GeoLog

GeoLog

Discover geology with Lego!

Discover geology with Lego!

Science communication is becoming a widely recognized skill for both established and budding geoscientists alike. Outreach activities are beneficial in many ways, as they not only showcase science to the general public, but also give scientists the chance to develop transferable skills.

If you’re in the market for a creative geoscience activity, one that especially appeals to a younger audience, look no further! In this guest blog post, Stephanie Zihms, a geomechanics postdoc at Heriot-Watt University and the EGU Union-level ECS representative, details a fun hands-on activity that teaches geoscience with the help of Lego blocks. This post is modified from a version which first appeared on Stephanie Zihms’ blogRead the original post.

I designed this activity for the Explorathon 2015 (a family orientated science event) because I was looking for a way to show how geologists work from observing the surface to gathering information from boreholes and seismic surveys to understand the subsurface. I also wanted participants to experience this process without needing to be in the field or taking rock samples.

Kit and preparation

I used a generic brand of building bricks (because my budget didn’t allow for actual Lego) and bought two boxes of mixed bricks in a bargain store. First you want to sort the bricks by colour (unless you can buy them that way). Then you want to decide what shapes to make – I opted for three simples shapes: Syncline, Anticline and Oil Reservoir with seal.

With the geology built, you then want to select three or four areas to make a ‘borehole’ with – I used single bricks but this could be done with the 2×2 squares as well. If you have enough bricks you can probably incorporate the ‘boreholes’ into the model and reveal them by extracting them – which would be super cool. Once you have the models built and boreholes prepared, you need to make some envelopes to only expose the top layer – I used brown hacking paper and packing tape to make sure they can be reused easily. That’s pretty much it.

Activity: Syncline & Anticline       

Show your participants the covered models and ask if they can tell you what the rest of it looks like. You can explain that geologists use exposures like this for mapping (having maps on hand can be useful). Also ask how sure they are that they are correct based on the information available. You can then offer more information in form of boreholes – either lay or stand them in front of the model in the correct place (you can mark your envelopes) or extract them if you went for the hiding option.

Either ask the participants to show you what they can see – following a colour for example or ask them to copy the boreholes on a bit of paper and connect colours that way (this will depend on how much time you have with each participant; borehole papers can be prepared with the columns printed on so the participants only have to colour them in).

Once that is done reveal the full model. This is normally a big ‘Ahhh’ effect because just by having that little bit of extra information they got it right. This is a great opportunity to talk about information available and how geologists infer maps and what the subsurface looks like based on similar information. (if you have boreholes logs from the local area + the iGeology app from BGS this can really help relate this to the local area). If you make a version where the boreholes can be retrieved this could be standalone activity with instructions to follow as well.

Activity: Oil reservoir with seal         

This activity is very similar to the one above except that we can’t see anything from the top layer. And before we even know where to drill for a borehole we have to do a seismic survey. After guessing what the model looks like and deciding the information is not great. Show a generic seismic line (normally easily found online or in petroleum engineering tutorials). We printed seismic lines on A5 and asked participants to colour them in – following any features or structures they could see (this could also be done with one A3 paper that’s laminated and can be re-used).

After identifying a generic reservoir structure we revealed the model to show the different layers. A set of boreholes could be done based on where participants would ‘drill’. Which would mean having a set of boreholes available or making the middle of the model retrievable.

Summary

I absolutely love this activity because it uses something people are familiar with – independent of age and it mimics a little geological survey taking participants on the journey of gathering information and making an estimation. This activity can also be easily amended for different size audiences (e.g. using DUPLO for a show & tell type event) or adding more information about the process, talking about risk and uncertainty. The response from participants, especially children, when the model is revealed is priceless.

I hope you found this how-to useful and please share how you used it at your events either in the comments or by tagging me (@geomechsteph) on Twitter.

By Stephanie Zihms

Imaggeo on Mondays: How erosion creates natural clay walls

Imaggeo on Mondays: How erosion creates natural clay walls

The badlands valley of Civita di Bagnoregio is a hidden natural gem in the province of Viterbo, Italy, just 100 kilometres from Rome. Pictured here is the ‘wall,’ one of the valley’s most peculiar features, where you can even find the wooden structural remains of a trail used for agricultural purposes in the 19th and 20th centuries.

The photograph was taken by Chiara Arrighi, a post-doc research assistant at the University of Florence (Italy), in May last year after climbing roughly 200 metres from the bottom of the Chiaro creek valley. Trails in this region are not well traced or maintained, so she had to find her own way up among the chestnut woods. Once at the top, the trail becomes narrow and unprotected. “The inhabitants of the area still do not exploit this natural beauty as a tourist attraction,” said Arrighi. “In fact, nobody was on the trail, and the silence [was] unreal.”

Badlands are a typical geological formation, where grains of sand, silt and clay are clumped together with sedimentary rock to form layers, which are then weathered down by wind and water. The terrain is characterised by erosive valleys with steep slopes, without vegetation, separated by thin ridges.

Due to the slope’s steep angle and the clay’s low permeability, little water is able enter the soil. Instead water quickly flows across the surface, removing surface clay and carving into the slopes as it does so.

The morphological evolution of the clay slopes can be very rapid (for example, rock falls can occur quite suddenly after heavy rainfall) and occurs as a result of several physical mechanisms, such as mud flows, solifluction (slow movement of wet soil towards the bottom of the valley) and sliding.

During the evolution of the badlands, peripheral portions of the terrain made up of volcanic deposits (tuff cliffs) rose up from the landscape, bordered by nearly vertical slopes (called scarps). Many towns have been built on these erected hilltops, such as Civita di Bagnoregio.

By Chiara Arrighi and Olivia Trani

Imaggeo is the EGU’s online open access geosciences image repository. All geoscientists (and others) can submit their photographs and videos to this repository and, since it is open access, these images can be used for free by scientists for their presentations or publications, by educators and the general public, and some images can even be used freely for commercial purposes. Photographers also retain full rights of use, as Imaggeo images are licensed and distributed by the EGU under a Creative Commons licence. Submit your photos at http://imaggeo.egu.eu/upload/.

September GeoRoundUp: the best of the Earth sciences from around the web

September GeoRoundUp: the best of the Earth sciences from around the web

Drawing inspiration from popular stories on our social media channels, major geoscience headlines, as well as unique and quirky research, this monthly column aims to bring you the latest Earth and planetary science news from around the web.

Major stories

This month has been a whirlwind of Earth and space science news; the majority focusing on natural hazards. Powerful cyclones, earthquakes, and tsunamis have received significant coverage from the geoscience media. Quickly recap on an action-packed month with our overview:

On 14 September, Hurricane Florence, made landfall in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States, making first contact near Wrightsville Beach in North Carolina then traveling up the East Coast. By the time Florence had reached the US coastline, the cyclone’s sustained wind speed had dropped considerably, downgrading the hurricane from a category 4 to category 1 storm on the Saffir–Simpson scale.

This designation may sound mild, but as many scientists and journalists have pointed out, sluggish hurricanes are especially dangerous, since they are more likely to dump heavy rainfall over a relatively small surface area compared to faster storms that distribute their rainfall over more territory. This proved to be true for Hurricane Harvey, which dumped more than 150 centimetres of rain onto some areas of Houston, Texas.

Hurricane Florence’s record-breaking rainfall forced more than a million people to evacuate their homes, and experts estimate that the storm inflicted damages worth more than $38 billion (USD). The hurricane also produced very concerning environmental damages. In Wilmington, North Carolina, for instance, the the rainfall flooded a pit of coal ash at a power plant, releasing more than 1,530 cubic metres of ash, with much of it likely ending up in a nearby lake.

Across the planet, just one day following Hurricane Florence’s landfall, Super Typhoon Mangkhut wreaked havoc on southeast Asia, pounding the Mariana Islands, the Philippines, China, Taiwan, and Vietnam with strong wind and rain. Reaching wind speed over 240 kilometres per hour, Mangkhut is the most intense storm of the year so far. The New York Times created an interesting three-dimensional visual of the storm’s intensity, using NASA satellite data.

In addition to unleashing incredibly strong winds, the typhoon’s rainfall also triggered deadly landslides. Just outside of the city Baguio, which recorded more than 75 centimetres of rain, more than 40 gold miners were buried under a landslide that hit their bunkhouse.

Big storms like Hurricane Florence and Typhoon Mangkhut are expected to be more frequent in the future as our climate changes. And this stems from many factors; a recent article from the New York Times explains that, due to climate change, the world’s oceans are warming (fueling more hurricane formation), the atmosphere is holding more moisture (leading to wetter storms), hurricane wind speeds are slowing down (causing more concentrated rainfall), and Earth’s sea levels are rising (increasing the risk of flooding).

Last week, a 7.5-magnitude earthquake struck the Indonesian island of Sulawesi, sending a massive tsunami, with waves up to 6 metres high, into Palu Bay, causing massive devastation in the regional capital Palu and surrounding areas. Officials report that nearly 1,350 people have died from the earthquake and tsunami, and the death toll is expected to rise as rescue workers make their way towards more remote places. Scientists told BBC that “a combination of geography, timing and inadequate warnings meant that what happened in Palu was a worst case scenario.”

Map of the September 28, 2018 Palu, Indonesia Earthquake. Credit: USGS.

Indonesian aid workers and humanitarian relief envoys are currently working to provide supplies and assistance to the affected communities. At the same time, scientists are still puzzling over the tsunami’s strength, which caught many experts by surprise. This is because the earthquake’s behavior isn’t known for generating catastrophic tsunamis.

Powerful tsunamis are typically caused by earthquakes with vertical motion, where part of the seafloor juts forward, disturbing the water column and consequently sending massive waves to the coast. The 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, for example, was caused by a 9.1 magnitude megathrust earthquake. On the other hand, last week’s quake is known as a ‘strike-slip earthquake,’ where the ground shifts horizontally. This kind of movement doesn’t move ocean water as dramatically.

“Some early calculations suggest a floor displacement of perhaps half a metre. Significant but generally insufficient to produce the waves that were recorded,” reported the BBC.

While it is too early to tell what exactly happened, scientists suspect that a number of factors could have played part in helping the tsunami gather strength. For example, underwater landslides have been known to trigger tsunamis of similar strength. Additionally Palu Bay’s narrow geometry could have amplified the waves’ height.

The underlying factors that contributed to the event will hopefully become more clear as scientists analyse the series of events in more detail.

What you might have missed

This month, the Japanase spacecraft Hayabusa 2 has sent three robots to the rocky surface of an asteroid near Earth, known as Ryugu. The spacecraft had successfully reached the asteroid this June, after travelling for more than three years. The craft first released two small devices, no bigger than frying pans, which tumbled around the rock’s surface and even sent digital postcards and a short video back home. A few days ago, Hayabusa 2 released a third rover, which will use a suite of different scientific instruments to collect data on the asteroid. “Hayabusa2 itself is likely to make the first of three touchdowns on the asteroid to collect samples later this month,” said Science Magazine.

Links we liked

  • StarTrek creators once said that Spock’s fictional home planet Vulcan orbited the 40 Eridani A star. Now scientists have found an exoplanet that fits the description.
  • Rediscovered: the 19th century geological drawings of Orra White Hitchcock, a pioneering female scientific illustrator
  • Researchers discover that kidney stones grow and dissolve much like geological crystals
  • We all know about lava volcanoes, but have you heard of ice volcanoes? New study suggests that cryovolcanoes have likely been erupting for billions of years on Ceres.
  • This new map of Antarctica is like ‘putting on glasses for the first time and seeing 20/20’

The EGU story

Last week, the EGU hosted its first science-policy dinner debate in Brussels. The event, ‘Horizon Geoscience: overcoming societal challenges, creating change’, was organised in collaboration with the European Federation of Geologists (EFG) and brought together geoscientists, policymakers and industry representatives. On the EGU website, we report on the outcome of the discussion and publish the key findings from the Horizon 2020 Geoscience Survey conducted earlier this year.

Panel members during the Horizon Geoscience dinner debate. From Left to right: Jonathan Bamber, John Ludden Lieve Weirinck, Jean-Eric Paquet and Vitor Correia

In the past few weeks, we have also issued three press releases highlighting research published in some of EGU’s open access journals. Follow the links to find out how bombing raids in the Second World War impacted the ionosphere, how glacial geoengineering could help limit sea-level rise, and what the point of no return for climate action might be.

And don’t forget! To stay abreast of all the EGU’s events and activities, from highlighting papers published in our open access journals to providing news relating to EGU’s scientific divisions and meetings, including the General Assembly, subscribe to receive our monthly newsletter.

GeoPolicy: Horizon Geoscience!

GeoPolicy: Horizon Geoscience!

For the last few months the EGU has been working towards both hosting a dinner debate in Brussels, Belgium, and publishing the Horizon 2020 Geoscience Survey Report which was based on a survey conducted within the geoscience community earlier this year. Both of these endeavours were undertaken together with the European Federation of Geologists (EFG) and had similar aims: to enhance collaboration between policymakers and scientists and to improve the geoscience community’s science-policy engagement.

Horizon 2020 Geoscience Survey Report – key findings

Earlier this year, the EGU together with the EFG, conducted the Horizon 2020 Geoscience Survey to collect feedback on areas of the EU’s Horizon 2020 research funding programme that the geoscience community felt should be continued or extended and those which could be improved upon in the upcoming EU research framework programme, Horizon Europe.

This survey was conducted during the 2018 EGU General Assembly and many of you may remember either completing it or seeing posters around the convention centre advertising the opportunity.

Does this look familiar? Advertisement for the Horizon 2020 Geoscience Survey

Due to its thematic diversity and its size, the geoscience community has a significant representation within European research programmes. The survey aimed to give researchers who have taken part in Horizon 2020, or who plan to take part in Horizon Europe, the opportunity to voice their opinion.

Although the survey asked a wide variety of questions, only those where clear results were found were included in the Horizon 2020 Geoscience Survey Report. However, all of the survey responses (quantitative and qualitative) can be seen online here. Qualitative responses supported by the quantitative answers and cited by numerous survey respondents were also included in the report and give insight into some of the answers from respondents.

The full report was publicly released during the Horizon Geoscience dinner debate (which is summarised below) along with a more condensed 2-page summary. Some of the key results that are outlined in detail in the report include:

    1. 1. Generally, survey respondents felt very positively about the impact that the Horizon 2020 Programme had on collaboration (both across EU countries and between scientific disciplines)

 

 

    1. 2. Despite many areas within the geosciences being used by the private sector, survey respondents generally felt that Horizon 2020 had only been moderately successful in generating private sector investment within the geosciences. 48% of respondents believed that the programme was somewhat generating private sector investment, but only 6% thought it was generating it to a large extent.

    3. 24% of respondents thought that the distribution of projects between applied and fundamental research was not fair at all.

For more details on these results and others, please read the full Horizon 2020 Geoscience Survey Report.

Horizon Geoscience: overcoming societal challenges, creating change

The Horizon Geoscience dinner debate was held on the evening of September 26 in Brussels. Co-organised by the EFG, the event included a mix of scientists, industry leaders and policymakers from a range of different areas within the Commission.

Panel members during the Horizon Geoscience dinner debate. From Left to right: Jonathan Bamber, John Ludden Lieve Weirinck, Jean-Eric Paquet and Vitor Correia

The evening was opened by both the EGU President Jonathan Bamber and the EFG President Vitor Correia. As EGU’s policy officer, I presented some of the key results from the Horizon Geoscience Survey, after which Iain Stewart set the scene for the evening.

One of the highlights of the evening was the high-level panel session which gave the evening’s participant’s the opportunity to hear from respected representatives from the EU Parliament, EU Commission, and geoscience community, namely:

  • Lieve Wierinck, Belgian Member of the European Parliament,
  • Jean-Eric Paquet, Director-General at the European Commission’s DG for Research & Innovation
  • John Ludden, British Geological Survey Chief Executive

The round-table discussions that were held during dinner also sparked a lively debate and highlighted things that need to be addressed to tackle societal challenges

Some of the key things that were mentioned during these round-table discussions included the importance of increasing public trust in both science and policymaking, the need for greater dialogue between the sectors, and the need to integrate early career scientists within industry, academia and policy.

For an extensive summary of the dinner debate please see the EGU news item, EGU and EFG establish dialogue with policy makers on how the geosciences can help overcome Europe’s major societal challenges.

If you have any questions regarding the report of the Horizon Geoscience dinner debate, please don’t hesitate to get in touch via policy@egu.eu.