Science Communication

EGU DIARIES: Day Two (Tuesday 29th April)

Laura Roberts-Artal May 1, 2014

Tuesday was a seriously busy day! Again, I was in the situation where I found it difficult to choose which sessions to attend. I was spoilt for choice. There were a few highlights: an early morning session on geoethics and geoeducation proved to be an interesting experience whilst the session on geodynamics of the continental crust proved really relevant for my own research. I also attended my first ever press conferences and I thoroughly enjoyed the experience!

The Early Earth

We know little about the history of the early Earth and this is mainly due to two key factors: the lack of records for the early Earth and their complicated histories and range of compositional mixtures. Research presented at session GMPV5/GD2.4 on the Earth’s early crust suggests the Archean mantle was 200-300°C hotter than at present. Continental crust volumes were small and supported little topography as a result of also being hotter. Sea-level is related (amongst many other factors, of course), to the temperature of the mantle and is expected to have been higher than at present due to the elevated mantle temperatures. As a result, it is estimated that less than 5% of the crust was emerged during Archean times. One of the crucial questions about this period in the Earth’s history is: When did plate tectonics start and when did subduction being? Chris Hawkesworth (winner of the Robert Wilhelm Bunsen Medal) made the point that convergent margins do not produce a lasting record of crust generation and we might be better off looking in collision zones for the answers to these key questions.

The Core

Gaining understanding the workings of the Earth’s core was the main theme of session GD4.1/EMR/PS2.7. By developing

Credit: Wikimedia Commons,
Author: Dr. Gary A. Glatzmaier. This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties.

our knowledge of the Earth’s magnetic field we can make inferences about the Earth’s interior structure and interactions between the core and the mantle. The research presented in the session covered a number of time scales but the talk by Leah Ziegler linked in nicely with the talks I’d attended earlier on in the day and has implications for my own research. Newly published figures of thermal conductivity for the core suggest they are three times higher than previously thought and hint towards a largely adiabatic heat flow in the core. This implies that the core would be a relatively young feature appearing at about 3.0Ga. However, we have strong evidence (including the research I am presenting on Thursday, 1^st May at Red Posters 15:30-17:00, Poster R112) from paleomagnetism that the Earth has a stable geomagnetic field since at least 3.48Ga. We’ve always assumed that the mantle is magnetically invisible, but perhaps this is an assumption we need to revisit. Is it possible that it could contribute to the magnetic field? Could it be that a large magma ocean, (which contributes a large number of radionuclides and is therefore a significant heat source), is a possible mechanism b which an early Earth magnetic field could be generated?

Geoethics & Geoeducation

As geoscientist we have to consider the social and cultural implications of our research and work. I’ve noticed this topic has featured quite prominently at the Assembly this year. The ideas of geoethics can be applied to all aspects of geosciences, from how we communicate and engage with the lay person through to how we approach natural hazards, exploration in Polar Regions and climate change. It also includes the promotion of our geoheritage and geodiversity and highlights the usefulness of geology and geophysics in everyday life. The International Association for Promoting Geoethincs (IAPG), affiliated with the International Union of Geoscientist (IUGS), is the body which promotes geoethics.

There is no dedicated Division at EGU that covers geoethics, geoeducation and public engagement, but there are a variety of sessions and splinter meetings which cover all three subjects. They often clash in the time table and coverage seems more prominent in natural hazard sessions. As Earth Scientist become more aware of their social responsibility and the need to disseminate and communicate their research, I wonder whether the time for a more concerted effort to support and promote geoethics might have come.

Anthropocene featuring heavily at the EGU

Daniel Schillereff April 29, 2014

Among other sessions on Tuesday (Day 2 at EGU2014), I (Daniel) ventured to the EGU Press Conference featuring four experts from different scientific disciplines debating the Anthropocene concept. This term is fast becoming well-known in the popular media, politics and a vast spectrum of scientific disciplines and refers to the possibility that we, humanity, are living in a new geological time period in which our activities are the driving force behind present-day landscape evolution and surpass natural processes. As my own research spans geomorphology, Quaternary environmental and climatic change and past landscape evolution in general, I’m keen to keep abreast of the latest developments pertaining to the Anthropocene so it seemed like an opportune session to attend.

First up was Professor John Burrows, an atmospheric chemist who briefly presented data obtained from satellites of atmospheric emissions driven by human activity, particularly around urbanised regions, and likely future trends. Tony Brown, a Professor of Physical Geography at Southampton, and the chair of the British Society of Geomorphology Working Group on the Anthropocene then spent some time outlining the stratigraphic signature of the Anthropocene we can seek within alluvial sediments. Brown re-emphasised that a depositional feature or an erosional hiatus that is laterally extensive is required for any Anthropocene ‘boundary’ to be considered. His case study of the River Severn basin and its sub-basins showed a tremendous increase in sediment load after around 3000 years ago, directly driven by the introduction of agricultural practices in late-Neolithic and early-Bronze Age times. The removal of forest cover left a hilly landscape highly susceptible to erosion and a dramatic spike in sediment flux is thus recorded. Such a signal is found in different sedimentary environments in many areas of the world, including river systems and lake sediment cores, and is well-supported by archaeological data. The difficulty arises from the time-transgressive nature of such deposits because the agricultural revolution arrived in different regions of the world at very different periods. One interesting point Brown made relates to the need for any signature to persist through time preserved within the rock record. His calculated sediment load stored within floodplains is so large that, based on contemporary erosion rates, will not be removed until at least the next interglacial, thereby meeting that specific criteria. We also heard from Dr Pöppl, a geomorphologist from the University of Vienna, who showed some striking examples of the magnitude of impacts on sedimentary systems through the installation and removal of large dams.

Finally, Dr Jan Zalasiewicz, a palaeobiologist from the University of Leicester who has published some seminal papers on the Anthropocene concept, outlined the on-going work of the ‘Anthropocene Working Group’ of the International Commission on Stratigraphy examining whether it merits becoming a formal geological unit of time. One important revelation from Dr Zalasiewicz was that, while decisions taken by the ICS are lengthy processes, an interim report may appear sometime in 2016 addressing whether the Anthropocene is worthy of being designated as its own geological unit and, secondly, the date to be assigned as its onset. Dr Zalasiewicz also stated that, at present, the commission are leaning towards adapting 1950 as the ‘golden spike’, the so-called Great Acceleration as coined by Steffen et al. (2007), although he emphasised this is very much still under debate. He also highlighted that the Anthropocene Commission is unique at the ICS in that non-geologists and noted sceptics of the idea are sitting on the panel to ensure that the decision taken considers all view-points and stands up to scrutiny.

There was limited time at the end of questions from the press but one that sticks me is the relevance of the concept and whether it really matters that the Anthropocene is ratified by the ICS (or not). Burrows made the valid point that it’s imperative, in fact, that the Anthropocene be formalised as a geological entity to drive political action towards adapting a more sustainable future for the planet. That is certainly a view I share!

A couple of final points I’d like to highlight is that EGU is running a live-stream of all press conferences this week – check them out here – and the Anthropocene session taking place on Thursday: Orals in room G10, posters in Blue Room 243-279 (GM4.1/HS9.12/SSS9.18
Human-Earth interaction from the Pleistocene to the Anthropocene: state of the science and future direction).

Steffen, W., Crutzen, P. and McNeill, J. (2007) The Anthropocene: Are humans now overwhelming the great forces of nature? AMBIO 36 (8), 614-621.

10 Minute Interview – Live from EGU 2014

Laura Roberts-Artal April 29, 2014

Today I had the great pleasure of interviewing Cindy Mora-Stock.

It was a great success as I was finally able to put a face to the twitter handle that I’ve been following almost from my first days on Twitter. What’s even better is that I can safely say I’ve come away from the interview having made a new friend, as Cindy and I hit it off straight away. The final bonus of choosing to do some 10 minute interviews at EGU 2014 is that I’m actually speaking to people face to face, rather than arranging the interviews via email, you simply can’t beat having a conversation with someone!

Cindy is presenting her research on Friday morning, 10.30-12.30 at session GMPV37 Volcano monitoring with instrument networks: novel techniques, observations and interpretations – Blue poster hall B779. Cindy has also published a number of papers, details of which can be found here.

For these live interviews from EGU2014, I’ve introduced a new question regarding the interviewee’s experience of the conference. Remember, I’m on the look out for people to interview, so PLEASE get in touch via the blog or on twitter (@lauRob85) if you’d like me to feature you and your research!

Vital Statistics

You are: Cindy Mora-Stock
You work at: Christian-Albrechts-Universitä… · Department of Geosciences
Your role is: PhD Researcher

Q1) What are you currently working on?

Seismicity and velocity structure of the Villa Rica Volcano, southern Chile.

Q2) What is a typical day like for you?

I would say there is never a typical day. As soon as I get into work I catch-up with colleagues and friends in the office. At the start of every week I like to make a To-Do list for that week and I set out to accomplish something from my To-Do list every day: that might be a figure, a section of code or writing something up. My day tends to end between 6-7pm dependant on how successfully I’m getting through the To-Do list.

Q3) What has been the highlight of your career so far? And as an early stage researcher where do you see yourself in a few years time?

The answer to this question has to be two fold.

Firstly, having had the opportunity to communicate science to people who may have limited scientific knowledge, through studying and researching geosciences.

Being able to visit and get to know places off the beaten track and the scenery of those locations is what really ignites my passion for science.

In a few years time, I’d like to be working at a University or as a researcher at a volcano observatory. Whatever I end up doing, I’m sure I want to continue to be involved with science through science communication, maybe through working in museums or a career in science communication.

Q5) To what locations has your research taken you and why?

I have two favourites: 1)The Chile desert – although I’m not a big fan of places without shade, the experience of being in a place without water, mobile phone signal, water or shelter makes me ask myself the question: If something happened to me out here, what would I do? The colours, structures and geology you can observe in the desert are incredible! 2) A national park in Chile (I can’t quite remember the name, sorry!). There is an amazing view point where you overlook a forest burnt down by a volcanic eruption, but in between the skeletal looking trees you can see new trees growing. That place makes me realise just quite insignificant humans are and how planet Earth would continue on regardless if the human race where to die out.

Q6) Do you have one piece of advice for anyone wanting to have a career similar to yours?

Don’t lose sight of the bigger picture! What your research focuses on might seem insignificant at times, but there is someone out there who does care and to whom your research matters. Motivation is really important!

Q7) What is your highlight of attending the EGU 2014 Assembly?

The opportunity to meet up with old friends and colleagues who work at other institutions and countries as well as meeting and networking with new people.

The short-courses and workshops are also a highlight for me. A couple of years ago I attended a Fourier Series short-course which taught me more in a couple of hours than I learnt during a whole module at University!

Q8) If you could invent an element, what would it be called and what would it do?

Transportanium – an element that would allow tele-transportation. It is important that it is good enough at its job that your body’s atoms aren’t chaotically rearranged once you reach your destination, so that you are still yourself.

When not studying volcanoes and their assocaites seismicity, Cindy can be found head banging at a metal music festival or bar! You can contact Cindy via twitter @Cindy_Sismologa

EGU DIARIES: Day One (Monday 28th April)

Laura Roberts-Artal April 28, 2014

It is only the first day and my diary is already jam packed! There is so much on offer at the conference that I’ve found it difficult to choose how to organise my day. However, I followed some of the tips on Will Morgan’s blog: Conference Top Tips for EGU2014: 1)Chat to people – check; 2) keep up to date with goings on in social media – check; 3) spread my wings- check. I must admit, I’ve failed at keeping a note pad handy and it has proven to be a real problem!

Today my mission was to fully embraced number three and spread my wings by attending sessions not related to my research. It is easy to stick to your discipline and focus on only research you think might be relevant to your own. However, the range of topics on offer at the conference means it would be foolish to pass up the opportunity to investigate and learn about new topics!

Credit: Wikimedia Commons,
Author: Fabienkhan

The lab at Liverpool has strong links with archaeologist and so the session on artefacts and historical sites ( GI3.4) caught my eye. What struck me the most about what I learnt there is how applicable many of the techniques I thought were classically geological can be applied to archaeology. It shouldn’t be such a big surprise to me that you can use XRF (X-Ray Fluorescence) and SEM (Scanning Electron Microscopy) to characterise tiles on buildings and how the findings can help understand the effects of air pollutants can have on ceramics used on buildings. I was even more surprised to learn that electromagnetic waves (THz frequency in particular) are used on artworks to characterise classics such as Goya’s Sacrifice to Vesta. The methodology can identify defects on the canvas, how many layers the painting is made of and where the painter has applied more strokes.

The second highlight of my day was the Splinter Meeting on Natural Hazard Education, Communication and Science Policy-Practice-Interface ( SPM1.47). I found the discussion to make some very interesting points about how communities affected by natural hazards might respond and perceive scientist efforts at science communication, engagement and outreach:

What is the impact of public communication on research?
How much time should research projects (and scientists) dedicate to dissemination?
Should funding bodies give more support and guidance into how to disseminate research findings and who the target audience should be? I think this point is valid, not just for the natural hazard community, but the research community in general, especially as outreach/public engagement is now a requirement for most successful grant applications.
It is critical to make your science relevant to the audience you want to engage.
We discussed in some detail what the role of web/social media vs. hardcopy vs.human interaction in public engagement is and someone raised the very valid point that it shouldn’t be one versus the other, but a far more combined approach.
Finally, who should fund scientist efforts to engage in public education and communication?
Cordon Caulle eruption 1960.
Credit: Wikimedia Commons,
Author: U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationI

I also attended a medal lecture by Rumi Nakamura on Plasma Jets in the near-Earth’s magnetotail. I’m not going to lie, the most amazing fact I learnt at the talk was that Dr. Nakamura has published over 200 peer-reviewed articles which have been cited in excess of 4000 times! That is seriously impressive!

My day ended with the short course on Adding Value to Your Research Experience, but I’ll summarise the details of all the short courses I attend at the assembly into a single post after the conference, so keep tuned for that.

A diverse and very interesting first conference day.