World Ocean Circulation Experiment
191
was interpreted as endorsement of a U.S. program by the Academy, and by the U.S.
government agencies which would have to fund it.
Internationally, the World Climate Research Program (WCRP, with headquarters in Geneva) through its own steering committee, was induced to appoint an international planning committee. The original committee membership was F. Bretherton,
W. S. Broecker, J. Crease, K. F. Hasselmann, M. P. Lefebvre, A. Sarkysian, J. Woods,
R. Kimura, and myself, as chairman. Because many of the results of WOCE bear directly on physical oceanographic problems, it is not widely recalled that WOCE was
a climate experiment—and was accepted as such by the WCRP. Many oceanographic
issues had to be resolved, but the goal was, and remained, to quantify the contribution of the ocean to control of the climate system, to provide a baseline against
which future climate change could be measured, to understand the extent to which its
variability existed, and what its consequences were.
There then proceeded to be several years of seemingly endless numbers of
meetings (well over a hundred) devoted to determining (1) what we were trying to
do and (2) how we would do it. Discussion meetings were focussed, variously, by
technology, by ocean basin, and by scientific goal. A framework with two overall goals
was produced (directed at producing data sets adequate to test the models expected
circa 1990, and determining what kind of observation program would be adequate
for indefinite monitoring of oceanic climate states, respectively).
A few events stand out. The initial WOCE planning envisaged including measurements and understanding of the ocean carbon uptake and redistribution problem,
as the fate of fossil-fuel CO 2 was one of the driving uncertainties. It quickly became
clear, both in U.S. national and international meetings, that the CO 2 problem could not
be dealt with as an appendage to a program primarily in the hands of physical oceanographers. A major problem was that serious technical disagreements existed among the
small community of people who measured oceanic CO 2 (e.g., C. D. Keeling, P. M.
Brewer, and others) as to how it could be, or should be, done. Expertise necessary to
distinguish between the competing arguments was not adequately represented on the
steering committees. Furthermore, at least one member of the international committee
(WMB) repeatedly insisted that WOCE should be a tracer measuring program alone,
with discussion of altimetric satellites, conventional hydrography, and the like being
a “dead end.”
7
7 Letter from Broecker, 30 August 1988 to C. Wunsch. It is perhaps worth quoting from this letter as it
demonstrates the divisions in the community over what needed to be done:
“ . . . the program is too much driven by satellite topography, rapid hydrographic sections
and inverse modeling. In my view the approach is basically a dead end. The great hope of
the future is atmospheric driven models.
I agree that atmospheric driven ocean models must fit the temperature and salinity field
(and that to some extent they currently fail this test.) However, one does not need a WOCE
program to generate an observed temperature and salinity distribution. We have a perfectly
adequate one for this purpose.”
The letter was copied to 31 colleagues around the country, and was representative of several others in
this vein, although more restrained than some.
191
was interpreted as endorsement of a U.S. program by the Academy, and by the U.S.
government agencies which would have to fund it.
Internationally, the World Climate Research Program (WCRP, with headquarters in Geneva) through its own steering committee, was induced to appoint an international planning committee. The original committee membership was F. Bretherton,
W. S. Broecker, J. Crease, K. F. Hasselmann, M. P. Lefebvre, A. Sarkysian, J. Woods,
R. Kimura, and myself, as chairman. Because many of the results of WOCE bear directly on physical oceanographic problems, it is not widely recalled that WOCE was
a climate experiment—and was accepted as such by the WCRP. Many oceanographic
issues had to be resolved, but the goal was, and remained, to quantify the contribution of the ocean to control of the climate system, to provide a baseline against
which future climate change could be measured, to understand the extent to which its
variability existed, and what its consequences were.
There then proceeded to be several years of seemingly endless numbers of
meetings (well over a hundred) devoted to determining (1) what we were trying to
do and (2) how we would do it. Discussion meetings were focussed, variously, by
technology, by ocean basin, and by scientific goal. A framework with two overall goals
was produced (directed at producing data sets adequate to test the models expected
circa 1990, and determining what kind of observation program would be adequate
for indefinite monitoring of oceanic climate states, respectively).
A few events stand out. The initial WOCE planning envisaged including measurements and understanding of the ocean carbon uptake and redistribution problem,
as the fate of fossil-fuel CO 2 was one of the driving uncertainties. It quickly became
clear, both in U.S. national and international meetings, that the CO 2 problem could not
be dealt with as an appendage to a program primarily in the hands of physical oceanographers. A major problem was that serious technical disagreements existed among the
small community of people who measured oceanic CO 2 (e.g., C. D. Keeling, P. M.
Brewer, and others) as to how it could be, or should be, done. Expertise necessary to
distinguish between the competing arguments was not adequately represented on the
steering committees. Furthermore, at least one member of the international committee
(WMB) repeatedly insisted that WOCE should be a tracer measuring program alone,
with discussion of altimetric satellites, conventional hydrography, and the like being
a “dead end.”
7
7 Letter from Broecker, 30 August 1988 to C. Wunsch. It is perhaps worth quoting from this letter as it
demonstrates the divisions in the community over what needed to be done:
“ . . . the program is too much driven by satellite topography, rapid hydrographic sections
and inverse modeling. In my view the approach is basically a dead end. The great hope of
the future is atmospheric driven models.
I agree that atmospheric driven ocean models must fit the temperature and salinity field
(and that to some extent they currently fail this test.) However, one does not need a WOCE
program to generate an observed temperature and salinity distribution. We have a perfectly
adequate one for this purpose.”
The letter was copied to 31 colleagues around the country, and was representative of several others in
this vein, although more restrained than some.