Feed aggregator

body {background-color: #D2D1D5;} Research & Developments is a blog for brief updates that provide context for the flurry of news regarding law and policy changes that impact science and scientists today.

In an open letter to the American people, more than 1,900 scientists sent an “SOS” that the Trump administration’s actions have “decimated” the nation’s scientific enterprise and censored scientific work. “We see real danger in this moment,” the scientists wrote.

Each of the scientists who signed the letter is an elected member of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, a congressionally chartered group of nonprofit organizations that provide expertise to the federal government and the public on scientific and technological issues. The letter stated that the signatories hold a range of political beliefs. Signatories represent a range of scientific disciplines, from cell biology to planetary science to economics.

The letter emphasized the need for U.S. scientists to retain their independence and ability to explore scientific questions without the influence of special interests or the limitations of censorship—that ability is now in question due to the administration’s cuts to scientific funding, firings of scientists, removals of public data, and pressure for researchers to abandon certain work.

The Trump administration is “using executive orders and financial threats to manipulate which studies are funded or published, how results are reported, and which data and research findings the public can access. The administration is blocking research on topics it finds objectionable, such as climate change, or that yield results it does not like, on topics ranging from vaccine safety to economic trends,” the letter stated.

Letter from more than 1,900 scientistsDownload

“We have spent 80 years in this country building up our scientific infrastructure,” Steven Woolf, an author of the letter and professor of family medicine at the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine told PBS. “That’s enabled our country to make remarkable scientific discoveries that have made the United States the envy of the world. In a matter of weeks, the Trump administration has pursued a set of policies that are basically removing the capacity of our country to do this kind of research.”

 
Related

•  Get Involved: AGU Science Policy Action Center
•  More Than 1,900 Scientists Write Letter in ‘SOS’ Over Trump’s Attacks on Science
•  Scientists Sound the Alarm on Trump’s Dismantling of Research Funding
•  Over 50 Universities Are Under Investigation as Part of Trump’s Anti-DEI Crackdown
 

Woolf also said he was concerned that the attacks on U.S. science, and in particular, cuts to health research and vaccine regulatory work, would affect the health and life expectancy of U.S. residents.

Scientists who haven’t been directly impacted by funding cuts or firings are still facing a “climate of fear,” Woolf said. In the letter, he and other signatories wrote that the Trump administration’s current investigations of more than 50 universities as part of an anti-DEI effort send a “chilling message” to scientists that their research is in danger of being censored on ideological grounds.

Firings of scientists have continued since the letter’s release: Today, the Department of Health and Human Services began sending notices of termination after announcing a plan to cut 10,000 employees from the agency. Federal scientists at other agencies such as NASA, USGS, NOAA, and the EPA have begun similar terminations, though federal judges have ordered some of these firings to be reversed. 

“We all benefit from science, and we all stand to lose if the nation’s research enterprise is destroyed,” the letter stated. 

—Grace van Deelen (@gvd.bsky.social), Staff Writer

These updates are made possible through information from the scientific community. Do you have a story about how changes in law or policy are affecting scientists or research? Send us a tip at eos@agu.org. Text © 2024. The authors. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.

Rivers join downstream, flow downhill, and eventually meet an ocean or terminal lake: These are fundamental rules of how waterways and basins are supposed to work. But rules are made to be broken. In the journal Water Resources Research, Sowby and Siegel lay out nine rivers and lakes in the Americas that defy hydrologic expectations.

A study of tree rings in the Gaspesie's Sainte-Anne River area reveals that snowpacks have been declining noticeably in the region's mountains for nearly nine decades. The researchers say the phenomenon is directly linked to global warming.

Source: Water Resources Research

Rivers join downstream, flow downhill, and eventually meet an ocean or terminal lake: These are fundamental rules of how waterways and basins are supposed to work. But rules are made to be broken. Sowby and Siegel lay out nine rivers and lakes in the Americas that defy hydrologic expectations.

All exhibit instances of bifurcation, in which a river splits into branches that continue downstream. But unlike typical bifurcations, these examples do not return to the main waterway after branching off.

South America’s Casiquiare River, for example, is a navigable waterway that connects the continent’s two largest watersheds, the Orinoco and Amazon basins, by acting as a distributary of the former and a tributary of the latter. It’s “the hydrologic equivalent of a wormhole between two galaxies,” the authors write. The Casiquiare splits from the Orinoco River and meanders through lush, nearly flat rainforests to join the Rio Negro and, ultimately, the Amazon River. The study’s authors point out that the slight slope (less than 0.009%) is enough to send large volumes of water down the river and that this unusual instance results from an incomplete river capture. They note that understanding of the Casiquiare is still evolving.

Dutch colonists first mapped the remote Wayambo River in Suriname in 1717. This river can flow either east or west, depending on rainfall and human modifications of flow using locks. It is also near gold and bauxite mining as well as oil production sites, and its two-way flow makes predicting the spread of pollutants difficult.

Of all the rivers they reviewed, the researchers described the Echimamish River, high in the Canadian wilderness, as the “most baffling.” Its name means “water that flows both ways” in Cree. The river connects the Hayes River and the Nelson River, and by some accounts, the Echimamish flows outward from its middle toward both larger rivers. However, its course is flat and punctuated by beaver dams, leading to uncertainty, even today, about the direction of its flow and exactly where the direction shifts.

The authors also explored six other strange waterways, including lakes with two outlets and creeks that drain to both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. In doing so, they highlighted how much there is still to learn about how our world’s waters work. (Water Resources Research, https://doi.org/10.1029/2024WR039824, 2025)

—Rebecca Dzombak, Science Writer

Citation: Dzombak, R. (2025), The rivers that science says shouldn’t exist, Eos, 106, https://doi.org/10.1029/2025EO250123. Published on 1 April 2025. Text © 2025. AGU. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.

About 3.81 billion years ago, a giant impactor rocked the Moon’s south pole. It formed the Schrödinger impact basin, which remains clearly visible today.

Astronomers recently found that two extremely deep and long valleys extending away from the crater were formed rapidly by pieces of rock flung outward during the impact.

The debris carved valleys “as big as the Grand Canyon on Earth. But instead of being formed during millions of years, they were formed within 10 minutes.”

“They reimpact the surface—boom, boom, boom, boom—and they form this line of individual craters,” said Danielle Kallenborn, a planetary scientist at Imperial College London and a coauthor of a study outlining the results published in Nature Communications. The debris carved valleys “as big as the Grand Canyon on Earth,” Kallenborn said. “But instead of being formed during millions of years, they were formed within 10 minutes.”

The debris pattern spreads away from sites where NASA’s Artemis mission plans to explore, suggesting that any samples collected there would be less likely to be from the impactor and more likely to be from the Moon itself.

Grand Canyons

The lunar south pole is dominated by the 4.3-billion-year-old South Pole–Aitken basin, among the largest impact craters in the solar system at 2,500 kilometers across. At its edge sits the smaller but still impressive Schrödinger basin, measuring 320 kilometers wide.

The two clearly visible valleys, Vallis Schrödinger and Vallis Planck, extend away from the northwestern edge of the Schrödinger basin. Each appears to be composed of a chain of so-called secondary craters—the result of rocks being thrown from the crater when the main impactor struck. Kallenborn and her colleagues identified 15 secondary craters in Vallis Schrödinger and slightly more in Vallis Planck.

The valleys are 270–280 kilometers long and 2.7–3.5 kilometers deep—about half the length of the Grand Canyon and twice as deep.

A wall of Vallis Planck appears to have partially collapsed following the valley’s formation, whereas Vallis Schrödinger has remained more intact. “The impact events generated rather steep-walled canyons,” said David Kring, a planetary scientist at the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Texas and a study coauthor. “In the case of Vallis Planck, the walls were unable to stay standing.”

“You could look and see them flying through the air.”

In modeling debris patterns from the impact, the researchers estimated the ejecta would have reached speeds of 3,420–4,610 kilometers per hour as the shock wave from the initial impact, millions of times more powerful than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, expanded outward.

On the bases of the distances of individual craters in each valley from the center of Schrödinger Crater, the team calculated that the pieces of debris took 5–15 minutes to reach their impact sites. “It is quite fast,” Kallenborn said. “You could look and see them flying through the air.”

Kelsi Singer, a planetary scientist at the Southwest Research Institute in Colorado who was not involved in the research, said secondary crater chains like this exist elsewhere in the solar system. One example is Falsaron Crater on Saturn’s moon Iapetus, which has two clear lines extending away from it. “They’re pretty similar,” she said.

Why an impact would produce a straight line of secondary impact craters is unclear, however.

Impactor Angle

The orientation of the two valleys suggests the impactor was headed north-northwest at an angle of less than 45° from the surface when it struck, according to the authors. The majority of secondary debris, including the rocks that formed the valleys, would therefore have been directed away from the Moon’s south pole.

NASA plans to land astronauts back on the Moon this decade, targeting regions south of Schrödinger. “Most of the ejecta was ejected north, which is away from the Artemis exploration zone,” Kallenborn said. “That’s good news” because any rocks collected are more likely to be older lunar rocks, perhaps even fragments of the Moon’s original crust, rather than pieces of the more recent impactor.

The Schrödinger basin was formed relatively late in the evolution of the early solar system. Scientists are more eager to examine rocks that took shape closer to the Moon’s formation 4.5 billion years ago and that might be present in the planned landing zones for Artemis missions.

“They’re more interested in sampling this [early material],” Kallenborn said. “It tells you more about the very early times of the Earth-Moon formation impact event and so on.”

However, there is still interest in sampling the Schrödinger ejecta too. It is “one of the last great basin-forming impact events that shaped the Moon,” Kring said, so examining a sample of it back on Earth could help us more precisely date the impact. “We still debate the magnitude and duration of that period of early solar system bombardment.”

—Jonathan O’Callaghan (@astrojonny.bsky.social), Science Writer

Citation: O’Callaghan, J. (2025), Impact spewed debris away from the Moon’s south pole, Eos, 106, https://doi.org/10.1029/2025EO250121. Published on 1 April 2025. Text © 2025. The authors. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.

Editors’ Highlights are summaries of recent papers by AGU’s journal editors. Source: Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets

Despite providing critical insights into atmospheric dynamics and weather patterns, wind observations on the surface of Mars remain relatively rare. The Temperature and Wind for InSight (TWINS) instrument onboard NASA’s Insight mission was designed to measure wind speed and direction winds. However, due to power constraints caused by increasing dust accumulation on InSight’s solar panels, TWINS primarily operated during the first 750 Martian days (sols) of the mission. In contrast, the Seismic Experiment for Interior Structure (SEIS) instrument operated almost continuously until the mission’s final transmission on Martian day 1440.

Since winds are the dominant source of energy in the seismic data, Stott et al. [2025] developed a machine learning model, WindSightNet, to map seismic data to wind speed and direction, nearly doubling the coverage of TWINS. The authors find an overall good agreement between both datasets during the first 750 sols, increasing confidence in WindSightNet data for the remaining Martian Days. Using this validated dataset, the authors analyze the interannual (one year on Mars is 669 sols) variability of wind speed and direction, as well as large-scale weather patterns and the height of the lower atmosphere throughout the Insight mission.

This dataset delivers a precious long-term and continuous record of Martian winds for the atmospheric community to refine their atmospheric models and better understand how dust is lifted on Mars. While the approach by the authors cannot capture the fastest wind variations or highest wind speeds recorded by TWINS due to a lower sampling rate, nor accurately predict wind speeds near 0 meters per second due to SEIS’s noise level, this study opens new possibilities for planetary instrumentation.

Citation : Stott, A. E., Garcia, R. F., Murdoch, N., Mimoun, D., Drilleau, M., Newman, C., et al. (2025). WindSightNet: The inter-annual variability of martian winds retrieved from InSight’s seismic data with machine learning. Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 130, e2024JE008695. https://doi.org/10.1029/2024JE008695   

—Germán Martínez, Associate Editor; and Beatriz Sánchez-Cano, Editor, JGR: Planets

Text © 2024. The authors. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.

Editors’ Vox is a blog from AGU’s Publications Department.

Geophysics is a powerful tool for understanding how our planet works. It enables us to connect complex real-world phenomena with fundamental physical laws, deduce the nature of otherwise inaccessible regions of the Earth, frame natural processes and events in terms of cause and effect, and mathematically model and predict the future behavior of components of the Earth.

Earth System geophysics recognizes the critical importance of interactions between the components of the Earth System—the solid earth, oceans, atmosphere, and even the biosphere—in achieving that understanding. An Earth System perspective also recognizes convection as a universal process and a unifying theme for studying the Earth.

A new book in AGU’s Advanced Textbook Series, Earth System Geophysics, helps upper-level students learn how to apply math and physics to understand the operation of the Earth System. Here, we asked the book’s author to explain how an Earth Systems approach bolsters the study of geophysics and how to make these topics engaging and accessible to students.

Why take an Earth Systems approach to studying geophysics?

There was a time when geophysics was mainly devoted to the study of the ‘solid earth’—the crust we stand on and the mantle and core below. With that focus, it made sense to treat plate tectonics as the unifying theme. But why limit our view to the solid earth? The oceans and atmosphere also behave geophysically and are ultimately driven by the same kind of process—convection—behind plate tectonics. Furthermore, studying the solid earth alone would be incomplete if interactions with the rest of the Earth System were ignored.

Idealized conception of mantle convection, including descending lithospheric slabs, upwelling plumes, and broad background flow. These components of mantle convection can interact with the core, oceans, atmosphere, and biosphere in different ways. Credit: Jellinek and Manga [2004], Figure 17

How did you come up with the idea for the Earth System Geophysics textbook?

When I first started teaching at SUNY-Binghamton, I was given free rein to teach the ‘rest’ of geophysics, in other words, anything non-seismological. My research has always been ‘global’—involving the various ways Earth’s rotation can be affected by plate motions, ocean tides, and the oceans’ response to atmospheric pressure variations—so it seemed natural to take a global approach in teaching. And, that global approach apparently increased students’ interest (even to the point where they didn’t mind complex math being introduced)! However, I could find no existing geophysics textbook with an Earth System Science approach at the level I wanted to teach this material.

How is the textbook organized?

The textbook comprises two parts: (I) An Earth System Science Framework and (II) A Planet Driven by Convection. The first part includes chapters on Earth’s origin, the evolution of its atmosphere, and the climate system. The second part covers gravity, seismology, heat flow, and geomagnetism, with frequent application to the Earth System.

How could instructors use this textbook in their teaching, and who is the intended audience?

The textbook is fairly lengthy—an unavoidable consequence of trying to explain how the Earth works! Instructors using the entire book to teach about geophysics in the Earth System should plan on a two-semester course. However, as outlined in the textbook’s preface, combinations of different portions of the book can serve as the basis for a variety of one-semester courses, including traditional solid-earth geophysics, climate change, and seminar classes exploring geophysical research.

This book’s primary audience is geology students at the senior undergraduate or beginning graduate level, whose exposure to basic physical geology has been supplemented by at least one semester each of calculus and college physics but who may be somewhat unconfident about using math and physics to understand the Earth. Undergraduate and graduate students majoring in geophysics, physics, and engineering, as well as students working toward a master’s in Earth science teaching, can benefit from this textbook too.

How does your textbook make geophysics accessible to students?

Geophysics is intrinsically a mathematically intensive field, and—on several levels—many students find that daunting. My textbook introduces mathematical concepts gently and builds gradually; where possible, qualitative interpretations are also presented. 

For example, the concept of gradient is first discussed qualitatively in early chapters. Then, it is expressed mathematically using simple calculus. The relevant mathematical and qualitative concepts build throughout the book, until (in the final two chapters) students are able to fully appreciate and employ the gradient as a three-dimensional vector.

What special features appear in your textbook?

Perhaps my most notable feature is the use of ‘stop and think’ questions—moments where I pause the narrative and directly address the reader, in effect encouraging the reader to connect the subject being discussed with previous material (or, sometimes, to anticipate impending material). Additionally, I use specific formatting to highlight definitions of essential terms, explanations of key concepts, and important formulas and equations. Also, a companion website includes homework exercises for each chapter and brief guidance for instructors on the mathematical level of each chapter.

Another feature I’m very proud of is the extensive reference list and abundant in-text citations. In an era when the honesty and validity of science are repeatedly questioned, those citations emphasize that science is not just a story created out of thin air to make some conclusion believable; it is a synthesis of independent results obtained by a great number of peer-reviewed researchers.

Finally, numerous color figures throughout enhance what is already interesting subject matter.

Earth System Geophysics, 2024. ISBN: 978-1-119-62797-5. List price: $169.95 (hardcover), $136 (e-book).

The preface is freely available. Visit the book’s page on Wiley.com and click on “Read an Excerpt” below the cover image.

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.

—Steven R. Dickman (dickman@binghamton.edu, 0000-0001-5909-453X), Binghamton University, United States

Citation: Dickman, S. R. (2025), An Earth System Science approach to geophysics, Eos, 106, https://doi.org/10.1029/2025EO255013. Published on 1 April 2025. This article does not represent the opinion of AGU, Eos, or any of its affiliates. It is solely the opinion of the author(s). Text © 2024. The authors. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.

New projections by the UNSW Institute for Climate Risk & Response (ICRR) reveal a 4°C rise in global temperatures would cut world GDP by around 40% by 2100—a stark increase from previous estimates of around 11%.

The Landslide Blog is written by Dave Petley, who is widely recognized as a world leader in the study and management of landslides.

Back in February I highlighted a Sixth Tone article about the extraordinary landslide cluster that was triggered by Typhoon Gaemi in Hunan Province in China between 26 and 28 July 2024. A paper (Zhao et al. 2025) has now been published in the journal Landslides that provides a more detailed documentation of the event.

As a reminder, this is a Planet satellite image of the aftermath of Typhoon Gaemi in Zixing County, the worst affected area:-

A part of the area of Zixing in Hunan Province after being impacted by the July 2024 rainstorm. Image copyright Planet, used with permission, collected on 5 August 2024.

Zhao et al. (2025) have recorded 19,764 landslides from this single event, an extraordinary number. It is worth looking in a little more detail at the density of landslides in this area. The marker in the centre of this image is located at [23.13507, 95.78573]:-

A part of the area of Zixing in Hunan Province after being impacted by the July 2024 rainstorm. Image copyright Planet, used with permission, collected on 20 March 2025.

Zhao et al. (2025) note that 128,000 people were affected, with 1,714 houses being destroyed and 65 people killed.

A key issue in an event such as this is the rainfall conditions that can cause such an impact. During Typhoon Gaemi, Zixing County averaged 412.7 mm of rainfall, but one weather station recorded 673.9 mm. The maximum 24 hour rainfall was 642.5 mm; the previous record 24 hour rainfall in Hunan Province was 365.4 mm. Thus, this event broke the record to an extraordinary degree. In a landscape with many slopes, multiple landslides were inevitable. I would however be very interested in the peak hourly rainfall, which is likely to have been a key factor, if this data is available.

The failures were mostly small, shallow landslides. The landslide rate was higher in areas in which there had been excavation of the slope for roads or houses.

These types of intense landslide clusters are not in any way unprecedented, but the number of events globally in 2024 was unusually high. This is driven by extreme rainfall associated with the exceptionally high atmospheric temperatures last year.

It is a sign of what is to come in the years ahead.

Reference

Zhao, J., Feng, W., Yi, X. et al. 2025. Clustered shallow landslides caused by extreme typhoon rainstorms in Zixing County, Hunan Province, China, from July 26 to 28, 2024. Landslides. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-025-02508-9

Planet Team. 2025. Planet Application Program Interface: In Space for Life on Earth. San Francisco, CA. https://www.planet.com/

Return to The Landslide Blog homepage Text © 2023. The authors. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.

SummaryAnalysis of the 48-year of satellite laser ranging (SLR) data of multiple satellites shows that long-term variations in the Earth's dynamical oblateness represented by the second-degree zonal harmonic J2 is best characterized by the superposition of a quadratic trend, 10.5-year and 18.6-year variations. These variations result from climate-related mass changes, tides, and core flow-induced variations at the core-mantle boundary (CMB). We determined that the global ocean's response to the lunar attraction at the 18.6-year period is near equilibrium, with an amplitude of 0.4735 ± 0.008 cm and an error of ∼11% relative to the modeled amplitude (0.4224 cm), and ∼2±3 degrees of phase lag. The 18.6-year Love Number was found to be 0.01375-i0.00553 with an error of 2% for both the real and imaginary parts and a phase correction π for the imaginary part of the IERS 2010 anelasticity model. The nominal frequency-independent anelasticity Love number, k₂, was determined to be 0.3022 ± 0.0001 for the 18.6-year period, based on a reference frequency of 200 seconds and α = 0.1514 for mantle anelasticity for mantle anelasticity. This study also reveals a significant gravitational signal (3.06×10−11) in J2 obstructs the Earth's mantle anelastic response to the 18.6-year tidal forces, reflecting in phase shift of π the imaginary part of the IERS 2010 Love number. This signal can be characterized by a positive Love number of 0.01106 in the modeling of the variation in J2 coupling with the 18.6-year tide. This signal is possibly produced by the core dynamics, which creates a gravitational signal in J2 with an amplitude of 3.36×10−11 at the decadal time scale and could account for ∼70% of the observed 10.5-year variation.

SummaryTo clarify the 3-D crustal and upper mantle structure of the Bolivian orocline in the Central Andes, we conduct azimuthal anisotropy tomography using newly measured teleseismic fundamental mode Rayleigh-wave phase and amplitude data at periods of 25-110 s. Our tomography shows that the subducting Nazca slab is imaged as a high-velocity zone beneath the study region, except for areas where the Nazca ridge is subducting. Azimuthal anisotropy in the subducting slab generally exhibits trench-parallel fast-velocity directions (FVDs), but it becomes complex in and around the subducting Nazca ridge. Low-velocity anomalies with trench-normal FVDs exist in the mantle wedge beneath active arc volcanoes and backarc regions beneath Altiplano. A significant high-velocity zone with relative weak anisotropy exists in the crust of the overriding plate above the Peruvian flat slab in the study region. In contrast, low-velocity anomalies with trench-parallel FVDs are revealed in the crust beneath Altiplano. Furthermore, a high-velocity zone with depth-varying FVDs appears beneath Eastern Cordillera and its surrounding regions, which may indicate the westward underthrusting cratonic lithosphere. These tomographic features well capture the primary 3-D structure of the middle-lower crust and upper mantle beneath the Bolivian orocline, which results from the subduction of an oceanic lithosphere and the delamination and underthrust of a continental lithosphere, leading to the second-highest plateau on Earth.

SummaryIn this study, we applied the “in-situ Vp/Vs method” to monitor variations of seismic velocity ratio (Vp/Vs) within swarms, providing insights into eruption processes. This method, particularly effective in volcanic regions, estimates Vp/Vs by comparing P- and S-wave arrival times of closely located earthquake pairs, reducing errors from unknown crustal velocity variations and is well-suited for detecting rapid changes associated with volcanic swarms. Our study focused on seismic swarms on the Reykjanes Peninsula, south-west Iceland where, swarms have been frequent since 2017 and led up to eruptions in 2021, 2022, and 2023. We analyzed the entire period (2017–2023) as well as the 2021 swarm separately using data from over 40,000 seismic events recorded by the REYKJANET network. We observed significant decrease in the Vp/Vs ratio before major pre-eruption swarms, compared to the background Vp/Vs value of 1.78. From the 2020 swarm, we observed a lower Vp/Vs of 1.72, but the lowest estimated value was 1.70, associated with the 2021 pre-eruption swarm that preceded Fagradalsfjall's first eruption after 7000 years. Reduced Vp/Vs ratios were also noted before the 2022 and 2023 eruptions, suggesting supercritical fluids in the crust during these stages. We also introduce the concept of “change points” to interpret Vp/Vs variations along the dyke. Change points denote specific locations or times of significant Vp/Vs shifts, potentially indicating subsurface changes such as fluid influx or new fracturing from magma intrusion. Identifying these points allows us to pinpoint key moments when the system undergoes substantial changes, offering insights into eruption timing and location. Focusing on 2021 pre-eruption swarm, interestingly the spatial change point found in a location very close to the eruption site. Temporal analysis identified two main change points: the first corresponding with initial activity in the northern dyke and the second with a shift to the southern segment, ultimately leading to eruption. These points mark stages in magma progression, with each showing an initial rapid Vp/Vs drop that could indicate CO₂-rich fluid infiltration, followed by an increase as magma enters. The in-situ Vp/Vs method's sensitivity to changes in seismic properties makes it a powerful tool for real-time volcanic monitoring. By detecting critical Vp/Vs changes with minimal computational demand, this method has potential for integration with online seismic networks, providing an effective early warning system for volcanic hazards.

A combination of water management practices has contributed to notable groundwater gains in Central Arizona despite the region dealing with long-term water stress, according to a study led by researchers at The University of Texas at Austin and collaborators in Arizona and Colorado.

Landslides pose a significant threat to people and the environment worldwide. Researchers from the Leibniz Center for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), together with international partners, have developed a new framework that significantly improves landslide prediction using machine learning methods.

Recent "unprecedented" floods are not exceptional if we look further into the past, new research shows.

In the first study to consider the long-term evolution of the rivers that flow beneath glaciers, researchers have new insights into the future of Antarctica's melting ice that may change the way climate scientists predict the effects of a warming planet.

A University of Otago—Ōtākou Whakaihu Waka-led study is developing innovative methods to accurately predict how ice sheets and glaciers are deforming and moving.

body {background-color: #D2D1D5;} Research & Developments is a blog for brief updates that provide context for the flurry of news regarding law and policy changes that impact science and scientists today.

In late February, delegates from more than 190 countries met in Hangzhou, China to make preliminary decisions about the timing and content of the seventh assessment report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The Trump administration barred U.S. delegates from attending the February meeting, one step among many the president has taken to abandon America’s global leadership on climate change.

The IPCC is a United Nations body that reviews the science behind climate change. Since 1990, the group has produced assessment reports that evaluate the latest developments in climate science, impacts, adaptation, and mitigation. The reports also assess whether counties are doing enough to combat the climate crisis (spoiler: not nearly enough) and play an important role in influencing climate policy around the world. Those reports depend on the contributions of scientific experts nominated by IPCC member countries and Observer Organizations.

 
Resources

•  Get Involved: U.S. Academic Alliance for the IPCC (USAA-IPCC)
•  New US Academic Alliance for the IPCC opens critical nomination access (AGU)
•  Scientists Form Academic Alliance to Support U.S. Climate Researchers (Rutgers)
 

To supplement nominations by the federal government, the U.S. Academic Alliance for the IPCC (USAA-IPCC) is facilitating nominations to the seventh assessment cycle for the IPCC. The alliance is a network of U.S. universities that are registered observers with the IPCC and is hosted by AGU, which publishes Eos. U.S. researchers can submit materials to self-nominate as experts, authors, and review editors for the next IPCC assessment report.

“This new alliance will help the U.S. maintain a preeminent position in global science-policy assessments,” Pamela McElwee, professor of human ecology at Rutgers University and chair of the USAA-IPCC steering committee, said in a statement. “The benefits to U.S. researchers from involvement in the IPCC are tremendous, and we want to ensure that our scientists continue to play an important leadership role internationally.”

Nominations are open through Friday, 4 April. U.S.-based experts in climate research or practice who are U.S. citizens are eligible. Learn more about the nomination process here and at the video below:

—Kimberly M. S. Cartier (@astrokimcartier.bsky.social), Staff Writer

Correction 1 April 2025: An earlier version of this article mistakenly listed AGU as an IPCC Official Observer and has been edited to clarify.

These updates are made possible through information from the scientific community. Do you have a story about how changes in law or policy are affecting scientists or research? Send us a tip at eos@agu.org. Text © 2024. The authors. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.

body {background-color: #D2D1D5;} Research & Developments is a blog for brief updates that provide context for the flurry of news regarding law and policy changes that impact science and scientists today.

The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), which works to protect U.S. miners from injury, illness, and death on the job, is among the latest federal agencies targeted for cuts by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

In collaboration with the General Services Administration, or GSA, DOGE has begun terminating leases for hundreds of offices and buildings for groups such as NOAA, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, geological surveys in several states, and the National Park Service. According to coverage by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Grist, and others, the list includes at least 34 centers run by MSHA, which conduct regular inspections of quarries and mines to ensure worker safety.

It is unclear whether the lease terminations will involve layoffs or relocating workers to other MSHA office locations.

Related

•  DOGE lease cancellations list (AP)
•  DOGE cuts put region’s miners and families on edge (Pittsburgh Post Gazette)
•  Trump brings back a first-term mine safety official to lead MSHA (WKMS)
•  Trump administration moves to shutter mine safety offices in coal country (Grist)
•  Get Involved: AGU Science Policy Action Center
 

When MSHA first began operation under the Mine Act of 1977, 242 U.S. miners died in mining accidents. In 2025, there were 31, according to the MSHA website.

Federal regulators at MSHA also created a rule, set to take effect in April, which cuts in half the amount of silica allowed in air, in an effort to reduce a new form of black lung disease.

Wayne Palmer, tapped by President Trump to be the next leader of MSHA and who held the position during Trump’s first term, recently served as an executive at the Essential Minerals Association, which filed a legal brief challenging the new rule.

In a statement provided to several news outlets, a GSA spokesperson said: “A component of our space consolidation plan will be the termination of many soft term leases. To the extent these terminations affect public facing facilities and/or existing tenants, we are working with our agency partners to secure suitable alternative space.”

In a statement, United Mine Workers of America International President Cecil E. Roberts said the organization was “troubled” by the news. To keep workers safe, she added, both unions representing workers’ best interests and government agencies enforcing laws are necessary.

In their absence, “workers’ safety will be left solely in the hands of employers. History has shown us time and time again that doing so is a recipe for disaster, especially in the mining industry.”

—Emily Dieckman, (@emfurd.bsky.social), Associate Editor

These updates are made possible through information from the scientific community. Do you have a story about how changes in law or policy are affecting scientists or research? Send us a tip at eos@agu.org. Text © 2024. The authors. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.

Plate temperature and water release can explain the occurrence of different types of earthquakes in Guerrera, Mexico. A Kobe University simulation study has also shown that the shape of the Cocos Plate is responsible for a gap where earthquakes haven't occurred for more than a century. The results are important for accurate earthquake prediction models in the region.