mes when you go to sample you have to scrape minerals and in some cases scrape mold slime whatever there's been studies done of it. And a lot of the times also those cores may have been heavily sampled prior to that.  Sorry, I'm from the Southwest so our California where things are hot they grow chilies in my area, but also it's important to make connections so, for example that core that I showed you that last study. It's actually connecting core data that I collected as a PhD student still my effective postdoc back in the isuban and for arc. We're connecting up and trying to connect it to that rear arc scenario for that rifting history. It's the only place that we can do that comparison. And remember that that core is only five centimeters wide. You're, you're some places whole parts of the ocean have a record that is only five centimeters wide. That's amazing it's a strong, I mean it is essentially a strong. And the number of holes that have been drilled is so minimal compared to the number of holes that have been drilled in my inventory County where I come where I live in the oil industry so it's, it's just it's, it's, it's where we're essentially going where no people have gone before and many, many areas. I feel kind of passionate about that so I'll be quiet. So a question from Shelby Walker about the, the, the, how does ocean drilling in the future translate results. So how could a future program support transitional efforts, meaning I assume for the general public and policymakers is what the gist of this is. Sure, so I think, you know, another thing for the future is to put more investment into broader impacts and public information about this stuff. There have been lots of efforts to try to communicate these things particularly related to hazards to two century policymakers and people that are making assessments, going out there and looking at the hazards and themselves and trying to make decisions, going to places like Cascadia and talking to the community and presenting our work there. So that even though the general public might not care about the specifics of those things I think that they trust. Government or ever, or I have better trust that that scientists are working on the problem and even when they come to that it's exciting to them, if they can, if they learn nothing more than essentially what to do during an earthquake and what to do in order to go rise to higher ground. I think that that's a lot in itself, but I think that we can do more to try to communicate this with with stakeholders. And I'll add to that point too. So I really think and this goes off both of the question that was asked by Shelby but also in the zoom chat by I think Carlos posted a comment in here about science students needing to see perceived commitment investment to decide to continue their next career. So, I think there's also this pressing need to continue expanding in education and outreach within scientific ocean drilling on everything we do we've had really strong and you know office in the past and today. So again, expanding that, but also professors that use this data in their classrooms or teach using scientific ocean data, perhaps getting even those of us who are in the classrooms involved more with teaching our students about scientific ocean drilling. So one example from this past semester is I ran this little seminar it was called science communications for scientific ocean drilling. And I had five leaders within the ocean science community come and speak to the students. One that wasn't though about science communication with respect to scientific ocean drilling, and each of them summarized a leg or previous expedition, and they summarize that in general language language for the general public. And I'm co president of a nonprofit called times captures. So I leveraged that resource to to put their blogs on the website, one was just released on Twitter today. But to also work with other people like there's these folks at fly over country is an app that you can download, and it'll show you your, you can download your flight path pattern, path or input that, and it will show you important geologic features so you can put that data into fly over country. So that folks that do international flights or their cruises can actually see in the ocean where these different scientific ocean drilling sites are, and they can read about them and what we've done. So it was a very simple thing that I did. I did this with upper level undergrads and graduate students. It was low time investment but it really felt like high payoff for myself and the students. And I think for the folks involved. I think that we can get our students invested in science communication, but also the importance of scientific ocean drilling, I think would be incredibly important to again help train them and bring them into this community and make them feel like they're invested in this as well. So maybe I can add to something too, I think, and Shelby asked about translational efforts around climate right. The one thing that really happened over the last years is the IPP panels, you know, proactively reaching out to pale climates scientists on the panel or maybe you know related to it, and those actually pulling all the records from scientific ocean drilling and helping them in the writing of that report, and actually making that translational step from the fundamental research that's done with IDP into that IPCC report. I think Patrick was mentioning, right, the other initiative around the subduction zone hazards. I've got the acronym from it now. But I think that's another group right that you get, you know, that that's where translation will happen to because of their vision and how they want to pull together data from multiple sources, including scientific ocean drilling. That's another mechanism which fundamental research outcomes from scientific ocean really gets translated into hazards kind of products, including maybe policy or otherwise. Okay, let's see, Tuba had a question about the source of the data that you showed Patrick, was that JR or what's the what are the capabilities of the JR to do the kind of get the kind of observations that you showed off Japan. Sure, certainly so in 2018 and expedition 375 we installed two observatories in the Hikarangi seduction zone. We just went back after five years of data and collected that in March of this year will present some of it at AGU related to slow slip events. But how I read your question a little bit. And then this I said you can't do a lot of stuff with MSPs. Some reason, a lot of these faults and megathrust things are correspond with deep ocean trenches. Of course, and so a lot of this stuff is in deep water, deeper water than you can do with a, you know, two, you know, two and a half three kilometers. We've done things with the Chikyu at even greater depths, but we've done things in Costa Rica, and, and, and, and other places, New Zealand and other places with observatories with the jam. Two and a half three kilometers with New Zealand, but the other bit with especially with the seafloor geodesy part of the observatories, those things need to be installed somewhere around 300 meters below the seafloor.  This question has to do with us scientists going on non us drilling vessels and how they can be supported. And is an open data policy a requirement for NSF support of us scientists to go and on us drilling vessels, and will us support if there is no open data policy. And maybe that's an NSF question but is it okay. Anybody on the panel know that. But I think the, the first part the open data policy is a requirement that's clearly the case. I think NSF have been clearly championing that that open data policy. It's also by the way in the 2050 science framework is one of the principal design features of a future program. If the US will support if there is no open data policy that's an NSF question. No, but they should answer this question. Jamie is the answer no. Kevin. No. Quite simply, no, we've had that come up and we've had the decline proposals and decline. I guess for people to be involved in programs that refused to have open data. Availability so no. So another question that maybe for NSF maybe for the panel but it's, how should NSF in the community address legacy course is a non renewable resource. It's essential to ensure equitable and science driven access with better coordination and balancing current and future needs and I don't know if the panel wants to handle that one. Well, I've seen a lot. A lot of core and the repositories and I've been to Bremen sampling as well as. And the old DSDP cores back in the old days they were also transferred and I think it's important that we not mine away our legacy for whatever the flavor of the month is. Because you have to leave something you don't you don't even know what the future questions will be your analysis techniques will be I mean to me the archive should remain the archive half, but that's my own personal preference. I mean, whatever, or at least a quarter of it. Something there's got to be something there can't be a gap. I mean, I had a gap underneath my house when I did the stratigraphy and geology 101 of my house because of the coal had been mined and I left it and I got a bad grade on my project because I left out part of the project and I was like well it's not there. But I think that I think it's important. Those legacy car cores are things to go back and look at that we won't get again we're not going to go very rarely do we go back in the same area and drill. I think on your hand, unless it's at like, what 504 be where you keep going and going going but but it's really important to have those because, because they are so rare, the coring is so rare across the globe. Okay, I guess the question really is then who, how, where in the iod t iod p program is the responsibility for trying to ensure this and or is this a man.  And on top of that there's the curatorial advisory board that actually oversees questions right if there's you know if people come in with a way to big request for samples right created so typically signal them and that the curatorial advisory boards will take that in consideration and look at those things so there is equitable use of the course in particular, of course that are in high demand. So there is. There is policy and guidelines and there's an organizational structure in place for decades now that has been functioning quite well. And so I think that's definitely something that needs to be continued for the, you know, for the foreseeable future. Do you want to. Okay, I think it's really important that the, this group understand that the deep sea drilling program ocean drilling program and chair court iod b course are the property of the US government collected either by contract or under cooperative agreement with stipulation in the agreement that they are that they are owned by the US government, according to the American Pete's act of 2011 NSF is required legally required to preserve and archive that core as a US owned collection period. There's a question here we may get into this more tomorrow but it has to do with hard rock drilling and without the jr and there are other, besides the small seabed drills, tiny and shallow holes, are there other commercial options for hard rock drilling that anyone on the panel is aware of. Well, I think I think, in principle, most most commercial festivals could potentially drill, you know, rotate rotary drilling. But the point I made earlier is, you know, that's typically not what they specialized in. So drilling actually into a hard rock is not a very easy thing to do within the oceans. I mean, if you do it on land with a diamond drill bit and an on land drill it's very much easier to do when you get really good continuous core that way. In the oceans, it's quite, it's quite difficult to get really good core and, and as we said, you really need to drill down quite deep into the basaltic basements to go beyond any of the altered areas. And so, you know, you need to go at least 150 or 200 meters before you get into the place where you get the materials that can be used for science, or can be used for geo microbiology. And yeah, so small seabed drills, indeed they're different, they have much smaller diameter cores. Again, you know, it's hard to drill in those environments and so they're not necessarily that great to do so I think there's options. The question is, is the quality, right, and the depth that you achieve with it, it's sufficient to answer your question. Yeah, and I was, I was going to, I was going to add one more thing. There's hard rock that's igneous rocks basement, and then there's also hard rocks that are sedimentary rocks and sedimentary rocks can be harder and even more problematic like for intervals where you're, you're essentially drilling soft than hard than soft than hard. So there's a lot of dynamics that go on that our expertise currently on the JR that that other ships won't be able to hand. Yeah, I was also told that this is going to come up again tomorrow. So, I think Becky's going to talk about it tomorrow as well so we'll get back to this. Let's see, another question is. Well, it has to do with diversified funding streams and we've talked about the international ones and this question had to do with other agencies and mentioned at NASA, possibly USGS, or any of these other US federal agencies interested in. I know they're interested in the results, but are they, do they ever contribute to the drilling missions in any significant way and I guess that's a question for NSF really than the panel but the panel first has any comment on that. Yeah, I can speak a little bit to this and it may be a little off topic from the question but regardless, so there is this big NSF funded. Some part of NSF funded project called Swayce2C and it's a group of scientists that are going back to Antarctica to redrill and look at records and how Antarctica has changed under more than two degrees of warming by looking at analogous warm periods. So, actually my postdoc supervisor Molly Patterson who's now my colleague at Binghamton is one of the co-leads on this project. So she has leveraged ICDP, the International Continental Drilling Program, their funding. So they do have funding for up to, they have up to 1.5 million for a project and that provides the drill, the drill string and for that project. But she's also leveraged money from other places as well, such as NSF to help with these big drilling projects. So I just wanted to plug that because you know there are other programs. So if anyone's thinking of doing like a from sea to land land to sea kind of drilling thing using ICDP they do have funding. And she's been really instrumental in getting funding from that project to also achieve her drilling efforts. So these co-mingling of funds is definitely something to think about and something I think is absolutely doable. I can give one other example here. It's actually an expedition that didn't get scheduled because the JR was not living up to the standards of drilling in the Gulf of Mexico in hydrocarbonate region. But that was actually an expedition where the PI team were bringing funding from the Department of Energy DOE.  NASA hasn't really been in full that much yet, although in this kind of framework, we've been starting to work with NASA and other space agencies because they are interested in testing out instrumentation in extreme environment. And with the JR like vessel, you know, you can drill for a deep in extreme environments, whether it's acidity, whether it's temperature, whether it's pressure and kind of stuff, but they can actually test out instruments that would bring you know, out in space. Today, they were they are interested in that and we had some initial work with them relative to the framework. The sector entities have been in full to JR in the past as well. You know, Mitch mentioned the CPPs right which are other countries providing additional funding to help with expeditions, but they also early on in the program they had some commercial expeditions which also helped in that sense, you know, with the budgeting of the JR. But that was only as far as remember one time over the last decade. And there was also a part of that question had to do with private money and pick and then another another question had to do with that, particularly in reference to ocean drilling relevance to carbon sequestration research. Any comments on that. Yeah, well garbage, you know, carbon removal has been one of the topics in the in the 2050 science framework we as a community we so far haven't really worked towards that question but we of course we recognize it's important and we recognize that. Marine carbon dioxide removal is a key feature in other funding agencies, NOAA, DOE are ours, but also NSF very instant in marine carbon dioxide removal and knowledge from scientific ocean drilling either in a core approach or in future expeditions could really help with addressing that and has been very much involved. There has been a proposal in the system, maybe five years ago that was looking at the storage of CO2 in in the North Sea and to the to the east of Scandinavia in certain certain aspects. There was a rather, both a multiple expedition, a kind of proposal that in the end didn't make it through to the step system. So if people are thinking about it and scientific ocean drilling is important to contribute to that as well. I say someone. Drilling is complex. It's complicated. My experience is that a lot of other funding agencies appreciate the science with it, but they don't know how to handle funding drilling. And that's why having a facility or NSF supported thing that knows all the intricacies of how to do all the contracting insurance and all that stuff is important. I found that private foundations are really interested in funding the science after you go and collect the data. Other funding agencies will fund the science afterwards, but getting out there and doing it requires an organization. Moving about CO2 sequestration, I think that this is another translational benefit of the scientific drilling program. Is that moving into the future or the now we need job skills and stuff related to drilling into hard rock for G thermal stuff and for see to sequestration. So my own students, six of the last students that have had five of them are now working for G thermal companies, because they learn things about drilling and how to interpret data from the experiences and things that we've learned in ocean drilling. So really quick that follows tips mission right the NSF tip initiative, getting these students with them these other companies and the technology. I think the last question that we have time for is, again, we've come to come talk a little bit about this already but how should NSF support retention of the extensive technological expertise and knowledge gained during prior scientific ocean drilling. We've come to a hi hiatus. So that future scientific ocean drilling activity is not compromised and I think we've heard some of that. Some of something about this but anybody want to elaborate on the panel on this question. So let's start it on on this. I think, if the first realize where the expertise resides, right, I mean, we talked a lot about the science was scientists know a lot but they know about science, but the drilling operations that's different. So the current expertise resides with actually the owner of the J. R. We're actually providing the drill. And those drillers have made their career, you know, not in oil and gas drilling was in J. R. drilling, and by now are just to mentally experienced. And so by not having the jar anymore. There's something that gets lost. And those really will be repositioned within that company for other things and, and they just disappear from from us. Almost immediately. The same with the expertise garnet as the J are a science operator in Texas A&M they have of course, which called drilling superintendent and lots of technical stuff that actually oversee the drilling on board the J are. And that's a skill set very specific to the J are very specific to developing all the coring technology over decade and and applying it with the goal right to collect the best possible continuous core in regardless of the kind of sediment or rock they encounter. So, I'm actually a little bit pessimistic on this question I would say it's going to be really really hard maybe impossible to retain it so I think I would say, if we get a new drill ship 10 years from now or 20 years from now, we have to completely rebuild that expertise. I mean, can I just jump in one quick. I just had a thought. I mean, I remember seeing the Glamar challenger parked up in the Bay Area, when it was, when it was kind of abandoned. If indeed, the J are gets retired. Can we buy it. Can we use it as a training facility. Anyway, that's just my last thought. Okay, I think we've run out of time, and it's time for lunch. That's the good news. And the staff is supposedly going to direct us for lunches. Yeah. So the lunch is in the same room that the coffee and pastries were in. We have sandwiches and salads, and we only have 30 minutes. And we need to stay on that schedule only 30 minutes. I repeat only 30 minutes. So feel free to stay in that room and eat at the tables or you can thoughts about what I heard this morning. So my disciplinary background is not in ocean drilling and so, but still, you know, as an oceanographer I feel like I have a lot to learn in the talks this morning. I love the tone very nicely. So I really appreciate the effort everyone put into it. It was great to see Mitch, Mitch's overview. Of course, always great to have NSF here with us listening and Anthony's overview of the 2050 framework as well. And maybe one thing that stood out to me is, you know, I ODP the D stands for discovery, right. And I think I would be the first person to argue that just discovery as a purpose for research is a wonderful thing. Right. That's really what we ought to be advocating for. But in this case, I think what I am hearing is that this community is very convinced that there is a connection of this work to, you know, decision making tools to modern predictions of sea level rise to, you know, other. There's then the very rich conversation in the zoom chat about some of the ways in which this work really connects to issues that society is grappling with right now. So perhaps though we really have to make sure we connect those dots and not because that's the only way in which we can argue that this this program should exist discovery is a reason enough. But if it is having those impacts, then we ought to be telling that story. And so that's a challenge that I will pose to our committee. The other thing that I walked away with it Patrick, I think it was Patrick somebody said, hey, you know, the general public trusts that the scientists are doing good work and. And part of me, you know, academia science, you know, enjoys the social contract with society, right. You know, we give you money you do good work. But I'm feeling like just between us that that social contract is, you know, it's going to it's starting to be rescinded. And I think it's an existential thing for us to really do a better job making those connections and telling those stories. Because we do have the impact.  So, let's keep thinking about those things. Lots of information, also in the chat which I really appreciate and we will, we certainly will save all of that. With that I want to launch us into the afternoon session. So, here we are really continuing the conversation about the future of scientific ocean drilling. And we're going to hear from to existing efforts to think about the future. And then we're going to have a lightning session type panel discussion, and we timed this perfectly to occur between 2 and 245 when the sugar crash comes in. But this is going to be so fast paced you're just going to, you know, there's going to be not a moment to really even think about sugar crash. So, here we go. And with that, our first speaker, Larry Christak, Ohio State University take it away Larry. Thank you to the. Can we go ahead and go to my slides please. It's empty back there. Oh, thank you. All right. Yep. So I'm Larry Christak. I am the present chair of the joities resolution facility board. Mitch introduced to you this morning the idea of the facility boards for each of the three platform providers. So, I am the chair of the joities resolution facility board or I'm going to slip and use the abbreviation of J R F B. So, now you know what the J R F B is. I was also the chair of a working group formed by the J R F B to explore some ideas that have been ruminating out in the community for at least 5 years. About the potential use of legacy assets going into the future. And so that's what I'm here to report on to you about today. So, ocean drilling legacy asset projects or what we call leaps a new approach to collaborative research in ocean drilling science. Next slide please. All right. So what I'd like to do is provide sort of a 35,000 foot level overview, then we'll talk about some details and then close with some some thoughts. So what are leaps leaps are a new opportunity a new opportunity for a portfolio of standalone research endeavors without new drilling so emphasizing the legacy as assets portion. How would a leap differ from a conventional sort of multi investigator project. Well, in the view of the J R F B is working group. Each leap would be larger than a conventional single or multi investigator project and meet certain other characteristics so it would be larger than and perhaps more integrated than a standard multi investigator project. With the goals of scientific ocean drilling writ large. Some of those characteristics include the ones that are listed here. First with objectives that maximize the scientific return on legacy assets. And if you're not very comfortable with what legacy assets are. You were introduced to some of them this morning perhaps without using those terms will do a quick inner intro to those in just a second. So maximizing return on legacy assets of scientific ocean drilling. While addressing at least one aspect of the 2050 science framework that link to the science framework would not be required of just a standard multi investigator proposal that would be coming to NSF. The leaps would also be developed based on some of the enduring principles of scientific ocean drilling that were outlined in the 2050 science framework. Anthony mentioned a few of these in passing but not in a sort of organized way in his presentation. So these include the bottom up proposal submission and peer review process that Mitch introduced you to this morning. Open access to samples and data, which was discussed and in some questions. The collaborative and inclusive international approaches and with the goal of enhancing diversity. Those are all enduring principles of scientific ocean drilling. The elite would be open to participation by the community, not just the original proponents but opened up to the broader community in the same way that our science parties that sale on the various platforms. Again with a proponent group, but by the time you actually sale it is a larger more inclusive group that's doing the actual science and with outcomes that strengthen the impact of ocean drilling science writ large. One of the desires of the working group as we went through these discussions was to mirror as closely as possible. The collaborative and focused nature of the shipboard experience for those of you who have been for those of us who have been fortunate enough to have that experience. Intense focus on research, the collaboration that takes place on a day to day, hour by hour, minute by minute basis in a shipboard setting and the mentoring and professional development that take place in that same setting. So what's the, the origin of this idea for these sort of legacy asset projects. The foundation for this concept arises from community interest and informal to semi formal discussions that have been taking place for at least the last five years. Often using the term virtual expeditions, but without actually having defined what those are. And you'll see, if you go back and look at some of the reports, like the, the next report in 2019, which was a report of a planning meeting for the US community, leading towards the science framework. There was mention of what was called the fourth platform concept, which was basically virtual expeditions. The enabling element, one of the enabling elements in the 2050 science framework mentions big data analytics, which is another way of describing what in many people's minds were virtual expeditions. So about 15 months ago, the jrfb adopted an action item for a working group to develop to explore this concept and associated implementation issues in order to formalize try to formalize it and point out steps towards actual implementation. All right, some of the folks who are here are very familiar with what these assets in involve what the legacy assets are. For those who aren't, you had a bit of an introduction to this this morning, but trying to lay it out all in one place. The major groups of assets that are out there are core. We have about 450 kilometers of core distributed between the three repositories. We have a college station, Bremen in Germany and coach in Japan, but has been has been noted before, both in discussions here and also in the chat the material appropriate for the highest priority science is much less than 450 kilometers. There are designated microbiology samples that have been taken by inventory that seems to be about 1300 samples, but they have been stored frozen, which affects the sort of science that they can be used for going forward. Data, the average I ODP expedition accumulates about a million data points that depends on how much cores is recovered, but it's a lot of data and the associated metadata that goes with it. As well as a large number of core images and other kinds of imagery of the core. There are also for some boreholes. The in the information that's collected after the borehole is drilled and instruments are lowered into the borehole. That's what we call downhole logging. That's not done on every hole, but that data does exist for some locations. And then we have open and instrumented boreholes. I believe this inventory is a little out of date. So it may be up to perhaps 100 boreholes that have reentry cones on them. That simply means that there's a funnel sitting on the seafloor. You can go find it and then try to stick the straw into the little hole in the funnel. But that doesn't guarantee what the condition of the borehole will be once you get into it and there are many ways that boreholes can get complicated. So there are these, these open holes at least at the surface. There are about 50 with observatories and Patrick showed you a slide this morning. There were a few dots there. If you take the whole globe, there are only a few dots there. And as he sort of embedded in his, his discussion, but I don't think pointed out explicitly. Very, very few of those are instrumented so that the information is collected real time. I think Patrick mentioned the case where five years after the observatory was put into the seafloor. It was revisited with a conventional research vessel and the data were recovered. So you're not getting data every day. Real time from, from the, it's not like an ocean observing system for the most part. All right, with that as a little bit of an introduction, let's dive into some details about the jrfb working groups recommendations. Based on what I hope you now see as the breadth of the assets that are out there and the possibilities for using that. And our agreement was that the definition for these activities should be broad and inclusive. Trying to have a big umbrella that lots of different kinds of research activities would fit under. We recommended calling these activities as you've already heard legacy asset projects, simply because virtual expedition had been used by lots of different people over a number of years to mean different things. So rather than trying to back everyone up and make them agree on after the fact on a definition for virtual expeditions. Let's just start from a clean slate. Also, we felt that the name legacy asset projects was much more reflective of the broad and inclusive nature of the kinds of projects that could be proposed. I do want to point out a couple of things that that leaps are not. First of all leaps do not in any way preclude conventional single PI or multi PI projects. Leaps are simply another type of project envisioned to be larger in scope, multi disciplinary international. They do not preclude single PI or multi PI projects. And input from the community as well as our own discussions, the working group recommends that the leaps be reviewed and endorsed. In the same way that drilling proposals have been endorsed reviewed and endorsed as Mitch mentioned and perhaps also Anthony and Kathy. But the body to do that is a body yet to be determined. Perhaps it would be a collaboration between the program or programs that have active active drilling platforms and the partners that are supporting work on last legacy materials. This is a question still to be addressed, but it was outside the purview of our working group. The review and endorsement of a leap does not take the place of review by a funding entity. So endorsement as a leap in some cases might help with review by a funding entity, but it would not take the place of that review. All right, in terms of characteristics of these projects that that the working group suggests should be called leaps. Some of these are a bit of a repeat. They should be a standalone research activity that addresses at least one component of the science framework. The objectives that maximize the return on the legacy assets without new drilling and hopefully you now have a better idea of what those legacy assets are. They should have a duration level of focus and approaches that are appropriate for addressing the objectives of that particular leap as described in a project management plan that would be included in the proposal. For those of us who know and I hope by now some of you are recognizing we love the jr. For those of us who know and love the jr we work in a two month mindset. Because that's what a jr expedition tends to run. But for leaps there's no requirement that things happen in a two month time span. So the duration, the level of focus and the approaches should be what's appropriate for that particular project. So a one size fits one project. Rather than a one size fits all projects. There should be an opportunity provided for members of the broader community to participate. There by promoting diverse international and interdisciplinary science parties, but without recommending a prescribed approach to be used by all leaps. Again, this would be whatever works for that particular project as described in its plant management plan. Should be formally reviewed and endorsed talked about that already. And the, the, the hanging question about what that body would be. And then be implemented in a way that reflects the community driven approach of scientific ocean drilling. So that the leaps and their outcomes are incorporated in that overall structure and history. There was a big concern that leaps not be just one offs, but that they should actually be incorporated into the broader structure of scientific ocean drilling. So the question often comes up, why would a group of people go through the extra step of being evaluated and endorsed as a leap. There are advantages to the project. There are also advantages to the community is laid out here. This provides an opportunity for focused multidisciplinary integration across legacy assets. So what might a leap look like when there were actually some things mentioned this morning that would in a few in a year or so, perhaps, you know, fall pretty readily under the category of a leap. I am a paleo oceanography paleo climate guy. So the examples that I think of, I'll show that bias my apologies to my colleagues who will have other great ideas but these are the sorts of things that easily come to mind to people like me. A synthesis of results and new data across the region. So I think there was a mention, perhaps synthesizing data about deep water circulation history in the Atlantic for the last 40 million years. How has this thing called the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation behave through times of different climate and we had not talked about this coordinating with the people earlier today. You can see that there are certain threads that we all tend to pick up on. Or secondly, a synthesis of results and new data focused on a shorter interval of time. Many of you know that we talk about these as time slices. So what happens during a particular time slice. One of the ones that's drawn a lot of attention and probably will continue to are the warm intervals of the play scene. And I think Adrian mentioned something about this, but the US Geological Survey has had synthesis like this going looking at the play scene for some time. These are proven to be extremely valuable. They encourage open a leap will encourage open involvement participation from the community leading to diverse science parties. It's an opportunity to mentor early career scientists. Those are all advantages to the community. What about advantages to the self because lots of us, you know, do tend to look at what do I getting out of this. We have heard that at least for some of our partners programmatic endorsement as a leap would open the doors to certain funding sources or other resources like supercomputer time. Enhanced visibility of project outcomes within the broader fabric of scientific ocean drilling and enhanced integration of those outcomes. So those are the advantages to the individual. In terms of next steps, we've been encouraged to work towards piloting the process of leaps with the existing science evaluation panel. During the time that it remains, which is about 16 months at this point, because the set will go away with the end of I ODP at the end of September 2024. So proposal guidelines are presently being developed with an eye on a submission deadline that would allow separate view of leaps pre proposals in January. It's an ambitious timeline, but it allows us to take advantage of the existing set structure to run this pilot. Probably not surprisingly, we would expect that the process would be reviewed and revised based on how this pilot run goes. I will mention that Japan is piloting their version of a legacy asset based project. Those are called this is called the record program. It's very prescriptive in how the work is being approached, but it has characteristics very similar to what's been described for leaps. And for them, this year's pilot project is a regional synthesis with additional data from cores and samples. To move this forward in the US, we need to establish some clarity to the path forward, particularly how this leap evaluation panel would act beyond September 2024 when SEP goes away. And this is just my opinion. But if it's been my experience, if you want to incentivize people money is a great way to do it. So as Anthony had mentioned this morning, if there is a pool of funds available within OCE ocean drilling, rather than within core marine geology and geophysics committed to supporting leaps. Those proposals would undergo standard NSF review and award processes, but they would be competing for a designated pot of money. I realize I'm running short of time, but I do want to provide in a quick reality check on the assets that are available. So core 450 kilometers of core 90% or more of that is sediment and sedimentary rocks, less than 10% is igneous and metamorphic rocks. Difficult rock types and by that mean I don't mean rocks that did misbehave when you tell them to do something. I mean the lethologies that are difficult to core and recover. And difficult operational areas like high latitudes, continental shelves in some cases. Other settings like hard rock drilling without a sediment cover. Those areas are significantly underrepresented. Microbiolet, I'll follow up on all of these in just a second very briefly. Bottom line question. Can the science be done with these assets to match the science done with new material and data? The answer is no. I think no one would say that that's possible. Okay. High resolution studies using cores. And we won't go into the details here, but realize to get a continuous high temporal resolution record you have to core that sequence at least twice. Usually more like three times sometimes up to six times. So that you can put together pieces that are undisturbed from the various holes. So when you hear 450 kilometers of core, the prime material for high resolution studies is much, much less than that. You also heard about intervals that are relatively thin, relatively deep. Just so you can see the core photograph over here on the side is a photograph of a 40 centimeter long interval from this thing called the Paleocene, Eocene thermal maximum 55 ish million years ago when the world did natural experiment at high CO2. The white that's in there is all foam that's been put in after samples are taken out so that the remaining sediment doesn't slide around. It's still at the same, the right place in the core. You can see that this is an issue. Mitch showed you that slide of the sampling party with 55,000 samples. One of the four sites that was occupied on that particular expedition was a site that has been occupied twice before. And every time because it has become a reference standard in paleo oceanography, it gets the whole thing gets to look like this. So they fortunately it's an area that's not too far offshore, you know, they pass through fairly regularly. So it's revisited simply to replenish that supply. That is not something that's doable for most of our other core materials. So bottom line cores or finite resources, the intervals of high interest are a small portion or have been poorly recovered. So micro bio, because these have been frozen. It's my understanding and the micro bio people in the room can clearly provide much better information about this than I can. That's suitable for gene surveys and possible metagenomics so it can help you understand what bugs are there. But it's not suitable for telling you what those bugs are doing or at what rates. So they do not. They're not suitable for contributing to understanding of global elemental cycles. Data mining anybody who's done any of that realizes issues with quality control and closing thoughts. I think I've touched on most all of this. I hope you see this as an exciting new way to have large multidisciplinary projects using legacy assets, promising on several levels but the science that can be done with leaps is not a replacement for science that can be done with new materials and data. The challenge is just to successfully implementing leaps in the US, the nature and composition of any evaluation panel, funding, and then the nature of the legacy assets. Excellent. Thank you, Larry. There's actually a lot of questions that have been coming in as you're speaking. So that's partially why I was getting so impatient because I want to make sure we have time for at least a few of them. And you touched upon this one. What sort of funding model is envisioned for leaps and you already told us about one potential way of going about it. But there's this question also goes further and says how much funding might go to each of the participating investigators like what scale are you all thinking about. I don't know. Really still an open question and the funding issue. Well, we know that some of our international partners have been talking about ways to essentially do the seed money for their scientists to participate. So that might mean, you know, grants for each participant of say $50,000 to fund them. If it's a repository based project to fund them to get to the repository, do the sampling, make measurements. If it's an instrumented repository, come back and start to get some work done. That's that's a ballpark number we've heard from other places. That is actually quite well it's a little bit higher but it's in the same range as the post cruise support that's given to us scientists to sale today. Excellent. Okay, next question is there a good estimate for the amount of core material that remains for the most in demand sites and depth intervals. No. But what I can tell you is that the curators, because I asked them for information about this. Nope, sorry, going to back up for just a second so I don't give you the wrong number. Yeah, on this slide the third bullet point down during the international phase. More than 1 million samples have been taken across the three repositories, but more than 30% of those have been taken from only 15 sites. So that tells you that certain intervals of great interest are likely to be already heavily sampled. Then we get into the question of the archive haves, which to this point have been preserved. Some people would argue that with the proper review and oversight. Some of the designs of projects should be given access to archive haves, but that's that that was beyond the purview of our committee. Okay, thank you Larry. Okay, what about this one with the leap model include the ability of additional people to join the program post proposal. Yes. I'm sorry. Yeah, go ahead. No. Yes, yes. And that was a point I was trying to emphasize with the bullet points about open participation. So the recommendations from the working group follows sort of a concentric staffing model where there would be a proponent group that would establish a pre proposal that pre proposal would be reviewed. And then it's endorsed a workshop or something to inform and invite the broader community to participate. And then you would have the actual project take place. So did that answer the question. I think so. Okay, the question from my co chair what technology is required to re enter boreholes. Well, there are other people here can talk about that much more than I can. It depends on what you want to do in the borehole, I believe. So, in a case like Patrick was talking about, I think, if you want to recover from an instrument that's there, you may be able to do that with an ROV off of a conventional research vessel. If you want to go back into the borehole and continue to drill. And then you have to come with a drill ship. And you have to find the cone which may be buried by sediments that piled up as you were doing your drilling. It's doable. But then there's, there's no guarantee what the condition of the borehole will be. Will leaps right site reports and expedition project reports similar to those done by for I ODP. Yes, yeah, I'm sorry in the interest of time I wasn't able to talk about all of that. But the recommendation is that each leap. As part of its program management plan would identify what their product would be and then expected timeline. And that report would then be, we would hope archived together with other publications from the long history of scientific ocean drilling. That's really the way of seeing that the outcomes. Get folded into this broader fabric of scientific ocean drilling. Great. Okay, I'll read this question by Jim Wright though I think this this is a question to you Larry but also really more question to all of us perhaps. If this scenario comes true and a rise of this drilling vessels 15 to 25 years away, should we consider a setting aside course for X number of years, knowing that technology will improve for better analyses. NASA did this with the Apollo material. So, just a question. That's a really, really good question. I think it's one that needs to be addressed by the community overall and NS with NSF input given NSF's point in this. I want to use the microphone. So, a lot of this has been addressed in the last 20 years. I mean, originally, you could only sample half of the working half. And then, during the ocean drilling program was recognized in some places you needed to open up the entire working half. And then the in the Iodp I believe is the first Iodp the policy changed so that in some circumstances, the curators could agree that you could begin to sample the archive path, but a maximum of half of the archive path to your preserving, you know, a quarter of it in perpetuity. So, very good. Thank you for that input. There are more questions, but we're going to make sure that we stay on time so let's move on thank you very much Larry let's thank Larry. Okay, next ideas around benefits of overlapping cross disciplinary ocean and paleo ocean research priorities. Daniel, take it away. Thank you. Zoe are you back there. Okay, thank you very much. So I'm Daniel Sigmund. I am here to speak. I think I was asked to speak as someone who works both within the broader oceanographic community and with ocean drilling samples. And I want to thank Jesse farmer for helping me to get the thoughts and the slides together for this. So, the things I hope to quickly hit on the next couple of minutes are why we need the past to gain insight into the future fundamental question I'm a little bit orienting some of this towards the ocean studies board is as opposed to the people in this room but why we need the past to get insight into the future why studies of millions of year old material can provide insight into the near term future, why these are indeed relevant for the near term future. So I'm going to give you one to two examples probably very, very quickly. Then make the point that continuous paleoproxy development, which is due to activities and other aspects of the scientific and ocean science community development of these proxies by multiple disciplines and ensures new findings from continued ocean drilling. That is to say we do not need to come up with some great new innovation for ocean drilling that we already have innovation in the framework of the proxy development that's going on at sea and in labs today, such that really what the most important thing to do is to to maintain the availability of sediment materials and here I'm speaking specifically about paleoclimate and paleo oceanographic activities but we can broaden that out. And then finally I'll speak briefly about or I'll mention some changes and connections among paleoclimate marine geology and deep biosphere studies and ocean drilling. Okay. So actually, before I move from this slide, starting with that first question. When we're studying processes that matter for the on come for the on for the future for the near term future. We can study processes in the lab or at sea gain a process understanding a mechanistic understanding. We have models which can assimilate information and try to make predictions about the future. Keep in mind that those models are still have great technical limitations and are highly contingent on the tuning that is used to have them accurately reproduce modern conditions. And then we have using available data of change over time. And if we're then we that breaks down into two categories. Instrumental data and pay and pre instrumental data. And so here's just a beautiful example of data of a study of the last 2000 years here only thing but the last 2000 years from the pages to K group, where they looked over time at climate variability over the last 2000 years at the at the centennial scale and compare that to the instrumental data that's available. Now the point they were trying to make about this is really interesting. My, this is just one of many images I might show you, which make the point that what we have in the framework of instrumental data is just so small with regard to change, we have really really information about change in the from instrumental data and adding data year on year as climate change proceeds is no way forward. Okay, so pre instrumental data are absolutely critical. One of you may be saying this type of resolution would not be available in ODP core materials for millions of years ago, by and large that's true we're not able to get decadal resolution sometimes we are. But I'm going to speak to this issue of timescale and just a little bit. So, I sometimes hear new members of the ocean modeling community saying what has paleo climate done for me lately. I just want to remind everybody that many of the major things that we have worried about that are not actually already occurring are due to insights from paleo climate paleo graphic work. A key example is the discovery of Heinrich events, they're tying them to icebergs and to reductions in North Atlantic deep water formation in the North Atlantic, and their climate consequences. This was, you know, if you wanted to find a precursor to this it would have been stommels bifurcate you know to to stable states for an ocean circulation, but nobody was worried about any DW shut downs until this kind of information emerged from paleo climate. Okay, from paleo observations. There is another role that paleo climate data can take this is over the last 400,000 years the reconstruction of methane from ice cores from the bostock ice core. There's been extraordinarily beautiful work done more recently on methane. You know what this record shows is higher methane during interglacials lower methane during the glacial periods. These data have been really useful in ruling out suggestions that have been made for example, it's been proposed that methane large methane releases might occur under global warming from permafrost. We, while the paleo climate data don't rule out this possibility under global warming, they are a strong check against it in the sense that in previous interglacials which were warmer than today, we didn't see tremendous methane releases and so it really we really need to be asking for special conditions for permafrost methane release to be really important under global warming. Similarly, geologic carbon releases methane releases. And these as triggers for for for deglacial change they have been ruled out from the methane data so one way of thinking about this people often don't recognize the degree to which knowledge of the past is an enduring check on the hypotheses that one has knowing about the past is, even though that people don't notice allows them to rule out ideas before they start making their way into the broader community so ruling out cases of cats sleeping with dogs can't see that image well enough. Okay, so we're looking at a, you know, a next couple of centuries of a warmer world, and paleo climate is useful, but if you want to access previous warmer worlds. We, for the most part, with regard to some brief conditions during a few interglacials, we need to go back before a million years ago and that means ocean drilling. We can't access access this age of sediments without the ocean drilling program. The, the more distant past is is important for us not only in the context of it being having been warmer. But if we look at the climate signals, and the CO2 changes that are reconstructed for these past times and this. Relative to the last 800,000 years. The signals are larger. And so it's an easier system from which to derive climate sensitivities to CO2 or albedo. Just from that sense of the signal strength. But in addition when you're looking at secular changes such as they're happening over the last 60 million years. These provide simpler information on climate controls then studying glacial interglacial cycles glacial interglacial cycles are a wonderful system to study but they are complicated by extracting from them climate sensitive climate sensitivities to different factors is complicated by the importance of feedbacks of multiple interacting feedbacks in driving glacial cycles so these secular changes are some are make it make for a simpler framework. And now, when working on millions of years one tends to study millions of years. It's been well shown at this point that rapid processes are recorded in deep time this is one of the, this is the most famous example I would say from the Paley CNC and thermal maximum, an extraordinary event in Earth history that is our only real check on our basic intuition about how CO2 would be absorbed basically giving us some ground to stand on when we think about the coming future. And of course the timescale of the event recorded here is on the timescale of thousands of years and features briefer more brief pardon me, then even the dissolution event in the deep sea has been reconstructed from PETM materials. Okay, now I'm going to give you two little vignettes into the connections that one that can derive among the different areas of ocean science with Paley climate studies. The first I'm going to talk to you about is iron in the ocean. Over the course of the late 80s, 90s, late 80s, 1990s, our understanding of ocean biology ocean chemistry was revolutionized by the recognition that large regions of the ocean specifically the nutrient rich regions such as the southern ocean down here are limited by iron. This was done by biological and chemical oceanographic work, eventually leading to direct additions of iron to the ocean leading to testing of the idea that phytoplankton would be fertilized with iron inputs. But it was a critical question as to what would happen on the large scale with large scale, naturally driven iron inputs and specifically John Marshall, who, John Marshall pardon me, John Martin who sat behind much of this revolution and iron, knew that during the ice ages iron supplies to the, to the ocean and atmosphere were from dust were greater. And he proposed that the lower CO2 concentrations of ice age was due to those dust inputs fertilization of phytoplankton put forward, what is often known as the iron hypothesis for glacial or glacial cycles. Okay. Now, I've, I'm not sure how exactly I'm doing on time here. But to take you through some data from an ODP core. This ODP site 1090. This is the dust flux reconstructed for the last glacial maximum. The dust flux at this core is shown in black below with higher dust fluxes during the ice ages heat the pre the last I say cheer the previous I say cheer. It had been observed previously that productivity was higher during those times of high dust flux, which might be due to iron fertilization or might alternatively be due to frontal migration of in the ocean. But then measurements of the nitrogen isotopic composition within for a minute for a shells a new method that developed over the course of the 2000s. Provided confirmation that in fact these are changes in nutrient concentration the surface more nutrient drawdown associated with a higher dust fluxes when productivity was high. It's very hard to explain these data without iron fertilization and so it was the geologic record that provided confirmation this process on the large scale. Now this links into many other questions both backward in time and forward in time in terms of backward in time if you look over the last four million years for a billion years, pardon me. We evolved from a low oxygen system to a high oxygen system. In this low oxygen world there would have been much higher iron availability, and that means that a lot of the fundamental enzymes in phytoplankton, all organisms evolved at that time. And so when you when you think about this from this perspective, life has been hooked has been suffered from its own inventions with oxygenic photosynthesis driving that rise in oxygen, that leading to a scarcity and iron when there used to be a lot. And that leading to things like iron limitation in the modern ocean. And from that perspective, the origins of life and atmospheric oxygen billions of years ago has influenced atmospheric CO2 climate and life now is including its variations. So this has connections across scales. So this work on iron fertilization is also a point of comparison for proposals of purposeful iron fertilization you can compare the, the, the observations of iron input nutrient drawdown and CO2 apparent CO2 drawdown with people's discussions of purposeful iron I want to stop here for a second and say the Southern Ocean where this work focused is a really critical region for global, for how climate affects the ocean and how the ocean takes up carbon into the future. And so it'll be this is a to me a huge area of priority for future sediment recovery. And we have very little material from the ocean drilling program from the Southern Ocean. So I am shocked that there would be a gap that we've been talking about an ocean drilling that would. Yeah, you can get the point there. Okay. One other example, I want to give you here is on oxygen deficient zone so it's in programmed into a lot of people's minds that oxygen is less available under warmer conditions. And that has been extended to the oxygen deficient zone so people have presumed that oxygen deficient zones would glow what grow under global warming. And indeed there's been data. There have been a number of studies high profile studies that have observed a decline in ocean and rise in these oxygen deficient zones over the course of the last century and assume and presume that this was due to global warming. And that was picked up quite frequently in the, the, the public press. But when we look back millions of years ago. The story seems to be somewhat different than that shown here is the last 60 million years. The time proceeding in this direction climate data up here here again form an effort about nitrogen isotope measurements, the greener from the Pacific it cores near oxygen deficient zones, their decline in n 15 and 14 ratio during these two warm periods of the past. So at least using climate optimum the mid-myosin climate optimum, indicate that this suboxic process decreased under warm climates of the oxygen fission zone shrunk during these time intervals in contrast to these expectations. And indeed, ocean models are now, I would say coming around to this notion that this is actually how the system will respond. But you may say, oops, pardon me. You may say, look, these are million year time scale changes, what do these have to do with what's going to happen in the next couple of decades or centuries. I would have two things I would say about that one is if you see that little data point right there. That's from what's known as MI to 1000 years time scale glaciation. So these changes are not inherently million year time scales. The other way to put this is among the most likely mechanisms for this reduction in the oxygen deficient zones under warming is a weakening of the trade winds. And if that's the correct explanation for these changes, this can happen on a time scale of decades of years. And so just because a change occurs over millions of years does not mean that that change, the response time of that change is a long is long. Right. A lot of the things we can learn from the million year time scale will translate directly to the near future. Okay. Sorry, I just spit on the microphone. I just worked up. So, this is my and Jesse farmers effort to sort of make a tabulation we did it over the weekend of tools. So these are the perfect tools to look at different environmental parameters in the past. And the development of these tools is largely come from chemical oceanographers who are also pale oceanographers sometimes just chemical oceanographers but also people who have marine biology in biological and biological oceanography in marine molecular biology. So there are a lot of new tools available due to these other areas of science and ocean science. And then we look at any one category so this is for temperature this is for dissolved oxygen. We have different proxies some of which were established early on we've been getting better at using them others are only if only come along more recently so this is iodp 2003. Survey of ocean sciences 2015 and the future survey, new tools are coming online all the time and so that again I just want to emphasize that point I made at the beginning, which is that ongoing proxy development, which does not rely directly on ocean drilling is less providing new tools all the time that will mean that we can do more with sediments that are recovered. And in this coming set of decades of global warming. It is critical in my view that we have the set of the sediments available to apply this ever advancing toolbox to understanding what the future has to bring. So I have a few comments that are not very. Well, I'm going to stop here. There's something to be said about the growing symbiosis among paleo climate marine geology and jive is in deep biosphere, but I see that I'm already over time, so I'm going to stop. Thank you Daniel that was a whirlwind tour of some fantastic examples. Thank you very much for assembling that really really great. I actually don't have any questions right now it seems like everybody sort of contemplating all the good info that you've given us. Well that's a good so. So maybe you can take a few more minutes to talk about this. This last thought. Okay, so there's always been a strong connection between paleo climate and marine geology and geophysics. In the sense that, well, there it goes both directions but the what I'm often thinking about in this context is marine geological and geophysical processes determine ocean basin geometry continental locations. And the fluxes ocean gateways, the fluxes of chemicals between the ocean and the marine lithosphere, can't mountain building and weathering. It's always been a very natural connection within ODP to connect the marine geology to paleo climate. The deep biosphere though as more and more work proceeds in this area, those connections are going to strengthen and that's because the sedimentary materials are often a critical energy source for these deep microbes. The pore waters, as well as the set is a solid material speak to our critical for that deep biosphere, but then the deep biosphere is also going to affect poor water composition and help us to understand the sedimentary conditions that are preserving our geologic proxies. And so you can see this proceeding as we look through this last set of I ODP expeditions, where there have been more and more connections between the deep biosphere and the ongoing marine geological but also paleo paleo climate work on those materials. Okay, thanks. Great. Thank you. So I will ask a question if you if you're okay standing up there for a couple more minutes. You know, you're really good at sort of connecting the work that I ODP is doing with, you know, all kinds of different arenas. The one thing I've been more thinking about more lately has been critical minerals, you know, and how important it is if we're really going to go to a, you know, electrifier economy. There's no connection there. Is that something you've thought about. Right. I, I'd like other people to respond to that more I mean we've got huge areas of the ocean where the that are the repositories for these critical minerals and these are often the least explored environments from the perspective of paleo climate just given their very low sedimentation we do know that there is paleo climate information in nodules right and so there should be some deep thinking about trying to connect people's interesting interest in recovering those nodules with the histories that are preserved within them. And there may be, you know, with this with especially the rise of a cation trace metal isotope measurements. We may be able to get a lot more paleo climate information from those kind of metal rich deposits than we used to. Thank you. Okay, more questions coming in. You've utilized many existing sedimentary archives for your latest work utilizing nitrogen and isotopes. Do you see a need for obtaining additional archives to fill key gaps in space and time. Oh gosh, this. Next I mean so the, you know, a lot of the, we have projects ongoing right now where there are discussions about who has the last court pit of course fraction from these key cores and the equatorial Pacific, for example, that have, you know, been used to study the fine structures a function of climate. We're already running out of these best known sites. The, the, the southern ocean it's very hard place to sample if I were to ask for any major innovation in deep sea drilling and ocean drilling, it would be to more easily access polar regions that if I had one thing on my list because we have there been a number of very productive ODP sites in the southern ocean, for example, but they are in number very few and I'm sure they're extraordinarily depleted.  Okay, and, and so they're all these there are these. One answer is we're already running out of material in places that we know well, right. We have not done the thinking I should do about a dish beyond that that point about the southern ocean specifically cores from closer to the Antarctic continent. I haven't thought deeply enough about that. Okay, one more, one more last question. What are the most important outstanding ocean climate system questions that can be addressed by scientific ocean drilling and paleo climate records. I mentioned improved reconstruction of high latitude change, which are our questionnaire completely agrees with, but what else. Well, let me do you know the reason that the high latitudes matter so much is these are the gateways to the interior right and so one of the critical questions is how will heat and anthropogenic CO2 flow into the ocean. On what time scale and with what complexities under the in the coming decades and centuries. And I think that they're, you know, but most of the surface ocean is the, the tropical ocean right and these places are extraordinary and energetic importance. And, you know, I'm, these are these are questions that people have already tried to get a lot out of ocean drilling about like changes in the structure of tropical thermoclines not only in the Pacific but also in the Atlantic and the Indian. Can I have like a week to think about that question. You can have even more than that. Let's thank Daniel. Thank you very much. All right, and without a break or further ado, it is time to transition over to our, our lightning panel and the way we're going to do that. I'm going to invite the first five folks who are on our list. So Massako, Chijun, Adrian, Chris and Allison up front to be seated in that order. And then Zoe I'm going to ask you to pull up the slides for this one. Okay, while you all are doing that so I'm going to keep time with my iPhone here. Very fancy tool.  If you see me standing up that means you're within 15 seconds. You see me walk towards you it's really getting close. You don't want to be tackled by a five foot one tuba that's for sure. But thank you, everyone. We've, we've told our panelists that they have two and a half minutes to tell us about future science perspectives on scientific ocean drilling. And I'm really looking forward to this one. And so without further ado, I think we can kick it off with Massako. Either way, yeah, sit here and talk is fine. Mike, okay. All right, I really appreciate Daniel's talk that talked about the connection. So, as a marine geophysicist, I do care about oceanic crust. So oceanic crust covers 70% of our surface and it lies beneath all the oceanographic phenomena. And therefore, discoveries on anything about its origin, nature, behavior, enable us to address a critical science question like, what's the characters of some civil environment, and how does it affect the global element cycle and deep by deep biosphere. I think we have been making progress in addressing this very question from with to reach to subduction zones. It is very recent advances in our understanding of, for example, how a magnetically lower crust and upper mantle is brought up to the seafloor and facilitating link among biogeochemical processes with them. The observations have been made possible by state of art multi scale multi dimensional infrastructure currently available in the US oceanography, with which we have been able to collect interdisciplinary data necessary to evaluate seafloor and shallow processes and also to image deep structures in oceanic crust and then even mantle. And indeed, in these efforts intact continuous hard rock cores obtained from deep oceanic crust through scientific drilling are the only ground truth to geophysical data and deep crust imagery in validating our conceptions and models in geodynamics. Among many many deep crustal system of studies, as an example, I would like to here pose a currently unanswered very fundamental question. How does it start and then continue to be operated? Do we know? I don't think so. A connector between passing and present ocean world exists within the oldest oceanic crust in the western Pacific, where today's play tectonic cycle started mid ocean reaches and only combined technology of deep sea margins, basing wide geophysics and ocean drilling can address this most fundamental question that define the planet Earth. It requires to obtain intact core samples and establish observatory within a kilometer or so of the ocean crust at six steps. These numbers, one kilometer and six kilometers should be a key metric of future ocean drilling and other oceanographic infrastructure in the US. Thank you. Excellent. Thank you. My name is Shijun. I'm a paleoclimatologist. I study past changes in the Atlantic Meridiano overturning circulation, or AMOC. As we all know, the AMOC plays a very important role in today's global climate. However, the IPCC report says that the AMOC will very likely decline over the 21st century, although they don't think that there will be an abrupt collapse before 2100, which is good. Just a paper published last week argues that a collapse of the AMOC may occur around the mid century, and that certainly has caused some quite some major discussion among scientific community. But really, whether it's 30 years or 100 years or even the day after tomorrow, chances are it will likely happen. And now the question is, how would the global climate respond to a collapsed AMOC? We know that AMOC has collapsed in the past, as shown by this red curve in the upper left corner. On the right, I'm showing the climate model results that's showing that these past intervals of collapse AMOC were associated with global scale abrupt changes in both temperature and precipitation. Now, scientific ocean drilling allows us to reconstruct how climate actually changed during those intervals, and that can help us to evaluate the performance of our climate models, and that can help us to provide useful implications for the future. But there are also many other things going on at the same time in those intervals that may affect the climate, in addition to a collapsed AMOC, such as changes in solar insulation, CO2 concentrations, sea level, as well as the retreat of ice sheets from different parts of the world into different parts of the ocean. So we really need more high quality paleo climate reconstructions to help us better characterize the complex climate dynamics during those intervals to better inform the future. My research echoes this priority question identified in the last decadal survey regarding the link between oceanic processes and climate. I think it's still a very important question for the next decade, especially given how pressing our climate issues are right now. And that's all for me. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, Adrienne's next and those of you who are on Slido, I'm hoping to have a few minutes of time for maybe a question or two to these five. So do feel free to put questions into Slido with that. Go ahead. So for the first time this year, the IPCC report actually had a section about Western boundary currents. And in it, they state that the multi multi decadal variability of the strength and position of these currents. And short records from direct observations can obscure the detection of any long term trends. So subtropical Western boundary and currents are incredibly important to us today. They transport heat moisture and gases from the equator regions to high latitudes. There are places of high biodiversity and high productivity in the world oceans. They are past that are followed by hurricanes typhoons and other strong storms because they provide the heat and moisture for these storms. And they have the power to impact local and regional climate and weather dynamics. So it's really important now how to continue exploring how they will continue to respond to climate change today and in the coming future.  So we need to reconstruct these Western boundary currents using the deep sea sediment and fossil record. My lab group and I work. Oh, well, let me back up. This is a geologic timescale, just the past 66 million years at the bottom till today at the top. And my lab group and I work. Within one of these analogous warm periods called the mid pi ascensian warm period, which was about 3.3 to 3 million years ago. What we do is use sediments from site 1207. This was drilled in 2001. Along the boundary of the crucial current and extension, the major Western boundary current in the Northwest Pacific Ocean. This is a sediment core from that site. So at the top you can see that red box. This is a limit of a piston core, which is about 90 feet. So, and when the blue box is the depth of the analog analogous warm period that we study. So this is beyond the depth of the piston core can reach. Observational data today has indicated that the crucial current has warned by about 1 to 2 degrees over the last century. But using geochemical data from these sediments my lab group and I have established that the crucial current extension warned by about 8 degrees Celsius across this analogous warm period and that's analogous to today's warming. We suspect that the current could warm another 6 to 7 degrees Celsius within the next few decades, leading to 8 degrees total Celsius total of warming from pre industrial times. So you've all seen this map earlier today is scientific drilling after 2024, and I've outlined the Western boundary current regions in the red boxes. So all that blacked out area is where we will not be able to obtain sediment records under these Western boundary currents across these analogous warm periods. We simply cannot do it without drilling. So we really need rise list drilling to keep getting at these sedimentary archives, especially those that cross analogous warm periods to continue reconstructing these Western boundary currents and how they will impact society in the coming decades. Thank you. Great. Thank you very much. Next up is Chris. All right, thank you. My name is Chris Lowry. I'm a research associate at the University of Texas Institute for geophysics. I'm a micro paleontologist. My research is focused on kind of two broad questions. How did ancient marine organisms respond to changes in their environment? And what can those past changes tell us about how modern organisms respond to ongoing changes in their environment. This directly contributes to several of the priorities defined by the last decadal survey, including what is the role of biodiversity and the resilience of marine ecosystems and how it will be affected by natural anthropogenic changes. And how different will marine food webs be by mid century and in 100 years. So we think about marine ecosystems and marine food webs. We tend to think about ecologically and economically important things like tuna, billfish, squid, krill. Unfortunately, there's not good fossil records of those things. But fortunately, the biodiversity of Plantic for Manifra in the modern ocean is highly correlated with that of tuna billfish krill, squid and other important groups. So we can use the record of micro fossils as a proxy for these other groups that we care about. We have an excellent record of the global diversity of marine plankton. This is a record that goes back here to the Triassic. And this is the response of calcareous nano fossils in Plantic for Manifra to a bunch of different climate events through Earth history. These climate events all have different characteristics. Some of them are warming. Some of them have ocean acidification or deoxygenation or changes in the stratification or whatever. And we can we can compare those events to each other and understand what causes what kind of changes cause what groups to go extinct, or to change their range, or what have you. So we have a great record of global diversity. This is like, you know, this, this plot on the left is like averaged across the entire Earth, and it's just, you know, extinction, like the number of species go up or down. That's great. But there's a lot of ecological changes that happen below the level of extinction that are still really important to understand. And so we can start to better to look at this, this box on the right looks at the, basically measure functional diversity in million year time bins, but also split out by latitude. So average across five degree latitudinal bends through Earth history back to 66 million years ago. We've got a great record of the knee gene, but as you start to get further back in time into some of these analog or partial analog warm periods of the past. We have less good coverage of these deeper time intervals and you know, like, for example, here in the in the early paleo gene we have no records from the tropics, we're almost no records from the tropics and it's still an open question on whether the tropics are tropics were actually habitable during these past warm climates. And to fill those gaps we need more drilling we need to get more records to build this data set out. And those new records to help us answer a lot of important and emerging questions like where the tropics habitable. What are the mechanisms or rates of change that cause extinction versus just rain shifts and related to that are their tipping points and biodiversity. Thank you. Thank you, Chris. Alison is the last of the set of speakers and again if you have questions for them do put them in Slido. And if you wish, if it's a question specifically to one of the speakers do put their name down otherwise it's just a general question. Thanks. So I'm a marine biogeochemist and my work really looks at the links between climate change and ocean chemistry. So for my group that really boils down to two questions one is how will climate change impact the ocean chemistry and how will those changes act as impacts on the global climate system. So that involves looking at things like how the carbon cycle links to other cycles like oxygen and nutrient cycles and alkalinity. And there are many ways that my group can ask these questions using either modern observations, or the recent paleo oceanographic record which we can obtain through gravity and piston cores. So when we get to some of what are the most urgent questions for our community, those questions tend not to be about what the ocean and climate will look like now. Those questions are about what the oceans will look like in 100 years when we know that they're likely to be much warmer. So as you've already heard, one of our best tools for asking questions and studying these processes and feedbacks of warmer is to go back further in geologic history, which requires ocean drilling to obtain those records. The other thing that I want to note that my group does is that we study the geochemistry of the sub seafloor environment. We do that to try to understand how deep process or processes deep within sediments can drive changes in global biogeochemical cycles. So what we do this is by extracting core or interstitial waters from marine sediments, but I just want to highlight that this is something we have to do as those materials are collected so as we develop new questions we can't go to a core repository and pull waters out of those cores, we have to go and collect more material. So just even an example of what this work can look like here's an example from expedition 392. So in early 2022. We came out to the Agulis plateau. We collected this unexpected but beautiful 100 meter section that showed local enhanced basalt weathering into the ocean. And a record like this gives us an opportunity not just to look at what the ocean looked like looked at like in the past, but also to start to interrogate some of the impacts of proposed climate mitigation techniques things like ocean enhancement, which can involve things like enhanced basalt weathering to the oceans. So here we're looking at questions that are not only relevant to us as an ocean sciences community, but also to us as a society as we start to think about some of our potential mechanisms for climate mitigation. Oh, excellent. Perfect. Perfect. Thank you. Excellent. Thank you for these perspectives I really appreciate that mean it is amazing how much you can cram into two and a half minutes well done. Yeah. And I do have a few questions. So let's see. There's a comment here that talks about how it's important to point out that many scientists if not most in the ocean drilling community also work in the water column they're not disconnect groups and that's really important I think less of a question more of a comment. Okay, as early career scientists, is there anything specific to scientific ocean drilling that you feel has shaped your success thus far. All right, let's go with Chris in the now. Yeah. Okay, so one of like low key the best part about scientific ocean drilling is that to get on the ship and to be a part of these expeditions. It's a very low barrier to entry right there's no you don't have to write a proposal, you don't have to be the PI or the PI student or something like that. When they staff the ship they'd really try hard to balance career stages so it's not just people that have been doing it their whole careers. It's also postdocs it's also graduate students it's also you know people that maybe don't have an opportunity or wouldn't have had an opportunity to sale if it was you had to write a proposal yourself. For example, I first went to see on expedition 364 which drilled the chicks live impact crater. I had never studied the paleo scene before that cruise. I had expertise in form and if I but I'd never actually study the paleo scene the other micro paleontologists on that cruise was young Schmidt who helped describe or discover the asteroid impact hypothesis for the cruise mass extinction so it there's a there's like a big shift in an expertise there, but that was a really, really positive thing for me because it's a really good like jumpstart to your career that you get access to new samples. It's all high quality, high quality science because it's all vetted and it's a lot of infrastructure that goes into like getting out there to getting the samples, you get all this material that you would not have access to otherwise and that's extremely valuable as an early career point. Thank you Chris Alley. Yeah, so I think my, my point is similar, but I just want to highlight kind of, as Chris has said for, for those of you who maybe haven't thought a lot about our staffing procedures that they really are unique. In addition to my opportunity to sail on 392, I actually have two graduate students who either have sailed or will sail in the next year. Those students were given the opportunity to apply for a project independent of me and to go on a ship and to kind of get much more equal footing with their peers than I think exists in many situations. I also just want to highlight that as you look at the affiliations of scientists who've been speaking, I think it's worth just reminding kind of the quality of these experiences that aren't focused on a handful of elite universities but are really being educated. I'm in the Midwest. I'm at a relatively small university by comparison and so I think that that's also a key to keep in mind is just the extent to which I ODP provides opportunities, really high quality opportunities kind of across the country. This is great points. Thank you. I also want to underscore everything that Chris and Ali have both said because those are my similar experiences as well as well. I'm also at a smaller R1 in New York State. I also have grad students that are sailing and involved with research and, you know, but as a first generation academic and my family didn't come, we didn't come from a lot of money. Being on an I ODP expedition really allowed me access to other mentors and people that really would like help define my career. And that was also really important. So there was this paper that came out. I think just last week, Rebecca Barnes is a co-author on it. She's a friend and colleague and I met on Twitter. But it talks about these sticky networks and how like folks that are mentored and have a big group of mentors and advisors actually stay within academia. And that's kind of been true for me. And I think it can be true. It's probably true for a lot of other folks out there. But I think there's this really good opportunity for students that come from, you know, non-traditional paths or may have historically excluded identities and STEM to really be brought into this community and embraced. And of course, we always have room to improve on that front as well. Wow, that's awesome. Jason Sylvan asked the question. I'm so glad he asked the question. These are some amazing insights. Anything from Masako and Shijun? Okay, I think I completely agree with what, you know, three of them and suggestively presented so far. So anything I can add. As a, let's say, marine geophysicist who mainly works with basin-wide seismic magnetic gravity, all these signals. If I did not sail on these IODP drilling cruises that core the basement material, I probably, it took me or took the community for a long time or never to understand what's the source of what we are geophysically really imaging. That's why I emphasize that this is the only way to ground truth deep crustal imagery. And then as a student, as postdoc early carrier, I have been so humbled about, wow, we did not know type of discoveries during the drilling. So, thank you. Yeah, um, yeah, unlike the other four speakers, I have never been on an IODP cruise ship before. But I totally agree with what they have said. I think it is an amazing experience if I had joined those ships. And I'm jealous. So I think, you know, if, if, no, we will have a, we will have another ship in the future and that will allow me or, you know, the future generations to get a similar experience to advance their research and build their connections. And also, although I haven't been on a cruise ship before, but those existing data that's generated from those past expeditions are really helpful for my research in terms of telling us the climate for things and responses in the past. And sort of like, I stand on the shoulders of giants, you know, and these are incredibly helpful for my research so far. Excellent. Thank you all. Let's thank our panelists one more time. And I want to invite to the front, the remaining four, Jason, Jessica, Brandy and Patrick. Maybe we can have it. There you go. Thank you. And Leanne, let's not clear the questions. Is that okay? Don't clear the questions just yet. Yeah. Oh, too late. I like that. All right. Thank you all, Jason, Jessica, Brandy, Patrick in that order. So I guess, Jason, we start with you. Push the button. And it's, there we go. Okay. Thank you. Sorry. Complete space. My name is Jason Sylvan. I'm an associate professor in department of oceanography at Texas A&M University, where my lab studies at the microbial ecology of volcanic rocks that are created at mid ocean base and then reside below sediments in all the parts of the ocean. The oceanography community in general should care about this work because at any one time about 2% of the volume of seawater is moving through this volcanic aquifer, which means that in general the entire volume of the ocean cycles through basements roughly every 200,000 years. And while moving through basements, seawaters altered by microorganisms and water rock reactions, having implications for ocean chemistry that connect this deep biosphere to the broader ocean. Next. Where do I press? Oh, I press next. It's me. My work addresses the 2015 decadal survey of ocean sciences objective about geophysical chemical and biological character of the subsea floor environments and how it affects global cycles and understanding of origins and evolution of life. In my lab, we address a few different questions, but among them are things like how many micro microbes are there in this particular environment. How many micro microbes and if we can isolate new species in the lab to work with. So I put a few examples here on the left, we see a plot of number of cells in volcanic seafloor on x axis versus depth on the y axis going from seafloor down to 792 meters below seafloor. And our data set is kind of unprecedented in terms of its length and allowed us to address questions about the distribution of abundance and kind of where they are cells below the seafloor that are really exciting. We're on that same site. In the middle, the different colors represent different groups of microorganisms and this goes actually from the surface on the left to deep 750 meters on the right. It shows that those different colors are there's a lot of it looks like almost noise and that shows us that the groups of microorganisms are heterogeneously distributed and we did some further work looking into how this relates to the properties of the course themselves. And on the right, we have an image of a bacteria that I isolated from 392 meters below seafloor. And to my knowledge this was the first kind of described new species of bacteria from specifically from sub seafloor basement and growing these organisms in the field allows us to address hypotheses that we can address in the field. So I'll finish up by saying that all of this types of work requires new scientific ocean drilling so I've sailed on three expeditions and been associated with the fourth closely. And on the map on the right shows places that IDP has sampled the larger dots or where microbiology was a focus and you can see that's a minority of all the total and so this is a young field, and to avoid contamination and also do the types of experiments that let us address these we need fresh core and scientific ocean drillings. Excellent. Thank you, Jason. Let's see who's next. Jessica. I'm waiting for my slides. Oh, oh, okay, cool. Yeah, I'm just going to be a soon to be associate professor at Texas C&M Galveston. So, my research focuses on understanding the role and impact and importance of virus host interactions in different aquatic environments and that includes the water column, but also the sediment. So when we think about viruses, some of most of them will infect the cell replicate, and that ends up in bursting the cell, releasing the nutrients, which will have a huge impact on the geochemical cycles. Some of them can integrate inside the genome of their host, they will be dormant until they get out and they are a little sloppy so they often are involved in gene transfer and adaptation of their host. And what we know about viruses and sediment, we know that they're very abundant 10 to 10, 10 to 100 times more abundant than their micro bill host. We know that they're more abundant when there's more total organic carbon, and they are extremely diverse, and they are active at depth up to 300 but I put little stars here and there's only three papers that use iodp everything with surface cores so we don't know much about viruses at depth, and we don't know anything about viruses in basement. So there's a lot of questions we know that they are probably very important in the geochemical cycles, given their importance in the water column. But what is the infection rate we don't know, and that will tell us how the impact the geochemical cycles, and by knowing the dynamics between viruses and their host we can learn about adaptation but we have so many more questions to answer. Last summer I participated in Expedition 393 and the South Atlantic transit and I'm trying to attempt to answer some of these questions like what is the infection rate. What is the preferred lifestyles, do they more, do they lyse more or do they are, they are more dormant. Who are they infecting we don't even know because we don't know the host for these viruses, and how are they involved in the adaptation of their host. So, but this is the sort of questions that we need to think about before we get the course so we need fresh cores to determine any types of activity rates and that's not just through with viruses it's through with every microbes. We also need deep course because we need to be able to access the complete geochemical gradients if we want to understand how microbes are like players in the geochemical cycles. But we also need a range of course from different locations and environments, because we, the field of microbiology and biology and the subsurface is still very young so we need to further understand their importance in the elemental cycles and the evolution of life. Thank you. Thank you Jessica brandy's next. My research focuses broadly on the survivability of microbes in the subsurface, and I divide this into three themes that can be thought of like a game show survivor. And I highlight papers from from my lab for each of these. The first is adaptation, which is reflected and as Jessica said, in RNA expression. So briefly RNA that, you know, which I specialize in tells us that the microbe is active it's changing its environment that RNA degrades quickly over time. Very quickly talking, you know, hours and even days and even with storage it degrades so that's not something that we could get from even archive samples. The second is dormancy and this is seen through spores. This is spores that we isolated from South Pacific gyre sediments. This is fungi and one that we characterized and fungi like viruses is very new finding it's still in its infancy. It's responsible for the breakdown of recalcitrant carbon in the subsurface. And the third mechanism for survival is, you know, basically killing its neighbor through natural products or through antimicrobial production. And my lab has shown that using full length genes from genomes, we can predict the antimicrobial product, the actual natural product that can be produced. And now this is going back to leaps. This is using big data analytics for discovery, but it, but we can't actually derive the natural product, unless we use fresh samples. And that is on the horizon. So, if viruses and fungi are, you know, in its infancy and research, then this is in its fetal stage. And so we're just now figuring out what is possible with antimicrobials.  And, you know, so we need that transfer disciplinary science. Otherwise, you know, our concern is that without an organizing body or without a framework, that the science will naturally silo into its sub disciplines. And I repeat brings those, you know, you know, encourage those those to come to the table. So microbiologists and, you know, geologists are actually creating the whole, you know, new field of something like geo microbiology, which didn't exist 50 years ago at all. And then I want to kick it over to Patrick and by saying that, you know, cork observatories, you know, these may be our last window to the subsurface, you know, biologically speaking, if that scientific drilling doors closed. Great. Thank you, Brandy Patrick. Thanks. Great. Thanks. So forgive me, but I want to give another highlight of the power of borehole observatories. Particularly one we installed after the magnitude nine to Hoku earthquake of Japan during that earthquake, the shallow portion of the fault slipped 50 to 60 meters all the way to the sea floor, essentially the sea floor at the trench jumped 50 meters to the east. It was a much bigger earthquake and much bigger tsunami than anyone predicted. Why was that was the fault there really strong and it built up a lot of elastic energy, or was it really weak and essentially just kind of hydroplanned and went along with the ride. Essentially we want to know what the dynamic friction is a critical part of earthquake physics but this is something that seismology can't tell us. The only thing that we can do it is measuring the frictional heat generated, just as you rub your hands together, the heat generated is related to how much displacement there is, and the average shear resistance. So what if we drill into the fault and try to measure the temperature. The expedition and community of scientific ocean drilling was such that it enabled us to have a rapid response drilling expedition 343 J fast that set sail just a year after the earthquake, and we drilled across the fault we sampled it, and we installed a temperature for a seven kilometers water depth, another 850 meters below the sea floor. Essentially, not we showed straws and measuring pressure, this is just essentially a rope with a lot of super high resolution temperature sensors can measure to an accuracy of 1000th of a degree Celsius, hanging in the well, and here, and came back nine months later. And this is what we've got we're looking at the residual or anomalous temperature when you remove background geotherm as a function of depth and time at the beginning to disturb by the drilling itself but then it equilibrates with the formation and down at the bottom at 820 around the plate boundary fault we see this anomalous temperature about point three degrees that we interpret to be the frictional heat signature of the earthquake. When we back out what the friction was, we get a really low friction essentially it had no breaks going on here. We also learn a lot of things about hydrology which is really important to a lot of things. You can see another single here of where it says advection fluid moving through there, and then in aftershocks starts flowing through other things. We can map where fluids are coming out dynamic pulses how hydrology, how fault zones and hydrology are linked together and respond to aftershocks in the subsurface really important to understand how fluids trigger earthquakes or Genesis and microbiology saw you transport. Thanks. Great. Thank you Patrick let's thank our speakers. All right I do have a bunch of questions I know we're not going to get to all of them but I'll ask you a few of them. Microbes and viruses like I'm sensing from you all you're like well wait we just joined the party. Wait, how can the party and this is not fair right we just. And you know also from the previous talks to me this is a program that's really hitting its stride right that is very obvious. Okay, so one question here talks about sort of the importance of new cores versus ability to use existing cores and. So four of you I'm looking for like a number like 5050 9010 needs to be new 100%. What do you all are thinking let's start with Patrick and work our way backwards. The question was how much do we need old core versus new core. Yeah, in your research so far or in the near future as you envision it what percentage do you think we will require new cores versus can be done with. I don't know what people want to hear but I think that it's 95% new and 5% old essentially old stuff is good for ancillary science to essentially figure some things about rock properties or some other things to fill in kind of background things but the new and cutting edge sciences is out there and for better or worse we've milked those cores we've milked a lot of the stuff that that we've acquired so far to get the science that we put out there already. I just want to reiterate that that I would agree with that number.  Those are first order questions that we'd like to move well beyond. That's the deeper questions, not only just rates but, you know, what are these other, you know, domains of life they're in there, or entities, and then also, you know, what's, what's active, what is, what are they actually doing. I'm seeing some nodding. Jason, did oh yeah. Yeah, well and I would add to that we've seen in a few of the presentations photographs from the repositories where you see kind of meters high rows of cores. But the cores that can be used for microbiology in particular resist in like a few freezers. Not a lot of material. So even though there's a few questions that can be addressed and should with those repository for microbiology for our discipline in particular. Yeah, it's not a lot. Yep. And the size of the samples in the freezer is, you're lucky if you get a 10 centimeter whole round but it's usually less or even a plug, which if like the most of these samples are low biomass there's not a lot of microbes in there so you don't get a lot of even DNA to ask more meaningful question then who is there with simple 16 s amplification points. Thank you. Here's another question about and is some of you touched on this but let's make it a little bit more explicit. The importance of the trans disciplinary nature of I ODP you're nodding give us some examples and thoughts some anecdotes. I'm not sure I see it's sorry. It's just. While he's. Sorry. You got so excited you chose your own. So the one of the great things about the going on I ODP expedition list that you get to interact with geologists sedimentologists. I'm a marine microbiologist so I knew absolutely nothing about rocks on slide. I went on the ship. And now I can, you can fully integrate your data within a much larger frame of other data that would otherwise not be available because I didn't even know what that these data existed before. So just being able to have that access to the other data, but also meeting the people on board is you build a network of people and it's such an inclusive community that you go on the ship and there's no more seniority versus early career everybody is doing there to achieve the objectives of the of the expedition. Yeah, thank you. This is here is a million dollar question. If you could lead a future I ODP. What would you do differently to ensure it's sustainability and progress. This is a million dollar question and it's okay to say I don't know. Yeah, I mean I don't know I like to kind of respond to questions like that and saying it's not this or that and so I think that there are more creative solutions that involve larger government than just puts in this room. That's, I guess that said I mean I think having a program that is sustainable is important so if that means potentially guaranteeing continuity but with less field work. You know, in particular for some period of time, as we think about what the future will look like. I think that that would be an acceptable path forward. That's a good point. Patrick. I was going to say, I think one of the things that for us to think about is that we don't want to have to reinvent this is that the beauty of ocean drilling is that over 50 plus years, whoever. It works and it's a system that has all this interdisciplinary stuff. If you want to do something like an ICDP proposal or I'm working on a DOE supported during project. You don't get this interdisciplinary stuff. You don't get all this organizational stuff. And so you're trying to event this stuff. And so it's kind of evolved to something that works and we're really afraid that that's going to be lost. Yeah, very good points. All right you all really insightful I'm so glad you're here and gave us your time let's thank our panel one more time. Yep, so there are just four of us. And so we had probably. I can hear it. I mean I can hear. You can hear me right. Okay. So anyway, we had obviously a number of what we would consider a high priority. We had a number of focuses. Ultimately we settled on these three of the first being polar climate ice sheet instability and sea level changes. And so this is about reducing uncertainties in ice sheet and geophysical models, which are being used predict rates of magnitude of sea level rise. There are clearly a number of periods in the past. Some fairly recent, the last interlacial stage 11. Maybe the early fly as seen in the deeper time, possibly the you seen a legacy transition that serve as good case studies for testing these models and so some of this would require additional deep sea drilling some of it wouldn't be maybe existing course and so forth, we didn't get into the details of that. The second priority, you know, broadly speaking is about changes in ocean mixing slash stratification, and how that influences nutrient and carbon cycling kind of thing from in terms of the response of the ocean at this ocean in terms of acting in feedback mode. You have warming, potentially increased stratification and how that impacts productivity and the uptake of carbon so air sea exchange of carbon. This has some relevance also to thinking about ocean carbon sequestration and carbon sequestration has to be done, ultimately it's going to be implemented in the context of models that we trust and basically a unstable or shifting system. And then third priority, the general topic of large earthquakes and tsunamis, basically monitoring current seismogenic zones, being able to improve predictions, specifically of large earthquakes, where they would occur and maybe closing the window on prediction of timing. Any clarifying questions for Jim. We did have other priorities. I can list some of those but that's patient hydrologic cycle, the class here so. But, and picking points, but we had to pick three. And then that question of urgency, we would consider all these to be urgent priorities. We might wait 10 years to continue working on these problems need to as soon as possible get back to addressing these issues. Okay. Okay, next slide. Okay, that that was our group and I'm already seeing overlap and that's delightful. So the first science priority focuses on the theme of paleo oceanography and paleo climatology. There are two sub categories. The second one is, is I think the first priority from the previous group looking at sensitivity and dynamics of land ice and sea level change. The first one relates to one of the themes that I heard from the first group as well. It's not really phrased, but definitely related thinking about how ocean circulation responds to rapid climate change and then the consequences for ocean environments and marine ecosystems and in particular co2 changes co2 uptake. Parallels are second. And this is not in a priority order, but an additional priority in our top three list is bringing in one of the things that was not in the first list. So thinking about geo microbiology and we were thinking about the the company, the framing of this in with an urgency sense. So, thinking about sub seafloor life. As an unknown natural resource. So that that might be a valuable way to connect it to societal relevant issues with future technology and mining considerations and what the, what what would the impacts be on this and what there's so much that we don't know the unknown unknowns. So origins of life and adaptation microbial system interactions contributions to geo chemical cycles. And our third priority, we have to, we really want to just defer to the other groups we did not have any geo hazard specialists in our group but we, even though that was no. No one in our group was that their primary field we did recognize how valuable and important that is. So just putting putting it up there to tag it. But we also had lots of discussions about what we're calling a special mention so the rock sediment water interactions with implications for deep carbon cycling and and one of the ways that that ties into urgency was was the connections to carbon interaction. Thank you. And how many people were in your group. One, two, three, four, seven, eight, depending upon the time of the room. Is there any clarifying questions for Kristen. Okay, next slide. Room 118. That was Rick. Yeah, folks can also feel free to put questions in the slide. Oh, though, Leanne I think we have to clear the ones from last time. Yeah, for you folks in zoom this is Rick Murray reporting after our group. There are seven people in our group. And you'll immediately notice that we've listed for not three. So we deal with uncertainty. So three really is three plus or minus one. But I also noticed that everybody else had A's and B's. So I think we're among friends here. So again overlap with the other groups, which is good. We tried to use language that would speak to a sense of urgency and action. So first one and discovering novel subsea for ecosystems and quantifying their integral role in global chemical cycling. So recognizing that there's been a lot of excellent work so far, but that there's still a lot of new discoveries to be made, and how to link these new discoveries throughout the temporal and size and cycling spectrum. The second one. We're discussing the vulnerability of ice sheets. So again speaking to urgency and the feedbacks on climate ocean cryosphere and ecosystem. Using the word feedbacks to really emphasize the bidirectionality, if you will, of the, the first part of that ice sheets and the second part climate ocean ecosystems so cause and effect in both directions and vulnerability. So we're talking to, this is an urgent need of societal relevance. Now, well actually 10 years ago and 10 years from now and certainly now. Third one prediction and mitigation of climate and geologic hazards throughout the, throughout the spectrum.  And then the fourth one of resource and energy systems couldn't figure out exactly how to get ecosystems in here. Ocean drilling is a key to probe their dynamics and behavior. A lot of the stickies in here this had six different stickies from our group of seven had to deal with hydrologic cycling. Continental margins and matters like that, but trying to frame it as a larger issue than quote, unquote, just water and energy movement. Looking at it as a potential resource and impact as those resources are identified and exploited. One thing that does not show on this group of three plus or minus one is we did have a discussion about the fundamental role of deep probing of salt and mantle. And we wanted to get that into a narrative it didn't fit into any of these but it was so fundamental. We thought it's certainly worth mention at some point but we didn't know how to put it into here. No, no questions have popped up yet on the screen, but yeah, just to clarify resources that that include the say essential elements needed for electrification that type of thing. Yes. Yes. Okay. Any other clarifying questions for Rick. It's been a common carbon dioxide removal be part of that discussion. Yes. Yes, certainly carbon dioxide. All aspects there particularly if it's buried, but not only if it's very. Okay, room 118. So, Alison. Yeah. Okay. So, going last means that we also had a lot of overlap from what's already been discussed. We actually had a really large breakout group. So I don't know if I should feel popular like everyone came to mind. But we had about 12 people in our room. So it was a really great discussion. We had three high priority areas, ground truthing, future climate change, geo hazards and habitability and adaptability of life at the surface and subsurface. And we do have some sub topics and while these are not exhaustive, we noted that some of these sub topics are needed to create a holistic understanding of the earth system and many of them are interconnected. And we did not include them all off, but for example, studying the ice sheet would lead to circulation and they're very interconnected in the Venn diagram. So that was the reasoning behind some of our sub topics. We also wanted to point out and discuss that many of these topics require temporally resolved set temporally resolved sediment records that can only be accessed by ocean drilling, especially those deeper than 40 meters. 2A and 3C would require the use of subsea floor observatories to collect the data needed and 3C requires hard rock drilling to get the needed knowledge. And for most of these cases, piston cores are too shallow to gather the data. We also talked about urgent and specific areas where we would want new drilling to occur, specifically new transects that are needed for the cores. And one thing that came up was perhaps doing transects in a systematic way. So for example, going from shallow to deep waters or across frontal systems and latitudes and going across the spreading center from the access point being the origin of life. So that was our discussion. Yeah, there are clarifying questions for Allison. I'll see any on the screen. Okay, so we've been just go to the virtual groups. Okay. So we're going to go to the virtual groups and the first is room room one I think a Jeep that's the report out for them. I hope you did a lot of work there a Jeep. I'll organize that in the second. Here's the mic. Here's the mic. There's an enormous amount of overlap because we wanted to make Jim's life a lot easier. So you'll notice that there's actually not that much different here the first one is basically to understand a combination of long term evolution of climate, as well as abrupt extreme events. And this basically then falls into a whole bunch of subcategories such as. Okay. Such as ocean circulation and how extreme events. Change. How extreme events can be distinguished from long term climate change, basically trying to resolve the two. The second topic was to do with high latitude regions being still under sample but very important for understanding past evolution of climate ice system. And this basically goes back to changes in ocean current and changes in ice ocean interactions. In past warm climate intervals and establishing rates of past ice retreats at both poles. The third one had to do with earthquake behavior predictability, which is to do with coding at active margins monitoring slip stress and recurrence rates with observatories and geophysical surveys, downhole logging. So basically three high priorities. Following the example someone else put there the special mention in this is that the, then this is basically the framework or how to do this is that we have to need we need high fidelity, high resolution records that can be used to ground climate models. And one idea was that these need to be drilled in transects and grids in close proximity to be able to provide that kind of information. Questions for a jeep. Okay. Virtual room to because Marsha. Yeah, so we decided to go with the pros method instead of the bullet method here. So, some of these are overlap, but I think we have one that's a little bit new. So the 1st 1 is to look at the ocean atmospheric interactions for climate change. A twist on this is to really focus on the polar regions with the ice retreat in the Arctic and maybe opportunity for new ice hardened drilling ship. Also, when we talked about this, the resolution and of the course was really important. The next 1 is a little bit new. So, execute a full study of legacy course inform future drilling location and preservation techniques. And maybe use new methods of data analytics like machine learning to leverage the big data opportunities in those cores. And then use those results to inform the public and potential sponsors outside of NSF of the power of ocean drilling. And to discover impactful sign communication techniques to tie science to societal priorities. So that could be a something to look at all in itself. How do you inform the public of the greatness. And that NASA does a really good job of this. So maybe we can do a good job of it for the ocean too. And then the last 1 was people have already talked about carbon, but to understand the natural carbon sequestration. So what's going on? How much carbon is in the ocean and historically how long is it how ocean stored carbon. And also potential methods for increasing carbon capture in the ocean by examining the natural carbon cycle historically. And also maybe designing new experiments where you try to capture carbon and understand how that happens. Okay, there are questions for Marsha. If not, then we'll go on to virtual room 3, which is Brad. Yeah. So our group had two people. Plus me, but I don't. But there were two that were trying to get in, I guess, and in fact, the themes that we're hearing are in this slide, some extent. In no particular order, but the priority one was deep time records of both the quote boring back background, which is a term I'd not heard before. And higher resolution biotic and climate records. Basically that's the events that we've seen in some of the slide decks today, for example, Danny segment. It's one example, you know, those are exciting, but also in the context of the background signals is important. So the second point here is just mentioned by Marsha. In fact, I was waiting for someone not to say this but greater engagement. Here we are in a virtual world. We're going to engage more of the next decade with a scientist that are actually on shore in real time and with the public, they know a program right now. Okay, and this is over in the illusions right now. For obvious reasons, but it is a publicly funded agency and so engagement with those public in scientific and in the sort of cool stuff if you like is important is important the priority feel. Another is that the geologic record, we've seen examples of this is a guide for understanding processes and related geo hazards I would bold geo hazards was the key point of this priority three across all fields of the earth system. Any questions for Brad. Okay, virtual room for which Leila. Thank you. So for virtual room for use the compulsory statement that we came up with a lot of ideas that have been already presented in the room, including boring science. So that's kind of fun to see that pop up in two places. Our group had four people in it so this trend we're seeing in converging ideas is independent of sampling depth. I'll just joke. So, for our priorities. We, we identified identifying catalysts as drivers are identifying catalyst drivers and indicators for future change was our one of our priorities. A and B these are just examples to give context to the idea. Looking at geohazard phenomena originating in the solid earth and discovery of new or future climatic states through boundary condition tests and models for scientific priority to. This was a pretty long discussion about coverage and the type of coverage that would let us have new discoveries or the genesis of new fields of inquiry and the reassessment of paradigms we've been holding on to with the idea of we don't know what we don't know. So the examples here are both spatial and temporal gaps, opportunistic sampling between transits as a as an actual priority, but also diversifying what places are sampled, including those boring places so we can have truly reference materials. And then the last one was enhancing the value of existing data from existing sites with samples that are relevant to modern inquiry, including, you know, modern techniques high resolution analysis and biological analysis that can't be done from some legacy cores. Questions. I'm on three. Does that. So, so is that working with existing cores or are you talking about new cores or. Yes, yes to both so yes to both. Okay, virtual room five. All right, we had a small but mighty group I want to thank Emily Luan, Hiroko Sharon drew and Greg for being in the group. The busyness of the slide just demonstrates my lousiness in synthesizing all the ideas, but we discussed to cross cutting teams that were relevant to all the three major, like teams that we discussed these themes, cross cutting we need to integrate expertise across disciplines to support individual national and international aspirations, such as those represented by the sustainable development goals and integrate education and outreach into scientific and research priorities to mitigate ocean blindness and inspire people from diverse backgrounds. With respect to science priority one just reemphasizing something that's been said about geo hazards already. So building resilience how can we improve predictability of natural hazards and build resilience to unforeseeable events that have major impacts. At what point will there be tipping points in ocean circulation, and what are the corresponding projected impacts both locally as well as globally. In the habitable worlds, we discussed, how can we effectively integrate our understanding of microbial activity to geological processes. What are the limitations to life and adaptations to extreme environments, and what happens when there is massive habitat loss in the oceans. Under, we discussed technological solutions and ocean governance in particular that probably has not come up. Deep sea mining has come up so we discussed the potential impacts of deep sea mining. We also discussed, what will be the impact of technological solutions on environmental fixes such as marine carbon dioxide removal, what existing technologies should be scaled up. How can we use oceans for energy production and way that it leverages the natural systems and human communities that depend on them. Okay, what are some most effective governance structures for promoting the health resilience and sustainability of our oceans beyond easy. And in what ways do different governance systems responder and adapt to change. I welcome input by any of our group members. Emily Luan Hiroko Sharon, anything to add. I have a question on three. You know, certainly, it's, I don't quite see the link to ocean drilling there will. Well, maybe a couple of them, but it seems like they're very important but I don't. We were discussing, I think some large science priorities we weren't hung up only on the ocean program. Was there was there another question, could I see a hand. Okay, we go on I guess to virtual room six. That's Mark. Yeah, thanks. So we started off, we had a little bit of a philosophical discussion at the beginning about how specific we would want our priorities to be depending on the time scale over which they were going to be achieved but we kind of focused down on to trying to find three. And we didn't really put them in any order which is why I had the one AI labeling here, but the three that we came up with are similar to what we've seen before so under what conditions of polar ice sheets retreated or even collapsed in the past. And how can polar records constrain future sea level. How to changes and ocean conditions warmer temperatures. Lower pH influence ocean ecosystems this one really highlighted I think this summer with, you know, examples like the 100 degree temperatures off of Florida and so we thought this would be one that might catch the, the eye of the public in a way that would be very easy to communicate. And then what is the role of the deep biosphere and reg