Session Code

Time & Place

Session Title

Convenor & Co-Convenors

Session Overview

GMPV4.3

Oral: 08:30–12:30

Room: K1

The Session will particularly focus on-

(i) deep volatile cycles of H₂O, CO₂, halogens and sulphur;

(ii) volatile mobilisation and transfer during subduction in COHNS fluids and silicate melts;

(iii) roles of volatiles in metamorphic and metasomatic processes;

(iv) physical and chemical properties of volatiles in melts and fluids;

(v) volatile storage in the lithospheric mantle;

(vi) emissions and reservoirs in volcanic systems.

Poster-only Sessions:

PICO Sessions:

• GMPV4.1 – Decoding Earth's Crustal Engine: Integrated Petrochronology and Structural Constraints on 4-D Tectono-Metamorphic Evolution (co-org TS) — contributions linking microscale rock records to planetary-scale geodynamics through petrochronology, structural geology, and metamorphic petrology.
• GMPV4.3 – What Makes Earth So Special: Global Cycles of Volatiles — how volatiles and incompatible elements are transferred between Earth's surface and deep interior through subduction, melts, and fluids. Orals are tomorrow, but the posters are today.
• GMPV8.2 – From Earth to Exoplanets: Deep Planetary Interiors through advances in modelling and experiments (co-org GD/PS) — experimental and modelling work on mineral physics under extreme pressure-temperature conditions, bridging Earth science and planetary exploration. Orals tomorrow, posters today.
• GMPV10.8 – Volcano–Glacier Interactions on Earth and Beyond: polar perspectives from land to seafloor (co-org GM/NH) — from subglacial eruptions to tephra deposition and ice mass balance, covering some of the most remote and dynamic volcanic environments on the planet.

• GMPV7.4 – Structure, origin, and evolution of anomalous magmatism: models for intraplate and unusual plate boundary volcanism (co-org GD/NH) — Room K1, 14:00–15:45. This session tackles intraplate volcanism and unusual plate boundary magmatism: hotspots, mantle plumes, LIPs, and everything that doesn't fit neatly into standard plate tectonics. Convened by Gillian Foulger, a prominent name in this debate.
• ERE4.4/GMPV6 – Geophysical Imaging of the Lithosphere for Critical Minerals, Natural H2 and Geothermal Resources (co-org GD) — Room -2.43, 16:15–18:00. This session connects lithospheric structure to the resources that matter most for the energy transition.

• GMPV1.1 – Looking into the unreachable: Inclusions as snapshots into Earth processes, from the Crust to the deep Mantle and beyond — fluid, melt and mineral inclusions from magmatic and metamorphic settings to deep mantle dynamics, with cutting-edge micro- to nano-scale analytics on display.
• GMPV2.1 – Solving Geoscience Problems Using Mineralogy and Mineral Inclusions — a broad session on the diversity of mineralogical methods, from spectroscopy to inclusions. Orals are tomorrow.
• GMPV2.2 posters (Geochronology & Thermochronology — companion to the morning orals)
• GMPV7.4 posters (companion to the afternoon orals on anomalous magmatism).

I grew up in a blue-collar family in Holbrook, NY—then a one–traffic-light town on eastern Long Island surrounded by woodlands. I spent my time playing basketball, diving, drumming, and exploring the coast. Long Island offered a remarkable range of shorelines, the Long Island Sound estuary, Peconic Bay, the Great South Bay barrier-island lagoon, the Atlantic Ocean, and extensive marshes, which fueled my fascination with coastal environments. From an early age I collected shoreline organisms, watched Cousteau specials, and read science books. I became captivated by marshes and invertebrates after spending countless hours diving and exploring diverse coastal habitats.

I actually came into biogeochemistry through oceanography. Back then, biogeochemistry wasn't a recognized field, at least not in the U.S. While Vernadsky understood the concept, it wasn't on our radar yet, and I was too junior to even use the terminology. As a high school senior, a friend and I even built a small artificial reef in about 15 m of water in Long Island Sound and documented its colonization; we briefly tried (unsuccessfully) to publish the results. An inspiring oceanography teacher, Dennis Hirsch, further encouraged my interests. As an undergraduate, I joined several local research projects with faculty and was selected for a 10-day natural history field trip to Gran Canaria in the Canary Islands. This was my first trip abroad, and it had a huge impact on me. Another big influence for me as a potential scientist was the fact that I lived close to many research institutes that held open science events. I had the opportunity to attend seminars and tours at Brookhaven National Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the American Museum of Natural History, and Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Core Repository. All these experiences broadened my interests beyond oceanography into chemistry and genetics, and further confirmed my desire to become a scientist.

My research career began, and largely continues, in muddy environments. Aside from a brief period studying sand flats in Delaware Bay during my Ph.D., my work started with mud in my M.S. research and has stayed there ever since. It is perhaps no surprise, then, that I am now writing a book about Earth’s mud. A reason for my interest in muddy environments is that over 90% of all the organic carbon in the ocean gets buried in the coastal margins. So, these small fringes have a huge importance in the ocean carbon cycling. Like many academics, my work has evolved in stages. In graduate school at Stony Brook University with Jeff Levinton, and later at the University of Maryland with Don Rice, I focused on animal–sediment interactions—specifically the nutritional ecology of mud-dwelling macroinvertebrates and their influence on sediment geochemistry. These processes are important to both paleontologists and marine ecologists. A postdoc fellowship at the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies allowed me to extend this work in mud habitats at the Hudson River estuarine boundary.

To better understand which types of organic matter are processed in mud, I needed tools to trace the many organic sources in coastal sediments to the organisms that use them. This is where Rodger Dawson, a member of my Ph.D. committee and fellow band member, influenced my work through his expertise in chemical biomarkers. That collaboration led me to plant pigments and other molecular tracers, which I have used throughout my career to distinguish algae, terrestrial plants, and soil-derived organic matter in sediments. With these tools, I expanded my research to broader questions about how terrestrial organic matter connects with the coastal ocean, eventually focusing on the biogeochemical dynamics of mud in coastal marshes and estuaries. In terms of contributions, some of our key findings have helped clarify how organic carbon is processed and transported along the land–ocean continuum. I say “our” deliberately, in gratitude to the graduate students, postdocs, and visiting scholars who conducted much of the field and laboratory work; without them, there would be little for me to discuss.

When we started analyzing river inputs in the Gulf of Mexico around 1997, we were surprised find less terrestrial organic matter from land plants than what was expected from known river inputs. It turns out that this comes back to suspensions of mud where river waters mix with Gulf waters. Mud is composed of very fine particles of silt and clay, which bind the terrestrial organic matter allowing it to stay resuspended for long periods which enhanced export to other regions. More specifically, using chemical biomarkers, we showed that some of the “missing” terrestrial organic carbon in shelf sediments was exported offshore as particulate organic carbon (POC) in the benthic boundary layer, or bottom waters. This further supported recent work, by Miguel Goni and Tim Eglinton, on the distribution of terrestrial organic matter in surface sediments of the Gulf. This work illustrated the importance in distinguishing marine vs. terrestrial buried carbon for understanding coastal carbon sequestration amid rising atmospheric CO₂ (364 ppm in 1997 to ca. 429 ppm in 2026).

Upon moving to Sweden on a Fulbright scholarship, I found the local community deeply concerned with the problematic cyanobacterial blooms in the Baltic Sea. Although research focused heavily on identifying the region's main nutrient sources, it was unclear whether such massive algal blooms existed before human-induced impacts. Diatoms were known to exhibit significant population shifts over thousands of years, which were well-documented through their preserved silica frustules, or exoskeletons. In contrast, cyanobacteria lack such structures, decompose rapidly, and leave no microfossil record. We demonstrated that cyanobacterial blooms comparable to modern events occurred over 7,000 years ago in the Baltic Sea, driven by eustatic and isostatic changes, linking modern ecosystem dynamics with long-term environmental history. While this does not rule out the role of recent anthropogenic nutrient inputs in driving blooms, it indicated that such blooms had occurred much earlier, driven by large nutrient pulses from the ocean during distinct geological phases of the Baltic's formation.

Another important contribution was to extend the concept of the microbial “priming effect,” previously known from soils to aquatic environments, as previously noted by Bertrand Guenet and others, showing how labile carbon inputs can stimulate degradation of refractory carbon across diverse ecosystem gradients. Given my past experience working on coastal river deltas and estuaries, it was a logical path to explore priming across the land-ocean margin. For example, we analyzed river confluences in tributaries of the Amazon, where the green and brown waters, comprised of phytoplankton and mud, mix. Together with Nick Ward, a postdoc in my group, and Jeff Richey, we used labeled isotopes to detect the priming effect at these interfaces. There are many fascinating topics in this domain and I have dedicated significant effort to synthesizing research in this field in 10 books I authored or co-authored, most notably through Biogeochemistry of Estuaries (2007) and Chemical Biomarkers in Aquatic Ecosystems (2011)."

What key knowledge gaps still need to be addressed in this area? As we continue to explore how carbon is sequestered on the planet, we need to return to two topics that had received considerable 30 to 50 years ago, the role of sulfur cycling and the importance of petrogenic organic carbon burial. While there have been some new and exciting studies on these topics over the past decade or so, there remain significant gaps in their roles in organic carbon burial. A better understanding of these pathway will continue to prove useful in exploring the mechanisms of the short and long-term carbon cycle. There also remain many gaps in our understanding of priming, particularly in aquatic systems. New isotopic probing and omics techniques continue to provide innovative ways to trace the mechanisms involved priming, particularly as new aquatic critical zones are created from global change.

Early on, my biggest challenge was simply paying for college. My family could offer little financial support, so I worked about 40 hours a week unloading trucks while completing my undergraduate degree. Balancing work with coursework, like tending Drosophila crosses in genetics lab at odd hours in the evening, was demanding. I had to get special keys to go in the middle of the night and do these things. My books were thrown in the back seat, and I largely worked independently. So I never really experienced the idea of a “study group.” I never knew what a study group was. I have no idea how I did it, but I managed to get through it.

Later, like many early-career academics, I faced the usual challenges of balancing teaching and research while building a lab with limited funding and no technician. Then an extraordinary challenge arose: Hurricane Katrina. At the time I was a professor at Tulane University in New Orleans. I had been working on the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico, and had so many ideas for future research. Everything just vanished. My family—my wife Jo Ann and son Christopher—and I lost our home and everything in it. Professionally, the colleagues I was collaborating with dispersed across the country with no certainty of returning. Ultimately, we did not go back, and I moved to Texas A&M University. Losing years of research at Tulane was devastating, but my family's safety and support gave me the strength to rebuild. Some of my most rewarding opportunities came through two Fulbright Program scholarships, the first in Sweden and later in Cyprus. These experiences opened doors to collaborations with regional research groups, leading to long-term partnerships and rich cultural exchanges. Later in my career, visiting research appointments during sabbaticals also proved highly productive.

Universities have embraced a business model far more aggressively than in the past, placing intense pressure on young faculty to secure funding and publish more papers. University rankings now play a central role, further shifting the burden onto faculty. At the same time, classrooms have increasingly become “safe spaces”. A lot of the bullies are gone and that's great, but students are often less challenged, something that, in my view, has also weakened academia.

Meanwhile, the number of journals has grown at an astonishing rate, making it easier to place publications, while publishing costs have soared with little solution in sight. Yet the real elephant in the room is AI. Yuval Noah Harari has written eloquently, and pessimistically, about its trajectory. AI has already proven to be a remarkable tool for scientists, helping recent Nobel laureates make major advances. But like any powerful invention, it brings risks and complex implications that we still need to confront.

These are challenging times, particularly in the United States. Attacks on academia have led to severe funding cuts, denial of climate change, threats to scholars’ privacy, and restrictions on international collaboration. Our government’s irresponsibility has also contributed to global instability. My advice is to stay focused on your work, this period will pass, perhaps sooner than expected.

Reflecting back on Vladimir Vernadsky, it is well-known that he worked under intense political pressure during the Russian Revolution and the Stalinist era. Rather than disengaging, he navigated these constraints by focusing deeply on his science. For young scientists, it’s important to contribute to large interdisciplinary projects while still seeking opportunities to publish first-authored papers, even when projects are led by graduate students, postdocs, or collaborators. This helps maintain your original passion and creativity. Finally, stay open to shifting research directions as funding or new opportunities arise, inside and outside of academia, and surround yourself with good people.

Induced vs natural seismicity; what’s the difference and should we even care?

Induced seismicity, often referred to as induced microseisms, is a phenomenon where microearthquakes (i.e., seismic events of low magnitude) are triggered due to man-related activities that affect the natural stress – strain fields of the Earth, in comparison, natural earthquakes can be caused by geological processes, such as tectonic plate movements. Originally, the scientific community was interested in induced seismicity due to mining activities (e.g., rock blasting etc.); however, in the past few decades, this interest was rekindled through the scope of fluid injection-induced seismicity, given the abrupt rise of (a) enhanced geothermal systems (EGS), (b) injection of CO₂ for permanent carbon capture and storage, (c) HF for oil and gas recovery, (d) injection of either water or CO₂ into depleted reservoirs for enhanced oil recovery, and (e) disposal of waste water into deep formations, due to the global sustainability goals for renewable geothermal energy, environmental protection, economic optimization, amongst others.

Zang et al. (2014) classified injection operations into two separate categories, based on their time-scale and total injected volumes, i.e., long-term injection operations (b) and (e) (where the injected volumes > 100,000 m³), and short-term injection operations (a), (c), and (d) (where the injected volumes < 100,000 m³); today we will mainly discuss the latter class of injection operations, and particularly, the process of HF. In contrast to popular belief, hydrofracking, or the ‘’hydrafrac job/process’’ as it was referred in the original publication of Clark (1949), is an old school method for increasing the productivity of oil and gas wells in ultra tight rock formations, such as schists, that dates back to the late 40s. The HF method requires the drilling of a well in an oil-bearing formation of low permeability, and the subsequent pressurization of a sealed-off section of the borehole until the rock formation fails and ruptures abruptly.

During the pressurization process, which causes the progressive failure of the surrounding rock, microcracks (which eventually lead to macrocracks) form that generate elastic acoustic waves, that can have a varying degree of energy, these elastic waves, that propagate through the rock medium, are often denoted as acoustic emission (AE) events; they essentially represent induced microseismic events, that can be effectively captured via the usage of specialized high frequency AE sensors with typical frequency bandwidths ranging from 100 kHz to 1 MHz.

Overall, the induced seismicity from hydrofracking operations lies in the micro scale, i.e., it has very low recorded moment magnitudes (as low as -8 – -6 up to -3 – -1); it has been shown, however, that the scale of the induced seismicity can drastically increase across multiple orders of magnitude provided that active, or even passive, faults exist in the near vicinity of the HF. For instance, Bao and Eaton (2016) observed that a fault was reactivated during a shale gas stimulation due to the conduction of HFs. Generally, apart from the implications of microseismicity regarding the potential to create large-scale hazardous earthquakes, microseismic data can provide a great variety of insightful information relating to the fracturing process of the pressurized rock, as well as the SRV.

Crack source mechanisms; how does the pressurized rock fail?

Crack source mechanism analysis (or focal mechanism analysis) of microseismic data can provide a clear picture of the dominant fracture type of the rock, meaning tensile, shear, compressive, and/or mix-mode. This information can have great implications towards mitigating microseismicity, since tensile microcracks (type I) radiate elastic waves with substantially less energy relative to shearing microcracks (type II); very often researchers aim to generate an abundance of type I microcracks and as few type II microcracks as possible. For the most part, it appears that the dominant cracking mode is heavily dependent on the method used for the determination of the crack source mechanisms (e.g., moment tensor analysis, polarity, tensile angle etc.), the examined rock type (e.g., shale – metamorphic, granite – crystalline igneous, sandstone – sedimentary), and the density of pre-existing micro- or macrocracks in the rock volume, amongst other factors.

For instance, Butt et al. (2024) performed true-triaxial HF tests on cubical granite rock specimens, they generally observed tensile dominated events using both a low and a high viscosity fracturing fluid. Moreover, Naoi et al. (2020) conducted simple uniaxial HF tests on Eagle Ford shale specimens, they noticed an extreme domination of tensile events. These conclusions, come into contrast with the more commonly encountered shear dominated events observed in actual production fields (e.g., Maxwell and Cipolla 2011) and large-scale in situ experiments (e.g., Ishida et al. 2019). Overall, by uncovering the influence of each parameter on the derived focal mechanisms a deeper understanding can be gained towards the necessary steps to decrease the larger magnitude shear events.

Wet and dry microseismic events; towards an accurate estimation of the SRV

Microseismicity induced by HF stimulations can be mainly attributed to either pressure or mechanical changes/perturbations; given this simple distinction, the seismic events can be divided into: ‘’wet’’ microseismic events, which are caused due to fluid-flow related pressure changes (they are directly connected with the main HF), and remote ‘’dry’’ microseismic events, which are a product of stress changes at considerable distances away from the borehole (they are usually not connected with the main HF). Provided that for many years, it is a common practice to estimate the SRV by inferring to the AE cloud, the inclusion of isolated and distant ‘’dry’’ events, which are not actually connected with the main HF and hence do not really contribute to the SRV, into the AE seismic cloud can result in significant overestimations of the SRV.

References
Bao X, Eaton DW (2016) Fault activation by hydraulic fracturing in western Canada. Science 354(6318): 1406 – 1409. 

Butt A, Hedayat A, Moradian O (2024) Microseismic Monitoring of Laboratory Hydraulic Fracturing Experiments in Granitic Rocks for Different Fracture Propagation Regimes. Rock Mech Rock Eng 57: 2035 – 2059. 

Clark JB (1949) A Hydraulic Process for Increasing the Productivity of Wells. J Pet Technol 1(1): 1 – 8. 

Ishida T, Fujito W, Yamashita H, Naoi M, Fuji H, Suzuki K, Matsui H (2019) Crack expansion and fracturing mode of hydraulic refracturing from acoustic emission monitoring in a small-scale field experiment. Rock Mech Rock Eng 52: 543 – 553. 

Maxwell SC, Cipolla C (2011) What does microseismicity tell us about hydraulic fracturing? In: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, SPE146932. 

Maxwell SC, Mack M, Zhang F, Chorney D, Goodfellow SD, Grob M (2015a) Differentiating Wet and Dry Microseismic Events Induced During Hydraulic Fracturing. In: SPE/AAPG/SEG Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, San Antonio, Texas, USA. 

Maxwell SC, Chorney D, Goodfellow SD (2015b) Microseismic geomechanics of hydraulic-fracture networks: Insights into mechanisms of microseismic sources. The Leading Edge 34(8): 904 – 910. 

Naoi M, Chen Y, Yamamoto K, Morishige Y, Imakita K, Tsutumi N, Kawakata H, Ishida T, Tanaka H, Arima Y, Kitamura S, Hyodo D (2020) Tensile-dominant fractures observed in hydraulic fracturing laboratory experiment using eagle ford shale. Geophys J Inter 222: 769 – 780. 

Zang A, Oye V, Jousset P, Deichmann N, Gritto R, McGarr A, Majer E, Bruhn D (2014) Analysis of induced seismicity in geothermal reservoirs – an overview. Anal Induc Seism Geotherm Oper 52: 6 – 21.

• In Room 0.16: The session 'Looking into the unreachable: Inclusions as snapshots' (GMPV1.1) begins. At 15:00, Alexander Pengg discusses methane and hydrogen in fluid inclusions (EGU26-6278), followed at 15:10 by Guangming Su, who presents a reconstruction of paleo-atmospheric nitrogen pressure using quartz-hosted inclusions (EGU26-5575).
• In Room G2: If you are interested in how grains influence plates, don’t miss 'Fluid Flow and Rock Interaction Across Scales' (TS1.6). Catch Oliver Plümper (solicited) at 14:05 showcasing AI-driven permeability reconstruction (EGU26-3949), and Alessandro Petroccia at 14:15 on tracking dehydration in exhuming shear zones (EGU26-331).

From 16:15, the poster halls become the focal point of the division. In Hall X1, you can dive deeper into the magmatic and volcanic flagship sessions: Monitoring active volcanoes (GMPV11.7), Magmatic textures: petrological insights into igneous processes (GMPV10.2), and Understanding magmatic processes: from magma storage to eruptive behaviour, and implications for volcanic hazard (GMPV10.3).

You should also check out the latest work on Advances in understanding fluid migration systems and their surface manifestations: integrated, multidisciplinary data acquisition and interpretation (GMPV10.5), Volcanic degassing (GMPV10.6), and Volcanoes and their geothermal systems: Properties, risks and resources (GMPV10.7).

If you can tear yourself away from the poster boards in Hall X1 for a quick deviation, head back to Room G2 for the Brittle and ductile deformation of Earth’s lithosphere: Mechanisms governing deformation style session (TS1.1) at 17:40 to catch Alessia Tagliaferri discuss the "memory of crystals" and microstructures in UHP garnets from Dora Maira (EGU26-9776).

🌊 Can you share your career journey with us? Did you always dream of becoming an oceanographer, and what inspired you to pursue this path?

🌊 Could you describe the research that led to you receiving this award?

🌊 What does this recognition mean to you, both personally and professionally?

🌊 What have been some of the biggest challenges in your career, and were there key moments that shaped your path?

🌊 Looking ahead, what are the most important questions about the Atlantic overturning circulation that you are excited to tackle?

🌊 What advice would you give to young scientists who want to make a difference in ocean circulation and the wider ocean sciences?

Thank you, Tillys, for the interview and for sharing your career insights and advice!

Read more:

• ''Best Practices for Early Career Researcher (ECR) Engagement and Empowerment'' is ideal for PhDs or first-time PostDocs
• ''European Research Council (ERC) Funding Opportunities'' is ideal for more seasoned researchers
• ''The LGBT Pride group at EGU: How to find and build your community'' for the LGBT community and allies alike

Are you working on the magnetosphere, ionosphere, atmosphere, or space weather?

We invite members of the scientific, operational, and applied user communities to contribute to a community survey that will help shape a New Earth Observation Mission Idea (NEOMI) Study of Energetic Particle Precipitation (SEEP). Earth’s atmosphere is not isolated from space. Invisible streams of energetic particles constantly connect the near-Earth space environment with our atmosphere, influencing atmospheric chemistry, ozone and NOx, atmospheric dynamics, and even aspects of space weather.

Yet many of the underlying processes remain poorly understood:

• How does energetic particle precipitation (EPP) change under different geomagnetic and solar wind conditions?
• How do particle precipitation processes couple the magnetosphere, ionosphere, and atmosphere?
• What is the role of EPP in long-term atmospheric variability and climate-relevant processes?

These are some of the questions driving NEOMI SEEP, an ESA-funded project exploring the idea for a future Earth observation mission dedicated to the coupled space–atmosphere system.

The project is planning a combination of:

• In-situ satellite measurements of energetic particles and waves
• Simultaneous observations of atmospheric composition (e.g. NOx, ozone)
• Synergy with physics-based models to better understand and reconstruct the system

A key aspect of the mission is the integration of observations and modelling, enabling improved interpretation of measurements and reconstruction of conditions during periods without direct observations.
To shape this mission idea, we are inviting the scientific community to contribute to a short survey, meaning: you! We want to know your opinion on which scientific questions matter most, which observations are still missing or most valuable, how future measurements could support research, modelling, and operational applications, and what synergies with other observations are needed

📍 Survey: http://www.tinyurl.com/seep-survey

⏱ Duration: ~10 minutes

Please feel free to share this with colleagues, students, postdocs, and collaborators who may be interested.

Contact: If you have any questions, please contact: Dedong Wang

Dedong Wang is a research scientist at GFZ Helmholtz Centre for Geosciences. He works on energetic particle precipitation, radiation belt dynamics, and their coupling to the upper atmosphere.

He is the PI of the NEOMI SEEP study supported by ESA’s New Earth Observation Mission Idea programme.

Your feedback will help shape the NEOMI SEEP mission idea and contribute to defining future Earth observation capabilities.

Thank you!

It's a privilege to still be doing something which your curiosity naturally takes you to.

1. You have to be volatile - meaning you readily go into the gas phase at normal temperatures.
2. You have to be organic, so containing a carbon atom.
3. And you have to be a stable compound rather than a radical.

We're listening in to the conversation between the various parts of the ecosystem  — plants, insects, flowers — all communicating chemically and invisibly.

Sometimes you pick up an ant in the rainforest and it smells of toluene, and you think — what is going on?

I love just the moment you get into the green! The heart rate goes down. It's somehow more.

1. Flood duration (Flood characteristics): Interestingly, the depth of the floodwater was not the primary driver of psychological distress. Instead, the critical factor was time. The longer the floodwaters lingered around a home, the higher the psychological damage. Every additional day that families were displaced or forced to live in a submerged environment drastically increased their anxiety and stress.
2. Family size (socio-economic characteristics): The study also revealed that larger households experience significantly more intangible damage. Specifically, the data showed that adding just one more individual to a family household could lead to a relative increase in the family's psychological distress by approximately 12.5 percent. This is likely because larger families carry a heavier burden of responsibility during a disaster, increasing the stress of ensuring everyone's safety, managing evacuations, and recovering lost resources.

References

Saskia Goes's Augustus Love Medal Lecture will take place on Tuesday 05 May at the EGU General Assembly.

How would you describe your research in a nutshell?

My research combines interpretation of geophysical data and other data with numerical modelling to try to understand plate-mantle dynamics and its surface expressions, including earthquakes.

 What was your reaction to the news that you had been awarded the Augustus Love medal? 

Delighted and grateful to those who felt I deserved to be nominated.

 How did you get involved in the field of Geodynamics? What has been the biggest challenge so far?

I first got involved in my undergraduate thesis project in Utrecht, where I modelled stresses in subducting plates to relate these to Wadati-Benioff seismicity. This is where my interest in the dynamics of plate tectonics and subduction started. My PhD in Santa Cruz, California further strengthened my interest in earthquakes as an expression of plate dynamics and as a geohazard. The department in Santa Cruz provided a wonderful environment with opportunities to work on various projects and collaborate with different staff and students.

A really rewarding challenge was co-leading the VoiLA (Volatile Recycling in the Lesser Antilles Arc) project, a consortium grant that brought together marine geophysicists, passive-source seismologists, petrologists, geochemists and geodynamic modellers to study of the endmember subduction at the Lesser Antilles. By all working together, we learned (and are still learning) a lot about the tectonics of this isolated Atlantic subduction zone and the storage and release of volatiles from the Atlantic crust/lithosphere which, because it was formed by slow spreading, is about 50/50% tectonic and magmatic.

All research projects come with challenges; most research projects do not work exactly as you expect at the start, so it is important to remain open to further investigating and revising your initial hypotheses if model results or data appear not consistent with them. For numerical models, the first challenge is designing a good set of model experiments to address a relevant question. This involves deciding what the key physical processes/factors are that are relevant to the question and simplifying the experiments so that those can be studied, while bearing in mind any numerical limitations and effects (e.g. choice of grid, boundary conditions). In projects that involve data analysis, a key challenge is the incompleteness and limited resolution of the data on the Earth’s interior structure. The effects of data resolution and model regularisation always need to be carefully considered when using results from data inversions.

 How do you think the field of geodynamics has developed over the years and what do you think it will be like in the future?

Over past 20 or so years, numerical capabilities have vastly improved, and the establishment of the CIG platform has facilitated the sharing of advanced software. This has allowed many more groups to build models (with as caveat that too much complexity or “realism” may also hamper gaining physical insights).

 What advice do you have for early-career researchers who would like to continue their careers in geodynamics?

Build a research profile that is unique and matches your interests and strengths. It is helpful to be as self-sufficient as you can where it concerns tools you need for your research., e.g., be able to install or adapt any codes you need yourself, But also, collaborate with others and keep reading the literature (including older papers) so that your work will build on and benefit from insights that others already gained.

References:

Goes, S., Capitanio, F. A., & Morra, G. (2008). Evidence of lower-mantle slab penetration phases in plate motions. Nature, 451(7181), 981-984.

Goes, S., & van der Lee, S. (2002). Thermal structure of the North American uppermost mantle inferred from seismic tomography. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 107(B3), ETG-2.

Congratulations on receiving the 2026 Hannes Alfvén Medal for your pioneering work and outstanding leadership in advancing our understanding of space plasma physics, including its fundamental processes and impacts throughout the solar system and beyond. What does this recognition mean to each of you personally, and how does it impact your ongoing work in this fascinating field?

We are both very honoured to be awarded the Hanes Alfven medal, and we would like to thank everyone who supported our nomination. 

Zdeněk: I don't know if our work is truly pioneering because our motto is, and always has been, to do our job as best we can, and this will not change with the award of the medal. 

Jana: It is a great honour to receive the Hannes Alfvén Medal, and I am very grateful for this recognition. I think that this award represents recognition of our research at an international level, but, above all, it also completes our long-standing efforts to build a space research group at Charles University.

Could you share some information about your background and what sparked your interest in your research field?

Jana: In high school, I studied in a mathematics and physics class, and there I also heard about the Faculty of Mathematics and Physics at Charles University. I attended a popular evening lecture on tokamaks and fusion, given by Prof. Pavel Sunka from the Institute of Plasma Physics, and “my fate was sealed”. The professor said that we will be obtaining energy mainly from fusion reactors within 50 years. Unfortunately, this was not fully confirmed, but it led me to study plasma at the Department of Electronics and Vacuum Physics (later renamed the Department of Surface and Plasma Physics), and I have been there until now. The topic of my dissertation was devoted to a practical application: “How does a protective metal cover affect the working settings of a laser?” At the same time, I watched with bated breath the manned flight of Apollo 11, during which Neil Armstrong landed on the surface of the Moon with the words that everyone knows well. Therefore, when in the 1970s, the opportunity arose at our department to participate in the preparation of space instruments, I did not hesitate for a moment and joined Zdeněk, who had more experience in the design of instruments. The highlight of this phase of our life was the direct transmission of plasma parameter measurements from our first monitor during the flyby of the Czech satellite Magion-4 (in the Interball-1 project) through the magnetopause and bow shock to solar wind, which we watched on a computer screen in Panska Ves. Thus, the solar wind and its interaction with the Earth's magnetic field became the basis of our scientific studies for many years.

The highlight of this phase of our life was the direct transmission of plasma parameter measurements from our first monitor during the flyby of the Czech satellite Magion-4 ... through the magnetopause and bow shock to solar wind.

Zdeněk: In the 1960s, every boy was fascinated by the rapid development of electronics. This led me to study at an electrical engineering high school and to continue with the study of electronics at the Faculty of Mathematics and Physics. On the other hand, it was also the time when space research was beginning, and when I found out that I could participate in the development of instruments for this research, the decision was made. It is important to note that I met Jana while building the instruments, and then we never parted ways. The subject of our studies was plasma physics; my PhD thesis dealt with waves in the glow discharge. Later on, we found that it is difficult to do two things seriously in parallel - building the devices for space investigation and investigating plasma in the laboratory – and we changed the topic to space plasma processes. We are closely collaborating, but this doesn't mean we always agree; each of us has a different point of view, and sometimes we argue, but in the end, we always find common ground

Could you tell us some of the key challenges you have encountered in your scientific career, and how you have navigated them?

Zdeněk: The challenges were many, and they gradually changed and moved farther from Earth. At the beginning, we wanted to understand the processes at the magnetopause and its formation under various conditions. Relatively early on, we realised we needed to know how these conditions change in the magnetosheath, which led us to study the bow shock. At that time, we considered the solar wind as a stable medium in which disturbances such as shocks can occasionally occur. While using various solar wind monitors, we gradually concluded that the solar wind is a living organism whose parameters are difficult to predict. The new challenge logically became the solar wind, its origin and evolution on its path from the Sun.

..., we gradually concluded that the solar wind is a living organism whose parameters are difficult to predict.

Jana: Sometime around 2005, Zdeněk and I were returning to Prague by evening bus from a two-week stay at the University of Bern. It was getting dark, and there was not much light, so we started discussing the possibilities of measuring the parameters of the solar wind with an instrument designed for the Spektr-R astrophysical project. We knew that the last 50 years of research in the relationship between the Sun and Earth had shown that sudden changes in the properties of the solar wind could significantly affect the state of the Earth's magnetosphere. Space weather prediction requires measurements with high-time resolution and accuracy, but such measurements are difficult due to limitations in the instrument’s weight and dimensions and transmission telemetry rate. On the other hand, Faraday cups (FC) have been used since the beginning of space exploration, and we had already applied them (Interball-1 project), where it turned out that much faster measurements can be achieved with three-axis probe stabilisation. This was the reason for a long thought about how best to adapt the FC design for monitoring the solar wind to work according to our ideas. On July 18, 2011, the Spektr-R probe with our “Bright Monitor of the Solar Wind” (BMSW) was launched into orbit. We enthusiastically followed the first raw data, which was converted into physical quantities for days and nights, due to its huge amount, and then we saw a great result. Unfortunately, the success was only half, because the magnetometer did not work. The BMSW instrument took advantage of its orientation towards the Sun and determined the density, velocity and thermal velocity of protons and alpha particles of the solar wind with a time resolution of 30 ms. As a result, BMSW allowed for the determination of the frequency spectra of solar wind turbulence at the MHD and ion kinetic scales for the first time. Moreover, the temporal resolution enabled the detection of spatial structures of only a few kilometres in size, thereby contributing to unanswered questions regarding the fine structure, true dimensions, and oscillations associated with interplanetary shocks, and monitoring variations of both protons and alpha particles under different solar wind conditions.

Your research expertise is exceptionally diverse and wide-ranging, and has played a significant role in shaping and understanding our field over the years. Which work/s, according to you, are the most transformative?

Jana: I think that there were three such peaks in my work, two of which were based on the design and development of instruments and determined to some extent the directions of further research. In the late nineties, it was the first two-point measurement of plasma parameters in the solar wind and in different magnetospheric regions. The already mentioned Interball-1 project, where the main satellite was accompanied by a small satellite (Magion-4) that carried similar, albeit simplified, counterparts of instruments from the large satellite, was a kind of "forerunner" of the well-known advanced Cluster project. Analysis of the results showed the undeniable advantages of such an approach to study and indicated the possibilities of two-point observations even on a small scale. The first results of both the Interball-1 and Cluster projects initiated a subsequent conference, “Magnetospheric Response to Solar Activity”, dedicated to a joint discussion of scientists on future research directions. Sponsored by NATO and COSPAR, the conference was hosted by Charles University (September 9-12, 2003, Prague) with the participation of scientists from all over the world. The very successful conference resulted not only in numerous discussions, but also in 17 invited papers published in the NATO Proceedings, and 39 papers were the content of three issues of the journal Planetary and Space Science in 2005. The second stage is associated with the BMSW instrument, monitoring the solar wind that I introduced above. The unique time resolution of plasma parameters allowed us to successfully measure its spectral properties and their rapid changes. The last topic is related to the Parker Solar Probe and Solar Orbiter missions, which brought an amazing amount of new knowledge about the structure and dynamics of the solar coronal magnetic field, to better understand how the solar corona and wind are heated and accelerated, and to determine what processes accelerate energetic particles. Both missions provide valuable data on the planetary environment (e.g., Venus and Mercury), measure waves and turbulence through the inner heliosphere to discover the fields associated with waves, shocks, and magnetic reconnection, a process by which magnetic field lines explosively rearrange. It is just fascinating new physics.

... we understood that the solar wind is a medium that cannot be described by simple magnetohydrodynamics and that a fully kinetic description is and will probably remain beyond our power forever.

Zdeněk: I think the most important moment came when we understood that the solar wind is a medium that cannot be described by simple magnetohydrodynamics and that a fully kinetic description is and will probably remain beyond our power forever. To give a simple example, everyone talks about the speed of the solar wind, but the solar wind is made up of many populations, and each of them moves at a different speed. A logical question arises - what is the speed of the solar wind? This is also the title of one of our articles, which I appreciate. On the contrary, there are also other examples - one of the highly cited papers deals with transient flux enhancements in the magnetosheath. It laid the foundation for an entire field of research on magnetosheath jets that is very popular today, but I think that it is only an attempt to find an order in turbulence that is unpredictable in principle. But turbulence is a field of Jana.

You both, along with your Space Physics Group, have been involved in developing, understanding, and interpreting spacecraft data from CLUSTER, THEMIS, PSP, and SO, to name a few. How do you think instrumental limitations influence our work progress? 

Zdeněk: I think that it is one of the principal problems and contradictions in our present experimental space physics. In the field of space plasma, which we deal with, we need the fastest possible measurement of its parameters. But this means that we need a sufficiently large spectrometer with many channels that measure in parallel without scanning in angles and energies. However, the current trend is the miniaturisation of space probes, which also requires the miniaturisation of instruments. This means, however, that we are composing the distribution function from samples that were measured at different times and therefore under different conditions. And we are not even talking about the statistical error resulting from the small number of registered particles.

... instrumental problems and various limitations in the design of measuring instruments significantly affect data processing.

Jana: I think that instrumental problems and various limitations in the design of measuring instruments significantly affect data processing. I realised already during the first data processing that perfect knowledge of the measuring instrument is necessary. A good knowledge of design and measurement principles primarily limits some of the errors that can arise during data processing due to an inaccurate understanding of the measurement method. Another source of errors is caused by the inner instrument design, where new electronic components with high integration are used, which allows, on the one hand, more complex data processing and different modes of instrument operation; on the other hand, these complicated controls introduce further inaccuracies into data processing. 

What, according to you, is a “big open question” that the next generation should prioritise during their research in space physics?

Zdeněk: There is not just one question. We would like to know exactly how the Sun works, because this will answer a number of sub-questions about the mechanism of solar wind release. The Sun is doing its best to prevent in-situ investigation of its vicinity, but we have Parker Solar Probe bringing plenty of information from the region where the solar wind is born. It shows that a critical distance for the solar wind evolution is somewhere around the Mercury orbit, and we will talk about it in the medal lecture. Solar Orbiter does not come so close to the Sun, but it just started its investigations above the ecliptic plane. We believe that the combination of observations of these pioneering missions with other solar wind monitors can answer many outstanding questions. This is also the reason why we participate in the preparation of the HENON mission that will monitor the solar wind at distances up to 0.9 AU. However, I believe that we need a new mission like Ulysses but much closer to the Sun that will complete Solar Orbiter observations out of the ecliptic.

There is not just one question ... the combination of observations of these pioneering missions with other solar wind monitors can answer many outstanding questions

Jana: In my view, the really important questions are connected with the solar wind because understanding its origin and propagation determines our ability to predict hazardous space weather events. I think that it is a general understanding in our community, but we should concentrate on real issues. There are plenty of papers published on this topic each month, but some of them deal with trifles that cannot shape our understanding significantly. An example of the problem that worries me is the direction of the solar wind propagation. When the solar wind leaves the Sun, it corotates, but it rotates in the opposite direction at the Mercury orbit. What physical mechanism causes it? Where does the enormous energy needed for this turnaround come from? There are still many similar open questions.

What advice would you give to Early Career Scientists seeking to succeed in this field, and is there a particular skill or mindset you believe is crucial for success in solar-terrestrial research?

Jana: This is a very difficult question. The first thing that comes to mind is enthusiasm and interest in scientific research. But that is certainly not all, you need the strength to remove obstacles, or use some of your free time, if necessary. The key to many successes in our field is deeper mathematical foundations and their use for data processing. This brings us back to the instrumental limitations affecting our procedures. Another important contribution to solving various types of problems is, however, discussions with colleagues, students and reading older published articles, where many inspiring ideas can be found, which were obtained even under more limited conditions. Let us recall that the theory of the solar wind, published in 1958 by the American astrophysicist Eugene Parker, explains how and why plasma constantly flows from the Sun into the surrounding space. This theory fundamentally changed the view of the Sun as a stationary body and introduced the concept of a supersonic solar wind. Parker had previously assumed that the solar corona is extremely hot, which causes it to constantly expand into the surrounding space, because the solar gravity cannot hold such hot gas. Contrary to the then-conventional idea that the solar wind is only intermittent (associated with flashes of charged particles), Parker proposed that it is a continuous stream of plasma. Although his theory was initially met with scepticism, it was confirmed by measurements from the probes Luna 1 and 2 in 1959 and the probe Mariner 2, which, during its journey to Venus in 1962, provided detailed and long-term measurements that definitively confirmed the existence of the solar wind because it determined its density, speed, and composition, and showed their temporal variations. And what does this detailed description mean for you? Do not underestimate older theories and results (after all, Parker's theory has been valid with some limitations for more than 50 years), but, on the other hand, learn from examples and don't be afraid to let your imagination run wild during your research. 

Do not underestimate older theories and results ... learn from examples and don't be afraid to let your imagination run wild during your research.

Zdeněk: The concept of success is relative; in every case, it requires intensive work and concentration. Priority is to be interested in the entire field, not in a narrow issue given, for example, as the topic of the dissertation. Discoveries in one line of research can inspire and guide you to breakthrough discoveries in a related field. Another important thing is to look at everything critically, not to accept other people's interpretations and opinions just because they were published in a prestigious journal. In history, we can find many discoveries that were sooner or later refuted; cold fusion can serve as one of the recent examples. Last but not least, theory and computer modelling are nice, but solving known equations cannot move us much beyond present knowledge. The key is an experiment showing something new, but you should be sure that it is really new, not an instrumental effect.

Framing the discussion: insights from the keynotes

Expanding the discussion: perspectives from the breakout discussions

Towards a way forward

References

1. 1. Get the App: Download the EGU26 App (iOS or Android) to synchronize and manage your personal programme.

   2. Upload your files: Remember to upload your presentation and supplementary materials at least 24 hours before your session.

   3. Check your registration: Verify that your registration is complete and have your QR code ready for your name badge pickup.

   4. Travel discounts: EGU26 participants are eligible for discounts on ÖBB (code X4LWLP) and CAT (code EGU26) train services from/to the airport, as well as for travels up to 3 days before and after the event.

   5. Skip the queue: If you want a hot lunch at the EGU Beer garden, do not forget to pre-order it online.

Highlighted CL Division events

Division Meetings

• • • CL Division Meeting (DM3).  📅 Tuesday, 5 May | 🕐 12:45–13:45 | 📍 Room F1. This is your opportunity to have your say in the Division by voting for the new CL team. Everyone is welcome and we will provide free lunch bags!

• • • Meet the CL Division team. 📅 Thursday, 7 May | 🕐 12:30–13:30 | 📍 EGU Booth, Hall X2. Join us in an informal chatting with the CL team. Meet the Division President, your ECS Representative and the Division ECS volunteers. Coffee and tea will be served! 
    • (ECS)  Climate (CL) Early Career Networking Meetup. 📅 Thursday, 7 May | 🕐 19:00–20:00 | 📍 Room 2.96 (Red level - Level 2). The CL ECS team invites you to a pop-up networking event to introduce you to other fellows and learn how you can join our ECS team and contribute to the CL Division through open volunteering opportunities! Grab your drink and come!
    • Meet Climate of the Past Editors. 📅 Thursday, 7 May | 🕐 10:00–11:00 | 📍 Entrance Hall Booth 17. Following last year's tremendous celebration of Climate of the Past, you will have the opportunity to meet the CP editors of the journal in person. ECS are welcome to join the discussion.

CL Medal Lecture

Join us to celebrate this year's recognized contributions to climate science at our dedicated award lecture:

Hans Oeschger Medal Lecture by Friederike E.L. Otto (MAL19-CL). 📅 Tuesday, 5 May | 🕐 19:00–20:00 | 📍 Room B. Topic: "The added value of yet another attribution study". Awarded for pioneering extreme event attribution and transforming climate communication through the World Weather Attribution initiative.

Selected short-courses (SC)

• • Using Machine Learning to downscale climate scenarios. SC2.23 – 📅 Monday, 4 May | 🕐 08:30–10:15 | 📍Room -2.82. Link to course

  • Analogues and Dynamical Systems Indices: A Unified Approach for Predictability, Attribution, and Impacts of Climate Extremes. SC2.8 – 📅 Monday, 4 May | 🕐 10:45–12:30 | 📍Room -0.55. Link to course
  • Radiocarbon Dating: Concepts and Practical Guide. SC2.3 – 📅 Wednesday, 6 May | 🕐 08:30–10:15  | 📍 Room -2.41. Link to course

Selected Scientific Sessions

Monday 4 May

• • CL1.2.3. Speleothem and karst records - Reconstructing terrestrial climatic and environmental change. Convener: Rieneke Weij |🕐 14:00–18:00 | 📍Room F1
  • CL0.2. Machine Learning for Climate Science. Convener: Katharina Hafner |🕐 14:00–17:55 | 📍Room C
  • CL4.14. ​​Earth system models at km-scale and beyond: Benefits and challenges of resolving smaller scale processes. Convener:  Audrey Delpech |🕐 16:15–18:00 | 📍Room 0.31/32 
  • CL0.13. Climate Risk Storylines and Scenarios: From physical modelling to co-production for decision-making. Convener:  Martha Marie Vogel |🕐 14:00–15:45| 📍Room 2.24

Tuesday 5 May

• • CL0.5. AMOC changes and impacts on physical, biogeochemical, and societal systems. Convener: Eduardo Alastrué de Asenjo |🕐 08:30–10:15 | 📍Room 2.24
  • CL3.2.4.High-impact climate extremes: from physical understanding and storylines to impacts and solutions. Convener: Laura Suarez-Gutierrez |🕐 08:30–12:30, 14:00–15:45 | 📍Room F1
  • CL3.1.2. Kilometer-Scale Numerical Modelling – Bridging Regional and Global Perspectives. Convener: Puxi Li |🕐 08:30–12:30 | 📍Room 0.31/32
  • CL4.5. Unravelling Climate Variability and Teleconnections Across Time Scales. Convener: Julia Mindlin |🕐 10:45–12:30 | 📍Room 0.96/97
  • CL2.7. Historical Weather Data Rescue and Methodologies Focusing on Data-sparse Regions. Convener: Praveen Rao Teleti |🕐 14:00–15:45 | 📍Room 0.96/97

Wednesday 6 May

• • CL0.15. Measuring climate adaptation: from processes and outputs to outcomes and impacts. Convener: Oscar Higuera Roa |🕐 08:30–10:15 | 📍Room 2.17
  • CL0.18. Climate Change and Global Health Risks from Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Convener: Alexia Karwat |🕐 10:45–12:20 | 📍Room -2.62
  • CL4.15.Climate impacts on terrestrial life: vegetation dynamics, faunal responses, and human civilisational trajectories from past to future. Convener: Thushara Venugopal |🕐 14:00–17:55 | 📍Room 0.14

Thursday 7 May

• • CL3.1.3. Attributing climate change, extreme events, and their impacts: quantifying contributions from external forcing, internal climate variability, and/or other drivers. Convener: Aglae Jezequel |🕐 08:30–12:25, 14:00–15:40 | 📍Room F1
  • CL4.2. The dynamics of the large-scale atmospheric circulation in past, present and future climate. Convener: Hilla Afargan Gerstman |🕐 08:30–12:25, 14:00–15:45 | 📍Room 0.49/50
  • CL1.1.7. Asian Climate and Tectonics . Convener: Niels Meijer |🕐 10:45–12:25 | 📍Room 0.31/32
  • CL4.9. Hybrid approaches for climate science: from process understanding to prediction and climate services. Convener: Luca Famooss Paolini |🕐 10:45–12:30 | 📍Room 0.14
  • CL0.17. Population health in a changing climate: past and ongoing impacts, adaptation and future risks. Convener: Elena Raffetti |🕐 14:00–15:40 | 📍Room 2.17
  • CL3.1.5. Advances in Understanding Solar Radiation Modification Technologies and their Impact on the Earth System. Convener: Colleen Golja |🕐 14:00–15:45 | 📍Room 0.31/32
  • CL5.7. Constraining climate: tools for tackling model uncertainty. Convener: Kunal Ghosh |🕐 14:00–15:45 | 📍Room 0.14
  • CL3.1.6.Climate Variability vs. Forced Change: Insights from Large Ensemble Climate Model Simulations and Climate Emulators. Convener: Aneesh Sundaresan |🕐 16:15–18:00 | 📍Room 0.14

Friday 8 May

• • CL4.10. Climate predictions from seasonal to multi-decadal timescales and their applications. Convener: Bianca Mezzina |🕐 08:30–12:30 | 📍Room 0.31/32
  • CL3.1.1. Synoptic and Large-Scale Circulation Dynamics: Impacts on Regional Extremes, Climate Variability, and Change. Convener: Peter Pfleiderer |🕐 08:30–12:30 | 📍Room F1
  • NP1.2. The Climate Model Hierarchy: Bridging simulation, understanding and application. Convener: Reyk Börner |🕐 10:45–12:30 | 📍Room -2.15

Social events for ECS at EGU26

• • Opening Reception (NET1) – 📅 Sunday, 3 May | 🕐 18:30–21:00 |📍Foyer F
  • First-time Attendee Networking (NET6) – 📅 Monday, 4 May | 🕐 18:00–19:30 |📍EGU Networking Zone (next to the EGU Booth, Hall X2)
  • ECS Coffee Break Catch-Up (NET2) – 📅 Everyday | 🕐 10:15–10:45 |📍EGU Networking Zone (next to the EGU Booth, Hall X2)
  • ECS Networking Reception (NET10) – 📅 Tuesday, 5 May | 🕐 18:00–19:30 |📍Rooftop Foyer + Foyer C
  • ECS Forum: Have your say! (NET11) – 📅 Thursday, 7 May | 🕐 12:45–13:45 |📍Room 3.16/17

• EGU Scavenger Hunt @ Natural History Museum Vienna (NHM). 📅 Sunday, 3 May | 🕐14:00–15:30📍 Explore the Vienna’s iconic Natural History Museum — free entry included! 👉 Meeting point: Museum entrance at 14:00 🧭 Limited to 35 participants, first come, first served
• Guided Highlights Tour at NHM 📅 Monday, 4 May | 🕐13:30–15:00 👉 Meeting point: Museum entrance at 13:30 🧭 Limited to 23 participants, first come, first served

EGU26 Closure

• GeoVision Night (NET19 – Karaoke!🎤). 📅 Friday, 8 May | 🕐18:10–20:00 |📍Room E1
  Celebrate the end of EGU26 beyond the lecture halls. GeoVision Night brings the community together for a final wrap-up featuring karaoke, drinks, and popcorn. Come unwind and enjoy a relaxed evening while singing your favorite songs. Everyone is welcome!

  
   

For real-time updates and daily highlights during EGU26, make sure to follow us on Bluesky and LinkedIn.

This post has been written by the editorial board.

Hello all you Seismologists, eager to get together at EGU26!

We are now getting very close to the next EGU General Assembly, and of course we are looking forward to reconnecting with all of you at EGU26. In this blog post, we would like to summarise many of the events that are organised by the Seismology Division and ECS Representatives of the Seismology Division during EGU26. Grab your calendar, and make sure to come and meet us on many of these events! Always keep in mind that EGU is a massive conference – you will not be able to get to everything, so plan carefully and leave room to breathe!

Sunday, 03/05/2026

16:30-18:00: ECS Icebreaker (CopaBeach Vienna)

18:30-21:00: EGU26 Opening Reception (Foyer F)

*EVERY DAY*

10:15 – 10:45: ECS Coffee Break (next to EGU Booth, Hall X2)

Monday, 04/05/2026

10:45 –12:30: How to navigate EGU: tips and tricks (Room -2.82)

12:45 – 13:45: Geodesy 101 (Room -2.62)

18:00 – 19:30: First-time Attendee Networking (EGU networking zone, Hall X2)

Tuesday, 05/05/2026

08:30 – 10:15: European Research Council (ERC) Funding Opportunities (Room -2.41/42)

16:15 – 18:00: Geology 101 (Room -2.41/42)

16:15 – 18:00: Up-Goer Five Challenge (Pico Spot 1b)

18:00 – 19:30: ECS Networking Reception (Rooftop + Foyer C)

*HIGHLIGHT*

Wednesday, 06/05/2026

12:45 – 13:45: Seismology Division Meeting (Room D2)

14:00 – 15:45: Seismology 101 (Room -2.41/42)

16:15 – 18:00: Exoplanets 101 (Room -2.41/42)

19:05 – 19:25: SM Division Outstanding ECS Award Lecture (Room M1)

19:00 – 21:00: SM Early Career Scientist social dinner (register, Pizzeria Dolce Vita, bring Cash!)

Thursday, 07/05/2026

10:15 – 10:45: ECS Coffee Break Catch-Up (next to EGU booth, Hall X2)

12:45 – 13:45: ECS Forum: Have your say!

Friday, 08/05/2026

16:15 – 18:00: Good programming practices for scientists (Room -2.41/42)

We’re looking for new team members! Come join us:

Additional Information

Do you want to know more about the different geoscientific fields? All of the short courses and 101 courses can be found here. Many of EGU’s networking events can be found in the programme, just select the option “Networking (NET)” under “Union-wide events”.

All the best,

The ECS Representatives of the Seismology Division

Sessions

Division social events

What if you're not joining the GA

Cryo-events to add to your calendar

• Cryosphere women and non-binary lunch: 12:30–13:30 | EGU networking zone – terrace G (Purple Level). Bring your lunch and we can enjoy a nice picnic at the terrace (fingers crossed that the weather will be nice!). Feel free to reach out to the organizers Leah Muhle (leah-sophie.muhle@uni-tuebingen.de) and Mack Baysinger (mbaysinger@agro.au.dk) if you want to join but are running late, or are looking for terrace G and get a little lost (we have all been there too!)

• Cryosphere division meeting: 12:45–13:45 | Room N1
• Jules and Johannes Weertman Medal Lecture by Olaf Eisen and Arne Richter Award for Outstanding ECS Lecture by Kaitlin Naughten: 19:00–20:00 | Room F1

• Meet the Cryospheric Sciences division team: 12:30-13:30 | EGU booth - Hall X2.  Come and meet the Cryospheric Sciences Division Team! Discover our activities and volunteering opportunities, share your feedback and questions, or simply stop by for a coffee or tea and a casual chat.
• EGU Cryosphere Division Blog lunch: 12:30-13:30 | EGU networking zone – next to EGU booth (Hall X2). We will have a pop-up lunch event next to the EGU booth -  bring your lunch and join us! Whether you are an experienced writer, an early-career researcher interested in science communication, or simply curious about the stories behind cryosphere research, this is a fantastic opportunity to meet us, share ideas, and discover how to contribute.
• Cryosphere division-wide social event: 19:00–22:30 | Location: Brandauer Schlossbräu – Am Platz 5, 1130 Vienna

Some tips to get through EGU

• Take time to plan your week schedule ahead. For this, the EGU26 can be really helpful as it allows you to create your personal conference programme. 
• Don’t forget to take some breaks and enjoy beautiful Vienna or the park around the conference center. 
• Don’t be afraid to check out topics outside your expertise, you might be surprised what you can find.
• Some rooms fill up fast, so show up early to secure a seat.
• Also check out EGU’s YouTube channel for useful videos to prepare for the conference.
• Bring an old lanyard if you have one. 
• Bring a water bottle, there are plenty of water fountains to refill it.
• Check out the morning EGU today news for daily highlights (available through the EGU26 app).

GNSS added value

Geometric changes

Signal delays and disturbances

Signal reflections

The backbone of Earth observation

Further reading:

1. Bock, Y., & Melgar, D. (2016). Physical applications of GPS geodesy: A review. Reports on Progress in Physics, 79(10), 106801. https://doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/79/10/106801
2. Guerova, G., Jones, J., Douša, J., Dick, G., de Haan, S., Pottiaux, E., Bock, O., Pacione, R., Elgered, G., Vedel, H., & Bender, M. (2016). Review of the state of the art and future prospects of the ground-based GNSS meteorology in Europe. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 9(11), 5385–5406. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-5385-2016
3. Schubert, G. (Ed.). (2015). Treatise on geophysics (2nd ed (Online-Ausg.)). Elsevier Science. ISBN: 978-0-444-53803-1
4. White, A. M., Gardner, W. P., Borsa, A. A., Argus, D. F., & Martens, H. R. (2022). A review of GNSS/GPS in hydrogeodesy: Hydrologic loading applications and their implications for water resource research. Water Resources Research, 58(7), e2022WR032078. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022WR032078

Financing

- Graphics designed by Jowita Junke

- Edited by Leire Retegui-Schiettekatte and Marius Schlaak