Global Change Research and NASA's Earth

Observing System

November 1993

OTA-BP-ISC-122

NTIS order #PB94-126992

GPO stock #052-003-01358-4
Recommended Citation:

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Global Change Research and

NASA’s Earth Observing System, OTA-BP-ISC- 122 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, November 1993).

ii
Foreword

T

he United States is spending billions of dollars in a multiyear Global Change

Research Program (the USGCRP) to monitor, understand, and ultimately

predict the nature of global changes and the mechanisms that cause them. This

background report examines the direction and scope of USGCRP and its most

expensive component, NASA’s Earth Observing System (EOS) of satellites. In

particular, it examines how well USGCRP and EOS are fulfilling their scientific

objectives, whether some program elements are missing or need to be strengthened, and

whether the program is meeting the needs of policymakers.

The background paper responds to issues raised in two related OTA reports: The

Future of Remote Sensing From Space: Civilian Satellite Systems and Applications,

undertaken by OTA’s International Security and Commerce Program, and Preparingfor

an Uncertain Climate, recently released by OTA’s Oceans and Environment Program.

Requesters for these assessments are the House Committee on Science, Space, and

Technology; the Senate Committees on Commerce, Science, and Transportation; and on

Environment and Public Works; the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees

on Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies; and

the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

This background paper describes a number of suggestions to improve the value of

the USGCRP to both scientists and policymakers. For example, it observes that the

USGCRP is focused narrowly on climate change. As a result, USGCRP may not be able

to provide decisionmakers and natural resource managers with the information they will

need to respond to other aspects of global change, The background paper also explicates

the continuing debate over whether the sensors and satellites planned by USGCRP: 1)

will be able to acquire data in sufficient detail to elucidate the mechanisms responsible

for global change; 2) are appropriate for long-term monitoring of key indices of global

change. Decades of continuous calibrated global observations from both space and

strategically located sites on the Earth’s land and oceans will be required to document

climate and ecosystem changes and for differentiating natural variability from changes

induced by human activities.

In undertaking this effort, OTA sought the contributions of a wide spectrum of

individuals and organizations, and several Federal agencies. OTA also drew heavily on

discussions at a 2-day workshop that assembled a small group of leading global change

researchers and current and former officials of the USGCRP and EOS programs. OTA

gratefully acknowledges their contributions; however, as with all OTA reports, the

contents are the sole responsibility of the Office of Technology Assessment.

a’+- -

Roger C. Herdman, Director

iii
Preject Staff

Peter Blair

Assistant Director

Industry, Commerce, and

International Security

Clyde J. Behney

Assistant Director

Health, Life Sciences,

and the Environment

Alan Shaw

Program Manager

International Security and

Commerce

Robert Niblock

Program Manager

Oceans and Environment

ANALYTICAL STAFF

ARTHUR CHARO

Ray Williamson

Rosina Bierbaum

Nadine Cutlerl

Sherry Showell2

CONTRIBUTORS

Mark Goodman

Paula Kern

ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

International Security and

Commerce Program

Jacqueline R. Boykin

Office Administrator

Louise Staley

Administrator Secretary

Madeline Gross

Contractor

Oceans and Environment

Program

Kathleen Beil

Office Administrator

Kimberly Holmlund

Administrative Secretary

IUntil June 1993.

‘From May 1993.

iv
workshop Participants

Workshop on the USGCRP and NASA’s Earth Observing Systeml

Jerry Mahlman, Chair

Director

NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory

Dan Albritton

Director

NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory

James G. Anderson

Professor

Departments of Chemistry and Earth

and Planetary Sciences

Harvard University

Francis P. Bretherton

Director

Space Science and Engineering Center

University of Wisconsin

Ronald Brunner

Professor

Center for Public Policy Research

University of Colorado

William Clark

Professor

John F. Kennedy School of Government

Harvard University

Robert W. Corell

Assistant Director, Geosciences

National Science Foundation

1Affiliations at time of workshop.

Jeff Dozier

Professor

Center for Remote Sensing and Advanced Optics

University of California at Santa Babara

John Eddy

Chief Scientist

Consortium for International Earth Science

Information Network (CIESIN)

Diane Evans

Deputy Program Manager

Earth and Space Sciences

NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

James Hansen

Director

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

Tony Janetos

Program Manager

Terrestrial Ecology

NASA Headquarters

Ari Patrinos

Director

Environmental Sciences Division

U.S. Department of Energy

Robert Watson

Director

Process Studies Program Office

NASA Headquarters

NOTE: 07A appreciates and is grateful for the valuble assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the workshop participants. The

participants do not, however, nessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report. OTA assumesfull responsibility for the report and the

accuracy of its contents.

v
contents

1

2

3

Summary and Findings 1

EOS and the USGCRP: the Current Program 3

USGCRP: Future Directions 6

USGCRP: Strengthening the Program 7

The Federal Research Program on Global Change 15

New Developments in USGCRP 20

Balance and the Future of USGCRP: Issues and Concerns 21

The EOS Program 25

The Evolution of the EOS Program 25

Is the Program Scientifically Sound? 31

EOS and Balance Within The USGCRP 39

APPENDIXES

A OTA’s Workshop Premise and Questions to

Participants 41

B Lessons From NAPAP 43
and

Findings 1

0

ver the past several decades, scientists and policymakers

have come to recognize that human activity can alter the

global environment significantly. Concerns have focused particularly on global warrning, the anticipated

result from emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon

dioxide, and on depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer, which

is linked to anthropogenic emissions of chlorofluorocarbons

(CFCS) and other chlorine-containing, molecular species. As

part of an international effort to evaluate such risks, the U.S.

Government established a comprehensive interagency research

effort in January 1989 to ‘‘monitor, understand, and ultimately

predict,” the nature of global changes and the mechanisms that

cause them.1 This effort, designated as the U.S. Global Change

Research Program (USGCRP), consists of both pre-existing and

new programs. Since its inception, cumulative government

expenditures for US GCRP-related programs have totaled some

$3.7 billion.

The largest single element of USGCRP research is the

National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’S)

Mission to Planet Earth (MTPE), a program that uses space and

ground-based instruments to study and understand global

1 Cornrnitkx on Earth Sciences (CES), Our Changing Planet: The FY 2990 Research

Plan (Washington DC: Cornrnittee on Earth Sciences, Executive Office of the President,

1989). The CES and its successor, the Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences

(CEES), were formed by the President’s Office of Science and Technology Policy.

1
2 I Global Change Research and NASA’s Earth Observing System

change. NASA’s Earth Observing System (EOS),2

which consists of a series of polar-orbiting and

low-inclination satellites for global observations

of the land surface, biosphere, solid Earth, atmosphere, and oceans, is the central component of the

MTPE (see ch. 3).

OTA’s examination of the direction and scope

of U.S. global change programs was prompted by

issues that include:3

●

●

●

public expressions of concern by several

knowledgeable scientists that the science

objectives of USGCRP might not be met,

sharp reductions in NASA’s long term funding plans for EOS and the curtailment of

other complementary components and initiatives within the USGCRP, and

concerns that the U.S. Global Change Research Program is focused too narrowly on

scientific understanding of climate change.

Years of effort and billions of dollars could

be misdirected if global change research programs do not focus on the right scientific and

policy questions, or if planned research programs, instruments, and instrument platforms

are inappropriate to address these questions.

As part of its assessment, OTA organized a

2-day workshop that examined how well

USGCRP and its EOS component were fulfilling

their scientific objectives, whether some program

elements were missing or needed to be strengthened, and whether the programs were meeting the

needs of policymakers. Workshop participants

were asked to evaluate global change research

programs with the spectific objective of improving

the organization and execution of the USGCRP—

they were not asked to debate the relative merits

of funding global change research versus competing priorities.

Workshop discussions focused primarily on:

●

●

●

areas of imbalance in each of the programs,

how USGCRP-sponsored scientific research

programs might better serve the needs of

policymakers, and

the organization and funding of both programs.

The workshop, held at OTA on February 25-26,

1993, assembled a small group of leading globalchange researchers and current and former officials of the USGCRP and EOS programs. This

background paper draws on the discussions of

that workshop and on two previous OTA reports.4

In preparing the background paper, OTA also

gathered information from articles, reports, and

private discussions with individuals representing

a wide variety of scientific and policy viewpoints.

This paper notes, where possible, areas of substantial agreement among workshop participants;

however, the conclusions reached in this paper

should be attributed to OTA unless stated otherwise.

In structuring the USGCRP, officials made

difficult compromises to match existing and

planned agency programs to authorized and

appropriated funding. Workshop participants were

not asked to pass judgment on the wisdom of

specific programmatic decisions, for example,

individual instrument selections for EOS satellites. Instead, starting with the premise that a

2 U.S. Congress, OffIce of Technology Assessment, The Future of Remote Sensingfiom Space: Civilian Satellite Systems and Applications,

OTA-ISC-558 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1993), ch. 5 and apps. A and B. For a chronology of program

restructuring, and a complete description of EOS technology see Ghassem Asrar and David Jon Dokkeq editors, EOS Reference Handbook

(Washington DC: Earth Science Support OffIce-National Aeronautics and Space Atistration, March 1993),

3 Impetus for this background paper also came from two related OTA assessments: ‘Civilian Earth Observation Systems, ’ an assessment

undertaken by OTA’s International Security and Commerce PrograrrL and ‘Preparing for an Uncertain Climate,’ an assessment within OTA’S

Oceans and Environment Program.

4 U.S. Congress, OffIce of Technology Assessment The Future of Remote Sensingfiom Space, op. cit. footnote 2; U.S. Congress, OffIcc

of Technoloyg Assessment, Preparing for an Uncertain Climate, OTA-O-563 (Washi.ngtoq DC: U.S. Government Printing OffIce, November

1993).
Chapter 1: Summary and Findings | 3

strengthened global change research program was

desirable, OTA sought a broad look at the

USGCRP to determine whether it would be

possible to improve existing programs. Appendix

A of this background paper presents OTA’s

workshop premise and questions to participants.

EOS AND THE USGCRP:

THE CURRENT PROGRAM

1. The research now funded through the

USGCRP will help answer some of the most

important questions of global change. Nevertheless, the USGCRP and its largest component, the Earth Observing System, could be

strengthened substantially by redirecting

existing funding and by adding some relatively modest funding for several critical

areas. Suggestions for improvement include:

l.a

I.b

Increasing funding for focused, processoriented 5 research to facilitate the detailed measurements essential to answering some of the key questions that underlie

the USGCRP’S research agenda (box l-A).

Instruments flown on aircraft and balloons,

and instruments placed at strategically

located sites on land, and on and beneath

the oceans, facilitate unique andcomplementary measurements to those planned for

satellites. They are also better able to meet

particular measurement needs on a shorter

term basis than satellite systems.6

Funding some comparatively inexpensive

1.c

l.d

l.e

correlative (ground-truth) measurements

via airborne or ground-based remote sensing methods to support satellite systems

and to monitor changes over time. According to OTA workshop participants, these

critical measurements have lacked funding

and professional attention. Workshop participants agreed that such measurements would

greatly enhance the scientific value of

measurements by the planned EOS system

of satellites. Costs for such efforts could

range up to a few tens of millions of dollars

each year.7

Increasing funding for the development

and procurement of Unpiloted Air Vehicles (UAVS) and lightweight instruments

specifically designed to gather data in

currently inaccessible regions of the atmosphere (see ch. 3).

Making greater use of smaller satellites. In

rescoping EOS to accommodate a substantially reduced funding program, program

officials deleted instruments necessary to

maintain continuity in the measurement of

several important climatological variables.

Small satellites could help fill these gaps

while also providing relatively low-cost

test beds for advanced technology.g

Adding a component speciafically tailored

to long-term monitoring of key indices of

global change. The Earth undergoes major

processes of change that are reckoned in

S Process studies wilJ typically be designed to elucidate the details of a particular mechanism of some geophysical, chemical, or biological

interaction for example, ozone depletion. They should be contrasted with the regular collection of data on climatological and other variables,

which is frequently referred to as monitoring.

G They are also neded for longer term measurements. This can be seen, for example, in the ongoing aircraft measurements that seek to

understand the phenomena responsible for ozone depletion through high resolution in-situ measurements.

T Programs to verify and calibrate Earth observation satellites (and to provide coverage when satellites are not operating) have been funded

at lower levels than originally planned. One workshop participant attributes this to the tendency to treat correlative measurements as merely

a secondary adjunct to the satellite measurements. In fact, correlative measurements: 1) are essential to the credibility of satellite measurements;

2) have proved unexpectedly diftlcult to perforrzu 3) are serious research endeavors in themselves.

s However, small satelites have significant weight and volume constraints that limit applications. For example, using near-term technology,

small satellites would be unable to acquire high spatial resolution data over wide swaths. For further discussion of small satellites and advanced

technology sensors see The Future of Remote Sensingfiom Space, op. cit., footnote 2, pp. 16-17; 128-135.
4 I Global Change Research and NASA’s Earth Observing System

Box l-A–Understanding the Mechanisms of Global Change

U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) officials believe their programs will address the most

pressing scientific questions related to global change. However, participants at the OTA workshop reflected

divisions within the scientific community when they considered the question of whether USGCRP and its largest

component, EOS, had an appropriate strategy to expose the mechanisms that govern global change phenomena.

Much of this dispute centers on the balance in USGCRP between satellite-based measurements and ground-and

airborne-based measurements.

The overarching questions related to global change are obvious. In climate, for example, they include whether

the average global climate is changing; if it is, what are its causes; and what would be the effect of exercising

different policy options. However, to address these questions requires answers to a series of much more detailed

questions, many of which cannot be answered using only satellite-based instrumentation. For example, water

vapor and clouds are the dominant regulators of the radiative heating of the planet. However, continuous in-situ

observations from the surface to some 25 km altitude are required to answer the following questions:

1. How do clouds and water vapor affect the amount and distribution of solar energy that is available to the

planet;

2. How do clouds and water vapor regulate the amount of thermal energy that leaves the planet; and

3. How might this balance might be affected in response to climate changes, for example, a future

atmosphere that contains larger concentrations of greenhouse gases.

Understanding the mechanisms responsible for the onset of ozone depletion also requires in-situ and

ground-based studies. Average ozone concentrations over wide areas can be monitored by satellite, but an

understanding of the interacting processes governing the formation of the Antarctic ozone ‘hole’ has been possible

only by analyzing in-situ data gathered by high-altitude aircraft and balloons. In fact, scientists were surprised to

learn that extremely high resolution simultaneous measurements of several species of gases were required to

understand the chemical and physical mechanisms responsible fort deformation of the Antarctic ozone hole. This

knowledge has direct bearing on a question of keen interest to U.S. decision makers-where and how fast ozone

loss might occur over northern latitudes.

scales of decades to millennia.9 Decades of

continuous calibrated global observations

from space and at strategically located

sites on the Earth’s land and oceans will be

required to document climate and ecosystem changes and for differentiating natural

variability from human-induced changes.

Determining an appropriate architecture

for the space-based segment of a long-term

monitoring system has proved especially

controversial. As planned, EOS will last

only 15 years; however, program officials

expect some research instruments may

eventually be transferred to the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Adstration

(NOAA) for routine data collection (the

NOAA “operational” satellite program)

over a longer term. NOAA would require

augmentation of its budget to incorporate

the costs of better instrument calibration

and other features necessary to make them

suitable to document global change. Some

participants expressed doubt that future

administrations or Congresses would provide the necessary additional funding; they

advocated the design and launch of small

9 Our Changing Planet: op. cit., footnote 1.
Chapter 1: Summary and Findings | 5

A balanced program to study and monitor global change would include long-term local, regional, and global

observations, process studies, theoretical modeling, and assessments. iVWrkshop participants agreed that a

carefully balanced program of in-situ and satellite observations is necessary to address the fundamental scientific

issues that underlie the USGCRP research agenda.

Much of the controversy over whether USGCRP is “scientifically sound” is centered on the plans for the Earth

Observation System program. Embedded in this dispute is the issue of whether large and comparatively expensive

polar-orbiting satellites are suitable both for studying Earth processes and for long-term monitoring of

climatologicai and other variables related to global change. Some participants believe that the high cost and

scientific imitations of the present EOS program argue for comprehensive reviews followed by program

restructurings. Others believe the program has already undergone sufficient review. Related to this is the argument

that the best is the enemy of the good, and timely execution of research plans will yield greater scientific return

than that which might follow a further restructuring.

EOS officials reject the criticism that planned sateillte-based instruments have not been designed to answer

specific key questions. Furthermore, they argue that the program cannot tolerate substantive restructurin~t

least in the near term. However, as noted in the text, a successful long-term program will be possible only if

mechanisms are in place to facilitate mid-course corrections in project planning to account for shifting scientific

priorities, changes in technology, and scientific surprises. Workshop proposals to strengthen global change

programs included redirecting some funds for “ground-truth” and correlative measurements and for augmenting

such potentially cost-effective programs as unpiloted air vehicles (see ch. 3).

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.

satellites specifcally tailored for environ- toring of global change; and

mental monitoring. 10 Chapter 3 summaries ● interest in possible ‘ ‘convergence’ of satelone such proposal for a small satellite to lite systems designed to meet the needs of

measure global climate radiative ‘‘forc- the USGCRP, NOAA, and the Department

ings and feedbacks. ’ 11 of Defense. 12

Other elements in the debate over whether EOS Workshop participants differed on whether or

should be restructured include: not funds for augmenting the USGCRP (and its

EOS component) should come from redirecting

● concerns that the funding for satellites already tight budgets. In particular, this dispute

planned to overlap and succeed the frost separated those participants who believed NASA

series of EOS polar orbiters will not materi- could achieve its scientific objectives for EOS

alze; with the planned system and those who believed

● questions about whether NASA is the appro- the program would benefit from an independent,

private agency to undertake long-term moni- comprehensive review, followed by restructuring.

10 sw satellites me already pti of the NASA’S Mission to Planet Earth. As part of its Earth Probes program NASA is funding s~

satellites that are precursors or adjuncts to the EOS missions. These include the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (T’OMS), the Sea-viewing,

Wid&Field-of-View Sensor (Sea-WiFS), which will be launched on Orbital Science Corp. ’s SeaStar satellite, and the Tropical Rainfall

Measuring Mission (TRMM).

1 I &diative forcings are c~nges imposed On the planetary energy balance; radiative feedbacks are changes induced by climate Chnge (see

bOX 3-D).

12 See app. J3 and app. C of The Future of Remote Sensing porn Space, CIP. cit., fOOtnOte 2.
6 I Global Change Research and NASA’s Earth Observing System

Both sides in this debate agreed that substantive restructuring of EOS could not be accomplished without, in effect, designing a new global

change research program. EOS has already been

pared to a system ‘‘with a minimum set of

instruments to pursue the focused objective of

global climate change, ”13 According to NASA,

‘‘undoubtedly, further budget cuts would require

wholesale elimination of instruments, thus information critical to understanding global climate

change [would be lost]. 14 Attempting to design a

restructured global change research program—

either to refocus the program scientifically, or to

accommodate possible future funding shortfalls

—was beyond the scope of the OTA workshop.

USGCRP: FUTURE DIRECTIONS

2. As currently structured, USGCRP will not

be able to provide decisionmakers and

natural resource managers with the information they will need to respond to global

change. The USGCRP is overwhelmingly a

physical sciences program aimed at observing,

understanding, and predicting climate change.

However, global change encompasses possible

alterations in the Earth’s environment other

than climate. If the USGCRP is to become a

comprehensive program to study the causes

and potential responses of global change, it

would benefit from the following suggested

improvements:

2.a Broadening the scientific scope of

USGCRP to include aspects of global

environmental change other than climate

change. Several workshop participants believe that determining the extent, causes,

and regional consequences of global cli2.b

2.C

mate change, the highest priorities in

USGCRP, are not the most pressing issues

in global change research. Issues cited as

more pressing include the consequences of

loss of ecosystems and biodiversity, increases in population, and changes in

land-use. 15 A broadened program would

include research on ozone depletion, changes

in biodiversity and forest distributions,

desertification, and changes in ocean and

coastal ecosystems.

Strengthening research efforts on the impacts of climate change on society and the

natural world. This would include research on adaptation to, and mitigation of,

climate change. In particular, USGCRP

should strengthen research on potential

changes in ecosystems, such as species

composition, and the effects of climate

change on agriculture, energy use, and

other economic activities. Research on

important ecological changes have been

either ignored by USGCRP or addressed

only to the extent that they interact with the

climate system.

Defining and giving greater emphasis to

the newly established assessment element

in USGCRP. Maintaining the policy relevance of scientific research to the decisionmaking process over the long term requires

effective methods to integrate and communicate research results from diverse disciplines (box l-B). USGCRP integrated

assessments can be used to identify key

societal concerns related to global change,

integrate research results from multiple

disciplines, analyze potential responses,

13 E(LQ Reference Handbook, Op. Cit., fOOtIIOtC 2, p. 12.

14 Ibid.

IS Biodivmsity Wm cited ss a critical issue because, according to one participan~ “we are in the middle of an extinction that is unsurpassed

in the geological record that is clearly due to human influence. ’ Population changes and land-use changes are of critical importance to densely

settled developing nations.
Chapter 1: Summary and Findings 17

and assist in the definition and periodic

review of scientific research programs.l6

Scientific research should inform the

policy process by bringing to the attention

of policymakers the research results that

could affect political decision making.

Past research efforts, such as the National

Acid Precipitation Assessment Program

(NAPAP), have suffered because policymakers have not always understood the

limitations of scientific research and scientists have not always understood the needs

and time-scales for decisions of the policy

making community (app. B). The OTA

workshop concluded that programs within

the USGCRP would benefit if 1) policymakers had a better understanding of

what they were buying with government

research dollars; and 2) policymakers had

better mechanisms for measuring program

progress .17

USGCRP: STRENGTHENING

THE PROGRAM

Fulfilling the USGCRP’S objectives will require long-term institutional and financial commitments, a greater commitment by non-NASA

participating government agencies, and improved

mechanisms for program review and coordination. A global environmental monitoring program

will, by necessity, also require a broad-based

international effort.

3. A successful global change research program—like any long-term research effort—

must allow for redirection, substitution, or

termination of program elements in light of

new discoveries, advances in technology,

and changing needs of policy makers.

Workshop participants had several suggestions

for facilitating redirection and for improving the

management of global change research. These

included undertaking periodic, comprehensive

reviews of the scientificc foundations of USGCRP

and EOS programs under the auspices of an

independent scientific body such as the National

Academy of Sciences (NAS). These reviews

should:

●

●

●

●

be completed in 6 to 9 months (faster than

the typical NAS study),18

strive to include independent representatives

from the science community and other

relevant experts,

not be so frequent as to delay progress, and

be chartered to recommend both the elimination of ineffective programs and the creation

of new programs.

Workshop participants were adamant that the

review process should be sheltered from political

pressures to redirect programs according to the

‘‘crisis of the day. ’

4. The U.S. Global Change Research Program

has suffered from fragmentation of research efforts.

The USGCRP could benefit from closer connections with its Research Program on the Economics of Global Change. This program seeks to

evaluate the likely magnitude of societal costs

and benefits of global change, and evaluates

options designed to limit adverse economic and

social consequences. Similarly, the USGCRP

16 However, ~ever~ ~or~hop p~cipants s~ongly caution~ against too much emphasis on ‘ ‘top-down’ management of basic Scientflc

research. As one pa.rlicipant explained, ‘‘Basic science research can be guided by the assessment component only in part. The acceptance of

the unpredictability of important parts of scientilc progress is fundamental to optimal progress.’

17 one of tie more recent attempts to bridge the gap between science research and the policy process iU USOCRP WaS to introduce scientwlc

“milestones’ or goals that can be easily identified by poIicymakers to help keep track of progress and program direction, However, this

approach has had only limited success. According to one workshop participan~ “the [scientific] community hasn’t really bought off on those

milestones . . . unless the community . . . feel[s] a sense of ownership of that list, it is not only worthless, it is counter productive. ”

18 Udess it is pm of an ongoing effort, a typical NAS study generally requires some 18 montis.
8 I Global Change Research and NASA’s Earth Observing System

Box l-B-Science, Public Policy, and Integrated Assessments

A central objective of the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) is to gain a predictive

understanding of global change phenomena A key assumption is that policymakers will be able to use this

knowledge to mitigate global change and /or craft suitable adaptive responses. However, scientific understanding

of global change will not be sufficient for policy purposes if it isn’t also coupled with a mechanism to communicate

results in an understandable manner. Even then, policy prescriptions will differ because of differences in veiwpoint

that enter as part of the political process.1

Policymakers and scientists have different educational and professional backgrounds. Integrated

assessments of global change area mechanism for synthesizing all of the scientific, economic, and social aspects

of a particular issue and presenting findings in “policy-relevant” language. Although assessments were not

included in the original USGCRP program, they are included in a rudimentary form in the fiscal year (FY) 1994

budget. The primary function of the Assessment working group is to:

.,. document the state of scientific knowledge and address the implications of the science of global change for

national and international poilcy-making activities over a broad spectrum of globai and reginal environmental

issues.z

The group will also help coordinate the scientific assessments of global change with related assessments

on environmental impacts, technologies for adaptation and mitigation, risk assessment and policy-response

strategies.3

Although the FY 1994 budget proposal reflects these changes, it is unclear how much money agencies will

allocate for assessment and how the assessments will be structured. The Fy 1994 budget does not show

Assessment separately but, instead, embeds it within the other three USGCRPactivity streams-docu mentation,

process research, and integrated modeling and prediction (see ch. 2). Comprehensive assessments cannot be

carried out withhout expanding the ecological and socio-economic aspects of the program and incorporating

impacts research. The FY 1994 budget does not reflect any significant expansion in these areas.

1 Ronald D. Brunner and William Asoher, “Science and Sooial Responsibility,” %dai &$btW3S, d. 25, No. 4,

1992, pp. 295-331. lltis view is recognized by the Nationai Academy of Sciences, which has noted, “NO matter how good

the science, environmental probfemscannot besolvedwithout integrating thesciencewithenvironmerttal policy.” National

Research Counai, Research to Proteot, Restore, and Manage the Environment (Washington, DC: National Academy

Press, 1993).

2 Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences (CEES), Our Changing Planet: The FY 1994 U.S. Giobal

Change Research Program (Washington, DC: CEES, 1993),

3 cor~i, R,w., Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences, Subcommittee on @Obal Change Reswti, and

Geosciences, Nationai Science Foundation, testimony before the House Subcommittee on Spaoe, Committee on

Science, Space, and Technology, Mar, 30, 1993,

could benefit from closer coordination with research on natural resources and impacts of

ongoing Federal efforts to develop “environ- climate change. 19 With these elements fully incormental technologies’ appropriate to global porated, USGCRP would be better able to address

change mitigation and adaptation strategies. Cur- the full spectrum of issues associated with global

rently, such research is not a formal element of the change.

USGCRP (figure l-l), nor is ecosystem-wide

19 See U.S. Conwess, Office of Technology Assessmen~ Preparing for an uncertain Cli/Mte, Op. Cit., footnote 4, fOr a discussion Of ti=e

issues.
Chapter 1: Summary and Findings | 9

Nonetheless, the Clinton administration has expressed interest in significantly broadening the USGCRP to

include studies of environmental and socio-economic impacts and of mitigation and adaptation strategies.4 If t his

research materializes, it could be integrated with research on Earth systems processes to conduct integrated

assessments. The expanded program is expected to be reflected in the IV 1995 USGCRP budget.

Integrated assessments could help determine the importance of the problems presented by global change

relative toot her policy problems, outline alternative policies to respond to global change, and explain the benef its

and drawbacks of various responses and implementation strategies. Just as important, integrated assessments

may help guide research by identifying key assumptions, uncertainties, gaps, and areas of agreement. However,

integrated assessments have important limits. In particular, their predictive power is limited because they must

implicitly or explicitly include assumptions about the political setting, which can be upset by dramatic and

unpredictable changes in the structure of economic or political systems.

The accuracy of models of future energy consumption that were generated in the late 1970s provides an

instructive lesson. The predictions of these models about per capita energy consumption, and the policy

recommendations that followed from them, were dramatically undercut by the 1979 Arab oil embargo, which

encouraged consumers to cut their oil consumption.5 In addition, because energy models were necessarily

comprehensive on national or global scales, they obscured regional differences that were critical to political

debates in Congress.

The global change research community faces the challenge of devising assessments that minimize disruption

of ongoing programs while still allowing for redirection of program elements in light of new discoveries, advances

in technology, and changing long-term needs of policy makers.

4 J.H, Gibbons, Assktant to the Presjdent for Science and Technology, memorandum to Frwedck M. ~rnthal,

Acting Director, National Science Foundation, July 8, 1993.

5&e Brunner and Ascher, Op. dt.

SOURCE: Office of Tectmology Assessment, 1993.

5. The current authorization and appropri- The congressional budget process typically

ations process guarantees that L’SGCRP, a

multidiscipline, multiagency program to

understand the Earth as a system, will be

examined by Congress largely in disaggregate pieces. This affects the effectiveness of

congressional oversight of the Program. It

also results in agency shares of USGCRP

remaining approximately fixed from year

to year.

Jurisdictional barriers between authorizing committees and multiple appropriations from separate

only allows small percentage changes in agency

budgets from year to year. As a result, funds for

new global change research may be easier to

obtain through a small percentage increase in

NASA’s USGCRP budget ($921 million in fiscal

year (FY) 1993) than, for example, NOAA’s

USGCRP budget ($67 million in FY 1993) or

DO1’S USGCRP budget ($37.7 million in FY

1993). The unintended effect of this budget

process is that NASA plays a de facto leading role

in both space and surface-based global change

subcommittees limit Congress’ ability to view the research programs,

USGCRP as a whole. According to workshop 6.

participants, this capability is one of the strengths

of the executive branch's FCCSET (Federal

Coordinating Council for Science, Education, and

Technology) process.

Restoring the authority of the Committee

on Earth and Environmental Science (CEES)

of the FCCSET to fence off agency budgets

might improve the balance of resource

allocations among agencies and between
10 I Global Change Research and NASA’s Earth Observing System

Figure l-lA—Organizational Chart for the Federal Coordinating Council

for Science, Engineering, and Technology (FCCSET)

I I

[ John H. Gibbons

FCCSET membership Chair

DOS DOEd HUD I I

DOD DOL OMB

DOI DOT NASA

USDA VA EPA

DOC GSA NSC

DOE HHS NSF

~ —

1 I

FCCSET Secretariat

Charles Dickens, Executive Secretary

Elizabeth Rodriguez, Senior Policy Analyst

Alicia Dustira, Senior Policy Analyst

I I I L

CEES CISET

Committee on Earth and Committee on International Science,

Environmental Sciences Engineering and Technology

Frederick M. Bernthal (NSF), Chair Chair vacant

CFAFR CEHR

Committee on Food, Agriculture and Committee on Education and

Forestry Research Human Resources

Chair vacant Luther Williams (NSF), Acting Chair

L

CPMES CLSH

Committee on Physical, Mathematical Committee on

and Engineering Sciences Life Sciences and Health

Frederick M. Bernthal (NSF), Acting Chair David Galas (DOE), Acting Chair

CTI

Committee on Technology and Industry

Chair vacant

NOTE: for definition of terms, see figure l-B, next page.

(Continueo)

satellite and non-satellite program elements Several participants at the OTA workshop recom-

(box 1-C and ch. 3).20 mended the reinstatement of such a system.

During the first years of the program, USGCRP 7.

required agencies to ‘‘fence off,’ or commit their

global change research budget requests to the

Program. Agencies could not later reprogram this

money if overall funding was less than expected.

NASA has been able to attract large amounts

of funding for its Earth Observing System;

however, potentially cost effective, but less

glamorous programs outside NASA have

languished.

20 ~ Septemkr 1993, Resident Clinton announced the formation of a new science policy coordinating body, the “National Science and

Technology Council. ” It is unclear what effect of the Council on the FCCSET process for funding USGCRP will be.
Chapter 1: Summary and Findings I 11

Figure I-l B—Organizational Chart for the Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences (CEES)

CEES principal

members represent..

DOS DOT EPA

DOD HHS NSF

DOI HUD CEQ

USDA OMB S1

DOC OSTP NRC

DOE NASA TVA

NIEHS FEMA ICA

L —

‘z....+__ 1+5!!%!!!!3 Frederick M. Bernthal (NSF)

L ’

-

CEES Secretariat

Penelope Flrth, Executive Secretary

Sylvla Edgerton, Senior Science Associate

Betty Wong, Professional Assistant

7 - -

T

—A

SGCR

Subcommittee on

Global Change Research ‘

I Roberi Corell (NSF), Chair

1 —

r

. — l

—

‘

--””--;:i%eo

[ . — ——. –——–

Joseph Bordogna (NSF), Intenm Chair

Environmental Technology

—T——. . J +

1

--—–--–..--1--- - ---- —---

SERNRE

1---- Subcomm Mee on

Economic Research on Natural

Resources and the Environment

Joseph Stlglkz (CEA), Chair

———— –——–- ——–—-——I

r ‘

—– — ..L -..-.-–- ,

I

SNDR

Subcommittee on

Natural Disaster Reduction

Robert Hamilton (USGS), Chair

r

- ~——

Suscos

Subcommdtee on

U.S. Coastal Ocean Science

Donald Scavla (NOAA), Acting Chair

L ~— .

[

~ —

SWR -

Subcommittee on

Water Resources

Stephen Ragone (USGS), Chair

I

L — –– -— —————. –

~ 

.—— —~.. --– -

SAR SFOFC

Subcommktee on Subcommittee on Federal

Atmospheric Researc h Oceanographic Fleet Coordinahon

Richard Greenfleld (NSF), Acting Chair R. Adm. Peterson (NOAA), Chair

‘--”-”k-.. . ‘

-- - ‘:: ‘--

~.- ’

PEGI

Working Group for Private Enterprise/

Government InteractIons u

Wllllam Busch (NOAA), Chair j -. — .

NOTE: DOS= Department of State; DOD= Department of Defense; DOl=Department of the Interior; USDA=U.S. Department of Agriculture;

DoC=Department of Commerce; DOE_ Department of Energy; DOEd_Department of Education; DOL_Department of Labor; DOT_ Department of

Transportation; VA- Department of Veterans Affairs; GSA_ General Services Administration; HHS_Department of Health and Human Services;

HUD= Department of Housing and Urban Development; OMB=Office of Management and Budget; NASA= National Aeronautics and Space

Administration; EPA-Environmental Protection Agency; NSC_National Security Council; NSF-National science Foundation; NIEHS-National

Institute of Environmental and Health Sciences; OSTP-Office of Science Technology Policy; FEMA-Federal Emergency Management Agency;

CEO-Council on Environmental Quality; Sl_Smithsonian Institution; NRC-National Research Council; TVA_ Tennessee Valley Authority;

ICA=lntelligence Community Affairs; CEA=Council of Economic Advisors; USGS=U.S. Geological Survey; NOAA-National Cceanic and

Atmospheric Administration.

SOURCE: Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences (CEES), Our Changing FYarwt: The FY 1994 U.S. G/oba/ Change Research Program

(Washington, DC: CEES, 1993).
12 | Global Change Research and NASA’s Earth Observing System

Box 1-C-FCCSET and USGCRP Budgets

The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) is designed to integrate the research programs from

11 agencies through the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Education,and Technology (FCCSH)

Committee on Earth and Environmental Saences (CEES). As a result the development of its budget within the

Executive Branch follows a somewhat unusual process. USGCRP’S budget, like that of individual agencies, is

negotiated through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).The process begins with OMB supplying terms

of reference that guide agency submissions. Each agency participating in USGCRP then submits detailed

proposals to the CEES for what they believe to be their best contribution to the USGCRP. The Committee, with

guidance from OMBand OSTP, evaluates these proposals, makes recommendations on program allocations, and

returns the budget for agency comment. The CEES then prepares a recommendation to the OMB. After

negotiations with participating agencies, this recommendation is integrated into the Agency Budget submission

to the OMB.

Internal budget negotiations culminate with the presentation of a single budget for global change research

that spells out individual agency responsibilities in detail. By evaluating agency proposals as part of an integrated

program, CEES and OMB attempt to avoid duplication of effort and make optimal use of agency expertise.

An agreement that had been in effect between OMB and agencies during the first 3 years of the USGCRP

required agencies to fence off monies for global change research in return for an OMB commitment to an overall

funding envelope over 5 years. In effect, agency heads agreed to their global change research budgets once t he

process of negotiation with OMB and CEES was complete. Thus, an agency could not reprogram global change

funds if it later suffered an unexpected cut in its overall budget.

The prohibition on reprogramming global change funds ended in FY 1993. However, several workshop

participants believe that agency freedom to reprogram budgets is detrimental to program financial stability. They

also believe it exacerbates the problem of insufficient contributions by agencies other than NASA, which has led

to a comparative lack of funding for non space-based program elements.

In September 1993, President Clinton approved the formation of the National Science and Techhnology

Council. The President expects the Council to oversee the administration’s research and development budget,

coordinate science policy, and ensure that the administration’s research and development priorities are reflected

in agency budgets. According to the President’s science adviser, John Gibbons, the Council will have “great

powers of persuasion” as individual agencies develop their research and development budgets each year and it

will operate “in parallel” with preliminary discussions between each agency and OMB.1 The effect of the Council

on the FCCSET process for funding USGCRP was unclear at the time this report went to press.

1 Gimns quoted in Jeffrey Mwvis, “Clinton Moves to Manage Science,” Science, vol. 261, No. 5129, *pt. 24,

1993, pp. 1666-1669.

SOURCE: office of Technology Asses.smenL 1993.

To date, funding for non space-based compo- participants believe that instruments based on

nents of USGCRP has been difficult to secure, in ground, ocean, or airborne platforms, sponsored

part because it requires support from agencies by agencies such as NSF, NOAA, and DOE,

other than NASA.21 For example, workshop could provide more cost-effective return on new

21 For eWple, p~cipants noted titthe success of U.S. participation in international prOgHitn.S such as the World @e~ C~CUktiOI~

Experiment (W(XE), the Tropical Oceans Global Atmosphere (TOGA), and the Joint Global Ocean Flux Study (JGOFS) depended on

contributions from NASA, NOAA, and the National Science Foundation (NSF). However, in a recent budget cycle, NASA received more than

it asked for these programs white NOAA and NSF received no money. (To maintain these programs, NASA was forced to fill the fwncial

gap left by inadequate funding from NOAA and NSF.)
Chapter 1: Summary and Findings I 13

global change finds than instrument alternatives

placed in orbit as part of NASA’s Earth Observing System. Others, while agreeing that non

space-based elements in USGCRP should be

augmented, noted that satellite-based instruments

facilitate global, synoptic, and repeatable measurements of many Earth systems.

8. Gathering sufficient data to resolve global

change issues requires financial and institutional commitments that transcend political

and budgetary cycles.

Global change programs must be sustained for

decades to study ecological system processes, to

monitor the planetary energy balance and understand climate forcing and feedbacks, to monitor

the storage and transport of heat within the ocean,

and to monitor the movement of carbon between

the oceans and atmosphere. The timescale for

documenting global change vastly exceeds the

periods that characterize budget and election

cycles.

9. An effective global environmental monitoring network cannot be achieved without

the cooperation of nations throughout the

world.

A credible global environmental monitoring

system would utilize satellite-based instruments,

aircraft-based instruments, and literally thousands of surface-based instruments sited around

the globe. It would also require countries to

cooperate much more closely on global change

research than they now do.

There are both scientific and practical reasons

for developing such collaborations. Quantitative

assessments of changes in the global environment

will require systematic, continuous, long-term

(decades to centuries), calibrated measurements

of Earth systems. A commitment from all nations,

especially those in developing regions of the

world, is necessary to develop and sustain such an

effort. Furthermore, international cooperation is

necessary to fashion a monitoring system appropriate to different gee-political regions. Regional

differences affect scientific methodology; for

example, discovering appropriate indices of global

change. They also have a profound influence in

determing g which policies will be sustainable in

the long term.
The Federal

Research

Program

on Global

Change 2

I

t has been nearly 5 years since the establishment of the U.S.

Global Change Research program (USGCRP).1 USGCRP

was instituted to respond to

scientific data and research results that strongly indicate that

there are changes in the Earth’s environment that could lead to

global warming, ozone depletions, changes in biodiversity and

forest distributions, desertification, and other global environmental issues, all of which have potentially significant local,

regional, and global effects of vital importance to mankind.2

The USGCRP research plan was developed by the Committee

on Earth Sciences (now the Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences), an interagency group under the Federal

Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology

(FCCSET) in the Office of Science and Technology Policy

(OSTP) in the Office of the President (figure 1-1).3 It was the first

1 The USGCRP was formally announced as a Presidential Initiative in a January 1989

report of the Committee on Earth Sciences: Our Changing Planet: A U.S. Strategy for

Global Change Research, which accompanied President Bush’s fiscal year 1990 Budget

request.

2 Robert W. Corell, Chairman, CEES Subcommittee on Global Change Research and

Assistant Director for Geosciences, NationaJ Science Foundation testimony before the

House of Representatives, Committee on Science Space and Technology, Subcommittee

on Space, Mar. 30, 1993.

3 The FCCSET is composed of cabinet secretaries, deputy secretaries, and heads of

independent federal agencies. The director of the White House Office of Science and

Technology Policy serves as its chairman.

15
16 | Global Change Research and NASA’s Earth Observing System

of several FCCSET initiatives to which the Bush

administration gave the status of “Presidential

Initiative.

From its inception until fiscal year (FY) 1994,

three “activity streams,” or program elements,

defined the mission of USGCRP:5

1.

2.

3.

Documentation and Analysis of Earth

system changes, which includes observation—using both ground- and space-based

observation systems—and data management;

Process Research to enhance the understanding of the physical, geological, chemical, biological, and social processes that

influence Earth systems behavior; and

Integrated Modeling and Prediction of

Earth systems processes.

In FY 1994, USGCRP officials added a fourth

activity stream, Assessment.

Originally, organizers envisioned USGCRP

as a complete global change research program,

covering research on most aspects of natural

and human-induced change and their impacts.

However, in designing USGCRP and setting its

research priorities, the Committee on Earth and

Environmental Sciences (CEES) drew heavily

from the existing activities of several organizations reviewing global change issues, especially

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(IPCC-box 2-A).6 This accounts, in part, for the

decision by the CEES Subcommittee on Global

Box 2-A-The Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(lPCC), chartered in 1988, is an intergovernmental

body Sponsored jointly by the World Meteorological

Organization and the United Nation’s Environmental

Programme. The group’s three working groups are

charged with:

1. assessing thescientific understanding of natural

and human-hduoed climate change;

2. assessing likely impacts resulting from such

change; and

3. considering possible response strategies for

limiting or adapting to climate change.

In 1990, the IPCC produced three documents

outlining the current state of knowledge about climate

change entitled: The IPCC Scientific Assessment, The

IPCC Impacts Assessment and the IPCC Response

Strategies The IPCC pubished an update of the

science assessment in 1992 and is scheduled to

complete another full assessment in 1995.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment,1993

Change Research, which is responsible for the

overall direction of the USGCRP, to designate

research programs aimed at improved understanding of Climate and Hydrologic Systems as

USGCRP’S highest priority (figure 2-l).

CEES evaluates USGCRPprograrns according

to several criteria: relevance and contribution to

the overall goals of the program, scientific merit,

4 The Clinton administration now refers to these as Strategic Initiatives. They are: advanced materials and processing, high performance

computing and communications, global climate change, manufacturing technology and science, biotechnology research and science, and math

and engineering education. D. Allan Brornley, Assistant to then President Bush for scicmce and technology, developed the IWCSET initiatives

as a means to pursue a select few high-profde, relatively high cost prograrna, requhing coordination among multiple Federal agencies and

departments.

Some scientists, especially in academi~ have criticized FCCSET’S focus on a few applied research and technology initiatives on grounds

that they divert funds from basic research, Proponents of the FCCSET initiatives counter that basic research may, in fac~ bentilt from FCCSET

initiatives because basic research performed in support of a highly visible applied objective is more likely to be immune fmm congressional

or agency tiding reallocations.

5 Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences (CEES), Our Changing Planet: The FY 1994 U.S. Global Change Research Program

(Washingto~ DC: CEES, 1993).

6 In addition to the FCC, USGCRP was influenced by studies undertaken by National Academy of Sciences @AS), the World Climate

Research Program (WCRP) of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the International Council of ScienM1c Unions (ICSU), and

the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program (IGBP).
I

Figure 2-l—Priority Framework for USGCRP

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

. Support broad U.S. and International scientific effort

● Identify natural and human-induced changes

● Focus on interactions and Interddisciplianary science

. Share financlal burden, use the best resources, and encourage

full participation

INTEGRATING PRIORITIES

. Documentation of Earth system change

● Observational programs

● Data-management systems

. Focused studies on controlling processes and

Improved understanding

. Integrated conceptual and predlctive models

I I I I I I

Climate and

hydrologic systems

Role of clouds

Ocean circulation

and heat flux

Land/at m/ocean

water and energy

fluxes

Coupled climate

system and

quantltahve Ilnks

Ocean/atm/cryosphere Interactions

Bio eochemical

dynamics

Blo/atm/ocean fluxes

of trace species

Atm processing of

trace species

Surface/deep water

blogeochemlstry

Terrestrial biosphere

nutrient and

carbon cycling

Terrestrial Inputs to

marine ecosystems

-—L———.——&—— SCIENCE PRIORITIES ---L----l----

Ecolo ical systems

an dynamics c?

Long-term measurements of structure/

function

Response to cllmate

and other stresses

Interactions between

physical and

biological process

Models of interaction,

feedback, and

response

Productitivy/resou rce

models

Earth system

history

Paleoclimate

Paleoecology

Atmospheric

composition

Ocean circulation

and compositton

Ocean productivity

Sea level changes

Paleohydrology

Human

interactions

Database

development

Models Ilnking:

- population growth

and dlstributton

- energy demands

- change in land use

Industrial productlol

Solid Earth

processes

Coastal erosion

Volcanic processes

Permafrost and

marine gas

hydrates

Ocean/seafloor heat

and energy fluxes

Surflclal processes

Crustal motions and

sea level

Solar

influences

EUV/UV monitoring

Atm/solar energy

coupllng

Irradlance (measure/

model)

Climate/solar record

Proxy measurements

and long-term

database

Increasing priority

NOTE: atm=atmosphere; EUV/UV=extreme ultraviolethltraviolet. -1

SOURCE: Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences (CEES), Our Changing Planet: The FY 1993 U.S. G/oba/ Change Research Program (Washington, DC: CEES, 1992).
18 I Global Change Research and NASA’s Earth Observing System

700

600

500

(n 400

c

g

=

E

~ 300

200

100

0

Figure 2-2-USGCRP Budget by Science Element

664

596n

376

- 1993

l--J 1994

CHS BD

249

224

, ~8 117

ES&D ESH HI SEP SI

NOTE: CHS=Climate and Hydrologic Systems; BD-Biogeochemkal Dynamics; ES&D-Ecological Systems and

Dynamics; ESH-Earth System History; Hl=Human Interactions; SEP-Solid Earth Processes; S1-Solar Influences. FY

1994 values are the requested, not the appropriated, amounts.

SOURCE: Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences (CEES), Our Changing Planet: The F)’ 1994 U.S. Glohal

Change Research Program (Washington, DC: CEES, 1993).

ease or readiness of implementation, linkages to these priority areas with the exception of assessother agencies and international partners, cost, ment, which took effect in FY 1994 (figure 2-2).7

and agency approval. The priorities of the seven Eleven different Federal agencies currently

research areas shown in figure 2-2 and the activity contribute to USGCRP (table 2-l). They are

streams (observation, understanding, prediction, coordinated through a budget “cross-cut’ and

and assessment) are intended to help guide budget through the presentation of participating agendecisions. To date, finding levels have followed cies’ global change budgets to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for considera7 In FY 1993, focused research activities under the highest priority research area, Climate and Hydrologic Systems, comprised about 43

percent of USGCRP budget Biogeochemical Dynamics (priority area 2) comprised about 24 percen4 and Ecological Systems and Dynamics

(priority area 3) comprised about 17 percent. Theremaining four research areas comprised about 16 of the USGCRP budget, These figures are

relatively unchanged for the FY 1994 budget request. See Our Changing Planet: The FY 1993 U.S. Global Change Research Program.

8 The budget cross-cut begins with each agency identifying preexisting research programs that pertain to the USGCRP mission. At its

inception in FY 1989, approximately 70 percent of the proposed budget for USGCRP consisted of research funds from existing projects. Each

agency can also propose additional ‘‘new” research programs for inclusion in USGCRP. These programs are submitted to the Subcommittee

on Global Change Research of CEES for review and then forwarded with recommendations to both OMB and the participating departments

and agencies. OMB returns the USGCRP budget with its own recommendations to the agencies when it returns the whole agency budget, At

that poinL deliberations between OMB and the agencies proceed as normal. As agencies work to meet OMB-established budget targets, all

projects, including USGCRP projects, suffer possible modfilcation.
Chapter 2: The Federal Research Program on Global Change I 19

DOC

DOD

DOE

Dol

EPA

HHS

Table 2-l—List of Departments and Agencies or Bureaus Involved in USGCRP Research

Department of Commerce NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration NSF

Department of Defense

CRREL Coid Regions Research and Engineering

Laboratory

ONR Office of Naval Research

Department of Energy SI

OHER Office of Health and Environmental

Research

Department of interior

BIA Bureau of indian Affairs

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BOM Bureau of Mines

BOR Bureau of Reclamation

Fws Fish and Wildiife Service

NPS National Park Service TVA

0 s Office of the Secretarv

OSSA Office of Space Sciece and Applications

National Science Foundation

BiO Directorate for Bioiogical Sciences

GEO Directorate for Geosciences

SBE Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and

Economic Sciences

Smithsonian Institution

ic international Center

NASM National Air and Space Museum

NMNH National Museum of Natural History

NZP National Zooiogical Park

SAO Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory

SERC Smithsonian Environmental Research

Center

STRi Smithsonian Tropical Research institute

Tennessee Valley Authority

RBO River Basin Operations

USGS U.S. Geological Survey USDA Department of Agriculture

Environmental Protection Agency ARS Agricultural Research Service

ORD Office of Research and Development CSRS Cooperative State Research Service

Department of Health and Human Services ERS Economic Research Service —

NIEHS National institute of Environmental Health Forest Service

Services : : s Soil Conservation Service

SOURCE: Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences (CEES), Our Changing Planet: The FY 1993 U.S. Global Change Research Program

(Washington, DC: CEES, 1992).

tion as a single document. The principal budget

review and decisionmaking body in the CEES is

the Subcommittee on Global Change Research.

Agencies participating in USGCRP develop their

proposed contributions with guidance from CEES,

OSTP, and OMB. The budget cross-cut, rarely

used in the Federal Government, has been reasonably successful in facilitating cooperation and

securing new funding for global change research

Since the program began, the total annual

USGCRP budget has grown from $660 million to

its current $1.3 billion. The administration has

proposed a fiscal year 1994 USGCRP budget of

$1.47 billion.l”

Reducing uncertainties about the natural and

human-induced changes occurring in the Earth’s

environment will require the study of phenomena

occurring over a range of spatial scales and time

scales (figure 2-3). A recurrent theme at the OTA

workshop was the necessity for measurement

programs that would provide both short-term

information as well as multidecadal, continuous

information relevant to policy and science needs.11

Several participants believed the long-term success of USGCRP rests on the resolution of several

issues, including:

1. how best to order and review scientific

priorities within and across disciplines,

p The National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP) also used such a mechanism (see app. B).

10 co remittee on Earth and Environmental Sciences, Our Changing Planet, op. cit., footnote 5.

11 D~~ents developed by CEES to direct USGCRP for the long-term indbte a desire to Sustain the program for at least ~y-. See

Robert W. CoreII, Assistant Director For Geosciences, National Science Foundation Testimony before the House of Representatives,

Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Subcommittee on the Environmen~ May 5, 1992.
20 I Global Change Research and NASA’s Earth Observing System

Figure 2-3-Scales of Natural Change

Natural soil formation and removal Global

1 0

4 y r climate

1

change

100 yr - Tree growth

Regional reforestation

10 yr , Natural climate

Soil fluctuations

1 yr - moisture (e.g. river flows,

variation upper ocean mixing,

1 mo -

seasonal rainfall)

Volcanic

1 day -

eruption

Cold front

Thunderstorm

1sec ~

1 I I I I

l m 1 km 1,000 km

Space scale

The Earth undergoes natural changes that vary from regional to global extent andover periods ranging from seconds to thousands

of years.

SOURCE: GlobalChange Scaler, Quarterly Report of the Global Climate Change Program at Argonne National Laboratory. ANGCS-1, February

1993, p. 26.

2.

3.

4.

how to broaden the program beyond its

narrow focus on climate change,

how to ensure an appropriate balance in the

participation of the National Aeronautics

and Space Administration (NASA) and

other agencies (especially the natural resource management agencies), and

how to maintain a long-term funding comglobal change for the natural and human environment to support national and international policy

making activities over abroad spectrum of global

and regional environmental issues (figure 2-4).12

Workshop participants welcomed the explicit

inclusion of an assessment element, but noted that

USGCRP still lacked a detailed plan of assessment activities. Furthermore. several noted that

mitment from Congress and the administra- USGCRP’S current research agenda is too narrow

tion despite the political reality of short to support integrated (end-to-end) assessments of

election cycles and l-year budget cycles. global change.

USGCRP focuses on understanding the physiNEW DEVELOPMENTS IN USGCRP cal and chemical make-up and processes of the

CEES added an assessment element in FY atmosphere and places relatively little emphasis

1994 to document the state of scientific knowl- on assessing the ecological or economic impact of

13 As a result, USGCRP may not edge and uncertainties and the implications of climate change.

12 See tes~ony of RobefiW. corell, Chairman, CEES Subcommittee on Global Change Research, befOre the comrnittee On science, Space,

and Technology, Subcommittee on Space, Mar. 30, 1993. According to Corell, these elements support the USGCRP objective to produce ‘‘a

predictive understanding of the Earth system to support national and international policymaking activities across a broad spectrum of global

and regional environmental issues. ’

13 Smdy of~e ~pact of c~ate c-e should not be confused with study of climate St31SitiVit’y. Cbak Sensitivity is a M@-pfiority ~~

for USGCRP; for example, understanding the sensitivity of the climate system to changes in radiative forcing.
`Chapter 2: The Federal Research Program on Global Change |21

Figure 2-4-Activity Streams of USGCRP

m

i

t

i\

Assessments

H k

‘u

Inte rated

%

u

Process

mo cling ~ research

SOURCE: Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences (CEES),

Our Changing Planet: The FY 1993 U.S. Global Change Research

Program (Washington r DC: CEES, 1992).

be able to contribute significantly to near-term

national and international policy discussions.

Indeed, nearly all workshop participants agreed

that USGCRP should give greater emphasis to

research on the impacts of climate change on

society and the natural world.

Workshop participants expressed a particular

concern that the current emphasis on understanding atmospheric change would lead to inadequate

research on understanding how biological systems might respond to climate change. For

example, USGCRP’S ecological research focuses

on important components of ecosystems function,

but gives comparatively little attention to potential changes in ecosystem range, species composition, and ability to adapt to climate change.

USGCRP research has also largely ignored issues

of biodiversity, changes in land use, and increases

in industrial pollution, addressing them only to

the extent that they interact with the climate

system. Nor does USGCRP examine the potential

socioeconomic impacts of changes in resource

production and distribution, and potential adaptation strategies for society.

Beginning in FY 1995, CEES intends to

broaden the USGCRP’S research scope to address

some of these concerns. New research areas could

include the impacts of climate change on social

systems and biological resources, as well as

research on possible mitigation and adaptation

strategies and technologies, topics that the original research plan explicitly left out (box 2-B).14

Policymaking would benefit if USGCRP were to

include an expanded FCCSET/CEES mechanism

to coordinate the various components of

USGCRP and establish formal links to the policy

process. The administration plans to announce

complete details of this expanded USGCRP

program in conjunction with the fiscal year 1995

Presidential budget request.

USGCRP officials also plan to give increased

attention to the study of the socioeconomic

impacts of climate change. Currently, this is

supported through the Research Program on the

Economics of Global Change, a distinct component of the USGCRP.15 While workshop participants supported increased attention to the three

“thrust areas” of this program they questioned

the wisdom of a distinct Federal Economics

Initiative. 16 In their view, the separation of this

effort from the rest of USGCRP was artificial and

made the study of the inherently interdisciplinary

problems of global change more difficult.

BALANCE AND THE FUTURE OF USGCRP:

ISSUES AND CONCERNS

Each of the agencies participating in the

USGCRP decide how much research money they

14 See Corell, op. cit., foomote 12. For the original research pla~ see Our Changing Planet: The Fy ~99~ Research plan.

15 see co~ttee on Ed~d Envjronrnen~ sciences, Econo~”cs and GIo&-Jl change: The Fy 1993 Research program on the Economics

of G/obaI Change (A Supplement to the U.S. President FY 1993 Budget) (Washington DC: Committee on Earth and Environmental Scienees,

1993)>

IS For flsc~ ym 1993 the tiec thrust a.reaswere: 1) global economic models for the analysis of global f31WifO~t2Md Chi3ngf2; 2) Mcerttiv

and the value of information; and 3) the economic effects of global change.
22 | Global Change Research and NASA’s Earth Observing System

Box 2-B-Mitigation and Adaptation Research in the Federal Government

As originally envisioned, issues related to mitigation of, and adaptation to, global change were to be

addressed under the committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences (CEES) Working Group on Mitigation and

Adaptation Research Strategies (MAR- figure l-l). CEES originally excluded research on mitigation and

adaptation to global change from USGCRP to keep the program primarily focused on science and clearly distinct

from the policymaking process.

MARS was eliminated by 1992 despite recognition by CEES that a complementary program of mitigation and

adaptation research was critical to an effective national response to global environmental issues.’ Participants at

the OTA workshop believed the MARS program had been largely ineffective. Among the reasons cited was the

working group’s lack of authority to perform a budget cross-cut, and to develop an interagency research program

on mitigation and adaptation research. In addition, the MARS working group did not benefit from having the status

of a Presidential initiative.

Although the MARS working group provided a forum for agencies to discuss global change programs of

mutual interest it was unable to exercise any influence over project selection and funding. Consequently, MARS

served primarily to catalog existing agency programs and projects that addressed mitigation, adaptation, social

dynamics, and economic issues either as a main focus of a project or as a contributing element of a project. This

situation might be remedied by folding some of the original MARS functions, including those designed to

stimulate research on mitigation and adaptation strategies, into an expanded USGCRP or a reinstituted

MARS-type program.

1 initial responsiM!ity for development of a MARS program was given to EPA and mE-two of the more

“mission-oriented” agencies in the USGCRP, but as noted above, little was accomplished. Some workshop participants

attrfbute this partly to the prevbus administrations’ skepticism towards the problem of human-induoed giobai change,

SOURCE: Office of T*noiqy Assessmen$ 1993.

intend to spend annually on research relevant to focused research programs; this includes proglobal change. Agency USGCRP projects are

classified as “focused’ ’-directly relating to

global change--or “contributing’ justified on

a basis other than global change, but having the

potential to contribute to the global change

knowledge base.

No standardized criteria exist for classifying

contributing research, and each agency uses its

own system. CEES classifies much of the research on impacts and effects—for example, the

effects of drought on vegetation and the corresponding impacts to crops and ecosystems-as

contributing research because agencies pursue it

for reasons other than climate change. Currently,

much of the Department of the Interior and the

Department of Agriculture global change research consists of contributing programs not

included in the USGCRP budget cross-cut of

grams to characterize ground and surface water

flows and to monitor ecosystem change.

Over 50 percent of funding for focused research under the category of Ecological Systems

and Dynamics supports NASA projects (e.g.,

Landsat and some aspects of Earth Observing

System (EOS)) that primarily address ecological

functions and characterization, rather than impacts and effects of climate change on ecological

systems. To date, fiscal support for research on

climate impacts has not been reflected in the

ordering of the seven scientific research areas that

guide implementation of the USGCRP. However,

CEES officials expect to include more research

on the social, economic, and environmental

impacts of global changes in FY 1995.

The majority of USGCRP funding is embodied

in NASA programs, most of which are related to
Chapter 2: The Federal Research Program on Global Change |23

environmental monitoring using satellites. In FY

1993, NASA’s focused global change research

programs accounted for over 60 percent of the

focused global change research program budget.17

As chapter 3 discusses, many workshop participants voiced concerns that the current EOS

program ignores correlative, in situ, and processoriented studies vital to understanding the mechanisms responsible for global change and for

verifying satellite measurements.18 In addition,

they argued that program restructuring and a

decrease in the EOS budget has resulted in a

narrowing of the USGCRP research agenda and

the sacrifice or postponement of programs necessary for the development of an effective global

environmental monitoring system.19

Workshop participants struggled with the questions of how and where to allocate new resources

for USGCRP. In terms of funding and scope,

NASA has become the de facto lead agency for

global change research. Thus, for example, NASA

is now the lead agency not only for space-based

global change measurements (its assigned role20

but, in terms of funding, it is also the lead

agency for ecological research. NASA’s comparatively large budget for ecological research is

a consequence of its heavy investment in satellitebased research instrumentation, and is not the

result of deliberations by scientists within the

ecological research community on how best to

allocate Federal funds for ecological research.21

Agencies typically find it difficult to secure

large percentage increases in their budgets. At the

same time, relatively small percent increases in

the NASA USGCRP budget translate into substantial funding increases relative to any other

agency’s budget. For example, a 5-percent increase in NASA’s USGCRP budget for FY 1993

would have translated into nearly $45 million in

new money whereas a 5-percent increase for the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Science Foundation (NSF),

and the Department of Energy (DOE) would have

contributed approximately $4 million, $8 million,

and $5.5 million, respectively .22

USGCRP programs such as the World Ocean

Circulation Experiment (WOCE), Tropical Oceans

Global Atmosphere (TOGA), and the Joint Global

Ocean Flux Study (JGOFS) are interagency

research programs whose success depends on

contributions from NASA, NOAA, and NSF.

However, in a recent budget cycle, NASA received more funds than requested for these

programs while NOAA and NSF received no

funds. To maintain continuity in these programs,

NASA was able to redirect some of its money to

fill the financial gap left by inadequate funding

for NOAA and NSF. The problem of securing

multiple agency funding for new crossdisciplinary projects is exacerbated by a congressional authorization and appropriations

process that approves agency budgets inde17 NSF and DOE ~Womtcd for 12 percent and 8 ~rwnt, respectively, me remaining roughly 15 percent WZM distributed among NOAA,

DOI, USDA, EPA, DOD, the Smithsoniiq HHS, and TVA.

18 me swerg15m ~ween a~cr~t ~d Satelfite m~s~men~ is discussed in Jose M. Rodriguez, ‘ ‘Robing Stratospheric Ozone!’ Science!

VO1. 261, Aug. 27, 1993, pp. 1128-1129.

19 ~L is, one tit addresses tie full range of environmental issues, which extend beyond just climate change.

m me space ~omponcnt of tie USGCRP i5 referred to as the S-GCOS (Space-based Global Change Observation SYstem). Natio~ SPace

Policy Dircctivc 7 (NSPD-7), signed by then President Bush on June 1, 1992, assigned NASA the lead role in S-GCOS. NSPD-7 directs other

agencies—including the Departments of Defense, Energy, and Commerce-to cooperate in the development and operation of spacecraft and

data systems. A interagency S-GCOS committee has been established to execute this directive.

21 ~5 i5 reflect~ ~ he bre&down of ~ds by agency for Us-’sfiologic~ Syst-s md D-CS program element. fiologicd

Systems and Dy namics receives $224 million, or 17 percent of the USGCRP budget. NASA receives 66 percent of this money, while only 11

percent goes to the Department of Agriculture and 3.5 percent to the Department of the Interior.

22 Agency budgets from figure ‘‘U.S. Global Change Research Program Budget by Agency, ‘‘ in Our Changing Planet: the FY 1993 U.S.

Global Change Research Program, p. 54.
24 I Global Change Research and NASA’s Earth Observing System

pendent of each other and has no formal

mechanism to evaluate programs in their

entirety.

 Funding Across the Agencies

Questions of balance among USGCRP research efforts are directly related to issues involving funding allocations among participating

USGCRP agencies. Currently, NASA, NOAA,

and DOE control about 79 percent of the focused

research budget for USGCRP.23 The remaining

funding is distributed among NSF, Department of

Interior (DOI), U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),

Department of Defense (DOD), the Smithsonian,

the Department of Health and Human Services

(HI-IS), and Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).

The lack of participation in USGCRP by

non-NASA agencies has led to gaps in the overall

program. For example, DOI, which manages

large tracts of lands that could be affected

severely by climate change, requested a decrease

in USGCRP funds for both FY 1993 and FY 1994.

DOI’s position reflects a stance common to most

agencies participating in USGCRP-budgets are

tight and climate change does not present an

immediate management concern. Another dimension of the problem of funding an appropriate mix

of satellite and nonsatellite measurement programs is the historical attraction of Congress and

the administration to space-based research. Workshop participants noted that Federal agencies may

correctly perceive that it is easier to get financial

support for large, space-based projects than for

other research.24

M Producing Timely “Answers” for

Policymakers

The timetable for governmental decisions is

driven by the yearly budget cycle and an election

cycle that ranges between 2 and 6 years. Not

surprisingly, policymakers funding global change

research often have a shorter time horizon for

“answers’ than researchers. This disparity leads

to tension between government officials who are

required to formulate anual budgets and make

immediate decisions, and the scientific community, whose long-term research depends on continuous and reliable funding. Workshop participants stated that when scientists cannot answer

the questions of policymakers in 1 or even a few

years, they find it more difficult to “sell” a

program as relevant to policy needs. The result

may be annual budget fluctuations and/or rapidly

shifting priorities-both of which are detrimental

to the development of a sound scientific program.

23 wha con~~t~ pm- are included, NASA, DOD, and NOM account for roughly 60 percent of funding Wocat.ions

U Even agencies doing space-b~edresewh~y not necessarily be viewed as equal partners. NASA MS been tasked to lad the space-based

component of USGCRP, but NOM and DOE participation is essential to complement NASA’s effort. The example cited above, in which NSF

and NOM received no funding for their part of an interagency progrw while NASA received more than they requested for the same programs,

illustrates how differently Congress may view some agencies in funding decisions.
The

EOS

Program 3

T

he Earth Observing System (EOS), the space-based

component of NASA’s Mission to Planet Earth (MTPE),

is a series of polar-orbiting and low-inclination satellites

to enable global observations of the land surface,

biosphere,l solid Earth, atmosphere, and oceans. EOS is a central

element of the U.S. Global Change Research Program

(USGCRP). It is being executed by NASA as per National Space

Policy Directive-7,2

This chapter draws on the OTA workshop to address questions

related to EOS in three general areas:

1. the scientific priorities of the program;

2. the process that sets and reviews these priorities; and

3. the “balance” in the program between a) detailed studies

of Earth processes and long-term monitoring, and b)

ground- and air-based methods of data acquisition versus

satellite-based methods.

Participants at the OTA workshop were asked a number of

specific questions in these issue areas (see app. A).

THE EVOLUTION OF THE EOS PROGRAM

The principal EOS spacecraft for sensors gathering global

change data are intermediate-size, multi-instrument, polar1 The biosphere is the portion of the Earth and its atmosphere that can support life.

Studies of the biosphere are fquently linked to studies of that part of the global carbon

cycle which involves living organisms and life-derived organic matter.

z NSPD-7, authorized by then President George Bush in 1992, assigns to NASA tie

lead role in enabling global observations from space.

25
26 I Global Change Research and NASA’s Earth Observing System

orbiting satellites.3 To achieve continuous 15-

year data sets, NASA plans three launches of two

EOS platforms-’’ AM” and “PM,” indicating

morning or afternoon crossing over the equator—

each of which has a design life of 5 years.4 An

observation period of 15 years is long enough to

observe the effects of climate change due to one

sunspot cycle (11 years), several El Nino events,

and perhaps the eruption of one or more major

volcanoes. It should also be possible to observe

some effects of deforestation and other largescale environmental changes.

Scientists are less certain whether another 15

years of measurements will be sufficient to allow

the effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gases

(those that result from human activities) on

Earth’s temperature to be distinguished from

natural background fluctuations.5 Ecological studies of the health and migration of terrestrial

systems require even longer continuous records—

on the order of 20 to 50 years. As discussed

below, scientists disagree on whether the EOS

program currently planned will evolve into a

system appropriate for such long-term monitoring.

NASA originally conceived of EOS as a

program to understand Earth systems by making

abroad range of environmental and Earth science

measurements. In effect, the program sought to

use the vantage point of space to measure as many

of the variables of interest to Earth scientists as

possible. 6 When NASA initiated the program in

1989, it envisioned flying 30 instruments—

representing many of the Earth sciences and some

Earth-related solar science-on two large spacecraft in polar orbit. The program initially had an

estimated total cost of $17 billion for fiscal year

(FY) 1991 through FY 2000 and involved the use

of large Titan IV launch vehicles.

NASA restructured EOS in early 1992 to a

program whose cost through FY 2000 would be

approximately $11 billion.7 However, EOS underwent a second revision after the FY 1993

appropriation because Congress placed a ceiling

on the decadal funding of EOS of approximately

$8 billion, all of the $3 billion reduction to be

absorbed between FY 1994 and 2000. The nearly

30-percent funding reduction from $11 billion

was also consistent with the objectives of a

review ordered by NASA Administrator Daniel

Goldin.

3 EOS polar orbiters are termed ‘‘intermediate-size’ by program officials because they arc smaller than the very large satellites envisioned

in the initial EOS proposal. By most standards, they are still large and expensive. For example, NASA estimates that total hardware development

costs for the EOS AM-1 satellite and its sensors will approach $800 million. This figure does not include launch costs of $100 to 150 million

(AM-1 requires an Atlas IIAS launcher), or ground segment and operations costs.

d EOS AM-1 and PM-1 will both be launched in sun-synchronous polar orbits, but with different crossing times. NASA designed the

EOS-AM spacecraft primarily to observe terrestrial surface features and thus has a morning crossing time when cloud cover is minimum over

land. The EOS-PM platform includes a next-generation atmospheric sounder, which is a candidate for deployment on future NOAA operational

satellites, and other climate measuring instruments that are more suited towards art afternoon crossing.

5 According to the IPCC, the unequivocal detection of an enhanced greenhouse effect is not likely to be observed for another decade or

more.

6 See Shelby G. Tilford, testimony before the Subcommittee on Space of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, May 6, 1993.

Also see ‘Earth Scientists Imok NASA’s Gift Horse in the Mou~” Science, vol. 259, No. 5097, Feb. 12, 1993, pp. 912-914 and U.S. Congress,

Congressional Research Srevice, Mission to Planet Earth and the U.S. Globul Change Research Program, CRS-90-300 SPR (Washingto~

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 19, 1990), pp. 6-11 and references therein.

7 EOS was restructured in 1992 following recommendations by the EOS Engineering Review Panel, which were also incorporated into

a House-Semte conference report. By focusing on climate change instead of the broader issues addressed in the baseline progr~ NASA was

abte to reduce to 17 the number of instruments that needed to fly by 2002. Instead of the originat plan to fly two large satellites (EOS-A and

EOS-B), these instruments were configured tofty ona several smaller multi-instrument polar orbiters and free flyers: 1) Three intermediat&size

spacecraft series to be launched by intermediate-class expendable launch vehicles (EOS-AU EOS-PM and EOS-CHEM); 2) one smaller

spacecraft series to be launched on a medium-class expendable launch vehicle (EOS-AIT); and 3) two small spacecraft series to be launched

on small launchers (EOS-COLOR and EOS-AERO).
Chapter 3: The EOS Program I 27

In restructuring the EOS program, NASA

chose to emphasize those global change issues the

Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences

(CEES) believed to be most in need of improved

scientific understanding. This affected both priorities and instrument selection.8

Consistent with the USGCRP, the restructured program’s first priority is acquiring

data on the global climate. As a result, NASA

deferred or canceled programs designed to improve scientific understanding of the middle and

upper atmosphere and of solid-Earth geophysics.9

Satellite-based instruments to measure forest

biomass or forest chemistry, both of which might

change under climate change, were also eliminated.10 EOS officials acknowledge that budget

cuts have forced reductions in instrument contingency funds, and increased reliance on contributions from agencies other than NASA and on

Japanese and European partners. According to

NASA, the rescoped program has a higher risk in

meeting the science objectives beyond the year

2000 because increased reliance on other agency

and international collaborations is assumed, but

firm commitments are still being negotiated.11

The restructured EOS program creates gaps in

some measurement programs and risks loss of

data continuity in others (box 3-A). Expected data

gaps include:

. discontinuity of 5 to 7 years in most of the

atmospheric chemistry measurements after

the UARS satellite fails,

●

●

●

discontinuity in

ments,

discontinuity in

periments, and

discontinuity in

ocean circulation measureEarth radiation budget exmeasurements of the vertical distribution of aerosols and ozone

(through the SAGE instrument).

Scientists would like continuity in all of these

measurements, especially those that require long

time series of data to distinguish subtle trends

(e.g., changes in solar output). According to

NASA, EOS program officials made decisions on

which instruments to orbit by weighing the

consequences of having gaps in some measurements against the benefits of flying new

important instruments by the end of 1998, a

mandated by Congress.

 Setting Priorities

and

date

The EOS program supports the overall

USGCRP by acquiring and assembling a global

database of remote sensing measurements from

space. The priorities for acquiring these data

conform to the seven science areas identified by

USGCRP and the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change (IPCC) as key to understanding

global climate change (ch. 2).12 Most OTA

workshop participants believed the EOS (and by

extension, USGCRP and MTPE) science priorities were ordered correctly to gain a predictive

understanding of the Earth system.

8 For example, deferral of instruments to monitor solid Earth physics, which includes cmstal and ice sheet movements, was based on the

relative unimportance of these processes to globaJ climate chang~the highest priority of the restructured EOS program.

s E]imimtion of fissio~ that might provide a detailed understanding of the fundamental processes that are causing ozone depletion iII tie

lower stratosphere increases the risk that the nation will be 1) unprepared to respond to future surprises, e.g., ozone loss over the northern

hemisphere and 2) unable to implement changes in mitigation strategies. UARS, which has no direct follow-on, is not a long-term monitoring

satellitfiits various instruments have expected lifetimes that range ffom approximately 14 months to 4 years.

‘0 See app. B, “The Future of Remote Sensing Technology” in U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessmen4 The Furure of Remote

Sensing From Space: Civilian Satellite Systems and Applications, OTA-ISC-558 (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Off7ce, July

1993).

11 It is notewofiy, however, that changes to date in EOS program direction and funding have been initiated by the United States, not its

international partners.

12 NASA’S description of the role of EC)S in USGCRP appears in Ghassem Asar and David Jon Dokkem eds., EOS R@vence ~atibook

(W%shingtoq DC: NASA Earth Science Support Office), March 1993.
28 I Global Change Research and NASA’s Earth Observing System

Box 3-A-Data Gaps in EOS

Specific needs to fill data gaps include:

. Launch of a stratospherichpospheric aerosol sensor to provides data continuity between SAGE II and

EOS-AERO, scheduled for launch in the year 2000.1

. Launch by the mid-90s of a solar irradiance sensor to ensure overlap between ACRIM (currently flying on

UARS) and EOS-CHEM, scheduled for launch in the year 2002.2

. Launch of an “ozone watch” sensor to provide continuity between UARS and EOS-CHEM of data

necessary to assess and predict ozone depletion during the period of increasing stratospheric chlorine.

● Launch of an Earth radiation budget sensor to fillthe gap incritically needed observations of radiation and

cloud forcing.3

 Launch of an ocean altimeter to provide measurements of ocean circulation between TOPEX/Poseidon

and the EOS-ALT mission in 2002.

. Launch of a precipitation mapping sensor to provide data continuity after the TRMM mission in 1997.

. Launch of an ocean color measuring sensor to fill gaps that will develop when the SeaWIFS satellite fails

(SeaWiFS is scheduled for launch in 1994).4

Specific flights required to fill measurement gaps include:

● Launch of sensors to measure changes in the Earth’s magnetic field, and to provide better map of the geoid.

. Launch of global topographic mapping sensors to provide global high resolution digital topography in

support of EOS objectives. Measurement of tropospheric aerosols will also be lacking unless a focussed

monitoring program is initiated.5

1 IJnksswE is flown on a small satellite or on what NASA terms a “flight (missJon) of opportunity.” one SU*

flight would be on a planned NOAA weather satellite that could accommodate SAC3E without necessitating expensive

modification of the bus or causing significant changes in the planned instrument paokage. NOAA’s “AM” TIROS series

Isa suitable candidate; a 1997 launch might be possible if funding is identified.

2 IJnhss th ACRIM mission is flown on a small satellite or on a mission Of opportunity.

3 Unless it is decided to rely in part on the European SCARAB radiation budget seffes, which will be inhiated in

1993.

4 Thg lik~ih~ of a follow.on to ~a~FS ~o~ ~ i~d}f It ~ swcessful in demonstrating the commercial

value of ocean color data.

5 F~ exanl@ on a small sat~llte su~ ~ ctclimsa~’~e ~x 3-F,

SOURCE: OTA Workehop and pdwte discussions with EOS officials.

Workshop participants differed, however, in interdisciplinary panels in the selection of instrutheir views of the EOS instrument selection ments and instrument platforms as evidence that

process. As noted earlier, some participants their program was appropriately reviewed. They

argued strongly that the program should have set also note that payload selection panels followed

its platform and instrument priorities after consul- priorities set by members who were mostly

tation with a broader group of Earth scientists scientists who would be the users of data, rather

than those selected by NASA.13 EOS officials than instrument builders hoping for approval of a

point to repeated and extensive reviews by particular mission.

13 ~ewor~hopp~icipant~fiev~ tieconcep~~cti~es~twould notilyaccompany an evolving science programhavebeen stied

because the intellectual underp innings of EOS (and USGCRP) relied on the professional interest and time commitments of relatively few

scientists and federal managers-agmup small enough that a meaningful fraction were in attendance at the OTA workshop. Furthermore, this

same group has been largely responsible for implementing EOS.
Chapter 3: The EOS Program | 29

Several workshop participants and reviewers

of this report who were familiar with the EOS

review process objected to the close ties between

NASA and its program reviewers.14 In addition,

several participants argued that EOS historical

legacy (the system was first proposed as an

adjunct to the Space Station—box 3-B) resulted

in a flawed platform and instrument selection

process. In particular, they argued that the selection process was not preceded by an appropriately

rigorous identification of the outstanding questions for global change research and a subsequent

matching of instruments and platforms to research questions. The result, according to critics,

is an Earth observation program that relies too

heavily on the use of relatively large and expensive satellites. Logically, the scientific component of the EOS program should be organized

around a core set of fundamental questions

generated by the collective wisdom of the best

minds in the international Earth science community.

1 Reviewing Priorities

Reviews of the EOS program are complicated

by the necessity to consider a myriad of technology issues, data management issues, and science

issues. These issues are coupled among themselves and with the overarching problem of how

best to structure the program given an uncertain

funding profile.15 Workshop participants were

sharply divided on the question of whether the

EOS program has an appropriate process in place

to review priorities and undertake program corrections. Not surprisingly, disagreements were

strongest between participants who believed the

EOS program had missing elements or was

misdirected, and those who felt the program’s

review process was already overburdened.

One participant, for example, argued that EOS

would benefit from frequent institutionalized

scientific reviews (e.g., every 6 months). This

view was seconded by another participant who

argued for a standing review committee, organized within the National Academy of Sciences

and the National Academy of Engineering. Workshop participants agreed that the usual Academy

study, which may take 18 months to complete, is

too slow to be effective. In contrast, other

participants expressed concerns that frequent

reviews would delay programs and divert already

stretched intellectual resources. Anecdotal evidence of this problem was provided by several

participants; for example, one stated that work on

EOS’ data and information distribution system

(EOSDIS) “essentially ground to halt” during

the months that the National Academy was

deliberating.

16 addition, OTA was told that

work on EOS slowed while the EOS Engineering

Review Committee (the ‘‘Frieman Committee”)

studied the program in 1991.17

Some workshop participants also warned that

the EOS program could not tolerate further

changes in the near term. They argued that the two

program restructurings left little flexibility in the

payloads and that further changes would delay

critical measurements (and possibly the entire

program). These participants also noted that cuts

in NASA’s projected EOS budget had reduced the

program to the point where additions of a new

1A For CX~pIe, at least one Pticipmt believes the payload review panel (the Frieman committee) was strongly influenced by NASA

Headquarters and project insiders in their deliberations. This participant questioned the independence of the committee, noting that some of

the scientists on the Frieman panel were also members of particular instrument teams.

15 As noted above, NASA was imtruct~ by Congress in the last round of budget cuts to plan to spend $8 billion onEOS during fisc~ y~s

199 lto 2000. However, the $8 billion is a ceiling, not a floor. EOS budgets would appeax to be particularly vulnerable to further budget cuts

beginning in fiscal year 1995 when NASA plans to double the EOS budget to some $1 billion.

16 me NAS revjew of EOSDIS (the “Zm.ket Committee’ was chaired by Charles A. Zraket, former head of the ~~ COT.

17 ~ogmm delays dso o~u~ed following the Fricman Committee as mamgers responded to recommendations by the Committee ~d to

directions horn Congress to reduce planned expenditures and adapt payloads from two large obsematories to multiple smaller size satellites.
30 I Global Change Research and NASA’s Earth Observing System

Box 3-B-Origins of the EOS Program

EOS is the principal element of NASA’s Mission to Planet Earth (MTPE). The origins of MTPE and EOS can

be traced to studies in the early 1960sthat considered the possibility of an international effort to study the Earth

as a total system.1 The origins of MTPE were also influenced by two other developments occurring in this period:

(1)the growth of the Space Station Program, (2)collaborations between NASA’s Earth Sciences and Applications

Division and the external scientific community that resulted in the formation of the Earth System Science

Committee (ESSC) in 1963.

The ESSC, chaired by Franas Bretherton, produced a series of reports that focused on interactions of the

traditional disciplines of the Earth sciences, rather than exclusively on the individual disciplines. ESSC’sactivities

paralleled those being conducted by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in support of the 25th anniversary

of the International Geophysical Year. This led to NAS proposals for comprehensive studies of the

geosphere-biosphere. ESSC recommendations in 1966 for a unified study of global change were supported by

NASA, NOAA, and the NSF. They were also supported by the influential NASA report, Leadership and America's

Future in Space (the “Ride” report).2

Of particular interest for this background paper is the period in the mid-1980swhen NASA convened a group

of Earth scientists to consider how they might use large human-tended satellites in low-Earth orbit. NASA planned

to use the Space Shuttle, launched into polar orbit from the Western Test Range at Vandenberg Air Force Base,

to maintain the satellites and change instruments. NASA offered to fund such a system of satellites-then known

as System Z-out of the Space Station budget.3 The System Z approach of using large polar platforms was also

endorsed by the ESSC (which included several members of the System Z study). Part of the rationale for using

large satellites was the potential to illuminate the interactions of earth processes by exploiting the capability of large

satellites to carry several instruments that would acquire data on climate and other variables simultaneously.q

1 ln1982,NA~p~@~a’lG~~l ~tita~lity’’[nitiativeataninternattinal spaceconference called UNISl%CE

’82. However, the proposal received little support from the international community, in part because the cxmferenoe

became embmfied in the issue of the miiitarizatkm of space. See US. Congress, Congressional Research Servioe,

Misson b f%nef Earth and the U.S. G/oba/ Change /?esearoh program, CRS 90-300 SPR, (Washington, DC), June 19,

1990. For a detailed discussion of the issues raised at UNiSPACE ’82, see US. Congress, Offioe of Teohnoiogy

Assessment, UIWSFMCE ’82A Conteti Fw/nternat/ona/ Cooperation and CompetMon,OTA-TM-iSC-28 (Washington,

DC U.S. Government Pdnting Offioe), March 1983.

2 ~iiy K. Ride, ~ader~lp aMAnwti’s ~ufwe h Space:A Report to the Adminkfrator, (Washin@on, DC: LLS.

Nationai Aeronautics and Spaoe Administration), August 1987.

3 According to offidafs at NASA and with the NAS, these proposais were made to increase the Sdentific ratiOnaie

of the Space Station. See Gary Taubes, “Earth Scientists W NASA’s Gift Horse in the Mouth,” Wence, voi. 259, No,

5097, Feb. 12,1993, pp. 912-914.

4 i~d

instrument could occur only at the expense of one lieve that EOS would, in fact, benefit from a

already planned. restructuring. Regardless of the scientific arguHowever, as noted above, some participants ments, restructuring will be necessary if probelieve the planned EOS is ill-suited for either jected budgets for follow-ons to the first EOS

long-term monitoring of key indices of global “AM” mission do not materialize. Furtherchange or for mechanistic studies that might more, tight budgets and renewed calls for a

answer some of the key questions that underlie the convergence of NASA, NOAA (National Oceagenda of the USGCRP. These participants be- anic Atmospheric Administration), and DOD
—— . . .

Chapter 3: The EOS Program |31

The connection with Space Station ended after the Challenger accident, when NASA terminated plans to

launch the Space Shuttle into polar orbit. Nevertheless, the idea of using large polar platforms for studies of the

Earth remained. The initial 1989 EOS proposal called for two 15-ton platforms, each carrying 12-15 instruments,

which would be launched by a Titan IV rocket. NASA subsequently reduced EOS in cost and scope and distributed

its instruments among a larger number of smaller (intermediate-class) satellites. These actions were taken in 1991

to respond to Congressional reductions in NASA’s long-term budget projections (from $17 billion to 11 billion

through FY 2000) and to ameliorate concerns about the consequences of a catastrophic failure of a polar orbiter.5

Further cuts, which were part of a larger effort to control federal spending, later trimmed the decadal budget for

EOS to $8 billion. This reduced program reserves and necessitated further reductions in planned science missions.

Critics of the current plan for EOS note that it evolved out of studies to match potential missions with the use

of large satellites, rather than the more logical matching of scientific needs to a broad-based research program.

Had EOS been designed initially to be an $8 billion program, it likely would be different than today’s EOS

program. NASA officials point to a series of planning meetings and program reviews which sought wide input from

the scientific community as evidence that the program was organized correctly, regardless of its origins in the

Space Station program.

s Such concerns are illustrated by the recent catastrophic tosses of the NOAA polar orbiter, NOAAJ, and

Landsat-6.

(Department of Defense) remote sensing sensors in place to facilitate mid-course corrections in

and-satellites may also result in a restructuring of

EOS. As part of its assessment on Earth Observation Systems, OTA is exploring the potential for

such convergence. A report of its findings is

scheduled for spring 1994.

EOS officials acknowledged that the history of

the EOS program, which includes repeated changes

to account for budget cutbacks, has resulted in a

program that may be less optimal than one that

began from scratch. However, they believe the

current program is sufficiently close to the

‘‘right program that further modtifications would

do more harm than good. In particular, they note

that program restructuring would lead to delays

and added costs, which might require further

program rescoping. 18 Critics of this view note the

long-term horizon of global change research.

They argue that a program designed to last for

decades will only be successful if mechanisms are

mission planning that account for shifting scientific priorities, changes in technology, and scientific surprises.

IS THE PROGRAM SCIENTIFICALLY SOUND?

Most OTA workshop participants agreed that

research programs organized to address the outstanding scientific questions related to global

change are a prerequisite for informed policymaking. However, as in the debate about whether to

limit chlorofluorocarbon emissions to protect the

ozone layer, policymakers will inevitably be

forced to make decisions that will affect the

global environment without the benefit of complete knowledge. Nevertheless, the “right’ EOS

and USGCRP program can bound uncertainty and

thus illuminate the risks and benefits of alternative decisions.19

18 one workshop p~ticipant made a similar comment when asked about the effect of fiuther budget cuts on EOS: ‘ ‘There is a strong axiom

in saleIlite programs that if you want to do the job for a lower sum of money, you go through a design process; you make a commitment, and

then you ftish it as fast as you possibly can. ’

19 As one participant explained, “It is rational to proceed despite scientific uncertainties . . . provided that the actions are modest enough

to fail gracefully and to discover what works through trial and error in the field. ”
32 I Global Change Research and NASA’s Earth Observing System

Some critics of the EOS program argue that the

program should be focused on specific problems

chosen to elucidate key areas of scientific uncertainty.20 This view coincides with the charge that

the EOS (and USGCRP) programs are operating

without a ‘‘scientific foundation, ’ which would

link key global change questions through a

network of detailed questions to a responsive

course of action (box l-A). A key objective of

global change research is to achieve a level of

understanding of Earth processes that would be

adequate to predict future climate behavior.

Several workshop participants believe this will

not be possible without a different EOS program--

one that would have greater emphasis on studies

of processes to facilitate establishment of cause

and effect.

EOS officials respond to these criticisms in

several ways. First, they defend their decision to

have a broad-based program as a prudent strategy

to respond to scientific surprise. 21 Second, they

note that program reviews have been performed

by panels assembled by the National Academy of

Sciences. Finally, while admitting that the list of

EOS priorities is superficial from a scietific

standpoint, officials note that embedded in these

priorities is a detailed list of scientific questions

not too different from those the critics charge is

missing.

These responses did not satisfy workshop

participants who cited examples of missing program elements—for example, unpiloted air vehicles to perform detailed process studies (box

3-C)--and missing instruments-for example,

monitoring of solar irradiance-as evidence that

the program could be strengthened scientifically.

Some participants question the adequacy of EOS

to answer even those scientific questions that are

currently recognized.

Participants also debated whether EOS was

appropriate for monitoring long-term (decade to

century) climate changes. Skeptics cited several

reasons to question the utility of EOS for monitoring. For example, one participant stated that: 1)

the EOS measurements will not include all the

major forcings and feedbacks (box 3-D)22, 2) the

EOS system will not have ready-to-launch spares

and the instrument calibration plan does not

include transfer of calibrations among satellites in

the series, and 3) the very high cost of EOS does

not make it practical to maintain the system for

very long time periods. These concerns overlap

other issues discussed in this chapter.

I The Role of EOS in Earth Monitoring

and Process Studies

The range of Earth remote sensing research

objectives can be divided into two broad categories:

1.

2.

Long-term monitoring: to determine how

climate is changing, to distinguish humaninduced from naturally-induced climate

change (and its impacts), and to determine

global radiative forcings and feedbacks.

Mechanistic or process studies: detailed

analysis of the physical, chemical, and

biological processes that govern phenomena ranging from the formation of the

Antarctic ozone hole to the gradual migration of tree species.

Although these two categories cannot be clearly

delineated, a process study usually extends over

Zo ~or~g t. J~es G. AndmsoU “ne idea that gathering data is equivalent to solving problems is a fallacy. YOU Cm COlleCt huge

amounts of data, but if those are not carefully matched to problems, then the data just gather in databanks and you make no progress. ’ See

“Earth Scientists Imok NASA’s Gift Horse in the Mout.lL” op. cit., footnote 6.

21 Foremp]e, forrnerEOS project scientis~ Jeffrey Dotierexplains, ‘‘What wehaven’t done [inplanningEOS] is ask a question and design

an instrument to answer that question, What we have instead tried to do is design instruments with a range of measurement capabilities so they

can answer a lot of questions, some of which we haven’t been smart enough to ask yet. ’ Dozier quoted in Science, ibid.

22 ~s p~cipant suggested that the large size, high spatial resolutio% and poor time sampling of EOS satellites would make hem better

suited for measurement of land-use, biodiversity changes, and the effects of changing population.
-.—

Chapter 3: The EOS Program |33

Box 3-C-Unpiloted Air Vehicles

Unpiloted air vehicles (UAVS) are particularly suited for making measurements at or near the tropopause,

where the qualify of remotely sensed data from both ground- and space-based platforms is poor. If developed,

along-endurance (multiple diurnal cycles) high-altitude UAV would become effectively a geostationary satellite

at t he tropopause. The tropopause is of particular interest because it marks the vertical limit of most clouds and

storms.’

Researchers interested in elucidating mechanisms for ozone depletion are partiwlariy interested in obtaining

a stable, controllable, long-endurance platform that could be instrumented to monitor conditions in the stratosphere

at altitudes up to and above 25 km (approximately 82,000 feet). Scientific explorations of this region are currently

hampered by the uncontrollability of balloons, the inadequate altitude capabilities and high operating costs of

piloted aircraft, and the inadequate measurement capabilities of most satellite instruments for the lower

stratosphere. Instruments on UAVs could be changed or adjusted after each flight. UAVS, therefore, are potentially

more responsive to new directions in research or to scientific surprises than are satellite systems. UAVS have also

been proposed as platforms for releasing instrument packages from high altitudes, which can provide targeted

measurements of climate and chemistry variables at different altitudes in the atmosphere.

High-altitude UAVS have a smaller payload capability than currently available piloted aircraft. However, they

have several advantages that make them particularly attractive for climate research:

●

●

●

●

●

UAVS under design should reach higher altitudes than existing piloted aircrafi. For example, NASA’s piloted

ER-2 can reach the ozone layer at the poles, but it cannot reach the higher altitude ozone layer in the

mid-latitude and equatorial regions that would be accessible to a UAV.

UAVS can be designed to have longer endurance than piloted aircraft.

UAVS should have much lower operating costs than piloted aircraft.2 (UAV studies predict savings of an

order of magnitude or more.) Researchers hope the relatively low cost of UAVS compared with piloted

aircraft would translate into more research aircraft and greater availability of aircraft.

UAVS do not have the flight restrictions of piloted aircraft. For example, for pilot safet y reasons, the ER-2

is restricted to daytime fright. UAVS also alleviate concerns about pilot safety on flights through polar or

ocean regions.

UAVS would be designed to fly at high altitudes at subsonic speeds. Supersonic high altitude aircraft like

the SR-71 (cruise altitude over 80,000 feet) are not suitable for many in-stu experiments because they

disturb the atmosphere they are sampling {e.g., the chemical species involved in ozone depletion).

Both NASA and the Department of Energy plan to use UAVS for key experiments. in addition, the

development of sensors for UAVS relates closely to the development of sensors appropriate for smallsatellites.

1 In the tropi=, the tropopause can reach altitudes of 18 I(M. Monitoring the trwpauw ~th ~rborne ~a~orms

therefore requires vehicles capable of reaching an aititude of some 20 km. NASA’s piioted ER-2 @n reach this aititude,

but it is restricted to frights of 6 hours. A iong duration UAVfiying at or befowthe tropopause would facilitate measurements

necessary for global circulation modeis of the Earth’s atmosphere and climate. These measurements would complement

those being made by DOE as part of its ground-based Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program (ARM), whose

objectives are to improve modefs of the Earth’s climate with regard to: 1 ) radiative energy balances, and 2) aloud formation,

maintenance, and dissipation,

2 i%rexample, directandindirwt~ststo operate the ER-2total to some$9,900/hour when calculated for atY@Ml

year of approximately 1,000 hours of flight operation. NASAconsidersdirect costs as those associated with actuaily flying

an aircraft and paying for support personnel. For the ER-2, these totai to some $2,900~our, This figure neglects indirect

costs such as spare parts, maintenance and shipments (via cargo aircraft) to remote staging areas.

3 in their Atmospheric Radiation Measurement program.

(Continued on next page)
34 | Global Change Research and NASA’s Earth Observing System

Box 3-C-Unpiloted Air Vehicles-Continued

Despite the potential of UAVs to enable measurements that are crucial o rglobal change research, congressional

support for civillan4 UAV development, and associated instrumentation, has been meager and maybe inadequate

to provide a robust UAV capability.

EOS officials acknowledge the utility of both UAVS and small satellites (see box 3-D) in fashioning a more

balanced program of Earth observations. In fact, the administration’s Committee on Earth and Environmental

Sciences proposed amid-course correction to the fiscal year(H) 1993 budget request that would have added

money for small satellite and unmanned aircraft programs. However, these funding increments were not approved

by Congress.5

NASA’s previously tepid support for UAVS changed in 1993 when NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin

proposed a large increase in the agency’s UAV budget (to some $90 million over 5 years). NASA’s EOS budget

for FY 1993 is scheduled to double by FY 1995. Whether it will be possible to achieve this budget growth and

increase funding for new starts such as UAVS remains an outstanding issue. However, several workshop

participants noted that a program that cannot fund what maybe among its most cost effective science

missions would appear to be in need of redirection.

4 A Vaflety of military UAV programs exist, some of which might be adaptable for 910bal Mange m~ti. For

exampe, a fong-endurance, solar-powered, eight-motor unpiloted flying wing that would oarry lightweight interceptor

missiles (dubbed Raptor/Pathfinder) is under development forapplkatkns in balilstk mtssile defense. Howwer, the only

military UAVthat would be avdlable in the neartermforglobal change research would be the Boeing Condor, a large and

heavy (200foot wfngspan, 20,000 pound) propeller-driven UAVthat hotdsthe altltuderecordforapropetlerdrfven aircraft

(67,026 feet or 20.4 km), The Condor has the range and payfoad capability to be useful to atmosphere scientists;

furthermore, proposals existtoextend its operating oeilingtoeven higheraltitudes. Condorwouidbean expensive vehkle

to buy and adapt for scientific research. Even a low estimate of the oost required to restore one Condor for use in

atmosphere researoh is some $20 million; yearly maintenance oosts have been esthnated at several million tilars or

more.

5 AS OIW Wotihop participant, frustrated by the process that orders and funds prfoffties for EOS and WGCRF’,

exptained:

. . . aft of us within CEES (Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences) [reoognizedl

that the role of unmanned aircfaflwas imporiant; the roieof smafl satefliteswas important . . .

[when] restarted tosellthls program ten years agoorsixyearsago there should have been

an unmanned aircraft oomponent. What we shou/dhave done, though, was haw a gene~c

correlative measurement component that would have then been ab/e to adapt to a new,

changingenvhunrnentwf?en newtechno/og/es came onboard [emphasis added]

a shorter period than a monitoring study. Process tailed process studies. The concluding sections of

studies are typically designed to elucidate the

details of a particular mechanism of some geophysical, chemical, or biological interaction. The

distinction between process studies and longterm monitoring studies is least useful for studies

of the land surface, which may require years or

data acquisition. For example, studies of terrestrial ecosystems may require decades of calibrated observation.

OTA asked workshop participants to evaluate

the utility of EOS and satellite alternatives for

both long-term monitoring studies and for dethis chapter summarize some of their observations.

Monitoring STUDIES

The satellite portion of an environmental monitoring system should be designed to make continuous, long-term (decades to centuries), calibrated

measurements of a carefully selected set of

climatological and other variables. For most

monitoring programs, global coverage will be

required. In addition, measurement frequency and

instrument spatial resolution must be matched to
—

Chapter 3: The EOS Program | 35

Box 3-D–Radiative Forcings and Feedbacks

Radiative forcings are changes imposed on the planetary energy balance; radiative feedbacks are changes

induced by climate change. Forcings can arise from natural or anthropogenic causes. For example, the

concentration of sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere can be altered by both volcanic action (as occurred following

the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in June 1991) or by the burning of fossil fuels. The distinction between forcings and

feedbacks is sometimes arbitrary; however, forcings are quantities normally specified in global climate model

simulations, for example, C02 amount, while feedbacks are calculated quantities. Examples of radiative forcings

are greenhouse gases (C02, CH4, CFCS, NZO, OS, stratospheric HzO), aerosols in the troposphere and

stratosphere, solar irradiance, and surface reflectivity. Radiative feedbacks include clouds, water vapor in the

troposphere, sea-ice cover, and snow cover. For example, an increase in the amount of water vapor increases

the atmosphere’s absorption of long-wave radiation, thereby contributing to a warming of the atmosphere.

Warming, in turn, may result in increased evaporation leading to further increases in water vapor concentrations.

The effects of some forcings and feedbacks on climate are both complex and uncertain. For example, clouds

trap outgoing, cooling, Iongwave infrared radiation and thus provide a warming influence.1 However, they also

reflect incoming solar radiation and thus provide a cooling influence. Current measurements indicate t hat the net

effect of clouds is to cool the Earth. However, scientists are unsure if the balance will shift in the future as the

atmosphere and cloud formation, maintenance, and dissipation are altered by the accumulation of greenhouse

gases. Similarly, the vertical distribution of ozone (O3

) affects both the amount of radiation reaching the Earth’s

surface and the amount of reradiated infrared radiation that is trapped by the greenhouse effect. These two

mechanisms affect the Earth’s temperature in opposite directions. Predicting the climate forcing resulting from

ozone change is difficult because the relative importance of these two competing mechanisms also depend on

the altitude of the ozone change.

1 Fora more detailed diswssion of these subjects see V. Ramanathan, Bruoe R. BarkStrom, and Edwin Harrison,

“Climate and the Earth’s Radiation Budget,” Physics Today, vol. 42, No, 5, May 1989, pp. 22-32. Also see J. Hansen, W.

Rossow, and 1. Fung, “&mg-Ttim Monitoring of Giobal Climate Forcings and Feedbacks,” Proceedings of a V&rkshop

heid at NASA Goddard Institute for Spaoe Studies, Feb. 3-4, 1992.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.

the phenomena under study, The decades of

measurements required by many monitoring programs exceed the lifetime of any single satellite;

therefore, monitoring programs will require satellites to be flown repetitively. To distinguish

subtle trends, a new satellite should be launched

while its predecessor is still functioning. Furthermore, technical innovation in sensor or satellite

design should be a lower priority than ensuring

the stability of data and data analysis algorithms,

In contrast, research flights for process studies

require maximum flexibility. These two extremes—

process-oriented studies and long-term monitoring are part of EOS’ plan. However, a single

system may not be appropriate for both types of

measurements.

EOS instruments will acquire data on climate

processes; however, study of climate change

requires measurements over decades with full

continuity and calibration of instrurnentation. In

addition, the comparatively large, expensive, and

high data-rate system of EOS is, according to one

panelist, “fundamentally unsuited for long-term

precision monitoring of global climate forcingso

For example, sampling of diurnal variations will

be limited because the high cost of EOS satellites

prohibits flying two spacecraft in different orbits

at the same time. Flying less expensive satellites

would facilitate overlapping operations of satellites, which is necessary to transfer calibrations

between instruments orbited sequentially as part

of a decadal monitoring effort. Finally, the
36 | Global Change Research and NASA’s Earth Observing System

constrained fiscal environment of the foreseeable

future makes it unlikely that an EOS level of

effort and expenditure could be sustained for

decades. Indeed, as noted above, further budget

cuts could prevent the completion of even the

planned 15 years of operations.23

Some panel members believe EOS should be

augmented with small satellite systems specifically designed for long-term monitoring (box

3-E). The NASA Goddard Institute for Space

Studies “Climsat” proposal is an example of

such a system (box 3-F).24 If successful, Climsat

satellites would carry out a core group of key

remote sensing measurements for many decades.

Supporters of Climsat believe that the data that

would be gathered by Climsat, or a similar

system, are too important to be tied to the

budgetary fate and schedule of EOS. Detractors of

the Climsat proposal include those who believe

that its funding could come only at the further

expense of an already diminished EOS program.

Noting that Climsat addresses only a narrow part

of the climate problem, some critics also question

whether data from Climsat are, in fact, more

important than other data, including ocean color,

land-surface productivity, atmospheric temperature and humidity, and snow and ice volume.

EOS officials acknowledge that the program is

not designed for long-term monitoring. However,

they argue that EOS will acquire 15 years of

high-quality time-series of data that can be

extended to the future as EOS research instruments are incorporated on operational satellites,

such as the NOAA weather satellites. For example, eventually NOAA might fly a version of the

high-resolution atmospheric”infrared sounder (AIRs),

scheduled for inclusion on EOS PM-1, on its

operational satellites.

MECHANISTIC OR PROCESS STUDIES

Satellites play a central role in global change

research because they facilitate global, synoptic,

and repeatable measurements of many Earth

systems. For economic reasons, surface-based

measurements cannot provide similar coverage.

In addition, regular monitoring of remote parts of

the globe is impractical using surface-based

instruments.

Satellite sensors may be employed to monitor

changes in global biomass, land use patterns, and

in the oceans and remote continental regions.

They can also be used for direct measurement of

the regional to global scale phenomena that are

the main components of the climate system.

However, satellite-based measurements also have

a number of limitations that restrict their utility

for certain process studies.25 These include limited spatial and temporal resolution, and an

inability to sample the atmosphere (or surface)

directly. Furthermore, optimizing a satellitebased sensor to improve one of these characteristics frequently requires sacrifice of the other.26

While satellites can examine regional interactions, balloon and aircraft-based instruments can

be targeted directly on the smaller scale aspects of

climate processes. Such instruments can also be

23 EVi&nCe of Ms concern appeu~ in tie&&te over whether EOS “PM-1” should have been launched before “AM-l. ” Concerned that

“worst-case” budget cuts might force program termination after a single launc~ some scientists argued for launching PM’s high-priority

climate measuring instruments before AM. Further evidence is seen in ongoing discussions of possible downsizing of the PM platform and

possible convergence of parts of EOS with NOAA and DOD programs.

u Box 3-F discusses the Clirnsat proposal to illustrate the utility of using small satellites for long-term monitoring. Competing and

attemative proposals to Climsat exist; however, these were not discussed at the OTA workshop,

25 For example, sate~ite-bome sensors are unable to measure clirttatological variables to the prWi5iOn necessary fOr ~“ numerical

weather and climate models, and their abitity to determine temperature, moisture, and winds is inadequate for meteorologists interested in

predicting, rather than just detecting, the formation of severe storms and hurricanes.

26 Forexamplq amklliteinlow-~orbit wilt have a revisit time cf severatdays to approximately two weeks, depending on its ~pabitity

to gather data from areas that are not directly below its path. High time resolution can be obtained from geo-stationaq orbits (because the Earth

appears motionless with respect to the satellite), but then spatial resolution and coverage are sacritlced, The high altitude of gee-stationary orbit

affords a broad, but fixed and limited (e.g., no polar data), view of the Earth.
Chapter 3: The EOS Program 137

Box 3-E-Small Satellites

Small satellites have been defined as costing $100 million or less including spacecraft, instruments, launch,

and operations. Workshop participants generally agreed that the EOS program should make greater use of

instruments based on small satellites as a way to fill gaps between existing and planned satellites and to augment

or complement data that will be acquired by larger satellites. For example, NASA’s existing Earth Probes series

of satellites could be augmented with a new Earth Explorer Mission series. However, such an expansion would

likely require supplemental funding if NASA were to avoid restructuring EOS programs already approved by

Congress.

Small satellites have three advantages compared to larger systems. First they are characterized by relatively

low cost compared to larger satellites.1 This encourages technical innovation, which might otherwise be judged

too risky. Small satellite proponents see this advantage as the key to enabling rapid, affordable augmentation and

modernization of larger satellites. Second, a variety of defense and civil small satellite programs have already

demonstrated that instruments, spacecraft, and launch of small environmental satellites would be possible in a

program of only a few years or less, Typically, development of a small satellite avoids the potential problems

associated with managing the integration of multiple instruments on a single platform. Shortening the time to launch

would also add resilience to the satellite portion of the Global Change Research Program, large parts of which are

frozen in development some 10 years before flight. Third, flying only a small number of instruments per satellite

allows experimenters to optimize satellite orbits for a particular set of measurements.2

NASA, DOE and ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency) are examining small satellite systems for

three roles in the U.S. Global Change Research Program+ 1) to address gaps in long-term monitoring needs prior

to the launch of EOS satellites, 2) to provide essential information to support process studies prior to, and

complementary with, the restructured EOS, and 3) to allow for innovative experiments to demonstrate techniques

that greatly improve the ability to monitor key variables or improve/speed up the process studies

1 ~eyaiso weigh less and ~n wIeSS cmtly Iaunohers. However, launchers are not the real-tdfivers in the

EOS program. Multi-instrument EOS AM and PM satellites and proposed EOS facility instmments4A/VS, SAR, and

HIRIS-require a launcher in the Attas 2AS-class, Launoh costs with an Atlas 2AS may be some $130 million, but this is

20 percent or less of total system costs (which also includes ground segment costs).

2 However, ~mmissions r~uire nearty simultaneous measurements by instm~nts that cannot be packaged

on a single satellite. In this case, a larger platform carryfng several instruments maybe desirable. Another option would

be to attempt to fly small satellites in dose formation.

3 See mmmittee on Earth and Environmental Sdences (CEES) of the Federal Coordlnatlng Coundl forsdenm,

Engineering, and T~nology, Reporfofthe Sma//C//mafe~tfes/fes IWkshop, (Washington, D.C.: Offioe of Sdence and

Technology Policy, May 1992).

A Ibid,, pp. 20-21,

SOURCE: Office of Tschology Assessment, 1993.

altered more frequently to respond to new re- persistence of the Antarctic ozone hole provide an

search directions, whereas the development cycle illustrative example of the kind of measurements

for satellite instruments makes them more suited that cannot be made from space. NASAfor longer term observation programs, sponsored aircraft experiments in the winter of

Aircraft studies of the physical and photochem- 1992 found very large discrepancies with convenical processes responsible for the formation and tional explanations of the mechanisms responsi-
38 I Global Change Research and NASA’s Earth Observing System

Box 3-F-CLIMSAT

Climsat is a proposed system of two small satellites,l each carrying three in stmments, that would monitorthe

Earth’s spectra of reflected solar radiation and emitted thermal radiation. Climsat satellites would be designed to

be self-calibrating, small enough to be orbited with a Pegasus-class launcher2 long-lived (nominally 10 years or

more), and relatively inexpensive.3 Proponents believe Climsat could provide most of the missing data required

to analyze the global thermal energy cycle, specifically long-term monitoring of key global climate forcings and

feedbacks. In addition, proponents claim Climsat would be a more “resilient” system than EOS because it would

launch a small complement of relatively inexpensive instruments on small satellites. In principle, it would be

possible to continue the Climsat measurements for decades beyond the scheduled end of the EOS program.

Climsat alone could not fulfill the broader objectives of the Mission to Planet Earth and the Earth Observing

System Programs. Proponents of Climsat envision combining Climsat observations, planned EOS observations,

and ground-based measurements of temperatures, winds, humidities, aerosols, and vertical ozone. Supporters

of Climsat also believe ACRIM, an instrument to monitor solar output, should be part of a long-term program to

monitor global change.4

Both the baseline EOS program and the baseline Climsat proposal have been revised since their initial

presentations. Versions of two of the three Climsat instruments are nowscheduledfor later EOSflights. However,

Climsat supporters argue that flying these instruments as part of Climsat would:

●

●

●

●

Allow flight in proper orbits.

Guarantee overlapping operations (over longer periods), which would result in better calibrated

measurements.

Allow launch several years before the relevant EOS platforms!

Allow instrument modification on a shorter time-scale than EOS instruments and thus be better able to

respond to scientific surrprises. Supporters also argue that Climsat instruments are better designed to

handle scientific surprises because:

1. Unlike related larger instruments on EOS, they cover practically the entire reflected solar and emitted

thermal spectra.

2. The Climsat instruments measure the polarization as well as the mean intensity of the solar Spectrum.e

1 AS described iMIOW, the baseline Climsat proposal spedffes this number because it is fwessary andsuffwnt

for global coverage and for adequate sampling of diurnal variations.

2 A launch on PegaSUS costs about $10-12 miifion. Pegasus oan carry payback weighing Up to WPO@s.

3 Cost estimates are unoertain at an eatfy stage of concept definition. However, two of the three Climsat

Instmments have gone through phase NB studies in EOS, leading Goddard Institute of Space Studtes researchers to

make the following estimates:

SAGE M-+34 million for 3 EOS cupies (18 miiiion for first copy);

EOSP428 miiiion for 3 EOS ooples ($16 miliion for first oopy);

MiNT--$l5 to 20 miiiion for first copy.

4 Thep~rnary@j~tive of ACRiM Is to rnonitorthevariabfiity oftotai sdarirradlancewith state-of-the-art amfacY

and precidon, thereby extending the high-predsion database complied by NASA since 1980, Maintaining a continuous

record of solar irradianceand Iaunchlng sensors frequently enough tohaveoverlapping operation (totransfercaiibration)

is necessary to distinguish subtle variations in solar output. However, the only ACRiM sensor now in orbit is on UARS,

a sateiiite whose usefui iifetime is expected to end in 1994. NASA plans to launch ACRiM as part of the EOS-CHEM

payload, but EOS-CHEMisnot scheduled foriaunohuntiithe third quarter of2002. if funds can beidentif~ EOSprograrn

officiaishopeto iaunoh ACRIM eartieron a“fiightof opportunity.” CfImsatsupporters wouldfty ACRIM as soonaspossibte

on a separate smaii sateiiite.

5 Aooording to iY. James Hansen, deveioper of the CilmW proP08si, th cl~-t tWdiite WOUfd Wire three

years to buiid and iaunch after approval and procurement processe8 were complete.

~ polarization refers to the dkeotionat dependence of the 8&tt’k# fi81d -of Of d80t_gf18tiC mdtation.

Anaiysis of the poiartzation of refiected ilght oan provide unique Information about scene chamcterfstlcs. it can also

determine aerosol oharacteristlcs. See dlsamslon of Cilrnsat and EO$P in app. Bof 7he Future otWnoteSens/ngfmrn

Space: Clvi//anSatel/{te Systems andA@xMons, ORA-iSCX!56 (wamngw, Do: us. GOl&nmentwing Office, Jufy

1993).
Chapter 3: The EOS Program |39

ble for ozone depletion. 27 This result was very

surprising; moreover, explanations for the discrepancies showed that simultaneous highresolution observations (on the scale of 0.1

kilometer in vertical extent) of the concentration

of multiple chemical species were necessary to

diagnose the operative mechanisms properly.

EOS AND BALANCE WITHIN THE USGCRP

OTA workshop participants generally agreed

that the USGCRP would benefit from a more

balanced program between satellite and other

types of studies. Forexample, participants strongly

urged greater support for correlative (’‘groundtruth’ measurements that would support and

complement satellite measurements. As noted

above, many also urged greater support for

process-oriented studies to facilitate establishment of the physical and chemical mechanisms

responsible for global change. The need for a

long-term monitoring system has also been noted

in this paper.

Several workshop participants attributed deficiencies in the USGCRP to the failure of agencies

charged with nonsatellite research to acquire

resources necessary to fulfill roles anticipated in

the original formulation of the Program. Attempting to redress this problem either through redirection of NASA funds, or through funding increments, raises several policy issues whose resolution is beyond the scope of this background paper.

They include:

Should NASA be the lead agency for both

space and non-space based measurements?

If not, will agencies other than NASA

embrace USGCRP as a priority and give

nonsatellite programs sufficient attention

and funding?

Is NASA, which has traditionally been

responsible for research and development of

space technology, the appropriate agency to

be charged with long-term environmental

monitoring?

Is it realistic to expect Congress to appropriate large percentage increases in agency

global change budgets? If not, does NASA

become the de facto lead agency for both

space-based and non space-based programs?

What consequences might arise from NASA

assuming these roles?

Would requiring agencies to “fence off’

their contributions to the USGCRP result in

greater support for non-satellite programs?

ZT ~lysls of ~-si~ memwemen~ of chlorine monoxide at mid- and high northern latitudes during the period October 1991 to Febnmy

1992 indicates that chlorine speeies play a greater role, and oxides of nitrogen a lesser role, than previously thought in the catalytic destruction

of ozone in the lower stratosphere. See D.W. Toohey et. al., “The Seasonal Evolution of Reactive Chlorine in the Northern Hemisphere, ”

Science, vol. 261, No. 5125, Aug. 27, 1993, pp. 1134-1135.
T

he U.S. Global Change Research Program

(USGCRP) was formally announced as a

Presidential Initiative in January 1989. Several new developments occasion OTA’s

workshop, which will review the organization and

scientific priorities of USGCRP and its largest single

element, the Earth Observing System Program (EOS).

These developments include:

Appendix A:

OTA’s

Workshop Premise

and Questions

to Participants

●

●

●

The start of a new Congress with an unprecedented

number of new members.

The beginning of a new administration that includes

a Vice-President who has a particular interest in the

consequences of climate change.

Executive-branch and congressional reductions that

have

a.

b.

forced NASA’s EOS program to be restructured;

and

cut complementary components/new initiatives

to EOS from agencies outside NASA, for example, the Department of Energy Atmospheric

Radiation Measurement program and advanced

technology demonstrations proposed by the

Department of Defense (DOD).

OTA recognizes that USGCRP and EOS programs

are the result of lengthy reviews and difficult compromises, Workshop participants will not be asked to pass

judgment on the wisdom of individual instrument

selections. Instead, OTA is seeking a broad look at

USGCRP and EOS to determine whether it is possible

to strengthen the existing program. Most of the

workshop will focus broadly on USGCRP; however,

particular attention will be given to EOS and its role in

USGCRP,

Questions Related to USGCRP:

Are the science priorities of USGCRP the “right”

(type, order) ones’? How well has the process that

established./revised these priorities worked?

How well is USGCRP addressing the needs of

policymakers? Are new elements needed to support

the assessment roles of the program?

Are there missing elements from USGCRP (e.g.,

ecological research, systems appropriate for very

long-term monitoring)? If so, could they be added

without causing disruption to a program that already

has undergone substantial revision.

Does USGCRP have sufficient balance among

ground-, ocean-, air-, and satellite-based measurements to address the most pressing scientific

questions?

Does USGCRP have a “strategic plan” that is

geared to the multidecadal time frame of societaI

concerns (e.g., economics and ecosystem loss). Is

there an appropriate balance between near-term and

long-term problems and goals? How will the end of

the USGCRP as a Presidential Initiative affect

plans?

NASA’s Mission to Planet Earth is the largest single

element of USGCRP, making NASA the lead

1 This appendix is the text of a memorandum submitted to workshop participants prior to their attendance at the Feb. 25-26, 1993 meeting.

41
42 | Global Change Research and NASA’s Earth Observing System

agency for global change research. The contributions of other agencies in the USGCRP have fallen

short of initial expectations. Can requirements for

ground-, ocean-, or airborne-collected data be met

without additional support from these agencies? Are

there particular high-leverage initiatives that Congress should restore/initiate?

Was USGCRP organized to insure that the broad

and diverse interests of the Earth science and global

change research community were addressed? What

is the best way to ensure balance in the execution of

the goals of the USGCRP?

Management and utilization of natural resources

under a potentially changing climate will fall to

terrestrial management and research agencies such

as the Department of Interior and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Do panelists foresee greater

involvement in USGCRP by these agencies?

Certain long-lived systems, such as forests and

water supply systems, will be planned with considerable uncertainty as to future climate.

a. Will our climate research provide information

with sufficient promptness to improve decision

making in these areas?

b. Are we in any way ranking our research efforts

to provide timely information to those systems

for which decisions must be made relatively

promptly?

Questions Related to the EOS Program

The present $8 billion EOS program (fiscal years

1990 to 2000) evolved from what was planned to be a

$17 billion program as recently as 2 years ago.

Questions related to EOS and its role in the USGCRP

include:

What parts of the EOS program should now be

considered “frozen; are there parts that might still

be modified without substantial delays or cost

penalties?

Did a broad spectrum of the Earth science community have appropriate input into the formulation and

revision of the EOS program? If not, what new

relationships might be considered?

Should NASA allocate greater resources towards

nonsatellite means of data collection?

What actions might Congress take to facilitate the

development of ‘smaller, faster, cheaper’ missions

●

●

●

for EOS? Does the increased risk associated with

this approach (versus the traditional Phase A-D

methodical approach) restrict these missions to

process-oriented missions? Is smaller and lighter

weight necessarily equivalent to cheaper? Are there

specific actions NASA could take to facilitate

technical innovation that do not require substantial

increases in budget authorization?

Are systems being developed for EOS appropriate

(scientifically sound, acceptable risk affordable) for

a long-term (decadal time-scale) monitoring program? Is the program structured to carry out

long-term monitoring missions?

Are the systems being developed for EOS appropriate for future operational missions, such as

National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration’s

(NOAA) environmental satellites? Are panelists

satisfied with the current arrangements between

NASA and NOAA for development of NOAA

satellite systems? Are NOAA interests for future

operational systems being addressed in the planning

of EOS?

Is the EOS acquisition strategy flexible enough to:

a. Withstand additional budget cuts?

b. Withstand unexpected cost growth?

c. Respond to science priorities that may change as

early data is processed?

(Historically, budget cuts and cost growth have

resulted in program delays—among the issues to be

explored here is how to minimize the risk that these

unexpected developments will result in gaps in the

acquisition of time-series data.)

Have budget reductions compromised EOS plans to

process the expected “avalanche” of data? Are

panel members satisfied that global change researchers will have adequate access to EOS data? to

appropriate hardware and software? Are panelists

satisfied with NASA efforts to solicit their views on

questions of data policy, data analysis, data computability?

How much of EOS will be directly relevant to

assessment of ecosystem vulnerability and response

to a changing climate? What parts of EOS might

give us near-term guidance on policy responses?

Are EOS systems a cost-effective way to acquire the

required data?
Appendix B:

c

ongress passed the Acid Precipitation Act

in 1980, thereby establishing an interagency task force to plan and oversee a

10-year National Acid Precipitation Assessment Plan (NAPAP).l The purpose of NAPAP was

to increase understanding of the causes and effects of

acid precipitation through research, monitoring, and

assessment activities. NAPAP was intended to be

useful to policymakers-the program emphasized the

timely development of science for use in decisionmaking. 2

NAPA.P was one of the most ambitious multiagency

programs ever focused on a particular problem.

Annual budgets ranged from approximately $17 million at the beginning of the program to just over $300

million at its end. Although NAPAP succeeded in its

research efforts, it did not provide policy relevant

information in a timely manner. This appendix focuses

on the question of whether NAPAP’s failure to be more

“policy relevant’ has lessons for the USGCRP.

When founded, NAPAP consisted of 10 task groups,

each with a single agency serving as the coordination

contact. Task groups included:

1. natural sources of acid precipitation,

2. human sources of acid precipitation,

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Lessons

From

NAPAP

atmospheric processes,

deposition monitoring,

aquatic effects,

terrestrial effects,

effects on materials and cultural resources,

control technologies,

assessments and policy analysis, and

international activities.

In 1985, the assessments and policy analysis task

group was disbanded-a decision that reduced the

value of the program to decisionmakers.

Policymakers looked to NAPAP for straightforward

analyses of the acid rain “problem.’ However,

NAPAP sponsored research did not approach acid rain

as a unified issue. Rather it examined the subject at a

multidisciplinary and subdisciplinary level with little

emphasis on synthesis of findings.

The program reported findings in excruciating

disciplinary detail, an approach which was not

especially helpful to non-specialist decision makers. The disciplinary pluralism of NAPAP also

allowed policy advocates to pick and choose

among NAPAP’s reported findings, emphasizing

facts or uncertainties supporting a particular

position while de-emphasizing others. NAPAP

1 NOAA, USDA, and EPA jointly chaired the task force which also consisted of members from DOI, HHS, DOC, DOE, DOS, NASA, CEQ,

NSF, and TVA along with representatives of the Argome, Brookhaven, Oak Ridge, and Pacific Northwest National Laboratories and four

Presidential appointees.

2 Oversight Review Board of the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, The Experience and Legacy of N.MAP, Report to the

Joint Chairs Council of the Interagency Task Force on Acid Deposition, April 1991.

43
44 | Global Change Research and NASA’s Earth Observing System

lacked an extra-disciplinary perspective that would

have allowed it to characterize acid rain as a

problem, non-problem, or something in between.3

Assessment and policy analysis research develops

and uses quantitative methods to organize and communicate scientific and other information in ways that

allow comparison of policy choices. These methods

include decision analysis, benefit-cost analysis, risk

analysis, and technology assessments. The NAFAP

task group on assessments attempted to begin early in

the program to develop integrated assessment methodologies and to perform multiple assessments throughout the program to assure policy relevance. For

example, plans for a 1985 report included an assessment of the current damages attributed to acid deposition, an uncertainty analysis of key scientific areas, and

an analysis of the implications of uncertainty for policy

choices. The authors of the 1985 report were also

tasked to develop a framework of the methodology for

subsequent integrated assessments in 1987 and 1989.4

However, NAPAP management changed in 1985 as

did the focus of the program. The assessments task

group was disbanded and responsibility for assessments moved under the &rector of research. The new

director repeatedly delayed the 1985 assessment, until

it was finally released (with much controversy) in

1987. The 1987 and 1989 integrated assessments were

never produced. At that point, it was uncertain whether

NAPAP would produce even one assessment. NAPAP

ceased funding for the integrated assessment modeling because the Interagency Scientific Committee

decided that they would prefer to spend limited

funding on other research.

Although NAPAP eventually produced an integrated assessment in 1990, its lateness diminished its

utility to policymakers formulating amendments to the

Clean Air Act.5 In addition, the effectiveness of the

1990 integrated assessment was limited as NAPAP

officials either failed to execute, or underfunded,

important ancillary assessments. This included, for

example, an evaluation of the economic effects of acid

deposition on crops, forests, fisheries, and recreational

and aesthetic resources, and a determination of the

implications of alternative policies.6

In its report to the Joint Chairs Council of the

Interagency Task Force on Acidic Deposition, the

Oversight Review Board (ORB) of the National Acid

Precipitation Assessment emphasized strongly that an

assessment function be given primacy throughout an

interagency prograrn.7 The ORB key recommendation on lessons learned about the interface between

science and policy was to give assessment primacy

over research since “science and research findings per

se have little to offer directly to the public policy

process, [and] their usefulness depends on assessment,

defined as the interpretation of findings relevant to

decisions.”8 ORB also outlined nine other suggestions

that any program with such a close interface between

science and policy should follow:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Match institutional remedies to problems.

Obtain and maintain political commitment.

Take steps to assure continuity.

Configure organization and authority to match

responsibility.

Give assessment primacy.

Provide for independent external programmatic

oversight.

Understand the role of science and how to use it.

Take special care with communication.

Prepare early for ending the program.

The insights gained from the experiences of NAP’

were not considered when designing the U.S. Global

Change Research Program (USGCRP)-a much larger

program on both a temporal and spatial scale than

NAPAP. Some argue that USGCRP is following the

same path as NAPAP-good research will come from

`j Hernck and Jamieson, The Social Construction of Acid Rain: Some Implications for Science/Policy Assessment, paper presented at the

18th annual meeting of the Society for the Social Studies of Science, Purdue, Nov. 19-21, 1992.

4 Interagency Task Force on Acid Precipitation Annual Report 1982 to the President and Congress (Washington, DC: National Acid

Precipitation Assessment Progr~ 1982).

5 U.S. Congress, Government Accounting Office, Acid Rain: Delays and Management Changes in the Federal Research Program

GAO/RCED-87-89 (Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office, April 1987).

6 Ibid.

7 Oversight Review Board, op. cit., footnote 2.

8 Oversight Review Board, op. cit., footnote 2, 1191:26.
Chapter 3: The EOS Program 145

USGCRP, but the results will not be used to inform Congress use the experiences of NAPAP in formulatpolicy, and decisions concerning global change will be ing legislation for USGCRP? and How should incormade with little more knowledge than that available poration of lessons from NAPAP be integrated into

today.9 The logical questions to ask are: Why didn’t USGCRP and future multiagency programs?

g E.S. Rubin, L.B. Lave, and M.G. Morgan, ‘‘Keeping Climate Research Relevan4’ Issues in Science and Technology, vol. 8, No. 2, Winter

1991-1992, pp. 47-55.