World Ocean Circulation Experiment
197
knowledge of the annual cycle of sea level from tide gauges (Patullo et al., 1955),
almost none of the spectrum had ever been measured.
The very success of WOCE has led to present difficulties in further pursuing
classical physical oceanography. Major issues now lie with determining how to maintain global-scale measurements for indefinite periods—largely taking them out of the
realm of possibility for academic oceanographers working on three- to-five-year grant
and six-year tenure cycles. Although many processes are still poorly understood, we
now have models on both regional and global scales that when constrained to our
WOCE-generated data sets clearly have skill, and are useful in a way that was not
true 20 years ago (e.g., Stammer et al., 2002). The increasing regional focus of much
of the literature is a paradoxical outcome of the success of the global experiment—
much interest now lies with specific regional variations in physical processes (e.g.,
tidal mixing variations) relative to the presumptive global averages.
8
Before WOCE, one could, for example, obtain funding to study the monsoon
regime of the western Indian Ocean for a year or two. What is now known of that
region, from WOCE and parallel efforts, leads to the conclusions that many years, and
probably many decades, of observation will be required to make a qualitative improvement in existing understanding—because of the very strong interannual variability
that must be accounted for.
Much of what we now take for granted (e.g., global altimetric maps of variability
every few days) was science fiction 20 years ago. Students entering the field since
about 1995 can, and should, take for granted the existence of a global data base,
ongoing efforts to estimate the time-evolving ocean with realistic-seeming models,
and a wide variety of remarkable instruments that emerged from WOCE (or during the
period in which WOCE evolved). But thousands of people from dozens of countries
made it all possible, and sometimes it is worth looking back to appreciate that we do
make some forward progress.
What of CAGE? It was a good idea, and to a great extent, WOCE subsumed
it.
9 As a token of how far we have progressed, Figure 12.6 shows the global transport
8 I am aware that these are sweeping generalizations to which there are many caveats and exceptions, but it
is also true that there has been a qualitative change in the way we do large-scale physical oceanography.
9 Bob Stewart was not particularly unhappy that his CAGE proposal was not per se, carried out. He was
a powerful supporter of WOCE, and efforts such as his were extremely important in gaining acceptance
for the program. What I did not realize at the time was that Stewart and other prominent physical
oceanographers were pleased with the WOCE proposal because it allowed them to shove aside a persistent
Soviet Union “Sections” proposal. A very senior Russian meteorologist, G. Marchuk, had for years
been advocating at international meetings a program for committing all oceanographic ships to repeated
hydrographic sections in regions that Marchuk claimed to have identified as controlling weather. Stewart,
H. Stommel, and others were fearful that the plan was going to gain acceptance and absorb much of
the world’s oceanographic efforts—all based upon one powerful man’s insistence. “Sections” was again
proposed at the same meeting where CAGE and WOCE were originally discussed, but was brushed aside.
Whatever misgivings Stewart et al. may have had about WOCE (and Stommel surely did), there was
some hope that something useful would come of it. Henry Stommel, who had been my thesis adviser and
remained a good friend, privately strongly deprecated the idea of WOCE, resorting on more than one
197
knowledge of the annual cycle of sea level from tide gauges (Patullo et al., 1955),
almost none of the spectrum had ever been measured.
The very success of WOCE has led to present difficulties in further pursuing
classical physical oceanography. Major issues now lie with determining how to maintain global-scale measurements for indefinite periods—largely taking them out of the
realm of possibility for academic oceanographers working on three- to-five-year grant
and six-year tenure cycles. Although many processes are still poorly understood, we
now have models on both regional and global scales that when constrained to our
WOCE-generated data sets clearly have skill, and are useful in a way that was not
true 20 years ago (e.g., Stammer et al., 2002). The increasing regional focus of much
of the literature is a paradoxical outcome of the success of the global experiment—
much interest now lies with specific regional variations in physical processes (e.g.,
tidal mixing variations) relative to the presumptive global averages.
8
Before WOCE, one could, for example, obtain funding to study the monsoon
regime of the western Indian Ocean for a year or two. What is now known of that
region, from WOCE and parallel efforts, leads to the conclusions that many years, and
probably many decades, of observation will be required to make a qualitative improvement in existing understanding—because of the very strong interannual variability
that must be accounted for.
Much of what we now take for granted (e.g., global altimetric maps of variability
every few days) was science fiction 20 years ago. Students entering the field since
about 1995 can, and should, take for granted the existence of a global data base,
ongoing efforts to estimate the time-evolving ocean with realistic-seeming models,
and a wide variety of remarkable instruments that emerged from WOCE (or during the
period in which WOCE evolved). But thousands of people from dozens of countries
made it all possible, and sometimes it is worth looking back to appreciate that we do
make some forward progress.
What of CAGE? It was a good idea, and to a great extent, WOCE subsumed
it.
9 As a token of how far we have progressed, Figure 12.6 shows the global transport
8 I am aware that these are sweeping generalizations to which there are many caveats and exceptions, but it
is also true that there has been a qualitative change in the way we do large-scale physical oceanography.
9 Bob Stewart was not particularly unhappy that his CAGE proposal was not per se, carried out. He was
a powerful supporter of WOCE, and efforts such as his were extremely important in gaining acceptance
for the program. What I did not realize at the time was that Stewart and other prominent physical
oceanographers were pleased with the WOCE proposal because it allowed them to shove aside a persistent
Soviet Union “Sections” proposal. A very senior Russian meteorologist, G. Marchuk, had for years
been advocating at international meetings a program for committing all oceanographic ships to repeated
hydrographic sections in regions that Marchuk claimed to have identified as controlling weather. Stewart,
H. Stommel, and others were fearful that the plan was going to gain acceptance and absorb much of
the world’s oceanographic efforts—all based upon one powerful man’s insistence. “Sections” was again
proposed at the same meeting where CAGE and WOCE were originally discussed, but was brushed aside.
Whatever misgivings Stewart et al. may have had about WOCE (and Stommel surely did), there was
some hope that something useful would come of it. Henry Stommel, who had been my thesis adviser and
remained a good friend, privately strongly deprecated the idea of WOCE, resorting on more than one