie of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, in San Diego, argued that much of the difference between climate models and actual temperatures could be accounted for by cooling in the eastern Pacific. Every few years, as Dr Kosaka and Dr Xie observe, the trade winds slacken and the warm water in the western Pacific sloshes back to replace the cool surface layer of the central and eastern parts of the ocean. This weather pattern is called El Niño and it warms the whole atmosphere. There was an exceptionally strong Niño in 1997-98, an unusually hot year. The opposite pattern, with cooler temperatures and stronger trade winds, is called La Niña. The 1997-98 Niño was followed by a series of Niñas, explaining part of the pause. Switches between El Niño and La Niña are frequent. But there is also a long-term cycle called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), which switches from a warm (or positive) phase to a cool (negative) one every 20 or 30 years. The positive phase encourages more frequent, powerful Niños. According to Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo of America’s National Centre for Atmospheric Research, the PDO was positive in 1976-98—a period of rising temperatures—and negative in 1943-76 and since 2000, producing a series of cooling Niñas. But that is not the end of it. Laid on top of these cyclical patterns is what looks like a one-off increase in the strength of trade winds during the past 20 years. According to a study in Nature Climate Change, by Matthew England of the University of New South Wales and others, record trade winds have produced a sort of super-Niña. On average, sea levels have risen by about 3mm a year in the past 30 years. But those in the eastern Pacific have barely budged, whereas those near the Philippines have risen by 20cm since the late 1990s. A wall of warm water, in other words, is being held in place by powerful winds, with cool water rising behind it. According to Dr England, the effect of the trade winds explains most of the temperature pause. If so, the pause has gone from being not explained to explained twice over—once by aerosols and the solar cycle, and again by ocean winds and currents. These two accounts are not contradictory. The processes at work are understood, but their relative contributions are not. Nor is the answer to what is, from the human point of view, the biggest question of all, namely what these explanations imply about how long the pause might continue. On the face of it, if some heat is being sucked into the deep ocean, the process could simply carry on: the ocean has a huge capacity to absorb heat as long as the pump sending it to the bottom remains in working order. But that is not all there is to it. Gravity wants the western-Pacific water wall to slosh back; it is held in place only by exceptionally strong trade winds. If those winds slacken, temperatures will start to rise again. The solar cycle is already turning. And aerosol cooling is likely to be reined in by China’s anti-pollution laws. Most of the circumstances that have put the planet’s temperature rise on “pause” look temporary. Like the Terminator, global warming will be back.
Warming devastates ocean ecosystems and causes extinction– coral bleach, food chain disruptions, and bacterial infections
National Geographic 7/31/13, (“Sea Temperature Rise”, [ http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-temperature-rise/ ] ,//hss-RJ)
As climate change has warmed the Earth, oceans have responded more slowly than land environments. But scientific research is finding that marine ecosystems can be far more sensitive to even the most modest temperature change. Global warming caused by human activities that emit heat-trapping carbon dioxide has raised the average global temperature by about 1°F (0.6°C) over the past century. In the oceans, this change has only been about 0.18°F (0.1°C). This warming has occurred from the surface to a depth of about 2,300 feet (700 meters), where most marine life thrives. Perhaps the ocean organism most vulnerable to temperature change is coral. There is evidence that reefs will bleach (eject their symbiotic algae) at even a slight persistent temperature rise. Bleaching slows coral growth, makes them susceptible to disease, and can lead to large-scale reef die-off. Other organisms affected by temperature change include krill, an extremely important link at the base of the food chain. Research has shown that krill reproduce in significantly smaller numbers when ocean temperatures rise. This can have a cascading effect by disrupting the life cycle of krill eaters, such as penguins and seals—which in turn causes food shortages for higher predators. Higher Sea Levels When water heats up, it expands. Thus, the most readily apparent consequence of higher sea temperatures is a rapid rise in sea level. Sea level rise causes inundation of coastal habitats for humans as well as plants and animals, shoreline erosion, and more powerful storm surges that can devastate low-lying areas. Stronger Storms Many weather experts say we are already seeing the effects of higher ocean temperatures in the form of stronger and more frequent tropical storms and hurricanes/cyclones. Warmer surface water dissipates more readily into vapor, making it easier for small ocean storms to escalate into larger, more powerful systems. These stronger storms can increase damage to human structures when they make landfall. They can also harm marine ecosystems like coral reefs and kelp forests. And an increase in storm frequency means less time for these sensitive habitats to recover. Other Consequences Warmer sea temperatures are also associated with the spread of invasive species and marine diseases. The evolution of a stable marine habitat is dependent upon myriad factors, including water temperature. If an ecosystem becomes warmer, it can create an opportunity where outside species or bacteria can suddenly thrive where they were once excluded. This can lead to forced migrations and even species extinctions. Warmer seas also lead to melting from below of polar ice shelves, compromising their structural integrity and leading to spectacular shelf collapses. Scientists also worry that warmer water could interrupt the so-called ocean conveyor belt, the system of global currents that is largely responsible for regulating Earth's temperature. Its collapse could trigger catastrophically rapid climate changes. Will It Continue? The only way to reduce ocean temperatures is to dramatically reign in our emission of greenhouse gases. However, even if we immediately dropped carbon dioxide emissions to zero, the gases we've already released would take decades or longer to dissipate.
Ocean harm risks destroying all life on Earth.
Craig ‘3
Robin Kundis Craig has a background in several disciplines. She served as a member the U.S. National Research Council's committee to assess the effects of the Clean Water Act’s regulation of the Mississippi River. She is currently a Professor at Florida State University College of Law. She is a leading environmental law scholar who has written important works on water and ocean and coastal issues. Professor Craig is the author of The Clean Water Act and the Constitution (Environmental Law Institute 2004), Environmental Law in Context (West 2005). Professor Craig also served as a tenured professor at the Indiana University-Indianapolis School of Law.[2], Winter, “Taking Steps Toward Marine Wilderness Protection? Fishing and Coral Reef Marine Reserves in Florida and Hawaii,” 34 McGeorge L. Rev. 155, Lexis
The world’s oceans contain many resources and provide many services that humans consider valuable. “Occupying more than seventy percent of the Earth’s surface and ninety-five percent of the biosphere,” oceans provide food; marketable goods such as shells, aquarium fish, and pharmaceuticals; life support processes, including carbon sequestration, nutrient cycling, and weather mechanics; and quality of life, both aesthetic and economic, for millions of people worldwide. Indeed, it is difficult to overstate the importance of the ocean to humanity’s well-being: “The ocean is the cradle of life on our planet, and it remains the axis of existence, the locus of planetary biodiversity, and the engine of the chemical and hydrological cycles that create and maintain our atmosphere and climate.” Ocean and coastal ecosystem services have been calculated to be worth over twenty billion dollars per year, worldwide. In addition, many people assign heritage and existence value to the ocean and its creatures, viewing the world’s seas as a common legacy to be passed on relatively intact to future generations. (It continues…) More generally, “ocean ecosystems play a major role in the global geochemical cycling of all the elements that represent the basic building blocks of living organisms, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorous, and sulfur, as well as other less abundant but necessary elements”. In a very real and direct sense, therefore, human degradation of marine ecosystems impairs the planet’s ability to support life. Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the functions of marine ecosystems. Current evidence shows that, in general, an ecosystem’s ability to keep functioning in the face of disturbance is strongly dependent on its biodiversity, “indicating that more diverse ecosystems are more stable. Coral reef ecosystems are particularly dependent on their biodiversity. [*265] Most ecologists agree that the complexity of interactions and degree of interrelatedness among component species is higher on coral reefs than in any other marine environment. This implies that the ecosystem functioning that produces the most highly valued components is also complex and that many otherwise insignificant species have strong effects on sustaining the rest of the reef system. n860 Thus, maintaining and restoring the biodiversity of marine ecosystems is critical to maintaining and restoring the ecosystem services that they provide. Non-use biodiversity values for marine ecosystems have been calculated in the wake of marine disasters, like the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. n861 Similar calculations could derive preservation values for marine wilderness. However, economic value, or economic value equivalents, should not be "the sole or even primary justification for conservation of ocean ecosystems. Ethical arguments also have considerable force and merit." n862 At the forefront of such arguments should be a recognition of how little we know about the sea - and about the actual effect of human activities on marine ecosystems. The United States has traditionally failed to protect marine ecosystems because it was difficult to detect anthropogenic harm to the oceans, but we now know that such harm is occurring - even though we are not completely sure about causation or about how to fix every problem. Ecosystems like the NWHI coral reef ecosystem should inspire lawmakers and policymakers to admit that most of the time we really do not know what we are doing to the sea and hence should be preserving marine wilderness whenever we can - especially when the United States has within its territory relatively pristine marine ecosystems that may be unique in the world.We may not know much about the sea, but we do know this much: If we kill the ocean we kill ourselves, and we will take most of the biosphere with us. The Black Sea is almost dead, 863 its once-complex and productive ecosystem almost entirely replaced by a monoculture of comb jellies, "starving out fish and dolphins, emptying fishermen's nets, and converting the web of life into brainless, wraith-like blobs of jelly." 864 More importantly, the Black Sea is not necessarily unique.
Specifically, Antarctic research is necessary to understand climate change and adopt best mitigation and survival strategies
NRC 11
(Committee on Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean; National Research Council, Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, The National Academies Press, 2011. Pg online at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13169//sd)
Antarctica and the surrounding Southern Ocean remains one of the world’s last frontiers. Covering nearly 14 million km2 (an area approximately 1.4 times the size of the United States), Antarctica is the coldest, driest, highest, and windiest continent on Earth. While it is challenging to live and work in this extreme environment, this region offers many opportunities for scientific research. The icy landscape of Antarctica and the Southern Ocean may seem distant, but the natural processes that occur there are intimately linked to those on the rest of the planet. For example, the Southern Ocean is an extremely important region of the globe for air-sea exchange of carbon dioxide, second only to the northern North Atlantic. To understand the effects of increasing emissions of carbon dioxide on the climate, it is vitally important to understand the processes that occur in the Antarctic region. Ever since the first humans set foot on Antarctica a little more than a century ago, the discoveries made there have advanced our scientific knowledge of the region, the world, and the universe—but there is still much more to learn. Recent findings in the region have included enormous lakes and mountain ranges buried beneath ice and entire ecosystems of never-seen-before life forms. The rocks, sediments, and ice of Antarctica hold a trove of information about the past history of Earth’s climate, continents, and life forms. The remarkable clarity and stability of the atmosphere above Antarctica allows scientists to look out to the upper reaches of the atmosphere and into the universe beyond—observations that could contribute to understanding of the origins of the universe and the nature of the solar system. However, conducting scientific research in the harsh environmental conditions of Antarctica is profoundly challenging. Substantial resources are needed to establish and maintain the infrastructure needed to provide heat, light, transportation, and drinking water, while at the same time minimizing pollution of the environment and ensuring the safety of researchers. The U.S. Antarctic Program (USAP) within the National Science Foundation (NSF) is the primary U.S. agency responsible for supporting science in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean. In 2010, the NSF Office of Polar Programs, in coordination with the Office of Science Technology Policy, initiated two activities to provide guidance to the USAP program. This report, authored by the National Research Council’s Committee on Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, represents the first activity; the committee’s task was to identify and summarize the changes to important science conducted on Antarctica and the surrounding Southern Ocean that will demand attention over the next two decades. The second activity is an NSF-organized Blue Ribbon Panel intended to assist in making strategic decisions to improve the logistical support of the U.S. science program in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean over the next two decades. In response to its charge, the committee has highlighted important areas of research by encapsulating each into a single, overarching question (see Table S.1). The questions fall into two broad themes: (1) those related to global change and (2) those related to fundamental discoveries. In addition, the committee also identified several opportunities to be leveraged to sustain and improve the science program in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean in the coming two decades. GLOBAL CHANGE Over the past century, temperatures on land and in the ocean have been increasing. Sea level is rising, global weather patterns are shifting, and the chemical and biological processes of the planet are changing. The poles are particularly susceptible to climate change, with the Arctic already displaying large temperature changes. The situation in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean is complicated by the influence of the Antarctic ozone hole, another human-induced change that has uniquely affected this region. Thus, the Antarctic region provides an unparalleled natural laboratory in which to study these changing conditions. Antarctica’s ice sheets exist in a state of dynamic equilibrium: snow and ice accumulate over the continent and flow to the coasts with the movement of glaciers. When the ice comes into contact with the relatively warm ocean, it melts, or chunks of it break off and are lost to the sea in a process called calving. Rising global temperatures now threaten to push the equilibrium out of balance. As more of the Antarctic ice sheets melt, the volume of the world’s oceans will increase—and so too will global sea level. The Antarctic ice sheets hold about 90 percent of the world’s ice; if all of this ice were to melt, it would raise global sea levels by more than 60 meters. Therefore, it is critical that scientists understand how rapidly the world will warm, if ice loss will accelerate, and how quickly sea level will rise. Key to improving this understanding in the next 20 years is increased observations and model development to learn more about the interactions of ice sheets at the ice-ocean and ice-bedrock boundaries. What Is the Role of Antarctica and the Southern Ocean in the Global Climate System? The climate system of the Antarctic region is inextricably linked to that of the rest of the planet. The strong westerly winds that circle the Antarctic continent influence global atmospheric circulation. To improve projections of future changes in atmospheric circulation, enhanced observations and modeling capacity are needed to understand the role of the Antarctic ozone hole and the influence of global climate change. Similarly, the Southern Ocean circulation is central to the global ocean circulation, affecting not only the Southern Hemisphere but also the circulation of the North Atlantic Ocean, with impacts on the climate of Europe and North America. In addition, understanding the carbon dioxide exchange between the Southern Ocean and the atmosphere is a fundamental part of understanding the global carbon cycle and climate change. Again, improved observational and modeling capabilities are needed to improve the understanding of the role of the Southern Ocean in the global ocean system. Changes in the patterns of sea ice in the Southern Ocean strongly affect atmospheric and oceanic circulations as well as carbon dioxide uptake; therefore, improved monitoring and modeling of sea ice will be important in the next two decades. There is also an urgent need to better understand the dynamics of the ocean-glacial ice interaction beneath floating ice shelves, which will contribute to better projections of future sea level rise caused by melting of glacial ice in Antarctica. More information on Antarctica’s influence over globally interacting systems will allow scientists to better understand the global climate system and predict how it will change in the future. A systems approach, with increased observations and improved modeling, is critical to further the understanding of all aspects of the climate system over the next 20 years. What Is the Response of Antarctic Biota and Ecosystems to Change? Although recent research has revealed a surprising diversity of life forms in Antarctica, even in habitats once considered lifeless, Antarctic ecosystems are relatively simple compared to those in other areas of the globe. This makes it easier to detect the impacts of global climate change and other environmental changes in Antarctic ecosystems than elsewhere on the planet. Furthermore, Antarctic ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to change. The marine and land-based ecosystems of this region evolved in isolation from the rest of the planet, but now factors such as the global transport of pollutants, the introduction of invasive species, and increases in ultraviolet radiation are altering these communities. Increasing human presence, due to tourism and research, has brought concerns about habitat destruction, overfishing, pollution, and other toxic effects on the environment. Of all the human influences, the impact of human-induced climate change may prove to be the largest. On land and sea, warming and ice melt will increase the area of surfaces exposed to the elements, providing new habitats for colonization by organisms—with the potential to change the functioning and structure of ecosystems. As warming continues, biotic factors such as predation, competition, and pathogens will likely have a greater influence on ecosystem functioning than the physical processes that have, until now, dominated the region’s ecosystems. Changes in the ecosystems of the Antarctic region may be a harbinger of larger changes to come, and therefore monitoring Antarctic change could allow scientists to predict future ecosystem change elsewhere. What Role Has Antarctica Played in Changing the Planet in the Past? The movement, fragmentation, and collision of tectonic plates can have dramatic consequences on the planet, including causing earthquakes and volcanoes, constructing new mountain ranges, opening gateways between vast oceans, and triggering global climate shifts. About 180 million years ago, the movement of tectonic plates caused Gondwana, a massive supercontinent consisting of Antarctica, India, Australia, South America, and Africa, to begin to break apart. Antarctica—which at that time was covered with dense forests inhabited by dinosaurs and mammals—started to move toward its present polar position, opening up new ocean passages and causing great shifts in the circulation of the ocean and atmosphere. These shifts reduced the amount of heat brought to the region and caused glaciation to begin, turning the lush, green continent into a white continent encased in ice. Understanding the opening of the Southern Ocean as Gondwana fragmented is critical to understanding how Antarctica became glaciated, and how global climate came to be in its present state. DISCOVERY Antarctica and the Southern Ocean provide a natural laboratory for scientific discovery. The tiny air bubbles trapped within the ice hold a record of the planet’s atmosphere through time; the living things in the ocean and on land can teach scientists about survival strategies in extreme environments; and Antarctica provides an excellent platform for looking out to the solar system and the universe beyond. The committee highlighted several areas of science that will be important in discovery-driven scientific research in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean over the next two decades. What Can Records Preserved in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean Reveal About Past and Future Climates? Records of the Antarctic region’s past conditions come from drilling into rocks, sediments, and ice, and from examining geological features. This information has allowed scientists to reconstruct past climatic conditions, an important step toward understanding present climate and predicting future climate change.
And, we have the tech for research, it’s a matter of accessibility—more icebreakers are key
NRC 11
(Committee on Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean; National Research Council, Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, The National Academies Press, 2011. Pg online at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13169//sd)
Advances related to energy and technology have the potential to facilitate scientific research in Antarctica, making the endeavor more cost effective and allowing a greater proportion of funds to support research directly, instead of to establish and maintain infrastructure. As one example, most of the energy required to power the research stations and field camps, as well as transport people and materials, comes from the burning of fossil fuels. In addition to the cost of the fuel, the combustion of fossil fuels pollutes the air, and fuel leaks during storage and transport have the potential to contaminate the surrounding environment. Innovations such as new, more cost-effective overland transportation systems for fuel, or the use of wind power generators, promise to reduce the cost and pollution associated with fuel transport. Antarctica has been and can continue to be an important testing ground for energy innovations. One important area for development is the access to fully and partially ice-covered seas provided by surface ships and, in particular, icebreakers. There is a critical shortage of U.S. icebreaking capacity in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean at this time. Options to address this shortage include the purchase of any new polar class icebreaker by the United States either alone or in partnership with other countries and the leasing of icebreakers flagged by other countries. Based on the scientific research needs outlined in this report, the committee strongly supports the conclusion from previous reports that the United States should develop sufficient icebreaking capacity, either on a national or international basis. Any arrangement should ensure that the scientific needs in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, both for research and for the annual break-in done to supply the McMurdo Research Station with fuel and materials, can be met by secure and reliable icebreaking capacity.
Dostları ilə paylaş: |
