Feed aggregator

Evaluation of global fire simulations in CMIP6 Earth system models
Fang Li, Xiang Song, Sandy P. Harrison, Jennifer R. Marlon, Zhongda Lin, L. Ruby Leung, Jörg Schwinger, Virginie Marécal, Shiyu Wang, Daniel S. Ward, Xiao Dong, Hanna Lee, Lars Nieradzik, Sam S. Rabin, and Roland Séférian
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https//doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-85,2024
Preprint under review for GMD (discussion: open, 0 comments)
This study provides the first comprehensive assessment of historical fire simulations from 19 CMIP6 ESMs. Most models reproduce global total, spatial pattern, seasonality, and regional historical changes well, but fail to simulate the recent decline in global burned area and underestimate the fire sensitivity to wet-dry conditions. They addressed three critical issues in CMIP5. We present targeted guidance for fire scheme development and methodologies to generate reliable fire projections.

LB-SCAM: a learning-based method for efficient large-scale sensitivity analysis and tuning of the Single Column Atmosphere Model (SCAM)
Jiaxu Guo, Juepeng Zheng, Yidan Xu, Haohuan Fu, Wei Xue, Lanning Wang, Lin Gan, Ping Gao, Wubing Wan, Xianwei Wu, Zhitao Zhang, Liang Hu, Gaochao Xu, and Xilong Che
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3975–3992, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3975-2024, 2024
To enhance the efficiency of experiments using SCAM, we train a learning-based surrogate model to facilitate large-scale sensitivity analysis and tuning of combinations of multiple parameters. Employing a hybrid method, we investigate the joint sensitivity of multi-parameter combinations across typical cases, identifying the most sensitive three-parameter combination out of 11. Subsequently, we conduct a tuning process aimed at reducing output errors in these cases.

A radiative–convective model computing precipitation with the maximum entropy production hypothesis
Quentin Pikeroen, Didier Paillard, and Karine Watrin
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3801–3814, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3801-2024, 2024
All accurate climate models use equations with poorly defined parameters, where knobs for the parameters are turned to fit the observations. This process is called tuning. In this article, we use another paradigm. We use a thermodynamic hypothesis, the maximum entropy production, to compute temperatures, energy fluxes, and precipitation, where tuning is impossible. For now, the  1D vertical model is used for a tropical atmosphere. The correct order of magnitude of precipitation is computed.

Explaining neural networks for detection of tropical cyclones and atmospheric rivers in gridded atmospheric simulation data
Tim Radke, Susanne Fuchs, Christian Wilms, Iuliia Polkova, and Marc Rautenhaus
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https//doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-60,2024
Preprint under review for GMD (discussion: open, 0 comments)
In our study, we built upon previous work to investigate the patterns artificial intelligence (AI) learns to detect atmospheric features like tropical cyclones (TCs) and atmospheric rivers (ARs). As primary objective, we adopt a method to explain the used AI and investigate the plausibility of learned patterns. We find that plausible patterns are learned for both TCs and ARs. Hence, the chosen method is very useful for gaining confidence in the AI-based detection of atmospheric features.

Selecting CMIP6 GCMs for CORDEX Dynamical Downscaling over Southeast Asia Using a Standardised Benchmarking Framework
Phuong Loan Nguyen, Lisa V. Alexander, Marcus J. Thatcher, Son C. H. Truong, Rachael N. Isphording, and John L. McGregor
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https//doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-84,2024
Preprint under review for GMD (discussion: open, 0 comments)
We apply a comprehensive approach to select a subset of CMIP6 that is suitable for dynamical downscaling over Southeast Asia by considering model performance, model independence, data availability, and future climate change spread. The standardised benchmarking framework is applied to identify a subset of models through two stages of assessment: statistical-based and process-based metrics. We finalize a sub-set of two independent models for dynamical downscaling over Southeast Asia.

Design, evaluation and future projections of the NARCliM2.0 CORDEX-CMIP6 Australasia regional climate ensemble
Giovanni Di Virgilio, Jason Evans, Fei Ji, Eugene Tam, Jatin Kala, Julia Andrys, Christopher Thomas, Dipayan Choudhury, Carlos Rocha, Stephen White, Yue Li, Moutassem El Rafei, Rishav Goyal, Matthew Riley, and Jyothi Lingala
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https//doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-87,2024
Preprint under review for GMD (discussion: open, 1 comment)
We introduce new climate models that simulate Australia’s future climate at regional scales, including at an unprecedented resolution of 4 km for 1950–2100. We describe the model design process used to create these new climate models. We show how the new models perform relative to previous-generation models, and compare their climate projections. This work is of national and international relevance as it can help guide climate model design and the use and interpretation of climate projections.

DEUCE v1.0: a neural network for probabilistic precipitation nowcasting with aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties
Bent Harnist, Seppo Pulkkinen, and Terhi Mäkinen
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3839–3866, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3839-2024, 2024
Probabilistic precipitation nowcasting (local forecasting for 0–6 h) is crucial for reducing damage from events like flash floods. For this goal, we propose the DEUCE neural-network-based model which uses data and model uncertainties to generate an ensemble of potential precipitation development scenarios for the next hour. Trained and evaluated with Finnish precipitation composites, DEUCE was found to produce more skillful and reliable nowcasts than established models.

Evaluation of multi-season convection-permitting atmosphere – mixed-layer ocean simulations of the Maritime Continent
Emma Howard, Steven Woolnough, Nicholas Klingaman, Daniel Shipley, Claudio Sanchez, Simon C. Peatman, Cathryn E. Birch, and Adrian J. Matthews
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3815–3837, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3815-2024, 2024
This paper describes a coupled atmosphere–mixed-layer ocean simulation setup that will be used to study weather processes in Southeast Asia. The set-up has been used to compare high-resolution simulations, which are able to partially resolve storms, to coarser simulations, which cannot. We compare the model performance at representing variability of rainfall and sea surface temperatures across length scales between the coarse and fine models.

Результаты отбора организаций для включения в реестр организаций, имеющих право на получение субсидий на возмещение части затрат на уплату процентов по кредитам, полученным в российских кредитных организациях и в государственной корпорации развития «ВЭБ.РФ» в 2009–2023 годах, а также на уплату лизинговых платежей по договорам лизинга, заключенным в 2009–2023 годах с российскими лизинговыми компаниями на приобретение гражданских судов
Посмотреть документацию
Опубликовано:01.03.22

Объявление o проведении Министерством промышленности и торговли Российской Федерации отбора на право получения субсидий из федерального бюджета российскими организациями на возмещение части затрат на приобретение (строительство) новых гражданских судов взамен судов, сданных на утилизацию в соответствии с постановлением Правительства Российской Федерации от 27 апреля 2017 года № 502
Посмотреть документацию
Опубликовано:28.02.22

Приказ Минпромторга России № 606 от 28 февраля 2022 г. О проведении Министерством промышленности и торговли Российской Федерации отбора на право получения субсидий из федерального бюджета российскими организациями на возмещение части затрат на приобретение (строительство) новых гражданских судов взамен судов, сданных на утилизацию
Посмотреть документацию
Опубликовано:28.02.22

Congratulations to the 2021 class of Fellows! These 59 individuals have made outstanding achievements and contributions by pushing the frontiers of our science forward. They have also embodied AGU’s shared vision of a thriving, sustainable, and equitable future for all powered by discovery, innovation, and action. Equally important is that they conducted themselves with integrity, respect, diversity, and collaboration while creating deep engagement in education and outreach.

Since 1962, AGU has elected fewer than 0.1% of members to join this prestigious group of individuals.

Thanks to their dedication and sacrifice, AGU Fellows serve as global leaders and experts who have propelled our understanding of geosciences. We are confident that they will remain curious and relentlessly focused on answers as they continue to advance their research, which pushes our boundaries of knowledge to create a healthy planet and beyond.

We are grateful for their invaluable contributions. We also recognize that numerous individuals were pivotal to their success, and we thank them too.

AGU will formally recognize this year’s recipients during #AGU21 Fall Meeting, where we will celebrate and honor the exceptional achievements, visionary leadership, talents, and dedication of all 59 new AGU Fellows.

On behalf of AGU, we welcome to our community the 2021 AGU Fellows, who are listed below in alphabetical order.

—Susan Lozier, President, AGU; and LaToya Myles (unionfellows@agu.org), Chair, Honors and Recognition Committee, AGU

 

2021 AGU Fellows

Ariel D. Anbar, Arizona State University

Suzanne Prestrud Anderson, University of Colorado Boulder

Richard C. Aster, Colorado State University

Sushil Atreya, University of Michigan Ann Arbor

Andy Baker, University of New South Wales

Leonard Barrie, McGill University, Stockholm University, and the Cyprus Institute

Kristie A. Boering, University of California, Berkeley

Simon Brassell, Indiana University

Paul D. Brooks, University of Utah

V. Chandrasekar, Colorado State University

Daniele Cherniak, University at Albany

Mian Chin, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

Paul Judson DeMott, Colorado State University

Andrea Donnellan, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology

Christopher Fairall, NOAA Boulder

Harindra Joseph Fernando, University of Notre Dame

Fabio Florindo, National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology, Rome, Italy

Steve Frolking, University of New Hampshire

Ferran Garcia-Pichel, Arizona State University

Darryl Granger, Purdue University

Kaj Hoernle, GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel

David Holland, New York University

Niels Hovius, GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences

Fumio Inagaki, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC)

Vania K. Jordanova, Los Alamos National Laboratory

Kim Kastens, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

Sukyoung Lee, Pennsylvania State University, University Park

Xinlin Li, University of Colorado Boulder

Peter C. Lichtner, OFM Research and the University of New Mexico

Carolina Lithgow-Bertelloni, University of California, Los Angeles

Parker MacCready, University of Washington Seattle

Donald R. MacGorman, NOAA/National Severe Storms Laboratory (retired) and Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies, University of Oklahoma

Michelle Cailin Mack, Northern Arizona University

Wendy Mao, Stanford University

Jerry F. McManus, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University

Andrew J. Michael, USGS Earthquake Science Center

Glenn Milne, University of Ottawa

Onno Oncken, Helmholtz Centre Potsdam – GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences

Victoria Orphan, California Institute of Technology

Bo Qiu, University of Hawaii at Manoa

Andy Ridgwell, University of California, Riverside

Stephen R. Rintoul, CSIRO Oceans & Atmosphere

Allen Robinson, Carnegie Mellon University

Stanley Sander, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology

Keith P. Shine, University of Reading

Whendee L. Silver, University of California, Berkeley

Craig T. Simmons, Flinders University

John R. Spencer, Southwest Research Institute Boulder

S. Alan Stern, Southwest Research Institute

Dimitri A. Sverjensky, Johns Hopkins University

Roy Torbert, University of New Hampshire Main Campus and Southwest Research Institute, EOS department, Durham

Philippe Van Cappellen, University of Waterloo

Peter van Keken, Carnegie Institution for Science

Thorsten Wagener, University of Potsdam

David Wald, USGS National Earthquake Information Center

Yigang Xu, Guangzhou Institute of Geochemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences

Edward D. Young, University of California, Los Angeles

Xubin Zeng, The University of Arizona

Yan Zheng, Southern University of Science and Technology

All life needs nitrogen, but most organisms can use only nitrogen that has been “fixed,” or transformed into a biologically useful form by microbes. Biological nitrogen fixation was imperative to the expansion of life on early Earth, and a dearth of fixed nitrogen has even been invoked as an explanation for Earth’s “Boring Billion,” a 1-billion-year period in the Proterozoic when the expansion and evolution of life seem to have ground to a halt.

Cyanobacteria—commonly called blue-green algae—are often thought to have been the most important marine nitrogen fixers in the Proterozoic, as they are generally considered to be today. But a new discovery made in an alpine lake offers a window to Earth’s distant past, complicating that assumption.

Purple sulfur bacteria (PSB) in Proterozoic-analogue Lake Cadagno, Switzerland, can fix nitrogen at rates comparable to the low end achieved by cyanobacteria, according to researchers. This finding, published in a new study in Nature Communications, is the first time that PSB have been observed fixing nitrogen outside of a laboratory.

An Unexpected Discovery

PSB are anoxygenic phototrophs—photosynthetic organisms that don’t produce oxygen like plants and cyanobacteria do. Previously, researchers had discovered that different anoxic phototrophs called green sulfur bacteria could fix nitrogen in Lake Cadagno, but only at very low rates.

“It became very clear that the one organism that was previously shown to fix nitrogen in [the Lake Cadagno] ecosystem could not be responsible for the high rates that we measured.”As part of a short field trip in 2018, Miriam Philippi, a biogeochemist from the Max Planck Institute for Marine Microbiology in Bremen, Germany, visited Lake Cadagno and had intended to simply double-check previous measurements of nitrogen fixation in the lake.

“We were not expecting to find what we actually found,” she said. The bacteria in her samples were fixing nitrogen much faster than the previously described green sulfur bacteria should have been able to. “It became very clear that the one organism that was previously shown to fix nitrogen in this ecosystem could not be responsible for the high rates that we measured,” she recalled.

Linking Nitrogen Fixation to Purple Sulfur Bacteria

The microbial community in Lake Cadagno is variable—it is sometimes dominated by green sulfur bacteria and sometimes by PSB. When Philippi visited, PSB were so abundant that they colored her water samples pink. Additionally, the genomes of PSB previously found in Lake Cadagno contained genes for nitrogenases, enzymes responsible for nitrogen fixation. But claiming that PSB were responsible for high nitrogen fixation rates would have been unprecedented.

“There was some indication that under in situ [natural] conditions, there is potential for purple sulfur bacteria to fix nitrogen,” said Katharina Kitzinger, also a biogeochemist from the Max Planck Institute for Marine Microbiology. But PSB had never actually been observed fixing nitrogen in a natural environment.

To conclusively link PSB to nitrogen fixation, Philippi, Kitzinger, and their colleagues combined multiple approaches. Using metatranscriptomics, they showed that the majority of nitrogenase gene expression in Lake Cadagno was tied to PSB. A different set of measurements showed that PSB could fix nitrogen much faster than other noncyanobacterial aquatic microbes.

“It’s a very beautiful environmental microbiology study showing very conclusively, I think, for the first time that it is the purple sulfur bacteria that are fixing a lot of nitrogen in a natural system,” said Jennifer Glass, a geobiologist from the Georgia Institute of Technology who was not involved in the research.

Implications for the Proterozoic Ocean

Discovering that PSB fix nitrogen in Lake Cadagno is significant because of the lake’s unusual, layered structure—it has a shallow oxygenated surface layer overlying sunlit sulfide-rich bottom waters where anoxygenic phototrophs can thrive. These characteristics are thought to mimic the ocean during the Proterozoic eon. And if PSB fix nitrogen in Lake Cadagno, they might have been important players in the Proterozoic nitrogen cycle, too. This challenges the assumption that cyanobacteria were the only dominant nitrogen fixers in the Proterozoic, which could have rippling implications for Earth’s past biogeochemical cycles.

“Just because a compound has a lower availability in terms of concentration doesn’t mean that microbes can’t make use of it.”One possible limit on Proterozoic life could have been nitrogen because the most important nitrogenase enzymes contain molybdenum—an element that was likely scarce in the Proterozoic ocean. Lake Cadagno’s waters are likewise poor in molybdenum, but the PSB there could still fix nitrogen effectively. And although Kitzinger cautioned that it’s impossible to know exactly what the nitrogen cycle looked like in the past, the new result could indicate that nitrogen fixation might not have been as severely impeded by the Proterozoic molybdenum limitation as sometimes hypothesized.

“Microbes just find a way to function irrespective of the concentration,” Kitzinger said. “Just because a compound has a lower availability in terms of concentration doesn’t mean that microbes can’t make use of it.”

—Elise Cutts (@elisecutts), Science Writer

Internal Earth cooling occurs by a combination of passive heat conduction and active fluid flux between the crust and the surface. While thermal conduction is the main cooling mechanism in most parts of the ocean basins, hydrothermal circulation dominates near mid-ocean ridges. However, the reach and intensity of off-axis circulation as the newly formed crust cools and migrates away from the spreading center is still poorly known.

By combining realistic maps of rock physical properties retrieved by seismic waveform tomography with hydrothermal modelling techniques, Kardell et al. [2021] present compelling evidence that hydrothermal circulation is a significant cooling factor up to crustal ages of 60 to 65 million year, in excellent agreement with previous estimates and observations. These results should be incorporated in Earth cooling models and may serve as a reference to plan future seafloor drilling expeditions.

Citation: Kardell, D. A., Zhao, Z., Ramos, E. J., Estep, J., Christeson, G. L., Reece, R. S., & Hesse, M. A. [2021]. Hydrothermal models constrained by fine-scale seismic velocities confirm hydrothermal cooling of 7–63 Ma South Atlantic crust. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 126, e2020JB021612. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JB021612

—Valentí Sallarès, Associate Editor, JGR: Solid Earth

Although we rarely stop to consider it, Earth’s magnetic field is an important part of our daily lives. The magnetic field protects our planet from charged particles emitted by the Sun; high doses of these particles can cause malfunctions in the electrical grid and in satellites.

But thanks to complex processes unfolding deep within Earth, the magnetic field is ever changing. To predict what it might do in the future, scientists are looking deep into the past.

This is no easy task—intentionally kept human records of the magnetic field exist for only the past few hundred years. To see further back in time, scientists rely on “accidental” records, as well as on volcanic and sedimentary rocks, said Lisa Tauxe, a geophysicist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Tauxe is a coauthor of a new study that used ancient artifacts to analyze changes in Earth’s magnetic field thousands of years ago—as far back as 7600 BCE. The study was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

These accidental records, Tauxe explained, can be created when certain materials are heated to very high temperatures. When they cool, magnetic minerals within the material are frozen in place, providing a snapshot of the direction and strength of Earth’s magnetic field at the time.

Clues from the Past

Ancient pottery is a robust and widely used way to study the history of Earth’s magnetic field. But in the context of geologic history, pottery poses a problem for researchers who want to delve deeper into the past. That’s where the present study comes in.

“In this study, what we did was to try to push the record back beyond pottery,” said Tauxe.

These researchers wanted to see whether they could obtain information about the magnetic field from flint, one of the most common materials used to make stone tools. It is thought that ancient humans deliberately heated the flint to make it easier to work with, said study coauthor Anita Di Chiara, a paleomagnetist at Scripps and at Italy’s National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology.

Heated flint dates back much further than pottery, likely to around 50,000 years ago, so it could potentially substantially increase our understanding of the magnetic field’s past.Heated flint dates back much further than pottery, likely to around 50,000 years ago, so it could potentially increase our understanding of the magnetic field’s past by a substantial amount. Di Chiara said that obtaining data from flint is difficult because it is generally not very magnetic. However, in this study, researchers were able to obtain data from tiny amounts of impurities in the flints.

Using artifacts from Jordan, including both flint and pottery, researchers found that the magnetic field around 7600 BCE was only two thirds the strength of today’s field but just 600 years later had greater strength than today’s field. Then, around 5200 BCE, it weakened again.

Today, said Tauxe, the strength of Earth’s magnetic field is dropping very quickly. Although this change isn’t necessarily catastrophic, Tauxe said it could cause problems for some types of technology. “Our electrical grid and satellites will become more vulnerable to solar storms.… We need to build our infrastructure with that in mind—that we’re losing the protection of the magnetic field.”

Although Tauxe said the overall strength of the field won’t be very low for another 500 or so years, she noted that one region of the world, an area over parts of South America and the South Atlantic Ocean, is already experiencing an unusually weak magnetic field. This weak spot, called the South Atlantic Anomaly, can leave satellites vulnerable to charged particles, which can cause glitches and malfunctions.

Early Humans

Although studying the magnetism of ancient objects is important for understanding the magnetic field’s history, it could also help us understand human history. Erella Hovers, a professor of prehistoric archaeology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said that studying the magnetism of ancient artifacts can be very useful in an archaeological context. Such study can help archaeologists determine the relative ages of ancient human-made objects. This method is especially useful for objects that are beyond the scope of carbon dating, which is effective only for things that are less than 50,000 years old.

For example, she said, archaeomagnetism allows scientists at older sites to “see if the features [they’re] studying were created at one particular point in time, which would suggest something about the rapidity of the site being formed, or whether it’s just a big hodgepodge of things that were mixed in place and were originally formed in different periods.”

Both Tauxe and Di Chiara emphasized the collaborative nature of this work and noted the importance of partnerships between geophysicists and archaeologists in learning more about Earth’s magnetic history.

—Hannah Thomasy (@HannahThomasy), Science Writer

Rising seas threaten communities and ecosystems around the world. Efforts to stave off sea level rise—or mitigate the effects—will benefit from accurate predictions of how quickly it could occur.

Now new research by Ding et al. investigates and confirms the existence of a 64-year fluctuation in Earth’s global mean sea level; incorporating this repeating pattern into calculations of sea level rise predictions could improve their accuracy, according to the authors.

The new findings build on earlier analyses of historical tide gauge data that suggested the existence of a fluctuation in global mean sea level that repeats about every 6 decades. Alongside global warming, such a cycle could have contributed to accelerations in sea level rise detected via satellite radar altimetry over the past 30 years.

To confirm the existence of this multidecadal fluctuation, the researchers applied a novel method to analyze data from 44 separate tide gauge sea level records dating from 1933 through 2019. The technique they used is called optimal sequence estimation, which is a data stacking approach designed to detect patterns shared between different geoscience data sets.

The analysis confirmed that alongside fluctuations on other timescales, global mean sea level fluctuates regularly about every 64 years—by an average of about 1 millimeter and up to 18 millimeters in some ocean regions. The researchers validated their findings using additional data from 94 other tide gauges.

The research team also confirmed that the 64-year cycle can have a significant impact on calculations of regional sea level rise, indicating the importance of accounting for it to ensure accurate estimates in the future.

Meanwhile, what causes the fluctuation is unclear. However, the researchers note that it corresponds to certain fluctuations observed in Earth’s magnetic field, as well as to periodic oscillations in the length of a full day on Earth. These other patterns are associated with processes inside Earth’s core, and it is possible that the same core motions underlie the 64-year sea level fluctuation. (Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JB022147, 2021)

—Sarah Stanley, Science Writer

In July, the Australian geosciences community was shocked to learn that the globally recognized School of Earth and Planetary Science at Macquarie University in Sydney had been culled as part of the university’s efforts to deal with pandemic-related revenue losses. This was the latest blow after a prolonged, nearly 2-year downsizing process during which 18 of the 21 academics who worked at the school have now been let go and, with them, Macquarie’s ability to provide a well-rounded geoscience education. In the wake of this purge, the three remaining staff are left to bear what remains of the teaching load.

Unfortunately, this was not an isolated event. A string of mergers, cutbacks, and closures have hit geoscience departments across Australia in response to the recent financial pressures and low undergraduate enrollment numbers. The Australian National University Research School of Earth Sciences in Canberra made drastic cuts in December 2020, including a massive reduction in its operating budget and laying off 20 permanent staff members, plus additional contract employees. This layoff resulted in reduced levels of technical support across the entire school, the closure of its renowned mechanical workshop, and a major reduction in the research capability of the world’s first SHRIMP (Sensitive High-Resolution Ion Microprobe) mass spectrometer laboratory, responsible for dating many of the oldest known Earth and extraterrestrial materials ever discovered.

In 2020, 17,300 university jobs were lost across Australia. A federal decision to cut funding for Earth and environmental science courses by 29% has only compounded the situation.Meanwhile, at the University of Newcastle, the geology major was dropped completely. In total, seven of the 21 Australian geoscience departments have been hit with substantive reductions in staffing and curriculum offerings in the past few years, and many others have suffered smaller reductions.

Although faults in Australian geoscience education predate COVID-19, the significant financial pressure inflicted upon Australian universities as a result has catalyzed its rapid fragmentation. More casualties are likely to come as the Australian university sector is forecast to lose up to AU$19 billion (US$13.7 billion) between 2020 and 2023 because of the collapse of international student revenue. The federal government’s refusal to financially back the university sector has forced institutions across the country to consolidate their educational offerings to those that generate the greatest profit margin. In 2020, 17,300 university jobs and AU$1.8 billion (4.9% of 2019 revenue) were lost across Australia, with a further 5.5% drop estimated for 2021. Research-related staff have been particularly hard hit, with women, early-career researchers, and recent graduates disproportionately affected. A 2020 federal decision to cut funding for Earth and environmental science courses by 29% has only compounded the situation, setting the sights of financially strapped universities looking to cut overhead squarely on the backs of geoscience departments.

The loss of these geoscience resources could not come at a worse time. Australia faces unprecedented environmental and energy challenges while simultaneously trying to revitalize an economy stunted by the COVID-19 pandemic. To tackle these challenges and ensure a sustainable and prosperous future, Australia needs the very geoscience expert community currently being diminished.

Geoscience, as the interface between humanity and Earth, is essential to tackling climate change and will aid in the economic recovery from COVID-19. The United Nations (UN) and the World Bank have championed geoscience as critical to reaching the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, disaster risk reduction, and achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement (e.g., clean energy technologies will greatly increase the demand for critical minerals).

What, then, has led Australia to jeopardize its ability to respond to these challenges by making deep staffing cuts and closing entire geoscience programs? What measures can be taken to save Australian geoscience? And what implications does this have for the international geoscience community?

Broadening and Refocusing the Geoscience Narrative

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, student enrollment in geoscience majors was in decline across Australia, despite increasing demand from diverse geoscience industry sectors. Although undergraduate enrollment appears anecdotally to be bouncing back in Western Australia following a post-2016 revival of the mining industry largely based there, student numbers in southeastern geoscience departments have not rebounded sufficiently to ensure their viability. The problem is that many people in the more urbanized southeastern states and territories view mining as the only career option for someone who pursues geology studies, an industry they understand to be detrimental to the environment.

This enrollment crisis extends beyond the shores of Australia.

Undergraduate geoscience enrollment trends in Australia, the United States, and United Kingdom since 2003. National enrollment data are normalized to the maximum enrollment for each country during the recorded time span. Although national undergraduate enrollment data for geoscience subjects are not yet available post-2017 in Australia or after 2019 in the United Kingdom, it is expected that the downward trends in student numbers will be exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Data sources are the Australian Geoscience Council, the American Geosciences Institute, and the U.K. Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA). HESA undergraduate geoscience enrollment data for the United Kingdom are unavailable prior to the 2014–2015 academic year.

The United Kingdom has also seen a progressive decline in undergraduate geoscience enrollment since 2016. It has been attributed to a parallel reduction in geology course offerings in primary and secondary schools. Geoscience enrollment has similarly collapsed in the United States over the past 5 years, a trend that predates the 2019–2021 shrinkage of employment prospects in the U.S. petroleum, mining, and geological engineering industries. These numbers are all made more complicated by the pandemic, including challenges in charting enrollment during virtual learning.

Thus, a global recasting of the geoscience narrative as a mechanism for meeting the challenges of science and society is needed to better reflect the true merit and breadth of its disciplinary applications.

It must be made clear that contrary to many inaccurate public perceptions, the expertise and capabilities of the mining and petroleum industries will play a fundamental role in the global fight against climate change.If we’re going to convince young people that a geoscience education can lead to rewarding careers, we need to remold geoscience curricula so they align with contemporary student values. First, it must be made clear that contrary to many inaccurate public perceptions, the expertise and capabilities of the mining and petroleum industries will play a fundamental role in the global fight against climate change. Simply put, without meeting the fivefold increase in demand for critical minerals and sequestering 190 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide into sedimentary basins, we will fail to reach the Paris Agreement carbon neutrality targets. However, economic geology courses should be accompanied by interdisciplinary lessons on environmental and mining ethics, which could form a more substantive component of classes on Earth resources. While maintaining core geoscience education and pursuing fundamental research, broader societal applications should also be incorporated into our curricula, including subjects on sustainability, water resource management, geoengineering, and the mitigation of natural and anthropogenic hazards. These are just a few ideas for rebranding the discipline to accommodate the cultural differences between those who want to pursue employment in the geological resource sector and those who do not.

This adaptation of geoscience curricula for a new era must involve substantive change, not simply be lip service to creating a more progressive career tract. In at least one high-profile case in the United States, small changes to geoscience syllabi were insufficient to attract students, so the university is now attempting a full overhaul of the Earth science curriculum so it will focus on preparing students to meet the pressing challenges of today.

What is clear, however, is that in many places, the current model is not attracting enough students for geoscience departments to remain viable in a financially weakened university sector. A community-wide dialogue is thus needed to develop a revived and unified geoscience education narrative that captures the imagination of young minds.

National Strategies for Geoscience Education and Research

The nation’s ability to sustainably secure food, energy, and water is also reliant on the capacity of its geoscientists to discover, manage, and responsibly use its natural resources.Perhaps more than any other developed nation, Australia’s wealth and prosperity depend on its geoscience expertise. This year alone, the country’s mineral and energy resource sector is forecast to generate AU$296 billion (US$214 billion) in export earnings (~10% of GDP) and will no doubt be key to powering Australia’s recovery from the tumultuous economics of the COVID-19 era. The nation’s ability to sustainably secure food, energy, and water is also reliant on the capacity of its geoscientists to discover, manage, and responsibly use its natural resources.

It is therefore in the government’s own best interest to preserve its geoscience capacity. Australia needs a national strategy for geoscience education and research to temper the fiscal decisions of universities and ensure a future geoscience workforce. Previous programs designed to build national capacity, such as the Australian Mathematical Sciences Institute and the Minerals Tertiary Education Council (MTEC), were greatly successful in drawing increased enrollment when they were established over a decade ago. Indeed, the MTEC program contained many elements that could be implemented again today, with industry-funded teaching positions in critical geoscience disciplines created at several universities across the country, development of aligned national geoscience curricula, and funding travel for students to visit and study at other hubs across the country.

With new investment aligned to a national geoscience education strategy, teaching hubs across several universities could be identified and developed in areas of strength and strategic importance, such as renewable energy and critical mineral exploration, applied geophysics, water resource management, carbon sequestration, and geohazard mitigation. David Cohen, president of the Australian Geoscience Council, recently advocated for such a national geoscience professional development system. Cohen argued for a partnership between industry, government, universities, and professional societies, so that the system can deepen the skills of existing geoscientists while simultaneously providing a pathway for scientists from other fields to transition into the discipline.

When developing strategies to bolster its geoscience capacity, Australia might also look to the United Kingdom. In response to diminishing geoscience enrollment there, the Geological Society of London and University Geoscience UK have developed strategic aims to reinvigorate undergraduate-level geoscience education. In them, they lay out a multifaceted action plan for revamping geoscience education, funding, marketing, and diversity across a wide range of stakeholders to avoid the looming skills shortage. Addressing the geoscience maladies of Australia will require a similarly comprehensive strategy to be formulated and implemented by an alliance of geoscience departments, academic and professional societies, research infrastructure providers, industry advocates, and policymakers.

Saving Geoscience

Meeting the geoscience labor force needs of national and global communities must, therefore, become a strategic imperative for our universities.Ensuring a sustainable and prosperous future, both in Australia and abroad, requires saving and empowering the geoscience community. Although geoscience departments produce relatively few graduates each year compared with other STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) disciplines with which they compete for university funding, they are, nevertheless, required to produce the skilled geoscientists demanded across a variety of industries critical to societal well-being. Meeting the geoscience labor force needs of national and global communities must, therefore, become a strategic imperative for our universities.

To do this, national strategies involving geoscience, university, industry, and government stakeholders are needed that rebrand geoscience in line with contemporary student values, align secondary school curricula to teach geoscience in the context of societal betterment, and develop and fund nationally coordinated university research and education programs in areas of community priority.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the contributions of Mike Sandiford, Olivier Allard, Alan Collins, Annette George, and Jonathan Palmer for their informative input and suggestions.

Author Information

Samuel Boone (samuel.boone@unimelb.edu.au) and Mark Quigley, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Vic., Australia; Peter Betts, Monash University, Clayton, Vic., Australia; Meghan Miller, Australian National University, Canberra; and Tim Rawling, AuScope, National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy Program for Geosciences, Melbourne, Vic., Australia

27 September 2021: This article was updated to remove a reference to the University of New South Wales.

In a warming world, it is crucial to study the evolution of temperature extremes, such as heatwaves and wildfires. These extremes carry severe implications for water availability, soil conditions, and food production with consequences on economic sectors and human stability.

Ajjur and Al-Ghamdi [2021] demonstrate that temperature extremes would increase “unprecedently” over all global land areas, with a notable change observed in the coldest days and nights. When comparing the end of the twenty-first century (2071-2100) with the historical period (1981–2010), they project a temperature increase up to 7.4oC in the warmest day, 6.6oC in the warmest night, 10.9oC in the coldest day, and 12oC in the coldest night parameters, under the business-as-usual scenario. The global hotspots affected mainly by this increase are North America, Iceland, Central Asia, the Russian Arctic, Siberia, the Mediterranean, and the Middle East and North Africa.

The trend in temperature extremes is “unequivocally” linked to anthropogenic influences, such as greenhouse gas emissions and land use activities. The authors argue that “dismissing the evolution in temperature extremes leads to reactive-way management relying on emergency responses, making temperature extremes exact their toll”.

Ajjur, S. B., & Al-Ghamdi, S. G. [2021]. Global hotspots for future absolute temperature extremes from CMIP6 models. Earth and Space Science, 8, e2021EA001817. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021EA001817

—Jonathan H. Jiang, Editor, Earth and Space Science

The motion of material in Earth’s mantle, powered by heat from the deep interior, moves tectonic plates on our planet’s surface. This motion generates earthquakes, fuels volcanic activity, and shapes surface landscapes. Furthermore, chemical exchanges between the surface and Earth’s mantle possibly stabilize the oceans and atmosphere on geologic timescales. A book recently published by AGU, Mantle Convection and Surface Expressions, gathers perspectives from observational geophysics, numerical modelling, geochemistry, and mineral physics to construct a holistic picture of the deep Earth. We asked the book’s editors some questions about what readers can expect from this monograph.

In simple terms for a non-expert, can you start by explaining what the mantle is, how material moves around the mantle, and the effects of this on Earth’s surface?

The mantle is the largest region in our planet, connecting the hot liquid outer core to Earth’s surface. Convection in the Earth’s mantle is linked to plate tectonic processes and controls the fluxes of heat and material between deep mantle reservoirs and the atmosphere over time. A better understanding of these deep-mantle material cycles and their impact on the long-term evolution of our planet requires integrated approaches that involve all disciplines in the Earth sciences.

A better understanding of deep-mantle material cycles and their impact on the long-term evolution of our planet requires integrated approaches that involve all disciplines in the Earth sciences.For example, geochemical observations on the surface suggest different chemical reservoirs within the lower mantle. This would imply potentially widespread variations in physical properties driven by the chemical differences between materials.

The connection between chemical variations and physical property changes needs to be quantified by experimental and theoretical mineral physics. In turn, the constrained variations in physical properties provide the basis for self-consistent state-of-the-art geodynamic models of mantle convection.

Finally, the predictions of geodynamic models can be quantitatively tested by geophysical observations, which constrain the geometry of sinking slabs and rising plumes, as well as geochemical data.

Any such models rooted by observational and theoretical constraints can be applied to study the evolution of the mantle over billions of years, thereby linking the accretion of our planet to the present-day. Indeed, such an interdisciplinary effort can even provide insight into the conditions for planetary habitability and sustainability of higher life.

What motivated you to write a book on mantle processes and surface expressions?

We believe that real progress is increasingly made at the intersection between different sub-disciplines and, ultimately, only the synergy between disciplines can truly overcome the limitations of each individual approach.Our book aimed to unify researchers with expertise in different Earth science disciplines, including observational geophysics, numerical modelling, geochemistry, and mineral physics, to outline current concepts on dynamic processes occurring in the mantle and associated material cycles. We believe that real progress is increasingly made at the intersection between different sub-disciplines and, ultimately, only the synergy between disciplines can truly overcome the limitations of each individual approach. Our book is motivated by the vision of a new holistic picture of deep Earth sciences.

How is your book structured?

The overarching idea of the book is to bridge between disciplines. The sub-sections of the book are not sorted by discipline, but rather by research topic. The first part describes key mantle domains and basic properties of the Earth’s mantle. The second part presents reviews and new research related to the dynamic aspects of deep Earth material cycles, integrating all relevant geoscientific disciplines. The third part aims to place the preceding chapters in a broader context, trying to summarize ideas and stimulate new concepts on how the Earth’s deep mantle is connected to our planet’s surface and atmosphere, and how processes might work on other planets.

What value did you find in bringing together perspectives from different scientific disciplines in your book?

Several high-profile papers have been published relating to mantle convection and surface connections during the past decade, including materials cycles through the deep Earth interior and its impact on the evolution of the atmosphere.

The value that our book adds is to summarize existing multidisciplinary work and foster future research across the boundaries.Progress has been significant, but often work still falls mostly within one discipline. Some initial progress in multidisciplinary work has been made, but is still often complicated by gaps in knowledge, jargon, and networks.

The value that our book adds is to summarize existing multidisciplinary work and foster future research across the boundaries.

How do you hope that your book will inspire further transdisciplinary research?

Despite the common call for transdisciplinary research, only little work has been done that truly and quantitatively integrates different approaches. Sometimes, just the lack of a common language, with different jargon across discipline boundaries, prevents any directed and sustainable progress.

We are convinced that our book can help to bridge the gaps between different Earth Science communities, resolve some semantic issues, and foster promising future collaborations. In order to achieve this, we took particular care that chapters are written in a style that makes them accessible for researchers from all sub-disciplines (i.e., jargon and pre-conceptions are explained).

The topic “Mantle Convection and Surface Expressions” covers an area of central importance for all target research disciplines and is central to our understanding of the evolution of our planet. Thus, we feel that the topic is not only a ‘hot-topic’ of cross-disciplinary importance but is also ideally suited to unify researchers and trigger fruitful future work.

Mantle Convection and Surface Expressions, 2021, ISBN: 978-1-119-52861-6, list price $249.95 (print), $200 (e-book). AGU members receive 35 percent off all books at Wiley.com. Log in to your AGU member profile to access the discount code.

—Hauke Marquardt (hauke.marquardt@earth.ox.ac.uk, 0000-0003-1784-6515), University of Oxford, UK; Maxim Ballmer ( 0000-0001-8886-5030), University College London, UK; Sanne Cottaar ( 0000-0003-0493-6570), University of Cambridge, UK; and Jasper Konter ( 0000-0002-4853-5456), University of Hawaii at Mānoa, USA

Editor’s Note: It is the policy of AGU Publications to invite the authors or editors of newly published books to write a summary for Eos Editors’ Vox.

Après Snowpack • The Challenges of Forecasting Small, But Mighty, Polar Lows   • The Changing Climate’s Snowball Effect   • How the Ski Industry Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love Climate Activism   • How Infrastructure Standards Miss the Mark on Snowmelt   • The Who, What, When, Where, and Why of the Polar Vortex   • Testing on the Tundra: NASA Snow Program Heads North   • SnowSchool Spans the States   • Winter’s Melting Point  

When you think about snow, what comes to mind? Sledding and hot chocolate? Shoveling and wet boots? “As a native U.S. East Coaster, I never had much of an appreciation for the importance of snow—it was exciting as a kid and can be somewhat of a nuisance as an adult,” said Ellyn Enderlin of Boise State University and Eos’s Science Adviser representing AGU’s Cryosphere section.

“It’s really difficult to grasp the importance of snow when you’re focused on driving down slippery roads, but it’s important that society collectively realize that changes in snowpack have impacts beyond winter sports, days off from school, and difficulties commuting to work. The changes also profoundly influence the natural system, from microscopic to global scales.” Enderlin and Merritt Turetsky, our Biogeosciences Science Adviser, suggested the theme of our October issue and consulted on its development.

We start with Marta Moreno Ibáñez, who writes about the challenges of forecasting polar lows—the phenomenon that can result in sudden, dangerous conditions including strong winds and heavy snowfall. Until the dawn of the satellite era, not much at all was known about polar lows. Today scientists have a better handle on why they form but still have to work out the nuances of the many processes involved in warning people when to take shelter from one.

Then we take a look at The Changing Climate’s Snowball Effect on our planet. It used to be that city planners would know how much water to anticipate in their reservoirs by measuring the snowpack at the top of the mountain. These days, one measurement isn’t nearly enough to predict the runoff, leaving planners high and dry when all of the water anticipated doesn’t appear. Our reporting looks at the complex variables scientists and policymakers must start accounting for and how they work with communities who aren’t always ready for change.

Winter ski enthusiasts are coming to the realization that climate change is coming for the sport they love, and the reckoning may be an example for us all.“Snowmelt is an incredibly important source of water in the western U.S., in terms of both human use and ecosystem services, but snowpack has decreased dramatically in the past several decades while the regional population has grown,” said Enderlin. “It seems as though people are finally becoming more aware of the importance of snow, yet little action has been done to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are driving changes in snowpack and the timing of its melt.”

Finally, read more about one industry that is gearing up for action. Winter ski enthusiasts are coming to the realization that climate change is coming for the sport they love, and the reckoning may be an example for us all. Just ask professional snowboarder Jeremy Jones, who founded Protect Our Winters, a nonprofit organization that recently led a campaign to oust the head of the International Ski Federation after he went on record as a climate change denier. In July, four of the biggest North American ski resorts signed on to a charter to enforce unity in climate advocacy and make real changes in their business operations—but they know they alone can’t save winter. This advanced lesson in how to bring equivocators on to the boat is one we could all learn from.

—Heather Goss (@heathermg), Editor in Chief