GeoLog

Guest

This guest post was contributed by a scientist, student or a professional in the Earth, planetary or space sciences. The EGU blogs welcome guest contributions, so if you've got a great idea for a post or fancy trying your hand at science communication, please contact the blog editor or the EGU Communications Officer Laura Roberts Artal to pitch your idea.

Imaggeo on Mondays: America’s dead sea

Imaggeo on Mondays: America’s dead sea

On the blog today, Jennifer Ziesch, a researcher at the Leibniz Institute for Applied Geophysics, takes us on a tour of the Great Salt Lake, located in the north of Salt Lake City (Utah). Did you know it is one of the largest salt water lakes in the world?

The large salt lake and Salt Lake City, named after the lake, lie on a flat plain about 1300 m above sea level. The salt lake is bordered to the east by the beautiful high Uinta Mountains (3700 – 4100 m) – part of the Rocky Mountains – and to the west by a huge salt desert, which developed towards the end of the last Ice Age due to dehydration. A semi-arid climate characterizes the landscape of the lake and surrounding area.

Like the Dead Sea, the Great Salt Lake is shrinking rapidly. In the middle of the 19th Century, the lake was almost twice as large as it is today. Mankind diverts the inflow of freshwater from the rivers for agriculture and industry. Local people have reported problems with saline groundwater.

The Great Salt Lake is becoming more salty (up to 27%). How high the salinity is shown in the close-up of a footprint. Salt crystals are formed in their full beauty.

Salt precipitation after a walk near the Great Salt Lake. Credit: Jennifer Ziesch (distributed via imaggeo.egu.eu)

The economy uses the salt and other minerals for fertilisers and wintering products. Unfortunately, the ecosystem is becoming more and more fragile: bird species, crabs and other creatures are losing their habitat.

By Jennifer Ziesch, geoscientist at the Leibniz Institute for Applied Geophysics.

Editor’s note: This text was modified on 14/02/2017 with the addition of an extra photograph to show salt precipitation in the lake. 

If you pre-register for the 2017 General Assembly (Vienna, 22 – 28 April), you can take part in our annual photo competition! From 1 February up until 1 March, every participant pre-registered for the General Assembly can submit up three original photos and one moving image related to the Earth, planetary, and space sciences in competition for free registration to next year’s General Assembly!  These can include fantastic field photos, a stunning shot of your favourite thin section, what you’ve captured out on holiday or under the electron microscope – if it’s geoscientific, it fits the bill. Find out more about how to take part at http://imaggeo.egu.eu/photo-contest/information/.

GeoPolicy: Making a case for science at the United Nations

GeoPolicy: Making a case for science at the United Nations

This month’s GeoPolicy is a guest post by the International Council for Science (ICSU). Based in Paris, the organisation works at the science-policy interface on the international scale. Here, Heide Hackmann, Executive Director at ICSU, highlights key initiatives ensuring science is present within the United Nations (UN) and explains how ICSU and the scientific community can support these processes.

The past years were an extraordinary time for the UN, with key international agreements on disaster risk reduction, climate change, sustainable development and urbanization being concluded. The decisions taken in the last two years will shape global policy for decades. It was an exciting time for science, too – getting the Paris Agreement in place, for example, was after all a result of decades (centuries, actually) of research, and of science sounding the alarm on the effects of carbon emissions on the climate. Without the relentless work of the climate science community, the issue of climate change would never have received the political attention it needed, plunging humankind headlong into its dangerous consequences.

The UN policy cycle of the last two years started in 2015 with the Sustainable Development Goals and ended, in October 2016, with the New Urban Agenda, being agreed in Quito, Ecuador. Now is a good time to look back at some aspects of how and why science has been a part of the creation of these UN policy frameworks, and start a conversation about what its role could be in their implementation.

The idea that scientific progress should benefit society has been central to the mission of the International Council for Science (ICSU) since its foundation in 1931. Its membership consists of national scientific bodies (122 members, representing 142 countries), international scientific unions (31 members), as well as 22 associate members. Through its members the Council identifies major issues of importance to science and society and mobilizes scientists to address them. It facilitates interaction amongst scientists across all disciplines and from all countries and promotes the participation of all scientists—regardless of race, citizenship, language, political stance, or gender—in the international scientific endeavour.

A core part of the Council’s work relates to the provision of scientific input and advice to inform policy development. It has a long history in this arena, having for example in the 1950s catalyzed international climate research through its organization of the International Geophysical Year (IGY).  Following the IGY, ICSU encouraged the United Nations to include the climate change issue in policy development processes and in the 1970s convened key meetings that led to the creation of the World Climate Research Programme in 1980 and, eventually, to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. In 1992, ICSU was invited to coordinate the inputs of the international scientific community to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro and, again in 2002, to the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg.

 

There is no one model of how to make science heard at the UN

All processes at the science-policy interface are different: Sometimes the Council has a formal role representing the scientific community at the UN. In other processes it is just one of many organizations creating pathways for communities of scientists to be heard. In yet other cases, ICSU plays a coordinating role, contributing to the architecture of international science advisory mechanisms and developing the scientific infrastructure underpinning UN policy processes. So each time we decide to engage in a new process, we have a close look at who is doing what in the space, and what the unique contribution of an international science council could be. Here are a couple of examples of what we thought were useful contributions:

In the process leading to the agreement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the Council formally represented the international scientific community as part of the Major Group for Science and Technology (together with WFEO and ISSC), a stakeholder structure designed to provide civil society input into the intergovernmental negotiations. This typically involved coordinating written and oral inputs to the meetings of the UN working group involved in their creation to advocate for science-based decision- and policy-making.

The Council also published the only scientific review of the Sustainable Development Goals. Based on the work of more than 40 researchers from a range of fields across the natural and social sciences, it found that of the 169 targets beneath the 17 draft goals, just 29% are well defined and based on the latest scientific evidence, while 54% need more work and 17% are weak or non-essential. On its release, the report received widespread coverage in international media. Right now, the Council is working on finalizing a follow-up report that examines synergies and trade-offs between different goals, drawing attention to the need for mapping and characterising interactions between SDGs to avoid negative outcomes. Expect that report to be published in early 2017.

For the climate change process, the IPCC served as the obvious voice of science. However, as an intergovernmental body, its focus was not so much directed towards public outreach. This left a niche for another contribution by the Council to the UN negotiations. In the 18 months prior to the COP21 climate negotiations in Paris, December 2015, the Council operated the Road to Paris website, a stand-alone media product emerging from the scientific community. The site followed three major international policy processes that concluded in 2015: disaster risk reduction, sustainable development and climate change. Its content was designed to augment the existing media coverage of these processes from a scientific point of view. Just before COP21, a collection of the most read and most shared articles on the website was published in a magazine format. This involvement in the COP21 discussions culminated in the Council’s role at the conference itself, where it provided a focal point for scientists present to gather, network, discuss key scientific challenges and communicate to the media in the last days of the conference on the Paris Agreement.

At Habitat III, the UN’s conference on sustainable urbanization, we tried yet another approach. The stakeholder input for this process was organized in a much more bottom-up way, with no one organization being assigned formal representation of the science community. The input of the research community through what was called the “General Assembly of Partners” had a distinct impact on the outcome document. For example, in March of 2016, there was not a single mention of the word “health” in the draft of that document, yet by the time it was agreed in Quito, 25 mentions of “health” had appeared. Additionally, for Quito we teamed up with Future Earth and the University of Applied Sciences Potsdam to create a space called Habitat X Change. At the previous conferences, we had noticed that scientists were keen for an on-the-ground rallying point – for a physical space where scientists can meet, connect with one another and with stakeholders to exchange ideas, make the voice of science heard, and form new networks to work together in the future. Habitat X Change quickly became a natural focal point for scientists at the conference, providing a space for them to hold events, meet one another, showcase their research, or just have a coffee and talk. See our photos on Flickr to get an impression of how people at the conference filled it with life and meaning.

Overall, we found that there is a big interest in scientific input and opinion at these conferences. For example, at a spontaneously organized climate science press conference during the 2015 climate talks in Paris, more than 200 journalists crammed into the room, beleaguering the scientists with questions long after the conclusion of the press briefing. The voice of science is seen as more neutral and disinterested than those of the many activist groups jostling for attention around these processes.

 

The big frameworks are all in place – is science still needed now?

With the Paris Agreement in force, the world now has a legally binding agreement to limit dangerous climate change. The Sustainable Development Goals provide a roadmap to a more equitable, sustainable future. The New Urban Agenda tells us what the role of cities in all this will be. What then is the role for science in turning these political documents into realities on the ground?

One thing is to help deal with their complexity. Even before the SDGs were agreed, some started questioning them, saying that success in one goal might offset gains in others, if done the wrong way. Science can help make sense of these interactions and help policymakers avoid pitfalls. Making the New Urban Agenda a success requires efficient ways of linking knowledge production and policy-making, and closely linking the implementation of this Agenda with the SDGs. And the Paris Agreement prominently calls on the scientific community (represented by the IPCC) to identify pathways to limit global warming to 1.5° C.  There is a wealth of problems that need solutions from science in order to make these political agreements a success.

The scientific community also needs to help identify and fill critical knowledge gaps. Here, the Council’s research programmes are actively contributing to the implementation of the agreements. For example, the Integrated Research on Disaster Risk (IRDR) programme is helping to define minimum data standards for the indicators for the Sendai Agreement on disaster risk reduction. WCRP is bringing to the fore the remaining gaps in basic research on climate change. Future Earth is building scientific and stakeholder coalitions called Knowledge Action Networks around priority areas for these global agreements.

At the same time, the implementation phase of these frameworks poses challenges because it requires a cultural shift for science as it moves towards being a partner in co-creating the solutions needed by policymakers. It requires building long term frameworks to work at different scales, and importantly at the national level. This has implications for the kinds of organizations that are a central part of the Council’s core constituency: its broad base of national scientific academies. It also means engaging meaningfully with stakeholders to deliver the knowledge that is needed, and staying engaged during the implementation, not just the creation, of these frameworks.

Written by Heide Hackmann, Executive Director at the International Council for Science.

Imaggeo on Mondays: Life on bare lava

Life on bare lava

There are plenty of hostile habitats across the globe but some flora and fauna species are resourceful enough to adapt and make extreme environments their home. From heat-loving ants of the Sahara to microbes living in the light-deprived ocean depths, through to beatles who brave the bitterly cold Alaskan winter, there are numerous examples of plants, animals and bugs who strive in environments often considered too challenging to harbour life. In today’s post, brought to you by geomorphologist Katja Laute, we feature Vinagrerilla roja, a plant species adept at making difficult terrains its home.

Vinagrerilla roja (Rumex vesicarius) / the Canary Island bladderdock is one of the most successful endemic plants for colonizing new territory in arid and volcanic areas. The photo was taken on the crater rim of the volcano Montana Bermeja (157 m asl.), located at the northernmost edge of the volcanic island La Graciosa. The island was formed by the Canary hotspot and is today part of the protected Chinijo Archipelago Natural Park which shelters endemic and highly endangered species of the Canary Islands.

The volcano Montana Bermeja is composed of red lapilli (pea to walnut-sized fragments ejected during an eruption) which seems to impede any kind of life. But as the photo shows, the bladderdock is actively growing in this apparently hostile environment. That plant life emerges from such a barren and rough volcanic environment seems almost impossible.

Only very few pioneer species succeed and manage to survive in such harsh environments with little to no soil and under an almost desertic climate. Being located on the northern side of the crater rim enables the bladderdock to capture moisture out of the reoccurring Atlantic winds. As these pioneer species grow, their dead leaves and roots will enrich the soil with organic content providing the base for a chain of ecological succession.

By Katja Laute, researcher at IUEM, Brest, France

If you pre-register for the 2017 General Assembly (Vienna, 22 – 28 April), you can take part in our annual photo competition! From 1 February up until 1 March, every participant pre-registered for the General Assembly can submit up three original photos and one moving image related to the Earth, planetary, and space sciences in competition for free registration to next year’s General Assembly!  These can include fantastic field photos, a stunning shot of your favourite thin section, what you’ve captured out on holiday or under the electron microscope – if it’s geoscientific, it fits the bill. Find out more about how to take part at http://imaggeo.egu.eu/photo-contest/information/.

Shaking on Christmas Day: what we know about the 7.6 M Chile earthquake

Chile, Chiloe earthquake

While the majority of us were midway through our Christmas Day celebrations, a powerful 7.6 M earthquake struck off the western coast of the Chile. Natural hazards are not bound by time, location or festivities; an earthquake can happen at any time in any place, regardless of the significance of the day. As a result, in this earthquake prone region, raising awareness of the risk posed by natural hazards is vitally important.

The Christmas Day quake struck 42 km south west of the port city of Quellón, on the rural island of Chiloé at a depth of 34 km. Despite the powerful shaking, the tremor caused no casualties and damage to infrastructure was limited. For a time, services (such as water and power) to the southern tip of Chiloé were cut. Most affected were roads and bridges, particularly the recently renovated highway 5, which links Quellón with the fishing town of Chonchi.

The earthquake triggered a tsunami warning, leading to the evacuation of 4000 people in the coastal areas of Los Lagos Region, including the towns of Quellón and Chonchi. However, no tsunami waves were reported and the warning was lifted some 90 minutes after the temblor.

Chile’s long history of powerful earthquakes

As recently as September 2015, an 8.3 M tremor hit Illapel, causing 13 casualties, 6 missing and triggering a 4.5 m tsunami wave, with shaking felt as far as Bolivia and Argentina.

A powerful, and destructive, 8.8 M quake struck Maule in February 2010. On land, there was severe loss to infrastructure and housing, while a tsunami wave caused significant damage to coastal areas. Combined, the earthquake and tsunami resulted in the deaths of more than 500 people.

The most powerful tremor ever recorded, the estimated 9.5 M Valdivia earthquake, struck Chile in May 1960. More than 2,000 people were reported dead, a further 3,000 went missing and over 2,000,000 were left homeless. The damage in Southern Chile alone amounted to over $550 million. Tsunami waves generated by the quake struck Hawaii, Japan, the Philippines and the western USA coast, causing a further $50.5 million in damages and killing 231 people.

Damage to houses after the Valdivia earthquake, Chile

Damage to several houses in Chile after the earthquake. Credit: Pierre St. Amand – NGDC Natural Hazards Slides with Captions Header, Public Domain (distributed by Wikimedia Commons)

What causes earthquakes in Chile and what does the future hold?

Chile lies along the Pacific Ring of Fire, an area known for its high seismic and volcanic activity. Here, tectonic plates slide against each other, pull apart or converge and subduct under one another generating geologically active zones.

To understand why powerful earthquakes occur in Chile, we asked Cindy Mora Stock, a seismologist at the University of Concepción (Chile), to give us a more detailed insight into the tectonics of the region:

Earthquakes along the Chilean coast occur at the interface between the South American plate and the subducted Nazca plate. The rapid velocity between these plates (66 – 90 mm/yr) increases the potential for great earthquakes in the region, presenting on average an event of magnitude 8, or larger, every ten years. As a comparison, the Antarctic plate subducts under South American plate at a much slower rate (16 – 22 mm/yr).

The latest Mw 7.6 earthquake near Quellón on 25th of December [1], falls in the central part of the rupture zone (the portion of the fault which slipped during) of  the Valdivia earthquake – roughly 380 km south from Valdivia.

A study by Lange et al in 2007 showed a cluster of four main 4.0 < Ml < 4.4 events and their afteshocks, occurring at the interface between 12-30 km depth, beneath the western coast of Chiloe Island. Another study by Moreno et al in 2011 shows some patches at the interface that ruptured during the previous 1960 event, which are more stuck than other areas at the same interface.

Especially, computer simulations show the interface at the center part of the 1960’s rupture zone is fully locked, this means that part is “stuck”, not moving, and accumulating energy. Zones that present a high locking rate have shown to be prone areas for the nucleation of a great earthquake in the future. Although in all presented scenarios the Chiloe Island presents a high locking rate, this is not enough to state a range of time when an earthquake will occur at this patch.  Considering this, the previous seismicity, and the present Mw7.6 earthquake in the region it might seem like the interface might have ended its and it is starting to build up stress for a future earthquake.

By Laura Roberts, EGU Communications Officer, and Cindy Mora Stock, postdoctoral researcher at the University of Concepcion, Chile.

 

References and further reading

[1] Intensities of shaking felt after the 25 December earthquake (in Spanish): http://www.sismologia.cl/events/sensibles/2016/12/25-1422-28L.S201612.html

[2] Lange, D., Rietbrock, A., Haberland, E., et al.: Seismicity and geometry of the south Chilean subduction zone (41.5°S–43.5°S): Implications for controlling parameters, Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L06311, doi: 0.1029/2006GL029190, 2007

[3] Moreno, M., Melnick, D., Rosenau, M., et al.: Heterogeneous plate locking in the South–Central Chile subduction zone: Building up the next great earthquake, Earth and Planetary Research Letters, 305, 3-4, 413-424, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2011.03.025, 2011 (Paywalled)

USGS overview of M7.6 – 42km SW of Puerto Quellon, Chile (includes shake maps, regional tectonic information and moment tensor details): http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us10007mn3#executive

Understanding Tectonic Processes Following Great Earthquakes (Eos: Earth & Space Science News)

25 December earthquake in the news:
·         Chile earthquake tsunami warning lifted (BBC News report)
·         Major quake jolts Chile tourist region on Christmas Day (Reuters in-depth news report)
·         Chile jolted by major 7.6-magnitude earthquake (Guardian News)
·         Imagenes del terremoto al sur de Chile (in Spanish: Images of the earthquake in Southern Chile – Gestión, diario de econimía y negocios de Perú)

Follow

Get every new post on this blog delivered to your Inbox.

Join other followers: