---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 08:58:18 -0500
From: Chuck McClain <chuck@seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov>
To: Arlyn Elizabeth Andrews <andrews@maia.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: NACP

Arlyn:  the charter of the NCCI was much broader than just the NACP, but
whatever we do under the auspices of the NACP must establish much of the infrastructure
for the missions that follow. If it doesn't, the long range objectives will be 
compromised.  as for the oceans, there is a substantial fraction of global 
marine primary production that occurs on the continental shelves and in the 
estuarine systems.  also, the terrestrial carbon efflux into the coastal domain 
is substantial, but the amount and fate of this carbon is has not been quantified.  
The NCCI focused a lot of field work on coastal regions because the algorithms 
and process understanding are the most immature. We did allocate a similar level 
of effort to open ocean studies, primarily in support of the NACP and the Southern 
Ocean study.  NASA's ocean remote sensing program has focused mainly on the open 
ocean for long time, and those algorithms and model parameterizations are more 
robust, but not perfect. As for the NACP, Peter's point is well taken and I need 
to talk to Dick and Rik Wannikof about his concerns.


chuck


At 04:01 PM 07/28/2001 -0400, you wrote:

>Hi Chuck-
>
>There seems to be some confusion among the NACP document drafting team
>about why the coastal oceans were so heavily emphasized in the NCCI
>planning.  Pieter Tans is particularly concerned that the open ocean
>contributions are much bigger and should therefore get more attention.
>Could you provide a 1 or 2 paragraph explanation to clear things up (or
>delegate it to someone)?  It would very likely be incorporated into this
>draft planning document.  Dick Feely might have been able to answer this,
>but he wasn't on the last telecon, and someone said that he will be out of
>town for the next week.
>
>-Arlyn
>
>
>
>
>
>