U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

79–908 PDF 2013

S. HRG. 110–1210 

EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND OCEAN 

ACIDIFICATION ON LIVING MARINE ORGANISMS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, 

FISHERIES, AND COAST GUARD 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 10, 2007 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Vice Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

MARGARET L. CUMMISKY, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

LILA HARPER HELMS, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and Policy Director 

CHRISTINE D. KURTH, Republican Staff Director, and General Counsel 

KENNETH R. NAHIGIAN, Republican Deputy Staff Director, and Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, FISHERIES, AND COAST 

GUARD 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington, Chairman 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine, Ranking 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on May 10, 2007 ............................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Cantwell .............................................................................. 1 

Statement of Senator Klobuchar ............................................................................ 5 

Prepared statement of Hon. Olympia J. Snowe, U.S. Senator from Maine ........ 3 

Statement of Senator Stevens ................................................................................ 4 

WITNESSES

Conover, Ph.D., David O., Dean and Director, Marine Sciences Research 

Center, Stony Brook University .......................................................................... 19 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 20 

Doney, Ph.D., Scott C., Senior Scientist, Department of Marine Chemistry 

and Geochemistry, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution .............................. 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Feely, Ph.D., Richard A., Supervisory Chemical Oceanographer, Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce ....... 13 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 15 

Hansen, Dr. Lara J., Chief Scientist, Climate Change Program, World Wildlife Fund ................................................................................................................ 24 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 25 

Kruse, Ph.D., Gordon H., President’s Professor of Fisheries and Oceanography, School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of Alaska Fairbanks ..................................................................................................................... 33 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35 

Watkins, James D., Admiral (Ret.), U.S. Navy; Chairman, U.S. Commission 

on Ocean Policy; Co-Chair, Joint Ocean Commission Initiative ...................... 43 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 45 

APPENDIX

Inouye, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii, prepared statement ........... 65 

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 65 

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to: 

Scott C. Doney, Ph.D. ....................................................................................... 66 

Richard A. Feely, Ph.D. .................................................................................... 82 

Dr. Lara J. Hansen ........................................................................................... 93 

James D. Watkins ............................................................................................ 100 

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to: 

Scott C. Doney, Ph.D. ....................................................................................... 66 

Richard A. Feely, Ph.D. .................................................................................... 77 

Dr. Lara J. Hansen ........................................................................................... 92 

James D. Watkins ............................................................................................ 94 

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg to: 

Scott C. Doney, Ph.D. ....................................................................................... 69 

Richard A. Feely, Ph.D. .................................................................................... 84 

(1) 

EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND OCEAN 

ACIDIFICATION ON LIVING MARINE 

ORGANISMS 

THURSDAY, MAY 10, 2007 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, FISHERIES, 

AND COAST GUARD, 

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:22 a.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Maria Cantwell, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON 

Senator CANTWELL. Good morning. The Senate Committee on 

Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard Subcommittee hearing will come 

to order. I thank the witnesses for their indulgence. The Senate 

had a vote and some of my colleagues I am sure will be joining us 

shortly. But I thought that we should go ahead and get started. I 

thank you very much for being here. 

I know that we have a distinguished set of witnesses: Dr. Scott 

‘‘DONN-ey,’’ is that right? 

Dr. DONEY. ‘‘DOE-ney.’’ 

Senator CANTWELL. ‘‘DOE-ney.’’ Thank you very much. 

Dr. Richard Feely; is that correct? I should know that, given your 

presence in the Pacific Northwest. Dr. David Conover, Dr. Lara 

Hansen, Dr. Gordon Kruse, and Admiral James Watkins. Thank 

you for returning to the Committee and for your steadfast involvement in this issue. 

I know that some of you have PowerPoint presentations and we 

will try to accommodate you this morning on that and give you a 

few extra minutes and, as I said, as my colleagues arrive we will 

also give them time to make opening statements. 

I would like to again welcome each of you to this important Committee to talk about the impact of climate change and ocean acidification on our living marine resources. Today you represent some of 

the top experts in the field of ocean and climate change and I 

would like to thank each of you for your testimony and for your 

leadership in this area. 

Since the start of the Industrial Revolution 200 years ago, humans have released over 1.5 trillion tons of carbon dioxide into the 

2 

atmosphere and only now are we beginning to understand the implications of this. When scientists first started raising questions 

about our carbon dioxide emissions in the 1950s, very little was 

known about the possible consequences. Some predicted that carbon dioxide would accumulate in the atmosphere. Others predicted 

it would be absorbed by the world’s oceans. Today we know that 

both of those were correct. 

Human-caused emissions have increased the global atmospheric 

carbon dioxide concentration by 35 percent. In addition, over half 

a trillion tons of carbon dioxide have been absorbed by our oceans. 

We are already seeing the impacts of this on our oceans and our 

coastal ecosystems. If we continue with business as usual, the ecological, social, and economic consequences are likely to be severe. 

After extensive scientific research, climate scientists now know 

that global warming is happening and it is happening because of 

human use of fossil fuel. We are seeing more results of global 

warming every day. Year after year, our polar ice caps are receding, glaciers are shrinking rapidly, even disappearing, and, to give 

one example from my home state, the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change recently reported that the mountain snow pack 

that feeds the Columbia River system is shrinking away, producing 

less and less water for the rivers every year. 

While these easy-to-see impacts of global warming are highly disturbing, we are here today to examine the impacts that are not 

quite as visible, but yet just as severe: those that occur beneath the 

surface of our oceans. The impact of climate change on coastal communities from sea level rise and increased storm intensity have 

been the focus of much attention. But climate change also poses 

risks to our Nation’s multibillion dollar fishing industry. In fact, 

global warming could threaten the very integrity of our oceans’ ecosystem, possibly wiping out more vulnerable ecosystems like coral 

reefs. 

These are frightening possibilities, but very real ones. While it 

may not be easy to see the impacts of global warming in the ocean, 

it is vital that we examine it. If we wait until these problems are 

too painful or too obvious to ignore, it will be far too late. While 

carbon dioxide is accumulating in our atmosphere, it also is being 

absorbed by oceans, and approximately one-third of carbon dioxide 

emissions end up in the oceans. 

For decades we assumed that the oceans would absorb these 

greenhouse gases to the benefit of our atmosphere, with no side effects for our seas. Emerging science now shows we were wrong. 

Thanks in no small part to the work of our panelists; we now know 

that the absorption of carbon dioxide actually changes the very 

chemistry of our oceans. Sea water becomes more acidic and begins 

to withhold the basic chemical building blocks needed by many marine organisms. Coral reefs, the rain forests of the sea, cannot build 

their skeletons, and in colder waters, scientists predict, more acidic 

oceans can dissolve the shells of tiny organisms that make up the 

base of the ocean’s food chain. 

When it comes to ocean acidification, we risk not just damaging 

the oceans’ ecosystem; we are threatening its very foundation. The 

social and economic costs to the world’s fisheries and fishery-dependent communities are incalculable. Managers at the State and 

3 

local and regional levels must be able to anticipate and develop 

strategies to address these threats. 

The danger of global climate change and ocean acidification can 

be illustrated with one example from my home state of Washington. Washington is home to a very important salmon population. 

Salmon are a $330 million industry in the Pacific Northwest and 

certainly a cultural icon. As I mentioned earlier, the global warming will continue to reduce the snowpack that feeds our rivers will 

continue to have impacts. As these waters become less, the waters 

will become warmer. Salmon rely on a predictable, steady flow for 

their survival. 

Every coastal State can point to examples like these, and these 

examples are far too important to ignore. Both global warming and 

ocean acidification have the same cause and the same solution—we 

must reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide. If we fail to address 

the potential impact of global climate change and ocean acidification, we can be jeopardizing all we have fought so hard for on 

ocean conservation and the gains that have already been made. 

These are difficult words to hear, I think, but reflect a difficult reality. 

Again, I want to thank all of you for joining us and for your hard 

work on this very important issue. We look forward to your testimony. 

I know I have been joined by Senator Stevens, the Ranking 

Member of the full Committee, and I invite him to make any opening comment, and to note that Senator Snowe is unable to join us 

today because of a conflict, but is reviewing the testimony and will 

be very involved in any further steps and will look forward to seeing the testimony of the witnesses. But I thank Senator Stevens for 

his participation and his presence here this morning. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Snowe follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, U.S. SENATOR FROM MAINE

Thank you, Madam Chair, for calling this critical hearing to discuss how climate 

change may affect the future of our oceans and their living marine resources. I am 

pleased that this committee is so actively investigating the burgeoning issue of 

ocean acidification—a topic that in just a few short years has developed from a relatively unknown theory into what is potentially one of the most disconcerting aspects of ocean-related climate science. 

Lost in much of the discussion of climate change has been its potential impacts 

on the oceans’ corals, fish, and other species. Recent research—much of it conducted 

by members of our esteemed panel of witnesses—has indicated that as a direct result of the precipitous increase in carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, our oceans are 

warming and becoming more acidic. If we continue to allow emissions of carbon dioxide to increase, we could see drastic, worldwide impacts in our oceans, from species migration and coral bleaching to widespread extinctions. 

The oceans drive much of our Nation’s economy, as well as that of my home state 

of Maine. Throughout our state’s history, stewardship of our marine resources has 

pervaded our maritime activities. Nowhere is this more evident than in our lobster 

fishery, which for generations has engaged in self-imposed, sustainable fishing practices. The result of that stewardship is a robust industry that landed over $270 million worth of lobster in 2006. Today, that fishery faces potential danger. Not from 

the activities of our lobstermen, but from the potential effects of global climate 

change. 

In 1999, the lobstermen of Long Island Sound began pulling up pots full of dead 

lobster. According to a study by Connecticut’s Sea Grant program, that fall, commercial landings from western Long Island Sound plummeted an astounding 99 percent 

from the previous year. Nearly three-quarters of the Sound’s lobstermen lost all of 

their income. The study concluded that, ‘‘the physiology of the lobsters was severely 

4 

stressed by sustained, hostile environmental conditions, driven by above average 

water temperatures.’’ In other words, warming ocean temperatures created conditions that killed these lobsters and decimated the fishery. 

The lobster industry’s collapse in Long Island Sound may be a harbinger for other 

fisheries. Evidence is mounting that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gasses—carbon dioxide in particular—are disrupting the forces that drive our climate 

and in turn, our oceans. Approximately a third to a half of global manmade carbon 

dioxide emissions have already been absorbed into the world’s oceans. This amount 

will double by 2050, and all indications are that this will increase the acidity of the 

oceans’ surface and could initiate the largest change in pH to occur in as many as 

200 million years. Clearly, the consequences of such a shift could be catastrophic. 

Which is why my colleague Senator Kerry and I introduced S. 485, the Global 

Warming Reduction Act of 2007. This legislation is the only introduced climate bill 

that specifically calls for research to address the vulnerability of marine organisms 

throughout the food chain to increased carbon dioxide emissions. It also requires an 

assessment of probability that such a change will cost us more than 40 percent of 

our coral reefs—delicate ecosystems that are especially vulnerable to both ocean 

acidification and warming. 

And coral reefs are just as integral to the economy and heritage of tropical states 

such as Florida and Hawaii as fisheries are to Maine. In order to protect these resources, we must understand what is happening to them. The final report of the 

U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, chaired by Admiral Watkins who is testifying before us today, calls for development and implementation of a sustained Integrated 

Ocean Observing System to provide the data necessary to understand the complex 

oceanic and atmospheric systems—including pH, temperature, salinity and the 

speed and direction of currents—that comprise our oceans. I know the scientists 

here today also support that initiative, and I support it as well. 

In each of the past two Congresses, I have introduced a bill to authorize an Integrated Ocean Observing System and develop a national framework to oversee and 

our numerous, successful, independent regional observing systems. Twice this bill 

has passed the Senate unanimously, but failed to pass the House. I have introduced 

a new version of this bill—the Coastal and Ocean Observation Systems Act of 2007, 

S. 950—in the 110th Congress, with sixteen bi-partisan co-sponsors, and I am working closely with members from both chambers to ensure that this bill becomes law 

as soon as possible. 

Mounting evidence linking carbon emissions to potentially devastating changes in 

the hydrology of our oceans compels us to act now to protect the future of the irreplaceable resources found beneath the waves. I will continue to do everything in my 

power to provide our scientists with the requisite tools to carry our their research 

and ensure that we prevent further damage to these vital ecosystems. I thank Doctors Feely, Conover, Doney, Kruse, and Hansen and Admiral Watkins for taking the 

time to engage in what I believe will be a fruitful and fascinating discussion, and 

I look forward to hearing all of your testimony. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. 

To maintain our sustainable fisheries, it is important that we try 

to understand how changes to the oceans’ environment affect our 

fish stocks. Much of the focus on Capitol Hill and in the media is 

centered on how climate change will affect life on land through 

higher temperatures, storms, and sea levels. What many do not realize is that the oceans may change as well and, as the chairwoman has said, if the predictions are accurate these changes could 

have economic and serious consequences. 

Warm ocean temperatures are causing widespread coral bleaching in the Caribbean. In Alaska some species are moving north. 

There is concern about how these changes will affect the fisheries 

off our shores—half the coastline of the United States is in Alaska. 

We know very little about these changes. We do not know how 

much this change is due to natural variations and how much is 

5 

manmade. In Alaska our fisheries have been impacted in the past 

due to natural variations in ocean temperature caused by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation shifts in ocean currents. Some fisheries in 

Alaska have flourished due to warmer temperatures. Others have 

seen temporary declines. 

I am pleased to see these panelists here today, Madam Chairman. What we have been witnessing could have serious consequences for marine life and fisheries worldwide, and I know 

these panelists can help the Committee identify some of the current gaps in our knowledge. We need to make sure the Federal 

agencies have the resources in the right places to study ocean 

acidification and climate change. 

I thank the panelists. I do particularly thank Dr. Gordon Kruse, 

who has traveled all the way from Juneau to participate in today’s 

hearing. Dr. Kruse has studied fisheries in Alaska for decades, 

most recently serving as Chair of the Scientific and Statistical 

Committee of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. 

Their Committee plays a vital role in what the Pew Commission 

has stated is the best managed fishery in the world, thanks to the 

science that Dr. Kruse and others have given us. 

Let me welcome Admiral Watkins. It is always a pleasure to 

have him back because we have followed his thoughts on ocean 

policies for some time. I look forward to the testimony. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Senator Stevens. 

Senator Klobuchar? 

STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for 

all of you coming. I am the Senator from Minnesota. I am the only 

member of the Committee without an ocean. But I am pleased to 

be here, of course, because of the Great Lakes and how important 

that is to our way of life in Minnesota, with Lake Superior, as well 

as our economy in Minnesota. I will tell you that the lake levels 

in the Great Lakes continue to drop and we are seeing an impact 

on the economy. 

We are also seeing an impact of climate change on our 10,000 

lakes that we are so proud of in Minnesota. That is what our license plate says and it is something we are proud of. But we have 

fishermen who cannot put their icehouses out for a month. We 

have all kinds of issues that are coming up with our wetlands. 

So I look forward to hearing from this panel and thank you for 

coming today. 

Senator CANTWELL. With that, we will go ahead and get started 

with our witnesses. Mr. Doney, you are first. As I said, I think we 

are asking people if they could keep their comments to 5 minutes, 

knowing that some of you who have slide presentations might take 

a little longer just to get through that. But thank you very much 

for being here. 

6 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT C. DONEY, PH.D., SENIOR SCIENTIST, 

DEPARTMENT OF MARINE CHEMISTRY AND GEOCHEMISTRY, 

WOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTION 

Dr. DONEY. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, Ranking 

Member Stevens, and other members of the Subcommittee. My 

name is Scott Doney and I am a Senior Scientist at the Woods Hole 

Oceanographic Institution, and I want to thank you—for the opportunity to talk to you about ocean acidification and climate change. 

There is a broad U.S. scientific consensus that human activities 

are increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, altering our planet’s climate and acidifying the ocean. Climate change and acidification 

will increasingly impact fisheries, coral reefs, coastal environments, 

and the important economic and ecosystem functions delivered by 

the ocean. We have an opportunity to limit the negative impacts 

of ocean acidification and climate change, but only if we take deliberate and immediate action. 

Atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 35 percent over the 

last 2 centuries, mostly due to fossil fuel combustion. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that traps heat near the Earth’s surface. 

Climate processes amplify the impact of elevated carbon dioxide 

and other greenhouse gases and lead to warming of the land and 

the ocean, melting of glaciers, retreat of sea ice, and rising sea 

level. 

Global warming should really be called ocean warming, as more 

than 80 percent of the increased heat actually ends up in the 

ocean. Measurements show that ocean warming is extending from 

the surface down to a depth of at least 10,000 feet and over the 

last several decades there has been a retreat of Arctic sea ice by 

15 to 20 percent over the summer and some models predict that 

we will have ice-free conditions in the Arctic by the year 2040. 

But warming is not the only impact of carbon dioxide. Elevated 

carbon dioxide also alters ocean chemistry. The ocean absorbs 

about one-third of fossil fuel carbon emissions and once in the 

ocean carbon dioxide combines with water to form an acid, leading 

to more acidic conditions. The physical chemistry of this process is 

well known and well understood. 

Climate change and ocean acidification are confirmed by real 

world observations and are supported by both models and theory. 

Unless greenhouse gas emissions are curbed, these trends will only 

accelerate over the next several decades. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is already higher than at any time in the last half million years 

and may double again in concentration by the end of this century. 

Warming and acidification affect ocean plants and animals both 

directly and via changes in the ecosystems which they depend upon 

for food and habitat. Some broad trends can be identified. These include reduced biological productivity in low and mid latitudes, 

polar shifts in warm-water species, and declines in corals and other 

shell-forming plants and animals. 

From historical data we know that commercially important species such as salmon are sensitive to climate-driven changes in the 

base of the ocean food chain. Of particular concern is if there are 

climatic tipping points in the future that may induce rapid and 

dramatic alterations in ocean ecosystems. My fellow panelists will 

7 

1The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. 

discuss in more detail some of the changes we are already seeing 

and what we might expect to see in the future. 

For fisheries, climate and acidification impacts will likely exacerbate other problems, including overfishing, pollution, excess nutrients, and habitat destruction. Marine life has survived large variations in the past, but the current rates of climate change and 

ocean acidification are much faster than experienced in most of geological history. The reality of climate change and ocean acidification is now clear. Less clear is the total extent of the repercussions 

that we face. 

First and foremost, we need to control and reduce the emissions 

of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that are the root of 

the problem. 

Second, we need enhanced investment in an effort to monitor 

ocean changes, understand biological responses, and convey this information to stakeholders. 

Third and finally, we need a comprehensive ocean management 

strategy that explicitly addresses the need to adapt to climate 

change and acidification that are now unavoidable. 

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to address the Subcommittee and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Doney follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SCOTT C. DONEY, PH.D., SENIOR SCIENTIST, DEPARTMENT

OF MARINE CHEMISTRY AND GEOCHEMISTRY, WOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC

INSTITUTION 1

Introduction 

Good morning Madame Chair, Ranking Member Snowe and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak with you today on 

global climate change, ocean acidification and the resulting impacts on fisheries and 

living marine resources. My name is Scott Doney, and I am a Senior Scientist at 

the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. My research focuses on interactions among climate, the ocean and global carbon cycles, 

and marine ecosystems. I have published more than 90 peer-reviewed scientific journal articles and book chapters on these and related subjects. I serve on the U.S. 

Carbon Cycle Science Program Scientific Steering Group and the U.S. Community 

Climate System Model Scientific Steering Committee, and I am Chair of the U.S. 

Ocean Carbon and Climate Change Scientific Steering Group and the U.S. Ocean 

Carbon and Biogeochemistry Scientific Steering Committee. 

For today’s hearing, you have asked me to discuss the mechanisms by which 

greenhouse gases impact the ocean, coastal environment, and living marine resources, gaps in our current scientific understanding, and implications for resource 

management including adaptation and mitigation strategies. My comments are 

based on a broad scientific consensus as represented in the current scientific literature and in community assessments such as the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change (IPCC) reports (IPCC, 2007a; 2007b; 2007c). 

Over the past two centuries, human activities have resulted in dramatic increases 

in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. There is broad scientific 

consensus that these excess greenhouse gases are altering our planet’s climate and 

acidifying the ocean. These findings are confirmed by real-world observations and 

supported by theory and numerical models. Climate change and acidification trends 

will accelerate over the next several decades unless there is deliberate action to curb 

greenhouse emissions. Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide and climate change 

produce upper-ocean warming, sea-ice retreat, sea-level rise, ocean acidification, altered freshwater distributions, and maybe even stronger storms. 

Growing evidence suggests that these human-driven climate change and acidification will strongly impact ocean ecosystems as well. Further pressure will be put on 

living marine resources, such as fisheries and coral reefs that we depend upon for 

8 

food, tourism and other economic and aesthetic benefits. We have an opportunity 

now to limit the negative impact of climate change and acidification in the future. 

This will require a comprehensive ocean management strategy that incorporates scientific understanding of climate change and acidification from the start. This strategy will also require a balance between adaptation to climate change and acidification that are unavoidable, and mitigation to reduce the rise in greenhouse gases and 

resulting impacts. 

Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change 

At the most basic level, the balance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation (i.e., heat) determines Earth’s climate. The greenhouse gas carbon 

dioxide (CO2) plays a key role by absorbing infrared radiation and thus trapping 

heat near the Earth’s surface much like a blanket. Other trace greenhouse gases 

such as methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are 

also important to warming, equivalent to about half of that from carbon dioxide, because molecule for molecule they absorb more infrared radiation than carbon dioxide. Other factors involved in human-driven climate change include aerosols and 

land vegetation. 

Over the last two centuries, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by more 

than 30 percent, from 280 to 380 ppm (part per million) by 2007. The main source 

is fossil-fuel combustion with contributions from cement production, agriculture and 

deforestation. Many economic and climate models predict atmospheric carbon dioxide values as high as 700 to 1,000 ppm, about triple preindustrial levels, by the end 

of the twenty-first century. The Earth has not experienced carbon dioxide levels that 

high for the past several million years. Other trace greenhouse gas levels are growing as well due to land-use, agriculture and industrial practices. These greenhouse 

gases persist in the atmosphere for years to decades, meaning that they will remain 

and accumulate in the atmosphere, impacting the global climate for a long time to 

come. In contrast, aerosols in the lower atmosphere are removed on time-scales of 

a few days to weeks, and their climatic impacts, mostly cooling, are concentrated 

near their sources. 

Greenhouse gases dominate over other human-driven climate perturbations, and 

the increased heating translates into changes in climate properties such as surface 

temperature, rainfall, sea-level and storm frequency and strength. The climate 

change resulting from an increase in greenhouse gases can be amplified by other 

climate processes. For example, ocean warming leads to a large retreat in Arctic 

sea-ice, which further strengthens warming because the dark water surface can 

then absorb more sunlight than the highly reflective ice. The largest unknowns at 

present arise from cloud dynamics. Numerical model climate projections for this century show global mean surface temperature increasing, with a range of +1.1 to 6.4° 

C (+2.0 to 11.5° F) above late 20th century levels. This large temperature range is 

somewhat misleading as a significant fraction of the variation depends on human 

behavior, specifically how much carbon dioxide and other gases we emit to the atmosphere in the future. The lowest temperature projections occur only when emissions are reduced sharply over the next few decades. 

The largest projected temperature changes are concentrated over the continents 

and at higher latitudes during the winter season, but some level of warming will 

occur globally, over the ocean, and year-round. Sea-level is estimated to rise due to 

thermal warming and melting glaciers and ice sheets by an additional +0.18 to 

0.59m (+0.6 to 1.9 feet) by 2,100. Many simulations suggest a general strengthening 

of the water cycle, with increased precipitation in the tropics and high latitudes, 

drier conditions in the subtropics, and an increased frequency of extreme droughts 

and floods. Other common features of a warmer climate are more El Nin ̃ o-like conditions in the Equatorial Pacific, a melt back of polar sea-ice and glaciers, and a slowdown in the formation of ocean deep water at high latitudes. 

The Changing Ocean Environment 

Global warming should be called ocean warming, as more than 80 percent of the 

added heat resides in the ocean. Clear alterations to the ocean have already been 

detected from observations. The magnitude and patterns of these changes are consistent with an attribution to human activities and not explained by natural variability alone. Global average land and ocean surface temperatures increased at a rate 

of about 0.2° C/decade over the last few decades (Hansen et al., 2006), and ocean 

temperatures down to 3,000 m (10,000 feet) depth are also on the rise. Averages 

rates of sea-level rise over the last several decades were 1.8±0.5 mm/y, with an even 

larger rate (3.1±0.7 mm/y) over the most recent decade. Higher precipitation rates 

are observed at mid to high latitude and lower rates in the tropics and subtropics. 

Corresponding changes have been measured in surface water salinities. One of the 

9 

most striking trends is the decline in Arctic sea-ice extent, particularly over the 

summer. September Arctic ice-cover from 2002–2006 was 18 percent lower than pre1980 ice-cover (http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/ice-seaice.shtml), and some models predict near ice-free conditions by 2040. Recent studies of the Greenland ice 

sheet highlight an alarming increase in surface melting over the summer, and percolation of that melt water to the base of the ice sheet where the melt-water could 

lubricate ice flow and potentially greatly accelerate ice loss and sea-level rise. These 

new findings have not been full incorporated into projected sea-level rise estimates, 

which thus may be underestimated. 

Over half of human carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere are absorbed by 

the ocean and land biospheres (Sarmiento and Gruber, 2002), and the excess carbon 

absorbed by the ocean results in increased ocean acidity. The physical and chemical 

mechanisms by which this occurs are well understood. Once carbon dioxide enters 

the ocean, it combines with water to form carbonic acid and a series of acid-base 

products, resulting in a lowering of pH values. The amount and distribution of 

human-generated carbon in the oceans are well determined from an international 

ocean survey conducted in the late 1980s and early 1990s (Sabine et al., 2004). The 

rate of ocean carbon uptake is controlled by ocean circulation. Most of the excess 

carbon is found in the upper few hundred meters of the ocean (upper 1,200 feet) 

and in high-latitude regions, where cold dense waters sink into the deep ocean. Surface water pH values have already dropped by about 0.1 pH units from 

preindustrial levels and are expected to drop by an additional 0.14–0.35 units by 

the end of the 21st century (Orr et al., 2005). 

Climate Change and Ocean Acidification Impacts on Marine Ecosystems 

Climate change and ocean acidification will exacerbate other human influences on 

fisheries and marine ecosystems such as over-fishing, habitat destruction, pollution, 

excess nutrients, and invasive species. Thermal effects arise both directly, via effects 

of elevated temperature and lower pH on individual organisms, and indirectly via 

changes to the ecosystems on which they depend for food and habitat. Acidification 

harms shell-forming plants and animals including surface and deep-water corals, 

many plankton, pteropods (marine snails), mollusks (clams, oysters), and lobsters 

(Orr et al., 2005). Many of these organisms provide critical habitat and/or food 

sources for other organisms. Emerging evidence suggests that larval and juvenile 

fish may also be susceptible to pH changes. Marine life has survived large climate 

and acidification variations in the past, but the projected rates of climate change 

and ocean acidification over the next century are much faster than experienced by 

the planet in the past except for rare, catastrophic events in the geological record. 

One concern is that climate change will alter the rates and patterns of ocean productivity. Small, photosynthetic phytoplankton grow in the well-illuminated upper 

ocean, forming the base of the marine food web, supporting the fish stocks we harvest, and underlying the biogeochemical cycling of carbon and many other key elements in the sea. Phytoplankton growth depends upon temperature and the availability of light and nutrients, including nitrogen, phosphorus, silicon and iron. Most 

of the nutrient supply to the surface ocean comes from the mixing and upwelling 

of cold, nutrient rich water from below. An exception is iron, which has an important additional source from mineral dust swept off the desert regions of the continents and transported off-shore from coastal ocean sediments. The geographic distribution of phytoplankton and biological productivity is determined largely by ocean 

circulation and upwelling, with the highest levels found along the Equator, in temperate and polar latitudes and along the western boundaries of continents. 

Key climate-plankton linkages arise through changes in nutrient supply and 

ocean mixed layer depths, which affect the light availability to surface phytoplankton. In the tropics and mid-latitudes, there is limited vertical mixing because the 

water column is stabilized by thermal stratification; i.e., light, warm waters overlie 

dense, cold waters. In these areas, surface nutrients are typically low, which directly 

limits phytoplankton growth. Climate warming will likely further inhibit mixing, reducing the upward nutrient supply and thus lowering biological productivity. The 

nutrient-driven productivity declines even with warmer temperatures, which promote faster growth. At higher latitudes, phytoplankton often have access to abundant nutrients but are limited by a lack of sunlight. In these areas, warming and 

reduced mixed layer depths can increase productivity. 

A synthesis of climate-change simulations shows broad patterns with declining 

low-latitude productivity, somewhat elevated high-latitude productivity, and poleward migration of marine ecosystem boundaries as the oceans warm; simulated 

global productivity increased by up to 8.0 percent (Sarmiento et al., 2004). While not 

definitive proof of future trends, similar relationships of ocean stratification and productivity have been observed in year to year variability of satellite ocean color data, 

10 

a proxy for surface phytoplankton (Beherenfeld et al., 2006); satellite data for 1997– 

2005 from GeoEYE and NASA’s Sea-Viewing Wide Field-of-View Sensor (SeaWiFS) 

show that phytoplankton declined in the tropics and subtropics during warm phases 

of the El Nin ̃ o-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) marked by higher sea surface temperatures and ocean stratification. Ecosystem dynamics are complex and non-linear, 

however, and new and unexpected phenomena may arise as the planet enters a new 

warmer and unexplored climate state. Ocean nitrogen fixation, for example, is concentrated in warm, nutrient poor surface waters, and it may increase under future 

more stratified conditions, enhancing overall productivity. 

Changes in total biological productivity are only part of the story, as most human 

fisheries exploit particular marine species, not overall productivity. The distributions and population sizes of individual species are more sensitive to warming and 

altered ocean circulation than total productivity. Temperature effects arise through 

altered organism physiology and ecological changes in food supplies and predators. 

Warming and shifts in seasonal temperature patterns will disrupt predator-prey 

interactions; this is especially important for survival of juvenile fish, which often 

hatch at a particular time of year and depend up on immediate, abundant source 

of prey. Temperature changes will also alter the spread of diseases and parasites 

in both natural ecosystems and marine aquaculture. Warming impacts will interact 

and perhaps exacerbate other problems including over-fishing and habitat destruction. 

Food-web interactions are often complicated, and we should expect that some species will suffer under climate change while others will benefit. Broadly speaking 

though, warm-water species are expected to shift poleward, which already appears 

to be occurring in some fisheries (Brander, 2006). Biological transitions, however, 

may be abrupt rather than smooth. Large-scale regime shifts have been observed 

in response to past natural variability. Regime shifts involve wholesale reorganizations of biological food-webs and can have large consequences from plankton to fish, 

marine mammals and sea-birds. Thus, rather subtle climate changes or ocean acidification may have the potential to disrupt commercially important species for either 

fisheries or tourism. Decadal time-scale regime shifts have been documented in the 

North Pacific, and in the Southern Ocean observations show a large-scale replacement of krill, a food source for mammals and penguin, by gelatinous zooplankton 

called salps. 

A number of other factors also need to be considered. Species that spend part of 

their life-cycle in coastal waters will be impacted by degradation of near-shore nursery environments, such as mangrove forests, marshes and estuaries, because of sealevel rise, pollution and habitat destruction. Rainfall and river flow perturbations 

will alter coastal freshwater currents, affecting the transport of eggs and larvae. 

Some of the largest fisheries around the world, for example off Peru and west coast 

of Africa, occur because of wind-driven coastal upwelling, which may be sensitive 

to climate change. Warming will reduce gas solubility and thus increases the likelihood of low oxygen or anoxia events already seen in some estuaries and coastal regions, such as off the Mississippi River in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Knowledge Gaps and Ocean Research Priorities 

Accurate projections of climate change and ocean acidification impacts on living 

marine resources hinge on several key questions: (1) how will greenhouse gas and 

aerosol emissions and atmospheric composition evolve in the future? (2) how sensitive are regional-scale ocean physics and chemistry to these changes in atmospheric composition? and (3) how will individual species and whole-ocean ecosystems 

respond? Fossil fuels are deeply intertwined in the modern global economy, and carbon dioxide emissions depend upon changing social and economic factors that are 

not well known: global population, per capita energy use, technological development, 

national and international policy decisions, and deliberate climate mitigation efforts. 

Future projections of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are also relatively sensitive 

to assumptions about the behavior of land and ocean carbon sinks, which are expected to change due to saturation effects and responses to the modified physical 

climate (Fung et al., 2005). Climate change on local and regional scales is more relevant for people and ecosystems than global trends. While progress is being made, 

improved and better-validated regional ocean climate forecasts remain a major need 

for future research. 

Even when predictions about the physical environment are well known, significant knowledge gaps exist about ocean ecology, hindering the creation of the skillful 

forecasts needed to guide ocean management decisions. While not precluding taking 

action now to address climate change and ocean acidification, better scientific understanding will help refine ocean management in the long-term. Several elements 

need to be pursued in parallel: improved on-going monitoring of ocean climate and 

11 

biological trends; laboratory and field process studies to quantify biological climate 

sensitivities; historical and paleoclimate studies of past climate events; and incorporation of the resulting scientific insights into an improved hierarchy of numerical 

ocean models from species to ecosystems. 

Rapid advances in in situ sensors and autonomous platforms, such as moorings, 

floats and gliders, are revolutionizing ocean measurements, and ocean observing 

networks are being constructed for coastal and open ocean regions (e.g., Gulf of 

Maine Ocean Observing System http://www.gomoos.org/; Pacific Coast Ocean Observing System http://www.pacoos.org/; National Science Foundation Ocean Observing Initiative http://www.ooi.org). The number of historical, multi-decadal 

ocean time series is limited, but their scientific utility is almost unrivalled. Federal 

commitment is needed for continued, long-term investment in ocean monitoring and 

enhanced coordination across observing networks. 

In a similar vein, satellite measurements provide an unprecedented view of the 

temporal variations in ocean climate and ecology. The ocean is vast, and the limited 

number of research ships move at about the speed of a bicycle, too slow to map the 

ocean routinely on ocean basin to global scales. By contrast, a satellite can observe 

the entire globe, at least the cloud free areas, in a few days. The detection of gradual climate-change trends is challenging, and the on-going availability of high-quality, climate data records is not assured during the transition of many satellite ocean 

measurements from NASA research to the NOAA/DOD operational NPOESS program. For example, the present NASA satellite ocean color sensors, needed to determine ocean plankton, are nearing the end of their service life, and the replacement 

sensors on NPOESS may not be adequate for the climate community. Further, refocusing of NASA priorities away from Earth science may dramatically limit or fully 

preclude new ocean satellite missions needed to characterize ocean climate and biological dynamics. 

We need to know if there are climatic tipping points or thresholds beyond which 

climate change may induce rapid and dramatic regime shifts in ocean ecosystems. 

Many current scientific studies examine climate sensitivities of species in isolation; 

the next step involves examining responses of species populations, communities of 

multiple interacting species, and entire ecosystems to realistic size perturbations. 

Experiments on plankton and benthic communities can be conducted under relatively controlled conditions in mesocosms (large enclosed volumes such as aquarium or floating bags deployed at sea) or by deliberate open-water perturbations 

studies. Both approaches will benefit from further directed technological developments. Larger mobile species require different approaches such as using past climate events as analogues for human-driven climate change. Biology models are pivotal to ocean management. They are being improved progressively by incorporating 

new information from laboratory and field experiments and by comparing model 

forecasts with real-world data. It is often as important to identify where the models 

do poorly as where they do well because research can then be focused on resolving 

these model errors. 

Climate Adaptation, Mitigation, and Ocean Management 

Given the potential for significant negative impacts of climate change and ocean 

acidification on living marine resources, we need to develop comprehensive local, national and international ocean management strategies that fully incorporate climate 

change and acidification trends and uncertainties. The strategies should follow a 

precautionary approach that accounts for the fact that ocean biological thresholds 

are unknown. The strategies should include improved scientific information for decision-support, adaptation to reduce negative climate change and acidification impacts, and mitigation to decrease the magnitude of future climate change and acidification. 

Currently the United States and other countries invest significant resources in 

monitoring the ocean and improving scientific understanding on many of the physical, chemical and biological processes relevant to climate change and acidification. 

However, this wealth of data and information is typically not in a form that is easily 

accessible by ocean resource managers and other stakeholders, ranging from private 

citizens and small-businesses to large corporations, NGO’s and national governments. For example, even state-of-the-art climate projections typically resolve climate patterns at relatively coarse spatial resolutions and include either relatively 

simple ocean biology or no ocean biology at all. In contrast, decisionmakers need information tailored to specific local fisheries and ecosystems. The national climate 

modeling centers should be encouraged to create on a routine basis targeted ocean 

biological-physical forecasts on seasonal to decadal time-scales, building on nested 

regional models, probabilistic and ensemble modeling of uncertainties, and 

downscaling methods developed for related applications (e.g., agriculture, water-reVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:08 Mar 20, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\79908.TXT JACKIE
12 

sources). The utility of such forecasts and their uncertainties will be maximized if 

stakeholders are involved in their design from the onset and if the model results 

are translated into more accessible electronic forms that are widely distributed to 

the public. 

A second challenge is to create more adaptive ocean management strategies that 

emphasize complete and transparent discussion on the risks and uncertainties from 

climate change and ocean acidification. Some amount of climate change and acidification is unavoidable because of past greenhouse emissions, and even under relatively optimistic scenarios for the future, substantial further ocean impacts should 

be expected at least through mid-century and beyond. Decisions will need to be 

made in the face of uncertainty, relying on for example the precautionary principle 

to limit future risk. Climate change trends are growing in magnitude, but will still 

be gradual compared with natural interannual variability; management policies 

must include both types of variations and uncertainties. Empirical approaches developed from historical data cannot be used in isolation because climate change will 

shift the baseline for ocean biological systems. Serious efforts should be directed at 

reducing other human factors such as overfishing and habitat destruction to allow 

more time for ecosystems and social systems to adapt. Mechanisms such as marine 

reserves, that protect specified geographical locations, need to account for the fact 

that ecosystem boundaries will shift under climate change. Procedures also need to 

be in place to monitor over time the effectiveness of ocean conservation and management policies, and that information and improved future climate forecasts should be 

used to modify and adapt management approaches. 

The third challenge is to pursue climate mitigation approaches that limit the 

emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere or that 

remove fossil-fuel carbon dioxide that is already in the atmosphere. Stabilizing future atmospheric carbon dioxide at moderate levels to minimize climate change impacts will require a mix of approaches, and no single mechanism will solve the entire problem. Emissions of carbon dioxide can be reduced through energy conservation and transition to alternative, non-fossil fuel based energy sources (wind, solar, 

nuclear, biofuels). Attention also needs to be placed in the near-term on limiting 

other greenhouse gases such as chlorofluorocarbons, which may provide additional 

time to tackle the more challenging issues associated with carbon. Progress is being 

made on approaches that would remove carbon dioxide at power plants so that it 

can be sequestered in subsurface geological reservoirs (e.g., old oil and gas fields, 

salt domes). 

Mitigation approaches have also been proposed using ocean biology, but these 

methods should only be pursued if critical questions are resolved on their effectiveness and environmental consequences. Biological mitigation strategies are based on 

the fact that plants and some marine microbes naturally convert carbon dioxide into 

organic matter during photosynthesis. Enhancing biological carbon removal can reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide if the additional organic matter is stored away 

from the atmosphere for multiple decades to a century or longer. The deep-ocean 

is one such reservoir because it exchanges only slowly with the surface and atmosphere. Thus one potential mitigation method would be to fertilize the surface ocean 

phytoplankton so that they produce and export more organic carbon into the deep 

ocean. In many areas of the ocean, phytoplankton growth is limited by the trace element iron, which is very low in surface waters away from continents and dust 

sources. About a dozen scientific experiments have been conducted successfully 

showing that adding iron to the surface ocean causes a phytoplankton bloom and 

temporary drawdown in surface water carbon dioxide. But there remain outstanding 

scientific questions about whether iron resulted in any enhanced long-term carbon 

storage in the ocean. 

As with any other mitigation approach on land or in the sea, the scientific and 

policy communities need to work closely to assure that the following questions are 

answered for large-scale commercial ocean fertilization. Is the method effective in 

removing carbon from the atmosphere, can the removal be validated, and how long 

will it remain sequestered? Could the method result in unintended consequences 

such as enhanced emissions of other, more powerful greenhouse gases (in the case 

of iron fertilization potentially nitrous oxide and perhaps methane)? What are the 

broad ecological consequences, and could carbon mitigation efforts conflict with 

maintaining living marine resources and fisheries? Systematic approaches to verify 

effectiveness and environmental impacts need to be put in place to assure a level 

playing field for commercial mitigation and carbon credit trading systems. 

Conclusions 

Over the past two centuries, human activities have resulted in the buildup in the 

atmosphere of excess carbon dioxide, other greenhouse gases and aerosols. There is 

13 

now significant evidence that these changes in atmospheric composition are altering 

the planet’s climate. Human-driven climate change is expected to accelerate over the 

next several decades, leading to extensive global warming, sea-ice retreat, sea-level 

rise, ocean acidification, and alterations in the freshwater cycle. As the reality of 

climate change is becoming clearer, the emphasis shifts toward understanding the 

impact of these climate perturbations on society and on natural and managed ecosystems. 

Marine fisheries and ocean ecosystems are susceptible to global warming and 

ocean acidification. While ocean biological responses will vary from region to region, 

some broad trends can be identified including poleward shifts in warm-water species 

and reduced formation of calcium carbonate by corals and other shell-forming plants 

and animals. For fisheries, climate change impacts will interact and perhaps exacerbate other problems including over-fishing and habitat destruction. Management 

strategies are needed balancing adaptation to an evolving climate and mitigation to 

reduce the magnitude of future climate change and atmospheric carbon dioxide 

growth. Decision support tools should be developed for marine resource managers 

that incorporate the emerging scientific understanding on climate change, focusing 

on impacts over the next several decades. Systematic testing is required on the effectiveness and environmental consequences of climate mitigation approaches, such 

as deliberate iron fertilization, designed to sequester additional carbon in the ocean. 

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to address this Subcommittee, and I 

look forward to answering your questions. 

Selected References 

Brander, K. (2006) Assessment of Possible Impacts of Climate Change on Fisheries. Externe Expertise fu ̈ r das WBGU-Sondergutachten ‘‘Die Zukunft der Meere— 

zu warm, zu hoch, zu sauer,’’ Berlin WBGU, 27 pp. 

Fung, I., S.C. Doney, K. Lindsay, and J. John, 2005: Evolution of carbon sinks 

in a changing climate, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. (USA), 102, 11201–11206, doi: 10.1073/ 

pnas.0504949102. 

Hansen, J., M. Sato, R. Ruedy, K. Lo, D.W. Lea, and M. Medina-Elizade, 2006: 

Global temperature change, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, 103, 14288–14293, 10.1073/ 

pnas.0606291103. 

IPCC, (2007a) The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers, Contributions of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change, 18 pp., (http://www.ipcc.ch/). 

IPCC, (2007b) Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Summary for Policymakers, 

Contributions of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 22pp., (http://www.ipcc.ch/). 

IPCC, (2007c) Mitigation of Climate Change, Summary for Policymakers, Contributions of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 36 pp., (http://www.ipcc.ch/). 

Orr, J.C., V.J. Fabry, O. Aumont et al., (2005) Anthropogenic ocean acidification 

over the twenty-first century and its impact on marine calcifying organisms, Nature, 

437, 681–686, doi: 10.1038/nature04095. 

Sabine, C.L., R.A. Feely, N. Gruber et al., (2004) The oceanic sink for anthropogenic CO2, Science, 305, 367–371. 

Sarmiento, J.L. and N. Gruber (2002) Sinks for anthropogenic carbon, Physics 

Today, August, 30–36. 

Sarmiento, J.L., et al., (2004) Response of ocean ecosystems to climate warming, 

Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 18, GB3003, doi: 10.1029/2003GB002134. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Feely, thank you very much for being here. We are very 

proud, obviously, of the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory 

in the Northwest and we appreciate you being here as NOAA’s representative today. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD A. FEELY, PH.D., SUPERVISORY 

CHEMICAL OCEANOGRAPHER, PACIFIC MARINE 

ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY, NOAA, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Dr. FEELY. Thank you very much. Good morning, Madam Chair 

Cantwell, Ranking Member Stevens, and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Richard Feely and I am a Supervisory 

14 

Oceanographer at NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle. Part of NOAA’s mission is to understand and predict changes in Earth’s environment. My area of expertise and the 

focus of my research is that of the study of the ocean’s carbon cycle 

and its effect on marine life. Thank you for inviting me today to 

provide my insights on ocean acidification and its effects on living 

marine resources. 

Over the past 200 years the release of carbon dioxide from our 

collective industrial and agricultural activities has resulted in atmospheric CO2 concentration increases of about 100 parts per million. During this period the oceans have absorbed 525 billion tons 

of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This is about one-third of 

human-generated carbon dioxide emissions. The oceans’ daily uptake of 22 million tons of carbon dioxide is now starting to have 

a significant impact on the chemistry and biology of the oceans. 

Hydrographic surveys and modeling studies reveal the chemical 

changes that have taken place. We see change in the lowering of 

the pH. This pH is a measure of the acidity and the acidity of our 

oceans has changed by 30 percent since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Our projections through the end of the century 

suggest that the acidity may change by as much as 150 percent if 

we follow CO2 emissions scenarios based on the IPCC IS92a projections. 

This process of acidification of the oceans is causing a lowering 

of the carbonate ion concentration levels as well. The carbonate ion 

plays an important role in shell formation for a number of marine 

organisms, such as corals, marine plankton, and shellfish. Many 

marine organisms which use carbonate ions to produce calcium carbonate shells experience detrimental effects due to these increasing 

CO2 levels. 

For example, ocean acidification is shown to significantly affect 

coral reefs. It reduces the ability of rebuilding corals to produce 

their skeletons, affecting growth of individual corals and making 

the reefs more vulnerable to erosion. Some estimates indicate that 

by the end of this century coral reefs may erode faster than they 

can be rebuilt. This could compromise the long-term viability of 

these ecosystems and perhaps affect the thousands of species that 

depend on this particular habitat. 

In long-term experiments, corals grown under the most acidic 

conditions for periods more than 1 year have not shown the ability 

to adapt their calcification rates to these higher CO2 levels. In fact, 

a recent study has shown that projected CO2 increase in the oceans 

is sufficient to dissolve the calcium carbonate skeletons of some 

coral reef species. 

Ongoing research has shown that the increase in acidity may 

have deleterious impacts on commercially important fish and shellfish larvae. Both king crab and silver seabream larvae exhibit a 

very high mortality rate in CO2-rich waters. The calcification rates 

of the edible mussel and Pacific oyster of the Pacific Northwest region decline linearly with increasing CO2 levels. Squid are especially sensitive to ocean acidification because it directly affects 

their blood oxygen transport and respiration. Scientists have been 

seeing a reduced ability of marine algae, free-floating plants and 

animals to produce their protective calcium carbonate shells. 

15 

One of these free-swimming mollusks is called a pteropod. 

Pteropods are eaten by organisms ranging from krill to whales and 

are a major food source for North Pacific juvenile salmon and serve 

as food for mackerel, pollock, herring, and cod. Ocean acidification 

is one of the most significant and far-reaching consequences of the 

buildup of human-generated carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and 

the oceans. Results from laboratory, field, and modeling studies, as 

well as evidence from the geological record, clearly indicate that 

many ecosystems are highly susceptible to changes in ocean CO2

and the corresponding decrease in pH and increase in acidity. Because of the very clear potential for ocean-wide effects of ocean 

acidification at all levels of the marine ecosystem from the tiniest 

phytoplankton to the zooplankton to fish and shellfish, we can expect to see significant effects that are immensely important for 

mankind. 

Ocean acidification is an emerging scientific issue and much research is needed before all the species and ecosystem responses are 

well understood. However, to the limit that the scientific community understands this issue right now, the potential for environmental, economic, and societal risk is quite high. Ocean acidification demands serious and immediate attention. 

For these reasons, the national and technological scientific communities have recommended a coordinated research program with 

four major themes: carbon system monitoring, calcification and 

physiological response studies under both laboratory and field conditions, environmental and ecosystem modeling studies, and socioeconomic risk assessments. This research will provide resource 

managers with the basic information they need to develop strategies for protection of species, habitats, and ecosystems. 

I am deeply grateful for the opportunity to discuss this issue 

with you and look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Feely follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD A. FEELY, PH.D., SUPERVISORY CHEMICAL

OCEANOGRAPHER, PACIFIC MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY, NOAA, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Introduction 

Good morning, Chairman Cantwell and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you 

for giving me the opportunity to speak with you today on the short- and long-term 

impacts of ocean acidification on marine resources. My name is Richard Feely, I am 

a Supervisory Chemical Oceanographer at the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Seattle, 

WA. My personal area of research is the study of the oceanic carbon cycle and its 

impact on marine organisms. I have worked for NOAA for more than 32 years and 

have published more than 160 peer-reviewed scientific journal articles, book chapters and technical reports. I serve on the U.S. Carbon Cycle Science Program Scientific Steering Group and I am the co-chair of the U.S. Repeat Hydrography Program Scientific Oversight Committee. For today, you have asked me to provide my 

insights on ocean acidification and its effect on living marine ecosystems. Most of 

my comments below are derived from the Royal Society Report, ‘‘Ocean Acidification 

Due to Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide’’ (Raven et al., 2005) and the recent 

U.S. report, derived from a workshop held jointly by the National Science Foundation (NSF), NOAA, and the U.S. Geological Survey, entitled ‘‘Impacts of Ocean 

Acidification on Coral Reefs and Other Marine Calcifiers ‘’ (Kleypas et al., 2006). 

Ocean Acidification 

Over the past 200 years the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) from our collective 

industrial and agricultural activities has resulted in atmospheric CO2 concentrations that have increased by about 100 parts per million (ppm). The atmospheric 

16 

concentration of CO2 is now higher than experienced on Earth for at least the last 

800,000 years, and is expected to continue to rise, leading to significant temperature 

increases in the atmosphere and oceans by the end of this century. The oceans have 

absorbed approximately 525 billion tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, or 

about one-third of the anthropogenic carbon emissions released during this period 

(Sabine and Feely, 2007). This natural process of absorption has benefited humankind by significantly reducing the greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere and 

minimizing some of the impacts of global warming. However, the ocean’s daily uptake of 22 million tons of carbon dioxide is starting to have a significant impact on 

the chemistry and biology of the oceans. For more than 25 years, NOAA and NSF 

have co-sponsored repeat hydrographic and chemical surveys of the world oceans, 

documenting the ocean’s response to increasing amounts of carbon dioxide being 

emitted to the atmosphere by human activities. These surveys have confirmed that 

the oceans are absorbing increasing amounts of carbon dioxide. Both the hydrographic surveys and modeling studies reveal that the chemical changes in seawater 

resulting from the absorption of carbon dioxide are lowering seawater pH (Feely et 

al., 2004; Orr et al., 2005; Caldeira and Wickett, 2005; Feely et al., in press). It is 

now well established that the pH of our ocean surface waters has already fallen by 

about 0.1 units from an average of about 8.21 to 8.10 since the beginning of the 

Industrial Revolution (on the logarithmic pH scale, 7.0 is neutral (e.g., water), with 

points higher on the scale being ‘‘basic’’ and points lower being ‘‘acidic.’’). Estimates 

of future atmospheric and oceanic carbon dioxide concentrations, based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) CO2 emission scenarios and general 

circulation models, indicate that by the middle of this century atmospheric carbon 

dioxide levels could reach more than 500 parts per million (ppm), and near the end 

of the century they could be over 800 ppm. This would result in a surface water 

pH decrease of approximately 0.4 pH units as the ocean becomes more acidic, and 

the carbonate ion concentration would decrease almost 50 percent by the end of the 

century (Orr et al., 2005). To put this in historical perspective, this surface ocean 

pH decrease would result in a pH that is lower than it has been for more than 20 

million years (Feely et al., 2004). When CO2 reacts with seawater, fundamental 

chemical changes occur that cause a reduction in seawater pH. The interaction between CO2 and seawater also reduces the availability of carbonate ions, which play 

an important role in shell formation for a number of marine organisms such as corals, marine plankton, and shellfish. This phenomenon, which is commonly called 

‘‘ocean acidification,’’ could affect some of the most fundamental biological and geochemical processes of the sea in coming decades. This rapidly emerging issue has 

created serious concerns across the scientific and fisheries resource management 

communities. 

Effects of Ocean Acidification on Coral Reefs 

Many marine organisms that produce calcium carbonate shells studied thus far 

have shown detrimental effects due to increasing carbon dioxide levels in seawater 

and the resulting decline in pH. For example, increasing ocean acidification has 

been shown to significantly reduce the ability of reef-building corals to produce their 

skeletons, affecting growth of individual corals and making the reef more vulnerable 

to erosion (Kleypas et al., 2006). Some estimates indicate that, by the end of this 

century, coral reefs may erode faster than they can be rebuilt. This could compromise the long-term viability of these ecosystems and perhaps impact the thousands of species that depend on the reef habitat. Decreased calcification may also 

compromise the fitness or success of these organisms and could shift the competitive 

advantage toward organisms that are not dependent on calcium carbonate. Carbonate structures are likely to be weaker and more susceptible to dissolution and 

erosion. In long-term experiments corals that have been grown under lower pH conditions for periods longer than 1 year have not shown any ability to adapt their calcification rates to the low pH levels. In fact, a recent study showed that the projected increase in CO2 is sufficient to dissolve the calcium carbonate skeletons of 

some coral species (Fine and Tchernov, 2007). 

Effects of Ocean Acidification on Fish and Shellfish 

Ongoing research is showing that decreasing pH may also have deleterious effects 

on commercially important fish and shellfish larvae. Both king crab and silver 

seabream larvae exhibit very high mortality rates in CO2-enriched waters (Litzow 

et al., submitted; Ishimatsu et al., 2004). Some of the experiments indicated that 

other physiological stresses were also apparent. Exposure of fish to lower pH levels 

can cause decreased respiration rates, changes in blood chemistry, and changes in 

enzymatic activity. The calcification rates of the edible mussel (Mytilus edulis) and 

Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas) decline linearly with increasing CO2 levels (Gazeau 

17 

et al., in press). Squid are especially sensitive to ocean acidification because it directly impacts their blood oxygen transport and respiration (Po ̈rtner et al., 2005). 

Sea urchins raised in lower-pH waters show evidence for inhibited growth due to 

their inability to maintain internal acid-base balance (Kurihara and Shirayama., 

2004). Scientists have also seen a reduced ability of marine algae and free-floating 

plants and animals to produce protective carbonate shells (Feely et al., 2004; Orr 

et al., 2005). These organisms are important food sources for other marine species. 

One type of free-swimming mollusk called a pteropod is eaten by organisms ranging 

in size from tiny krill to whales. In particular, pteropods are a major food source 

for North Pacific juvenile salmon, and also serve as food for mackerel, pollock, herring, and cod. Other marine calcifiers, such as coccolithophores (microscopic algae), 

foraminifera (microscopic protozoans), coralline algae (benthic algae), echinoderms 

(sea urchins and starfish), and mollusks (snails, clams, and squid) also exhibit a 

general decline in their ability to produce their shells with decreasing pH (Kleypas 

et al., 2006). 

Effects on Marine Ecosystems 

Since ocean acidification research is still in its infancy, it is impossible to predict 

exactly how the individual species responses will cascade throughout the marine 

food chain and impact the overall structure of marine ecosystems. It is clear, however, from the existing data and from the geologic record that some coral and shellfish species will be reduced in a high-CO2 ocean. The rapid disappearance of many 

calcifying species in past extinction events has been attributed, in large part, to 

ocean acidification events (Zachos et al., 2005). Over the next century, if CO2 emissions are allowed to increase as predicted by the IPCC CO2 emissions scenarios, 

mankind may be responsible for increasing oceanic CO2 and making the oceans 

more corrosive to calcifying organisms than anytime since the last major extinction, 

over 65 million years ago. Thus, the decisions we make about our use of fossil-fuels 

for energy over the next several decades will probably have a profound influence on 

makeup of future marine ecosystems for centuries to millennia. 

Economic Impacts 

The impact of ocean acidification on fisheries and coral reef ecosystems could reverberate through the U.S. and global economy. The U.S. is the third largest seafood 

consumer in the world with total consumer spending for fish and shellfish around 

$60 billion per year. Coastal and marine commercial fishing generates upwards of 

$30 billion per year and employs nearly 70,000 people (NOAA Fisheries Office of 

Science and Technology; http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/fus/fus05/index.html). Nearly 

half of the U.S. fishery is derived from the coastal waters surrounding Alaska. Increased ocean acidification may directly or indirectly influence the fish stocks because of large-scale changes in the local ecosystem dynamics. It may also cause the 

dissolution of the newly discovered deepwater corals in the Alaskan Aleutian Island 

region. Many commercially important fish species in this region depend on this particular habitat for their survival. 

Healthy coral reefs are the foundation of many viable fisheries, as well as the 

source of jobs and businesses related to tourism and recreation. In the Florida Keys, 

coral reefs attract more than $1.2 billion in tourism annually. In Hawaii, reef-related tourism and fishing generate $360 million per year, and their overall worth 

has been estimated at close to $10 billion. In addition, coral reefs provide vital protection to coastal areas that are vulnerable to storm surges and tsunamis. 

Conclusions 

Ocean acidification may be one of the most significant and far-reaching consequences of the buildup of anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Results 

from laboratory, field and modeling studies, as well as evidence from the geological 

record, clearly indicate that marine ecosystems are highly susceptible to the increases in oceanic CO2 and the corresponding decreases in pH. Corals and other calcifying organisms will be increasingly affected by a decreased capability to produce 

their shells and skeletons. Other species of fish and shellfish will also be negatively 

impacted in their physiological responses due to a decrease in pH levels of their cellular fluids. Because of the very clear potential for ocean-wide impacts of ocean 

acidification at all levels of the marine ecosystem, from the tiniest phytoplankton 

to zooplankton to fish and shellfish, we can expect to see significant impacts that 

are of immense importance to mankind. Ocean acidification is an emerging scientific 

issue and much research is needed before all of the ecosystems responses are well 

understood. However, to the limit that the scientific community understands this 

issue right now, the potential for environmental, economic and societal risk is also 

quite high, hence demanding serious and immediate attention. For these reasons, 

the national and international scientific communities have recommended a coordiVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:08 Mar 20, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\79908.TXT JACKIE
18 

nated scientific research program with four major themes; (1) carbon system monitoring; (2) calcification and physiological response studies under laboratory and field 

conditions; (3) environmental and ecosystem modeling studies; and (4) socioeconomic 

risk assessments. This research will provide resource managers with the basic information they need to develop strategies for protection of critical species, habitats and 

ecosystems, similar to what has already been developed for coral reef managers with 

the publication of the Reef Manager’s Guide by the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force to 

help local and regional reef managers reduce the impacts of coral bleaching to coral 

reef ecosystems. 

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to address this Subcommittee. I look 

forward to answering your questions. 

Selected References 

Caldeira, K., and M.E. Wickett, Ocean model predictions of chemistry changes 

from carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere and ocean. Journal of Geophysical 

Research (Oceans) 110, C09S04, doi: 10.1029/2004JC002671, 2005. 

Feely, R.A., C.L. Sabine, K. Lee, W. Berrelson, J. Kleypas, V.J. Fabry, and F.J. 

Millero, 2004, Impact of anthropogenic CO2 on the CaCO3 system in the oceans, 

Science, 305(5682): 362–366. 

Feely, R.A., J. Orr, V.J. Fabry, J.A. Kleypas, C.L. Sabine, and C. Landgon (in 

press): Present and future changes in seawater chemistry due to ocean acidification. 

AGU Monograph on ‘‘The Science and Technology of Carbon Sequestration’’. 

Fine, M. and D. Tchernov (2007). Scleractinian coral species survive and recover 

from decalcification, Science (315): 1811. 

Gazeau, F., Quiblier, C., Jeroen M. Jansen, J.M. Jean-Pierre Gattuso, J.-P., 

Middelburg, J.J., and C. H.R. Heip (in press) Impact of elevated CO2 on shellfish 

calcification, Geophysical Research Letters. 

Ishimatsu, A., Kikkawa, T., Hayashi, M., Lee, K.-S., and J. Kita (2004): Effects 

of CO2 on marine fish: Larvae and adults, Journal of Oceanography, Vol. 60, pp. 

731–741. 

Kleypas, J.A., R.A. Feely, V.J. Fabry, C. Langdon, C.L. Sabine, and L.L. Robbins 

(2006): Impacts of ocean acidification on coral reefs and other marine calcifiers: A 

guide to future research. Report of a workshop held 18–20 April 2005, St. Petersburg, FL, sponsored by NSF, NOAA, and the U.S. Geological Survey, 88 pp. 

Kurihara, K. and Shirayama, Y. (2004): Impacts of increased atmospheric CO2 on 

sea urchin early development, Mar. Ecol;. Prog. Ser., 274, 161–169. 

Marshall, P. and H. Schuttenberg (2006): A Reef Manager’s Guide to Coral 

Bleaching, Great Barrier Ref Marine Park Authority, Townsville, Australia, 139 pp. 

Michael A., Litzow, M.A., Short, J.W., J.W. , Persselin, S.L., Lisa A. Hoferkamp3, 

L.A. and S.A. Payne, (submitted for publication). Calcite undersaturation reduces 

larval survival in a crustacean, Science. 

Orr, J.C., V.J. Fabry, O. Aumont, L. Bopp, S.C. Doney, R.A. Feely, A. 

Gnanadesikan, N. Fruber, A. Ishida, F. Joos, R.M. Key, K. Lindsay, E. MaierReimer, R. Matear, P. Monfray, A. Mouchet. R.G. Najjar, G.-K. Plattner, K.B. Rodgers, C.L. Sabine, J.L. Sarmiento, R. Schlitzer, R.D. Slater, I.J. Totterdel, M.-F. 

Weirig, Y. Yamanaka, and A. Yool, 2005, Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the 

twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms, Nature, 437: 681–686. 

Po ̈rtner, H.O., M. Langenbuch, and B. Michaelidis (2005) Synergistic effects of 

temperature extremes, hypoxia, and increases in CO2 on marine animals: From 

Earth history to global change, J. Geophys. Res. 110, C09S10, doi: 10.1029/ 

2004JC002561. 

Raven, J. Caldeira, K. Elderfield, H. Hoegh-Guldberg, O. Liss, P. Riebesell, U. 

Shepherd, J. Turley, C. Watson, A. (2005) Acidification due to increasing carbon dioxide. In Report 12/05. London, T.R.S.o. (ed.) London: The Royal Society, pp. vii + 

60. 

Zachos, J.C., U. Ro ̈hl, S.A. Schellenberg, A. Sluijs, D.A. Hodell, D.C. Keely, E. 

Thomas, M. Nicolo, I. Raffi, L.J. Lourens, H. McCarren, and D. Kroon, 2005, Rapid 

acidification of the ocean during the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum, Science, 

308: 1611–16. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Conover? 

19 

STATEMENT OF DAVID O. CONOVER, PH.D., DEAN 

AND DIRECTOR, MARINE SCIENCE RESEARCH CENTER, 

STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY 

Dr. CONOVER. Good morning, Chair Cantwell, Ranking Member 

Stevens, and members of the Subcommittee. My name is David 

Conover. I am a fisheries scientist and I also serve as Dean of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences at Stony Brook University on Long 

Island, New York. I am mostly going to talk about the effect of 

ocean warming on fisheries. 

I have studied the ecology of marine fishes along the U.S. East 

Coast for over 30 years. My message is this. We already see strong 

evidence of the effects of ocean warming on fish and shellfish along 

the East Coast. The evidence includes declines in cold-water species due to heat stress and disease, northward expansion of southern species, and explosions of invasive species. Let me explain what 

is going on. 

Because most animals in the sea are cold-blooded, ocean temperature has an enormous direct impact on their biology. We know 

a lot about the direct thermal effects at the species level, less so 

at the ecosystem level. But we know enough to make strong predictions. 

All species are adapted for life over a relatively narrow range of 

temperatures. Some species like it warm, others like it cold. Certain regions of the world ocean, particularly the East Coast, have 

transition zones between cold-water and warm-water habitats. 

That is where you are going to first see the impacts of warming. 

My home state of New York sits right in the middle of a transition 

zone. We are the southern end point for northern species like cod, 

herring, and American lobsters and we are at the northern end 

point for southern species like weakfish, fluke, and bluefish. 

Here is what we see happening in New York. In 1999, we had 

a massive summer die-off of lobsters in Long Island Sound, followed by continued summer mortality in subsequent years. The 

probability is that lobsters cannot tolerate the exceptionally warm 

summer temperatures we have been having. Heat stress leads to 

physiological, pathogenic, and parasitic diseases. The result has 

been an 85 percent reduction in landings, and these diseases now 

appear to be moving northward. 

Another example is a parasitic disease called dermo. It causes 

catastrophic mortality of oysters. Prior to 1990, this parasite was 

unknown north of Chesapeake Bay. In the 1990s dermo underwent 

a massive northward range expansion, extending all the way into 

the Gulf of Maine. The expansion occurred during years when winters were unusually warm. Dermo is now highly prevalent from 

Delaware Bay to Cape Cod, with no signs of abating. 

Winter flounder is another species at the southern end of its 

range in New York. It too is declining drastically in our area. Commercial landings in New York are only 15 percent of what they 

were a few years ago. And it is not just winter flounder. When you 

look at the fin fish community of Long Island Sound as a whole 

over the last 15 years, nearly all of the cold-water species have 

been declining and nearly all of the warm-water species are increasing. 

20 

Finally, there is the problem of invasive species. The recent trend 

of warmer winters in Long Island Sound has favored the growth 

and recruitment of exotic species over natives. Invasive sea squirts 

that like winters that are warm are coating the bottom of Long Island Sound, driving away native species. 

What do we do about this? From a fishery management perspective, we need to recognize that harvested populations near the limits of their ranges will need extra precautionary measures to protect them from extinction. Predators, pathogens, parasites and 

invasive species are moving across ecosystem boundaries. We may 

need to reduce harvest of some of these species in certain areas to 

enable them to withstand additional stress. 

Of course, the ultimate and best solution is the reduction of 

greenhouse gases. One way of doing this, advocated by some scientists and soon to be commercialized, is the purposeful fertilization of the open ocean with iron. The idea is that phytoplankton 

blooms will draw carbon out of the atmosphere. Here we need to 

be careful. Fertilizing aquatic systems almost always has some undesirable consequences. Hypoxia in Long Island Sound, for example, results largely from over fertilization by nitrogen. Sometimes 

enrichment causes blooms of harmful algal species like red tide or 

brown tide. The pros and cons of iron fertilization need much further investigation. 

Regarding ocean acidification, my colleagues have already discussed this issue. I just want to underscore that there will be direct 

impacts of acidification on marine fishes. It is a problem we need 

to look more seriously at. 

Also, changes in habitat due to loss of coral and shellbed habitats 

will alter the food web that supports our fisheries. We need to understand these complex interactions. 

Finally, I want to underscore the need for a comprehensive ocean 

observation system. Scientists are frequently asked to explain catastrophes like the die-off of lobsters in Long Island Sound. We 

need an observation system that can track environmental changes 

before, during, and after these events to provide the clues to what 

happened. Otherwise we are like the detective at the scene of a 

crime, with no evidence and lots of potential suspects. 

The technology exists. Let us put it to use. Such observation systems will greatly aid resource managers in ensuring sustainable 

fisheries. Thank you and I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Conover follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID O. CONOVER, PH.D., DEAN AND DIRECTOR, 

MARINE SCIENCES RESEARCH CENTER, STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY

Introduction 

I thank Madame Chair Cantwell, Ranking Member Snowe, and the other Members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to describe to you the likely consequences of climate change on marine fisheries. My name is David Conover. I am 

the Dean and Director of the Marine Sciences Research Center of Stony Brook University, Long Island, New York. My research expertise involves the ecology and natural history of marine fishes and the impacts of harvesting and other human influences on wild fish populations. Of particular relevance to the subject of this hearing, 

I have devoted much of my 30-year career to studying the physiological mechanisms 

by which fish adapt evolutionarily to climate change. Much of this work concerns 

species that live along the East Coast of North America from Florida to the CanaVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:08 Mar 20, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\79908.TXT JACKIE
21 

dian maritimes, a region that encompasses dramatic changes in climate. We can 

learn a lot about what to expect from climate change by studying species that span 

the U.S. East Coast. 

You have asked me to address the consequences of climate change for fisheries, 

fish habitats, the distribution and abundance of species, food webs, and the gaps in 

our knowledge that preclude our ability to predict immediate and long term impacts. 

In addition, you have asked for suggestions on how resource managers should respond to these threats. I will begin by briefly outlining the major changes in the 

ocean ecosystems that are already underway and are expected to accelerate in the 

years ahead, touching briefly on ocean acidification and then devoting most of my 

attention to the effects of warming. Both the direct and indirect impacts of acidification and warming will be highlighted. I will then discuss several East Coast examples where already there is strong evidence that climate change is harming local 

species and altering ecosystems in transitional zones. Finally, I’ll talk about shortterm solutions and research needed to provide a longer-term prognosis and options 

for the future. 

Ocean Acidification 

Knowledge of the potentially devastating impact of reduced pH on aquatic ecosystems is not new. Decades ago it became evident that acid rain was afflicting numerous freshwater ecosystems leading to declines and extinctions of numerous fish 

and macro-invertebrate species from certain lakes and streams that lacked a natural buffering capacity. What is new is the recognition that acidification of entire 

oceans is possible. It is caused not by acid rain, however, but from increased CO2

in the atmosphere, which in turn leads to increased carbonic acid in the ocean. 

Most of our knowledge of the direct effects of ocean acidification on marine organisms focuses on species known as ‘‘marine calcifiers’’ (e.g., corals, mollusks) that 

build skeletons or shells made of calcium carbonate. Many of these species will suffer impaired ability to build skeletons as pH decreases. We know less about the direct impacts of acidification on harvested species like fishes and squids. In these 

species, the response to acidification is likely to involve physiological diseases including acidosis of tissue and body fluids leading to impaired metabolic function. 

Egg and larval stages are likely to be much more susceptible than adults, suggesting that reduced reproductive success will be among the first symptoms to appear. The indirect effects of acidification on fisheries will include loss of reef habitat 

constructed by marine calcifiers. Many fishes depend on the physical structure provided by coral skeletons or shell-building organisms such as oyster reefs as essential 

habitat for one or more life stages. In addition, food web alterations will likely affect 

harvested species through bottom-up effects on the food chain resulting from pHinduced shifts in the plankton community. More research is needed to understand 

these complex interactions. 

Ocean Warming 

Temperature is a pervasive environmental factor with direct effects on nearly all 

aspects of the ecology, physiology, morphology, and behavior of poikilothermic or socalled ‘‘cold-blooded’’ animals. There is a vast scientific literature describing the 

temperature-dependence of physiological processes and thermal ecology of individuals of a given species. Less is known about population and ecosystem level responses to temperature change but we know enough to make fairly strong, general 

predictions about the consequences of warming at least for the species level. 

All species are adapted for life over a relatively moderate range of temperatures 

compared with the extremes experienced form the poles to the tropics. Temperatures below the optimal range slow the rate of metabolism and, if too low, can become lethal. Temperatures above the optimal range increase metabolism and, because warmer water contains less dissolved oxygen, a thermal threshold is reached 

where respiratory demand exceeds the capacity for oxygen uptake, sometimes referred to as the ‘‘temperature-oxygen squeeze’’ (Portner and Knust 2007). Hence, 

temperature is one of the primary environmental factors that determine the geographic range of a species. Minimum winter temperatures often determine the highlatitude boundary (the northern boundary in the northern hemisphere) while summer maximums determine the low-latitude limit of a species. Even within the normal range of a species, the dynamics of populations often show strong correlations 

with temperature trends. 

While scientists can use the thermal physiology of a species to predict how it 

might respond to the direct effects of ocean warming, there are indirect effects at 

the ecosystem level that complicate the overall impact considerably. In temperate 

regions, for example, the complex of species found at a given latitude are a mixture 

of those adapted to colder or warmer thermal regimes. These species are interVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:08 Mar 20, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\79908.TXT JACKIE
22 

connected through a web of predatory, competitive, pathogenic, parasitic, and 

mutualistic interactions that influence the abundance of species. Invasive species 

also sometimes get a foothold more easily in systems undergoing disturbance. In addition, changes in temperature may influence the overall primary productivity of 

ecosystems in either positive or negative directions (Behrenfeld et al., 2006), which 

may ultimately impact fisheries yields. 

In general, the impact of ocean warming should be most evident at the northern 

and southern boundaries of the distribution of a given species. These boundaries 

tend to be shared among numerous species, and they tend to occur where there are 

sharp discontinuities in thermal gradients. Hence, there are certain regions of the 

world ocean that are transitional zones for numerous species. Cape Hatteras and 

Cape Cod are two such regions. It is within these transitional regions where we are 

likely to first see the strongest impacts of climate change. Most of the phenomena 

described above are illustrated by changes we are now seeing along the East Coast 

of the U.S., particularly within Long Island Sound. 

Impacts of Warming on Fisheries as Exemplified by Long Island Sound 

The Long Island region has represented a thermal transition zone for thousands 

of years. During the Pleistocene, this region was the transition from glaciated to 

non-glaciated terrain. Today it still represents a subtle but ecologically important 

transitional zone between warm-water and cold-water regions. 

Most temperate marine species of fishes and macro-invertebrates can be described 

as having either cold-water or warm-water affinities. Northern species like cod, winter flounder, and American lobster are classic cold-water species. For many of these 

species, the Long Island Sound region represents that southern terminus of their 

migration and/or geographic distribution. Southern species like weakfish, summer 

flounder, and blue crab are physiologically adapted to warm temperatures. Long Island Sound represents the northern end of their geographic occurrence. We are seeing strong evidence of shifts in the relative abundance of cold-water and warmwater species in our region that are consistent with the predictions of ocean warming. 

The most well studied example is American lobster. Massive, catastrophic summer–fall mortalities of lobsters in Long Island Sound began in August 1999, and 

have continued to occur to a greater or lesser degree in subsequent summers. An 

extensive federally-sponsored research program has identified summer warming of 

Long Island Sound bottom waters, coupled with hypoxia, and the outbreak of disease as the most likely causes. One of these diseases called ‘‘excretory calcinosis’’, 

discovered by scientists at Stony Brook University, is a gill tissue blood disorder resulting directly from warm temperatures (Dove et al., 2004). Other lobster diseases 

also appear to result from the stress of high temperature and hypoxia. The result 

of these multiple stresses has been a 75 percent reduction in total landings and 85 

percent reduction in the overall abundance of the population. These diseases now 

appear to be moving northward. 

Another example of climate-induced effects on fisheries involves the northward expansion of a disease known as ‘‘dermo’’ that afflicts the oyster. It is caused by 

Perkinsus marinus, a parasite that yearly kills 50 percent of oysters in the Gulf of 

Mexico. Prior to the late 1980s, the parasite was known to occur only south of lower 

Chesapeake Bay. In the early 1990s, however, dermo underwent a 500 km northward range expansion extending all the way into the Gulf of Maine. Researchers 

at Rutgers University have demonstrated that the range expansion occurred during 

years when winters were unusually warm (Ford and Smolowitz 2007). The prevalence of dermo is now high from Delaware Bay to Cape Cod, with no signs of abating. 

Shifts in the relative abundance of finfish in Long Island Sound also bear the signature of ocean warming. Like the lobster, winter flounder is also at the southern 

end of its distribution and it too is showing extremely severe declines. Commercial 

landings in New York are only 15 percent of what they were 50 years ago. According 

to annual resource assessment surveys conducted since 1984 by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP), winter flounder abundance in Long 

Island Sound is now less than 10 percent of what it was in 1990. We need more 

research to determine if winter flounder are declining due to warming temperatures. 

But when you look at the finfish community of Long Island Sound as a whole 

(CTDEP 2006), evidence of warming as the causative factor becomes much stronger. 

Most of the cold-water species of Long Island Sound have been declining over the 

past 15 years (e.g., lobster, winter flounder, Atlantic herring, cunner, longhorn 

sculpin, sea raven, ocean pout, winter skate, little skate) while most of the warmwater fishes have been increasing (e.g., striped bass, weakfish, summer flounder, 

menhaden, scup, striped sea robin, butterfish, Atlantic moonfish, hickory shad). 

23 

Finally, there is also evidence from Long Island Sound that the recent trend of 

warmer winters favors the growth and recruitment of invasive species over those 

of native species. Researchers from the University of Connecticut showed that exotic 

ascidian species (sea squirts) benefit more from mild winters while native species 

benefit more from cold winters (Stachowicz et al., 2002). Overgrowth of bottom habitat by invasive sea squirts is becoming an increasing problem in Long Island Sound. 

Implications for Management 

Resource managers need to recognize that local populations of species near the 

limits of their distributional ranges will need additional precautionary measures to 

protect them from extinction. Warming and acidification represent additional 

stresses that make populations less resilient to the effects of harvest. We may need 

to reduce harvest of some species in certain areas to enable them to withstand the 

additional stress. 

Transitional regions are where the impact of climate change will first be evident. 

These regions are also conduits for species exchange. The transmittal of pathogens, 

predators, and invasive species across ecosystems will increase as species migrate 

into new regions across thermal and faunal boundaries such as Cape Cod, which 

separates the Mid-Atlantic region from the Gulf of Maine. Management practices 

that transplant species across ecosystems need to be viewed with caution. 

Solutions, Their Implications, and Further Research 

The ultimate and best solution is the reduction of greenhouse gases that cause 

acidification and warming. One solution advocated by some scientists and soon to 

be commercialized is the purposeful fertilization of open ocean habitats that are deficient in iron. The resulting pulses of phytoplankton growth sequester carbon from 

the atmosphere and may help reduce the buildup of atmospheric CO2. Although this 

possibility deserves serious scrutiny, the ecosystem impacts of fertilization in most 

aquatic ecosystems almost always contain undesirable consequences for water quality, food webs, and fisheries. Hypoxia in Long Island Sound, for example, results 

largely from over-fertilization by nitrogen, which is the limiting nutrient in many 

coastal waters. Sometimes the blooms produced by enrichment turn out to be harmful algal species like ‘‘red tide’’ or ‘‘brown tide’’. The ecological consequences of ocean 

fertilization on a scale sufficient to stem the build-up of green house gases needs 

much further research to evaluate the potential risks of unintended negative impacts. 

The certainty of climate change and its potential impacts on ocean ecosystems underscore the need for a comprehensive ocean observation system. Our ability to unravel the causes and consequences of ecosystem change is directly dependent on the 

availability of a continuous time series of many different kinds of environmental 

data. Gradual trends in highly variable environmental parameters like temperature, 

oxygen, salinity, pH, chlorophyll, wind, circulation patterns, and others become evident only after many years. Fishery ecologists are frequently asked to explain the 

cause of episodic events like the die-off of lobsters in Long Island Sound, but we 

need an observation system that can provide ‘‘before, during, and after’’ data to give 

us the clues. Otherwise, we are like the detective at the scene of a crime with no 

evidence and lots of potential suspects. The technology exists to continuously measure numerous physical and biological parameters that will greatly help us understand and therefore devise strategies to cope with ecosystem alterations caused by 

climate change or other forces. The number and diversity of sensors currently deployed in U.S. ocean waters is woefully inadequate. Such observation systems will 

greatly aid resource managers in ensuring sustainable fisheries. 

References 

Behrenfeld, M.J., R.T. O’Malley, D.A. Siegel, C.R. McClain, J.L. Sarmiento, G.C. 

Feldman , J. Milligan, P.G. Falkowski, R.M. Letelier , and E.S. Boss, 2006: Climatedriven trends in contemporary ocean productivity. Nature, 444(7120), 752–755. 

CTDEP, Bureau of Natural Resources, Marine Fisheries Division. 2006. A Study 

of Marine Recreational Fisheries in Connecticut. Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration, F–54–R–25, Annual Performance Report. 

Dove ADM, LoBue C., Bowser P., Powell M. 2004. Excretory calcinosis: a new 

fatal disease of wild American lobsters Homarus americanus. Diseases of Aquatic 

Organisms 58 (2–3): 215–221. 

Ford, S.E. and R. Smolowitz. 2007. Infection dynamics of an oyster parasite in its 

newly expanded range. Mar. Biol. 151: 119–133. 

Po ̈rtner, H.O., Knust R. (2007) Climate change affects marine fishes through the 

oxygen limitation of thermal tolerance. Science 315, 95–97. 

24 

Stachowicz, J.J., J.R. Terwin, R.B. Whitlatch, and R.W. Osman. 2002. Linking climate change and biological invasions: ocean warming facilitates nonindigenous species invasions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 99: 15497–15500. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Dr. Conover. 

Dr. Hansen? 

STATEMENT OF DR. LARA J. HANSEN, CHIEF SCIENTIST, 

CLIMATE CHANGE PROGRAM, WORLD WILDLIFE FUND 

Dr. HANSEN. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

I’ll attempt to make this show up on your screen as well. Perhaps yes, perhaps no. Ah, there we go. 

I have submitted written testimony, but for the purposes of my 

5 minutes today I would actually like to take people on a more personal journey. In 2001, I was brought to the World Wildlife Fund 

to help them design conservation strategies to prepare for climate 

change. Over the course of the past 6 years we have developed this 

suite of projects and I think that I will take you through a couple 

of them that really illuminate the challenges that we face in the 

world’s oceans in response to climate change. The basics of that 

have been presented by the previous speakers very eloquently. I 

am going to take you through what this means if you are a resource manager or a conservation planner. 

In the Florida Keys, which is a place near and dear to my 

heart—I did my postdoctoral research there—coral bleaching, coral 

disease, and hurricanes have resulted in the listing of two coral 

species for the entire range of the Caribbean. It is not clear how 

we can protect these species from those types of changes since we 

only see more of it on the horizon. 

Currently we are trying to reduce the proximal threats that are 

not related to climate change in order to increase the resilience of 

these systems to a changing climate, by reducing things like pollutants. But it is not clear that we can do that for much longer. 

In the Bering Sea, we are trying to protect fisheries. The fisheries of the Bering Sea are an enormous industry, not only for the 

United States but for Russia and many other countries of the world 

as well. But more importantly, this is a crucial ecosystem to the 

world’s oceans. It is a very productive part of the world and we are 

trying to see if there are ways we can better manage fisheries to 

respond to climate change. 

We are also working on protecting mangroves around the world 

because they protect both coral reefs and coastal systems where 

humans and biodiversity live. 

But all of these actions that I talk about, be it better fisheries 

management, reducing pollution, or restoring habitats, will be inconsequential if climate change is allowed to continue at the rate 

it currently is. For climate change-increasing temperatures, we recognize that there is about a limit of 2 degrees before we cannot use 

these types of methods to help these systems. 

In the case of ocean acidification, we do not know what that limit 

is. It is probably fairly low before we start seeing remarkable impacts, because the oceans historically have been believed to have 

a very high buffering capacity, so we would not need to worry 

about things like ocean acidification. In fact, that is not the case, 

as we can all—as Dr. Feely has already indicated. 

25 

We are at a point now where we need to not only be dealing with 

adaptation, but we need to be dealing with mitigation as well. Unfortunately, we are currently dealing with neither. As a result, I 

suggest a number of things. Obviously, the Congress is doing a 

great job of taking on issues of mitigation, of reducing greenhouse 

gas emissions. There are several bills in process for that. But there 

is virtually nothing in process for what we are doing about adaptation, and we will be seeing the effects of climate change on every 

sector of society. 

We need a national adaption plan or strategy. As part of this, we 

also need the capacity to deal with climate change. It is almost impossible to find people who know how to design adaptation strategies and adaptation actions, because we have not trained people for 

these types of activities. We need an adaptation extension agency 

analogous to the land grant and Sea Grant extension agencies, 

with also an international component that can help people in other 

countries adapt. 

We have been told, according to the IPCC Second, Third—Fourth 

Assessment Report, second working group, that it will be the poorest of the poor that will be affected by climate change. In fact, I 

would argue that we will all be affected by climate change, and I 

think that the slow recover of the Gulf Coast following Hurricane 

Katrina is an excellent example of the low adaptive capacity of 

even the United States, a very wealthy country by world comparison. 

We need to act now. We cannot wait and continue to do studies. 

We are seeing the changes. Obviously we need to continue to learn 

as we go, but we cannot wait for all the answers before we decide 

what it is we are going to do. This problem is already upon us. 

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Hansen follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. LARA J. HANSEN, CHIEF SCIENTIST, CLIMATE CHANGE

PROGRAM, WORLD WILDLIFE FUND

‘‘Climate change is arguably the greatest threat to the world’s biodiversity.’’ That 

is how I began my testimony to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation in March of 2004. Three years later this is no less true. In fact, the 

situation we find ourselves in is even more dire as was most recently highlighted 

in the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report released this year. Representing the top scientific experts in their fields, the 

three working groups of that body present the state of the science as demonstrating 

that: 

1. Climate change is caused by greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels, such 

as carbon dioxide, and land use change; 

2. We are already seeing the effects of climate change around us; and 

3. We need to take action now both in terms of mitigation and adaptation to 

avoid an unacceptable future. 

The time to act is now. 

The primary response among policymakers has been to focus on reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, that is, mitigation of climate change. However, as the 

IPCC Working Group II emphasized, and as I have emphasized in my work over 

the years, adaptation—our ability to adjust to and prepare for the changes in climate already occurring and future changes to which our past emissions have already committed us—is now equally important. There is no need to debate the virtues of mitigation versus adaptation. Neither alone will solve our problems. We need 

both and we need to see meaningful legislation addressing both mitigation and adaptation during this Congressional session. 

26 

As part of a conservation organization, my colleagues and I work to protect the 

world’s biodiversity and natural resources. Traditional approaches to this work have 

relied on creating protected areas, limiting ‘‘take’’ of key species and resources and 

monitoring ecosystems of great importance and/or at great risk. Climate change 

makes these approaches inadequate. As the world’s oceans warm and acidify, storm 

intensity increases, sea level rises, timing and concentrations of nutrient and contaminant run-off from terrestrial systems change, currents and upwelling patterns 

stop or move, timing of migration and lifecycle stages shifts, and ranges of species 

move, the oceans can not be protected from climate change by these old mechanisms. Conservation is now being planned across a matrix that is changing before 

our eyes and we are not prepared. 

It could further be argued that the United States as a whole is not prepared. The 

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report asserts that climate change will be hardest on the 

poorest of the poor globally. The 2005 hurricane season indicates that the United 

States will not be unscathed by climate change. It is now over a year and a half 

since a record number of Category 5 storms hit our Gulf Coast, and it has still not 

recovered from the battering. New Orleans is still in tatters. The calamities of climate change will be events like these and we are not prepared. 

To address climate change in our conservation planning, WWF has adopted an approach to increase the resilience of natural systems to climate change that we are 

employing in ecoregions around the planet. This work is based on four basic tenets: 

1. Protecting adequate and appropriate space. As the climate changes species 

(plants and animals) will react to these changes. They will react by altering how 

they live, such as using new resources, by moving to new areas, or by disappearing because they cannot find the habitat or resources they require. To 

help ecosystems respond to climate change we need to start planning where protected areas need to be in the future for species survival and how they need 

to be managed differently to support species groups. We need to look for locations that can act as refuges from climate change, opportunities for networks 

of reserves along climatological gradients (often across latitude or elevation), locations with high amounts of heterogeneity (or areas with different habitats and 

species) and opportunities to support genetic diversity and gene flow. All of 

these strategies try to maximize the opportunity for species or ecosystems to respond to climate change, without adversely affecting ecosystems with our actions. 

2. Reducing all non-climate stresses. Climate change presents a number of environmental stresses—increasing temperature, altered precipitation patterns, sea 

level rise, altered environmental chemistry to name just a few—but these 

stresses are not occurring in a vacuum. There are already a host of other environmental stresses out there, including invasive species, over-harvest, habitat 

degradation and fragmentation, disease and pests, and pollution. Unfortunately 

in many cases there are synergistic interactions between these traditional 

stresses and the stresses of climate change, effectively lowering the effect or 

‘‘toxicity threshold.’’ To increase ecosystem resilience to climate change we must 

lower the risk of adverse reactions by lowering the acceptable limits of these 

other stresses in the environment because climate change is already happening 

and our actions/inaction has already committed us to some changes. 

3. Implementing these pro-active approaches in adaptive management so we can 

learn as we go. The actions we suggest are just good sense in light of climate 

change. If we enact small-scale tests and wait to implement our approaches 

broadly, the system will have changed and our approaches may no longer be 

useful or applicable. The window of opportunity for preparations may close as 

climate change progresses. Additionally, we do not have the funds or the human 

capacity to test strategies everywhere so we need to be learning lessons to share 

and implement as rapidly as possible. 

4. Reduce the rate and extent of climate change. There is a limit to our ability 

to adapt to climate change. For example if we think about ocean acidification, 

there is a permanent commitment to changing the pH of the ocean every time 

we add more carbon to the atmosphere and it is not at all clear how we can 

adapt to these changes. Best estimates are that 2° C (3.6° F) increase in average global temperature brings us to a point where adaptation options become 

dramatically limited in feasibility and efficacy and prohibitively expensive in 

terms of cost. It is not new thinking that mitigation is necessary. This is simply 

another reason why we need to act sooner rather than later. 

WWF’s conservation adaptation projects are being implemented around the world, 

including in our marine ecoregions. In the tropics, we are testing how to protect 

27 

coral reefs in American Samoa, Florida and the Mesoamerican Reef of Central 

America. We are also restoring and protecting mangrove forests to provide better 

coastal protection in Fiji, Cameroon and Tanzania. We are planning for sea level 

rise in low lying regions of the world, especially those that are home to endangered 

species, like endangered sea turtles in the Caribbean and beautiful tigers in the 

Sundarbans of India. In the Bering Sea of Alaska we are working to protect the future of that region’s vital fisheries for the realities of climate change. 

Some of our first work on climate adaptation was focused on coral reefs. Coral 

reefs are particularly sensitive to climate change. They bleach when ocean temperatures climb by as little as one degree Celsius. They are unable to create the calcium 

carbonate skeleton that forms the reef structure when the pH drops. And, they are 

damaged by increasingly intense tropical storm activity. The fate of coral reefs will 

have ramifications for human societies as well. It has been estimated that coral 

reefs have a global economic value of $30 billon in net benefits. In the case of coral 

reefs we are particularly interested in increasing resilience by decreasing those nonclimate stresses that exacerbate the adverse effects of climate change; those factors 

that add to the overall stress and prevent corals from being able to withstand the 

stresses of climate change itself. In American Samoa our research group worked 

with local stakeholders to assess the current and potential impact of climate change 

on their coral reef resources. Almost annual coral bleaching in this region may be 

leading to reef degradation. Increased awareness of this issue in the region, in part 

due to this project, has lead to climate change being front and center on the agenda 

of the upcoming U.S. Coral Reef Task Force meeting to be held in American Samoa. 

This first project led us to explore similar issues on a reef closer to home. In the 

Florida Keys, in fact for their whole Caribbean range, there are two species of coral, 

Acropora cervicornis and A. palmata, which are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The top three factors identified as the cause of their listing 

are increasing sea temperatures, hurricanes and disease. It is unclear how a recovery plan will be developed to respond to these threats given their inextricable link 

to global climate change and increasing greenhouse gas emissions. However the 

larger issue in the region is not how to protect these two species but rather how 

to protect the entire reef ecosystem. We are currently developing a decision-support 

tool to allow for the integration of historic coral bleaching data and water quality 

data in order to assess how improving regional water quality in the Keys may increase the resilience of those very economically valuable coral reefs. In 2001 it was 

estimated that coral reefs generated $3.9 billion in income for Broward, MimaiDade, Monroe and Palm Beach counties. 

Coral reefs are not the only systems at risk from climate change. Coastal communities, both people and wildlife, also experience multiple climate change challenges—sea level rise, increasing storm intensity, changing precipitation, and increasing temperatures. Couple those stresses with the high human population density and development typical of coastal regions and climate planning becomes quite 

complicated. In some regions we are working to protect coastline and in other we 

are preparing for its loss. 

Mangrove forests are already one of the most degraded ecosystems in the world. 

They have been cut down for firewood, building supplies and to clear coastline for 

development. Unfortunately these trees provide natural protection for shoreline 

from sea level rise and storm surge. Their loss has increased the vulnerability of 

coastal communities. WWF is working to restore and protect mangrove forests in 

order to increase coastal resilience in Fiji, Cameroon and Tanzania. As it turns out 

there is an added benefit of protecting mangroves; healthy mangroves may support 

healthy reefs. Mangroves filter nutrients out of the water as it flows from land to 

the oceans. It turns out coral reefs prefer low nutrient waters and when high nutrient waters flow into the oceans it can decrease the resilience of coral reefs. Additionally mangroves produce a compound that can filter out the harmful ultraviolet radiation that can exacerbate coral bleaching. 

Sea level rise means the loss of land. For some species appropriate land is limited; 

others thrive right along the shoreline. In either of these cases, there are almost 

always human communities nearby that are also competing for this already precious 

space. Unfortunately it is getting more precious every day. An interesting case study 

is the Key Deer, a federally endangered species that finds suitable habitat on just 

two of the Florida Keys. With an elevation of less than 2 meters (or about six feet) 

at their highest point the vulnerability of the Florida Keys to climate change is 

clear. If you are a Key Deer, with nowhere to migrate in response to climate change, 

your future is grim. While it is not clear what can be done for the Key Deer, WWF 

is trying to help develop plans to prepare other species for climate change. In the 

Caribbean basin, we are learning how sea level rise will inundate the nesting beaches of sea turtles. Sea turtles are vulnerable throughout their lives to climate 

28 

change—their sex is determined by the temperature of the sand in which their eggs 

incubate, their long migrations and food sources are to varying degrees affected by 

ocean currents potentially vulnerable to climate, some rely on coral reefs and sea 

grasses which are themselves vulnerable and then their nesting beaches are being 

lost as the seas rise. Often as sea level rises, beaches retreat inland creating new 

coastline that would be suitable for turtle nesting. Unfortunately human infrastructure (buildings, roads) can prevent the generation of suitable new habitat. We are 

creating a new conservation plan for sea turtles that allows us to assess rate of sea 

level rise, beach elevations (looking for beaches that can withstand more sea level 

rise), local geology (subsidence and uplift), and patterns of human development. 

This will allow for choosing the right places for sea turtle protected areas and developing better coastal planning for not only sea turtles but human populations as 

well. 

On the other side of the planet we are dealing with a similar but potentially more 

dangerous issue. In the Sundarbans of India, tigers live on low-lying mangrove islands. It is estimated that 12 of these islands will be lost to sea level rise by 2020. 

These are home to not only the tigers but people as well. As these islands are lost, 

both tigers and people will be looking for new homes, and with this may come increasing human/wildlife interactions that can have adverse consequences for both 

sides. We are again trying to develop a new conservation plan to prepare for the 

habitat that both humans and tigers will need as the landscape changes. 

A similar process is occurring in our most northern oceans. In the Arctic, record 

sea ice loss is causing polar bears to spend more time on land or drown at sea. It 

is also making them go hungry because they require sea ice to hunt for their primary food source, ringed seals. More time on land means more time for potential 

interactions with people. In one Russian community where we work a young woman 

was killed by a polar bear near her village last year. We are now working with 

these communities on ways to decrease polar bear/human interactions without loss 

of life on either side through what are called ‘‘Polar Bear Patrols.’’ 

In the Bering Sea climate change is causing fish species ranges to shift (generally 

moving farther north) and historic fishing grounds will no longer be as robust. This 

is no small concern as the Bering Sea is home to a $2.1 billion fishing industry. 

WWF is working to develop new management approaches that plan for climate 

change and protect the resource as well as the livelihoods that rely upon it. 

Obviously projects like these will not solve the problem of climate change. However they encompass the level of climate awareness that managers must now have 

and the range of activities they can engage in order to increase the resilience of 

their systems to climate change. They are part of a larger strategy that we must 

develop to address both the cause and effects of climate change. 

Virtually all of the major bills introduced in this Congress relating to climate 

change are focused on mitigation, whether in the form of across-the-board cuts in 

U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, or in more targeted cuts for electric power plants, 

mobile sources of emissions, etc. Given the crucial need to address the root cause 

of climate change this is not misguided. However we must now also begin the task 

of addressing how to respond to the effects of climate change. At this point, bills 

on climate change have not addressed adaptation in a meaningful way. 

Conservation organizations are not alone in their lack of preparedness for the effects of climate change. We need a bold new plan in all sectors to deal with this 

ubiquitous challenge. WWF proposes a legislative approach with two components. 

First we need a National Strategy for Adaptation, supported not only with funding, 

but with an extension agency that works to develop the myriad responses we will 

need in all sectors of our society, not just the oceans, not just natural resources and 

wildlife, but in civil society and the infrastructure on which we and our economy 

relies—food, water, housing, transportation, education, public health . . . the list is 

endless. This extension agency could be modeled after the Land and Sea Grant programs to work with all levels of society across the country on specifically addressing 

and adapting to climate change. Second, we need an impact assessment approach 

modeled after National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that would require public 

works, infrastructure activities and all other projects that might adversely affect 

natural systems to take into account the added effects of climate change, and address how those adverse effects could be avoided. For instance, some pollutants become more toxic at elevated temperatures, so existing exposure limits may not adequately protect people and ecosystems as the planet warms and this could affect 

permitting for new sewage treatment projects. In fact this approach of assessing the 

vulnerability of projects to climate change should be good business practice for all 

federally funded project in order to ensure their value, success and longevity, regardless of whether they focus on natural resources. 

29 

*Dr. Lara Hansen is Chief Scientist on Climate Change at the World Wildlife Fund. Dr. 

Christopher R. Pyke is the Director of Climate Change Services for CTG Energetics, Inc. 

The task of fully addressing climate change is massive, but we can no longer ignore it. 

Sustainable Development Law & Policy—Winter 2007 

CLIMATE CHANGE AND FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

by Drs. Lara Hansen and Christopher R. Pyke*

Introduction 

Human activities, particularly the combustion of fossil fuels and the large-scale 

transformation of land cover, affect ecosystems around the world, Changes in temperature, precipitation, and water chemistry are altering our environment. These 

changes will also affect environmental regulatory frameworks, either rendering 

them ineffective or forcing them to adapt to achieve their goals under changing conditions. 

Global temperature has increased by 0.8° C over the last century. Climate scientists estimate that we arc committed to an additional 0.5° C increase due to the 

amount of carbon dioxide (‘‘CO2’’) that is already present in the atmosphere.1 Rising 

temperatures have been accompanied by a wide range of environmental changes, including, retreat of sea ice and glaciers, sea level rise, and changes in the intensity 

and frequency of storms and precipitation events.2 Rising CO2 concentrations has 

not only changed the composition of the air, but it is also changing the chemistry 

of the water: CO2 is absorbed by the oceans, which forms carbonic acid, causing the 

acidification of the oceans.3

These changes mean that regulations intended to protect natural resources and 

promote conservation will be applied under conditions significantly different from 

those that prevailed when they were drafted. Achieving the original goals of these 

regulations will require a careful assessment of long-standing assumptions, as well 

as decisive action to change regulatory practices in ways that accommodate, offset, 

and mitigate climate change. Three such laws will be explored in this article: the 

Endangered Species Act (‘‘ESA’’), the Clean Water Act (‘‘CWA’’), and the Clean Air 

Act (‘‘CAA’’). 

Climate Change and the Endangered Species Act 

The stated purpose of the ESA is ‘‘to provide a means whereby the ecosystems 

upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved.’’ 4

The architects of the ESA intended to save creatures from proximal threats, such 

as bulldozers and dams. Yet, today we see clear evidence that climate change creates new threats to already imperiled species by contributing to the disruption of 

ecological processes essential to entire ecosystems. Deteriorating conditions will impact the viability of endangered species and the practices used to protect them 

through implementation of the ESA (e.g., listing, ‘‘take’’ permitting, and recovery 

planning). 

For example, in 2006, two species of Caribbean coral, Elkhorn (Acropora palmata) 

and Staghorn (A. cervicornis) coral, were listed as ‘‘threatened’’ for their entire range 

under the ESA. The listing stated that ‘‘the major threats to the species’ persistence 

(i.e., disease, elevated sea surface temperature, and hurricanes) are severe, unpredictable, likely to increase in the foreseeable future, and, at current levels of knowledge, unmanageable.’’ 5 This listing identifies three key threats that all relate to climate change: rising sea surface temperatures, disease susceptibility, and hurricanerelated impacts. Sea surface temperatures are closely related to increasing global 

surface air temperatures. A severe Caribbean coral-bleaching event in 2005 demonstrated that high temperatures cause coral bleaching and bleaching corals become 

more susceptible to disease.6 Moreover, as global temperatures rise, the intensity 

and frequency of hurricanes may increase.7 The timing of this listing was particularly profound as it followed the unprecedented 2005 Caribbean summer, during 

which the region experienced the hottest water temperatures ever recorded with 

large-scale bleaching followed by disease,8 and a record breaking hurricane season.9

Recently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed listing Polar Bears (Ursus 

maritimus). The bears rely on Arctic sea ice for access to food and breeding sites. 

Their primary food source, the ringed seal (Phoca hispida), is also an ice dependent 

species. The loss of nearly 30 percent of Arctic ice cover over the past century, together with the possibility that the Arctic will be seasonally ice-free before the end 

30 

of this century, strongly suggest that climate change will jeopardize the survival of 

this species.10

Another example is the Key Deer, which is now limited to living on two islands 

in the Florida Keys. Most of the Keys have less than two meters of elevation. If sea 

levels were to rise one meter, most the Key Deer habitat would be lost. The only 

way to limit sea level rise and protect remaining Key Deer habitat is to take action 

to mitigate the rate and extent of climate change.11

These three species represent the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. Because climatic 

conditions are central to basic ecological processes that control the distribution and 

abundance of life, the list of species that are or will be endangered by climate 

change is potentially enormous.12 The most direct way to protect the ecosystems in 

which these species live—the mandate of the ESA—will be to address the cause of 

climate change: greenhouse gas emissions. However, because some impacts are inevitable, it is important that we also consider how implementation of the ESA can be 

used to reduce the vulnerability of imperiled species and aid in their recovery despite changing conditions. 

Climate Change and the Clean Water Act 13

The CWA provides the legislative foundation for the protection and restoration of 

the waters of the United States. The Act seeks to ‘‘restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters’’ with the goal of 

achieving water quality that ‘‘provides for the protection and propagation of fish, 

shellfish, and wildlife, and recreation in and on the water.’’ 14 The CWA gives the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (‘‘EPA’’) the statutory authority to establish 

water quality standards and to regulate the discharge of pollutants into waters of 

the United States. 

Climate and water quality are linked by hydrologic processes involved in the global water cycle. These processes move water from the oceans, into the atmosphere, 

and back down into rivers, streams, wetlands, and estuaries. The net result is a sustainable supply of clean, fresh water and a wide variety ecosystem services, such 

as recreational opportunities and food production. It has long been recognized that 

humans intervene in this cycle through activities that intercept, store, utilize, or 

otherwise alter natural hydrologic processes (e.g., the expansion of impermeable surfaces, application of excess fertilizer, and removal of ecological filtration processes 

such as wetlands). The CWA provides a framework for understanding these sources 

of impairment and acts to restore impaired waters and prevent further degradation. 

Over time, the CWA contributed to significant improvements in surface water quality in the United States despite a steadily growing population and expanding economy. 

Climate change adds a new and potentially disruptive element to these long-running efforts. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts a wide variety of changes, including rising air temperature, more frequent heat waves, more 

intense precipitation events, and increasingly severe dry-spells and droughts.15

These changes reflect the biophysical consequences of an overall acceleration of the 

global hydrologic cycle, and these general conclusions have been a feature of the scientific literature for nearly twenty years. However, the local and regional consequences of these complex processes remain difficult to predict. The key conclusion 

for local and regional decisionmakers is that ‘‘change’’ will be the operative word, 

and historic observations will provide an increasingly unreliable guide to future conditions. Changes in hydrologic processes will be reflected in changes in the quantity 

and quality of surface waters, and, in many cases, they are likely to undermine important assumptions used in the implementation of the CWA. For example: 

• More intense precipitation events will increase nonpoint source pollution loads. 

• Increasing storm water volumes may exceed expectations and design specifications for water treatment works and sewer infrastructure. 

• Decreases in flow volume may increase in-stream pollutant concentrations and 

reduce the ability of waters to accommodate pollutant discharges. 

• Increases in ambient air temperature will raise temperatures in surface waters 

and threaten aquatic ecosystems. 

• Humans may respond to some climate change-related impacts through increased use of some pesticides, fungicides, and fertilizers, increasing the concentrations in surface and groundwater (e.g., expanding nuisance species). 

• Climate change may also decrease the toxicity thresholds of bioindicators to 

these pollutants. 

31 

These changes have significant implications for the most important and far-reaching CWA programs, including the control of point source discharge, management of 

nonpoint source pollution, and environmental monitoring. 

Point source discharges are typically managed by engineered systems. Most modern systems are designed to accommodate a relatively wide range of environmental 

conditions. However, there are limits, and climate change may drive systems unexpectedly close to their design tolerances—sometimes risking catastrophic outcomes 

(e.g., levies surrounding New Orleans). Changes to long-term, capital-intensive investments such as sewer and stormwater facilities are costly and time consuming. 

Consequently, those involved in their design, construction, and operation need to 

begin anticipating the impacts of climate change immediately. 

Nonpoint source pollution represents a different kind of problem. By definition, 

nonpoint loads come from many small sources. Pollution is controlled by means of 

so-called Best Management Practices (‘‘BMPs’’), such as riparian buffers, retention 

ponds, and cover cropping. Climate change will alter both the volume and concentration of nonpoint source pollution and the effectiveness of BMPs. Managing nonpoint 

source pollution under changing climatic conditions will require thoughtful monitoring and attention to the relative sensitivities of different land uses and BMPs. 

In many cases, thoughtful land use planning and the selection of climatically-robust 

BMPs may be able to achieve many nonpoint source pollution control goals despite 

changing conditions. 

CWA programs are based on observations of the actual water quality conditions 

and activities that may contribute to impairment. Observations include information 

about a water body’s physical, chemical, and biological condition. These indicators 

are used to assess compliance with water quality standards and attribute degradation to specific sources. This process typically assumes that drivers of change can 

be found within a given watershed. However, climate change will alter water quality 

regardless of local actions and, in most cases, climate-related changes will compound 

or exacerbate on-going water quality problems and a myriad of existing conditions 

and on-going restoration activities. In other words, climate change will make an already complicated analysis significantly more challenging. 

Untangling complex, changing mixtures of factors contributing to water quality 

will require monitoring systems that allow for separation of climatic and non-climatic factors. The EPA uses a system of bioindicators to evaluate the biological integrity of surface waters.16 These are typically fish, aquatic insects, and other organisms that have well-known responses to changes in water quality. These bioindicators provide synthetic measures of water quality that can help diagnose specific 

causes of impairment or degradation. However, bioindicators are themselves part of 

ecological systems that will respond to changes in both climate and water quality.17

The myriad examples offered in toxicological literature demonstrate that elevated 

temperature and altered water chemistry can exacerbate the toxicity of pollutants. 

Consequently, the use of this important information for attribution will require understanding the response of specific bioindicators to changing conditions and specifically selecting indicators with methods that allow for partitioning between climatic 

and non-climatic impacts.18

Climate Change and the Clean Air Act 

The stated purpose of Title IV of the CAA is ‘‘to reduce the adverse effects of acid 

deposition.’’ 19 It seeks to address Congressional findings that: 

1. the presence of acidic compounds and their precursors in the atmosphere and 

in deposition from the atmosphere represents a threat to natural resources, ecosystems, materials, visibility, and public health; 

2. the principal sources of the acidic compounds and their precursors in the atmosphere are emissions of sulfur and nitrogen oxides from the combustion of 

fossil fuels; 

3. the problem of acid deposition is of national and international significance; 

4. strategies and technologies for the control of precursors to acid deposition 

exist now that are economically feasible, and improved methods are expected to 

become increasingly available over the next decade; and 

5. current and future generations of Americans will be adversely affected by delaying measures to remedy the problem.20

The CAA is primarily targeted at reduction of sulfur (‘‘SOX’’) and nitrogen oxides 

(‘‘NOX’’). It also may be interpreted or amended to apply to greenhouse gases. Rising 

atmospheric CO2-levels acidify ocean water and threaten marine resources and ecosystems. Reducing CO2 emissions would help mitigate this global problem, potentially using CAA mechanisms originally designed for SOX and NOX. For example, 

32 

Title IV of the CAA encourages ‘‘energy conservation, use of renewable and clean 

alternative technologies, and pollution prevention as a long-range strategy, consistent with the provisions of this title, for reducing air pollution and other adverse 

impacts of energy production and use.’’ 21 These activities also reduce CO2, emissions and in so doing mitigate the effect of atmospheric CO2, on the ocean. 

Finally, CO2, acidification, like SOX and NOX, is a problem of national and international scope. Current and future generations will be affected by any delay in taking action. Due to the fact that roughly half of anthropogenic emissions end up in 

the oceans and because CO2 remains in the atmosphere for a substantial period of 

time, CO2 will continue to acidify the Earth’s oceans for decades or centuries to 

come. Failure to limit anthropogenic emissions will only perpetuate this problem. 

The likelihood that reducing greenhouse gas emissions will limit acidification is very 

high. 

To date, the EPA has been unwilling to regulate CO2 as an air pollutant, and 

legal action by states and municipalities on this issue awaits a decision by the U.S. 

Supreme Court. Interpreting or amending the CAA to regulate CO2, as an acidifying 

agent may be an effective mechanism for curbing CO2 emissions. 

Conclusion 

The ESA, the CWA, and the CAA form the foundation of the effort to protect and 

restore the environment in the United States. Climate change undermines the ambitious goals of these laws. Changes in climate can jeopardize the survival and recovery of endangered species. Climate change is likely to alter hydrologic processes in 

ways that could undermine the goal of providing clean, safe water resources. Climate change can also exacerbate long-standing air quality issues by increasing the 

likelihood of unhealthy or ecologically-damaging conditions. The first step is to take 

our collective foot off our fossil fuel-powered accelerator by implementing prompt 

and deliberate measures to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. 

This first step, while necessary, is not sufficient. We are already committed to significant levels of climate change due to the accumulation of CO2, in our oceans and 

atmosphere. Achieving conservation and resource protection goals will require developing robust and resilient practices that explicitly anticipate and address the potential for changing conditions. In the years ahead, efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change will constitute important, new dimensions to these critical pieces of environmental legislation. 

Endnotes 1G.A. Meehl et al., How Much More Global Warming and Sea Level Rise?, 307 

SCIENCE 5716 (2005). 2Kerry Emanuel, Increasing Destructiveness of Tropical Cyclones Over the Past 30 

Years, 436 NATURE 7051 (2005). 3 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Summary for Policymakers, Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Feb. 2001), available at 

http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/wg2SPMfinal.pdf (last visited Feb. 13, 2007) [hereinafter 

IPCC]. 4 16 U.S.C. § 1531 (2000). 5 Rules and Regulations. Endangered and Threatened Species: Final Listing Determination for Elkhorn Coral and Staghorn Coral, 71 Fed. Reg. 26,852 (May 9, 

2006). 6See Mark Eakin, Management During Mass Coral Bleaching Events: Wider Caribbean Case Study, International Tropical Marine Ecosystem Management Symposium (October 16–20, 2006); see also National Park Service, Coral Bleaching and 

Disease Deliver ‘‘One-Two Punch’’ to Coral Reefs in the U.S. Virgin Islands (October 

2006), available at http://www.nature.nps.gov/water/Marine/CRTFlFactl 

Sheet1-1a.pdf (last visited Jan. 21, 2007) [hereinafter NPS]. 7Kevin E.Trenberth and Dennis J. Shea, Atlantic Hurricanes & Natural Variability in 2005, 33 GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, June 27, 2006, at 1; see generally Emanuel, supra note 2. 8 NPS, supra note 6. 9Trenberth & Shea, supra note 7. 10 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Petition Finding 

and Proposed Rule to List the Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) as Threatened 

Throughout its Range, 72 Fed. Reg. 1064 (Jan. 7, 2007). 11See generally U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region Workforce Management Plan, available at http://www.fws.gov/southeast/workforce/images/ 

WorkforcePlan.pdf (last visited Feb. 13, 2007). 12 J.R. Malcolm et al., Global Warming and Extinctions of Endemic Species From 

Biodiversity Hotspots, 20 CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 538, at 538–548 (2006). 

33 

13See generally C.R. Pyke, & R.S. Pulwarty, Elements of Effective Decision Support for Water Resource Management Under a Changing Climate, 8 WATER RESOURCES IMPACT 5 (Sept. 2006). 14 33 U.S.C. § 1251 (2001). 15 IPCC, supra note 3. 16 U.S. EPA website, Biological Indicators of Watershed Health. 

http://www.epa.gov/bioindicators/html/indicator.html (last visited Feb. 13, 2007). 17See generally Stephen R. Carpenter et al., Global Change and Freshwater Ecosystems, 23 ANN. R. OF ECOLOGY AND SYSTEMATICS 119 (1992). 18 B.G. Bierwagen and S. Julius, A Framework for Using Biocriteria as Indicators 

of Climate Change, Second Annual Meeting of the International Society for Environmental Bioindicators, April 24–26, 2006. 19 42 U.S.C. § 7651 (2003). 20 42 U.S.C. § 7651 (2003). 21 42 U.S.C. § 7651 (2003). 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Dr. Hansen. 

Dr. Kruse? 

STATEMENT OF GORDON H. KRUSE, PH.D., PRESIDENT’S 

PROFESSOR OF FISHERIES AND OCEANOGRAPHY, SCHOOL 

OF FISHERIES AND OCEAN SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF 

ALASKA FAIRBANKS 

Dr. KRUSE. Madam Chair and members of the Committee: It is 

my honor to testify to you this morning. My name is Gordon Kruse. 

I am the President’s Professor of Fisheries at the School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. 

My objectives are to discuss potential mechanisms and effects of 

climate change on living marine resources in Alaska, future outlook 

for these resources, and implications for management and research 

needs. As just one measure of the value of marine ecosystems, in 

2005 landings from Alaska totaled 5.7 billion pounds, representing 

59 percent of the total 9.6 billion pounds landed in the United 

States. 

Because the Arctic has been warming much faster than the rest 

of the globe and this accelerated trend is projected to persist, studies on its effects in Alaska are critically time sensitive. A large 

body of scientific evidence implicates climate as being primarily responsible for many observed changes in marine ecosystems off 

Alaska. Three of the important interrelated scales of variability I 

will discuss today are inter-annual, decadal, and global warming. 

Regarding inter-annual or year to year variability, an important 

component is the El Nin ̃ o, which occurs every 2 to 7 years. In association with warm ocean temperatures, species more typical of tropical waters, such as ocean sunfish and Pacific white-sided dolphins, 

extend their distributions into Alaska. El Nin ̃ os appear to have become more intense in the latter half of the 20th century, possibly 

as a manifestation of global warming. 

Coincident with the very strong 1997–1998 El Nin ̃ o, the first 

ever massive bloom of coccolithophores, which are very small, rather non-nutritious microscopic plants or phytoplankton, was observed in the eastern Bering Sea. The bloom was so massive that 

it was observed from space. Some seabird species experienced massive die-offs and others produced very few surviving offspring 

owing to feeding problems. 

Much decadal-scale variability occurs in the form of climate regime shifts every 10 to 30 years. For instance, in the northeast PaVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:08 Mar 20, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\79908.TXT JACKIE
34 

cific Ocean temperatures were warm in the mid-1920s to the mid1940s, cool in the mid-1940s to the late 1970s, and warm since 

then. Marine ecosystem changes since the regime shift of the 1970s 

include declines in forage fishes, crabs and shrimps, and increases 

in salmon and groundfish, presumably as a result of changes in nutrients supporting phytoplankton production. 

Global warming will have differential thermal effects on the species distributions. In the Bering Sea, adult red king crab and snow 

crab have shifted to the north since the late 1960s, likely due to 

an aversion to increasing bottom temperature. It appears that the 

planktonic larvae of both species are now being carried by ocean 

currents too far north, beyond preferred nursery habitats. At the 

same time, warmer temperatures have allowed predators of young 

crabs, such as Pacific cod and rocksole, to shift their distributions 

to the north. For these reasons, Bering Sea crabs may fare poorly 

under continued global warming. 

One species that seems to have particularly benefited greatly 

from conditions since the late 1970s is arrowtooth flounder, a species at its highest record levels of abundance. This species is a voracious predator that consumes large amounts of pollock, cod, and 

other commercially valuable species. Unfortunately, the flesh of the 

arrowtooth flounder has low market value owing to enzymes that 

degrade flesh quality. 

The Bering Sea is being restructured by ongoing warming temperatures and loss of sea ice. In years of extensive sea ice, an ice 

edge phytoplankton bloom occurs in April, which falls to the sea 

floor and supports bottom or benthic species like crabs and clams. 

In years of little sea ice, the spring bloom occurs in May or June 

and it stays in the upper layers, where it benefits water column or 

pelagic species, like pollock. A sharp decline in sea ice has favored 

pelagic over benthic species in the southeast Bering Sea since the 

late 1970s. 

Recent studies are indicating that similar changes are now beginning to occur in the northern Bering Sea. In these northern 

areas, loss of benthic production will adversely affect walruses and 

spectacled eiders, which feed primarily on benthic clams or other 

bivalves. 

What about implications of global warming on fishery management? The North Pacific Fishery Management Council is considering management actions with respect to likely northward expansion of fish resources into the northern Bering Sea and Arctic 

Ocean. At its June 2007 meeting, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council is considering action that may ban bottom fishing 

in the northern Bering Sea except for the conduct of experiments 

to study fishing effects. 

Over the long-term, the Council may develop an Arctic Fishery 

Management plan, but these efforts are severely constrained by 

lack of information on marine fish and invertebrate resources in 

the region. 

In general, global warming will cause greater uncertainty about 

the productivity of fish stocks. Under science-based management, 

increasing uncertainty translates into more precaution, which will 

likely mean reduced fish harvests in Alaska. 

35 

I have recommended five research needs to improve our ability 

to forecast and address likely future marine ecosystem changes in 

Alaska with regard to global warming. First, it is critical at this 

time to establish baseline assessments of marine ecosystems of the 

northern Bering Sea and Arctic Ocean. 

Second, establishment of Integrated Ocean Observing Systems is 

essential to monitoring and understanding the effects of global climate change on these marine ecosystems. Third, it is important to 

invest in studies on the biology, life history, and ecology of very 

poorly studied species in the northern regions. Fourth, it is important to establish linkages between climate models and marine ecosystem and fishery models, so that the effects of global warming 

can be better quantified. And finally, climate change coupled to the 

likely increases in marine transportation, development of other 

human uses of marine ecosystems off Alaska, heighten the need for 

further development of an ecosystem approach to management. 

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak to you 

today and I would be pleased to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Kruse follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT GORDON H. KRUSE, PH.D., PRESIDENT’S PROFESSOR OF

FISHERIES AND OCEANOGRAPHY, SCHOOL OF FISHERIES AND OCEAN SCIENCES, 

UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS

Introduction 

Madam Chair and members of the Committee, it is my honor to testify to you this 

morning. My name is Gordon Kruse. Since 2001, I have been the President’s Professor of Fisheries and Oceanography at the School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, 

University of Alaska Fairbanks. Prior to my current position, I directed the marine 

fisheries research program for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game for 16 

years, where I was the lead Science Advisor to the State of Alaska on state and Federal marine fishery management. I have been a member of the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC’s) 

for 7 years, including the two most recent years as chair (2005–2006) and the two 

prior years as vice-chair (2003–2004). I served an additional 11 years as a member 

of the NPFMC’s Crab Plan Team and Scallop Plan Team and co-authored the original crab and scallop Fishery Management Plans. I am the current chair of the Fishery Science Committee for the North Pacific Marine Science Organization (PICES), 

an international marine science organization involving China, Japan, South Korea, 

Russia, Canada and the U.S. 

Objectives of Testimony 

My objectives are to discuss: (1) potential mechanisms and effects of climate 

change on living marine resources in Alaska, (2) future outlook for these resources 

and implications for management under continued global warming, and (3) uncertainties associated with gaps in our understanding that require further research. 

Importance of Marine Ecosystems Off the Coast of Alaska 

Alaska is unique in that it is bounded by three large marine ecosystems: the 

North Pacific Ocean, Bering Sea, and Arctic Ocean (including the Beaufort and 

Chukchi Seas). These are some of the world’s most productive ecosystems, supporting thousands of marine mammals, millions of seabirds, and trillions of fish and 

shellfish belonging to hundreds of species. 

These Arctic and subarctic oceans provide priceless ecosystem services, including 

human use. Since before recorded history, Native Alaskans have depended on the 

bounty of these ecosystems for their very existence. Still today, many of these communities remain as subsistence-based (barter) economies, and their harvests of fish, 

shellfish, mammals and other resources (e.g., bird eggs, kelp) provide the majority 

of their diets. 

These ecosystems support extremely valuable commercial fisheries that provide 

both U.S. food security and foreign exports that contribute toward the national balance of trade. More than half of the total U.S. fishery landings come from the waters off Alaska. In 2005, landings from Alaska totaled 5.7 billion pounds, repVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:08 Mar 20, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\79908.TXT JACKIE
36 

resenting 59 percent of the total 9.6 billion pounds landed in the U.S. (NMFS 2007). 

While important fisheries occur in the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands, most 

of this catch is taken from the eastern Bering Sea, owing to its broad, highly productive continental shelf. In 2005, the Nation’s top seafood port was again Dutch Harbor-Unalaska, accounting for 888 million pounds of landings worth $283 million 

exvessel (before value-added processing). Moreover, seven of the Nation’s top 20 seafood ports are located in Alaska. The Bering Sea supports the world’s largest fishery 

(walleye pollock), largest flatfish fishery (yellowfin sole), and largest salmon (sockeye) fishery. Other valuable commercial fisheries target a diversity of species of 

crabs, rockfishes, flatfish (flounders and soles), cod, halibut, herring, and other fish 

and invertebrates. These same waters provide world-class recreational fishing opportunities for non-resident visitors and Alaskan residents alike for salmon, halibut, 

rockfish and other species. 

Resource Sustainability Versus Variability 

In their report to the nation, the Pew Oceans Commission (2003) noted that Alaska’s fisheries were ‘‘arguably the best managed fisheries in the country. With rare 

exception, the managers have a record of not exceeding acceptable catch limits set by 

scientists. In addition, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and Alaska 

Board of Fisheries have done more to control bycatch and protect habitat from fishing gear than any other region of the Nation.’’ The sustainability of groundfish, 

salmon and other fishery resources in Alaska is tied directly to conservative, 

science-based fishery management. 

Nonetheless, there are clear historical cases of overharvest and resultant collapse 

of living marine resources, even in Alaska—examples include the Steller’s sea cow 

(hunted to extinction in 1768), northern fur seal (1700s–early 1800s and again in 

the late 1800s–early 2000s), great whales (mid 1800s–mid 2000s), sea otters (mid 

1700s–early 2000s), yellowfin sole (1960s), and Pacific ocean perch (1960s–1970s). 

Causes of recent declines in Steller sea lions, northern fur seals, shrimp, and king, 

Tanner and snow crabs are much less clear. Although human effects have been implicated in many of these recent examples and undoubtedly humans have contributed to varying degrees, a large body of scientific evidence has emerged in support 

of climate change as being primarily responsible for major shifts in the marine ecosystems off Alaska. Environmental variability affecting marine ecosystems occurs 

over a wide range of time scales; the scales most relevant to most marine animal 

populations are seasonal to decadal and longer. Owing to our rather short history 

(few decades) of research and monitoring of marine organisms in Alaska, much of 

our outlook for impacts of global warming on marine ecosystems is based upon our 

understanding of the mechanisms and effects operating on shorter time scales, as 

summarized below. 

Effects of Seasonal Climate Variability on Living Marine Resources in 

Alaska 

Seasonal climate variability is vital to the productivity of temperate, subarctic and 

Arctic marine ecosystems. In these regions, there is a seasonal ‘‘battle’’ between 

winds that mix deep, nutrient-rich waters into the photic zone and solar heating 

that warms the upper layers of the ocean, causing thermal stratification that retains 

microscopic plants (phytoplankton) in the upper layers of the ocean where they can 

grow under sufficient light penetration and nutrient concentrations. 

In the spring, when solar heating wins the battle, an intense bloom of large 

phytoplankton occurs, providing large amounts of food to microscopic animals 

(zooplankton) that, in turn, bloom in abundance. This sequential burst in abundance 

of phyto- and zooplankton serves as food to higher trophic levels, including the 

planktonic early life stages (larvae) of many commercially important species of fish 

and shellfish, as well as adults of some species of planktivorous marine mammals 

(e.g., humpback whales) and seabirds (e.g., crested auklet). In other words, this 

spring bloom fuels the engine that supports much of the productivity of marine ecosystems in Alaska. The timing of herring spawning, hatching of red king crab larvae, and outmigration of salmon smolts are tied to this remarkable annual event. 

As summer progresses, nutrients in the warm upper layers of the ocean become depleted, overall production tends to decline, and other species of small phytoplankton 

adapted to low-nutrient conditions become prevalent. 

In the fall, as winds strengthen and solar heating diminishes, the water column 

mixes, stability breaks down and a smaller fall bloom may occur. However, 

phytoplankton are mixed to deeper waters where light levels are too low to sustain 

net growth and the engine that fuels the marine ecosystem slows down. In winter, 

productivity is low, but, even at this time of year some species (e.g., some flatfish) 

37 

have adapted strategies for optimum survival as winter spawners. In the following 

spring, the cycle is repeated again. 

Each species has evolved unique life history strategies to be successful in these 

seasonally dynamic marine ecosystems. For many species of marine fish and invertebrates, their success depends upon the synchrony in time and space of their early 

life stages (eggs and larvae) with abundances of suitable food, the abundance (or 

lack thereof) of predators, and ocean currents that carry them (advection) to nursery 

areas most amenable to their survival. Likewise, the success of seabird and marine 

mammal populations depends largely upon the ability of adults to secure adequate 

prey while feeding their young on rookeries. 

Effects of Interannual and Decadal Climate Variability on Living Marine 

Resources in Alaska 

El Nin ̃ o 

Although an understanding of seasonal variability in environmental variables is 

important toward understanding the strategies by which species thrive within marine ecosystems, it is the year-to-year (interannual) variability in climate and ocean 

processes that determines how animal populations change over time. One important 

component of interannual variability that occurs every 2–7 years is El Nin ̃ o/La 

Nin ̃ a, an oscillation of a coupled ocean-atmosphere system in the tropical Pacific 

having important consequences for weather in the North Pacific and around the 

globe. Prominent features of an El Nin ̃ o include the relaxation of the trade winds 

and a warming of sea surface temperature in the equatorial eastern Pacific, extending along the U.S. west coast into Alaskan waters. Species more typical of subtropical and tropical waters extend their distributions into Alaska during El Nin ̃ o events. For instance, during the 1997–1998 El Nin ̃ o, albacore tuna were caught off 

Kodiak Island and ocean sunfish were observed in the northern Gulf of Alaska 

(Kruse 1998). Global surface mean temperature anomalies provided by NOAA’s National Climate Data Center suggest that El Nin ̃ os became more intense and more 

frequent in the latter half of the 20th century, quite possibly as a manifestation of 

global warming. Thus, range extensions and first-time sightings of southern species 

have become more common in recent years. 

Beyond the curiosity of such unusual sightings, more far-reaching marine ecosystem changes can be associated with El Nin ̃ o events. Coincident with the 1997– 

1998 El Nin ̃ o, salmon run failures occurred in western Alaskan river systems imposing severe economic and social hardships in some western Alaskan communities 

(Kruse 1998). A Federal disaster was declared by the U.S. President. Also, in 1997, 

the first-ever massive bloom of coccolithophores (a non-nutritious microscopic 

phytoplankton covered with calcium carbonate platelets) was observed in the eastern Bering Sea. The bloom was so dense and expansive, that it was easily observed 

by satellites orbiting the Earth. A massive die-off of short-tailed shearwaters was 

associated with reduced availability of their preferred prey (euphausiids). Murres, 

a dive-feeding seabird, produced fewer offspring, likely because dense 

coccolithophore concentrations obscured their vision and ability to feed. It is important to recognize that these ecosystem effects were likely the product of an unusual 

combination of El Nin ̃ o, decadal climate variability, global warming, and other 

atypical regional conditions. However, this suite of climatic conditions set the stage 

for repeated coccolithophore blooms in the eastern Bering Sea for half a dozen years 

after this initial event. 

Decadal Climate Regime Shifts 

Much marine ecosystem research in Alaska since the 1980s has documented 

decadal climate variability patterns that have led to regime shifts every 10–30 

years. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is one index of such shifts, based on 

warm-cold patterns of sea surface temperature in the northern North Pacific Ocean. 

Some have likened the warm phase of the PDO to an extended El Nin ̃ o situation. 

For instance, ocean temperatures in the northeast Pacific were typically warm in 

the mid-1920s to mid-1940s, cool during the mid 1940s–late 1970s, and warm since 

then. The opposite pattern was experienced in the northwestern Pacific. 

The regime shift of the late 1970s has been particularly well studied. Since the 

late 1970s, Alaskan waters have experienced more frequent winter storms associated with an intensified Aleutian Low Pressure System, increased freshwater discharge into the Gulf of Alaska, a stronger Alaska Coastal Current (which flows in 

a counter-clockwise fashion around the gulf), and warmer ocean temperatures. 

These changes appeared to have altered the flux of nutrients, leading to a marked 

increase in the biomass of zooplankton in the Gulf of Alaska. Other major ecosystem 

changes associated with this regime shift include a decline in forage fishes, crabs, 

and shrimps and increases in the abundances of salmon and groundfish (Anderson 

38 

and Piatt 1999). Some research supports the hypothesis that declines in a number 

of populations of marine mammals and seabirds are related to observed shifts in 

marine food webs (e.g., decline in forage fish) in Alaska. However, as with any complex ecosystem with limited monitoring, the evidence is less than conclusive. 

Decadal-scale variability in the extent of sea ice formation has had profound effects on the Bering Sea marine ecosystem. Sea ice forms and melts seasonally 

spreading from the northern to southern Bering Sea shelf waters. Timing of the 

spring bloom depends heavily on ice formation and melt. In years of extensive ice 

coverage, the ice thaws more slowly and melt water stratifies the upper water column with buoyant, low salinity water. If this stratification occurs sufficiently late 

(e.g., April), then sunlight is adequate at that time of year to cause an early spring 

bloom near the ice edge. However, there is a dearth of zooplankton in this cold melt 

water, so much of the phytoplankton sinks ungrazed to the seafloor where it benefits bottom-dwelling (benthic) species, such as clams, crabs and other invertebrates. 

On the other hand, in years when ice is thin and less extensive, it melts in February 

or March; the lesser amount of freshwater is inadequate to stratify the water column and sunlight is too weak at that time of year to support a plankton bloom. In 

such years, the spring bloom is delayed until May or June after the sun has had 

sufficient time to heat a stratified layer of warmer water. Warmer ocean temperatures at this time of year support growth of the zooplankton community and much 

of the phytoplankton production is grazed by water column (pelagic) species, such 

as walleye pollock. 

Sea ice in the southeast Bering Sea has declined markedly from covering 6–7 

months in the late 1970s to spanning just 3–4 months each winter since the 1990s. 

As the ice-edge bloom may account for a large fraction of the total annual primary 

production in the eastern Bering Sea, there is considerable concern that declines in 

productivity have occurred with reductions in sea ice since the late 1970s. Although 

long-term records of phytoplankton are lacking, declines in summer zooplankton 

have been clearly documented in the eastern Bering Sea by the Japanese research 

vessel OSHORO MARU since at least 1990. 

Effects of Global Warming on Living Marine Resources in Alaska 

Terrestrial Impacts of Global Warming in Alaska 

Increases in global air and sea temperatures have been clearly documented since 

the 1800s. On land, observed changes in Alaska are dramatic and well known, including retreat of nearly all glaciers, melting of permafrost and associated structural 

damage to buildings and roads, and increased insect outbreaks (e.g., spruce bark 

beetle) in coniferous forests and an associated increase in frequency of forest fires. 

Along the coast of western Alaska, higher sea levels and lack of shore-fast sea ice 

in winter has led to extensive coastal erosion during storms, prompting the imminent costly relocation of dozens of Native villages. 

Climate and Oceanographic Changes With Global Warming 

A composite land-ocean index of global temperature provided by NASA shows that 

temperature changes since the 1880s reflect the combined influences of the two 

major frequencies already discussed—El Nin ̃ os (every 2–7 years) and decadal variability (10–30 years)—plus a long-term increase in temperature associated with global warming (≥100 years). Because our history of research and monitoring of marine 

organisms is very short (decades) relative to the century-long time scale associated 

with global warming, the outlook for living marine resources under continued global 

warming is based largely upon our rather limited understanding of recent variability and mechanisms associated with those observed changes. The outlook for 

these marine resources also depends upon the accuracy of future projected changes 

in temperature, precipitation and winds from climate forecast models. 

Based on the working group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

in 2007, the near-term projection is for an average global increase of 0.2° C per decade over the next two decades. The Arctic has been warming twice as fast as the 

rest of the globe since the mid 1800s, and this accelerated trend is projected to persist for the higher latitudes into the foreseeable future. Based on these IPCC models, increased precipitation is also very likely in the higher latitudes. High-latitude 

changes in wind patterns are also projected, but specific details in the projections 

concerning storm frequency and intensity are somewhat less certain. 

Shifts in Species Distribution and Abundance 

Each species has its own preferred optimum temperatures within a wider range 

of temperatures suitable for its growth and survival. With warming ocean temperatures, species at the southern end of their distributions (e.g., snow crabs in the 

southeastern Bering Sea) are expected to contract, whereas those at the northern 

39 

ends of their distributions (e.g., Pacific hake in southeastern Alaska) are expected 

to expand northward. 

Increased temperatures may benefit some species and disfavor others. With the 

warming experienced in the last two decades, in-river temperatures in British Columbia have exceeded 15° C, which causes stress in sockeye salmon, increasing susceptibility to disease and impairing reproduction. Studies have shown that mortality 

is positively related to temperature and river flow in Fraser River sockeye salmon. 

Turning back to the poor salmon runs in western Alaska in 1997–1998 mentioned 

earlier, among other potential causes, anecdotal reports found a high incidence of 

a parasite, called Ichthyophonus. Infected fish did not dry properly when smoked (a 

common means of preservation by subsistence users) and had white spots on internal organs and muscle. Follow-up studies found that 25–30 percent of adult chinook 

salmon returning to the Yukon River in 1999–2002 were infected (Kocan et al., 

2003). Many of the diseased fish appear to have died before spawning. The spread 

and pathogenicity of this parasite is correlated with Yukon River water temperature 

in June, which increased from 11° C to 15° C over 1975 to 2002 at Emmonak (river 

mile 24). Such examples of adverse impacts of increasing temperatures on salmon 

may become more common in Alaska with continued global warming. 

Warming temperatures are expected to increase the northward migration of 

piscivorous predators into the future. Pacific mackerel and jack mackerel, species 

common to the coast of California, have extended their distributions into British Columbia in recent warm years. The productivity of Pacific mackerel populations is favored during warm years off California. Mackerel compete with and prey on juvenile 

salmon; reduced survival of sockeye salmon on the west coast of Vancouver Island 

is correlated with the abundance and early arrival of Pacific mackerel in British Columbia. The impact of mackerel predation and competition with salmon is a concern 

for Alaska. Mackerel have already been encountered in Southeast Alaska by salmon 

troll fishermen. 

There are additional concerns about the northward extension of other predators, 

such as spiny dogfish in Alaska. A colleague from the University of Washington and 

I have an ongoing project to evaluate the evidence for an increase in dogfish abundance, as well as to evaluate the life history and productivity of dogfish and management implications in Alaska. Bycatch of dogfish is an increasing problem to fishermen, particularly in the salmon gillnet and halibut/sablefish longline fisheries in 

Alaska. On the one hand, dogfish bycatch causes gear damage (gillnet) and hook 

competition for more valuable species (sablefish and halibut), but, on the other 

hand, this species could provide new economic opportunities (dogfish supply the fish 

and chips industry in Europe). Determination of sustainable harvest levels is problematic for this abundant species that has a low rate of annual productivity associated with delayed maturity and low reproductive rate. 

In the Bering Sea, the centers of distribution of adult female red king crab and 

snow crab have shifted to the north since the late 1960s and early 1970s, likely due 

to increases in bottom temperature (Loher and Armstrong 2005, Orensanz et al., 

2004, Zheng and Kruse 2006). The larval stages of both species are planktonic—subject to passive drift. Given the northward flow of prevailing ocean currents and the 

probable fixed location of juvenile nursery areas, the northward shift of females has 

most likely adversely affected the ability of these populations to supply young crabs 

to the southern end of their distribution in recent decades. At the same time, warming ocean temperatures have allowed predators of young crabs, such as Pacific cod, 

rock sole, and skates, to shift their distributions to the north. So, the young stages 

of crab not only have to deal with settlement into suboptimal habitats, but they 

have to navigate the gauntlet of increased predation by groundfish. These two mechanisms may be leading reasons why crabs have generally faired poorly since the late 

1970s regime shift. For these same two reasons, crabs may continue to fair poorly 

under continued global warming. On the other hand, groundfishes like pollock and 

cod may continue to benefit. 

One species that seems to have benefited greatly from conditions since the late 

1970s is the arrowtooth flounder, a species at its highest recorded levels of abundance and still increasing. This species is a voracious predator that consumes large 

amounts of pollock, cod, and other commercially valuable groundfish and shellfish. 

Unfortunately, the flesh of the arrowtooth flounder has low market value owing to 

enzymes that degrade the flesh quality. So, future warm ocean conditions may continue to result in a shift from commercially valuable species, like pollock and cod, 

to this species, which has low market value. 

Other predatory species that may increase in Alaska with continued global warming include seasonal predators, such as albacore tuna. This species would provide 

new economic opportunities in Alaska, perhaps to the detriment of salmon fisheries. 

40 

Restructuring of Ecosystems 

Earlier, I discussed the role of sea ice extent on funneling energy to the benthic 

ecosystem (early spring bloom) or the pelagic ecosystem (late spring bloom). Although the trend since the late 1970s has been toward a late spring bloom favoring 

pelagic species (such as pollock) in the southeastern Bering Sea, the spring bloom 

remains largely an ice-edge bloom in the northern Bering Sea, where the ecosystem 

remains benthic dominated (e.g., clams). This benthic production is essential for a 

number of charismatic species, such as walruses and spectacled eiders that feed on 

benthic clams and other bivalves. All, or nearly all, of the world’s populations of 

spectacled eiders overwinter in a small area between St. Lawrence Island and St. 

Matthew Island in the eastern Bering Sea. In the past decade with an increase in 

air and ocean temperatures and a reduction in sea ice, there has been a reduction 

in benthic prey populations and a displacement of marine mammals (Grebmeier et 

al., 2006). With a commensurate increase in pelagic fishes, the northern Bering Sea 

is shifting from a benthic to a pelagic ecosystem, posing risks to benthic prey-dependent species of seabirds and marine mammals. This benthic to pelagic trend is 

expected to increase and expand northward with continued global warming. 

Loss of sea ice in the Bering Sea is likely to have major impacts on ice-dependent 

marine mammal species, such as ring seals and bearded seals. Ring seals excavate 

caves (lairs) under the ice in which they raise their young for protection from the 

weather and predators. Ring and bearded seals feed on a variety of invertebrates 

and fishes. Both seals are major components of the diet of polar bears. Polar bears 

also have the capacity to kill larger prey, such as walruses, a species with seasonal 

migrations also tied to the advance and retreat of sea ice. Therefore, it seems very 

likely that the loss of sea ice associated with global warming will have serious impacts on these ice-dependent marine mammals. 

Potential for Invasive Species 

An additional area of concern under global warming is invasive species. With increasing ocean temperatures, cold thermal barriers to warm-water invasive species 

may become removed. One key species of concern is the European green crab, a species that is native to the North and Baltic Seas. Unintentionally introduced as an 

invasive species, the green crab has consumed up to 50 percent of manila clams in 

California, and it was blamed for the collapse of the soft-shell clam industry in 

Maine. This species has the potential to alter an ecosystem by competing with native fish and seabirds. Its recent arrival on the U.S. west coast and potential to expand northward with global warming causes concerns for Alaska with respect to our 

Dungeness crab fishery and aquaculture farms for oysters and clams. 

Changes in Seasonal Production Cycle 

Increased temperatures may result in earlier stratification, perhaps advancing the 

timing of the spring bloom. In such case, the continued success of some species depends upon their ability to spawn earlier so that their early life history stages continue to match the spring bloom. Additionally, greater heat in the ocean may lead 

to prolonged summer-like conditions favorable to small phytoplankton that thrive in 

low nutrient conditions, including some phytoplankton species that produce toxins, 

such as paralytic shellfish poisoning. Food chains based on small phytoplankton 

(typical of summer) tend to be less productive than those based on large 

phytoplankton (typical of the spring bloom), because they require more steps of energy conversions along the food chain to support upper trophic level species, such 

as seabirds, marine mammals, and commercially important fish including cod and 

halibut. So far, this seasonal cycle outlook is based solely upon increased temperatures; other important considerations are the forecasted future changes in storm frequency and intensity. If greater storminess in the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea 

is associated with global warming, then the increased mixing could somewhat compensate for the tendency for increased stratification caused by warmer temperatures, perhaps resulting in little change in the timing of the spring bloom. However, 

in such case, given the temperature control of the rate of many physiological processes (including reproduction) of cold-blooded marine fish and invertebrates, a challenge for many species will be to maintain current spawning timing despite warming temperature conditions. 

Ocean Acidification 

As greenhouse emissions continue to increase, the ocean soaks up more and more 

CO2, which when dissolved in water, becomes carbonic acid. Such increases lower 

the pH of seawater, causing a critical concern for species with calcium carbonate 

skeletons. Preliminary results of studies in Alaska indicate that declining seawater 

saturation of calcium carbonate induced by ocean acidification may make it more 

41 

difficult for larval blue king crabs to harden their shells (J. Short, NMFS, Auke Bay 

Laboratory, pers. comm.). Juvenile king crabs had substantially increased mortality, 

slower growth, and slightly less calcified shells when exposed to undersaturated seawater conditions projected for their rearing habitat within the coming century in the 

North Pacific Ocean. These preliminary results indicate that continued increasing 

carbonation of the ocean surface layer as a result of increasing atmospheric CO2

may directly affect recruitment of commercially important shellfish. Other witnesses 

on this panel have outstanding expertise on ocean acidification and will speak in 

much greater detail on this topic. 

Management and Economic Implications 

One need not look further than the Bering Sea pollock fishery in 2006 for an example of the sort of management implications expected under global warming. During the B (fall) fishing season, pollock were farther north and west than normal. 

Diesel fuel prices were high. The at-sea (factory trawler fleet) sector has the ability 

to conduct 7–10 day fishing trips and a byproduct of their fish harvests is fish oil, 

which they burn in their boilers and generators. On the other hand, smaller shorebased vessels only have capacity for 2–4 day trips and they cannot produce fish oil. 

The northward shift of pollock, typical of expectations under global warming, had 

relatively small impact on the at-sea sector, but had significant adverse impacts on 

the shore-based fleet, owing to reduced access to the resource and increased operational costs. Under northward shifts in fish resources, the shore-based fleet will 

need to shift to a mothership-type fishery or will need to relocate plants in new 

northern ports at greater investment of capital. 

Over the near term, the NPFMC is currently considering management actions 

with respect to the potential northward expansion of pelagic and other fishery resources into the northern Bering Sea and Arctic Ocean. One major problem is that 

current surveys do not extend into the northern Bering Sea, much less the Arctic, 

so allowance of fisheries to follow the fish north would be conducted under increased 

uncertainty, perhaps at greater risk to previously unexploited benthic resources, 

which in turn could place sensitive populations of marine mammals (e.g., walrus) 

and seabirds (e.g., spectacled eider) as risk. At its June 2007 meeting, the NPFMC 

is scheduled to take action on a proposal to define and mitigate essential fish habitat in the eastern Bering Sea including an SSC proposal to allow fishing in the 

northern Bering Sea only under an experimentally designed study to test fishing impacts upon which future decisions can be based. Over the longer term, the NPFMC 

is considering management options for the Arctic Ocean, perhaps under a new Arctic Fishery Management Plan. Management options for the Arctic are constrained 

by a serious lack of information on the marine fish and invertebrate resources in 

this region. The reliance of species of marine mammals and seabirds, as well as Native communities, on the living marine resources of these northern areas, heightens 

the gravity of management decisions for the Arctic Ocean. 

Long-term forecasts of the implications of global warming and fisheries management in Alaska are highly speculative, given present levels of understanding. Just 

as there was a reorganization of marine ecosystems after the regime shift of the late 

1970s, marine ecosystems off Alaska might be expected to reorganize again, perhaps 

to a new unobserved state, in response to a climate regime shift associated with continued global warming. If so, then a commensurate reorganization of the fishing industry is to be expected. Uncertainty increases as conditions (e.g., temperature, percent sea ice cover) move outside the range of historical observations. Under sciencebased management, increasing uncertainty typically translates into more precaution. Thus, more precautionary management under greater uncertainty, coupled 

to the increasing use of ecosystem-based fisheries management, will likely result in 

more conservative fish harvests in Alaska in the future. 

Data Gaps and Research Needs 

Predictions of future changes of marine ecosystems for the Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and eastern Bering Sea are uncertain, partly owing to gaps in our understanding of mechanisms affecting the dynamics of living marine resources and 

partly due to uncertainties in climate forecast models at the level of detail necessary 

for the Alaska region. A combination of improved monitoring, process-oriented studies, modeling, and policy development are recommended to improve our ability to 

forecast and address likely future marine ecosystem changes in Alaska: 

• Arctic baselines—very few data are available on the abundance, distribution, 

and life history of marine species in the northern Bering Sea and Arctic. It is 

critical at this time to establish baseline understanding of community structure 

and function before the Arctic region is perturbed by human impacts and climate change. 

42 

• Integrated Ocean Observing Systems—establishment of routine observing systems for physical and biological features of marine ecosystems off Alaska is essential to monitoring the effects of global climate change. 

• Studies of physiology and life history. Models only go so far; the biology and 

life history of many species off Alaska are poorly known, including functional 

relationships between their growth and survival and environmental conditions. 

In order to understand the effects of global warming and human effects on these 

populations and associated ecosystem consequences, it is essential to invest in 

studies of basic biology, life history, and physiology of poorly studied northern 

marine species. Physiological studies can reveal a great deal about the impacts 

of increasing temperature on the scope for growth and survival of northern species. 

• Coupled climate-ecosystem and climate-fisheries forecasting models. It is imperative to establish explicit linkages between climate forecast models and regional 

ecosystem and fishery models so that outlooks for changes in marine ecosystems 

and fisheries can be made more quantitative and less qualitative. In June 2007, 

PICES will convene a workshop on linking climate and fisheries forecasts, but 

this is just a very initial step in a process that will require substantial efforts. 

• Ecosystem approach to management. Climate change is just one of a suite of 

both human and naturally occurring factors that need to be considered in the 

management of living marine resources. Effective management of marine resources off Alaska will become increasingly complex, given the uses of these resources by coastal Native communities and higher trophic level species (e.g., 

birds and mammals). Potential for increased marine transportation and oil and 

gas exploration and development further heighten the need for an ecosystem approach to management. 

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak to you and your committee 

today. I would be pleased to answer any questions you or other committee members 

may have. 

References 

Anderson, P.J., and J.F. Piatt. 1999. Community reorganization in the Gulf of 

Alaska following ocean climate regime shift. Marine Ecology Progress Series 189: 

117–123. 

Grebmeier, J.M., J.E. Overland, S.E. Moore, E.V. Farley, E.C. Carmack, L.W. Cooper, K.E. Frey, J.H. Helle, F.A. McLaughlin, and S.L. McNutt. 2006. A major ecosystem shift in the northern Bering Sea. Science 311: 1461–1464. 

Kocan, R., P. Hershberger, and J. Winton. 2003. Effects of Ichthyophonus on survival and reproductive success of Yukon River chinook salmon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Subsistence Management, Final Report 01–200. 

Kruse, G.H. 1998. Salmon run failures in 1997–1998: A link to anomalous ocean 

conditions? Alaska Fishery Research Bulletin 5(1): 55–63. 

Loher, T., and D.A. Armstrong. 2005. Historical changes in the abundance and 

distribution of ovigerous red king crabs (Paralithodes camtschaticus) in Bristol Bay 

(Alaska), and potential relationship with bottom temperature. Fisheries Oceanography 14: 292–306. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2007. Fisheries of the United States, 

2005. National Marine Fisheries Service, Current Fishery Statistics 2005, Silver 

Spring, MD. 

Orensanz, J., B. Ernst, D.A. Armstrong, P. Stabeno, and P. Livingston. 2004. Contraction of the geographic range of distribution of snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio) in 

the eastern Bering Sea: an environmental ratchet? CalCOFI Report 45: 65–79. 

Pew Oceans Commission. 2003. America’s living oceans: charting a course for sea 

change. A report to the nation: recommendations for a new ocean policy. Arlington, 

VA. 

Zheng, J., and G.H. Kruse. 2006. Recruitment variation of eastern Bering Sea 

crabs: climate forcing or top-down effects? Progress in Oceanography 68: 184–204. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Dr. Kruse. 

Admiral Watkins, welcome. Let me thank you again for your 

leadership on the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, something this 

Committee has had a lot of involvement with, starting with Senator Hollings’ bill on the Oceans Policy Act, and my colleagues Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye and many others have had much 

43 

involvement in this. We are glad you are back before the Committee. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES D. WATKINS, ADMIRAL (RET.), 

U.S. NAVY; CHAIRMAN, U.S. COMMISSION ON OCEAN POLICY; 

CO-CHAIR, JOINT OCEAN COMMISSION INITIATIVE 

Admiral WATKINS. Thank you very much, Madam Chair and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, for inviting me to participate in today’s hearing. I submitted a much longer statement 

for the record that I hope will be included therein. 

I appear before you today representing the interests of the U.S. 

Commission on Ocean Policy, as well as the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, which I co-chair with Leon Panetta. As you know, 

he was Chair of the Pew Ocean Commission, a privately-funded 

commission. Because we were not doing very much in Washington 

toward establishing a National Ocean Commission Pew decided to 

go ahead anyway, which I think scared the Congress and they 

passed the Ocean Policy Act of 2000, which led to our commission. 

I want to thank you, particularly the Senate, for the work that 

you have done to bring national visibility to the oceans. 

While today’s hearing is focused primarily on the issue of increasing acidification of the oceans and the impact on living marine 

resources, I appreciate the opportunity to come and speak to the 

broader issue of the role oceans play in climate change and the 

need to pursue strategies, how to mitigate and adapt to these 

changes. 

As public awareness of climate change and its potential economic 

and environmental consequences has increased, so has the level of 

urgency to take action. Unfortunately, few people fully appreciate 

the fundamental role oceans play in governing climate through 

their immense capacity to store and distribute heat and their part 

in the carbon cycle. I have never seen one article on climate change 

that ever mentions the oceans and I think it is a tragedy. They are 

the first victims and they are also the hope for mankind to come 

out of this and to adapt to it. 

We have global ocean circulation and heat flux models that clearly indicate major changes are under way. Yet we still lack a clear 

understanding of the underlying dynamics of these processes and 

are even less knowledgeable about activities occurring along the 

highly dynamic coastal margins, where ecological and economic activities are of greatest importance to humans and many of the impacts of climate change, such as sea level rise and coastal storms, 

will be directly felt. 

Clearly, a more coherent strategy is needed, and a core element 

of such a strategy must include increased attention to the role of 

the oceans and impacts on ocean resources. Let me proceed by focusing my remarks on three key points that I hope my written 

statement communicates. 

Congressional leadership. First, our oceans, coasts, and Great 

Lakes need a voice and strong leadership and we are counting on 

the members of this Committee to help fill this role. The ocean 

community is in the process of a major organizational transition, 

moving away from an outdated, highly structured, institutional approach toward an integrated process that more closely resembles 

44 

the function of natural systems. We call that ecosystem-based management. 

This transition is necessary in order to respond to the host of 

problems impacting the ecological health and economic viability of 

the oceans. These problems range from impacts associated with climate change, such as acidification, sea level rise, more intense 

coastal storms, to degradation issues such as water pollution, habitat loss, overfishing, and invasive species. 

The problems facing the oceans are too large and too varied to 

continue the current piecemeal approach to management and 

science. It will take leadership and vision from Members of Congress to lay the foundation for a transition to ecosystem-based 

management. It will be difficult and require some painful decisions, 

but it is incumbent upon you to recognize the need for reform and 

to move the process forward, and today’s hearing hopefully is a 

major step toward this objective. 

Governance reform. My second point builds squarely on the concerns raised in my first point. Governance problems in the oceans 

community are severely limiting the oceans community’s capacity 

to provide the scientific information and management options needed by Congress to make critical policy decisions. Given the oceans’ 

fundamental role in climate change, this weakness in the ocean 

community is impacting its capacity to make meaningful contributions toward the effort to understand and address climate change. 

We need a new governance regime within the Federal Government that moves away from the stove-piped, command and control 

organization where the budget process often discourages interagency cooperation. The Joint Initiative has made ocean governance reform one of its highest priorities and the urgency of this 

issue has only escalated, given the need to address ocean-related 

science and management demands associated with climate change. 

We must focus on improving our capacity to more accurately assess the processes influencing climate change and place greater attention on designing and implementing a comprehensive strategy 

that balances resources across the spectrum of scientific disciplines, 

that is physical, chemical, and biological, and sectors, that is research, monitoring, and modeling, as well as expand support for 

translating this data into information that will allow you, Congress, to establish policies aimed at meeting the goal of improving 

the resiliency of the coastal communities and ecosystem. 

My final point is straightforward: The time to act is now. Leon 

and I are committed to pursuing the implementation of the two 

Commissions’ recommendations through establishment of the Joint 

Initiative because we feel strongly that a failure to respond to problems facing our oceans and coasts now will result in irreversible 

damage to our economy and environment. The urgency of the need 

for action is further highlighted by growing concern over impacts 

associated with climate change and the ocean’s role in the process. 

A much more comprehensive and robust science enterprise, one 

that includes a better understanding of the ocean’s role in climate 

change, is required to more accurately predict the rate and implications of change at the global through local level, as well as to enable a more thorough evaluation of options for mitigating and accommodating this change. 

45 

One of the first steps in the process of strengthening the science 

enterprise should be a commitment to building a comprehensive 

environmental monitoring system. Clearly, an integrated ocean observing system such as the one recommended in Senate 950, which 

is cosponsored by many members of this Subcommittee, should be 

a key element of such a system. 

Yet progress toward this goal is limited and appears to be moving backward. A recent NRC study out of the National Academies 

found that remote sensing satellite programs of NASA are at serious risk due to a $500 million decrease in funding for its Earth 

Science program and that the next generation of satellites on the 

drawing board are generally less capable than the current, rapidly 

diminishing system. 

This situation must be addressed and a comprehensive monitoring system that includes support for data management and 

analysis and modeling must be the core of a national strategy. 

I will conclude by noting that the recent elevation of concerns 

surrounding climate change and its economic and environmental 

implications validate similar concerns voiced by the oceans community in the release of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and 

Pew Ocean Commission reports. At the heart of the matter is the 

need for a more robust science enterprise capable of advancing our 

understanding of the processes that drive our planet and guide the 

decisions of policymakers. The integration across agencies and scientific disciplines can only occur if we succeed in implementing a 

new governance regime that facilitates greater collaboration, including resources and expertise outside of the Federal system. 

So I am appealing to you publicly, as Leon and I have done in 

private, to take up the mantle of governance reform in the ocean 

community. It is the critical first step in a process toward realigning and focusing the resources and energy of the ocean community 

toward restoring the health and viability of our oceans and coasts. 

I can assure you that the rewards will be immense and enduring 

and will provide you with a lasting legacy. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear and I stand ready to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Watkins follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES D. WATKINS, ADMIRAL (RET.), U.S. NAVY; 

CHAIRMAN, U.S. COMMISSION ON OCEAN POLICY; CO-CHAIR, JOINT OCEAN

COMMISSION INITIATIVE

Madame Chair, Senator Snowe and members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for 

the invitation to testify at today’s hearing. I appear before you today representing 

the interests of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy as well as the Joint Ocean 

Commission Initiative, which I co-chair with Leon Panetta. The Joint Initiative is 

a collaborative effort of members of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the 

Pew Oceans Commission. The purpose of the Joint Initiative is to advance the pace 

of change for meaningful ocean policy reform. 

Leon and I believe that this is an important hearing and hopefully is the first of 

many hearings that will examine the fundamental role oceans play in global climate 

change, as well as the impact climate change is having on our oceans and coasts. 

We trust that the Members of the Committee will work closely with the multitude 

of other congressional committees that share jurisdiction over climate change related issues and will champion the need for greater attention to governance needs 

and the commitment of resources to support ocean-related science, management, 

and education. 

46 

Multi-jurisdictional problems, such as climate change, are becoming more common. In the work of our commissions, we found almost the identical problem in the 

effort to deal with the many problems facing our oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes. 

The lack of governance regimes capable of reaching across the diversity of congressional committees and Federal agencies is severely hampering our capacity to deal 

with these issues. Thus, while I understand that today’s hearing is focused on the 

issue of the increasing acidification of the oceans and the impact on living marine 

resources, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the broader issue of the role of 

oceans in climate change and the importance of pursing strategies now to help 

coastal communities adapt to the inevitable changes that will occur in the coming 

years. 

Oceans Role in Climate Change 

As public awareness of climate change and its potential economic and environmental consequences has increased, so has the level of urgency to take action to 

mitigate the causes of this change and to make preparations to adapt to its impacts. 

Unfortunately, few people fully appreciate the fundamental role oceans play in regulating climate through their capacity to store and distribute heat and their role in 

the carbon cycle. As a nation, we are even less knowledgeable about the ramification 

of this change on the health of coastal and pelagic ecosystems and their capacity 

to provide the services upon which we’ve come to rely. This lapse has resulted in 

limited understanding of the complexity of ocean-related physical, geochemical, and 

biological/ecological processes that are influencing and being influenced by the ongoing change. The consequences of this lack of knowledge are significant. Policymakers struggle to evaluate alternatives to address climate change because the levels of uncertainty associated with the short- and long-term impacts of proposed options are relatively high and the science underpinning these decisions is inadequate. 

Clearly, a more coherent strategy is needed to address climate change, and a core 

element of such a strategy must include increased attention to the role of the 

oceans. 

Oceans are key drivers in the Earth’s heat and carbon budgets, storing one thousand times the heat of the atmosphere and absorbing a third of all anthropocentric 

carbon dioxide generated over the last few centuries. Furthermore, oceans not only 

store heat, but transport it around the globe, as well as vertically through the water 

column in ocean basins, making it a driving force of climate change. While our 

knowledge of physical oceanographic processes is further advanced than that of geochemical and biological processes, it is still rudimentary due to the lack of a comprehensive monitoring regime. As a result, we have ocean circulation and heat flux 

models that clearly indicate major changes are in progress. However, we still lack 

a clear understanding of these processes on a global scale, and are even less knowledgeable about activities occurring along the highly dynamic coastal margins, where 

ecological and economic health are of the greatest importance to humans and many 

of the impacts of climate change—such as sea level rise and coastal storms—will 

be directly felt. 

Further complicating the situation is the lack of understanding of the interrelationship among the physical, geochemical, and biological processes. As today’s 

hearing clearly demonstrates, we need to know the implications of ocean acidification on marine ecosystems—such as phytoplankton communities, coral reefs, and 

fish larva. We also need to know the rate of ice sheet melt and its impact on coastal 

communities, polar ecosystems, and regional weather patterns. 

The complex relationship between oceans and climate change, as we currently understand it, cries out for reform in two core areas, governance and science. Congress 

must respond to the chorus of criticism directed at the lack of a coherent strategy 

and framework for addressing the challenges facing our oceans and coasts. This 

strategy, in turn, must be integrated into a broader national initiative to deal with 

climate change. It is incumbent upon Congress to take this opportunity to look beyond parochial interests and issue-specific legislation, and work toward a governance regime and management policies that place greater emphasis on cooperation 

and collaboration within the Federal Government, while capitalizing on the wealth 

of scientific expertise and resources that reside outside the Federal system. 

Governance 

The complexity and breadth of issues associated with efforts to understand, mitigate, and adapt to climate change make it essential that the Nation have a coherent 

and comprehensive strategy to guide this work. This is a daunting challenge given 

the multitude of governmental and nongovernmental entities that have a vested interest in this issue and its long-term impact on the health and viability of the nation’s economy and environment. The ocean community has been struggling with 

47 

1 Analysis of Global change Assessments: Lesson Learned. National Research Council 2007. 

2 Hearing before the House Science and Technology Committee, Subcommittee on Energy and 

the Environment; Reorienting the U.S. Global Change Research Program Toward a User-Driven 

Research Endeavor. http://science.house.gov/publications/hearingslmarkupsldetails.aspx? 

NewsID=1798 May 3, 2007. 3 U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, Appendix F. 2004. 

this same problem, albeit on a slightly smaller scale. But the challenge remains the 

same, we need a new Federal governance regime that moves away from the stovepiped, command and control organization in which individual departments and 

agencies formulate policies and budgets that are reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget and then sent to Congress for a similar review by the appropriate 

committee of jurisdiction. While there is a continuing effort to integrate programs 

and activities, it is the exception not the rule. In addition, the budget process often 

discourages interagency cooperation as funding for multi-agency programs is subject 

to cuts or reductions during internal agencies budget negotiations, compromising the 

integrity of the broader strategy and promoting further competition among Federal 

and non-governmental players. 

But don’t take my word for it. There are a number of credible entities that have 

recognized that governance problems are impeding the Nation’s capacity to respond 

to some of its most pressing challenges and have recommended solutions. Earlier 

this spring the National Research Council (NRC) responded to a request from the 

White House Climate Change Science Program to identify lessons learned from past 

global change assessments. In its report, the NRC cited the lack of a long-term strategic framework for meeting the climate change research mandate as an outstanding weakness of the current system.1

Testimony by former administration officials who oversaw the climate change research program reiterated these concerns last Thursday in a hearing before a House 

Energy and Commerce Subcommittee, where recommendations were made to establish a program office with a sense of permanence, the political power to make decisions across agencies, and the authority over budgets.2 These recommendations 

closely track those made by the two ocean commissions, which advocated for a new 

management regime, based in the Executive Office of the President that would have 

the authority to coordinate efforts and guide the distribution of resources throughout the Federal Government in an integrated system that reached across jurisdictional boundaries of individual agencies. 

Such a vision was partially implemented in the ocean community when the President established the Committee on Ocean Policy (COP). However, the COP’s charge 

is limited to coordination. It lacks institutional independence and a leader charged 

with resolving interagency disputes and representing the interest of individual 

agency ocean programs in the budget process. Consequently, efforts to move a new 

national ocean policy forward have languished and the ocean community’s capacity 

to contribute toward the scientific and management needs to address climate change 

have been compromised. 

Similar problems exists in Congress, where cross-cutting issues such as oceans 

and climate fall under the jurisdiction of multiple committees and subcommittees. 

Take the case of ocean acidification. The Commerce Committee clearly has jurisdiction; however, the Environment and Public Works Committee has authority over 

water pollution and water quality issues, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee has a role regarding emissions from energy facilities, which are a major 

source of CO2, and the Committee on Appropriations funds authorized activities. 

The same diversity of oversight authority exists in the House, significantly complicating efforts to develop a comprehensive strategy to address climate change. In the 

108th Congress, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy identified a total of 58 standing committees and subcommittees having jurisdiction over ocean-related issues in 

the House and Senate.3 An early assessment of the 110th Congress shows little 

change or consolidation. 

Further evidence of support for a more coherent approach to science-related policy 

issues is reflected in the growing interest in reestablishing an Office of Technology 

Assessment (OTA). OTA was a congressional office charged with providing nonpartisan research on technical and scientific issues pending before Congress, but 

was closed in 1995. As Congress struggles with increasingly sophisticated and complex technical issues such as biomedical research and climate change, an entity such 

as OTA can provide timely and issue specific guidance that would complement the 

more exhaustive, costly and time consuming review process performed by the National Academies. Congress relies on credible and readily available information to 

make informed policy decisions. Right now, the lack of information on oceans and 

coasts, or a clear strategy for collecting and translating this information into prodVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:08 Mar 20, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\79908.TXT JACKIE
48 

ucts and services useful to decisionmakers and managers, is hobbling Congress’ ability to perform its role. 

Thus, the focus must turn to improving our capacity to more accurately assess the 

processes and phenomena influencing climate change and society’s impact on such 

processes and phenomena. This will require much greater attention and support 

being devoted to the broader problem of designing and implementing a strategy that 

balances resources among basic and applied research, monitoring and analysis, and 

modeling. This strategy must also be expanded to incorporate support for translating and utilizing this information to evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation, adaptation, and other management actions aimed at meeting the goals of increasing 

the resiliency of coastal communities and ecosystems. 

Given the complexity and interdisciplinary nature of the issues surrounding climate change, progress toward these goals will require changes in the operation and 

coordination of Federal agencies and the Federal budget process. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is the logical lead Federal agency to 

oversee the climate change science program; however, public and private confidence 

in the agency is lacking. This is due, in great part, to the outdated organizational 

structure of the agency and the lack of resources that have been provided to fulfill 

its expanding mandate. The opportunity is ripe to reevaluate and realign NOAA’s 

programs along its core functions, which include: assessment, prediction and operations; scientific research and education; and marine resource and area management. This step, taken in combination with an effort to enhance the oversight role 

of the President’s Committee on Ocean Policy, would lay the foundation for a major 

transition in the ocean and atmospheric policy that would be of enormous long-term 

benefit to Congress and the public. 

Congress should also take advantage of this opportunity to address science agency 

mission and funding inconsistencies that are hampering the collection and synthesis 

of long-term data measurements. While NASA and NSF are charged with developing new approaches to collecting, analyzing, and integrating data, NOAA has the 

charge—but lacks the technical expertise and fiscal resources—to maintain increasingly important remote and in situ observation platforms capable of sustained data 

collection (the compilation of long-term data sets). These long-term data sets are 

crucial to understanding the rate of change over an extended period. Further exacerbating the situation is a disjointed data management system that is preventing scientists from fully utilizing data that are currently being collected. Given the consolidation of science agencies (NOAA, NASA, and NSF) responsible for ocean and atmospheric research under the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee and its sister 

appropriations subcommittee, the opportunity exists to more closely link their complementary programs through both the authorization and appropriations processes. 

While this proposal may disturb many of those in the community who have a vested 

interest in programs associated with the individual agencies, in the long-term their 

collaboration is essential if our Nation is to succeed in making progress toward understanding and responding to climate change while also restoring the health of our 

oceans and coasts. 

Clearly, a careful reevaluation of the governance regime guiding climate and 

ocean-related science and management programs is needed to overcome the obstacles that are currently hampering efforts to develop a comprehensive response to climate change. Whatever action Congress takes, it should look beyond the current 

models and existing organizational structure to ensure that both ocean and climate 

change programs are broad-based and charged with developing a balanced strategy 

that incorporates science, management and outreach. Anything less will perpetuate 

an approach that has proven to be ineffective and is now jeopardizing the health 

and welfare of current and future generations. 

Science 

Credible scientific information is essential as the Nation begins the process of developing a new regime to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Better science, 

when linked with improved risk management and adaptive management strategies 

will help guide a process that must deal with the relatively high levels of uncertainty surrounding mitigation alternatives and the range of impacts associated with 

climate change. A much more comprehensive and robust science enterprise—one 

that incorporates a better understanding of the oceans’ role in climate change—is 

required to more accurately predict the rate and implications of change at the global-through-local level, as well as to enable more thorough evaluation of options for 

mitigating and accommodating this change. 

While the United States is making a significant financial commitment to understanding climate change, the inadequacy of the current strategy has become clear 

and reform is urgently needed. Research that has been primarily focused on physVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:08 Mar 20, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\79908.TXT JACKIE
49 

4 Earth Science and Applications for Space: National imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond, NRC 2007. 

ical science and validation of climate change must expand to incorporate greater attention to the role and contributions of biogeochemical and ecological processes, as 

well as interactions among these three processes. This will require a significant 

commitment of new resources and will increase the complexity of the science strategy to understand and respond to climate change. However, these actions cannot be 

avoided if the science community is going to be responsive to Congress’ need for 

credible scientific information to guide its decisionmaking process. 

One of the first steps should be a commitment to building a comprehensive environmental monitoring system. We are supposedly well on our way to fulfilling our 

international commitment to support climate observing systems—which according to 

the most recent report from the Climate Change Science Program is over 50 percent 

complete. However, support for this system is in trouble, which is compounded by 

the fact that considerably fewer resources are dedicated to supporting an ocean-focused component of the observing system. A recent NRC study found that remote 

sensing satellite programs in NASA are at great risk and that the next generation 

of satellites is generally less capable than the current, rapidly diminishing system. 

Projected budgets show U.S. investment in these capabilities falling by 2012 to its 

lowest level in two decades.4 Support for a dedicated ocean observing program ap- peared in the President’s budget for the first time this year, at the level of $16 million, a fraction of what Congress has been providing in recent years. 

As a consequence our knowledge of physical ocean-related processes is limited, 

and our capacity to understand biogeochemical and ecological processes languishes 

due to the lack of capacity to study, much less monitor and model these systems 

and their responses to change. The expert scientific witnesses appearing before the 

Subcommittee today have testified to this fact, presenting us with quantifiable data 

that humans have contributed to the increased acidification of the oceans and that 

there are very real and potentially damaging consequences associated with this 

change. Yet, the ocean scientific community does not have access to funding to support large-scale field experiments, study environments that are naturally more acidic, or more fully examine the geologic record to understand past events that may 

have resulted in similar conditions. 

It is now obvious that enhanced and integrated observing systems are a key element underlying a robust ocean and climate science strategy. From a research perspective this need was clearly articulated in the release of the Administration’s 

Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy in January, in which 

the deployment of a robust ocean-observing system was highlighted as a critical element of the plan. Such an observing system will require a commitment to deploy 

and maintain infrastructure and instrumentation, such as satellites, research vessels, buoys, cabled underwater observatories, and data management networks. A 

sustained, national Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS), backed by a comprehensive research and development program, will provide invaluable economic, societal, and environmental benefits, including improved warnings of coastal and 

health hazards, more efficient use of living and nonliving resources, safer marine 

operations, and a better understanding of climate change. However, the value of this 

system will be fully realized only if an adequate financial commitment is also provided to support integrated, multidisciplinary scientific analysis and modeling using 

the data collected, including socioeconomic impacts. Unfortunately, support for the 

lab and land-based analysis of the data derived from these systems is often inadequate, diminishing the value of these programs, while support for socioeconomic 

analysis is virtually nonexistent. 

The lack of a comprehensive climate change response strategy and supporting 

governance regime that integrates fundamental research and development, monitoring and analysis, and modeling efforts is a major weakness in our national effort. 

It must be immediately addressed to ensure that policymakers have the scientific 

information necessary to guide their deliberation regarding both mitigation and adaptation strategies. Congress should develop legislation, perhaps with guidance from 

the National Research Council, requiring the development of a comprehensive 

science strategy that incorporates support for ocean-related sciences with a focus on 

enhancing the predictive capacity of physical and ecological models. This advancement is necessary to provide policymakers and the public with the information necessary to make informed decisions regarding the collateral impact of potential mitigation strategies—such as carbon sequestration in or under the oceans or biofuel 

production that results in increased runoff of agricultural pollutants into coastal watersheds—and strategies for increasing the resiliency of coastal communities and 

marine ecosystems to climate generated impacts. 

50 

5 National Commission on the Public Service: Urgent Business for America: Revitalizing the 

Federal Government for the 21st Century http://www.brookings.edu/gs/cps/volcker/ 

volckerlhp.htm 2004. 

Conclusion 

The recent elevation of national conversation surrounding climate change and its 

economic and environmental implications validate similar discussions voiced by the 

ocean community upon the release of the U.S. Commission and Pew Commission reports. At the heart of the matter is the need for more a robust science enterprise 

capable of advancing our understanding of the processes that drive our planet and 

can better guide the decisions of policymakers. The integration across agencies and 

scientific disciplines, with a focus of developing products and services useful to policymakers and the public, will only occur if we succeed in implementing and integrating new governance regimes for climate change and ocean policy that facilitates 

greater collaboration, including resources and expertise outside of the Federal system. 

This transition must be well thought out and deliberate, perhaps pursuing a 

phased approach such as that recommended in the U.S. Commission report. In it, 

we recommended that the initial focus be on strengthening NOAA, followed by a realignment and consolidation of ocean programs that are widely distributed throughout the Federal Government. The final phase would be the consolidation of natural 

resource oriented programs under a single agency. This approach responds to the 

recommendation of the Volker Commission, which identified the proliferation and 

distribution of agencies and programs throughout the Federal Government as a 

major hindrance to efficiency and effectiveness of the Federal system.5

I am appealing to you publicly, as Leon and I have done in private to many of 

you, to take up the mantle of governance reform in the ocean community. It is the 

critical first step in the process toward realigning and focusing the resources and 

energy of the ocean community toward restoring the health and viability of our 

oceans and coasts. I understand it will be difficult, but increased public awareness 

and concern about the health of the environment has provided us with a unique and 

timely opportunity to leave a lasting legacy, one we can appreciate when sitting on 

a beach—free of closure and swimming advisory signs—on a sunny summer afternoon with our children or grandchildren while looking out over the horizon of a 

sparkling blue sea. 

Madame Chair and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity 

to appear before you today, and look forward to working with you to address the 

ocean and coastal issues raised in this hearing. I would be happy to answer any 

questions that you may have. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Admiral Watkins. Thank you for 

your, as I said earlier, ongoing advocacy in this area. 

We will start now with a round of 5-minute questions from my 

colleagues. I will start off with Dr. Feely if I could, asking you a 

question about this experience of acidification that we are in now. 

Obviously, we have had other experiences in the past on ocean 

acidification. 

We obviously—I do not know if you are anticipating my question. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. FEELY. If that is the question, I have a slide for you. 

Senator CANTWELL. I did not know I was going to ask this question. But we obviously have had time periods before between glacial and inter-glacial periods when we have had acidification. So 

what is different now? That is my first question. If you have a slide 

for that I am going to be very surprised. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. FEELY. Actually, no. In the past, through the geological past, 

the CO2 levels have been much higher than we have seen now, perhaps 20 million years ago or even farther back. The difference is 

that the organisms that are responding to the acidification respond 

to the saturation state of sea water, which is a combination of the 

CO2 concentrations and the pH change and the calcium changes. 

51 

It turns out that in our present condition calcium concentrations 

are lower than they have ever been in geological history. So therefore the saturation state that we are looking at occurring in the future is going to be lower than has ever been observed in the geological past. This is being influenced directly by the CO2 increases 

that we are observing. 

So these ecosystems will be looking at a lowered saturation state 

that has not been observed through the entire history of the 

oceans. 

Senator CANTWELL. So how should we look at the corrective nature of things in the context if we were able to reduce CO2 emission 

now how long would it take to have an impact? How do we look 

at the time period if we continue for another 10 years at the level 

of CO2 emissions? We have heard from Dr. Hansen and Admiral 

Watkins about various adaptive or ecosystem approaches. How do 

we look at what we can do to correct this current trend? 

Dr. FEELY. That is very difficult to answer, particularly because 

we do not have a lot of information on what the biological tipping 

points are for these individual species. We do for a select few species that have been studied in mesocosm experiments under laboratory and bag experiments in the field. These tipping points suggest 

that by the middle of this century the coral reef systems will be severely impacted by the increasing CO2 levels in the oceans. 

The concern that we have is in the ocean itself, the reefs are not 

only influenced by these simple relationships that we just determined in the laboratory, but also other impacts such as erosion, 

storm effects, and perhaps the tipping points that we measure in 

the laboratory do not show and represent what the organisms see 

in the field. 

So what we dearly need is experiments that occur in the field 

that are representative of field conditions, as well as continuing experiments in the laboratory. Our best projections right now are 

that for coral reef systems we may be seeing severe impacts as 

soon as 2050 or earlier. 

Senator CANTWELL. Dr. Kruse, how do you as an expert in fisheries management, how do you deal with this information? I mean, 

are you working into, with salmon or Bering Sea species, are you 

working factors of climate change and acidification into the management plans for fisheries? How do you address that if, as Dr. 

Feely says, we do not have all the data, but we know that we are 

starting to see impact? 

Dr. KRUSE. Thank you for your question. In the North Pacific 

Fishery Management Council, we are making some really pretty 

good progress to incorporate climate variability into fish stock assessments and fishery management. One of the ways that scientists are doing that, for example, is they have found that the 

catchability of the trawl used to survey of certain species is very 

highly dependent on temperature. So they have done experimentation both in the field, but also modeling studies, that have identified the nature of that relationship. So they are incorporating that 

into stock assessments. 

Also, with the Bering Sea pollock, which is probably the best assessed fish stock that we have in our system, there has really been 

some excellent studies relating the dynamics of that particular popVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:08 Mar 20, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\79908.TXT JACKIE
52 

ulation to temperature and sea ice dynamics. So those are finding 

their ways into the management strategies. 

Admittedly, we are really early on the curve of doing this. In 

fact, soon there will be a workshop to address these issues. I chair 

the Fisheries Science Committee for the PICES, the North Pacific 

Marine Science Organization. A subgroup of us are having a workshop in Seattle in July 2007 with our international Pacific Rim colleagues to see how we can better make these connections between 

climate and our fish assessment models and our management 

strategies. 

So we are making some progress, but certainly there is a lot 

more work to be done. 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, I applaud the North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council for its leadership in this area. I think in the 

past you have showed great stewardship on environmental issues, 

so I applaud that, even though it seems challenging at this point 

in time. 

Senator Stevens? 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Doney, I am informed that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation 

has shifted every 20 to 30 years and that if we look at the past 

there were temperature observations that the ocean cooled from 

2003 to 2006, but over the past 40 years that the average of all 

those has been that the warming trend has resulted in a .04 degrees change Centigrade. Do you agree with that? The increase in 

the temperature of the oceans has been .04 degrees Centigrade? 

Dr. DONEY. Senator, I think that is a reasonable estimate of the 

volume average change. That is actually a rather large number. 

The heat capacity of the ocean is several thousand times that of the 

atmosphere, and the numbers, the back of the envelope calculation, 

is that if the integrated global average temperature of the ocean 

went up by .1 degrees it would be equivalent to the atmosphere 

going up by 100 degrees. 

So you have to think about it in the context—— 

Senator STEVENS. That is in terms of stored heat. 

Dr. DONEY. That is in stored heat. 

Senator STEVENS. I understand that. But in terms of the temperature, the implication of your testimony was there has been this 

overwhelming rise in the temperature of the oceans. Is that your 

position? 

Dr. DONEY. The surface temperature has been going up about .2 

degrees per decade over the last 30 years, and if you look at the 

full water column much of the heating is occurring at the surface. 

As you go down the water column, the heating rates are smaller, 

but they are quite large relative to the natural background. 

Senator STEVENS. You disagree with that figure that I just gave 

you, then, that the average for 40 years is .04? 

Dr. DONEY. I think it is .04 degrees Celsius over the 40 year period. That is actually quite a large number, considering the rates 

that the ocean heats and cools naturally. 

Senator STEVENS. Do you agree or disagree, doctor? Is that a 

proper figure? 

Dr. DONEY. I would have to check my numbers, but I think that 

is a reasonable estimate. 

53 

Senator STEVENS. I have been told that we are ending the Little 

Ice Age, that this period we are seeing right now is a return to the 

normal situation at the beginning of that Little Ice Age. Do you 

disagree with that? 

Dr. DONEY. I do think the paleoclimate data suggest that the current temperatures are much higher than the temperatures that 

were existing before the Little Ice Age. These are records that are 

based on, for example, tree ring records and isotope records. The 

best estimates of the climate over the last thousand years show 

that the 50-year period we are in now is warmer than at any time 

in the last 1,000 years. 

Senator STEVENS. How long do you think the Little Ice Age 

lasted? 

Dr. DONEY. The Little Ice Age was a couple hundred years. So 

we are certainly experiencing much warmer climate than existed 

prior to the Little Ice Age. 

Senator STEVENS. Would you check that, please, because that is 

not my information. 

Dr. DONEY. I can check that for you, sir. 

Senator STEVENS. Let me ask Admiral Watkins. I think I agree 

with everything you said. The difficulty is the funding. Since 2001 

the Congress and this administration has allocated $29 billion just 

to climate-related science alone. There may be some question of 

whether those funds were spent effectively, but that is a massive 

increase over the previous 6 year period. 

How much more do you think we need to have? 

Admiral WATKINS. Senator, last year we worked with the staff up 

here and members to deliver the answer to some questions raised 

by the Senate, and I think you were a co-signer on that letter. 

Senator STEVENS. Yes. 

Admiral WATKINS. We worked very hard on that to come up with 

what do you need, what are we talking about here? We came up 

in that report, ‘‘From Sea to Shining Sea,’’ that the Senate acted 

on last year, at least in one case, and that was Magnuson-Stevens 

Reauthorization Act. That was a good product that came out of 

that. 

That was the Senate. You had to push it through the House. We 

have not had any support from the House on funding. In fact, the 

Senate has had to restore every year for the last 5 years significant 

cuts by House Appropriations, coming over here with NOAA getting a $500 million cut, and you have had to restore it all. 

So we have spent all our time restoring to status quo. And our 

report said status quo ain’t good enough. We have got to start making the investment in science. We have got to start getting serious 

about organization and structural changes of how we deal with an 

ecosystem-based approach that cuts across jurisdictional lines both 

in the White House and up here and in the states. And we still 

have not done anything. So it has been 3 years now. 

So I am just saying I count on the Senate because the Senate has 

been the only receptive body, and we have not put enough money 

in. We said $750 million over 2007 appropriated is the right 

kickstart, and to do that for the next 4 or 5 years to try to buildup 

to about $13 billion—— 

54 

Senator STEVENS. I wanted that in the record. $750 million, if we 

had that increase by that amount over 5 years—— 

Admiral WATKINS.—over 5 years that would do everything we 

recommended in our report, and that would include the climate 

change issue. 

Senator STEVENS. Madam Chairman, I have a conflict. May I ask 

one more question? 

Senator CANTWELL. Yes. 

Senator STEVENS. Dr. Kruse, I do appreciate your coming, as I 

indicated. I want to know this. I am told, and as a matter of fact 

you said in your own testimony here today that is printed, that the 

North Pacific temperatures warmed between 1920 and 1940. Do we 

have any records to show what happened to king crab and other 

species during that time? Did they shift northward during that period, that 20 years of warming? Can we show—when the temperature went down, were they restored naturally? 

Dr. KRUSE. Thank you, Senator Stevens, for your question. That 

is really an excellent question. Unfortunately, as we go back in 

time we find we just do not have the routine stock assessments 

that we have now. For example, in the Bering Sea the very first 

National Marine Fisheries Service bottom trawl survey started, I 

believe it was 1969, and it was in a small area of Bristol Bay, focusing on Bristol Bay red king crab. 

Likewise in the Gulf of Alaska, most of our surveys started in the 

1980s or maybe in the 1970s. So we do not have the fishery-independent information to really objectively look at that question. If 

you look at fisheries data, you always have to be careful because 

catch rates can be affected by fishing practices and there may not 

be a direct reflection to what the populations are doing. 

In the Kodiak area, for example, those fisheries did not begin 

until the late 1950s and really got under way in the 1960s. King 

crab catches peaked in 1965. So we just did not have observations 

prior to that time. 

There were, however, some fishermen who were fishing for other 

species who claim that in the earlier time period it was very rare 

to find king crab. So it is anecdotal information that lends support 

that crab populations were down. 

Senator STEVENS. Did those peaks follow the temperature curve, 

is what I am getting at? Have they followed the temperature 

curve? There seems to be a 20 year up and 20 year down in the 

North Pacific. Have the peaks in our species followed that curve? 

Dr. KRUSE. The short answer is some of them do and some of 

them don’t. I spend a lot of time with colleagues examining crab 

population dynamics and some crab populations seem to be related 

to temperature signals. The northern shrimp that had supported a 

big fishery in Alaska is more clearly related to temperature, particularly in the North Atlantic. But it is difficult to simply connect 

temperature to king crab population dynamics. It is much more 

complicated. 

Senator STEVENS. I thank you. I have overstayed my leave. I saw 

a chart just recently that showed that the CO2 spike was very 

small compared to the spike in methane. We have now got enormous amounts of methane being released from the permafrost in 

55 

Russia and in the Arctic. Has anyone examined this? Is that going 

to affect the oceans at all as the methane continues to increase? 

Dr. KRUSE. I have not done that. It is not my area. 

Dr. DONEY. I will take a shot at that. Molecule for molecule, 

methane is about 20 times or 30 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2. Senator STEVENS. Why have we not measured that, then? 

Dr. DONEY. Actually, there is a global network that NOAA is 

part of that measures methane, and there are actually quite good 

measurements. 

Senator STEVENS. I mean in relation to the oceans. 

Dr. DONEY. The effect of methane on the oceans is, as I mentioned in my testimony, is one of the other greenhouse gases that 

is leading to increased warming. The methane doesn’t dissolve in 

the ocean, so most of its impacts are through increased warming. 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. 

Senator CANTWELL. Dr. Feely, did you want to respond to that 

too? 

Dr. FEELY. I just wanted to add that when methane is released 

into the oceans it quickly oxidizes to CO2 by bacterial processes. So 

the impacts that we see in the oceans are the oxidation product of 

CO2. 

Senator STEVENS. Resulting from the increase in methane? 

Dr. FEELY. When methane is released, for example from sediments or from methane hydrates, it quickly gets oxidized to CO2

by methane-oxidizing bacteria. So the impacts that we would see 

in the oceans would be the CO2 enrichment. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you. 

Senator Klobuchar? 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I just wanted to follow up, Dr. Doney, on some of the questions 

that Senator Stevens was asking about the temperature issue, just 

to clarify this. I am also on the Environment Committee and I get 

questions about this kind of thing a lot. I always use the example 

for the air temperature that it has gone up one degree in the last 

century and the EPA predicts it will go up 3 to 8 degrees in this 

coming century. To give some perspective to people, because especially in Minnesota we think, well, in the middle of the winter that 

does not sound that bad, but I give them the perspective that since 

the Ice Age it has only gone up 5 degrees, the height of the Ice Age, 

the temperature worldwide. 

So I wondered if you could use that kind of analogy with the 

ocean temperatures in some way to better clarify this for us, when 

you said that it was actually a large amount to go up .04. 

Dr. DONEY. Right, and I also wanted to make one additional clarification, which is there were some early reports that global ocean 

temperatures had started to drop around the year 2002. But when 

they went back and reexamined the data, they found that they had 

been making errors in the way they had been treating some of the 

data. The most recent estimates are that the ocean temperatures 

leveled off or cooled slightly but there has not been a significant, 

long-term drop since the observational record began. 

Yes, the ocean changes that we are seeing are unprecedented in 

the historical record and are comparable to what was seen during 

56 

the deglaciation from the last glacial period. You have to remember, though, when you are talking about the temperature change 

of 5 degrees between the glacial maximum and what we call the 

Holocene, the modern period, that occurred over several thousand 

years. We are experiencing the same temperature change over decades, and that is what I mentioned in my testimony that it is not 

just the magnitude of the change, it is the rate of change that species cannot adapt to. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

One of the things I get asked about is the effect that this has 

had on the severity of storms with the warming of the ocean. Does 

anyone want to lend some expertise to that issue? 

Dr. DONEY. I will try to answer that. There is some data that 

suggests that the intensity of tropical storms has been increasing 

for things like hurricanes and typhoons. There is still not clear evidence whether the frequency of storms will change. There are good 

theoretical reasons to believe that storms will increase in intensity 

because warmer air can hold more water, and the whole process of 

the energetics of warmer sea surface temperatures and warmer 

atmospheres holding more water should lead to stronger storms, 

both in the tropics, but also at mid-latitudes, which could lead to 

not just effects in the ocean, but effects on land like increased 

flooding. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I mentioned the Great Lakes earlier in my 

opening comments and I just wanted to put something out there 

because I am not sure we will have a hearing entirely devoted to 

the Great Lakes and climate change. But as I mentioned, the water 

in Lake Superior is lower, and there are studies out of the University of Minnesota at Duluth and other places showing that part of 

this, the opposite of the oceans where it is going up, is that because 

we have less ice because of the increasing temperatures and so the 

water is evaporating, and it is having an actual tremendous effect 

on the economy up there. 

Just to give you a sense, in 2006 at just one terminal dock in Duluth it took 42 more ships to load the same amount of tonnage as 

it did in 2005 because of the fact that we are seeing a lowering of 

the water level in the Great Lakes. I always look for examples to 

use for some of my colleagues that are in states that are not on 

the coast areas, to use about why the climate change issue is affecting us just as it is affecting people in the coastal areas. 

I know that this was not the focus of this hearing, but if anyone 

had any information to add to the information we are gathering on 

the Great Lakes that would be helpful. Dr. Feely? 

Dr. FEELY. Yes. I just wanted to add, the same problems that we 

are talking about with ocean acidification should be also thought 

about with respect to the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes are lakes 

that are not as well buffered as the oceans, so the impacts could 

be even more severe. To my knowledge there has been very few 

studies of this particular problem. Historically, we have looked at 

acid rain in the Great Lakes regions and acid rain is very similar 

to this kind of problem because it involves sulfuric acid and nitric 

acid and those kinds of impacts are usually quite severe and shortlived over the seasonal changes due to snow melt and its impacts 

on rivers and lakes. 

57 

This is a different kind of problem because it is a gradual increase in CO2 over a long period of time. So we should look at these 

kinds of issues with respect to the Great Lakes as soon as possible. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Madam Chair, could I do one more question 

or are we running out of time? 

Senator CANTWELL. No, absolutely ask additional questions. I 

thought perhaps, though, given your question, I think that Dr. 

Feely’s slides are about acidification and acidification impact. 

Would now be a proper time to show that? 

Dr. FEELY. Sure, I would love to. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Very good. We have been waiting to see 

this slide. 

[The PowerPoint presentation is retained in Committee files.] 

Dr. FEELY. I actually prepared this slide for this presentation. 

What we have done with the global CO2 surveys, we made measurements in the 1990s of the distribution of anthropogenic carbon 

in the ocean and we used that information to develop models of 

how the oceans will change over time with respect to saturation 

levels that the coral reef systems and the pteropods and many of 

these calcifying organisms are sensitive to. 

Then we worked together with the modelers who had been working with global circulation models. This is a composite model output of the 13 best models throughout the world that have been 

used for these studies. What this map shows is the pre-industrial 

level of saturation state for the oceans in the surface waters. What 

we have plotted on here in the map in the very black dots are the 

present day distributions of tropical coral reefs. The magenta dots 

are the present day distributions of the deep water coral reefs. 

What the tropical coral reefs need is a saturation state in excess 

of 3, a saturation state of 3 for them to survive naturally. We do 

not know what the saturation state requirement is for deep water 

corals because those studies have not been done. 

So we move into the present condition in 2000 and we see that 

the system has changed. It is no longer optimal for calcification, 

but many of the regions are still safely within that saturation state 

of 3. We would prefer to have it at 3.5 or 4. Again, most of the tropical coral reefs are within that state. But we see we are now encroaching on that optimal saturation state. 

If we go out to 2040, we see that now the coral reef systems in 

the Hawaiian Islands region and other locations are also very, very 

close to being well within this limit of 3.0 saturation, and therefore 

there is some concern whether they can continue to calcify by 2040. 

The magenta regions here are the thermodynamic limit where 

dissolution begins to occur, and we can see that occurring in the 

southern ocean by 2040. 

When we go out to 2100, what we see is that the entire world 

oceans are no longer within this level of 3.0, which means that the 

coral reef systems would not be able to continue to calcify. Again, 

the entire southern ocean would be a region of complete dissolution. In other words, no organism would be able to calcify. They 

would begin to dissolve. 

Now we see in the North Pacific, high northern latitudes, also in 

the Atlantic particularly and presumably the Bering Sea, we have 

58 

the same conditions of undersaturation in which the coral organisms and the other calcifying organisms would—— 

Senator CANTWELL. But Dr. Feely, on calcification, you are treating that like an indicator species? Or should we attribute other—— 

Dr. FEELY. Calcification is the process by which they form their 

shells. So the question is can they form their shells or not? What 

these models show is where they can form their shells and when 

the shells will actually begin to dissolve. 

Senator CANTWELL. You are treating that as, you are treating 

that like any other indicator species as to the health of an environment, or are there other implications we should draw from that, I 

guess as you keep going through this? 

Dr. FEELY. Yes. Well, for example, for coral reefs, this means 

whether they can continue to produce their skeletons. But for other 

species, this would suggest that they would no longer be able to 

calcify. For example, the pteropods which are the primary food 

source for salmon would no longer be able to form their calcium 

carbonate shells. So these are the regions where they would have 

to be—no longer can exist in those locations. So they would be removed from those locations. So the food chain would change dramatically. 

Senator CANTWELL. So you are saying they are the beginning of 

the food chain indication? 

Dr. FEELY. Right. 

Senator CANTWELL. Is that what you are saying? 

Dr. FEELY. That is exactly correct. 

Senator CANTWELL. OK. 

Dr. FEELY. So what we are seeing, this process of CO2 enrichment really starts from the poles and moves toward the tropical regions. So the high latitude regimes, the high productivity regimes 

for fish and shellfish, are going to be affected first, and this is what 

we are seeing in these model outputs. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you very much. 

Senator Klobuchar? 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I think Dr. Hansen wanted to comment a 

little more. 

Dr. HANSEN. I wanted to add something with regard to the Great 

Lakes. The Great Lakes have not only, as well as the world’s 

oceans, have not only an issue of quantity—as you stated, the 

world’s oceans are growing, while the lakes are shrinking—but also 

issues of water quality. In the Great Lakes region you have not 

only the issue of increased evaporation because of altered ice cover, 

but you also have periods of drought that have been occurring 

there. 

Coupled with that drought are altered use of fertilizers and pesticides for agriculture and other human adaptations, if you will, to 

the changes that are already going on. And as part of that, I think 

that one of the concerns for the Great Lakes should be how is the 

water quality being protected under that changing climate regime 

and how do we rethink the way we set regulatory limits on things 

like contaminants, sewage outflow, in response to the fact that 

there is now less water in that water body that historically has 

been receiving those outputs. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

59 

My last question was for you, Admiral Watkins. As we looked at 

all the enormous challenges we are facing, you had some ideas for 

solutions, and obviously some of it is the funding for research. But 

I was interested in your idea of the more integrated management 

of our ecosystem and if you could just spend a little time explaining 

that to us as we look at how we can better do things in addition 

to the additional funding. 

Admiral WATKINS. Well, let me say first, Senator, that I do not 

know if you noticed, but when we put out our draft report in the 

spring of 2004 the biggest negative comment we had on that draft 

was from the Great Lakes area saying, it is oceans, coasts, and 

Great Lakes. We agreed and you will see it in our report. It is not 

only what we just heard here, but also invasive species are coming 

in there and destroying the fisheries. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. The Asian carp. 

Admiral WATKINS. It is a huge issue. If you ask the White House, 

what are you doing you will hear: Look, we have established a task 

force, we have got a Federal to State relationship, we have got the 

Canada-Great Lakes Commission, it has been there for many, 

many years. And the answer is: Yes; what have you done? And the 

answer is not very much. 

So it is like everything else. It is a lot of rhetoric and very little 

substance to the investment that we need in the Great Lakes. But 

it is part of the whole regime that we are talking about here. We 

are saying that we need to have a governance response and we 

need to have a science response, and both of those come into play 

for the Great Lakes. 

On the governance side, we have mentioned to Congress in our 

reports we need to codify and strengthen NOAA. That should be a 

pigh priority of this Committee to pass a NOAA Organic act. 

NOAA should focus on three core functions: assessment, prediction, 

operation; research and education; and marine resource and area 

management; a realignment that would benefit the Great Lakes. 

Congress should also request a National Academies study to 

make organizational recommendations for a national climate 

change response office. That could deal with the Great Lakes issue. 

It should also require an integrated budget in support of the national climate change response office. 

This Committee, members of this Committee here and other committees, sent a letter 2 years ago to the White House saying, we 

want an integrated ocean policy budget submission. If you want to 

send them up this way, from 15 agencies, that is fine, but horizontally integrate them and get them up here, so we can tell; are 

you doing anything. So far we have not seen such a budget, so the 

answer is no, they are not doing anything. So it is all superficial 

stuff. 

So again, the Great Lakes get affected by all that. 

We say codify and strengthen the White House Committee on 

Ocean Policy. Could this work in the current system? Yes. All the 

President would have to say is: Do it, Mr. OMB, and do it, Mr. Adviser, the Policy Adviser. That happened to me when I was Secretary of Energy. I wanted to clean up the bomb factory after 40 

years when the Cold War ended. It was President H.W. Bush who 

said: No, Mr. Secretary of Defense, I know it is coming out of your 

60 

hide, but we are going to do it. We went from $800 million a year 

to $6 billion. Now it is $7 billion. We are turning Rocky Flats back 

to the State of Colorado, Fernault back to the State of Ohio. 

So we can work with the current system if we want to do it. So 

it really starts in the White House. I think if they took the lead 

the Congress would respond very positively. 

So then we want to codify the Committee on Ocean Policy, to prevent it from disappearing, since it currently exists under an executive order. That is how NOAA was established via an executive 

order, and we do not want that any more. We want Congress to 

codify NOAA to give them responsibility, accountability, and resources. Of the $750 million a year over JOCI recommended, about 

60 percent of that would go to NOAA, to support all the projects 

that we have outlined in our report. 

So that addresses the governance issue. On the science side, we 

say fund the climate-related research priorities in the administration national ocean research priorities plan. They have a plan that 

was released in January. Fund it. And you know, in the initial 

funding for the plan they allowed NASA to refuse funding to support its Earth sciences. So I do not trust implementation of that 

plan solely by the Administration. So Congress has to codify it and 

say: No, we expect it to do its job. 

Fund the Integrated Earth Observing System. We have heard 

that here today. We have got to have a comprehensive observation 

system. We have got to know what is going on out there. And we 

can build on that. It is 50 percent completed now, but not in the 

ocean. There is not even close to 50 percent there. We are way 

down at the bottom of the heap in terms of our science, technology, 

data management, ability to convert data into useful product. 

Senator CANTWELL. Admiral Watkins, if I could jump in here, are 

you suggesting that we incorporate the oceans impact when we are 

talking about setting a target for CO2 emissions reduction? And if 

we were, how would you do that? 

Admiral WATKINS. Well, the Oceans Commission was never 

tasked by the Congress to do that. We are on the fringes of it because we kept running into the time. But we could not address it. 

So we did not feel we had the mandate out of Congress to deal with 

greenhouse gas mitigation. Obviously, as Secretary of Energy when 

I was there we did. We ran some of the ocean flux studies. We ran 

the carbon cycle. We put a lot of emphasis in this. 

I think it dissipated at that point. So I have some personal views 

on it, but I do not have any clues as to—you know, there has been 

so much talk about this, to give a specific number and set these. 

I am on the same wavelength as some of the witnesses this morning on doing both mitigation and adapting, and adaptation. We 

have not addressed the subject of adaptation at all and that is sad, 

because for the next two and a half decades, no matter what we 

do with greenhouse gas reduction, we are going to have a problem 

of global warming. It is there for us to deal with and we have got 

to manage our way through it. So we need both. 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, let us turn to Dr. Feely on that so we 

can understand, because I think that the Fiscal Year 2008 budget 

would decrease about 14 percent from the 2006 level research related to acidification. Is that correct? 

61 

Dr. FEELY. Yes, Senator, that is correct. 

Senator CANTWELL. And we do not have any money for adaptation? 

Dr. FEELY. Well, the research that is presently being provided for 

directly funding ocean acidification research is about $1.6 million 

per year throughout all the Federal agencies. There is an additional $4 million per year that is being funded within NOAA on related activities to ocean acidification, but they are not directly 

funding ocean acidification research. 

We draw from that additional related research to identify and 

proceed on ocean acidification studies. But they are not directly 

funded for doing ocean acidification studies. 

Senator CANTWELL. You have suggested, I think, four themes. 

One would be—in this research realm. One would be monitoring. 

Another would be understanding the response of the animals to 

acidification, ecosystem modeling, and risk assessments. 

Dr. FEELY. That is correct. 

Senator CANTWELL. So do you have a sense of how much that 

would cost in the context of where we are today and where we need 

to get a clear picture of ocean health and a plan? 

Dr. FEELY. Well, we have discussed this in a number of workshops that involve the scientists that are doing ocean acidification 

research and related activities. In those workshops, the community 

has indicated that a national program on the order of $30 million 

per year would be appropriate. 

Senator CANTWELL. Dr. Hansen, did you—in best practices on adaptation, what do you think are the key things that we should be 

looking at? 

Dr. HANSEN. Well, the first thing is that we actually need the capacity to do this type of work. We are not training people to do this 

work whatsoever. We are also not raising the awareness of people 

that it needs to be done. Many people are still trying to pretend 

that climate change either is not happening or someone else is taking care of it. Unfortunately, it is a reality for all of us. 

So the sort of steps that I have laid out in my testimony and that 

my colleagues and I have been talking about is first the need to 

train the next generation of people who will be taking this on, as 

well as getting ourselves up to speed on it; developing some sort 

of extension agency that actually is going out, raising awareness 

about this issue, engaging people on what the options are, getting 

them to implement them, and taking the lessons back to synthesize 

and provide the next generation of guidance. 

Then finally, we need to be incorporating climate adaptation into 

literally everything that is being done in national and local and 

international legislation, quite frankly, where we are preparing all 

of the projects we are working on so that they are climate-prepared, be it in coastal infrastructure, preparing it for sea level rise, 

be it agriculture, preparing it for periods of drought or movement 

of pest species, forestry, preparing for increasing fire regimes, fisheries, preparing for movement and new management strategies. 

Literally every sector of our society is and will continue to be impacted by climate change for decades to come, and we are grossly 

underprepared for that. 

62 

Senator CANTWELL. Dr. Kruse, it seems that you are kind of on 

the front lines there in Alaska with the polar bears and walruses 

and seals being impacted by melting ice. What can managers do on 

these species? 

Dr. KRUSE. Thank you for your question. Certainly these climate 

changes are out of the purview of fisheries managers, but fisheries 

managers need to deal with the ramifications. So one of the clearest things we can do is be more precautionary. So if there is potential for fishery interactions with either of those species directly or 

indirectly through their prey base, I think we have to be more precautionary. 

As I indicated briefly in my oral remarks and more fully in my 

written remarks, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council is 

looking at establishing perhaps an Arctic Fishery Management 

Plan that would basically set those areas off limits, particularly 

with an eye toward the loss of sea ice. The loss of sea ice reduces 

habitats for the ice seals and polar bears. Associated with the loss 

of sea ice, we may see a switch from that system, which is a more 

benthic system that support prey of birds like the spectacled eiders 

and walruses to a pelagic system. Realizing that these changes are 

happening, maybe it is best to not allow any fishing there. 

At their next meeting in June 2007, the North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council is looking at defining what we call essential 

fish habitat. They will consider basically freezing the northern 

boundary of the current areas that are being fished in the Bering 

Sea, even realizing that fish may move north, into previously 

unfished areas wtih increasing temperature. The problem is that 

we simply do not have data nor surveys up there, so we do not 

know what is there, and we realize that these northern ecosystems 

can be very fragile with respect to species, such as some of the 

seabirds, the marine mammals. Certainly the coastal residents of 

those northern areas make use of those marine resources and really depend on them for their survival. 

So being more precautionary I guess is the short answer. 

Senator CANTWELL. Dr. Conover, do we have to take this into 

consideration in implementing the Magnuson-Stevens Act? 

Dr. CONOVER. Yes. I think one of the most important shifts that 

we are seeing in how we manage marine resources is to take a 

more ecosystem-based approach. In an ecosystem-based approach, 

then the impacts of climate change can be folded into the decisions 

we make about how heavily we can harvest various species or 

whether we need to back off. 

A lot of the things we see happening in my region of the world 

go beyond just the impacts of harvesting and include diseases, the 

impacts of water quality, hypoxia, and all those end up having an 

impact on the abundance of the species we are trying to protect. 

So using an ecosystem approach, which really we have only begun 

to do recently, lends itself to thinking longer term rather than year 

to year, and including expectations of climate change in that approach. 

Senator CANTWELL. Admiral Watkins, I am going to give you the 

last word, with the emphasis on ‘‘last.’’ But if you could briefly, 

what do you think that we need to change from a policy perspective? Why from a political sense are we not getting this done? What 

63 

are the road blocks and what do you suggest that we do to take 

the information we have had to date at this hearing and integrate 

that into policy action? 

Admiral WATKINS. Well, you used the term here ‘‘ecosystembased management.’’ That is not a trivial issue. Eyes roll back 

when you tell that to the public, but in Washington we know what 

it means. It means major reorganization of how we do business 

here. Horizontal integration across Federal agencies, up here on 

the Hill and so forth becomes very important when you get into climate change practices. We cannot separate these things. So we 

have to kind of back away from the old way of doing business, take 

advantage of the information technology world we live in, bring 

business and industry into the game to help us build these architectural systems that we want to observe, get the database 

straightened out, be able to convert that data to useful products at 

the local, county, State levels. 

We should be able to do all this, but the current governance regime is a big hindrance right now. There is no process to integrate 

activities across the Federal Government. That is what we have got 

to deal with. That is why we put so much emphasis on governance. 

It is not that governance will answer everything. Obviously, you 

have to have a budget and you have to have educational programs. 

You have to have a lot of things. But if we are going to spend the 

money right, we better do it right, and we better do it the way nature does it. We fouled it up by managing it piecemeal, vertically. 

Nature beautifully integrates horizontally and tells us what the 

problem is. And we need to listen to that, and then we need to 

manage within the natural process, and we are not doing that 

today at all. 

So that is why I put so much emphasis on governance. And obviously the science is the other critical component. We have not put 

adequate emphasis on it. When the President announced his new 

American Competitiveness Initiative two years ago in the State of 

the Union Address, oceans were not in the game. They are not even 

considered in this. 

So we have not put emphasis on science, in particular, ocean 

science. The Office of Science and Technology Policy also used to 

be the Science Adviser to the President. He is no longer the Science 

Adviser to the President. It was removed. Is science important to 

the administration or not? I do not think so, not sufficiently important, particularly when you get into this area of climate change. 

So we have got a major job to do in the way we look at this, and 

that is why, because the Senate has been so receptive to our work 

over the last few years, we are kind of counting on the Senate to 

take the lead. We tried the White House and we do not get enough 

response. I do not know that Jim Connaughton is not doing a decent job, but he is not given the time of day and the strength to 

put the money into the budget process, to give you a budget up 

here that is other than what we have always done. 

I will say the administration this year in the 2008 budget finally 

put in a figure that was comparable to the 2007 appropriated. They 

have never done that before. So is that a plus? Well, yes, I guess 

so, but not a big plus. 

Senator CANTWELL. We will stop on that note. 

64 

Admiral WATKINS. Anyway—— 

Senator CANTWELL. Because we all do want to work together, 

and I appreciate your point. You had the scientists nodding at the 

other end of the table about how we should look more at the environment and its response from a systematic perspective. 

I will point out that I think the Pacific Northwest, particularly 

Washington State, has done fabulous work on two areas, timberfish 

and wildlife, which is industry working together with environmentalists. In fact, those ecosystem plans, if they are ever challenged, you get the industry officials as aggressively responding as 

you do the environmentalists. So I think it has been a good measure. I think Bill Ruckelshaus has done fabulous ecosystem work as 

it relates to salmon recovery in the Northwest, again working with 

a whole cadre of local governments, Native Americans, fishermen, 

industry officials across the board. So we may be a little bit more 

of a forerunner on that. 

And as I mentioned, the Pacific Northwest Fishery Council I 

think has been a forerunner in implementing environmental impacts and management into their fisheries policy ahead of the rest 

of the Nation. So we obviously do care greatly about our environment in the Northwest, including our ocean. 

So I want to thank all the panelists for a very detailed presentation about the challenges that we face with our oceans policy. Admiral Watkins, I hope that my colleagues will review all of this. 

Obviously, we are going to leave the record open for additional 

questions. If you could help us and comply by answering that in 

a quick fashion, we will leave the record open for a few weeks. But 

I hope my colleagues will take this hearing and take the testimony 

and take up the baton that you are passing to us to act and to consolidate this as part of our response to healthy oceans. 

So thank you all very much. We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:52 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(65) 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE, U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

Coral reefs have been called ‘‘the rainforests of the sea.’’ In addition to their great 

beauty, they offer critical habitat to a variety of marine organisms. Coral reefs cover 

less than 1 percent of the Earth’s surface, but they provide resources and services 

worth approximately $1.4 billion annually to the U.S. economy. In the State of Hawaii, the economic value of coral reefs is estimated at more than $360 million annually. 

These diverse coral habitats have survived for millions of years, recovering from 

natural disturbances. However, the reefs are under threat from rising ocean temperatures and increasing ocean acidity. Scientists are observing coral bleaching that 

is more widespread and more severe, in some cases, severe enough to kill the corals. 

I am pleased the Administration is proposing legislation to reauthorize and 

strengthen the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000, legislation that I introduced 

in 1999 to establish the Coral Reef Conservation Program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

However, this legislation will not be effective in protecting coral reefs if we do 

nothing to reduce carbon emissions. 

Coral reefs are just one of the kinds of living marine resources that are impacted 

by climate change. Scientific research has confirmed that emissions of greenhouse 

gases contribute to climate change and that such emissions are causing our oceans 

to become warmer and more acidic. These effects are harming our living marine resources. The science is also clear that these impacts will grow worse as long as we 

continue to do nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

Therefore, I hope that our distinguished panel members will be able not only to 

help us understand these impacts, but also to suggest a way forward. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY

Madam Chairman, thank you for holding today’s hearing. 

Despite the Bush Administration’s ongoing efforts to censor and suppress science, 

there is no doubt that man-made global warming is real, and it threatens the health 

of our planet, including our oceans. 

The increase in carbon dioxide causes global warming and ocean acidification. 

NOAA researchers predict that oceans will continue to acidify to ‘‘an extent and 

at rates that have not occurred for tens of millions of years.’’ Ocean acidification 

threatens our marine ecosystems. As the chemistry of our ocean changes, some marine life may not be able to survive. 

Acidic water damages our corals, for example, which provide vital habitat to many 

marine species, and plankton, the foundation of the marine food chain. 

In addition, the rise in ocean temperature has caused some fish to move to colder 

waters, posing challenges to our commercial and recreational fisheries. 

The combined effects of global warming and ocean acidification cannot be ignored. 

The potential environmental and economic cost to New Jersey—and coastal states 

across the country—is too great. 

I am concerned that the Administration is not taking the issue of ocean acidification seriously enough. In the Magnuson-Stevens bill we passed last year, Congress 

directed the National Research Council to report on ocean acidification and its impact on the United States. I have requested funding for this authorized study as 

a member of the Appropriations Committee, and I will work with my colleagues to 

see that the effects of ocean acidification are made a priority for this Administration. 

Thank you again Madam Chairman for beginning our work on this important 

issue. 

66 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE TO

SCOTT C. DONEY, PH.D. 

Question 1. Coral reefs are not just critical habitat for fish. In my state of Hawaii, 

they are also an economic engine supporting both fishing and tourism. Is ocean 

acidification or the increase in sea temperature the more pressing issue for protecting and preserving Hawaii’s coral reefs and other marine resources and why? 

Answer. Surface ocean warming and acidification are two sides of the same coin 

because their root cause is the same, namely the human-driven rise in atmospheric 

carbon dioxide. Therefore we need to address both issues simultaneously. Warming 

has already been linked to coral bleaching events. Acidification has been shown to 

limit coral growth in the laboratory, and more work is needed to assess the impacts 

on whole ecosystems. One concern is that the combined effect of temperature and 

warming may be much more harmful on coral reefs than either factor in isolation. 

Thus it is difficult to separate temperature and acidification effects and to assign 

one factor or the other as the most pressing issue; they are both important. 

Question 2. How can we incorporate actions to address these issues into an overall 

management strategy for protecting Hawaii’s corals and other marine resources? 

Answer. Climate warming and acidification are global processes that are not easy 

to reverse at the local or state level (see below). Management strategies, however, 

can be developed to minimize their impacts on coral reefs and fisheries. The first 

step is to reduce the negative effects of other factors that are more amenable to local 

control. These include things like pollution, land runoff of excess nutrients, overfishing, and habitat destruction. The second step is to create more adaptive, forward-looking management strategies that explicitly include climate warming and 

acidification in their design. For example, the catch limits for many fisheries are 

set based on historical levels of fish stocks. But the future ocean will not look like 

the past. Numerical climate models will provide some guidance for helping resource 

managers, but at present there remain relatively large uncertainties in our forecasts 

of the magnitude in climate change on regional scales and resulting biological responses. Following a precautionary principle, one strategy would be to lower present 

catch limits to provide an additional safety factor for unforeseen climate impacts 

and to closely monitor resource levels to maintain sustainability. Climate change 

and ocean acidification also need to be factored into the design of other management 

tools such as marine reserves or marine protected areas. For example, as species 

distributions shift with climate, will the size of a protected area be sufficient and 

will it still protect the target species of interest. 

Question 3. Dr. Doney, could you tell me what adaptation and mitigation steps 

you think the United States needs to take to address the threats that climate 

change and ocean acidification pose to our ocean resources? 

Answer. Increasing surface water temperatures and ocean acidification are driven 

by the human emissions to the atmosphere of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. 

The atmosphere mixes on time-scales of months to a few years, and the climate impact of carbon dioxide emissions is global rather than local. Thus ocean warming 

and acidification require global solutions to limit the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide. The most direct mitigation steps would be to reduce the amount of carbon 

dioxide released to the atmosphere. Reducing emissions can occur through shifts to 

non-fossil fuel energy sources, increases in energy efficiency, and deliberate actions 

to sequester carbon rather releasing it to the atmosphere. One of the more promising sequestration approaches appears to be storage of carbon dioxide in geological 

reservoirs, such as old natural gas and oil fields. There are also proposals to manipulate land and ocean ecosystems to remove some of the excess carbon dioxide in the 

atmosphere and increasing carbon storage plants, soils and the deep ocean. Adaptation strategies are discussed in the answer above. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARIA CANTWELL TO

SCOTT C. DONEY, PH.D. 

Question 1. The most rigorous mitigation goal in the recent summary report by 

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is to stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas levels between 445 and 710 parts per million by 2030. But given that the 

current concentrations of atmospheric carbon are estimated at 379 parts per million, 

shouldn’t this target be set at a much lower level if we are to effectively address 

climate change? What is the expected temperature increase of this range? 

Answer. The IPCC stabilization scenarios from the 4th IPCC Assessment report 

are discussed in some detail in the Technical Summary for Working Group III (Mitigation). I think the specific values of 445 to 710 parts per million are drawn from 

67 

Table TS. 2 (page 21 and 22 of the draft Technical Summary); the same table is 

given as Table SPM.5 on page 23 of the Summary for Policymakers. This table is 

somewhat confusing as it lists two columns of carbon dioxide (CO2) levels, one an 

actual CO2 level and the other the ‘‘equivalent’’ CO2 level, that is the amount of CO2

that would be needed to match the total radiative warming of excess CO2 plus the 

other human driven greenhouse gases (methane, nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbons, 

etc.). 

(numbers from Table TS. 2; IPCC 4th Assessment, Technical Summary, Working 

Group III) 

Category CO2 (ppm) Equivalent 

CO2 (ppm) 

Equilibrium 

temperature 

change 

(deg. C) 

I 350–400 445–490 2.0–2.4 

II 400–440 490–535 2.4–2.8 

III 440–485 535–590 2.8–3.2 

IV 485–570 590–710 3.2–4.0 

V 570–660 710–855 4.0–4.9 

VI 660–790 855–1,130 4.9–6.1 

The most extreme stabilization scenario is for stabilizing roughly present day conditions (CO2 of 350–400 ppm; equivalent CO2 of 445–490 ppm) by 2100. This is a 

very rigorous goal and would require reductions of all greenhouse gas emissions by 

2015 and net removal of CO2 by some means (e.g., growing biomass) toward the end 

of the century. A series of stabilization scenarios are then presented that allow for 

higher atmospheric CO2 (and equivalent CO2 because of the other greenhouse 

gases). 

Two different temperatures are often reported for stabilization scenarios, the transient temperature at some point in time along a pathway and the equilibrium temperature. Even once atmospheric greenhouse gas levels are stabilized, the planet 

will continue to warm for an extended period of time. The temperature differences 

given above are for the equilibrium global mean temperature. Equilibrium temperature changes relative to pre-industrial levels are estimated by IPCC to range from 

2.0–2.4 deg. C for the most aggressive stabilization scenario (marked I in the table 

above). The temperature increases grow as higher stabilization CO2 levels are allowed, reaching 4.9–6.1 deg. C for the most lenient case examined. Even these values are considerably less than some business as usual scenarios considered in IPCC. 

Question 1a. What would be the impacts on our ocean resources if we were to 

reach these emissions levels? 

Answer. Even if we were to eliminate all greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere, the ocean and the planet would experience some additional amount of warming and acidification beyond current levels (global mean temperature increase of 

0.76 ± 0.19 deg. C and surface pH drop of ¥0.1 units) because of the inertia in the 

climate system. Even the most aggressive IPCC stabilization scenarios lead to further warming and acidification beyond what we have already experienced (see 

above). Broadly speaking, there is a strong consensus that reducing the total 

amount of climate change will lessen the impacts of climate change and acidification 

on ocean resources. For some specific ecosystems we can make estimates of the 

trends such as reductions of some species and increases in others, poleward shifts 

in the ranges of warm-water species, further degradation of coral reef systems, etc. 

Making more detailed, quantitative forecasts for biological systems comparing the 

impacts for one stabilization scenario versus another is more difficult at present because of uncertainties in our scientific understanding. Biological systems are not linear, and it is likely that at least for some regions with larger climate change and 

acidification ecosystems will reach thresholds beyond which there will be significant 

and dramatic changes in ocean resources. Equally important is the rate at which 

the changes are occurring. Faster rates of climate change and acidification give species less time to adapt or to migrate to different regions where conditions may be 

more favorable. Faster rates of change also introduce additional social and economic 

problems, particularly when significant changes happen over a time-scale short relative to the lifetime of infrastructure used for a particular ocean resource (e.g., fishing fleets). 

Question 2. How can we improve our ocean and Earth observation programs to 

ensure understanding of the impacts of global climate change and ocean acidification on the marine environment? 

68 

Answer. The U.S. and other countries are putting in place elements that will contribute to a global ocean observing system, but there remain a number of gaps in 

such a system. First, much of the current in-water observing network measures 

physical properties of the ocean. Documenting ocean physical changes is key, as 

physical changes drive biological changes. But there needs to be a corresponding 

rapid expansion of in-water chemical and biological properties. In some cases, we 

need to invest in the development and testing of new sensors to routinely measure 

seawater chemistry and biology. For example, there is an international network that 

uses volunteer observing ships (cargo freighters, research vessels) and some moorings to measure surface ocean carbon dioxide levels. Given concerns with ocean 

acidification, that network needs to be expanded in scale (e.g., by using autonomous 

drifters and profiling floats) and in scope by including pH measurements. 

Second, the U.S. needs to maintain and extend the capability to monitor ocean 

trends from space using satellite-based remote sensing. For ocean biology, sensors 

measuring ocean color, a proxy for surface water phytoplankton chlorophyll, have 

been invaluable in understanding biological spatial patterns and dynamics on timescales from seasonal to multi-year. We will soon have 10 years of data from the 

NASA and GEOEYE SeaWiFS sensor. The future of U.S. ocean color remote sensing 

and other routine satellite ocean measurements is somewhat in doubt with the transition of many measurements from NASA research mode to an operational mode 

under NPOESS by NOAA and DOD. In particular, the requirements for long-term 

climate data records (e.g., consistency across time and across satellite platforms) can 

be more demanding than those for operational needs, and it is not clear that the 

appropriate investments are being made within NPOESS. 

Question 3. What are the potential impacts of some of the currently proposed climate change mitigation strategies on the marine environment—such as iron stimulated plankton blooms or injection of CO2 into sea sediments? 

Answer. Ocean iron fertilization has been proposed as a carbon mitigation strategy because phytoplankton growth is limited by the availability of the trace nutrient 

iron in some oceanic regions. As indicated by the results from about a dozen deliberate experiments, adding iron causes the plant-like phytoplankton to bloom, drawing down seawater carbon dioxide levels. What is not clear, however, is the longterm fate of the newly formed organic matter. If this material is converted back to 

carbon dioxide in the surface ocean by respiration, the net effect on ocean carbon 

storage will be small. If on the other hand some of the carbon is transported to the 

deep ocean, iron fertilization could act to sequester carbon and lower atmospheric 

carbon dioxide levels. 

Several concerns have been raised about the potential impacts of iron fertilization: 

1. To be effective, iron fertilization must alter ecosystem dynamics, and the environmental consequences on other parts of the food web are not well understood. For example, how will iron fertilization effect fisheries? Will it increase 

the likelihood of harmful algal blooms? Because of ocean circulation, the environmental impacts of iron fertilization may arise either locally near the 

fertilizationsite or non-locally downstream. 

2. Iron fertilization may stimulate the production and release to the atmosphere 

of other climate greenhouse such as nitrous oxide and methane. Since these 

gases are much more potent greenhouse gases on a per molecule basis, the release of these gases may greatly decrease the effectiveness of iron fertilization 

as a mitigation approach. 

3. Increased carbon export to mid and deep-ocean could decrease subsurface oxygen levels, increasing the size of oxygen minimum zones. 

Two other proposed carbon mitigation strategies include direct injection of carbon 

dioxide into the deep ocean water column or into deep-sea sediments. Deep-sea sediment injection would have local impacts on benthic (bottom) and water-column ecosystems because of the infrastructure required for injection. If the leakage of carbon 

dioxide into the overlying seawater can be minimized, the environmental consequences on the ocean water column will be relatively small. Direct injection of carbon dioxide into the ocean deep waters will result in a lowering of seawater pH and 

ocean acidification. Locally around the injection site the resulting acidification will 

be much larger than that observed in the upper ocean. Extrapolating from studies 

of surface species, one should expect significant negative impacts on calcifying species (deep-sea corals, mollusks). Some studies suggest only minimal acute (shortterm) effects on fish; less clear are the longer-term, chronic effects. There will also 

be local dissolution of carbonate bottom sediments. Some injection schemes involve 

pumping down liquid carbon dioxide, which is heavier than seawater and will form 

concentrated pools along the ocean bottom. Benthic life will be destroyed underVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:08 Mar 20, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\79908.TXT JACKIE
69 

neath the liquid carbon dioxide pools, but the effected area would be considerably 

smaller than if the carbon dioxide were dispersed in the seawater. The environmental impacts will depend upon the extent to which the liquid carbon dioxide 

mixes into the overlying seawater. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG TO

SCOTT C. DONEY, PH.D. 

Question 1. According to NOAA, about 4,000 species of fish, including approximately half of all federally-managed fisheries, depend on coral reefs and related 

habitats for a portion of their life cycles, and the National Marine Fisheries Service 

estimates that the value of U.S. fisheries from coral reefs exceeds $100 million. Will 

corals and plankton be able to survive or adapt to more acidic waters in our oceans? 

Answer. Our current information on the impacts of ocean acidification is based 

almost entirely on short-term (days to months) studies of shell forming plants and 

animals to large increases in carbon dioxide. Higher CO2 will affect other organisms 

(non-shell forming plankton, juvenile fish, etc.) but there is considerably less data 

on non-calcareous (shell forming) organisms. Most of the experiments to date have 

been conducted either in the laboratory or in small controlled conditions (for example, outdoor seawater tanks or floating tethered bags filled with seawater). The observed effects of acidification include decreased calcification rates (slower shell-formation), reduced growth rates, and in some cases reduced reproduction rates. Extrapolating from those results to the ocean, where the rise in carbon dioxide will 

be more gradual, involves considerable uncertainties. 

The ability of calcifying organisms to survive or adapt to high CO2 conditions likely varies from group to group. Some types of organisms, such as phytoplanktonic 

coccolithophores, have species or ecotypes that can survive without a calcareous 

shell, and under high CO2 conditions the population may shift toward the non-calcareous variants. The shells of other groups of calcareous organisms such as 

pteropods (planktonic marine mollusks) and most corals appear to be integral to 

their life history. Most organisms experience variations in seawater chemistry naturally due to seasonal cycles and year to year variability. It is not well known the 

degree to which organisms may possess mechanisms to adapt to small levels of 

acidification or the extent to which those mechanisms would be effective (even over 

decadal time-scales) against the significant levels of acidification projected by the 

middle to end of this century. A recent study (Fine and Tcernov, Science, Vol. 315, 

page 1811, 2007) showed that a Scleractinian coral species could grow as individual 

polyps without shells at high CO2 levels; while this demonstrates survival to acidification, the ecological impact of these naked polyps would be dramatic as they no 

longer would contribute to reef formation. 

Question 1a. If they cannot, what are the implications for other marine species 

and the ocean’s food chain? 

Answer. Calcareous organisms are important components of ocean food webs, and 

the reductions in calcareous organisms due to acidification likely will have broad ecological effects. The gradual build-up of warm-water coral skeletons produces reefs 

that provide habitat for some of the richest marine ecosystems on the planet. The 

size of reefs reflect a dynamic balance between calcium carbonate production that 

adds to the reef and loss processes (storms, human reef destruction, etc.) High CO2

conditions will likely shift the balance and may cause a reduction in the size of 

reefs. Similar decreasing trends for cold-water corals would result in habitat loss on 

the continental shelf and slope in temperate to polar latitudes. Planktonic calcareous organisms play important roles as prey for larger species. For example 

pteropods (small planktonic snails), which are abundant in the North Pacific and 

Southern Ocean, are eaten by fish (e.g., salmon) and baleen whales. At present it 

is not clear how the impacts of acidification will filter through the rest of the ecosystem and whether and how predator species will adjust to the loss calcareous 

prey. 

Question 1b. Species have migrated in response to ocean temperature changes. 

Will marine organisms migrate to avoid acidification? 

Answer. The ranges for calcifying species are expected to shift in response to 

acidification. Most experiments show that organisms are sensitive to the carbonate 

ion concentration and the saturation state for carbonate minerals, both of which decrease as pH declines. Seawater carbonate chemistry varies with temperature, and 

under present conditions saturation decreases as one moves poleward. Under a high 

CO2 world, species ranges therefore would have to shift equatorward to maintain 

the same saturation state. In contrast, global warming will drive species ranges 

poleward. One concern is that the opposing forces of warming and acidification will 

70 

eliminate the combined temperature and saturation state niches to which some organisms are adapted. 

Question 2. There have been ocean acidification events in the past that have resulted in the disappearance of marine organisms, including corals. What does the 

fossil record reveal about the adaptation of marine organisms to changes in ocean 

acidification? 

Answer. Several different lines of geological evidence suggest that ocean seawater 

carbonate chemistry has varied in the past in response to alterations in atmospheric 

carbon dioxide levels and variations in the weathering rates on land and deposition 

rates of carbonate minerals in the ocean. Several processes buffer (damp) ocean pH 

variations on the gradual time-scales of several thousand to several hundreds of 

thousands of years that characterize many geological changes. The current rate of 

ocean acidification is many times that of prehistoric rates and because of the slow 

time-scales of ocean buffering the pH changes over the next several centuries may 

be much larger than those experienced throughout most of the geological record. 

Ocean pH levels have already dropped by 0.1 since the preindustrial period, comparable to the pH change thought to have occurred between glacial and interglacial 

cycles, and an additional pH decrease of 0.14¥0.35 may occur by the end of this 

century. 

Past analogues to present acidification may have occurred in several catastrophic 

events in the geological record where it appears that large amounts of carbon dioxide were released rapidly into the atmosphere-ocean system, resulting in ocean 

acidification and dramatic reductions in marine carbonate burial. The more extreme 

episodes are associated with minor to major biological extinction events, which because of the way the geological time-scale was originally developed using 

paleofossils, often fall at the boundaries of geological periods. A number of 

hypotheses have been proposed (e.g., isolated refuges) for why some species (or 

groups of species) survive these acidification events and others do not, but the exact 

reasons are not well understood. 

Question 2a. How long did it take for corals and other marine organisms to recover from the acidification events in the past? 

Answer. The recovery time-scales to past geological events most likely were determined by both biology and geochemistry. One of the best documented events occurred during the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum (PETM) about 55 million 

years ago. The PETM is marked by rapid increases in temperature and alterations 

in the ocean carbonate system over about 1,000 to 10,000 years followed by a more 

gradual relaxation over several hundred thousand years. A large acidification event 

throws off the balance of alkalinity input and removal from the ocean, and the hundred thousand year relaxation timescale can be explained as the amount of time required for the ocean alkalinity cycle to come back into balance through carbonate 

and silicate weathering on land. There is only a limited fossil record to reconstruct 

what happened to calcifying organisms during the PETM because carbonate sediments are not buried under acidic conditions. Following the PETM, there was a biological radiation of calcifying organisms. 

Question 3. Dr. Feely indicates in his statement that ‘‘the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is now higher than experienced on Earth for at least 800,000 

years and is expected to continue to rise*the oceans are absorbing increasing 

amounts of carbon dioxide . . . and the chemical changes in seawater resulting from 

the absorption of carbon dioxide are lowering seawater pH.’’ Have scientists determined a dangerous level of pH that we need to avoid? 

Answer. A report from the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU) 

recommends that the surface seawater pH decrease from preindustrial conditions be 

limited to 0.2 pH units or less on scales of either individual ocean basins or the global average (Schubert et al., 2006). Estimates are that surface pH has already decreased by 0.1 since the preindustrial (30 percent drop in H∂ concentration); a pH 

drop of 0.2 would result in a 60 percent decline in H∂ concentration. Lower pH increases the solubility of calcium carbonate minerals (aragonite and calcite) making 

it more difficult for marine organisms to make shells, and the rationale used by 

Schubert et al., 2006 is that we should avoid a pH drop large enough to drive aragonite understaturated in surface water (aragonite is the more soluble mineral form 

used by corals and pteropods). The 0.2 pH criteria is set by the surface waters of 

the Southern Ocean, which are already close to undersaturation. 

R. Schubert R., H.-J. Schellnhuber, N. Buchmann, A. Epiney, R. GrieΒhammer, 

M. Kulessa, D. Messner, S. Rahmstorf, J. Schmid, 2006: The Future Oceans— 

Warming up, Rising High, Turning Sour, Special Report from German Advisory 

Council on Global Change (WBGU), ISBN 3–936191–14–X, http://www.wbgu.de 

110 pp. 

71 

Question 3a. At the current rate of carbon dioxide emissions, how long will it take 

for the oceans to reach a dangerous level of pH? 

Question 3b. Have scientists determined at what level of carbon dioxide concentrations we need to maintain in order to avoid this dangerous level of pH? 

Answer. Few model simulations have been run with constant present-day emissions so question b) is a little difficult to answer directly. Rather most model simulations have been conducted either with either IPCC scenarios of carbon dioxide emissions or atmospheric carbon dioxide stabilization trajectories. Orr et al., 2005 report 

that the 0.2 pH criteria would be reached and wide-spread aragonite undersaturation would occur in the Southern Ocean with IPCC business as usual emission scenarios between 2060–2075. Based on scenarios to stabilize atmospheric carbon dioxide by 2100, Calderia and Wickett found that a carbon dioxide stabilization target 

of 540 ppm would lead to a global surface pH drop of 0.23, exceeding the 0.2 criteria. 

A carbon dioxide target of 450 ppm would lead to a global drop of 0.17 pH units. 

Caldeira, K. and Wickett, M.E. Anthropogenic carbon and ocean pH. Nature 425, 

365 (2003). 

Orr, J.C., V.J. Fabry, O. Aumont, L. Bopp, S.C. Doney, R.A. Feely, A. 

Gnanadesikan, N. Gruber, A. Ishida, F. Joos, R.M. Key, K. Lindsay, E. MaierReimer, R. Matear, P. Monfray, A. Mouchet, R.G. Najjar, G.-K. Plattner, K.B. Rodgers, C.L. Sabine, J.L. Sarmiento, R. Schlitzer, R.D. Slater, I.J. Totterdell, M.-F. 

Weirig, Y. Yamanaka, and A. Yool, 2005: Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the 

twenty-first century and its impact on marine calcifying organisms, Nature, 437, 

681–686, doi: 10.1038/nature04095. 

Question 4. In light of the latest findings published last month in the journal 

Science in which the biological consumption and remineralization of carbon in the 

‘‘twilight zone’’—a zone in the ocean where some sunlight reaches but not enough 

for photosynthesis to occur at ocean depths between about 660–3300 feet—actually 

reduces the efficiency of sequestration (Buesseler, et al., Science 316, 567, 2007). 

What does this mean for the future of carbon sequestration in our ocean if carbon 

is recycled back into the surface ocean and atmosphere faster than originally 

thought? 

Answer. Ocean scientists have known for several decades that much of the particulate organic matter that sinks out of the surface layer is consumed in the 

mesopelagic (300–3,300 feet depth in the ocean). One metric used to evaluate this 

consumption is the respiration or remineralization length-scale, a measure of how 

vary down the water column an average particle sinks before it is consumed and 

the organic carbon turned back into dissolved inorganic carbon. The Buesseler et al., 

study in Science magazine examined two regions, a low productivity region off of 

Hawaii and a higher productivity region off Japan. They deployed a new instrument 

(a floating sediment trap) that should reduces biases in estimates of sinking particle 

flux. The major new contribution of the paper was to better elucidate that the 

length-scale for organic carbon differs from region to region. The length-scale near 

Hawaii was quite short (most of the sinking material was consumed in the upper 

water-column, while the length-scale off Japan was longer (a larger fraction of the 

material sank deeper in the water column). 

So far the experiment has been conducted at two sites and for relatively short periods of time (a few weeks). The findings do not necessarily imply that organic carbon is recycled shallower in the water column than was previously thought as the 

results from the two sites bracket the standard length-scale estimate derived from 

previous studies. These results do have implications for ocean biological carbon sequestration strategies in that in order to compute the effectiveness of a fertilization 

experiment, one likely needs to better understand both the surface water and subsurface ecosystems. 

Question 4a. Do scientists know how much carbon sequestered to the deep ocean 

is being overestimated? 

Answer. The Buesseler et al., results do not change global average estimates of 

the carbon consumption rate with depth, which have been computed on large-scales 

(entire ocean basins) by geochemical techniques; the findings do suggest that there 

may be more spatial and temporal variability in the effectiveness of consumption. 

Question 4b. How has this changed what scientists think about how long carbon 

dioxide will be naturally sequestered and how long it will take material to resurface 

from the twilight zone? 

Answer. More field data from a diverse set of locations (and over the full seasonal 

cycle) will need to be collected before this question can be addressed with any confidence. Currently the results bracket prior estimates and thus there is no immediate reason to think that our present understanding of the ocean carbon system 

is too greatly wrong. The Buesseler data does suggest that there is great spatial and 

72 

temporal heterogeneity in remineralization length-scales. Such data may also help 

us better characterize the underlying mechanisms driving subsurface organic matter 

consumption, and important factor if we are to understand how the ocean carbon 

system may change with evolving climate. 

Question 5. It is essential to start a global research and monitoring program for 

ocean acidification. We should be utilizing the observing systems already in place 

including the undersea research program. What are your recommendations for utilizing the current infrastructure of ocean observing systems and satellites to monitor ocean acidification? 

Answer. The current ocean observing system has only limited capabilities to monitor ocean acidification directly but can be enhanced with targeted investments. At 

present there is a large in-water observing system to measure ocean physical variables. For example, the Argo global array of profiling floats of greater than 2,800 

instruments now routinely measures temperature and salinity of the upper 1,000 

meters (3,300 feet) of the ocean. There is an international network that uses volunteer observing ships (cargo freighters, research vessels) and some moorings to measure surface ocean carbon dioxide levels. But the spatial and temporal coverage is 

much more restricted than the physical observing network, any many cases pH is 

not measured directly, and the measurements are typically limited to the upper few 

meters of the water column. The U.S. and international CLIVAR CO2 and Repeat 

Hydrography Program surveys subsurface pH and ocean carbonate variables but on 

only a limited number of transects and on a time-scale of one occupation of each 

transect approximately every 10 years. Even larger gaps exist for monitoring pH in 

coastal waters, where the requirements for high density measurements are great because there are larger variations in space and time. There are pilot efforts underway 

within NOAA Coral Reef Watch program to instrument several coral reefs for routine that would serve as a model for other regions. Given concerns with ocean acidification, the ocean network of chemical and biological measurements needs to be expanded in scale (e.g., by using autonomous drifters and profiling floats) and in scope 

by including pH measurements and other relevant variables related to biological responses to acidification (e.g., calcification rates; particulate calcium carbonate concentrations, etc.). To do this, we need to invest now in the development and testing 

of new sensors to routinely measure seawater chemistry and biology on autonomous 

platforms. 

Satellite remote sensing cannot measure ocean pH directly but does provide a host 

of valuable information for assessing ocean acidification and its biological impacts 

that complements the information available from in-water sensors. Satellite sensors 

can be used to locate and access the size of coral reefs. Blooms of planktonic 

coccolithophores (a phytoplankton group with calcium carbonate shells) can also be 

measured from space under some conditions. Satellites provide a regional context 

for in-water measurements because satellites often measure ocean properties over 

a wider window in space and time. Data analysis methods are also being developed 

for estimating surface water chemistry based on empirical relationships with physical and biological variables that can be measured from space (e.g., temperature, 

chlorophyll) or estimated from ocean numerical models. The U.S. needs to maintain 

and extend the capability to monitor ocean trends from space using satellite-based 

remote sensing. For ocean biology, sensors measuring ocean color have been used 

to map the occurance and distribution of coccolithophore blooms from space. We will 

soon have 10 years of data from the NASA and GEOEYE SeaWiFS sensor. The future of U.S. ocean color remote sensing and other routine satellite ocean measurements is somewhat in doubt with the transition of many measurements from NASA 

research mode to an operational mode under NPOESS by NOAA and DOD. In particular, the requirements for long-term climate data records (e.g., consistency across 

time and across satellite platforms) can be more demanding than those for operational needs, and it is not clear that the appropriate investments are being made 

within NPOESS. We also need to extend the capabilities of ocean remote sensing 

with new sensors focused on detecting changes in the ecological community (which 

species are present) and plankton physiology and targeting coastal and coral reef 

environments, which require high spatial resolution. 

Question 5a. What information can be gained from monitoring natural variations 

over a long time period of time and in several different oceanic regions? 

Answer. Ocean pH and related environmental conditions vary naturally in time 

(event scales such as storms, seasons, year to year variability) and in space (because 

of changes in temperature, upwelling of subsurface carbon rich water, and biological 

photosynthesis and carbon drawdown). A better understanding of the magnitude of 

those changes and the resulting biological responses is critical to unraveling the 

mechanisms by which acidification impacts ocean ecosystems. Consistent long term 

73 

records of pH trends and biological responses (e.g., calcification rates) would provide 

data to evaluate and test the climate models used to make future forecasts. More 

robust models would provide increased confidence to the decisionmakers and stakeholders using these forecasts. Better monitoring also would allow scientists to identify the environmental conditions under which calcifying organisms grow today and 

the extent to which present acidification and natural variations are already impacting calcifying organisms and whole ecosystems. Together with targeted laboratory 

experiments and field process studies, a monitoring network will help elucidate the 

ability of organisms to adapt to acidification and the changes that will occur to other 

parts of the ocean food web if calcifying organisms are harmed by acidification. 

Question 6. This year I requested funding through the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science to fund the National Research Council report on ocean acidification mandated by Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 

and Management Reauthorization Act. Has NOAA yet identified the compelling research needs for this study? 

Answer. I am not aware that NOAA has finalized the scope of the proposed National Research Council report on ocean acidification, and if they have done so the 

research needs have not been made widely known to the public. 

Question 6a. If so, what are the research needs for this report? 

Answer. One concern is that if not properly framed the NOAA sponsored NRC report could be too narrowly focused solely on the needs and mission of a single agency (NOAA) and neglect the opportunities offered by an integrated, multi-agency 

strategy for ocean acidification. The U.S. scientific community has devoted considerable thought and effort into defining the most compelling and urgent research needs 

with regards to ocean acidification. These research needs are well articulated in a 

recent report from a workshop sponsored by the NSF, NOAA, and USGS (Kleypas 

et al., 2006). The recommendations of this report on the major scientific issues that 

should be pursued over the next 5–10 years include: 

• ‘‘Determine the calcification response to elevated CO2 in benthic calcifiers such 

as corals (including cold-water corals), coralline algae, foraminifera, molluscs, 

and echinoderms; and in planktonic calcifiers such as coccolithophores, foraminifera, and shelled pteropods; 

• Discriminate the various mechanisms of calcification within calcifying groups, 

through physiological experiments, to better understand the cross-taxa range of 

responses to changing seawater chemistry; 

• Determine the interactive effects of multiple variables that affect calcification 

and dissolution in organisms (saturation state, light, temperature, nutrients) 

through continued experimental studies on an expanded suite of calcifying 

groups; 

• Establish clear links between laboratory experiments and the natural environment, by combining laboratory experiments with field studies; 

• Characterize the diurnal and seasonal cycles of the carbonate system on coral 

reefs, including commitment to long-term monitoring of the system response to 

continued increases in CO2; 

• In concert with above, monitor in situ calcification and dissolution in planktonic 

and benthic organisms, with better characterization of the key environmental 

controls on calcification; 

• Incorporate ecological questions into observations and experiments; e.g., how 

does a change in calcification rate affect the ecology and survivorship of an organism? How will ecosystem functions differ between communities with and 

without calcifying species? 

• Improve the accounting of coral reef and open ocean carbonate budgets through 

combined measurements of seawater chemistry, CaCO3 production, dissolution 

and accumulation, and, in near-shore environments, bioerosion and offshelf export of CaCO3; 

• Quantify and parameterize the mechanisms that contribute to the carbonate 

system, through biogeochemical and ecological modeling, and apply such modeling to guide future sampling and experimental efforts; 

• Develop protocols for the various methodologies used in seawater chemistry and 

calcification measurements.’’ 

Kleypas, J.A., R.A. Feely, V.J. Fabry, C. Langdon, C.L. Sabine, and L.L. Robbins, 

2006. Impacts of Ocean Acidification on Coral Reefs and Other Marine Calcifiers: 

A Guide for Future Research, report of a workshop held 18–20 April 2005, St. Petersburg, FL, sponsored by NSF, NOAA, and the U.S. Geological Survey, 88 pp. 

74 

Question 7. About one-third of all man-made carbon dioxide emissions are absorbed into the ocean. However, at a certain point the oceans may no longer be able 

to absorb carbon dioxide at the same rate. If this happens, warming of the atmosphere will increase even more rapidly. Are we close to seeing the rate that the 

oceans absorb carbon dioxide slow down to a point that our global temperatures increase even faster? 

Answer. Several factors may decrease the future effectiveness of the ocean sink 

for anthropogenic carbon dioxide. The chemical buffer capacity of seawater decreases as the levels of inorganic carbon increase. Warming reduces the solubility 

of carbon dioxide. Surface warming and increased vertical stratification are also expected to slow ocean circulation, which will reduce oceanic carbon dioxide uptake. 

Carbon dioxide uptake would also decline if the ocean deep-water circulation in the 

North Atlantic were to slow dramatically. In numerical models, most of these factors 

decrease ocean carbon dioxide uptake rates gradually with time. Some effects are 

already being felt, and their influence will grow with time with global warming and 

rising atmospheric carbon dioxide. 

Question 7a. How does temperature affect the rate at which ocean acidification 

occurs? 

Answer. The dominant factor in ocean acidification is the increase in the amount 

of dissolved inorganic carbon in seawater. Some researchers have explored the impacts of climate change on ocean acidification, finding relatively small impacts relative to the signal from increasing dissolved inorganic carbon. Temperature plays 

a key role in determining the chemical impact of acidification. The saturation state 

of carbonate minerals in seawater depends on temperature. The saturation state of 

colder waters starts off lower than in warmer waters and will become under-saturated with respect to carbonate minerals before warmer waters. 

Question 7b. The Arctic Ocean is becoming warmer and fresher which may slow 

down thermohaline circulation. What are the implications of these changes on ocean 

acidification? 

Answer. Climate change is expected to warm and freshen the surface ocean in the 

Arctic and reduce sea-ice cover. The increased vertical stratification will reduce the 

transport of anthropogenic carbon dioxide into intermediate and deep-waters in the 

Arctic, reducing the influence of ocean acidification in mid- to deep-waters. In contrast, reduced sea-ice will enhance surface gas exchange, surface water levels of anthropogenic carbon dioxide and acidification. 

Question 7c. How does the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and subsequent 

warming affect atmospheric and oceanic circulation? Will the increase in atmospheric and ocean temperatures result in more frequent El Nin ̃ o’s and intense hurricane seasons? 

Answer. This a wide-ranging and complex question at the heart of a large research effort on climate change research within the U.S. and internationally. A 

broad-brush picture of the expected changes in ocean and atmosphere circulation 

are given in the 4th IPCC Assessment Report that was recently released (IPCC, 

2007). A major factor is that global warming of the surface ocean will inject more 

water vapor into the atmosphere, strengthening the planetary water cycle and potentially providing more energy for storms. The Arctic and land surfaces will warm 

faster than the ocean, altering the temperature gradients that drive atmospheric circulation and winds. The Arctic will experience a reduction in sea-ice cover, particularly in summer, and a general warming and freshening of surface waters. Warming 

of the upper-ocean and inputs of additional freshwater at high latitudes will tend 

to increase vertical stratification of the upper water column and slow exchange between surface and subsurface water masses. Altered wind patterns will also change 

the location and strength of coastal and open-ocean upwelling. 

According to the Summary for Policy Makers for Working Group I, the following 

more specific trends are expected: 

• heat extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation events will become more 

likely; 

• tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons) will likely be more intense with 

larger peak wind speeds; there is still considerable debate about whether the 

number of tropical storms will change; 

• the stormtracks for extratropical storms are likely to move poleward, altering 

precipitation patterns; 

• the amount of precipitation will likely increase at high latitudes and decrease 

at subtropical latitudes; the latter may exacerbate subtropical droughts; 

75 

• the meridional overturning circulation and deep water formation in the Atlantic 

will likely decrease but it is very unlikely to undergo an abrupt transition over 

this century. 

There is less confidence in predictions of expected changes in ocean and atmosphere circulation on more regional scales because the model forecasts differ from climate model to climate model. 

Question 7d. Which ocean regions will be first to experience large changes in carbonate chemistry? How long before large changes occur? 

Answer. The entire surface ocean is already experiencing changes in carbonate 

chemistry, and these trends will increase approximately in step with rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations. When anthropogenic CO2 dissolves in seawater it decreases pH, increases the partial pressure of carbon dioxide (pCO2), and increases 

the concentration of dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC, the sum of all of the different 

inorganic forms of carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, and its acid-base dissociation products). Except in regions of seasonal and permanent ice-cover, the positive trend in 

surface water pCO2 and DIC appears to approximately track the rise in atmospheric 

CO2 levels following solubility equilibrium relationships. The magnitude of the pH 

change depends upon the buffering capacity of seawater; more rapid pH changes 

occur in colder waters and waters with higher DIC and pCO2 levels for the same 

size incremental addition of carbon dioxide. 

The penetration of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide signal into the subsurface 

ocean is controlled by ocean circulation. The concentrations of anthropogenic carbon 

and perturbations to pH tend to decrease as one looks down the water-column. 

About half of all the anthropogenic carbon dioxide is found in the upper 400 m 

(∼1,200 feet) of the water column. Elevated levels of anthropogenic carbon are found 

below that depth in the lower thermocline (400–1000 meters depth) below the surface water convergence zones of the subtropical gyres and Southern Ocean. Anthropogenic carbon is also observed below the thermocline in and downstream of intermediate and deep-water formation regions in the northern North Atlantic and 

Southern Ocean. 

Question 8. How will lower calcification rates, due to an increase in ocean acidification, higher ocean temperatures, and changes in nutrients affect ocean carbon 

chemistry and carbon export rates? 

Answer. Acidification will tend to reduce the calcification in the upper ocean, the 

sinking flux (export) of particulate inorganic carbon, and the remineralization of 

particulate inorganic in the subsurface ocean. The effect of acidification on total biological productivity in the surface ocean may be about neutral, as it is likely that 

non-calcifying organisms may be able to replace calcifying phytoplankton populations that are diminished due to acidification. Organic carbon export to the subsurface ocean via sinking particles is not directly proportional to biological productivity, but depends upon the composition of the food web. Organic matter has a density similar to seawater, and there is evidence indicating that heavier ballast materials, such as carbonate shells, increase organic matter sinking rates. The impact 

of reduced calcification on the export of organic carbon in the open ocean is less certain, but may also result in a reduction in export. 

Reduced inorganic export has the opposite effect as reduced organic carbon export 

on surface water chemistry and air-sea carbon fluxes. The formation of organic matter lowers seawater dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) and lowers the partial pressure of carbon dioxide (pCO2), which governs the air-sea gas exchange of carbon dioxide. A reduction in organic matter export, therefore, would reduce the effectiveness of the biological pump and act to increase surface water and atmospheric CO2

thus accelerating climate change. The formation of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) or 

calcification in surface waters lowers both seawater DIC and alkalinity (a measure 

of the acid-base balance of seawater). For each mole of CaCO3 removed, DIC drops 

by 1 mole and alkalinity drops by 2 moles. Somewhat counter intuitively, calcification increases pCO2 because the effect of the alkalinity change outweighs that of 

DIC. Therefore reduced carbonate export would act to decrease surface water and 

atmospheric CO2 thus helping to ameliorate climate change. Preliminary model simulations, however, suggest that the calcification-alkalinity feedback mechanism provides only a small brake on increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide due to fossil fuel 

combustion. 

Question 9. What are the expected changes to the biological pump—the process 

which transports carbon throughout the ocean—due to the increase in carbon dioxide and what will be the consequences of these changes? 

Answer. Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide has two major effects on the ocean biological pump, altered ocean physics and ocean acidification. The impact of ocean 

acidification is addressed in the answer to question 8 above. Ocean physics will be 

76 

altered because of carbon dioxide induced global warming and other changes in 

physical climate. Surface warming globally and larger freshwater inputs at mid- to 

high-latitudes will increase the vertical stratification of the water column. 

Many areas of the tropical and subtropical ocean are nutrient limited, and increased vertical stratification may decrease the supply nutrients to the upper ocean. 

In these areas, biological productivity and the sinking of organic particles, which 

drives the biological pump, may drop because of the reduced nutrient supply. One 

possible complication is nitrogen fixation; most organisms cannot use nitrogen gas, 

but a small number can convert nitrogen gas into an organic form that is broadly 

usable. Nitrogen fixation is enhanced in warm, stratified waters and may increase 

in the future under climate warming. Phytoplankton in some regions at mid- to 

high-latitude is currently light-limited because of deep mixing. Biological production 

and particle export may be enhanced in these areas because warming and freshwater inputs will reduce vertical mixing rates and thus light limitation. Model projections suggest that global ocean productivity may not change substantially. 

Question 10. Fossil-fuel use is also increasing the amounts of nitric and sulfuric 

acid deposition in the oceans. How will these elements alter surface seawater alkalinity and pH? 

Answer. Fossil fuel combustion releases reactive nitrogen and sulfur to the atmosphere. Some fraction is deposited to the surface ocean as nitric and sulfuric acid, 

which reduces surface seawater alkalinity. Agriculture releases reactive nitrogen 

that is deposited to the ocean as ammonia. Because of biogeochemical transformations, the ammonia input also leads to a reduction in ocean alkalinity. The 

changes in surface seawater chemistry will lead to lower seawater pH levels. 

Question 10a. Will the impacts of these elements differ in coastal waters versus 

open ocean and how may they affect marine ecosystems? 

Answer. The effects depend upon the deposition rates of reactive nitrogen and sulfur, which are highest in coastal regions and open-ocean areas downwind of the 

major source regions in eastern North America, western Europe, and south and east 

Asia. The effects of acidification from reactive nitrogen and sulfur deposition will be 

similar to that caused by oceanic uptake of fossil-fuel carbon dioxide. Coastal regions may be more vulnerable to elevated acidification because of other human perturbations (local pollution, nutrient runoff, overfishing). Reactive nitrogen deposited 

from the atmosphere will also stimulate ocean photosynthesis because nitrate and 

ammonia are nutrients. Similar to excess nitrogen from river and groundwater runoff, the resulting nutrient fertilization (eutrophication) may lead to low oxygen zones 

and blooms of harmful algae. 

Question 11. During the hearing a question was raised regarding the global average increase in ocean temperature of 0.04° C. It is well known that the largest increases in ocean temperature are in the surface waters and this plays a large role 

in the Earth’s heat budget. Can you please explain how significant the warming has 

been in the surface waters and what the implications have been for increased sea 

surface temperature as it relates to hurricane intensity, El Nin ̃ o, drought, and other 

extreme weather events? Can you highlight different regions that have experienced 

large increases in surface water temperature and how much the surface waters have 

warmed? 

Answer. Ocean warming is indeed concentrated in the upper part of the water column. The global average temperature increase of 0.037 deg. C reported by Levitus 

et al., 2005 applies to a depth range from the surface to 3,000m (∼10,000 feet) for 

time interval of (1994–98) relative to (1955–59). In their analysis, they also report 

an average temperature increase almost 5 times as large (0.171 deg. C) for the 

upper water column 0–300m (∼1,000 feet) over the time period 1955–2003. As shown 

in a table below, Atlantic temperatures in the 0–300m depth range increased faster 

than the global trend. 

Sea surface temperature also increased at a rate comparable to or faster than the 

0–300m trend. Hansen et al., (2005) present a spatial map of the change in sea surface temperature for the period (2001–2005) relative to a base period of 1951–1980. 

They find significant areas of the Atlantic, Indian Ocean and tropical Pacific where 

the sea surface temperature increased by between 0.4 to 0.8 deg. C. Examining modern (2001–2005) sea surface temperature changes relative to preindustrial conditions (1870–1900) reveals warmer sea surface temperatures almost everywhere in 

the ocean, with larger regions showing temperature increases of more than 0.5 deg. 

C. 

Higher sea surface temperatures increase the transfer of heat and moisture from 

the ocean to the atmosphere. Higher sea surface temperatures have been proposed 

as a mechanism for strengthening the intensity of tropical cyclones (typhoons and 

hurricanes), and variations in sea surface temperature have been linked to periods 

77 

of both drought and flooding on land. Future climate model projections suggest that 

increasing sea surface temperature and climate warming will drive increased precipitation at high latitude, decreased precipitation in the subtropics (and possible 

droughts) and a general increase in the frequency of extreme precipitation events. 

The link between sea surface temperature and El Nin ̃ o is somewhat more subtle as 

El Nin ̃ o conditions in the tropical Pacific themselves results in elevated sea surface 

temperatures in the tropical Pacific and along the West Coast of North America. 

Through atmospheric teleconnections, El Nin ̃ o events also alter sea surface temperatures over much of the world ocean. 

Levitus, S., J. Antonov, and T. Boyer (2005), Warming of the world ocean, 1955– 

2003, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L02604, doi: 10.1029/2004GL021592. 

Hansen, J., M. Sato, R. Ruedy, K. Lo, D.W. Lea, and M. Medina-Elizade, 2006: 

Global temperature change, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 103, 

14288–14293, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0606291103. 

Table T1. Change in ocean mean temperature (deg. C) as determined by the linear 

trend for the world ocean and individual basins. (Levitus et al., 2005; supplementary 

material). 

Ocean basin Change in mean temperature 

0–300 m (1955–2003) (deg. C) 

World Ocean 0.171 

N. Hem. 0.188 

S. Hem. 0.159 

Atlantic 0.297 

N. Atl. 0.354 

S. Atl. 0.233 

Pacific 0.112 

N. Pac. 0.093 

S. Pac. 0.127 

Indian 0.150 

N. Ind. 0.125 

S. Ind. 0.154 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE TO

RICHARD A. FEELY, PH.D. 

Question 1. I am pleased to learn that NOAA has been working with other agencies, including NASA and NSF, to formalize a Federal research effort, including research on ocean acidification. Could you describe the current Federal interagency research program and how it might be strengthened? 

Answer. While there is no formal Federal interagency research program, NOAA 

and other Federal agencies (e.g., the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the National 

Science Foundation (NSF), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA)) are currently in the process of developing a formal research and/or monitoring program to address ocean acidification. Over the past two decades, a number 

of large-scale international ocean research programs have documented global increases in the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the world’s oceans. These programs, co-sponsored by NSF, NOAA and the Department of Energy, include the 

World Ocean Circulation Experiment (WOCE), the Joint Global Ocean Flux Study 

(JGOFS) Global CO2 Survey and the CLIVAR/CO2 Repeat Hydrography Program. 

The increase in ocean CO2 concentrations and corresponding decreases in pH levels 

(ocean acidification) occur in direct response to rising levels of atmospheric CO2 and 

will affect some of the most fundamental processes of the sea in coming decades. 

In recent years, the rapidly emerging issue of ocean acidification has garnered considerable interest across the scientific community, and NOAA, NSF and NASA have 

been working to identify what existing capabilities can be better tailored to monitor 

and understand ocean acidification. NOAA and NSF have played an important joint 

role in identifying the current extent of ocean acidification through ocean observations. NOAA has also been involved in using environmental models to forecast ocean 

acidification levels over the coming century under a variety of CO2 emission scenarios, and has begun investigating the possible ecosystem consequences through 

research studies. 

Detailed in the following discussion is an overview of various NOAA programs, 

technologies, and research efforts that have yielded findings deemed relevant to 

ocean acidification or have recently been initiated with the intent of addressing the 

many remaining uncertainties identified by the scientific community. These examVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:08 Mar 20, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\79908.TXT JACKIE
78 

ples include some description of current Federal interagency efforts, as well as collaboration with non-Federal/academic institutions. 

NOAA Collaborative Workshops 

In 2005, NOAA, USGS, and NSF jointly sponsored a workshop focused on ocean 

acidification, which resulted in a report entitled Impacts of Increasing Ocean Acidification on Coral Reefs and Other Marine Calcifiers: A Guide for Future Research. The 

workshop sought to summarize existing knowledge on ocean acidification, identify 

the most pressing scientific issues, and identify future research strategies over the 

next 10 years. The report concluded that ocean acidification will significantly impact 

biological systems in the upper ocean with adverse responses being observed in most 

organisms studied that rely on calcium carbonate to build their skeletal structures 

(calcifying organisms or calcifiers; e.g., corals). The report also identified an extensive list of remaining knowledge gaps and research needs with regards to ocean 

acidification. Among the list offered by the workshop report was a recommendation 

to better characterize the carbon chemistry on coral reefs, including long-term monitoring of the response of these sensitive ecosystems to ocean acidification. 

Observations Relevant to Ocean Acidification 

Global CO2 Surveys 

NOAA has contributed to several international and national research programs 

that have offered important findings relevant to ocean acidification. These programs 

include the World Ocean Circulation Experiment (WOCE), the Joint Global Ocean 

Flux Study (JGOFS), the joint NOAA/NSF CLIVAR/CO2 Repeat Hydrography Program, the Tropical Atmosphere Ocean (TAO) array, and the Global Ocean Observing 

System (GOOS), as well as data collected through NOAA-supported hydrostations, 

mooring stations, and vessel observations. These research programs provide the 

most accurate and comprehensive view of the global ocean carbon cycle to date. 

NOAA funded a 5-year WOCE/JGOFS data analysis effort that culminated in 

NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Lab (PMEL) lead-authoring two important 

Science articles highlighting ocean acidification in July 2004. While one article detailed the ocean’s role as an important sink for anthropogenic carbon dioxide, 

(Sabine et al., 2004), the other described the impact that this additional carbon exerts on the ocean’s chemistry and its potential long-term consequences for marine 

ecosystems (Feely et al., 2004). 

Sabine et al. (2004) inventoried the amount of anthropogenic CO2 (i.e., fossil-fuel 

and cement-manufacturing emissions of carbon dioxide) that has been absorbed by 

the world’s oceans. Results from the inventory demonstrated that about 120 billion 

metric tons of carbon as CO2 (roughly half of the fossil-fuel CO2 released since the 

1800s) has been absorbed by the ocean. Much of this added carbon has remained 

concentrated in surface waters as the mixing rate of the oceans is on the order of 

several thousand years. 

In addition to the WOCE/JGOFS studies, NOAA, together with the Japan Agency 

for Marine-earth Science and Technology and France’s L’Institut de recherche pour 

le de ́veloppment, has jointly funded the TAO array. The TAO array consists of approximately 70 moorings in the tropical Pacific Ocean and is an important part of 

the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS). These oceanic hydrostations and mooring systems provide temporal data that helps NOAA discern important seasonal and 

decadal variability. To better ascertain the spatial variability in oceanic carbon uptake, NOAA has collaborated with academic partners since 1985 to outfit research 

and commercial vessels with automated CO2 sensors. The intent of these observations has primarily been to derive estimates of CO2 exchange between the atmosphere and the surface waters of the ocean. 

Fixed Buoys 

As mentioned above, the TAO array consists of approximately 70 moorings in the 

Pacific Ocean that transmit ocean and climate data in real-time for the purposes 

of tracking El Nin ̃ o events. NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory 

(PMEL) has worked closely with the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute to 

outfit several of these moorings with CO2 sensors. While the coverage of these buoys 

is limited to the Pacific Ocean, and therefore do not fully capture the broad and 

complex system of global CO2 absorption in the ocean, they provide consistent data 

that helps NOAA discern important variability season-to-season and decade-to-decade. 

In response to the 2005 ocean acidification workshop, NOAA deployed a series of 

fixed buoys and augmented existing monitoring stations to accommodate CO2 sensors deployed at a handful of U.S. coral reefs. The NOAA Coral Reef Conservation 

Program, together with researchers at the NOAA Atlantic Oceanographic and MeteVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:08 Mar 20, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\79908.TXT JACKIE
79 

orological Laboratory (AOML) and the University of Miami, has experimented with 

the deployment of commercially available CO2 sensors on NOAA Integrated Coral 

Observing Network (ICON) stations at two locations in the Caribbean. NOAA PMEL 

has also developed an advanced CO2 mooring system, of which four have been deployed in coastal waters. While these observing systems are preliminary, they have 

offered important insight into the CO2 variability of these waters which contrast 

sharply to that of offshore waters. The CO2 measurements at one of the Hawaii 

moorings have been compared against those recorded offshore at a long-term 

hydrostation. Similarly, observations made in Puerto Rico have been compared 

against offshore estimates derived using remote sensing. In both cases, the variability of CO2 levels in waters overlying coral reefs is shown to be considerably higher on daily, seasonal, and interannual scales than in offshore waters that have typically been the focus of ocean acidification models. Furthermore, these coastal waters 

consistently have higher CO2 levels than that of offshore waters, suggesting these 

systems may exceed critical levels of CO2 sooner than has been demonstrated in 

most ocean acidification models. What those precise thresholds might be is an area 

of continued investigation within the scientific community and NOAA will need to 

collect additional data necessary to achieve any firm conclusion on the matter. 

Satellite Observations 

Other observing efforts being advanced at NOAA with important relevance to 

ocean acidification include the application of satellite remote sensing to supplement 

ship and buoy observations of surface ocean carbon chemistry. While ship observations provide reliable and accurate measurements of surface ocean CO2, and offer 

considerably greater spatial coverage than that provided by moored instruments, 

they lack the temporal resolution of fixed platforms (i.e., observations over time in 

one location) and provide relatively limited regional coverage. Such observations can 

be supplemented by satellite remote sensing. NOAA has worked to derive algorithms relating environmental parameters that can be remotely sensed to in situ observations of carbon measurements. NOAA continues to work to improve the reliability and accuracy of these models and improve the data delivery to the community. Such models are being experimentally coupled to NOAA’s ICON station CO2

monitoring network in the hopes of deriving a tool for coral reef management to 

monitor the response of coral reefs to ocean acidification. 

All of these observing networks and platforms have not been designed to specifically address ocean acidification per se, which demands a more comprehensive measurement of ocean carbon chemistry. Measurement of ocean acidity requires in situ 

technology, which NOAA is currently testing. Such advanced observations are required to fully model the magnitude, rate and severity of ocean acidification. 

Research Efforts and Ocean Acidification 

Northwest 

NOAA’s Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) has begun collaborating 

with the University of Washington on ocean acidification research relevant to Pacific 

fisheries. In September 2006, the NWFSC began some initial modeling studies of 

possible consequences of ocean acidification on food webs. Two ongoing research 

projects are focused in Puget Sound and the Northeast Pacific shelf. Both projects 

are investigating how likely changes in calcifier populations at all trophic levels will 

impact the food web. Many organisms are expected to be affected, including 

coccolithophores (phytoplankton made of calcium carbonate), pteropods (a form of 

shelled zooplankton), cold-water corals, and echinoderm larvae (e.g., sea urchins and 

sea stars). From past research on acid rain there is also evidence of acidification’s 

effect on animal behavior and homing, an area where the NWFSC has also initiated 

some preliminary fisheries-related lab studies. Further investigations could include 

questions of how changing ocean chemistry could impact how pollutants are taken 

up by the ocean, their chemical form, and their impact on ocean life. 

Alaska 

NOAA’s Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AKFSC) has started research on the effects of decreased pH on red king crab larval growth and survival. This project was 

a pilot study designed to test the ability to culture crab larvae under experimentally 

manipulated pH conditions. Preliminary results showed ∼15 percent reduction in 

growth and ∼67 percent reduction in survival when pH was reduced 0.5 units. Lab 

work to determine pH effects on the calcium content of exoskeletons is ongoing. 

Southwest 

NOAA’s Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC), as part of the U.S. Antarctic Marine Living Resource (AMLR) Program, also collected water and zooplankVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:08 Mar 20, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\79908.TXT JACKIE
80 

ton samples to investigate effects of ocean acidification in the Southern Ocean during its 2007 krill biomass survey. These samples comprise the beginning of NOAA’s 

research to understand the impact of changing pH in the South Shetland Islands. 

Given that in the foreseeable future CO2 levels are likely to rise, the degree of 

supersaturation for both aragonite and calcite (two calcium carbonate (CaCO3) polymorphs) will decline. This could impact both invertebrate and vertebrate communities. Aragonite and calcite are the building blocks for skeletal material and shells 

of many organisms and lower concentrations of the building blocks of these minerals 

in seawater will increase the energy needed by organisms to form their skeletal and 

shell structures. This increased energy need can stress the organisms’ physiology. 

Our data collection and analysis efforts will provide information necessary for the 

development of mitigation options. This work is being completed in collaboration 

with scientists from NOAA PMEL and California State University San Marcos, who 

will provide the analytical capacity lacked by the AMLR Program. 

National 

NOAA Sea Grant serves as a unifying mechanism within NOAA to engage top 

universities to assist NOAA in meeting its mission goals and responsibilities. Sea 

Grant conducts research, extension, education, and communication activities, with 

a goal to achieve a sustainable environment and to encourage the responsible use 

of America’s coastal, ocean, and Great Lakes resources. Sea Grant has supported research on the affects of ocean acidification on coral reefs in Hawaii. 

Ocean Acidification Modeling 

NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) works cooperatively 

throughout the agency to advance its expert assessment of changes in national and 

global climate through research, improved models, and products. GFDL participated 

in the 1995 Ocean-Carbon Cycle Model Intercomparison Project (OCMIP), which developed an international collaboration to improve the predictive capacity of oceancarbon cycle models through evaluation and intercomparison. After a 3-year pilot 

study with 4 models (OCMIP–1), a second phase of study (OCMIP–2; 1998–2002) 

involved 13 international modeling groups and data specialists taking on a more detailed effort. The models developed by these groups were used to forecast how ocean 

chemistry could change under the ‘business-as-usual’ scenario (as defined by the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) for future emissions of anthropogenic 

carbon dioxide. Under such a scenario, the models predict that the surface waters 

of the Southern Ocean will become chemically unfavorable to some forms of calcium 

carbonate by the year 2050 (i.e., the pH of the surface waters will be too low to 

allow solid calcium carbonate to form). By 2100, such conditions could extend 

throughout the entire Southern Ocean and into the subarctic Pacific Ocean (Orr et 

al., 2005). When live pteropods were subjected to chemical conditions predicted by 

these models, their shells (calcium carbonate) began to dissolve. The findings of the 

study concluded that conditions detrimental to high-latitude ecosystems could develop within decades. 

NOAA can strengthen the existing efforts by improving its understanding of the 

climate-ecosystem linkages to better predict ecosystem (and living marine resource) 

impacts and adaptations to climate change. Specifically, NOAA can enhance its 

monitoring of living marine resource population demographics, distributions, migrations, and health. 

Additionally, NOAA can translate climate information from global to regional levels to facilitate management of ecosystem issues at the regional level. 

Question 2. Are there international efforts currently underway or in development 

to address the issue of ocean acidification and is the United States involved in such 

efforts? 

Answer. In addition to the efforts detailed in response to Question 1 (above), over 

the past year NOAA scientists have been interacting with their colleagues from Europe and Asia on the development of international cooperative research efforts on 

ocean acidification. At the international level, research on ocean acidification is 

being implemented through the Integrated Marine Biogeochemistry and Ecosystem 

Research project and Surface Ocean Lower-Atmosphere Study. Senior NOAA and 

academic scientists have been invited by their European counterparts to contribute 

to the planning and implementation of the European Project on Ocean Acidification. 

Similar negotiations are presently underway with colleagues from Japan and Korea. 

Question 3. Coral reefs are not just critical habitat for fish. In my state of Hawaii, 

they are also an economic engine supporting both fishing and tourism. Is ocean 

acidification or the increase in sea temperature the more pressing issue for protecting and preserving Hawaii’s coral reefs and other marine resources and why? 

81 

Answer. While our present understanding of coral bleaching and ocean acidification is at an early stage of development, the research results thus far indicate that 

increases in sea surface temperature and changes in ocean chemistry both present 

considerable risk to the future sustainability of coral reef habitat and the eco-services they provide to Hawaii. Both surface temperature and ocean chemistry are related to changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations (directly in the case 

of ocean acidification) and so the two issues are inextricably linked. The prevailing 

expectation of the scientific community is that, should sea surface temperatures continue to rise, coral bleaching will continue to occur with greater frequency and intensity. The resilience of reefs against threats posed by rising temperatures is likely 

to be compromised by their declining ability to build reefs as a result of ocean acidification. While there is much that remains unknown with regards to how these two 

processes interact, it is likely the impact of the two threats together will be greater 

than the sum of the two separate impacts. 

Question 4. How can we incorporate actions to address these issues into an overall 

management strategy for protecting Hawaii’s corals and other marine resources? 

Answer. NOAA is committed to an ecosystem approach to resource management 

that addresses the many simultaneous pressures affecting ecosystems. The various 

effects of climate change on wildlife and oceans are interrelated. While the strategies outlined in the 2006 publication A Reef Manager’s Guide to Coral Bleaching 

(produced by NOAA, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Australian Great 

Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature) were designed to address coral bleaching in Hawaii and other federally-protected coral reef ecosystems, many of the strategies in the guide will support 

reef resilience in the face of ocean acidification. Additional research is needed to 

fully characterize the threat of ocean acidification to coral reef communities and to 

identify and devise specific adaptive management strategies. 

Once identified, adaptive strategies that plan for climate change impacts can be 

applied to the ocean and coastal environment through a variety of mechanisms, including incentives and disincentives, policies and regulations, and public outreach 

and education. A number of NOAA’s research programs have also begun to consider 

how climate change, and specifically ocean acidification scenarios, may impact many 

regulated species—particularly bivalve mollusks, crustaceans, and species dependent on shallow-water coral reefs. Over 50 percent of the value of U.S. fisheries derives from clams, scallops, and oysters, and various species of shrimp, crab, and lobster. These shellfish are thought to be particularly vulnerable to the effects of reduced levels of calcium carbonate building blocks in the oceans due to increasing 

acidity. NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service has initiated a few pilot studies 

to attempt to understand these impacts. 

Question 5. Dr. Feely, under a ‘‘business as usual’’ scenario of greenhouse gas 

emissions, what do you project will be the impacts on coral reefs and other marine 

resources? 

Answer. The recently released Summary for Policy Makers in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report on Impacts, 

Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change found that under a business as 

usual scenario: 

• The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an 

unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g., 

flooding, drought, ocean acidification), and other global change drivers (e.g., 

land use change, pollution, over-exploitation of resources). 

• For increases in global average temperature exceeding 1.5–2.5° C and in concomitant atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, there are projected to be 

major changes in ecosystem structure and function, species’ ecological interactions, and species’ geographic ranges, with predominantly negative consequences for biodiversity, and ecosystem goods and services, e.g., food supply. 

As described in the response to Question 1, NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics 

Laboratory contributed to the Ocean-Carbon Cycle Model Intercomparison Project. 

The models that resulted from this project were used to forecast how ocean chemistry could change under the ‘business-as-usual’ scenario (as defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) for future emissions of anthropogenic carbon dioxide. Under such a scenario, the models predict that the surface waters of 

the Southern Ocean will become chemically unfavorable to some forms of calcium 

carbonate by the year 2050. By 2100, such conditions could extend throughout the 

entire Southern Ocean and into the subarctic Pacific Ocean. 

Recent work indicates that corals in the 21st century will have to adapt to temperature increases of at least 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit per decade to survive the inVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:08 Mar 20, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\79908.TXT JACKIE
82 

creasing frequency and intensity of coral bleaching that we expect in the next few 

decades (Donner et al., 2005). Unfortunately, ongoing studies have not yet shown 

that corals have the ability to make physiological or evolutionary changes at that 

rate. Limited latitudinal expansion of coral distributions is possible and may be occurring in one case (Precht and Aronson, 2006). However, corals in higher latitudes 

are likely to encounter lower pH waters (ocean acidification) and their skeletal 

growth rate may be depressed (Guinotte et al., 2003; Guinotte et al., 2006). 

Question 6. What if we stabilized our greenhouse gas concentrations at between 

445 and 710 parts per million? 

Answer. According to the 4th Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group II, the mitigation measure of reducing 

anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission can reduce a number of projected climate 

change impacts. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions below 445 ppm would specifically act to: 

• Reduce the level of ocean acidification affecting coral reefs and other calcifying 

plankton and shellfish. 

• Reduce the severity of coral bleaching events. 

Note that even reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 445 ppm is projected only 

to reduce the severity of coral bleaching events, as opposed to preventing those 

events. In addition, because of the inertia in the climate system, it would take several decades before any benefits from mitigation efforts materialize. According to the 

IPCC, even if complete mitigation were put into place immediately (meaning even 

if anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions were immediately reduced to zero), because of existing carbon dioxide in the system, we are committed to a 0.6° C temperature change over the next 50 years. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARIA CANTWELL TO

RICHARD A. FEELY, PH.D. 

Question 1. In your testimony, you discussed the potential impacts that ocean 

acidification might have on coldwater species in the Bering Sea. Along much of the 

West Coast, we are wrestling with the recovery of endangered salmon. Salmon are, 

of course, both commercially and culturally important, and they’re also a critical 

part of the food web for the endangered Puget Sound Southern Resident Orca. From 

your research, will ocean acidification place these species in further jeopardy? If so, 

specifically how might this occur? 

Answer. Our understanding of the connections between ocean acidification and 

the marine food chain is in a very early stage of development. Scientists have observed a reduction in the ability of marine algae and free-floating plants and animals to produce protective carbonate shells when exposed to decreasing pH (Feely 

et al., 2004; Orr et al., 2005). These organisms are important food sources for other 

marine species. One type of free-swimming mollusk called a pteropod is eaten by 

organisms ranging in size from tiny krill to whales. In particular, pteropods are a 

major food source for North Pacific juvenile salmon, and also serve as food for mackerel, pollock, herring, and cod. Other marine calcifiers, such as coccolithophores (microscopic algae), foraminifera (microscopic protozoans), and mollusks (snails, clams, 

and mussels) also exhibit a general decline in their ability to produce their shells 

with decreasing pH (Kleypas et al., 2006). The concern among scientists is that as 

the food sources for the salmon and whales are reduced in abundance, those populations will also decline. 

Question 2. The most rigorous mitigation goal in the recent summary report by 

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is to stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas levels between 445 and 710 parts per million by 2030. But given that the 

current concentrations of atmospheric carbon are estimated at 380 parts per million, 

shouldn’t this target be set at a much lower level if we are to effectively address 

climate change? What is the expected temperature increase of this range? What 

would be the impacts on our ocean resources if we were to reach these emissions 

levels? 

Answer. According to the 4th Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group II, the mitigation measure of reducing 

anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission can reduce a number of projected climate 

change impacts. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions below 445 ppm would specifically act to: 

• Limit temperature increase to 2.0–2.4° C 

• Reduce the future severity of drought in the U.S. 

83 

• Reduce the level of ocean acidification affecting coral reefs and other calcifying 

plankton and shellfish. 

• Reduce the severity of coral bleaching events (e.g., a 1–3° C increase in global 

temperature would result in more bleaching events with small recovery times, 

whereas an increase of 2.5–3.0° C could result in widespread mortality). 

Because of the inertia in the climate system, it would take several decades before 

any benefits from mitigation efforts materialize. According to IPCC, even if complete 

mitigation were put into place immediately (meaning if anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions were immediately reduced to zero), because of existing carbon dioxide 

in the system, we are committed to a 0.6° C temperature change over the next 50 

years. In addition, it is important to note that the IPCC summary does not explicitly 

predict the magnitude and timing of consequences because these depend on the 

amount and rate of CO2 emissions and subsequent warming, and, in some cases, 

on society’s ability to adapt. 

Question 3. What are the potential impacts of some of the currently proposed climate change mitigation strategies on the marine environment—such as iron stimulated plankton blooms or injection of CO2 into sea sediments? 

Answer. The broad potential impacts of climate change mitigation strategies are 

discussed in answer to question 2 (above). In 2005 the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change (IPCC) published a special report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and 

Storage (http://www.ipcc.ch/activity/srccs/index.htm), but the IPCC report does 

not address biological approaches for carbon capture and storage in the ocean, such 

as iron-stimulated plankton blooms. There have been several small research projects 

that have demonstrated that iron fertilization can cause a phytoplankton bloom in 

certain regions of the ocean. However, current scientific evidence indicates that 

large-scale iron fertilization will not significantly increase carbon transfer into the 

deep ocean or lower atmospheric CO2. Furthermore, there may be negative impacts 

of iron fertilization including dissolved oxygen depletion, altered trace gas emissions 

that affect climate and air quality, changes in biodiversity, and decreased productivity in other oceanic regions. 

In 2005 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) special report on 

Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, one chapter is devoted to ocean storage of 

CO2. This report noted that deep ocean injection is technically possible and would 

isolate the CO2 from the atmosphere for several hundreds of years. The fraction of 

CO2 retained in the ocean over time generally tends to be longer with deeper injection, but the cost of placing the CO2 deeper is also higher. Injection of a few billion 

metric tons of CO2 would produce a measurable change in ocean chemistry in the 

region surrounding the injection, whereas injection of hundreds of billions of metric 

tons of CO2 would eventually produce measurable changes over the entire ocean volume. Deep-ocean CO2 injection would introduce anthropogenic CO2 to regions of the 

deep ocean that have not yet been exposed to elevated CO2. In particular, the areas 

around the injection sites would experience CO2 levels far in excess of anything that 

would result from the natural uptake of anthropogenic CO2. 

Question 4. Given your understanding of ocean acidification, does using the ocean 

to store CO2 make good policy sense, or would we just be creating additional problems? Are there safe and effective ways to use the ocean to mitigate the effects of 

excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? 

Answer. The IPCC report mentioned in answer to the question above (Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage: http://www.ipcc.ch/activity/srccs/index.htm) gives several examples of viable carbon storage options, such as the injection of CO2 into geological reservoirs. These options appear to have potentially longer storage times and 

fewer potential environmental impacts than purposeful ocean carbon storage. The 

oceans will continue to take up anthropogenic CO2 for at least the next few thousand years, thus acting as a natural mitigation pathway. This natural uptake will 

have environmental consequences that we are still trying to understand. At this 

point, it does not seem to make sense scientifically to exacerbate this by accelerating 

the process and potentially introduce additional unknown oceanographic and ecological consequences to this valuable resource. Many scientists are also concerned 

that such fertilization experiments may have the unintended consequence of causing 

harmful algal blooms, sometimes known as ‘‘red tides.’’ 

84 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG TO

RICHARD A. FEELY, PH.D. 

Question 1. According to NOAA, about 4,000 species of fish, including approximately half of all federally-managed fisheries, depend on coral reefs and related 

habitats for a portion of their life cycles, and the National Marine Fisheries Service 

estimates that the value of U.S. fisheries from coral reefs exceeds $100 million. Will 

corals and plankton be able to survive or adapt to more acidic waters in our oceans? 

Answer. Increasing ocean acidification has been shown to significantly reduce the 

ability of reef-building corals to produce their skeletons, affecting growth of individual corals and making the reef more vulnerable to erosion (Kleypas et al., 2006). 

By mid-century, coral reefs may erode faster than they can be rebuilt potentially 

making them less resilient to other environmental stresses (e.g., disease, bleaching). 

This threat to coral reefs could compromise the long-term viability of these ecosystems, perhaps impacting the thousands of species and over one billion people 

that depend on coral reefs. Decreased calcification rates, as a result of ocean acidification (decreased pH), may also compromise the fitness or success of these organisms and could shift the competitive advantage toward organisms that are not dependent on calcium carbonate (CaCO3). Carbonate structures are likely to be weaker 

and more susceptible to dissolution and erosion as a result of ocean acidification. 

In long-term experiments, corals that have been grown under lower pH conditions 

for periods longer than 1 year have not shown any ability to adapt their calcification 

rates to the low pH levels. 

With respect to planktonic calcifiers (free-floating organisms that rely on calcium 

carbonate), including the coccolithophores, foraminifera, and pteropods, each group 

has been shown to respond negatively to increases in CO2 levels. However, most 

studies of the impacts of ocean acidification have been performed on bloom-forming 

coccolithophores, and there are very limited observations of other planktonic groups. 

If reduced calcification rates contribute to a decrease in a calcifying organism’s fitness or survivorship, then such calcareous species may undergo shifts in their latitudinal distributions and/or vertical depth ranges as the CO2 chemistry of seawater 

changes. Long-term impacts of elevated CO2 on reproduction, growth, and survivorship of planktonic calcifying organisms have not been investigated. Existing studies 

on the impacts of ocean acidification on calcareous plankton have been short-term 

experiments, ranging from hours to weeks. Chronic exposure to increased CO2 may 

have complex effects on the growth and reproductive success of CaCO3-secreting 

plankton. 

Question 1a. If they cannot, what are the implications for other marine species 

and the ocean’s food chain? 

Answer. The loss of corals and other calcifying species could have dramatic consequences to marine ecosystems and the human systems that depend on them. 

Many reef organisms are dependent on coral reefs for their livelihood (Kleypas et 

al., 2006). Organisms that die out locally during coral bleaching events are likely 

to be lost. Others will suffer population drops as erosion of reefs reduces or eliminates the habitats in which they live. Changes in ocean pH may also affect reproductive success of commercially important species by reducing demersal egg adhesion or the fertilization success of eggs broadcast into the ocean. 

Some calcifying planktonic species affected by ocean acidification are key food 

sources for commercially-targeted fish, such as juvenile salmon, mackerel, pollock, 

herring and cod. Therefore, ocean acidification may reduce the abundance of food 

for these key species at the base of the food chain. The concern among scientists 

is that as the food sources for the salmon and whales are reduced in abundance, 

those populations will also decline. 

The economic implications of these types of losses will likely be similar to those 

during coral bleaching events. A study discussed in A Reef Manager’s Guide to Coral 

Bleaching (Cesar et al., 2002) indicates that the 1998 bleaching in the western Indian Ocean cost U.S. $71.5 million to the Seychelles, U.S. $47.2 million to Kenya, 

and U.S. $39.9 million to Zanzibar (in Tanzania). 

Question 1b. Species have migrated in response to ocean temperature changes. 

Will marine organisms migrate to avoid acidification? 

Answer. Shallow-water corals are generally limited by water temperatures and 

visibility (as clear water is necessary to allow sunlight to penetrate for photosynthesis). It is possible that corals will expand poleward as long as proper substrates, 

temperatures, and clear water are present. Unfortunately, it takes hundreds to 

thousands of years for reefs to develop. Additionally, many corals grow at much 

slower speeds (spreading through sexual reproduction and larval transport) than 

others coral species. The result is that non-reef building invading organisms may 

take over reefs, while slower growing corals that can be the most important reefVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:08 Mar 20, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\79908.TXT JACKIE
85 

builders are not able to keep pace with the growth of the non-reef building species. 

However, even if corals move poleward, it is the higher latitudes that are most affected by ocean acidification. While advancing to high latitudes might stave off thermal stress for a select set of low productivity corals, these systems would likely be 

subjected to even slower rates of reef building due to ocean acidification. Modern 

reef systems do not extend to high latitudes in part due to the relatively low pH 

of these high latitude waters (Guinotte et al., 2003). 

Question 2. There have been ocean acidification events in the past that have resulted in the disappearance of marine organisms, including corals. What does the 

fossil record reveal about the adaptation of marine organisms to changes in ocean 

acidification? How long did it take for corals and other marine organisms to recover 

from the acidification events in the past? 

Answer. Paleontological studies of coral reef communities before and after these 

periods show that many species of corals went extinct during periods of high atmospheric and oceanic carbon dioxide. For example, studies indicate that 98 percent of 

coral species were lost during the extinction at the end of the Triassic and corals 

did not reappear in the fossil record for 8–10 million years (Stanley, 2006). 

The few surviving species took millions of years to evolve to fill the niches left 

open by the loss of so many corals during these events. Even then, most reefs were 

dominated by bivalves (clam-like organisms) that later went extinct during the next 

high carbon dioxide period. That next extinction lasted 17 million years. 

Question 3. You indicate in your statement that ‘‘the atmospheric concentration 

of carbon dioxide is now higher than experienced on Earth for at least 800,000 years 

and is expected to continue to rise . . . the oceans are absorbing increasing amounts 

of carbon dioxide . . . and the chemical changes in seawater resulting from the absorption of carbon dioxide are lowering seawater pH.’’ Have scientists determined 

a dangerous level of pH that we need to avoid? 

Answer. In order to prevent disruption of the calcification of marine organisms 

and the resultant risk of fundamentally altering marine food webs, the German 

Council on Global Change (2006) recommended that the pH of near surface waters 

should not drop more than 0.2 units below the pre-industrial average value in any 

large ocean region. While that may seem like a small change, it is important to note 

that pH units are on a logarithmic scale. This means each whole pH value below 

7 is ten times more acidic than the next higher value. For example, pH 4 is ten 

times more acidic than pH 5 and 100 times more acidic than pH 6. A pH drop of 

0.2 units would correspond to an increase in the hydrogen ion (H∂) concentration 

of around 60 percent compared to pre-industrial values. The decrease in pH so far 

of 0.11 units since industrialization corresponds to a rise of the H∂ concentration 

of around 30 percent. The present average pH value of the ocean surface layer is 

8.07. 

Question 3a. At the current rate of carbon dioxide emissions, how long will it take 

for the oceans to reach a dangerous level of pH? 

Answer. At the present rate of carbon dioxide emissions, we will see a pH drop 

of 0.2 units from the pre-industrial values by about 2050 (500 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere). According to simulations by Caldeira and Wickett (2005), a stabilization 

of the atmospheric CO2 concentration of 540 ppm by the year 2100 would lead to 

a global average surface ocean pH decrease of 0.23 compared to the pre-industrial 

level. Thus, an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 540 ppm would already exceed the 

acidification limit of 0.2 units. 

Question 3b. Have scientists determined at what level of carbon dioxide concentrations we need to maintain in order to avoid this dangerous level of pH? 

Answer. As stated in Question 3 above, the German Council on Global Change 

(2006) recommended that the pH of near surface waters should not drop more than 

0.2 units (<500 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere) below the pre-industrial average value 

in any large ocean region. 

The largest threat to marine organisms due to ocean acidification is related to the 

solubility of calcium carbonate, which affects the presence of the carbonate minerals 

calcite and aragonite. Calcite and aragonite are needed for the construction of shells 

and skeletal structures. Calcifying marine organisms are important components of 

marine ecosystems, so their endangerment would have a large impact on economically and socially important marine resources. The German Council on Global 

Change (2006) states ‘‘If the concentration of carbonate ion falls below the critical 

value of 66 μmol per kilogram, then the seawater is no longer saturated with respect to aragonite, and marine organisms can no longer build their aragonite shells’’ 

(Schubert et al., 2006). The danger of undersaturation for aragonite is especially 

present in the high northern and southern latitudes, and in strong upwelling regions. 

86 

Question 4. In light of the latest findings published last month in the journal 

Science in which the biological consumption and remineralization of carbon in the 

‘‘twilight zone’’—a zone in the ocean where some sunlight reaches but not enough 

for photosynthesis to occur at ocean depths between about 660–3,300 feet—actually 

reduces the efficiency of sequestration (Buesseler, et al., Science 316, 567, 2007). 

What does this mean for the future of carbon sequestration in our ocean if carbon 

is recycled back into the surface ocean and atmosphere faster than originally 

thought? 

Answer. The significance of the Buesseler et al. (2007) article is that much of the 

carbon that is sequestered in marine organic matter in the surface euphotic zone 

is remineralized in the twilight zone and returned to the atmosphere at some later 

date due to upwelling. The farther down in the ocean this organic carbon remineralization occurs, the longer it takes for the CO2 to be returned back to the atmosphere. Consequently, the approach of using iron-fertilization as a mechanism for sequestering organic carbon in the oceans may be less inefficient than previously 

thought because of this remineralization mechanism. 

Question 4a. Do scientists know how much carbon sequestered to the deep ocean 

is being overestimated? 

Answer. At the present, this is an area of active scientific research because the 

present carbon reminearlization estimates have very large uncertainties. In the 

study discussed above (Buesseler et al.) point out that the uncertainty in the estimates of carbon remineralization is as high as 3 Pg C year¥1, which is more than 

our best estimate of the anthropogenic carbon uptake at the surface! 

Question 4b. How has this changed what scientists think about how long carbon 

dioxide will be naturally sequestered and how long it will take material to resurface 

from the twilight zone? 

Answer. The Buesseler et al. (Science 316, 567, 2007) article points to the need 

for more research on the nature and rates of organic matter remineralization processes in the twilight zone. We need to know if ocean acidification will enhance the 

process of remineralization in shallow waters by causing calcium carbonate (CaCO3) 

shells, and their associated organic carbon (ballast carbon), to dissolve higher up in 

the water column. This is potentially one of the most important positive ocean feedback mechanisms for enhancing the return of CO2 back to the atmosphere. 

Question 5. It is essential to start a global research and monitoring program for 

ocean acidification. We should be utilizing the observing systems already in place 

including the undersea research program. What are your recommendations for utilizing the current infrastructure of ocean observing systems and satellites to monitor ocean acidification? 

Answer. As technology develops, our current ocean observation infrastructure may 

be enhanced by including additional specific sensors to monitor ocean acidification. 

For example, NOAA scientists and partners recently launched the first operational 

buoy with a new sensor to monitor ocean acidification in the Gulf of Alaska. This 

is the first system specifically designed to monitor ocean acidification, and is a new 

tool for researchers to examine how ocean circulation and ecosystems interact to determine how much carbon dioxide the North Pacific Ocean absorbs each year. The 

addition of similar carbon system sensors onto current observation platforms, such 

as the OceanSites moored arrays (funded by NOAA and the National Science Foundation and Coral Reef Metabolic Monitoring Network) could provide an excellent 

foundation for a global monitoring program to monitor ocean acidification in the Atlantic and Pacific and to validate models of future changes. 

Question 5a. What information can be gained from monitoring natural variations 

over a long time period of time and in several different oceanic regions? 

Answer. These data sets provide information on long-term natural and anthropogenic variability of the carbon system in the oceans. They are critical for understanding the future impacts on biological systems via ocean acidification. 

Question 6. This year I requested funding through the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science to fund the National Research Council report on ocean acidification mandated by Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 

and Management Reauthorization Act. Has NOAA yet identified the compelling research needs for this study? 

Answer. Yes, NOAA has identified key issues associated with ocean acidification 

and fisheries, and how the National Academy of Science’s Ocean Studies Board can 

help prioritize future research and monitoring to address this significant issue. 

NOAA and other agencies must collaborate to design appropriate field and laboratory studies that will allow more precise forecasts of the impacts of ocean acidification on fisheries and the ecosystems that support them. 

87 

Question 6a. If so, what are the research needs for this report? 

Answer. NOAA believes that the National Academy can provide an important 

bridge between the academic community and Federal agencies in designing and implementing appropriate long-term monitoring studies and experiments to determine 

how fisheries species and ecosystems may respond to acidifying oceans. The National Academy study, to be conducted through its Ocean Studies Board (OSB), will 

be used to help design long-term studies to monitor pH changes in vulnerable marine ecosystems of the United States, and as a method to collaborate internationally. 

The OSB will determine the methods, frequency and placement of monitoring sensors and oceanographic sensing to track ocean acidification over time, and in relation to changes in atmospheric CO2. 

Currently about 51 percent of the value of United States fisheries landings is 

made up of bivalve mollusks and crustaceans. As these species contain high levels 

of calcium carbonate as shell material, they are thought to be particularly vulnerable to ocean acidification. Ocean plankton, the base of shallow-water marine food 

chains, include species that also incorporate calcium carbonate into their shells and 

are thus likely to be influenced by acidification. Other species, contributing about 

5 percent of the value of U.S. fisheries, occur in shallow water tropical coral ecosystems that are highly sensitive to pH variations and temperature changes. Finally, deep-sea coral ecosystems are also likely to be impacted by ocean acidification 

and these species are now regulated under the newly re-authorized Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The National Academy study will 

determine which of these biological communities are most at risk, and will design 

appropriate field and laboratory studies of the physiological responses of these organisms to ocean acidification. 

In addition to the National Academy study, which will focus on monitoring and 

research strategies and priorities for the U.S., NOAA will also coordinate international ocean acidification science with the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and the Pacific Marine Science Organization. These two groups, 

in particular, coordinate marine science among countries in the North Atlantic and 

North Pacific, and can assure that U.S. research priorities integrate with research 

conducted by other nations. 

Question 7. About one-third of all man-made carbon dioxide emissions are absorbed into the ocean. However, at a certain point the oceans may no longer be able 

to absorb carbon dioxide at the same rate. If this happens, warming of the atmosphere will increase even more rapidly. Are we close to seeing the rate that the 

oceans absorb carbon dioxide slow down to a point that our global temperatures increase even faster? 

Answer. The uptake of anthropogenic CO2 is controlled by the carbon chemistry 

at the surface and the rate at which surface waters, laden with anthropogenic CO2, 

are moved into the ocean interior and replaced with deeper waters that have not 

been exposed to higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The rate at which the surface waters can take up CO2 depends on the difference in CO2 concentration in the 

air and sea surface, and the amount of CO2 that is converted to other ionic species 

(such as bicarbonate (HCO3), carbonate (CO3

2-), and carbonic acid (H2CO3-

) in seawater. As CO2 concentrations in the ocean increase, the percentage of CO2 that is 

converted to these other ionic species decreases, and the water becomes less efficient 

at taking up CO2. This is already happening—the surface water of the oceans has 

already become less efficient at taking up CO2. However, even with the ocean’s decreased efficiency with regard to taking up CO2, the exponential increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration up to this point has made it such that today’s oceans take 

up more CO2 each year than they have in the past. That being said, there are many 

things that can change this situation because the rate at which the ocean absorbs 

CO2 is a balance between a number of processes. For example, if the rate at which 

CO2 is moved from the surface ocean into the interior ocean slows because of 

changes in thermohaline circulation, then the rate of CO2 absorption will also decrease. If the rate at which CO2 is rising into the atmosphere slows, then the ocean 

uptake rate will also decrease. Predicting when and how these processes, and others 

not listed here, will change is difficult. According to Chapter 5 of the 4th Assessment Report by the International Panel on Climate Change Working Group I, the 

fraction of the net CO2 emissions taken up by the ocean (the uptake fraction) was 

37 percent ±7 percent during the period from 1980 to 2005, compared to 42 percent 

±7 percent during the 1750 to 1994 period. The errors in this estimate are still too 

large to determine if these rates are different. 

88 

Question 7a. How does temperature affect the rate at which ocean acidification 

occurs? 

Answer. CO2 is less soluble in warm water, so as the oceans warm they will become less efficient at taking up CO2 from the atmosphere. In addition, as you warm 

a body of water but keep the total amount of dissolved carbon the same or greater, 

then the proportion of carbonic acid (H2CO3, the acidic form of carbon dioxide) in 

the water will increase, and the pH of the warmer water will therefore be lower. 

Thus, rising ocean temperatures will tend to accelerate ocean acidification. 

However, temperature’s impact on the rate at which ocean acidification occurs is 

small relative to the impact of rising atmospheric CO2 levels. As CO2 concentration 

continues to increase in the atmosphere, the ocean will continue to take up larger 

quantities of CO2, thereby exacerbating ocean acidification. 

Question 7b. The Arctic Ocean is becoming warmer and fresher which may slow 

down thermohaline circulation. What are the implications of these changes on ocean 

acidification? 

Answer. The Arctic Ocean is one of the oceanic regions that will experience major 

changes in carbonate saturation due to ocean acidification over the next 40–50 

years. This is primarily due to the extremely low temperatures of the surface waters 

and lowered alkalinities due to the ice melting. 

Question 7c. How does the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and subsequent 

warming affect atmospheric and oceanic circulation? Will the increase in atmospheric and ocean temperatures result in more frequent El Nin ̃ o’s and intense hurricane seasons? 

Answer. The oceans and the atmosphere constitute intertwined components of 

Earth’s climate system. Evaporation from the ocean transfers huge amounts of 

water vapor to the atmosphere, where it travels aloft until it cools, condenses, and 

eventually precipitates in the form of rain or snow. Changes in ocean circulation or 

water properties can disrupt this hydrological cycle on a global scale, causing flooding and long-term droughts in various regions. 

Higher temperatures caused by increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide could add 

fresh water to the northern North Atlantic by increasing precipitation and by melting nearby sea ice, mountain glaciers, and the Greenland ice sheet. This influx of 

fresher and warmer water could reduce the sea surface salinity and density, leading 

to a slow down of the global hydrological cycle (thermohaline circulation). 

According to all models used in the 4th Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group I, the strength of the atmospheric 

overturning circulation decreases as the climate warms (Held and Soden, 2006; 

Vecchi and Soden, 2006), in a manner consistent with theoretical arguments (Betts 

and Ridgeway, 1989; Betts, 1998; Knutson and Manabe, 1995; Held and Sodden, 

2006). The models project that this weakening should occur preferentially to the 

east-west overturning of air near the Equator, known as the Walker circulation. 

Such a weakening of the Walker circulation, in turn, would lead to a reduction in 

near-surface wind-driven currents in the near-equatorial oceans (Vecchi and Soden, 

2007). Long-term records of atmospheric sea-level pressure indicate that weakening 

of the Walker circulation may already be underway, and this weakening is partially 

attributable to increases in greenhouse gases (Vecchi et al., 2006; Zhang and Song, 

2006). However, long-term changes of oceanic conditions are mixed, with some studies showing changes inconsistent with a slowing circulation (Cane et al., 1997; Hansen et al., 2006) and other studies showing changes more consistent with the slowing circulation (Cobb et al., 2001, 2003). 

The El Nin ̃ o-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) system is a naturally occurring climate 

phenomenon that leads to major fluctuations in global climate patterns at approximately 3–7 year intervals. There is scientific debate over the influence that rising 

globally-averaged temperatures has had and will have on the frequency and intensity of ENSO fluctuations. What is certain is that natural fluctuations in temperature lead to warmer and cooler years than normal. If the average temperature is 

rising, as it has in the 20th century and is expected to in the 21st century (Guinotte 

et al., 2003), the warm temperatures during natural oscillations periods will be even 

hotter than those of the past. How the mechanisms responsible for controlling the 

timing and intensity of El Nin ̃ o’s will likely change in a warming climate is still 

not clear (van Oldenborgh et al., 2005). Therefore, it is difficult to say whether 

warming will result in more frequent El Nin ̃ o’s. We do know, however, that El 

Nin ̃ o’s have a dramatic impact on the ability of the oceans to take up CO2, so if 

the frequency of ENSO events does change then it will definitely impact ocean acidification. 

It is likely that some increase in tropical cyclone peak wind-speed and rainfall will 

occur if the climate continues to warm (IPCC, 2007). However, there is no firm conVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:08 Mar 20, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\79908.TXT JACKIE
89 

clusion on whether there is currently a global warming signal in the tropical cyclone 

climate record to date. Models also project that storm tracks should move poleward 

in a warming world (Yin, 2005), and that the northern edge of the sinking branch 

of the equator-subtropics overturning of air—known as the Hadley circulation— 

should move polewards, with an associated poleward movement of dry regions (Lu 

et al., 2006). 

Question 7d. Which ocean regions will be first to experience large changes in carbonate chemistry? How long before large changes occur? 

Answer. According to the modeling studies of Orr et al., (2005, 2006), the Arctic 

and Southern Oceans will become undersaturated with respect to aragonite in the 

second half of this century. During this period, the Southern Ocean’s aragonite saturation horizon shoals from its present average depth of 730m all the way to the surface. Similar large migrations of the aragonite saturation horizon are projected for 

the North Atlantic. In the North Pacific, portions of the subarctic Pacific will undergo undersaturation (with respect to aragonite) by the end of the century. In the Orr 

et al. (2005) modeling study, the concentration of carbonate ions that corals use to 

build their skeletons (the reef) will become inadequate to support reefs around the 

middle of the century. 

Question 8. How will lower calcification rates, due to an increase in ocean acidification, higher ocean temperatures, and changes in nutrients affect ocean carbon 

chemistry and carbon export rates? 

Answer. As indicated in the answer to Question 4b above, the Buesseler et al. 

(2007) article points to the need for more research on the nature and rates of organic matter remineralization and carbon export processes in the upper water column. We do not know if ocean acidification will enhance the process of remineralization in shallow waters by causing calcium carbonate shells, and their associated organic carbon (ballast carbon), to dissolve higher up in the water column. This is potentially an important positive ocean feedback mechanism for enhancing the return 

of CO2 back to the atmosphere. 

Question 9. What are the expected changes to the biological pump—the process 

which transports carbon throughout the ocean—due to the increase in carbon dioxide and what will be the consequences of these changes? 

Answer. Calcium carbonate particles play a significant role in the transport of organic matter to the deep ocean by acting as a ballast mineral particle, absorbing 

organic matter at shallow depths and carrying it downward as the particles settle 

to deeper depths and dissolve. 

Calcium carbonate dissolution at increasingly shallower depths in the oceans 

could possibly decrease the depth of remineralization of organic matter, causing a 

reduction in the ocean uptake of CO2. This process needs to be quantitatively assessed for changing pH conditions in the oceans. 

Question 10. Fossil-fuel use is also increasing the amounts of nitric and sulfuric 

acid deposition in the oceans. How will these elements alter surface seawater alkalinity and pH? 

Answer. Anthropogenic nitrogen and sulfur deposition to the ocean surface alter 

surface seawater chemistry, leading to acidification and reduced total alkalinity. 

The acidification effects, though not as large globally as those of anthropogenic CO2

uptake, could be significant in coastal ocean regions. 

Question 10a. Will the impacts of these elements differ in coastal waters versus 

open ocean and how may they affect marine ecosystems? 

Answer. According to a recent paper by Doney et al. (in press, Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Science, 2007), the deposition of anthropogenic nitrogen and 

sulfur has a relatively small effect on changes in open-ocean surface water chemistry, relative to the effect of CO2 increases due to the oceanic uptake of anthropogenic CO2. However, the impacts of nitrogen and sulfur are more substantial in 

coastal waters, where the ecosystem responses to ocean acidification could have severe implications for coastal inhabitants. 

Question 11. During the hearing a question was raised regarding the global average increase in ocean temperature of 0.04° C. It is well known that the largest increases in ocean temperature are in the surface waters and this plays a large role 

in the Earth’s heat budget. Can you please explain how significant the warming has 

been in the surface waters and what the implications have been for increased sea 

surface temperature as it relates to hurricane intensity, El Nin ̃ o, drought, and other 

extreme weather events? 

Answer. Based on historic and paleoclimatic records, the global mean land and 

ocean surface temperature has increased by 0.8±0.2° C (1.4±0.3° F) since the last 

half of the nineteenth century, and global mean surface temperatures increased at 

90 

a rate of about 0.2° C/decade over the last few decades. Present temperatures are 

the warmest on record going back through at least the last 1,000 years, and we will 

likely soon be experiencing temperatures warmer than at any time in the last million years (Hansen et al., 2006). Subsurface ocean temperatures down to 3,000 m 

(10,000 feet) depth are also on the rise. More than 80 percent of the added heat resides in the ocean. The impacts of the increased heat content are described below. 

• Hurricane Intensity: It is likely that some increase in tropical cyclone peak 

wind-speed and rainfall will occur if the climate continues to warm; however, 

there is no firm conclusion on whether there is currently a global warming signal in the tropical cyclone climate record to date. 

• El Nin ̃ o: The El Nin ̃ o-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) system is a naturally occurring climate phenomenon that leads to major fluctuations in global climate patterns at approximately 3–7 year intervals. There is scientific debate over the 

influence that rising globally-averaged temperatures has had and will have on 

the frequency and intensity of ENSO fluctuations. What is certain is that natural fluctuations in temperature lead to warmer and cooler years than normal. 

If the average temperature is rising, as it has in the 20th century and is expected to in the 21st century, the warm temperatures during natural oscillations periods will be even hotter than those of the past. 

• Drought: Droughts have increased, consistent with acceleration in the water 

cycle and greater evaporation and transport of water vapor at the scale of continents. Observed changes in sea surface temperatures, circulation patterns and 

decreased snowpack and snow cover are also linked to drought. 

Question 11a. Can you highlight different regions that have experienced large increases in surface water temperature and how much the surface waters have 

warmed? 

Answer. According to the 4th Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group I, the oceans are warming. Recent warming is strongly evident at all latitudes in sea surface temperatures (SST) over each 

of the oceans: there are inter-hemispheric differences in warming in the Atlantic; 

the Pacific is punctuated by El Nin ̃ o events (discussed in detail in answer to question above) and Pacific decadal variability that is more symmetric around the equator; while the Indian ocean exhibits steadier warming throughout. These characteristics lead to important differences in regional rates of surface ocean warming, and 

understanding of the variability and trends in different oceans is still developing. 

A full discussion of observations and oceanic climate change and sea level is included in Chapters 3 and 5 of the IPCC Working Group I report. 

Estimating regional SST increases is more difficult than estimating global ocean 

temperature increases, due to uncertainties in how missing data points are dealt 

with and in correcting for systematic errors in measurements. These uncertainties 

are all amplified at the smaller scale (e.g., regional vs. global) and the further we 

go back in time. 

Given the uncertainties indicated above, following is a list of linear trends in SST 

in the tropics, computed over the period 1880–2006, in units of °C per 100 years— 

to get the total rise of the linear trend, multiply by 1.27: 

• Averaged across the tropics, sea surface temperatures have increased at a rate 

of 0.35–0.45° C per 100 years since the 1880s. 

• The largest tropical warming in the 20th century has occurred in the northern 

Indian Ocean (0.46–0.73° C per 100 years) and the southern tropical Atlantic 

(0.56¥0.77° C per 100 years) since 1880. 

• For the northern tropical Atlantic, the range is between 0.24–0.52° C per 100 

years since 1880. 

• In the tropics, the greatest uncertainty in temperature trend is in the eastern 

equatorial Pacific, where sparse data and strong natural year-to-year fluctuations associated with El Nin ̃ o/La Nin ̃ a make estimating the long-term trend 

more problematic than in other regions, the observationally-based estimates 

range from 0.12–0.5° C per 100 year since 1880. 

These trends are based on the Kaplan et al., (1998), Rayner et al., (2003), and 

Smith and Reynolds (2004) SST datasets, and are computed over the period 1880– 

2006. The exact regions used to calculate these trends: 

• Tropics: Global, 30° S–30° N. 

• Northern Indian Ocean: 50° E–100° E, 0° N–20° N. 

• South Atlantic: 40° W–10° E, 20° S–0° N. 

91 

• North Atlantic: 80° W–30° W, 5° N–20° N. 

• Eastern Equatorial Pacific: 150° W–90° W, 5° S–5° N. 

Literature Cited 

Betts, A.K. (1998) Climate-convection feedbacks: some further issues. Climatic 

Change. 39: 35–38. 

Betts, A.K., and W. Ridgway. (1989) Climatic Equilibrium of the Atmospheric 

Convective Boundary Layer over a Tropical Ocean. Journal of Atmospheric Science. 

46(7), 2621–2641. 

Caldeira, K. and Wickett, M.E. (2005) Ocean model predictions of chemistry 

changes from carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere and ocean. Journal of 

Geophysical Research—Oceans. 110: C09S4, doi: 10.1029/2004JC002671. 

Cane, M.A., A.C. Clement, A. Kaplan, Y. Kushnir, D. Pozdnyakov, R. Seager, S.E. 

Zebiak, and R. Murtugudde. (1997) 20thCentury Sea Surface Temperature Trends. 

Science. 275: 957–960. 

Cesar, H.; L. Pet-Soede, S. Westmacott, S. Mangi, and A. Aish. (2002) Economic 

Analysis of Coral Bleaching in the Indian Ocean—Phase II. In: Linden, O.; Souter, 

D.; Wilhelmsson, D.; and Obura, D. (eds), Coral degradation in the Indian Ocean: 

Status Report 2002. CORDIO, Department of Biology and Environmental Science, 

University of Kalmar, Kalmar, Sweden, 251–262. 

Cobb, K.M., C.D. Charles, and D.E. Hunter. (2001) A central tropical Pacific coral 

demonstrates Pacific, Indian, and Atlantic decadal climate connections. Geophysical 

Research Letters. 28(11): 2209–2212. 

Cobb, K.M., C.D. Charles, H. Cheng, and R.L. Edwards. (2003) El Nin ̃ o/Southern 

Oscillation and tropical Pacific climate during the last millennium. Nature. 424: 

271–276. 

Costanza, R.; R. d’Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R.V. O’Neill, J. Paruelo, R.G. Raskin, P. Sutton, and M. van den 

Belt. (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature. 

387: 253–260. 

Doney, S.C., N. Mahowald, I. Lima, R.A. Feely, F.T. Mackenzie, J.-F. Lamarque, 

and P.J. Rasch. (2007) The impact of anthropogenic atmospheric nitrogen and sulfur 

deposition on ocean acidification and the inorganic carbon system. Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Science [in press]. 

Donner, S.D., W.J. Skirving, C.M. Little, M. Oppenheimer, O. Hoegh-Guldberg. 

(2005) Global assessment of coral bleaching and required rates of adaptation under 

climate change. Global Change Biology. 11: 1–15. 

Feely, R.A., C.L. Sabine, K. Lee, W. Berelson, J. Kleypas, V.J. Fabry, and F.J. 

Millero. (2004) Impact of anthropogenic CO2 on the CaCO3 system in the oceans. 

Science. 305(5682): 362–366. 

Guinotte, J.M., R.W. Buddemeier, and J.A. Kleypas. (2003) Future coral reef habitat marginality: temporal and spatial effects of climate change in the Pacific basin. 

Coral Reefs. 22: 551–558. 

Guinotte, J.M., J. Orr, S. Cairns, A. Freiwald, L. Morgan, and R. George. (2006) 

Will human-induced changes in seawater chemistry alter the distribution of deepsea bioherm-forming scleractinians? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 4(3): 

141–146. 

Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, R. Ruedy, K. Lo, D.W. Lea, and M. Medina-Elizade. (2006) 

Global temperature change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. 103, 

14288–14293, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0606291103. 

Held, I.M. and B.J. Soden. (2006) Robust responses of the hydrological cycle to 

global warming. Journal of Climate. 19: 5686–5699. 

Kaplan, A., M. Cane, Y. Kushnir, A. Clement, M. Blumenthal, and B. 

Rajagopalan. (1998) Analyses of global sea surface temperature 1856–1991. Journal 

of Geophysical Research. 103: 18,567–18,589. 

Kleypas, J.A., R.A. Feely, V.J. Fabry, C. Langdon, C.L. Sabine, and L.L. Robbins. 

(2006) Impacts of ocean acidification on coral reefs and other marine calcifiers: A 

guide to future research. Report of a workshop held 18–20 April 2005, St. Petersburg, FL, sponsored by NSF, NOAA, and the U.S. Geological Survey, 88 pp. 

Knutson, T.R., and S. Manabe, 1995: Time-mean response over the tropical Pacific 

to increased CO2 in a coupled ocean-atmosphere model. Journal of Climate. 8(9): 

2181–2199. 

Lu, J., G.A. Vecchi and T. Reichler. (2007) Expansion of the Hadley cell under 

global warming. Geophysical Research Letters. 34: L06805. doi: 10.1029/ 

2006GL028443. 

Orr, J.C., V.J. Fabry, O. Aumont, L. Bopp, S.C. Doney, R.A. Feely, A. 

Gnanadesikan, N. Gruber, A. Ishida, F. Joos, R.M. Key, K. Lindsay, E. MaierVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:08 Mar 20, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\79908.TXT JACKIE
92 

Reimer, R. Matear, P. Monfray, A. Mouchet, R.G. Najjar, G.-K. Plattner, K.B. Rodgers, C.L. Sabine, J.L. Sarmiento, R. Schlitzer, R.D. Slater, I. Totterdell, M.-F. 

Weirig, Y. Yamanaka, and A. Yool (2005): Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the 

twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms. Nature. 437(7059): 681– 

686. 

Orr, J.C., L.G. Anderson, N.R. Bates, L. Bopp, V.J. Fabry, E. Jones, D. 

Swingedouw. (2006) Arctic Ocean Acidification. Eos, Transactions of the American 

Geophysical Union. 87(36): Ocean Science Meeting Supplement Abstract OS14B–01. 

Precht W.F. and R.B. Aronson. (2006) Death and resurrection of Caribbean reefs: 

a palaeoecological perspective. In: Coˆte ́ I., Reynolds J. (eds) Coral reef conservation. 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 40–77. 

Sabine, C.L., R.A. Feely, N. Gruber, R.M. Key, K. Lee, J.L. Bullister, R. 

Wanninkhof, C.S Wong, D.W.R. Wallace, B. Tilbrook, F.J. Millero, T.-H. Peng, A. 

Kozyr, T. Ono, and A.F. Rios. (2004) The oceanic sink for anthropogenic CO2. Science. 305(5682): 367–371. 

Schubert R., H.-J. Schellnhuber, N. Buchmann, A. Epiney, R. GrieΒhammer, M. 

Kulessa, D. Messner, S. Rahmstorf, J. Schmid, 2006: The Future Oceans—Warming 

up, Rising High, Turning Sour, Special Report from German Advisory Council on 

Global Change (WBGU), ISBN 3–936191–14–X, http://www.wbgu.de 110 pp. 

Stanley, G.D. (2006) Photosymbiosis and the Evolution of Modern Coral Reefs. 

Science. 312: 857–858. 

Rayner, N.A., D.E. Parker, E.B. Horton, C.K. Folland, L.V. Alexander, D.P. 

Rowell, E.C. Kent and A. Kaplan. (2003) Global analyses of sea surface temperature, 

sea ice, and night marine air temperature since the late nineteenth century. Journal of Geophysical Research. 108(D14): 4407, doi: 10.1029/2002JD002670. 

Smith, T.M., and R.W. Reynolds. (2004) Improved Extended Reconstruction of 

SST (1854–1997). Journal of Climate. 17: 2466–2477. 

van Oldenborgh, G.J., S.Y. Philip, and M. Collins. (2005) El Nin ̃ o in a changing 

climate: a multi-model study. Ocean Science. 1: 81–95. 

Vecchi, G.A., B.J. Soden, A.T. Wittenberg, I.M. Held, A. Leetmaa, M.J. Harrison. 

(2006) Weakening of Tropical Pacific Atmospheric Circulation due to Anthropogenic 

Forcing. Nature. 441(7089): 73–76. doi: 10.1038/nature04744. 

Vecchi, G.A., and B.J. Soden. (2007) Global warming and the weakening of tropical circulation. Journal of Climate (in press). 

Yin, J.H. (2005) A consistent poleward shift of the storm tracks in simulations of 

21st century climate. Geophysical Research Letters. 32: L18701, doi: 10.1029/ 

2005GL023684. 

Zhang, M. and H. Song. (2006) Evidence of deceleration of atmospheric vertical 

overturning circulation over the tropical Pacific. Geophysical Research Letters. 33: 

L12701, doi: 10.1029/2006GL025942. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE TO

DR. LARA J. HANSEN

Question 1. Coral reefs are not just critical habitat for fish. In my state of Hawaii, 

they are also an economic engine supporting both fishing and tourism. Is ocean 

acidification or the increase in sea temperature the more pressing issue for protecting and preserving Hawaii’s coral reefs and other marine resources and why? 

Answer. You can not prioritize one of these issues over the other. They share the 

same root cause and will both dramatically affect our Nation’s coral reefs. Increasing atmospheric CO2 is increasing global temperatures, including the ocean’s temperatures. This same CO2 is being absorbed by our oceans and lowering their pH. 

They are inextricably linked; prevent one and you prevent both, and if you fail to 

prevent either it will result in an increase in global as well as ocean temperatures. 

Unfortunately, we are already seeing the manifestation of both. It is possible that 

ocean acidification is the more ominous as we do not know all of the effects it will 

have, owing to our long believe that the ocean’s vast buffering capacity prevents 

such things in our timeframe. It exacerbates the ongoing adverse effects we have 

been seeing due to increasing water temperature for the past several decades. We 

must do everything we can to limit both. 

Question 2. How can we incorporate actions to address these issues into an overall 

management strategy for protecting Hawaii’s corals and other marine resources? 

Answer. There are four general steps that WWF feels are crucial to improving 

management in the face of climate change. First, you must assess where your resources are and ensure that those which are naturally more resilient are protected. 

Where possible you manage along climatological gradients so that these ecosystems 

can respond accordingly. Second, you must limit all of the non-climate stresses to 

93 

levels where climate change’s added stress does not exacerbate them, or vice versa. 

This includes further reducing acceptable levels of habitat loss and fragmentation, 

pollutants, invasive species, disease/pests, and over- or destructive harvest. Third, 

we need to start implementing these approaches as soon as possible, in a do-noharm manner, start monitoring them, adjust as necessary and share lessons widely. 

Fourth, we must reduce the rate and extent of climate change. This means to rapidly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

Question 3. Dr. Hansen, could you tell me what adaptation and mitigation steps 

you think the United States needs to take to address the threats that climate 

change and ocean acidification pose to our ocean resources? 

Answer. First and foremost we need to get serious about reducing greenhouse gas 

emissions. Nothing we have done to date gets close to what we must do to save our 

national and global economy, natural resources, biodiversity and well-being. We 

need to do this as quickly as possible. This means taking action to improve conservation of energy (fuel economy, reduced use of long-distance transmission of electricity, real standards on appliances), switch to renewable energies that produce no 

greenhouse gases and finally, decommission those sources of power generation that 

do. 

Second, we need to recognize that we are already committed to a certain level of 

climate change, likely about 2 degrees Celsius (I believe that even this is too much). 

We must also recognize that this will have serious impacts on our oceans, our citizens, our forests, our freshwater systems, our highway systems, our wastewater 

treatment facilities, and our agricultural system. We need to rethink every piece of 

legislation, and assess whether or not it is prepared for climate change. Are we 

making bad investments because they are vulnerable to the effects of climate 

change? We need to think proactively now because the climate is changing rapidly. 

There is a book about the Arctic climate experience called ‘‘The World is Faster 

Now’’. It is and we must be prepared. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARIA CANTWELL TO

DR. LARA J. HANSEN

Question 1. The most rigorous mitigation goal in the recent summary report by 

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is to stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas levels between 445 and 710 parts per million by 2030. But given that the 

current concentrations of atmospheric carbon are estimated at 379 parts per million, 

shouldn’t this target be set at a much lower level if we are to effectively address 

climate change? What is the expected temperature increase of this range? 

Answer. 2.0 to 4.0° C 

Question 1a. What would be the impacts on our ocean resources if we were to 

reach these emissions levels? 

Answer. Allowing emissions levels to reach the upper end of this range is still 

unfathomable. For the past 650,000 years we have stayed between about 180 and 

300 ppm. To now be at 384 ppm and say we are headed to 710 should be seen by 

this planet’s inhabitants as unacceptable. That amount of warming would mean unprecedented coral bleaching, loss of many, if not most coral species, altered marine 

food webs as species shift their ranges or simply disappear (imagine if you will what 

the loss of krill, the base of the marine food web, would mean for life on Earth?), 

changes in the dominant phytoplankton species (these are what produce most of our 

oxygen), loss of most of the world’s terrestrial ice causing massive sea level rise, altered ocean currents and even more heating as the planet becomes less reflective. 

All of these changes will cause unprecedented responses in human communities, 

such as movement of climate refuges, famine, and disease. In all honesty, this level 

of warming is not something that ecologists like to ponder; it may be one of the most 

cataclysmic scenarios that I can ponder. 

Question 1b. Do you think that policymakers should specifically take ocean impacts into account when setting emissions reductions targets? 

Answer. Absolutely. The oceans provide myriad services that we take for granted 

but they sustain life on this planet. We must also recognize that the more CO2 we 

put in the atmosphere, the greater the ocean acidification commitment, which is 

something that we do not fully understand the consequences of. 

Question 1c. Do current emissions reduction targets sufficiently consider ocean impacts? 

Answer. Most certainly not. 

Question 1d. How do you think policymakers should incorporate ocean impact concerns when setting emissions reduction targets? 

94 

Answer. Yes, please see above. 

Question 2. Dr. Hansen, I understand that you were part of a team that produced 

NOAA’s publication titled ‘‘A Reef Managers Guide To Coral Bleaching’’. This handbook acknowledges that climate change is outside of the immediate control of most 

managers, and recommends that the best management strategy is often to reduce 

stressors that are within local control—such as reducing pollution or overfishing. 

What can managers facing ocean acidification learn from this approach? What are 

some concrete steps in the short-term and long-term that can be taken to adapt to 

these impacts? 

Answer. Perhaps the most daunting challenge is to develop adaptation strategies 

in response to ocean acidification. It ranks up there with how to protect sea ice dependent creatures in a world without ice. The only short-term strategy that my 

team has developed is working to limit all of the other stresses so that systems can 

try to keep up with this change without it being exacerbated by other challenges. 

Unfortunately one of the key stresses that can aggravate this is warming waters. 

The same actions that cause acidification cause warming. 

Question 2a. Aside from reducing emissions, what other steps should policymakers 

be taking to address the impact of climate change and ocean acidification on the 

oceans? 

Answer. We should start doing everything we can to make ocean systems more 

robust, by reducing all of the other insults we have sent their way. But really, the 

only solution, the only lifeline for the oceans, is for us to stop dumping CO2 in them, 

which is exactly what we do when we dump it into the atmosphere. 

Question 3. What are the potential impacts of some of the currently proposed climate change mitigation strategies on the marine environment—such as iron stimulated plankton blooms or injection of CO2 into sea sediments? 

Answer. Storing CO2 in the world’s oceans, either through direct injection or stimulating phytoplankton assimilation is risky business. You are trading one environmental disaster for another. There may be some merit to storing carbon in old oil 

and gas deposits since they are presumably not environmentally sensitive locations, 

but this is not true of the ocean. In the case of injection, you are damaging the deep 

ocean communities which are very sensitive to such changes in pH and gas composition as they are extremely stable systems (very little variability in any physical parameters). You are also acidifying the oceans from the bottom up, rather than the 

top down. In the case of ocean ‘‘fertilization’’ you are increasing ocean productivity, 

which can have negative consequences as well as the desired. You will change the 

species composition of the phytoplankton community, selecting for species that are 

iron limited. These phytoplankton, in their current composition, provide many ecosystem services. Will the new set do so as well? We don’t know. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE TO

JAMES D. WATKINS

Question 1. Admiral Watkins, what are the most important steps that the United 

States should take to address the threats we are learning about today, in terms of 

research and monitoring, outreach and education, and adaptation and mitigation 

measures? Can you identify some specific actions that Congress should take to 

strengthen Federal efforts in the area of ocean impacts of climate change? 

Answer. This reply is to questions 1 and 3 from Chairman Inouye. Earlier this 

summer JOCI consulted with leading experts in ocean and climate change science 

and policy regarding the development of recommendation for incorporating oceans 

as part of climate change legislation under consideration by Congress. The Initiative 

suggests that Congress address the link between oceans and climate change by addressing needs in two key areas: governance reform and science. Clearly, additional 

funding will be necessary to make sustained progress in both areas. A more detailed 

discussion of our recommendations is included in the attached paper, which was 

sent to leaders in the House and Senate, as well as the Administration. I request 

that the entire text of the paper be included as part of my reply to the Committee’s 

follow-up questions. 

Below is brief summary of the key recommendations from the paper. 

Governance Reform 

Climate change involves complex and dynamic interactions of the atmosphere, 

ocean, land, their related ecosystems, and human activities. The complexity and 

breadth of issues associated with efforts to understand, mitigate, and adapt to climate change, the scale of its impacts from the local to the global level, and the need 

to understand the relationship between natural variability and climate change, 

95 

make it essential that the Nation have a coherent and comprehensive strategy to 

address this new challenge. This will require the establishment of a Climate Change 

Response Office to guide the development and implementation of a National Climate 

Change Response Strategy. 

Ocean science and management must be recognized as key elements of such a national response strategy. Actions that would help ensure this occur include codifying 

the White House Committee on Ocean Policy and charging it with supporting a 

broader National Climate Change Response Strategy. Another beneficial step would 

be to codify and strengthen the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA), which is the key Federal agency providing climate-related services and 

ocean management information. Finally, Congress should require a biennial integrated assessment of the Nation’s progress toward mitigating and adapting to climate change impacts. An integrated assessment evaluating the collective effort of 

Federal programs and activities will provide a baseline from which to measure 

progress and will help ensure the Nation is maximizing the use of available data 

and information to improve the caliber of forecasts and to evaluate the effectiveness 

of management actions. 

1. Charge the National Academy with recommending a process and strategy to 

respond to climate change, including consideration of the organization and functions of a National Climate Change Response Office responsible for guiding Federal programmatic and budgetary climate change activities. 

2. Codify and strengthen the White House Committee on Ocean Policy, and give 

it a key role in supporting the activities of the Climate Change Response Office. 

3. Codify and strengthen the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA), realigning the agency’s organizational structure to enhance and focus 

its capacity to provide climate-related services and improve ocean and coastal 

management. 

4. Require a biennial integrated assessment of the Nation’s progress toward 

meeting its objectives to mitigate and adapt to impacts associated with climate 

change and variability. 

5. Require the submission of an integrated budget to consolidate and highlight 

priorities established by the National Climate Change Response Office that 

would accompany the President’s annual budget request. 

Science Requirements 

Credible and timely scientific information will be essential as the Nation begins 

the process of responding to the challenges associated with climate change. A much 

more comprehensive and robust science enterprise that incorporates a better understanding of the ocean’s role in climate change is required to forecast more accurately 

the magnitude and intensity of this change at multiple scales, as well as to evaluate 

options for mitigation and adaptation. Unfortunately, the existing ocean and coastal 

science enterprise supporting climate change research, observations, data management, and socioeconomic analysis is limited. 

The status of infrastructure supporting ocean science, such as ship, satellites, 

buoys, cabled observatories, planes, and other monitoring hardware, is bleak. Additionally, support for shore-side lab work, where data for the observing systems is 

analyzed, quality-controlled, synthesized, and integrated, has eroded. Further underlying these weaknesses is a lack of capability to transmit large amounts of ocean 

data in real time and a disjointed data management system that prevents scientists 

from fully utilizing the data that are being collected now. 

Congress can begin to remedy this situation by calling on the administration to 

prioritize and request full funding to implement its Ocean Research Priorities Plan 

and Implementation Strategy (ORPPIS). ORPPIS provides a solid blueprint to guide 

research on the ocean’s role in climate. It is the first comprehensive research strategy developed by the Administration with input from the ocean community and 

should be used by Congress to guide its ocean science funding priorities. 

Congress should also authorize and fund the implementation of an Integrated 

Ocean Observing System (IOOS), with the system being driven by a cooperative 

interagency process that incorporates expertise from outside the Federal system. 

Sustained research and operational monitoring and analyses programs supported by 

enhanced data collection, management, and synthesis capabilities are the foundation of an observation system that can refine climate change models and reduce the 

level of uncertainty associated with their projections. 

Finally, Congress should support research and science programs focused on analyzing the potential impact various greenhouse gas mitigation strategies may have 

on ocean and coastal processes and ecosystem health. Recommendations for carbon 

96 

sequestration in the oceans will require particularly careful review, given our growing concern about the sensitivity of marine ecosystems to changes in the biogeochemistry of ocean waters as a result of increased absorption of carbon dioxide, in 

particular ocean acidification. 

1. Request prioritization of and provide funding to implement the Administration’s Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy, with a 

focus on developing a science enterprise that is responsive to societal and environmental concerns. 

2. Enact legislation authorizing the implementation of an Integrated Ocean Observing System, incorporating both coastal and global components. 

3. Fund major ocean observation research and monitoring infrastructure systems and supporting science and data management programs, such as an Integrated Ocean Observing System, the Ocean Observatories Initiative, research 

vessels, and remote sensing programs. 

4. Enhance funding support for transitioning ocean and atmospheric data collection and synthesis programs from research to operational status, with ongoing 

engagement of the ocean science community in the operation, evaluation, and 

evolution of the programs. 

5. Support research to evaluate the impact of greenhouse gas mitigation policies 

on coastal and ocean processes and ecosystem health (e.g., oceanic carbon sequestration, biofuel production). 

Question 2. Do you believe that the current Federal budget to address the ocean 

impacts of climate change is sufficient? 

Answer. Clearly, the answer is no, as I responded when Senator Stevens asked 

a similar questions during the hearing. The short- and long-term implications of climate change are significant in relationship to the impact on the environmental 

health of marine ecosystems and the economic vitality of coastal communities. In 

the recent Joint Initiative report to Congress, ‘‘From Sea to Shining Sea,’’ we identify $750 million in high priority funding needs to support the recommendations of 

the two Commissions. Much of the funding identified in this report would directly 

contribute to improving our understanding of the oceans role in climate processes, 

as well as strengthen coastal community’s capacity to adapt to the changes accompanying these shifts. For example, we support enhancing ocean governance and 

coastal management, such as improving interagency collaboration, expanding regional coordination, and strengthening programs that focus on system-wide watershed activities, such as the Coastal Zone Management Program and USDA and U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineer programs. 

In the science realm we call for oceans to be incorporated into the President’s 

American Competitiveness Initiative, for the expansion of ocean research and exploration initiatives, and building a strong Integrated Ocean Observing System to monitor, observe, map, and analyze changes in our oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes. A 

final area that demands attention, but always seems to be ignored, is support of 

education and outreach, for without an informed public there will be a lack of political will and scientific expertise to move us toward more sustainable management 

strategies. Again, I would refer Members of the Committee and Committee staff to 

our ‘‘From Sea to Shining Sea’’ report for more detailed funding recommendations. 

ATTACHMENT

Addressing Oceans and Climate Change in Federal Legislation 

July 2007 

Introduction 

The purpose of this paper is to provide Congress with information and recommendations to support the enactment of legislation that incorporates ocean 

science, management, and education into a national initiative to mitigate and adapt 

to climate change. This initiative must complement ongoing efforts to understand, 

monitor, and forecast changes associated with natural variability, such as El Nin ̃ o 

and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, since anthropogenic climate change will also impact the frequency, pattern, and severity of these natural processes. The goal is to 

improve our collective understanding of the role of the oceans in climate change in 

order to inform policies and strategies intended to reduce the vulnerability of and 

increase the resiliency of our economic and ecological systems to impacts associated 

with climate change. It is the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative’s view that this 

97 

1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Report of Working Group I The Physical 

Science Basis. 

goal can best be met through a broad national climate change response strategy 

that includes an emphasis on the oceans role in climate-related processes. 

After consultation with leading experts in ocean and climate change science and 

policy, the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative suggests that Congress address the 

link between oceans and climate change by addressing needs in two key areas: governance reform and science. Clearly, additional funding will be necessary to make 

sustained progress in both areas. The actions recommended by the Joint Ocean 

Commission Initiative are summarized below and discussed in more detail in the 

pages that follow. 

Governance Reform 

1. Charge the National Academy with recommending a process and strategy to 

respond to climate change, including consideration of the organization and functions of a National Climate Change Response Office responsible for guiding Federal programmatic and budgetary climate change activities. 

2. Codify and strengthen the White House Committee on Ocean Policy, and give 

it a key role in supporting the activities of the Climate Change Response Office. 

3. Codify and strengthen the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA), realigning the agency’s organizational structure to enhance and focus 

its capacity to provide climate-related services and improve ocean and coastal 

management. 

4. Require a biennial integrated assessment of the Nation’s progress toward 

meeting its objectives to mitigate and adapt to impacts associated with climate 

change and variability. 

5. Require the submission of an integrated budget to consolidate and highlight 

priorities established by the National Climate Change Response Office that 

would accompany the President’s annual budget request. 

Science Requirements 

1. Request prioritization of and provide funding to implement the Administration’s Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy, with a focus 

on developing a science enterprise that is responsive to societal and environmental concerns. 

2. Enact legislation authorizing the implementation of an Integrated Ocean Observing System, incorporating both coastal and global components. 

3. Fund major ocean observation research and monitoring infrastructure systems and supporting science and data management programs, such as an Integrated Ocean Observing System, the Ocean Observatories Initiative, research 

vessels, and remote sensing programs. 

4. Enhance funding support for transitioning ocean and atmospheric data collection and synthesis programs from research to operational status, with ongoing 

engagement of the ocean science community in the operation, evaluation, and 

evolution of the programs. 

5. Support research to evaluate the impact of greenhouse gas mitigation policies 

on coastal and ocean processes and ecosystem health (e.g., oceanic carbon sequestration, biofuel production). 

The Role of Oceans in Climate Change 

Increasing awareness and concerns about climate change have elevated the urgency to take action to mitigate its causes and make preparations to adapt to its 

anticipated economic and environmental impacts. At continental, regional, and 

ocean basin scales, numerous long-term changes in climate have been observed. 

These include changes in arctic temperatures and ice, as well as widespread 

changes in, ocean salinity, wind patterns, the quantity of precipitation, and various 

aspects of extreme weather.1 As Congress moves forward in developing climate 

change policies, the accompanying legislation should recognize the fundamental role 

oceans play in governing climate change and Earth-related processes. Some important facts regarding the relationship between oceans and climate change include the 

following: 

98 

2Doney, Scott. 2006. The Dangers of Ocean Acidification. Scientific American (March). 3 Executive Order 13366, 2004. 

• Oceans cover 71 percent of the Earth’s surface and average over 12,200 feet in 

depth. 

• Water holds approximately 1,000 times the amount of heat as air, and the 

interaction between ocean circulation and the global distribution of heat is the 

primary driver of climatic patterns. 

• The oceans are warming, particularly since 1950s, with global mean sea surface 

temperature having increased roughly one degree Fahrenheit in the 20th century.2

• Sea levels rose 7 inches during the 20th century and nearly 1.5 inches between 

1993 and 2003 alone.2

• Oceans are a major carbon sink and have absorbed fully half of all fossil carbon 

released to the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.2

• The absorption of carbon has resulted in increasing ocean acidification, impacting the health of marine ecosystems and species, including, but not limited to, 

those with carbonate-based skeletons (e.g., corals), as well as influencing the important role ocean plays in the global cycling of carbon. 

• Little to no Arctic sea ice is expected in the summers by 2100.2

Governance Reform to Address Oceans and Climate Change 

Climate change involves complex and dynamic interactions of the atmosphere, 

ocean, land, their related ecosystems, and human activities. The complexity and 

breadth of issues associated with efforts to understand, mitigate, and adapt to climate change, the scale of its impacts from the local to the global level, and the need 

to understand the relationship between natural variability and climate change make 

it essential that the Nation have a coherent and comprehensive strategy to address 

this new challenge. 

Unfortunately, there is general agreement in the scientific community that the 

current Federal climate change governance regime is too limited in scope and must 

be expanded if it is to be truly comprehensive. A Climate Change Response Office 

is required to guide the development and implementation of a National Climate 

Change Response Strategy. Such an office must have the authority to direct the activities of multiple Federal agencies and have a strong role in the budget formulation process. This will require designing and implementing a strategy that balances 

the need to conduct basic and applied research, monitoring and analysis, and modeling and forecasting, with the goal of translating data into information products 

that can be used to develop sound policies to mitigate and adapt to environmental 

and socioeconomic impacts stemming from climate change. 

Ocean science and management must be recognized as key elements of a national 

response strategy. Thus, the existing interagency coordination process operating 

under the White House Committee on Ocean Policy 3 should be codified and charged 

with supporting the effort to institutionalize a broader National Climate Change Response Strategy. An additional action needed to strengthen the Federal Government’s capacity to respond to climate change is to codify and strengthen the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). As a key provider of climate-related services and ocean management information, and as one of the principle agencies investigating the ocean’s role in climate variability, NOAA plays a 

lead role in matters related to climate change. However, an outdated organizational 

structure and the lack of resources have limited NOAA’s ability to fulfill its multiple 

mandates. The opportunity is ripe for Congress to reevaluate NOAA’s organizational 

structure and realign programs along its core functions: environmental assessment, 

prediction, and operations; scientific research and education; and marine resource 

and area management. Strengthening NOAA and realigning its functions would 

greatly enhance its capacity to provide climate-related services and facilitate the implementation of proactive management measures to mitigate anticipated impacts on 

coastal economies and ecosystems. 

Finally, Congress should require a biennial integrated assessment of the Nation’s 

progress toward mitigating and adapting to climate change impacts. An integrated 

assessment evaluating the collective effort of Federal programs and activities will 

provide a baseline from which to measure progress and will help ensure the Nation 

is maximizing the use of available data and information to improve the caliber of 

forecasts and to evaluate the effectiveness of management actions. An additional 

step that would facilitate better integration of Federal programs would be a requirement for the submission of an integrated budget that clearly identifies priorities esVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:08 Mar 20, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\79908.TXT JACKIE
99 

tablished by the proposed National Climate Change Response Office and how those 

priorities relate to and complement efforts directed at understanding the ocean’s 

role in climate change. Congressional oversight of the Federal budget is its most 

powerful tool, but Congress’ capacity to help guide a response to an issue as complex 

as climate change is compromised when information is dispersed throughout the 

President’s budget. 

Ocean and Coastal Science Requirements 

Credible and timely scientific information will be essential as the Nation begins 

the process of responding to the challenges associated with climate change. Better 

science, when linked with improved risk management and adaptive management 

strategies, will help guide a process that must deal with the relatively high levels 

of uncertainty related to mitigation alternatives and the range of impacts associated 

with climate change and variability. A much more comprehensive and robust science 

enterprise that incorporates a better understanding of the ocean’s role in climate 

change is required to forecast more accurately the magnitude and intensity of this 

change at multiple scales, as well as to evaluate options for mitigation and adaptation. This process must also include strengthening capacity in the social sciences, 

whose contributions will influence risk and adaptive management strategies significantly given the immense economic impact climate change will have on coastal communities. 

Unfortunately, the existing ocean and coastal science enterprise supporting climate change research, observations, data management, and socioeconomic analysis 

is limited. Despite the unprecedented opportunities to capitalize on technological advances, future capacity is compromised due to a lack of fiscal support for key infrastructure and science programs. For example, the U.S. commitment to constructing 

an observing system focused on studying physical ocean processes is only half complete, while satellite systems responsible for generating invaluable data across large 

areas of oceans are aging. The construction of replacement systems are behind 

schedule, over budget, and as currently configured, may have less capacity than the 

systems they are replacing. The status of infrastructure supporting on and underwater ocean science, such as ship, buoys, cabled observatories, planes, and other underwater monitoring hardware, is bleak. Additionally, support for shore-side lab 

work, where data for the observing systems is analyzed, quality-controlled, synthesized, and integrated, has eroded. Further underlying these weaknesses is a lack 

of capability to transmit large amounts of ocean data in real-time and a disjointed 

data management system that prevents scientists from fully utilizing the data that 

are being collected now. Stagnant funding supports only bare-bones research, monitoring, modeling, and analysis enterprises that have difficulty providing the quantity and quality of data needed to generate information with the relatively high levels of confidence demanded by decisionmakers facing difficult policy choices. 

Congress can begin to remedy this situation by taking the following series of 

steps. First, it should call on the administration to prioritize and request full funding to implement its Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy 

(ORPPIS). ORPPIS provides a solid blueprint to guide research on the ocean’s role 

in climate, including the development of a comprehensive observing system and 

other ocean-related research priorities that will improve our ability to enhance the 

resiliency of marine ecosystems and coastal economies to climate-induced changes. 

Particularly noteworthy in ORPPIS is its emphasis on using improved understanding to provide better and timelier policy and resource management decisions, 

relying on much stronger support for social and economic research. It is the first 

comprehensive research strategy developed by the Administration with input from 

the ocean community and should be used by Congress to guide its ocean science 

funding priorities. 

Congress should also authorize and fund the implementation of an Integrated 

Ocean Observing System (IOOS). Support for the implementation of the coastal and 

global IOOS should be driven by a cooperative interagency process that incorporates 

expertise from outside the Federal system. Congressional support should also extend 

to major observing initiatives supported by the National Science Foundation, as well 

as to remote sensing satellite programs supported by NASA’s Earth Science program. As noted earlier, the loss or diminishment of remote sensing capabilities, in 

addition to the lack of support for transitioning ocean and atmospheric data collection and synthesis program from research to operational status, has significantly 

compromised our Nation’s capacity to monitor the vast expanse of the ocean. Sustained research and operational monitoring and analyses programs supported by enhanced data collection, management, and synthesis capabilities are the foundation 

of an observation system that can refine climate change models and reduce the level 

of uncertainty associated with their projections. 

100 

Finally, Congress should support research and science programs focused on analyzing the potential impact various greenhouse gas mitigation strategies may have 

on ocean and coastal processes and ecosystem health. Recommendations for carbon 

sequestration in the oceans will require particularly careful review, given our growing concern about the sensitivity of marine ecosystems to changes in the biogeochemistry of ocean waters as a result of increased absorption of carbon dioxide, in 

particular ocean acidification. Similarly, increased biofuel production will generate 

additional runoff of nutrients, herbicides, and pesticides, further exacerbating pollution and nutrient enrichment problems in coastal waters. 

Given their immense size, fundamental role as a driver of climate processes, and 

critical social and economic importance, it is imperative that Congress focus greater 

attention and resources on improving our understanding and management of our 

oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes. The actions recommended above are important 

steps that will lay the foundation for making great advances in ocean science and 

allow meaningful progress toward improved stewardship of one of nation’s greatest 

natural resources. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARIA CANTWELL TO

JAMES D. WATKINS

Question 1. Admiral Watkins, do you think that policymakers should specifically 

take ocean impacts into account when setting emissions reductions targets? Do current emissions reduction targets sufficiently consider ocean impacts? How do you 

think policymakers should incorporate ocean impact concerns when setting emissions reduction targets? 

Answer. I cannot say how much consideration climate scientist and policymakers 

are giving to impacts on ocean-related chemistry and ecology as they evaluate various emission reduction scenarios. However, I strongly suspect that it is inadequate, 

particularly in light of the testimony presented at the hearing suggesting that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels in excess of 450 ppm may have the potential of sufficiently increasing the acidity of surface ocean water to levels that would begin to 

jeopardize phytoplankton productivity and the capacity of other carbonate-extracting 

species from forming shells and skeletons. 

It is this concern and others that are driving the Joint Initiative’s effort to elevate 

awareness of the role of oceans in climate processes. In order for policymakers to 

make informed and balanced decisions regarding the incorporation of ocean-related 

concerns in the emission reduction targeting process, they should pursue two strategies. First, they should support additional ocean science to get a better understanding of natural variability in the system, and how the accumulation of humangenerated emissions are exacerbating this variability and driving other changes. 

Second, given the fact that acquiring this information will take some time, policymakers should strongly consider taking a precautionary approach in the target setting process. By this I mean taking a prudent, balanced approach that acknowledges 

the vulnerability of the ocean ecosystem to dramatic increases in carbon-based emissions, while also recognizing the multiple economic benefits and services provided 

by our oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes. As more information become available, the 

framework developed should be flexible and capable of adapting to new information. 

I remain very concerned about the short-sightedness of prior policies that contributed to the degradation of our oceans and coasts and strongly encourage a new 

strategy that incorporates full consideration of the health of our oceans and coastal 

communities into the decisionmaking process. 

Finally, given the increased focus on identifying technologies capable of capturing 

carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases; it is imperative that support for these 

efforts include funding to study the potential impact of storing these gases in or 

under our oceans. We now have a much better appreciation for the sensitive ecological balance in our oceans and must take great care not to further exacerbate existing problems by assuming our oceans are capable of further degradation. 

Question 2. Admiral Watkins, how can we improve our ocean and Earth observation programs to ensure understanding of the impacts of global climate change and 

ocean acidification on the marine environment? 

Answer. Perhaps the single most important step we can make is to implement 

and fully fund an Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS). The Joint Initiative 

reiterates this point in its recent climate change and oceans paper, which I reference in my response to Chairman Inouye’s questions, as well as in our report to 

Congress, ‘‘From Sea to Shining Sea.’’ The IOOS system, as conceived by the ocean 

science community, covers the spectrum of observations. This system includes a progression of activities and programs, starting with studying and understanding ongoVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:08 Mar 20, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\79908.TXT JACKIE
101 

ing physical, chemical, and biological processes occurring in the oceans and along 

our coasts, to gain a better knowledge of how various components within the system 

operate and interact. The second element of the strategy includes developing and 

implementing systematic and sustainable observation systems, consisting of remote 

(satellite), in situ (buoys, stationary sensors), and mobile platforms (vessels, SUVs), 

that provide a steady accounting of changes in system processes. The third element 

is to use this information to refine climate and ocean models, increasing their capacity to provide credible and accurate forecasts of changes in the functioning of natural systems. 

There are significant infrastructure costs associated with establishing such a system, as well as support for the synthesis and integration of the wealth of information generated by the system. However, the costs associated with this effort are 

minimal given the significant fiscal benefits resulting from the improved accuracy, 

credibility, and reliability a comprehensive earth observation system will provide. 

The information provided by a fully operational IOOS will be invaluable as Congress 

and other policymakers wrestle with difficult policy decisions that have significant 

socioeconomic impacts, not the least of which will be determining an appropriate 

target for emission reductions. 

Æ