1

File Title

Inherency
Status quo data collection is ineffective and time consuming
Signell and Snowden 14 [Richard P. Signell, U.S. Geological Survey, Derrick P. Snowden, U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System Office, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 3/19/14, Advances in a Distributed Approach for Ocean Model Data Interoperability
http://testbed.sura.org/sites/default/files/jmse-02-00194.pdf //jweideman]

Ocean modelers typically require many different types of input data for forcing, assimilation and
boundary conditions, and routinely produce GB or larger amounts of output data. Depending on which model is used, the horizontal coordinate of the
output data may be on a regular, curvilinear, or unstructured (e.g., triangular) grid, while the vertical coordinate may be on a uniform or stretched grid with a
number of different possibilities (e.g., sigma, sigma-over-z, s-coordinate, isopycnal). Ocean

modelers therefore often spend large

amounts of time on mundane data manipulation tasks such as searching and reformatting data from
external sources, writing custom readers for specific models so that results between models can be
compared and assessed, as well as responding to custom data requests from consumers of their model
products. Better tools reduce time spent on these mundane data manipulation tasks, thereby increasing
time spent on modeling and analysis work. The U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (U.S. IOOS ) has been working on
better tools to support not only its member organizations, but the entire ocean science community. U.S.
IOOS (hereafter referred to simply as IOOS), is a collaboration between Federal, State, Local, Academic and Commercial partners to manage ocean
observing and modeling systems to meet the unique needs of each region around the US [13]. Federal partners
provide the National Backbone, and 11 IOOS Regional Associations (RAs) build upon the backbone with local assets to create observational and modeling
systems designed to be more than the sum of the parts, capable of responding to the societal needs of each individual region (e.g., harmful algal blooms,
eutrophication, search and rescue, oil spills, navigation, mariculture) (Figure 1). In 2008, IOOS held a community modeling workshop attended by 57 members
spanning federal, research and private sectors, including modelers and stakeholders, and the workshop produced a report with nine specific recommendations to
advance the state of ocean modeling in the US *4+. One of recommendations was to develop an implementation plan for a distributed, one-stop shopping national
data portal and archive system for ocean prediction input and output data. The US Geological Survey (USGS) had been working on model data interoperability for
their collaborative projects on sediment transport modeling [57] and in 2009 agreed to send one of their modelers to the U.S. IOOS Program Office, within the
National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for a one year detail to lead the effort.

Current efforts to create an integrated ocean observation system are inadequate.

U.S. IOOS Summit Report 13 (A New Decade for the Integrated Ocean Observing System
http://www.ioos.noaa.gov/about/governance/summit2012/usioos_summit_report.pdf) During

the past decade of U.S. IOOS

design and implementation, the world and our nation have experienced significant changes in
technology, economy, security, and the environment. Data processing capacity has moved from
kilobytes to terabytes to zettabytes, and pocket-sized smart phones are ubiquitous among potential
users of ocean data. Despite major economic cycles across most of the world economies, most goods
continue to be delivered by sea, in ever larger merchant ships. The increase of global terrorism has brought
attention to the relatively open access of ports and potential gaps in security for most of the world's
most intensely populated and commerce-filled areas. The awesome power of nature has been seen in
devastating tsunamis and widespread damage from super-storms, which have affected trillions of
dollars of wealth and commerce. The societal needs that inspired the development of U.S. IOOS ten years ago have largely
progressed as anticipated -- except that need has grown far greater and faster than projected. As we envision the needs of U.S. IOOS users in
2022, we must examine, and attempt some predictions about, the drivers of ocean product needs over the next decade. The

world
population today is 7 billion, projected to increase by another billion over the coming decade, and
people continue to move towards coastal areas in the United States and around the globe. The role
maritime commerce plays in our national economy is largely underappreciated. The bulk of U.S.
foreign trade -- 99% by volume, 62% by value - travels by ship. Beyond shipborne commerce, investments in

2
File Title
a wide range of ocean-related services - for petroleum exploitation, fisheries, recreation and tourism, as
well as growing areas like wind, wave and tidal power, aquaculture, and reinsurance - will provide new
jobs and will increasingly depend on expanded, reliable, more timely, more user-friendly ocean and
coastal observation and prediction products. Ocean information will become an increasingly valuable
commodity worldwide, because of the role of maritime commerce and new ocean-related investments,
vulnerability to ocean-related natural disasters, the need to provide security for coastal populations, and
the challenges of providing food and water for more people. Continued advances in information
technology and social networking will require significant changes in how we interact with users. We must
not only provide U.S. IOOS products on these platforms, and keep up with the technology advances, but we must also develop ways to respond
to the fact that these users will increasingly become more active in both providing local data and real-time critiques of U.S. IOOS products. Over
the next decade, a number of drivers will affect the budget climate in the U.S. for ocean observation. Public policy will demand greater
accountability, with Congress and local jurisdictions asking for measures of effectiveness in safety, security, economic development and general
public welfare. U.S. Government budgets will face increasing downward pressures; technology innovations will reduce
costs for ocean observations and data dissemination; and private sector investment in U.S. lOOS-related efforts will increase. The U.S. IOOS
community will need to resolve numerous policy issues concerning public-private partnership, governance, and shared liability for ocean
observations and products. Parallel ongoing revolutions in communications, knowledge processing and transportation are realigning the
standing of countries all over the world, including the relative position of the United States among the leading societies and economies of the
21 st century. Indeed, some have characterized the challenge of the future in terms of defining the role of a "Blue Economy" in addressing the
key applications of water, food, coastal real estate, and energy (Michael B. Jones, 2012). 3. The Challenge There

has been an
unprecedented boom in information content providers with increasing numbers of people consuming all
types of information, and this data explosion will continue. The accuracy and reliability of the
information is critical, however, especially if it is used for business decisions or public safety purposes,
and U.S. IOOS must address this issue more fully. People need technology and access to the right
information so they can make the best decisions possible, wherever they are and whenever they need it.
Most people do not know when they will need critical information, or what kind of information they will
need until they get into a situation where critical, even life-saving, decisions need to be made. We must
address this problem by delivering clear, user- friendly access to coordinated national, regional and local productsbefore, during and after
disasters. The

amount of ocean observations collected today is impressive, and storm and natural disaster forecasting
and warnings are improving, but we have yet to understand some fundamental questions about storm
intensification. The future U.S. IOOS must offer proactive alerts and messages when certain warning
criteria are met, along with local implications of these changes, and the delivery pathways of this
information to serve citizens must be improved. In many emergency response situations, where multiple
jurisdictions and disciplines interact, rapid information exchange is severely hampered by differences in
hardware, software, data formats, and mapping/visualization products. As a result, potentially critical
information often does not make it into the hands of the people who need it the most. U.S. IOOS must
address this issue by championing data and product standards. Our challenge is to build a system that is operationally
reliable, economically sustainable, politically and scientifically defensible, and technologically evolvable.

3
File Title

Plan
The United States Federal Government should fully fund and implement the
integrated ocean observing system outlined by the National Ocean council.
These systems include observing systems, sensors, data collections, and data
management mapping. The United States federal government should integrate this
system nationally.
We reserve the right to fiat and clarify.

4
File Title

Solvency
An integrated operating system is essential to understanding the ocean and its
impacts on the US.
U.S. IOOS SUMMIT REPORT 13
A New Decade for the Integrated Ocean Observing System
http://www.ioos.noaa.gov/about/governance/summit2012/usioos_summit_report.pdf
The ocean is of fundamental importance to the national security and economy of the United States.
Decades of focused investment in ocean observing and prediction have produced many examples of
substantive societal and economic benefit resulting from improved knowledge of ocean and coastal
waters and their behavior. Many complex and difficult questions about the ocean remain, including
many that have implications for the lives and livelihoods of millions of Americans. Because the ocean
provides much of the oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere, provides all of the fresh water on land through
a cycle of evaporation-to-clouds-to-rain, and regulates the Earth's climate, the overall state of the global
ocean and its changes profoundly affect all Americans, in fact all of humankind. Recognizing this, the
United States has embarked on a series of efforts to develop an ocean observing system capable of
addressing broad societal needs. This system is known as the U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (U.S. IOOS"). The activities
and members of the U.S. IOOS community are broad and complex. There are 18 Federal agencies involved in the U.S. IOOS program, as well as
11 U.S. IOOS Regional Associations that encompass efforts focused in U.S. coastal waters, the Great Lakes, and U.S. territories and their waters
in the Pacific and the Caribbean. In addition, there are many Federal and academic scientists representing the U.S. Government in various
United Nations-sponsored groups that plan and oversee global ocean observation programs. This diverse community is managed largely
through cooperation rather than clear directive or budgetary authority, which has contributed to both the strong growth, and the integration

A major focus for the next decade of U.S. IOOS is to develop

comprehensive processes that more fully integrate the requirements, technologies, data/product
development and dissemination, testing and modeling efforts across the regional, national, and global
sectors of the U.S. IOOS program.
weaknesses, of the U.S. IOOS program.

Integration through IOOS is key to effectiveness---the alternative is uncoordinated

research that fails to deliver information to relevant decision-makers
David L. Martin 3, PhD in Oceanography from the University of Washington, Associate Director,
Applied Physics Laboratory at the University of Washington, former Director of the Operational
Oceanography Center at the Naval Oceanographic Office, The National Oceanographic Partnership
Program, Ocean.US, and Real Movement Towards an Integrated and Sustained Ocean Observing
System, Oceanography Vol 6 No 4, http://www.tos.org/oceanography/archive/16-4_martin_d.pdf
The oceans are of fundamental importance to our society. They are energy sources and modifiers of our weather, a buffer for the security
of our nation, vast reservoirs of living resources, natural laboratories for scientists and educators, highways for national and international commerce and places of
recreation for our citizenry. Human

population growth and its preferential concentration in coastal regions around the
world however is subjecting the oceans, particularly the coastal ecosystems, to increasing pressures and
damaging their ability to deliver the goods and services, with those services ranging from the dilution of human effluent to serving as
nursery grounds for commercial fisheries, upon which we have come to depend. In order to make rational, scientifically
sound decisions about a host of activities that impact the ocean and coastal ecosystems, we must have two
fundamental capabilities: first, we must be able, on a comprehensive and cosmopolitan basis, to monitor the present state of

5
File Title
the ocean and coastal ecosystems, and second, we must be able to make robust predictions about the future
states of these ecosystems. We have neither of these capabilities today. As a nation, the United States has
historically responded to these two grand challenges in an uncoordinated and frequently competitive fashion. Thus, when considering the sum of all

ocean monitoring related efforts across the various governmental components of our federalist structure (e.g., federal,
tribal, state and local), these programs are frequently duplicative, are inherently inefficient from a resource expenditure standpoint, and,
most importantly, they fail to deliver information and knowledge on the causes and consequences of
anthropogenic actions and natural variability in a timely enough manner to allow their incorporation into
scientifically sound decision making about the ocean and coastal environment. This need not be the case.
There has been a convergence of interests and understanding about the importance of developing and maintaining
an integrated and sustained ocean observing system (IOOS) in both the international and national arenas over the past decade. Because of this decadal focus on
sustained ocean observations and convergence of interests in the political realm that understand the importance of developing this vital national capability, the
time has come to close the gap between scientifically sound, long-term ocean observations and the decision making process.

6
File Title

Environment
IOOS provides key information that helps create effective management policies
Dr. Andrew Rosenberg 11 (Ph.D. in Biology from Dalhousie University, Prof of Natural Resources at the University of New
Hampshire, former Deputy Director of the NOAAs National Marine Fisheries Service, June 8 2011, U.S. Ocean Policy Should Lead the Way for

U.S. Ocean Policy

Should Lead the Way for Global Reform Dr. Andrew Rosenberg At Conservation International, we know that while humans are mostly confined to the quarter of the
planet covered by land, we are surrounded and sustained by vast oceans. In addition to supporting incredible
biodiversity, oceans provide benefits to people in the form of food, energy, recreation, tourism and desirable places to live. They are also a tremendous
Global Reform, http://blog.conservation.org/2011/06/u-s-ocean-policy-should-lead-the-way-for-global-reform/)

economic driver, generating an estimated 69 million jobs and over $8 trillion dollars in wages per year in the United States alone. From renewable energy sources like wave and wind power to offshore aquaculture and deep-sea

oceans and coasts provide new opportunities for technology developers, manufacturers, engineers and others in a vast supply chain to
discover, innovate and develop new economic opportunities around the globe. America can lead this global innovation. Unfortunately, the
health of our oceans is in serious decline; in too many places, coastal water quality is poor, fisheries are stressed,
habitats for ocean life are degraded and endangered marine species are struggling to recover. Disasters such as last years BP oil spill have
damaged the oceans and their inhabitants, which in turn has stressed the communities and industries that depend on healthy oceans. To turn the tide, our national, state and local leaders must
make a commitment to more coordinated management of ocean resources. Our decisions must be based
on sound science, and scientific work must be a funding priority in order for us to gain the benefits the oceans can provide. The Joint Ocean
bioprospecting, our

Commission Initiative recently released Americas Ocean Future, a report that calls on leaders to support full and effective implementation of our nations first national ocean policy the National Policy for Stewardship of Ocean,

established by President Obama in July of 2010. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the national ocean
policy has the potential to act as a catalyst for long-awaited and important reforms, including enhanced
monitoring, assessment and analysis of the condition of our ocean ecosystems, how they affect and are
affected by human activity and whether management strategies are achieving our environmental, social
and economic goals. Using these tools to better understand our oceans will help us to more effectively
manage these resources and strengthen coastal economies and communities across the country. As a member of the Joint Initiatives Leadership Council and an advisor to the Interagency Ocean
Policy Task Force, I believe that monitoring what is happening in our oceans is critical to understanding how the physical,
biological, chemical and human elements of ocean ecosystems interact. The Joint Initiative report recommends fully
supporting an ocean observation system that would integrate data from sensors at the bottom of the
ocean, from buoys on the oceans surface and from satellites with remote sensing technology high above the Earth. The
report also emphasizes the importance of better integrating the study of our planets climate and ocean systems. We need to have a better understanding of how
climate change affects the health of our oceans and marine life in order to develop strategies to mitigate
negative consequences on ocean ecosystems and coastal communities. The report notes that information about climate impacts will be
Coasts and Great Lakes which was

particularly important for coastal areas with infrastructure that is vulnerable to rising sea levels and strong coastal storms, including communities with naval facilities and transportation and energy infrastructure near the coast.

data and information collected

from research activities will be used to inform coastal development, promote sustainable and safe
fishing practices, and develop vibrant marine-based recreation and tourism. And promoting the education of our next generation of marine
The development of expanded and improved science, research and education around our oceans is a sound investment in improving our economy. The

scientists will help us compete in a global economy increasingly driven by scientific and technological innovation.

Ocean ecosystems are collapsing only our plan can mobilize international solutions
through effective management policies
Sherman 11 (Kenneth, 2011, The application of satellite remote sensing for assessing productivity in relation to fisheries yields of the
worlds large marine ecosystems, ICES Journal of Marine Science, US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Ph.D, Director of U.S. LME Program, Director of the Narragansett Laboratory and Office of
Marine Ecosystem Studies at the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, adjunct professor in the Graduate School of Oceanography at the
University of Rhode Island) In 1992, world

leaders at the historical UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED)

recognized that the exploitation of resources in coastal oceans was becoming increasingly unsustainable,
resulting in an international effort to assess, recover, and manage goods and services of large marine ecosystems (LMEs). More than $3 billion
in support to 110 economically developing nations have been dedicated to operationalizing a five-module approach supporting LME

7
File Title
assessment and management practices. An

important component of this effort focuses on the effects of climate

change on fisheries biomass yields of LMEs, using satellite remote sensing and in situ sampling of key
indicators of changing ecological conditions. Warming appears to be reducing primary productivity in the
lower latitudes, where stratification of the water column has intensified. Fishery biomass yields in the Subpolar LMEs of the Northeast Atlantic
are also increasing as zooplankton levels increase with warming.

During the current period of climate warming, it is

especially important for space agency programmes in Asia, Europe, and the United States to continue to
provide satellite-borne radiometry data to the global networks of LME assessment scientists.
Overfishing, pollution, habitat loss, and climate change are causing serious degradation in the worlds
coastal oceans and a downward spiral in economic benefits from marine goods and services. Prompt
and large-scale changes in the use of ocean resources are needed to overcome this downward spiral. In 1992,
the world community of nations convened the first global conference of world leaders in Rio de Janeiro to address ways and means to improve
the degraded condition of the global environment (Robinson et al., 1992). Ten years later (2002), at a follow-up World Summit on Sustainable
Development in Johannesburg (Sherman, 2006), world leaders agreed to a Plan of Implementation for several marine-related targets including
achievement of: (i) substantial reductions in land-based sources of pollution by 2006; (ii) introduction of the ecosystems approach to marine
resource assessment and management by 2010; (iii) designation of a network of marine protected areas by 2012; and (iv) maintenance and
restoration of fish stocks to maximum sustainable yield levels by 2015. More recently, in

Copenhagen in 2009, world leaders agreed to

non-binding actions to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to mitigate the effects of global climate change. For the period 20102020, the

international community of maritime nations is pursuing solutions for recovering depleted marine fish
stocks, restoring degraded habitats, controlling pollution, nutrient overenrichment, and ocean
acidification, conserving biodiversity, and adapting to climate change. This effort at improving the
ecological condition of the worlds 64 large marine ecosystems (LMEs) is global in scope and ecosystems-orientated in
approach (Sherman et al., 2005). LMEs are regions of 200 000 km2 or more, encompassing coastal areas from estuaries to the continental slope
and the seaward extent of well-defined current systems along coasts lacking continental shelves (Figure 1). They are defined by ecological
criteria including bathymetry, hydrography, productivity, and trophically linked populations (Sherman, 1994). The LMEs

produce 80% of
the worlds marine fisheries yields annually and are growing sinks of coastal pollution and nutrient overenrichment. They also
harbour degraded habitats (e.g. corals, seagrasses, mangroves, and oxygen-depleted dead zones). The Global Environment Facility
(GEF), a financial group located in Washington, DC, supports developing countries committed to the recovery and sustainability of coastal ocean
areas, by providing financial and catalytic support to projects that use LMEs as the geographic focus for ecosystem-based strategies to reduce
coastal pollution, control nutrient overenrichment, restore damaged habitats, recover depleted fisheries, protect biodiversity, and adapt to
climate change (Duda and Sherman, 2002).

Accelerating ocean loss causes the extinction of several key species, which could in
turn negatively impact humans as well
Alex David Rogers 6/20/11 (Ph.D. in marine invertebrate systematics and genetics from the University of Liverpool is a Professor in
Conservation Biology at the Department of Zoology, University of Oxford AND Dan Laffoley, PhD on marine ecology at the University of Exeter,
and Senior Advisor, Marine Science and Conservation Global Marine and Polar Programme (IPSO Oxford, International earth system expert
workshop on ocean stresses and impacts, July 20, 2011, http://www.stateoftheocean.org/pdfs/1906_IPSO-LONG.pdf) The workshop enabled
leading experts to take a global view on how all the different effects we are having on the ocean are compromising its ability to support us. This
examination of synergistic threats leads to the conclusion that we have underestimated the overall risks and that the whole

of marine
degradation is greater than the sum of its parts, and that degradation is now happening at a faster rate
than predicted. It is clear that the traditional economic and consumer values that formerly served
society well, when coupled with current rates of population increase, are not sustainable. The ocean is
the largest ecosystem on Earth, supports us and maintains our world in a habitable condition. To maintain
the goods and services it has provided to humankind for millennia demands change in how we view, manage, govern and use marine
ecosystems. The scale of the stresses on the ocean means that deferring action will increase costs in the future leading to even greater losses
of benefits. The key points needed to drive a common sense rethink are: Human actions have resulted in warming and acidification of the
oceans and are now causing increased hypoxia. Studies of the Earths past indicate that these are three symptoms that indicate disturbances of
the carbon cycle associated with each of the previous five mass extinctions on Earth (e.g. Erwin, 2008; Veron, 2008a,b; Veron et al., 2009;
Barnosky et al., 2011). The

speeds of many negative changes to the ocean are near to or are tracking the

8
File Title
worstcase scenarios from IPCC and other predictions. Some are as predicted, but many are faster than
anticipated, and many are still accelerating. Consequences of current rates of change already matching
those predicted under the worst case scenario include: the rate of decrease in Arctic Sea Ice (Stroeve et al., 2007; Wang & Overland, 2009)
and in the accelerated melting of both the Greenland icesheet (Velicogna, 2009; Khan et al., 2010; Rignot et al., 2011) and Antarctic ice sheets (Chen et al., 2009; Rignot et al., 2008, 2011;

sea level rise (Rahmstorf 2007a,b; Rahmstorf et al., 2007; Nicholls et al., 2011); and release of trapped methane
from the seabed (Westbrook et al., 2009; Shakova et al., 2010; although not yet globally significant Dlugokencky et al.,
2009). The worst case effects are compounding other changes more consistent with predictions
including: changes in the distribution and abundance of marine species (Beaugrand & Reid, 2003; Beaugrand 2004,
Velicogna, 2009);

2009; Beaugrand et al., 2003; 2010; Cheung et al. 2009, 2010, Reid et al., 2007; Johnson et al., 2011; Philippart et al., 2011; Schiel, 2011;
Wassmann et al., 2011; Wernberg et al., 2011); changes in primary production (Behrenfeld et al., 2006; Chavez et al., 2011); changes in the
distribution of harmful algal blooms (Heisler et al., 2008; Bauman et al., 2010); increases in health hazards in the oceans (e.g. ciguatera,
pathogens; Van Dolah, 2000; Lipp et al., 2002; Dickey & Plakas, 2009); and

loss of both large, longlived and small fish

species causing widespread impacts on marine ecosystems, including direct impacts on predator and
prey species, the simplification and destabilization of food webs, reduction of resilience to the effects
of climate change (e.g. Jackson et al. 2001; Pauly et al., 1998; Worm & Myers, 2003; Baum & Myers, 2004; Rosenberg et al., 2005;
Worm et al., 2006; Myers et al., 2007; Jackson, 2008; Baum & Worm, 2009; Ferretti et al., 2010; Hutchings et al., 2010; WardkPaige et al., 2010;
Pinskya et al., 2011). The magnitude of the cumulative impacts on the ocean is greater than previously understood Interactions between
different impacts can be negatively synergistic (negative impact greater than sum of individual stressors) or they can be antagonistic (lowering
the effects of individual impacts). Examples of such

interactions include: combinations of overfishing, physical

disturbance, climate change effects, nutrient runoff and introductions of nonknative species leading to
explosions of these invasive species, including harmful algal blooms, and dead zones (Rabalais et al., 2001, 2002;
Daskalov et al., 2007; Purcell et al., 2007; Boero et al., 2008; Heisler et al., 2008; Dickey & Plakas, 2009; Bauman et al., 2010; VaquerkSunur &
Duarte, 2010); increased temperature and acidification increasing the susceptibility of corals to bleaching (Anthony et al., 2008) and acting
synergistically to impact the reproduction and development of other marine invertebrates (Parker et al., 2009); changes in the behavior, fate
and toxicity of heavy metals with acidification (Millero et al., 2009; Pascal et al., 2010); acidification may reduce the limiting effect of iron
availability on primary production in some parts of the ocean (Shi et al., 2010; King et al., 2011); increased uptake of plastics by fauna (Andrady
2011, Hirai & Takada et al. 2011, Murray & Cowie, 2011), and increased bioavailability of pollutants through adsorption onto the surface of
microplastic particles (Graham & Thompson 2009, Moore 2008, Thomson, et al., 2009); and feedbacks of climate change impacts on the oceans
(temperature rise, sea level rise, loss of ice cover, acidification, increased storm intensity, methane release) on their rate of CO2 uptake and
global warming (Lenton et al., 2008; Reid et al 2009). Timelines

for action are shrinking. The longer the delay in

reducing emissions the higher the annual reduction rate will have to be and the greater the financial
cost. Delays will mean increased environmental damage with greater socioeconomic impacts and costs
of mitigation and adaptation measures. Resilience of the ocean to climate change impacts is severely compromised by the
other stressors from human activities, including fisheries, pollution and habitat destruction. Examples include the overfishing of reef grazers,
nutrient runoff, and other forms of pollution (presence of pathogens or endocrine disrupting chemicals (Porte et al., 2006; OSPAR 2010))
reducing the recovery ability of reefs from temperaturekinduced mass coral bleaching (Hoeghk Guldberg et al., 2007; Mumby et al., 2007;
Hughes et al., 2010; Jackson, 2010; Mumby & Harborne, 2010) . These multiple stressors promote the phase shift of reef ecosystems from
being coralkdominated to algal dominated. The loss of genetic diversity from overfishing reduces ability to adapt to stressors. Ecosystem
collapse is occurring as a result of both current and emerging stressors. Stressors include chemical pollutants, agriculture runkoff, sediment
loads and overkextraction of many components of food webs which singly and together severely impair the functioning of ecosystems.
Consequences include the potential increase of harmful algal blooms in recent decades (Van Dolah, 2000; Landsberg, 2002; Heisler et al.,
2008; Dickey & Plakas, 2009; Wang & Wu, 2009); the spread of oxygen depleted or dead zones (Rabalais et al., 2002; Diaz & Rosenberg, 2008;
VaquerkSunyer & Duarte, 2008); the disturbance of the structure and functioning of marine food webs, to the benefit of planktonic organisms
of low nutritional value, such as jellyfish or other gelatinousklike organisms (Broduer et al., 1999; Mills, 2001; Pauly et al. 2009; Boero et al.,
2008; Moore et al., 2008); dramatic changes in the microbial communities with negative impacts at the ecosystem scale (Dinsdale et al., 2008;
Jackson, 2010); and the impact of emerging chemical contaminants in ecosystems (la Farr et al., 2008).

This impairment damages

or eliminates the ability of ecosystems to support humans. The extinction threat to marine species is
rapidly increasing. The main causes of extinctions of marine species to date are overexploitation and
habitat loss (Dulvy et al., 2009). However climate change is increasingly adding to this, as evidenced by the
recent IUCN Red List Assessment of reforming corals (Carpenter et al., 2008). Some other species ranges have already
extended or shifted polekwards and into deeper cooler waters (Reid et al., 2009); this may not be possible for some species to achieve,

9
File Title
potentially leading to reduced habitats and more extinctions. Shifts

in currents and temperatures will affect the food

supply of animals, including at critical early stages, potentially testing their ability to survive. The participants
concluded that not only are we already experiencing severe declines in many species to the point of commercial extinction in some cases, and
an unparalleled rate of regional extinctions of habitat types (eg mangroves and seagrass meadows), but we now face losing marine species
and entire marine ecosystems, such as coral reefs, within a single generation. Unless action is taken now, the consequences of our activities are
at a high risk of causing, through the combined effects of climate change, overexploitation, pollution and habitat loss, the next globally
significant extinction event in the ocean. It is notable that the occurrence of multiple high intensity stressors has been a prerequisite for all the
five global extinction events of the past 600 million years (Barnosky et al., 2009).

10
File Title

Sea Power
US data collection declininglower data return rate and disconnected sensors
Gagosian 14(Robert, April 25, Testimony of Robert B. Gagosian President and CEO of the Consortium for
Ocean Leadership Before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science , )
Recent hypotheses suggest that the extreme weather events we have had t.his past year may be attributable to a persistent shift in the jet
stream due to a rapidly melting polar region as well as a warmei North Pacic Ocean. If this is t.he case, ice storms in Mobile, Alabama or
monsoon-like rain events in Boulder, Colorado, may become more frequent, along with their signicant economic costs. Unfortunately,

as
the demand for more and better data and information to understand ocean and atmospheric trends
increases, we are instead losing our capabilities to collect data at sea and from space to build more
capable and accurate long-term forecasts. For instance, the inability to service the buoys comprising the TAO
Array (Tropical Atmosphere Ocean project in the equatorial Pacic) has resulted in a degradation of the data return rate
to just 40 percent capacity from an optimally operating systeml. Thi: situation greatly reduces our ability to accurately
forecast El Nio and La Nina strengths and thus risks proper preparation to deal with episodes of droughts and ooding. Given that the ocean
absorbs, stores and transfers most of the heat (and a high percentage of the carbon) on our planet, the ability to understand, forecast and
prepare for extreme weather events requires investments in basic research to better understand air-ice-sea interactions as well as
observations of the physical environment from space, land and sea. Without

this basic knowledge and prediction

capabilities on regional and seasonal scales, we are essentially ying blind in terms of managing
resources (e.g. agriculture, sheries, freshwater) and protecting public health. There are many major natural threats facing our nation
and signicant challenges ahead in understanding, forecasting and mitigating them, all of which require signicant financial resources. We
believe that our appropriations requests would enable our nation to maintain the assets and capabilities necessary to better understand the
physical, chemical, geological and biological changes to the natural environment and use this information to help Of course, the ocean also
impacts life beyond weather, climate and extreme events.

IOOS key to navy battle space awarenessgreater weapon performance and better
reaction time to threats
West 7(Dick, September, Consortium for Ocean Leadership and Retired Rear Admiral USN, EMBRACING THE FULL SPECTRUM OF IOOS
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FOR MDA, http://oceanleadership.org/files/MDA_Proceedings_lowres.pdf) Working toward complete
Maritime Domain Awareness will require utilizing the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) to provide the data and operations
necessary to perform assessments such as forecasts and observations.

A fully operable IOOS will integrate the regional

systems and allow research data to be fully interoperable for a wide variety of operational needs. In
most situations, real-time data and a fully integrated system allow for assessments to have a higher
degree of spatial and temporal variables, greater impact from sensor or weapon performance, and a
better reaction time to threats. Limiting factors to accomplishing at relatively low resolutions; provide boundary and initial
conditions for higher resolution models until information is given for a specific local area. Limiting factors to accomplishing
this include the lack of accessible data due to security issues, lack of fully developed databases, and
compatibility issues with data collection. Another limiting factor, and consequently the most important, is the difficult
transition from research information to an operational system. Possible solutions to making such a transition easier include co-locating
researchers and operations staff and keeping inter-agency cooperation a high priority. Being able to develop that transition from research
to usable

information will contribute to building IOOS stronger and more usable for the different
customers including the military and assisting them with what they need to have Maritime Domain
Awareness.

11
File Title

Scenario One is Deterrence

Naval power is key to prevent multiple scenarios for extinctionland forces are
becoming irrelevant
England et al 11(Mr. England is a former secretary of the Navy. Mr. Jones is a former commandant of the
Marine Corps. Mr. Clark is a former chief of naval operations., July 11, The Necessity of U.S. Naval Power, WSJ,
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303339904576406163019350934)
All our citizens, and especially our servicemen and women, expect and deserve a thorough review of critical security decisions. After all,

decisions today will affect the nation's strategic position for future generations. The future security environment
underscores two broad security trends. First, international political realities and the internationally agreed-to
sovereign rights of nations will increasingly limit the sustained involvement of American permanent
land-based, heavy forces to the more extreme crises. This will make offshore options for deterrence and power
projection ever more paramount in support of our national interests. Second, the naval dimensions of
American power will re-emerge as the primary means for assuring our allies and partners, ensuring
prosperity in times of peace, and countering anti-access, area-denial efforts in times of crisis. We do not
believe these trends will require the dismantling of land-based forces, as these forces will remain essential reservoirs of power. As the United
States has learned time and again, once a crisis becomes a conflict, it is impossible to predict with certainty its depth, duration and cost. That
said, the

U.S. has been shrinking its overseas land-based installations, so the ability to project power
globally will make the forward presence of naval forces an even more essential dimension of American
influence. What we do believe is that uniquely responsive Navy-Marine Corps capabilities provide the basis on which our most vital
overseas interests are safeguarded. Forward presence and engagement is what allows the U.S. to maintain
awareness, to deter aggression, and to quickly respond to threats as they arise. Though we clearly must
be prepared for the high-end threats, such preparation should be made in balance with the means
necessary to avoid escalation to the high end in the first place. The versatility of maritime forces
provides a truly unmatched advantage. The sea remains a vast space that provides nearly unlimited
freedom of maneuver. Command of the sea allows for the presence of our naval forces, supported from
a network of shore facilities, to be adjusted and scaled with little external restraint. It permits reliance on
proven capabilities such as prepositioned ships. Maritime capabilities encourage and enable cooperation with other
nations to solve common sea-based problems such as piracy, illegal trafficking, proliferation of W.M.D., and a host
of other ills, which if unchecked can harm our friends and interests abroad, and our own citizenry at
home. The flexibility and responsiveness of naval forces provide our country with a general strategic
deterrent in a potentially violent and unstable world. Most importantly, our naval forces project and sustain power at sea
and ashore at the time, place, duration, and intensity of our choosing. Given these enduring qualities, tough choices must clearly be made,
especially in light of expected tight defense budgets. The administration and the Congress need to balance the resources allocated to missions
such as strategic deterrence, ballistic missile defense, and cyber warfare with the more traditional ones of sea control and power projection.

The maritime capability and capacity vital to the flexible projection of U.S. power and influence around
the globe must surely be preserved, especially in light of available technology. Capabilities such as the Joint Strike Fighter will
provide strategic deterrence, in addition to tactical long-range strike, especially when operating from forward-deployed naval vessels.

the Navy-Marine Corps team integrates sea, air, and land power into adaptive
force packages spanning the entire spectrum of operations, from everyday cooperative security
activities to unwelcomebut not impossiblewars between major powers. This is exactly what we will need to
Postured to respond quickly,

meet the challenges of the future.

12
File Title

US naval power is the key to deterring war between major powers

Allen et al 7 (James T. Conway -- General, U.S. Marine Corps, Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gary Roughead -- Admiral, U.S.
Navy, Chief of Naval Operations, Thad W. Allen -- Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard , Commandant of the Coast Guard, October, A Cooperative
Strategy for 21st Century Seapower, http://www.navy.mil/maritime/Maritimestrategy.pdf)
Deter major power war. No

other disruption is as potentially disastrous to global stability as war among major

powers. Maintenance and extension of this Nations comparative seapower advantage is a key
component of deterring major power war. While war with another great power strikes many as improbable, the nearcertainty of its ruinous effects demands that it be actively deterred using all elements of national
power. The expeditionary character of maritime forcesour lethality, global reach, speed, endurance, ability to overcome barriers to
access, and operational agilityprovide the joint commander with a range of deterrent options. We will pursue an approach to
deterrence that includes a credible and scalable ability to retaliate against aggressors conventionally,
unconventionally, and with nuclear forces. Win our Nations wars. In times of war, our ability to impose local sea control,
overcome challenges to access, force entry, and project and sustain power ashore, makes our maritime
forces an indispensable element of the joint or combined force. This expeditionary advantage must be maintained
because it provides joint and combined force commanders with freedom of maneuver. Reinforced by a
robust sealift capability that can concentrate and sustain forces, sea control and power projection
enable extended campaigns ashore.

Scenario Two is Trade

Naval power is key to global tradeallows for the safe transport of goods
Eaglen and McGrath 11(Mackenzie and Bryan, May 16, Thinking About a Day Without Sea Power: Implications for U.S. Defense
Policy, Mackenzie Eaglen is Research Fellow for National Security in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, a division of
the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation. Bryan McGrath is a retired naval officer
and the Director of Delex Consulting, Studies and Analysis, The Heritage Foundation,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/05/thinking-about-a-day-without-sea-power-implications-for-us-defense-policy)

If the United States slashed its Navy and ended its mission as a guarantor of the free flow of
transoceanic goods and trade, globalized world trade would decrease substantially. As early as 1890, noted U.S.
naval officer and historian Alfred Thayer Mahan described the worlds oceans as a great highwaya wide common, underscoring the longrunning importance of the seas to trade.[12] Geographically organized trading blocs develop as the maritime highways suffer from insecurity
and rising fuel prices. Asia prospers thanks to internal trade and Middle Eastern oil, Europe muddles along on the largesse of Russia and Iran,
and the Western Hemisphere declines to a new normal with the exception of energy-independent Brazil. For America, Venezuelan oil grows
in importance as other supplies decline. Mexico runs out of oilas predictedwhen it fails to take advantage of Western oil technology and
investment. Nigerian output, which for five years had been secured through a partnership of the U.S. Navy and Nigerian maritime forces, is
decimated by the bloody civil war of 2021. Canadian exports, which a decade earlier had been strong as a result of the oil shale industry,
decline as a result of environmental concerns in Canada and elsewhere about the fracking (hydraulic fracturing) process used to free oil from
shale. State

and non-state actors increase the hazards to seaborne shipping, which are compounded by
the necessity of traversing key chokepoints that are easily targeted by those who wish to restrict trade.
These chokepoints include the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran could quickly close to trade if it wishes. More
than half of the worlds oil is transported by sea. From 1970 to 2006, the amount of goods transported via the oceans of the worldincreased
from 2.6 billion tons to 7.4 billion tons, an increase of over 284%.*13+ In 2010, $40 billion dollars *sic+ worth of oil passes through the worlds
geographic chokepoints on a daily basisnot to mention $3.2 trillionannually in commerce that moves underwater on transoceanic
cables.*14+ These quantities of goods simply cannot be moved by any other means. Thus, a

reduction of sea trade reduces

overall international trade. U.S. consumers face a greatly diminished selection of goods because
domestic production largely disappeared in the decades before the global depression. As countries increasingly
focus on regional rather than global trade, costs rise and Americans are forced to accept a much lower standard of

13
File Title
living. Some domestic manufacturing improves, but at significant cost. In addition, shippers avoid U.S. ports due to the onerous container
inspection regime implemented after investigators discover that the second dirty bomb was smuggled into the U.S. in a shipping container on
an innocuous Panamanian-flagged freighter. As a result, American consumers bear higher shipping costs. The market also
constrains the variety of goods available to the U.S. consumer and increases their cost. A Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report makes this
abundantly clear. A

one-week shutdown of the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports would lead to production
losses of $65 million to $150 million (in 2006 dollars) per day. A three-year closure would cost $45 billion
to $70 billion per year ($125 million to $200 million per day). Perhaps even more shocking, the simulation estimated that
employment would shrink by approximately 1 million jobs.[15] These estimates demonstrate the effects of closing only
the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports. On a national scale, such a shutdown would be catastrophic. The
Government Accountability Office notes that: [O]ver 95 percent of U.S. international trade is
transported by water[;] thus, the safety and economic security of the United States depends in large
part on the secure use of the worlds seaports and waterways. A successful attack on a major seaport could potentially
result in a dramatic slowdown in the international supply chain with impacts in the billions of dollars.[16] As of 2008, U.S. ports move 99
percent of the nations overseas cargo, handle more than 2.5 billion tons of trade annually, and move $5.5 billion worth of goods in and out
every day. Further, approximately 95 percent of U.S. military forces and supplies that are sent overseas, including those for Operations Iraqi
Freedom and Enduring Freedom, pass through U.S. ports.*17+

Increased trade and economic ties substantially decrease the likelihood of war.
Griswold 7(Daniel, April 20, Trade, Democracy and Peace: The Virtuous Cycle, Daniel T. Griswold is director of the Cato Institute's Center
for Trade Policy Studies., http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/trade-democracy-peace-virtuous-cycle)

The world has somehow become a more peaceful place. A little-noticed headline on an Associated Press story a while
back reported, War declining worldwide, studies say. In 2006, a survey by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute found that
the number of armed

conflicts around the world has been in decline for the past half-century. Since the early
1990s, ongoing conflicts have dropped from 33 to 17, with all of them now civil conflicts within countries. The Institutes latest report
found that 2005 marked the second year in a row that no two nations were at war with one another.
What a remarkable and wonderful fact. The death toll from war has also been falling. According to the
Associated Press report, The number killed in battle has fallen to its lowest point in the post-World War II period, dipping below 20,000 a year
by one measure. Peacemaking missions, meanwhile, are growing in number. Current estimates of people killed by war are down sharply from
annual tolls ranging from 40,000 to 100,000 in the 1990s, and from a peak of 700,000 in 1951 during the Korean War. Many causes lie behind
the good newsthe end of the Cold War and the spread of democracy, among thembut expanding

trade and globalization

appear to be playing a major role in promoting world peace. Far from stoking a World on Fire, as one misguided
American author argued in a forgettable book, growing commercial ties between nations have had a dampening effect
on armed conflict and war. I would argue that free trade and globalization have promoted peace in
three main ways. First, as I argued a moment ago, trade and globalization have reinforced the trend toward
democracy, and democracies tend not to pick fights with each other. Thanks in part to globalization,
almost two thirds of the worlds countries today are democraciesa record high. Some studies have cast doubt
on the idea that democracies are less likely to fight wars. While its true that democracies rarely if ever war with each other, it is not such a rare
occurrence for democracies to engage in wars with non-democracies. We can still hope that has more countries turn to democracy, there will
be fewer provocations for war by non-democracies. A

second and even more potent way that trade has promoted
peace is by promoting more economic integration. As national economies become more intertwined
with each other, those nations have more to lose should war break out. War in a globalized world not
only means human casualties and bigger government, but also ruptured trade and investment ties that
impose lasting damage on the economy. In short, globalization has dramatically raised the economic cost of war. The 2005
Economic Freedom of the World Report contains an insightful chapter on Economic Freedom and Peace by Dr. Erik Gartzke, a professor of
political science at Columbia University. Dr. Gartzke compares the propensity of countries to engage in wars and their level of economic
freedom and concludes that economic freedom, including the freedom to trade, significantly decreases the probability that a country will

14
File Title
experience a military dispute with another country. Through econometric analysis, he found that, Making

economies freer
translates into making countries more peaceful. At the extremes, the least free states are about 14
times as conflict prone as the most free. Effect of Economic Freedom on Militarized Interstate Disputes By the way, Dr.
Gartzkes analysis found that economic freedom was a far more important variable in determining a countries propensity to go to war than
democracy. A

third reason why free trade promotes peace is because it allows nations to acquire wealth
through production and exchange rather than conquest of territory and resources. As economies
develop, wealth is increasingly measured in terms of intellectual property, financial assets, and human
capital. Such assets cannot be easily seized by armies. In contrast, hard assets such as minerals and farmland are becoming
relatively less important in a high-tech, service economy. If people need resources outside their national borders, say oil
or timber or farm products, they can acquire them peacefully by trading away what they can produce
best at home. In short, globalization and the development it has spurred have rendered the spoils of war
less valuable.