GeoLog

EGU General Assembly 2018

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

Uploading your 2018 General Assembly presentation

Uploading your 2018 General Assembly presentation

This year it is, once again, possible to upload your oral presentations, PICO presentations and posters from EGU 2018 for online publication alongside your abstract, giving all participants a chance to revisit your contribution  hurrah for open science!

Files can be in either PowerPoint or PDF format. Note that presentations will be distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Uploading your presentation is free of charge and is not followed by a review process. The upload form for your presentation, together with further information on the licence it will be distributed under, is available here. You will need to log in using your Copernicus Office User ID (using the ID of the Corresponding Author) to upload your presentation.

Presentations and posters will be linked to their corresponding abstracts. If your presentation didn’t have an abstract (this is the case for short courses and others), but you still want to share it with the wider community you can consider uploading your presentation to slideshare or figshare as a PDF to share it instead.

All legal and technical information, as well as the upload form, is available until 17 June 2018 at: http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/egu2018/abstractpresentation

Plate Tectonics and Ocean Drilling – Fifty Years On

Plate Tectonics and Ocean Drilling – Fifty Years On

What does it take to get a scientific theory accepted? Hard facts? A strong personality? Grit and determination? For many Earth Scientists today it can be hard to imagine the academic landscape before the advent of plate tectonics. But it was only fifty years ago that the theory really became cemented as scientific consensus. And the clinching evidence was found in the oceans.

Alfred Wegener had proposed the theory of continental drift back in 1912. The jigsaw-fit of the African and South American continents led him to suppose that they must once have been joined together. But in the middle of the century, the idea fell out of favour; some even referred to it as a “fairy-tale”.

It was not until the discovery of magnetic reversals on the seafloor in the early 1960s that the theory began to sound plausible again. If brand new ocean crust was being formed at the mid-ocean ridges, then the rocks either side of the ridge should show symmetrical patterns of magnetism. Fred Vine and Drummond Matthews, geologists at the University of Cambridge in the UK, were the first to publish on the idea of seafloor spreading in 1963.

But plate tectonics was still not the only theory on the market. The expanding Earth hypothesis held that the positions of the continents could be explained by an overall expansion in the volume of the Earth. Numerous twentieth-century physicists subscribed to such a view. Or, similarly, the shrinking Earth theory proposed that the whole planet had once been molten. Mountain ranges would then be formed as the Earth cooled and the crust crumpled.

Helmut Weissert, President of the EGU Stratigraphy, Sedimentology and Palaeontology Division, remembers the difficult exchanges that took place whilst he was a student at ETH Zürich in the late 1960s. “Earth-science-wise it was a hot time,” he recalls. “In Bern University they did not teach plate tectonics. We did not have a course on plate tectonics either. I probably first heard about plate tectonics in [my] second or third year.”

Weissert especially remembers Rudolf Trümpy, professor of Alpine geology at ETH at the time, saying that plate tectonics sounds interesting, but it does not work for the Alps. Meanwhile, younger voices at ETH, postdocs and lecturers, were becoming increasingly convinced by plate tectonic theory.

Weissert soon found himself in the midst of the controversy as his own research had a direct bearing on the debate. “I had an interesting diploma topic,” says Weissert. “I worked on continental margin successions and associated serpentinites.” Serpentinites are green-coloured rocks that are full of the water-rich mineral serpentine, and therefore must have formed on the ocean floor. The fact that Weissert was finding them in Davos, at the top of the Alps, was a good indication that modern-day Switzerland had once been part of the oceans. As Weissert succinctly puts it, “green rocks were ocean”.

The observed and calculated magnetic profile for the seafloor across the East Pacific Rise, showing symmetrical patterns of magnetism. (Image Credit: U.S. Geological Survey. Distributed via Wikimedia Commons)

By 1967, interest in the theory of plate tectonics had snowballed. When the Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP) was launched the following year, it had its sights firmly set on finding evidence that would definitively either confirm or reject the hypothesis of seafloor spreading.

The DSDP research vessel, the Glomar Challenger, set sail from Texas in March 1968. By its third leg it had drilled 17 holes at 10 sites along the mid-Atlantic ocean ridge and was already producing results that looked like they would confirm Wegener’s theory of continental drift. “After a few legs it was clear that the seafloor spreading hypothesis was tested and proven,” remembers Weissert.

There were only eight scientists on board, but two or three of them were working on the stratigraphy of the seafloor sediments. “The stratigraphy was superb,” explains Weissert. “You have the very young [sediments near the ridge] and then at the edges of the ocean the Jurassic sediments. If you have aging crust then you have aging sediment, so the hypothesis was very clear.” If the sediments got progressively older on moving away from the ridge, then so must the crust, a sure sign that new ocean floor was being created at the ridge.

Karen Heywood, EGU Division President in Ocean Sciences, remembers how her own fascination with the theory of plate tectonics ended up sparking her career in physical oceanography. Heywood began as a physics student at the University of Bristol in the 1980s. “They said we had to write an essay on the historical development of an idea in physics,” she recalls. “I did the development of the theory of plate tectonics and seafloor spreading. I wrote this essay all about Alfred Wegener.”

“This essay inspired me to think about earth sciences,” she says. “The idea that you could apply physics to the real world was amazing. It got me into oceanography.”

Heywood went on to establish her career at the University of East Anglia (UEA), where she became the first female professor of Physical Oceanography in the UK. “I went to the UEA and Fred Vine was there. It brought me back full circle. I could not believe that this was Fred Vine, who had discovered the magnetic stripes. This was the real person and that was amazing… it was the same person that I had read about and written about in my essay as an undergraduate in the 80s.”

There were clearly strong personalities on both sides of the debate about plate tectonics, but Weissert is pragmatic about the progress of science. “You have to accept that you are part of a scientific development. Everybody makes hypotheses… We all make mistakes. We all learn. We all improve.”

Indeed, many years later, in 2001, Trümpy wrote what Weissert calls “a beautiful small article” entitled Why plate tectonics was not invented in the Alps. Trümpy magnanimously writes, “Shamefacedly, I must admit that I was not among the first Alpine geologists to grasp the promise of the new tectonics.”  And yet, he continues, “to the Alps, plate tectonics brought a better understanding”. The humans and the science move on together.

By Tim Middleton, EGU 2018 General Assembly Press Assistant

References

DSDP Phase: Glomar Challenger, International Ocean Discovery Program

Trümpy, R., Why plate tectonics was not invented in the Alps, International Journal of Earth Sciences, Volume 90, Issue 3, pp 477–483, 2001.