GeoLog

EGU GA 2018

NASA’s Juno mission reveals Jupiter’s magnetic field greatly differs from Earth’s

NASA’s Juno mission reveals Jupiter’s magnetic field greatly differs from Earth’s

NASA scientists have revealed surprising new information about Jupiter’s magnetic field from data gathered by their space probe, Juno.

Unlike earth’s magnetic field, which is symmetrical in the North and South Poles, Jupiter’s magnetic field has startlingly different magnetic signatures at the two poles.

The information has been collected as part of the Juno program, NASA’s latest mission to unravel the mysteries of the biggest planet in our solar system. The solar-powered spacecraft is made of three 8.5 metre-long solar panels angled around a central body. The probe (pictured above) cartwheels through space, travelling at speeds up to 250,000 kilometres per hour.

Measurements taken by a magnetometer mounted on the spacecraft have allowed a stunning new insight into the planet’s gigantic magnetic field. They reveal the field lines’ pathways vary greatly from the traditional ‘bar magnet’ magnetic field produced by earth.

Jupiter’s magnetic field is enormous. if magnetic radiation were visible to the naked eye, from earth, Jupiter’s magnetic field would appear bigger than the moon. Credit: NASA/JPL/SwRI

The Earth’s magnetic field is generated by the movement of fluid in its inner core called a dynamo. The dynamo produces a positive radiomagnetic field that comes out of one hemisphere and a symmetrical negative field that goes into the other.

The interior of Jupiter on the other hand, is quite different from Earth’s. The planet is made up almost entirely of hydrogen gas, meaning the whole planet is essentially a ball of moving fluid. The result is a totally unique magnetic picture. While the south pole has a negative magnetic field similar to Earth’s, the northern hemisphere is bizarrely irregular, comprised of a series of positive magnetic anomalies that look nothing like any magnetic field seen before.

“The northern hemisphere has a lot of positive flux in the northern mid latitude. It’s also the site of a lot of anomalies,” explains Juno Deputy Principal Investigator, Jack Connerney, who spoke at a press conference at the EGU General Assembly in April. “There is an extraordinary hemisphere asymmetry to the magnetic field [which] was totally unexpected.”

NASA have produced a video that illustrates the unusual magnetism, with the red spots indicating a positive magnetic field and the blue a negative field:

Before its launch in 2016, Juno was programmed to conduct 34 elliptical ‘science’ orbits, passing 4,200 kilometres above Jupiter’s atmosphere at its closest point. When all the orbits are complete, the spacecraft will undertake a final deorbit phase before impacting into Jupiter in February 2020.

So far Juno has achieved eleven science orbits, and the team analysing the data hope to learn more as it completes more passes. “In the remaining orbits we will get a finer resolution of the magnetic field, which will help us understand the dynamo and how deep the magnetic field forms” explains Scott Bolton, Principal Investigator of the mission.

The researchers’ next steps are to examine the probe’s data after its 16th and 34th passes meaning it will be a few more months before they are able to learn more of Jupiter’s mysterious magnetosphere.

By Keri McNamara, EGU 2018 General Assembly Press Assistant

Further reading

Connerney, J. E. P., Kotsiaros, S., Oliversen, R. J., Espley, J. R., Joergensen, J. L., Joergensen, P. S., et al. A new model of Jupiter’s magnetic field from Juno’s first nine orbits. Geophysical Research Letters, 45, 2590–2596. 2018

Bolton, S. J. et al. Jupiter’s interior and deep atmosphere: The initial pole-to-pole passes with the Juno spacecraft, Science, 356(6340), p. 821 LP-825. 2017

Guillot, T. et al. A suppression of differential rotation in Jupiter’s deep interior, Nature. Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved., 555, p. 227. 2018

How to convene a session at the General Assembly… in flow charts!

How to convene a session at the General Assembly… in flow charts!

Convening a session at a conference can seem daunting, especially if you are an early career scientist (ECS) and a first-time convener. At the 2018 General Assembly, Stephanie Zihms, the Union-level ECS representative, discussed the basics of proposing, promoting and handling a session in the short course ‘How to convene a session at EGU’s General Assembly.’

In today’s post she has created some simple flow charts to ensure your convening experience is a success. With the call for sessions for the 2019 EGU General Assembly open until 6 September 2018, now’s the perfect time to put this advice into practice!

Did you know that you can help shape the General Assembly by proposing a session?

Follow the flow charts to find out more:

After the session submission deadline, the Programme Committee will look for duplicate sessions and encourage sessions to merge before the call for abstract opens. Once sessions are open for abstract submission, it is then up to you and your convener team to ensure your session is advertised. Try publicising your session as widely as possible. Why not spread the word through social media, mailing lists or even a blog post?

Remember, scientists who would like to be considered for the Roland Schlich travel support have to submit their abstracts by 1 December 2018, prior to the general deadline, to allow for abstract assessment.

Also remember that ECS can apply to be considered for the OSPP (Outstanding Student Poster and Presentation) award. Judges are normally allocated by the OSPP coordinator, but as a convener you need to check each entry has been awarded judges.


Once the general deadline closes, your responsibilities as convener or co-convener depend on the type of session and the number of abstracts. EGU’s conference organisers, Copernicus Meetings, will keep you updated via email and more information about your responsibilities can be found here.

Note that the EGU considers all General Assembly contributions equally important, independent of presentation format. With this in mind, if your session is given oral blocks, make sure your oral slots include presentations from early career scientists as well as established scientists. It’s also a good idea to ensure your diversity selection goes beyond career stage and includes gender and nationality.

As the convener (or co-convener) you need to ensure all abstracts submitted for the Roland Schlich travel support are evaluated and the feedback is provided through the online tool. This should be done as a team.

The minimum number of submitted abstracts required for a session varies each year. This often depends on the type of session requested (oral, poster, PICO) and overall amount of abstracts submitted.

Not all conveners attract the required number of abstracts for their session of choice, but don’t worry. If this happens to you, there are other options available, like converting to different session type or teaming up another session. The EGU Programme Committee works hard to make sure all abstracts are presented at the General Assembly in sessions that are as suitable to them as possible.

Remember, the call for sessions for the EGU General Assembly 2019 closes on 6 September 2018 and the call for Union Symposia and Great Debates proposals ends by 15 August 2018.

By Stephanie Zihms, the Union-level ECS Representative

The EGU’s 2019 General Assembly, takes place in Vienna from 7 to 12 April, 2019. For more news about the upcoming General Assembly, you can also follow the official hashtag, #EGU19, on our social media channels.

Give us the foundation to build our transferrable skills!

Give us the foundation to build our transferrable skills!

The EGU Early Career Scientists’ (ECS) Great Debates offer early career scientists at the EGU General Assembly the chance to network and voice their opinions on important topics in the format of round-table discussions. At the end of the debate, each table delivers a statement that summarises the discussion and recommendations. By publishing the results, we hope to highlight some of the needs of the EGU ECS community and how these matters should be addressed.

At this year’s ECS Great Debate, the topic was transferrable skills in science. The main question was “should early career scientists use time developing transferrable skills?” You may say this is a simple question to answer. Indeed, all the resulting statements indicated that the EGU ECS answer is YES. However, the simple statements hide a much more complex situation; a situation that varies considerably for each individual researcher. Different countries have different standards, different universities set different curricula, and different supervisors have different priorities. Some early career scientists are lucky to have many opportunities to develop transferrable skills, whereas others strive to gain these skills.

Groups defined transferrable skills as ones that could be used in other scientific disciplines and not least, in industry. Indeed, many scientific skills are transferrable. For example, data analysis and statistics were noted as valuable tools across various scientific fields and industry careers. Some groups gave extensive lists of transferrable expertise, and most were not strictly science-based. These included writing, presenting, social media, teaching, team working, project management, networking and critical thinking, to name a few. However, developing these skills do not traditionally fall into the curricula of the geosciences.

Early career scientists having round-table discussions on the importance of developing transferrable skills. (Credit: Olivia Trani)

It was evident that ECS in the EGU consider transferrable skills as extremely important to their careers and their science. They furthermore suggest that researchers should be given time and appropriate credit to develop these skills.

At the same time, many of the ECS debate participants believe in striking a balance between establishing these skills and the scientific skills that their PhDs and publications depend on.

Below you will find a list of the summary statements from the ECS that were present at the Great Debate. These reports, based on the discussions from more than 100 early career scientists, show solid support for transferrable skill training. These results are a clear indication that EGU must continue to work towards offering short courses at the General Assembly on a variety of transferrable skills. Additionally, these statements can help ECS persuade their universities to invest in opportunities to develop these skills if they do not already do so. It is clear that the EGU early career scientist community believes these skills not only help ECS develop their careers, but that they also benefit science and society!

Here are the table’s conclusions:

“Instead of currently developing random skills ourselves, on an ad-hoc basis, we need an environment to support more organized, collaborative, efficient, and recognized skill sets”

“We need transferrable skills to communicate knowledge and help society, therefore learn them, when you need them or want them, others will thank you”

“We should focus on developing these [transferrable] skills but we need to manage our time in order to go deeper into [our] own science”

“Yes, because whether you decide to stay in academia or in industry, these skills will help you be better in your field, help you work on interdisciplinary topics and communicate your work, thus increasing your success. The pros outweigh the cons!”

“Yes, to be a good scientist, researcher, or general human being, it takes more than one skill or field. It takes being open and brave to pursue new experiences to change both yourself and those around you.”

“Scientific careers are not just about getting specific knowledge in your field specialty but being able to adapt yourself to different disciplines.”

“Yes, because you get more job opportunities, it gives you flexibility, it’s fun, it makes you happy, it helps define you and strengthens your personality.”

“Yes, it is important for improving our possibilities after a PhD. We should take these opportunities as early career scientists [and] have more chances to learn these skills.”

“All scientists should be required to take time to develop useful skills for professional and personal development. These developments should not be exclusive to certain groups, should be obligatory with freedom to choose topics, should be offered to supervisors and managers, should include more courses at conferences and there should be more money for travel funding.”

“We need to find a good balance during PhD between doing science and attending courses about transferrable skills.”

“Yes, but plan which relevant transferrable skills you need to develop in the short term in relation to your project, and then update your long-term plan.”

“Transferrable skills will always be useful in your current and future situation. They should be learnt at university. It should be acceptable to spend time learning these skills in courses in tandem with your research.”

By Mathew Stiller-Reeve, co-founder of ClimateSnack and researcher at Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research, Norway

Editor’s note: This is a guest blog post that expresses the opinion of its author and those who participated at the Great Debate during the General Assembly, whose views may differ from those of the European Geosciences Union. We hope the post can serve to generate discussion and a civilised debate amongst our readers.

Giving back to the city: First EGU Public Lecture at the General Assembly 2018 in Vienna

Giving back to the city: First EGU Public Lecture at the General Assembly 2018 in Vienna

The inaugural EGU Public Lecture, titled ‘After Paris: Are we getting the climate crisis under control?’, took place last April at the 2018 General Assembly in the Natural History Museum of Vienna.

In this first public lecture, Stefan Rahmstorf, a climate scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, took the audience on a fascinating journey through the climate system, discussed its impact around the world, and addressed whether the Paris Agreement will mitigate the risks of Earth’s changing climate. Claudia Volosciuk from the World Meteorological Organization reports on the lecture.

Our pale blue dot

Rahmstorf started by taking a look at the small and fragile planet Earth from space, explaining the ways in which Earth receives and radiates energy, including an animation showing the history of greenhouse gas emissions.

He then went into more detail, showing for example the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide and how its increase in the atmosphere is human-caused. The lecture covered multiple geoscientific disciplines and highlighted their connections to each other: from coral reefs to the cryosphere, the oceans to the atmosphere, and hurricanes to deserts.

Studying Earth’s climate

Stefan Rahmstorf explaining the ways in which Earth receives and radiates energy, and the impacts of the additional carbon dioxide that is emitted to the atmosphere. Credit: Hischam Momen / Natural History Museum of Vienna

The audience also gained insight into the various methods that geoscientists use to study different aspects and time scales of the Earth system.

For example, scientists estimate potential future climate outcomes, by employing climate models to analyse the Earth system’s response to different greenhouse gases emission rates, also known as climate scenarios.

To reconstruct Earth’s past climate, researchers have used natural archives (like ice cores or tree rings), and written records. These observations and reconstructions reveal that the hottest summer in Europe since 1500 took place in 2010, followed by 2003, 2002, 2006 and 2007. “I believe that you don’t need to ask a statistician if you want to know whether this is just chance, it’s clear that this is a systematic effect,”* emphasised Rahmstorf.

The Paris Agreement

Referring to the presentation’s title, Rahmstorf highlighted the great success of ratifying the Paris climate accord to limit global temperature rise to well below two degrees above pre-industrial levels, but he  argued that it came 20 years too late. If the agreement had been reached earlier, there would have been more time for countries to curb carbon emission rates and transition to a carbon-free economy, explained Rahmstorf.

He also cautioned that the agreement isn’t a perfect solution as it still implies a substantial warming. For instance, if we met the Paris agreement’s global temperature rise goal, Rahmstorf noted that the average temperature over land would be higher than the global average, as the oceans do not warm as strongly as land masses. Reaching the Paris agreement goals would still create conditions beyond what Earth has experienced for hundreds of thousands of years.

Rahmstorf suggested mechanisms that policy makers could adopt to increase the speed of emission reduction, which is not yet sufficient to reach the Paris agreement goals. These include establishing a minimum price to emit carbon dioxide and ending subsidies for fossil fuels, which are currently still higher than renewable energy subsidies.

He also warned that the longer we wait to decarbonise our economy, the faster we will have to reduce our emission levels in the future. “The famous climate scenarios are called scenarios and not forecasts,” Rahmstorf explained, “Humankind has the choice whether it wants to emit a lot or a little CO2.”*

EGU and Vienna

The General Assembly has been held in Vienna for more than a decade and the EGU has a very good relationship with the city, according to EGU President Jonathan Bamber. “We thought it is about time that we try an experiment and give something back to the city,” said Bamber, “to share with you our enthusiasm and excitement about the science we do.”

Stefan Rahmstorf (left), Jonathan Bamber (center), and Christian Koeberl (right) at the 2018 EGU Public Lecture. Credit: Hischam Momen / Natural History Museum of Vienna

The director general of the Natural History Museum of Vienna, Christian Koeberl, highly appreciated the Union’s decision to conduct the public lecture at the museum, as the institution has a variety of geoscientific activities, including preserving collections and carrying out research projects.

“Today’s topic is one that interests and affects us all, namely climate. Climate is obviously something that is strongly connected with our understanding of the Earth, but also with our interaction as humans with the Earth,”* Koeberl remarked. The event was at full capacity, attended by an audience spanning all age groups, suggesting that Koeberl’s sentiment was widely shared.

By Claudia Volosciuk, World Meteorological Organization

*Quotation is a translation from the German original