GeoLog

#EGU18

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.

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

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.

Wildfires in the wake of climate change

Wildfires in the wake of climate change

Last year saw some of the biggest blazes in history, and may be a sign of things to come.

2017 was a record year for wildfires. California and neighboring western states saw the most destructive fire in US history, with an estimated 18 billion dollars worth of damage over the season. In central Portugal, fires caused 115 deaths over the same period. Researchers presenting at a press conference at the European Geosciences Union General Assembly in Vienna, Austria, suggest this may be a sign of things to come.

With climate change, wildfires are expected to be on the rise, as fire-prone regions become hotter and drier. But how did weather and climate contribute to this disastrous season? Strong winds and warm temperatures are thought to be responsible for last year’s fires in California, but it remains unclear how much climate change contributed to these conditions. Etienne Tourigny, of the Barcelona Supercomputing Centre, has been on the case.

“Would this event have been possible with or without climate change?” Tourigny asks. “It’s hard to say. What we can say is that there is a high chance that these kinds of events will be more present and more frequent in the future, especially if we see temperatures increasing as they have”

Central Portugal is already very susceptible to wildfires. It’s hot, it’s dry and it’s forested: a recipe for the perfect storm. The 2017 season was particularly tragic due to an unusual set of circumstances: a tropical cyclone passed as the Portuguese Centro Region was ablaze. The nation hoped that the hurricane would bring rain to put out the fires, but, instead, the storm passed the area by, bringing strong winds and spreading the flames.

200 thousand hectares were burned in two days. Even if this was spread throughout an entire season, it would be a very bad year. Speaking at the conference, António Ferreira, a scientific coordinator at the Research Centre for Natural Resources, Environment and Society in Coimbra, Portugal, puts it frankly: “that’s hell as it was taught in Sunday School.”

The region is also vulnerable to climate change, and an increased risk of wildfires is expected by the end of the century. New strategies are needed to prevent such losses in future. Ferreira emphasised that there is no quick fix and, to reduce the risk, policies, plans, habits and investment have to change.

Even in the high Arctic, fires present a threat. This time, it’s not a direct risk to life or infrastructure, but a threat to the environment. Nikolaos Evangeliou, from Norwegian Institute for Air Research, stated that, even in icy regions, wildfires have the capacity to alter the Earth’s climate and accelerate melting.

Thawing permafrost during the 2017 summer left Greenland’s peatlands vulnerable to wildfires and between 31 July and 21 August about 2300 hectares of peatland were burned. Seven tonnes of black carbon generated by the fires rained down on the ice sheet, making the surface darker and causing it to absorb more heat.

If the ice sheet darkens, it reduces Earth’s ability to deflect solar radiation, allowing more of the sun’s energy to warm the planet. The change in Earth’s reflectivity following last year’s wildfires was small, but it is a warning. With larger fires predicted as the climate warms, we could expect much bigger changes to the Earth’s reflectivity towards the end of the century. Such warming spells further trouble for wildfire-sensitive regions.

By Sara Mynott, EGU 2018 General Assembly Press Assistant

References

Evangeliou et al. Open Fires in Greenland: An Unusual Event and its Impact on the Albedo of the Greenland Ice Sheet. Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 20, EGU2018-12383, 2018, EGU General Assembly 2018.

Leitão et al. Dealing with climate change: how to cope with wildfire threat in a climate transition region. Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 20, EGU2018-16640, 2018, EGU General Assembly 2018.

Tourigny et al. An observational study of the extreme wildfire events of California in 2017: quantifying the relative importance of climate and weather. Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 20, EGU2018-9545-1, 2018, EGU General Assembly 2018.