GeoTalk: Hellishly hot period contributed to one of the most catastrophic mass extinctions of Earth’s history

GeoTalk: Hellishly hot period contributed to one of the most catastrophic mass extinctions of Earth’s history

Geotalk is a regular feature highlighting early career researchers and their work. Following the EGU General Assembly, we spoke to Yadong Sun, the winner of a 2017 Arne Richter Award for Outstanding Early Career Scientists, about his work on understanding mass-extinctions. Using a unique combination of sedimentological, palaeontological and geochemical techniques Yadong was able to identify some of the causes of the end-Permian mass extinction, which saw the most catastrophic diversity loss of the Phanerozoic. 

Thank you for talking to us today! Could you introduce yourself and tell us a little more about your career path so far?

Many thanks for inviting me here. I am currently working at the GeoZentrum Nordbayern, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg as a post-doc researcher.

I grew up in a small coastal town called Haiyang, east to the major city Tsingtao in North China. I moved to central China for university and majored in Geology at the China University of Geosciences (Wuhan) in 2004-2008.

This was followed by an exciting, 5 years split-site PhD program in which I spent two and a half years in China for field work and palaeontological training; half a year at Erlangen Germany for stable isotope and geochemical studies and the final 2 years at the University of Leeds, UK for training in sedimentology.

After my PhD, I successfully applied a fellowship from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and become an honourable Humboldtian.

In late 2015, two years after my PhD, I had 31 peer-reviewed papers including two in Science but was not fully prepared for the job market. It was already near the end of my fellowship. I only applied for one job—the O.K. Earl postdoc fellowship at the California Institute of Technology, US, but I didn’t get it. Completely unprepared for the situation, I was unemployed for about half a year.

I considered this the first setback in my early career. It taught me a valuable lesson; since I applied various research funding and fellowships and have never failed.

In early 2016, I was offered a postdoc position in a big project from the German Science Foundation (DFG forschergruppe) at Erlangen. I am very happy to be involved in the project and work again with many German and European colleagues.

Meet Yadong, pictured on fieldwork in the Himalayas. Credit: Yadong Sun.

During EGU 2017, you received an Arne Richter Award for Outstanding Early Career Scientists for your work understanding the end-Permian mass extinction. Could you tell us a little bit more about this period during Earth’s history?

The end-Permian mass extinction, which happened 252 million years ago, is the most devastating crisis seen in the Phanerozoic (the period of time during which there has seen life on Earth). However, the ultimate killing (or triggering) mechanism of this mass extinction is not fully understood and has been intensely debated for years.

Many fossil groups, in the ocean and on land were completely wiped out. The end-Permian mass extinction had profound influence on the evolution of life on Earth; such was the scale of the dying at this time. Extinction losses appear non-selective; virtually no groups escaped unscathed.

In the oceans some of the most abundant organisms such as the brachiopods (two-shelled organisms), radiolaria and foraminifera were almost (but not quite) eliminated whilst the rugose corals, tabulate corals, goniatites and trilobites were forever lost.

On land, the dominant herbivorous animals, the pareiasaurs, together with the gorgonopsids, the top predators, were lost. They lived in a world in which the dominant trees were the seed-bearing gymnosperms (e.g. glossopterids, gigantopterids, cordaites). All these groups, together with many other animals, including diverse insect groups, failed to survive the extinction.

After the mass extinction, the Early Triassic world was a time of extraordinary low diversity with the same monotonous communities found everywhere. For example, there is a 5 million year gap during which corals are not found in the rock record.

On land this included assemblages dominated by a shrub-like tree fern called Dicroidium, whilst the dominant animal was Lystrosaurus a pig-sized herbivore, belonging to a group called the dicynodonts.

In the world’s oceans, in the immediate aftermath of the extinction, it was the mollusks which occurred in the greatest numbers; a bivalve called Claraia was prolifically abundant just about everywhere.

It took an unusually long time (around 4-5 million years) for the biosphere to start recovering from the end-Permian mass extinction. This is much longer than after other mass extinctions and has lead scientists to speculate that the harsh conditions, responsible for the extinction in the first place, may have persisted for long afterwards.

At the same time, ocean chemistry was probably very different to modern day Earth. The oxygen levels in seawater were very low.

Despite the debate, what do scientists know about the causes of the end-Permian extinction?

The causes of the end-Permian mass extinction are, as a matter of fact, not perfectly understood. There are many different hypotheses. The key is to test the different hypotheses.

At the moment, we know with quite some certainty that anoxia (no free oxygen in seawater) and high temperatures both likely contributed to the end-Permian mass extinction.

Around the time of the extinction, there was massive volcanic activity in present day Siberia, known as the Siberian Traps. The lavas they left behind are known as the Siberian flood basalts. The eruption of the super volcano triggered global warming, voluminous volcanic CO2 inject to the atmosphere could lead to ocean acidification. This is because CO2 reacts with water and becomes carbonic acid (CO2 + H2O ↔ H2CO3). This is a very new and popular hypothesis to explain the mass extinction.

However, I myself am not fully convinced by the ocean acidification theory for the end-Permian mass extinction because there is a lot of evidence for carbonate over-saturated conditions at this time too. Carbonate saturated conditions mean that seawater contains very high concentrations of species such as CO32- and HCO3. They easily combine with Ca2+ and precipice as limestone and calcite cements. High concentrations CO32- and HCO3 have a buffering effect which inhibit the reaction forming carbonic acid. Therefore, it is not really possible to have ocean acidification and carbonate over-saturation at the same time. More detailed studies are needed to investigate this paradox.

In the past, some scientists proposed a sudden cooling or bolide impact as potential causes for the extinction, but these theories are no longer popular because of a lack of evidence.

In your presentation at EGU 2017 you spoke about how the extinction was accompanied by a rapid temperature rise, from 25 °C to 32 °C. How were you able to establish that such a significant temperature rise occurred?

I use oxygen isotope thermometry from conodonts: an extinct eel-like creature. Oxygen has two isotopes—18O and 16O. The ratio of the two isotopes in an animal is proportional to temperature from the oxygen isotope ratio of the water they ingest.

Reconstruction of temperatures for the end-Permian mass extinction is not easy since most shelly fossils died out. Those preserved are often subject to burial changes and therefore no longer preserve the original environmental information.

On the other hand, conodonts survived the end-Permian mass-extinction and are ideal for oxygen isotope analyses. They are very tiny (typically ~300 micro meter long) and consist of biogenic apatite. Apatite has 4 very robust P-O chemical bonds and very difficult to be altered after burial. Therefore, measuring oxygen isotope ratio of conodonts could help solved the problem.

However, because conodonts are so small and rare in rocks, I had to collect 2 tons of carbonate rocks dissolve the rock in acetic acid and pick the conodonts one by one under a binocular microscope, to get a big enough sample! It was a lot of work and required a lot of patience.

A Triassic conodont from south China. Credit: Yadong Sun.

That certainly sounds like painstaking work! Once the tedious task was completed, how were you able to link the temperature records you deciphered from the conodonts with the mass extinction?

All living creatures have a thermal threshold, also called thermal tolerance – the temperature range which they are able to tolerate to survive. It varies significantly amongst different groups. Most animals, on land or in the oceans, cannot live in environments that are consistently hotter than 47 °C. However, certain groups of desert ants and scorpions have developed special mechanisms and can survive 53 °C for a very brief time. Another example is the elevated seawater temperatures which contribute to high death rates of corals.

High temperatures supress photosynthesis. In most C3 plants, at temperatures above 35°C, photorespiration exceeds photosynthesis, wasting the energy generated by the plants.  in most C3 plants. Under such circumstances, C3 plants will stop growing and probably die shortly after. Maximum growth rates of single-celled algae in the ocean are normally achieved below 40°C.

A significant rise in seawater temperatures has many negative effects. One of them is that the amount of oxygen dissolved in seawater decreases as temperature rises, while animals use up more energy to perform even the simplest tasks. . This is one reason for which most marine groups prefer environments < 35°C.

These observations tie mass extinctions with temperature increase.

For our study, once the oxygen isotope ratios of conodonts are measured, we can use it in an equation to calculate the absolute temperature of the seawater at the time. The results show significantly higher ocean temperatures than today. We know the equation explains the relationship accurately because it was established in aquariums where scientists raise fishes in controlled temperatures. As temperatures are known, they measure the oxygen isotope of the water and fish teeth and established the oxygen isotope—temperature equation.

What do your findings mean for the current understanding of the causes of the mass-extinction?

This is an excellent question. There are quite some studies which postulate global warming as a potential killing mechanism for the end-Permian mass extinction. There is a link between the timing of the massive eruptions of the Siberia Large Igneous Province and the end-Permian mass extinction, which has led scientists to propose different warming scenarios. They are all correct, but they are not able to show direct evidence for their hypotheses or quantify the temperature change.

Our data show the worst-case scenario in terms of temperature rise and the mass mortality of species. This does not necessarily imply high temperatures killed everything because many adverse environmental conditions could trigger synergetic effects (for example low oxygen levels). Our study set an example for comparison.

Our results mean that rapid warming, such as what we are encountering at present, is truly worrying.

Yadong, thank you for speaking to me about your reasearch. As an award winner with an impressive career so far, what advice do you have for early career scientists?

Europe is probably the best place in the world for young scientists. It provides considerable fair funding opportunities and many possibilities to work with other scientists in the EU.

However, it is undeniable that fixed positions in academia are rare and highly competitive. It is always the best to go to meetings/conferences at least once a year to showcase your research, meet colleagues and seek collaboration opportunities.

Research projects nowadays are much more complex. Many tasks cannot be done by one person or one team. The success of a young scientist cannot be achieved without the support of senior scientists as well as the community.

Also don’t be shy to contact people and always be prepared for the job market. In the post-doc stage, if your project is very challenging, the best strategy is to work on some small projects on the side and keep publishing.

Interview by Laura Roberts Artal (EGU Communications Officer)


Sun, Y. Climate warming during and in the aftermath of the End-Permian mass extinction, Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 19, EGU2017-2304, 2017, EGU General Assembly, 2017

GeoTalk: The anomaly in the Earth’s magnetic field which has geophysicists abuzz

GeoTalk: The anomaly in the Earth’s magnetic field which has geophysicists abuzz

Geotalk is a regular feature highlighting early career researchers and their work. In this interview we speak to Jay Shah, a PhD student at Imperial College London, who is investigating the South Atlantic Anomaly, a patch over the South Atlantic where the Earth’s magnetic field is weaker than elsewhere on the globe. He presented some of his recent findings at the 2017 General Assembly.

First, could you introduce yourself and tell us a little more about your career path so far?

I’m currently coming to the end of my PhD at Imperial College London. For my PhD, I’ve been working with the Natural Magnetism Group at Imperial and the Meteorites group at the Natural History Museum, London to study the origin of magnetism in meteorites, and how meteoritic magnetism can help us understand early Solar System conditions and formation processes.

Before my PhD I studied geology and geophysics, also at Imperial, which is when I studied the rocks that I spoke about at the 2017 EGU General Assembly.

What attracted you to the Earth’s magnetic field?

Jay operates the Vibrating Sample Magnetometer at the lab at Imperial. Credit: Christopher Dean/Jay Shah

My initial interest in magnetism, the ‘initial spark’ if you like, was during my undergraduate, when the topic was introduced in standard courses during my degree.

The field seemed quite magical: palaeomagnetists [scientists who study the Earth’s magnetic field history] are often known as palaeomagicians. But it’s through rigorous application of physics to geology that palaeomagicians can look back at the history of the Earth’s magnetic field recorded by rocks around the world. I was attracted to the important role palaeomagnetism has played in major geological discoveries such as plate tectonics and sea-floor spreading.

Then, during my undergraduate I had the opportunity to do some research alongside my degree, via the ‘Undergraduate Research Opportunities Programme’ at Imperial. It was certainly one of the bonuses of studying at a world-class research university where professors are always looking for keen students to help move projects forward.

I was involved in a project which focused on glacial tillites [a type of rock formed from glacial deposits] from Greenland to look into inclination shallowing; which is a feature of the way magnetism is recorded in rocks that can lead to inaccurate calculation of palaeolatitutdes [the past latitude of a place some time in the past]. Accurate interpretation of the direction of the Earth’s magnetic field recorded by rocks is essential to reconstructing the positions of continents throughout time.

This was my first taste of palaeomagnetism and opened the doors to the world of research.

So, then you moved onto a MSci where one of your study areas is Tristan da Cunha, a volcanic island in the South Atlantic. The location of the island means that you’ve dedicated some time to studying the South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA). So, what is it and why is it important?

The SAA is a present day feature of the magnetic field and has existed for the past 400 years, at least, based on observations. It is a region in the South Atlantic Ocean where the magnetic field is weaker than it is expected to be at that latitude.

The Earth’s magnetic field protects the planet and satellites orbiting around Earth from charged particles floating around in space, like the ones that cause aurorae. The field in the SAA is so weak that space agencies have to put special measures in place when their spacecraft orbit over the region to account for the increased exposure to radiation. The Hubble telescope, for example, doesn’t take any measurements when it passes through the SAA and the International Space Station has extra shielding added to protect the equipment and astronauts.

If you picture the Earth’s magnetic field:  it radiates from the poles towards the Earth’s equator, like butterfly wings extending out of the planet. In that model, which is what palaeomagnetic theory is based on, it is totally unexpected to have a large area of weakness.

Earth’s magnetic field connects the North Pole (orange lines) with the South Pole (blue lines) in this NASA-created image, a still capture from a 4-minute excerpt of “Dynamic Earth: Exploring Earth’s Climate Engine,” a fulldome, high-resolution movie. Credit: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

We also know that the Earth’s magnetic field reverses (flips its polarity), on average, every 450,000 years. However, it has been almost twice as long since we have had a flip, which means we are ‘overdue’ a reversal. People like to look for signs that the field will reverse soon; could it be that the SAA is a feature of an impending (in geological time!) reversal? So, it becomes important to understand the SAA in that respect too.

So, how do you approach this problem? If the SAA is something you can’t see, simply measure, how do you go about studying it?

Palaeomagnetists can look to the rock record to understand the history of the Earth magnetic field.

Volcanic rocks best capture Earth’s magnetic field because they contain high percentages of iron bearing minerals, which align themselves with the Earth’s magnetic field as the lavas cool down after being erupted. They provide a record of the direction and the strength of the magnetic field at the time they were erupted.

In particular, I’ve been studying lavas from Tristan da Cunha (a hotspot island) in the Atlantic Ocean similar in latitude to South Africa and Brazil. There are about 300 people living on the island, which is still volcanically active. The last eruption on the island was in 1961. In 2004 there was a sub-marine eruption 24 km offshore.

Jürgen Matzka (GFZ Potsdam) collected hundreds and hundreds of rock cores from Tristan da Cunha on sampling campaigns back in 2004 and 2006.

We recently established the age of the lavas we sampled as having erupted some 46 to 90 thousand years ago. Now that we know the rock ages, we can look at the Earth’s magnetic field during this time window.

Why is this time window important?

These lavas erupted are within the region of the present day SAA, so we can look to see whether any similar anomalies to the Earth’s magnetic field existed in this time window.

So, what did you do next?

Initial analyses of these rocks focused on the direction of the magnetic field recorded by the rocks. The directional data can be used to trace back past locations of the Earth’s magnetic poles.

Then, during my master’s research dissertation I had the opportunity to experiment on the rocks from Tristan da Cunha with the focus on palaeointensity [the ancient intensity of the Earth’s magnetic field recorded by the rocks]. We found that they have the same weak signature we observe today in the SAA but in this really old time window.

The rocks from Tristan da Cunha, 46 to 90 thousand years ago, recorded a weaker magnetic field strength compared to the strength of the magnetic field of the time recorded by other rocks around the world.

Some of the lavas sampled on Tristan da Cunha. Credit: Jürgen Matzka

What does this discovery tell us about the SAA?

I mentioned at the start of the interview that, as far as we thought, the anomaly didn’t extend back more than 400 years ago – it’s supposed to be a recent feature of the field. Our findings suggest that the anomaly is a persistent feature of the magnetic field. Which is important, because researchers who simulate how the Earth’s magnetic field behaved in the past don’t see the SAA in simulations of the older magnetic field.

It may be that the simulations are poorly constrained. There are far fewer studies (and samples) of the Earth’s magnetic directions and strengths from the Southern Hemisphere. This inevitably leads to a sampling bias, meaning that the computer models don’t have enough data to ‘see’ the feature in the past.

However, we are pretty certain that the SAA isn’t as young as the simulations indicate. You can also extract information about the ancient magnetic field from archaeological samples. As clay pots are fired they too have the ability to record the strength and direction of the magnetic field at the time. Data recorded in archaeological samples from southern Africa, dating back to 1250 to 1600 AD also suggest the SAA existed at the time.

Does the fact that the SAA is older than was thought mean it can’t used be to indicate a reversal?

It could still be related to a future reversal – our findings certainly don’t rule that out.

However, they may be more likely to shed some light on how reversals occur, rather than when they will occur.

It’s been suggested that the weak magnetic anomaly may be a result of the Earth’s composition and structure at the boundary between the Earth’s core and the mantle (approximately 3000 km deep, sandwiched between the core and the Earth’s outermost layer known as the crust). Below southern Africa there is something called a large low shear velocity province (LLSVP), which causes the magnetic flux to effectively ‘flow backwards’.

These reversed flux patches are the likely cause of the weak magnetic field strength observed at the surface, and could well indicate an initiating reversal. However, the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field on average at present is stronger than what we’ve seen in the past prior to field reversals.

The important thing is the lack of data in the southern hemisphere. Sampling bias is pervasive throughout science, and it’s been seen here to limit our understanding of past field behaviour. We need more data from around the world to be able to understand past field behaviour and to constrain models as well as possible.

Sampling bias is pervasive throughout science, and it’s been seen here to limit our understanding of past field behaviour. This image highlights the problem (black dots = a sampling location). Modified from an image in the supporting materials of Shah, J., et al. 2016. Credit: Jay Shah.

You are coming towards the end of your PhD – what’s next?

So I moved far away from Tristan da Cunha for my PhD and have been looking at the magnetism recorded by meteorites originating from the early Solar System. I’d certainly like to pursue further research opportunities working with skills I’ve gained during my PhD. I want to continue working in the magical world of magnetism, that’s for sure! But who knows?

Something you said at the start of the interview struck me and is a light-hearted way to round-off our chat. You said that palaeomagnetism are often referred to as ‘paleaomagicians’ by others in the Earth sciences, why is that so?

Over the history of the geosciences, palaeomagntists have contributed to shedding light on big discoveries using data that not very many people work with. It’s not a big field within the geosciences, so it’s shrouded in a bit of mystery. Plus, it’s a bit of a departure from traditional geology, as it draws so heavily from physics. And finally, it’s not as well established as some of the other subdisciplines within geology and geophysics, it’s a pretty young science.  At least, that’s why I think so, anyway!

Interview by Laura Roberts Artal, EGU Communications Officer

References and further reading

Shah, J., Koppers, A.A., Leitner, M., Leonhardt, R., Muxworthy, A.R., Heunemann, C., Bachtadse, V., Ashley, J.A. and Matzka, J.: Palaeomagnetic evidence for the persistence or recurrence of geomagnetic main field anomalies in the South AtlanticEarth and Planetary Science Letters441, pp.113-124, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2016.02.039, 2016.

Shah, J., Koppers, A.A., Leitner, M., Leonhardt, R., Muxworthy, A.R., Heunemann, C., Bachtadse, V., Ashley, J.A. and Matzka, J.: Paleomagnetic evidence for the persistence or recurrence of the South Atlantic geomagnetic Anomaly. Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 19, EGU2017-7555-3, 2017, EGU General Assembly 2017.

GeoTalk: Meet the EGU’s President, Jonathan Bamber

GeoTalk: Meet the EGU’s President, Jonathan Bamber

GeoTalk interviews usually feature the work of early career researchers, but this month we deviate from the standard format to speak to Jonathan Bamber, the EGU’s President. Jonathan has a long-standing involvement with the Union, stretching back almost 20 years. Following a year as vice-president, Jonathan was appointed President at this year’s General Assembly in Vienna. Here we talk to him about his plans for the Union, how scientists can stand up for science at a time when it is coming under attack and how the Union plans to foster the involvement of early career scientists (ECS) in its activities.

In the unlikely event that some of our readers don’t know who you are, could you introduce yourself and tell us a little about your career path so far and also about your involvement with the EGU over the years?

I started out with a degree in Physics. I’ve spent the last 20 years in the geography department at the University of Bristol focusing on Earth Observation. In that time, I’ve covered a lot of topics: from oceanography to land surface processes, but glaciology is my core discipline and research area. Most of my work has broadly been in the area of climate change and climate research but also solid Earth geophysics.

I’ve been involved with EGU (actually, it was EGS then) since the late 90s. I used to attend the meetings and I realised there was a gap in the market for cryospheric sciences. I approached Arne Richter [the former General Secretary of EGS] to form the Division of Cryospheric Sciences. I put together a proposal and became secretary of the division at the time and later became president of the division when EUG & EGS merged to form EGU. I spent five years in that role, towards the end of which I proposed (and launched) the open access journal The Cryosphere, which just celebrated its 10th anniversary and publishes about 220 papers per year.  I’m very proud of those contributions to the community and feel that they have helped develop the discipline and strengthen it.

It was 2007 when I stepped down from the EGU Council all together although I still attended the General Assembly, of course, and convened various sessions. It was 2015 when the then EGU vice-president, Hans Thybo, suggested I stand in the next presidential elections. I wasn’t at all certain I wanted to take on the role, but decided to go for it because I think it is important to serve the scientific community and colleagues and EGU is an organisation that is close to my heart.

At this year’s General Assembly, you were appointed Union President (after serving as Vice-President for a year). What are the main things you hope to achieve during your two-year term?

There are two main areas that I am very keen to promote and foster:

First, I want to make the organisation [the EGU] more attractive to early career scientists (ECS) and offer them more opportunities, be that more and better short courses, career support and other benefits of attending. For some years now there has been a strong ECS network within the Union and there have been great advances in that direction already.

Second, I’d like to increase the EGU’s opportunities, and those of members, to be involved in policy activities.

Why those two in particular?

There are many things one could do; but having attended the General Assembly for 15 years, there is no doubt that ECS are the future of the discipline, so if we don’t make the meeting attractive and useful for them, what are we here for?

In terms of policy, there are a number of events which have happened in the past few years which make it come into focus.

Certainly, in the UK, it is important that the science we do has impact, and just as important is that we [researchers] understand what the impact of the research we do has. Ultimately, tax payers pay for the research we do, so it is important not to get detached from the role we have in benefiting society in broad terms but also through specific opportunities and activities.

From many years attending the AGU Fall Meeting, I am aware the American Geophysical Union (AGU) has a very well developed and successful policy related programme. It is, of course, simpler for them, as the policy landscape is restricted to one nation and AGU’s headquarters are in Washington. Nonetheless, despite those differences, EGU is not, currently, providing opportunities for engagement in the policy realm in the way we could, for example, with the European Commission and its funding instruments.

Science for policy is not suited to all scientists, and all disciplines that we represent. However, it is important for a large cohort of our membership.

EGU President, Jonathan Bamber (centre left) and EGU Vice-President, Hans Thybo (centre right), stand along side the 2016 EGU Outstanding Student Poster and PICO (OSPP) awardees. Credit: EGU/Pflugel

ECS make up a significant proportion of the Union’s membership. EGU is a bottom up organisation and there is no doubt that ECS have a say in many matters of the Union already, but how do you plan on including ECS further in decision-making processes in the future?

I wouldn’t necessarily classify ECS separately. They are simply geoscientists, just like the majority of our members. It is important, however, for us to show them and highlight the opportunities available for them to be involved in the General Assembly and the Union as a whole.

We have a Union-wide ECS Representative on Council – this gives ECS a good understanding of how the organisation works and gives the individual experience of the machinery involved in running all the activities of EGU. Roles like this give the next generation skills to take on leadership roles in the future too. How do they know how organisations operate if they don’t have opportunities like this?

There are also no barriers to them being involved in convening sessions, organising short courses and proposing activities for the Union to prepare.

It can be intimidating as a junior scientist to be involved in these activities, so it’s important that we make it accessible to them. I think we are making great progress in this direction.

As an established scientist, what advice would you give ECS starting out in their career?

Accountancy pays very well!

More seriously: get involved!

Also, look at your most successful and respected senior colleagues and identify what about them makes them successful and what do you admire in them. Positive role models are very important.

Recently, the scientific process has come under attack. Initiatives such as the March For Science have given scientists opportunities to make their voices heard. What role can the Union play in supporting members wanting to stand up for science?

We can put together advice for how scientists can get their voice heard. The Union’s Outreach Committee is quite active in this regard already.

Trying to make sure that the voice of the geoscience community is heard within Europe is another area where we can contribute. We’ve been involved in an EU Parliamentary meeting, representing EGU, where discussions focused on improving the integration of science and collaboration across Europe.

We also offer policy makers and institutions the opportunities to contact scientists, through our database of experts.  We need to make European policy-makers more aware that we can provide that service.

In terms of funding for scientific research, we’ve established links with the President of European Research Council. Jean-Pierre Bourguignon gave a talk at this year’s General Assembly and participated in one of our Great Debates. We also hosted a meeting where senior members of the EGU’s council met with Bourguignon to discuss how the EGU could support the ERC in the future.

As an organisation, it should be our goal to provide our members with a mechanism by which they can communicate with the European Commission and policy-makers.

Last month, the EGU issued a statement condemning President Trump’s decision to pull the USA out of the Paris Climate Agreement. Why is this decision so troubling and, in your opinion, what can Union members do to raise awareness of the challenges facing the globe?

We should communicate the importance of our science: what we know, what we understand, the evidence based facts.

In the absence of evidence based science, how do policy makers reach decisions? They rely on gut instinct, on beliefs, on prejudices… But they should be making them on evidence based science. So, it is crucial that we communicate what we know to the public and policy-makers.

In Europe, a large majority don’t question human influence on climate. They understand it is real and that it’s an issue of upmost importance.

Trump’s decision was about politics not science; it is important to remember that. He didn’t deny that climate change was real, but he was making the decision on an economic basis and that is something else again. Whether it was a wise economic decision or an entirely myopic one is another question altogether.  I speak about this in more detail in an open editorial I wrote shortly after the decision was announced.

Geoscientists are, perhaps, more important in terms of policy and the health of the planet than they ever have been before. All the work we are doing in the geosciences has huge implications for policy and for safeguarding our future on the planet.

Jonathan, thank you for talking to me today about a whole range of topics. I’d like to finish this interview by bringing the conversation back around to EGU. We’ve discussed, at some length, what the Union hopes to do for its members and highlighted that there are plenty of opportunities to get involved. So, how exactly do they go about taking a more active role in the Union’s activities?

One of the easiest ways to have your voice heard is by getting involved through your scientific division. Attend your division(s)’s business meeting. Each division has quite a few officers: a secretary, vice-president, secretaries for sub disciplines and so on. There are lots of opportunities there. In general, anyone who wants to put the time in will be welcomed by division presidents because it’s always good to have enthusiastic, dedicated volunteers.

When it comes to the General Assembly in Vienna, anybody can propose a session. If you want to organise a session or a short course, just fire it out there! The call-for-sessions is currently open [until 8th September]. You’ll find all the details online.

If you are interested in policy-related activities do complete the register of experts questionnaire.  It doesn’t take long and you’ll find details on our webpages. Make sure you provide as much detail about your expertise as possible. That way we’ll be able to match you up with those who make inquires and opportunities in the most effective way.

Interview by Laura Roberts Artal (EGU Communications Officer)