World Ocean Circulation Experiment
193
Getting people to think about the global problem was not so easy, if only because the costs seemed prohibitive. Figures 12.3 and 12.4 were drawn by me in early
1982 with a ruler and marking pen, simply to permit a rough calculation of what a
global hydrographic program would cost. The reaction that “we could never afford
that” was addressed by dividing the number of sections by about 5 years, and by the
number of institutions around the world capable of doing high-quality hydrographic
work. Although not cheap or easy, it was eventually agreed that such a program was
indeed manageable. The final WOCE hydrographic coverage is qualitatively somewhat like what was sketched. (At least one hydrographer had difficulty distinguishing
a scale analysis for cost purposes from a detailed plan and was so affronted by it,
he assured me that he was going to make certain that none of these lines would be
measured!)
The balancing of costs against scientific benefit, absent any quantitative tools for
determining the latter, was a major difficulty. Was it important, and worth the financial
costs and human effort, to deploy current meter moorings in the central South Pacific
Ocean where such measurements had never been made? Even today, with far more
capable models and ability to determine data impact on various estimated quantities,
such questions are rarely posed and answered quantitatively. Inevitably, WOCE in situ
observations were determined through complex negotiations in national and international meetings that gave great weight to the presence of people who had particular
observational capabilities, who wished to participate, and were capable of bringing
national resources with them to the program. (Funds under the control of the international WOCE steering groups were limited to less than what was necessary to maintain
a coordinating office in Wormley, U.K., and travel for the steering group members.) A
prime example of the debates taking place concerned the high costs of adding a major
transient and “exotic” tracer program to the WOCE hydrographic survey. B. Warren
(WHOI) had written a letter, 9 February 1987, to the U.S. cochairmen (W. Nowlin, C.
Wunsch) questioning whether the scientific payback from such measurements could
justify the very considerable expense, and whose most immediate impact would be
to reduce the spatial coverage of the program. Fierce debate ensued between proponents and skeptics of such measurements. Although some of the more burdensome of
the proposed measurements were dropped (argon-39 measurements, notably, would
have required huge sample volumes—several tons each—and the water could only
be analyzed in Bern, Switzerland), a largely political decision was made that without
tracer community participation and enthusiasm, the hydrographic program was unlikely to be fundable. A major tracer program thus was carried out. (It would now be
possible to answer the question of whether the scientific return from the tracer measurements was worth the cost and overall spatial and temporal coverage reduction,
but to my knowledge, no such study has been done. Sleeping dogs are probably best
left alone.)
Getting satellites flown (the WOCE planners sought not only what became
TOPEX/POSEIDON; but also the ERS-1 satellite; a scatterometer to measure the
windfield; as well as a gravity mission to provide for absolute altimetry) proved
193
Getting people to think about the global problem was not so easy, if only because the costs seemed prohibitive. Figures 12.3 and 12.4 were drawn by me in early
1982 with a ruler and marking pen, simply to permit a rough calculation of what a
global hydrographic program would cost. The reaction that “we could never afford
that” was addressed by dividing the number of sections by about 5 years, and by the
number of institutions around the world capable of doing high-quality hydrographic
work. Although not cheap or easy, it was eventually agreed that such a program was
indeed manageable. The final WOCE hydrographic coverage is qualitatively somewhat like what was sketched. (At least one hydrographer had difficulty distinguishing
a scale analysis for cost purposes from a detailed plan and was so affronted by it,
he assured me that he was going to make certain that none of these lines would be
measured!)
The balancing of costs against scientific benefit, absent any quantitative tools for
determining the latter, was a major difficulty. Was it important, and worth the financial
costs and human effort, to deploy current meter moorings in the central South Pacific
Ocean where such measurements had never been made? Even today, with far more
capable models and ability to determine data impact on various estimated quantities,
such questions are rarely posed and answered quantitatively. Inevitably, WOCE in situ
observations were determined through complex negotiations in national and international meetings that gave great weight to the presence of people who had particular
observational capabilities, who wished to participate, and were capable of bringing
national resources with them to the program. (Funds under the control of the international WOCE steering groups were limited to less than what was necessary to maintain
a coordinating office in Wormley, U.K., and travel for the steering group members.) A
prime example of the debates taking place concerned the high costs of adding a major
transient and “exotic” tracer program to the WOCE hydrographic survey. B. Warren
(WHOI) had written a letter, 9 February 1987, to the U.S. cochairmen (W. Nowlin, C.
Wunsch) questioning whether the scientific payback from such measurements could
justify the very considerable expense, and whose most immediate impact would be
to reduce the spatial coverage of the program. Fierce debate ensued between proponents and skeptics of such measurements. Although some of the more burdensome of
the proposed measurements were dropped (argon-39 measurements, notably, would
have required huge sample volumes—several tons each—and the water could only
be analyzed in Bern, Switzerland), a largely political decision was made that without
tracer community participation and enthusiasm, the hydrographic program was unlikely to be fundable. A major tracer program thus was carried out. (It would now be
possible to answer the question of whether the scientific return from the tracer measurements was worth the cost and overall spatial and temporal coverage reduction,
but to my knowledge, no such study has been done. Sleeping dogs are probably best
left alone.)
Getting satellites flown (the WOCE planners sought not only what became
TOPEX/POSEIDON; but also the ERS-1 satellite; a scatterometer to measure the
windfield; as well as a gravity mission to provide for absolute altimetry) proved