Where we’ll be at AGU

Posted on December 10, 2010 by Anne Jefferson

‘Tis the season to…. go to a conference? A couple of weeks before Christmas might not seem like the most sensible time to hold a big international conference, but next week tens of thousands of geoscientists will descend on the Moscone Center in San Francisco for the AGU Fall Meeting. They’re coming to present their latest work, and see what everyone else in their field is up to. Data will be mulled over, new ideas will be inspired and grant proposals dreamed up, new connections will be forged and old connections will be strengthened. And there will be beer. As Brian Romans says, for geologists it truly is the most wonderful time of the year.

Both the Highly Allochthonous bloggers well be there this year, along with a whole host of our friends and colleagues, both online and off. For the past few days we’ve been going through the scientific program to try and identify which talks and posters we want to go and see. This is not a trivial task – many sessions run in parallel everyday, and it’s not unusual to find yourself torn between the cool science on offer at two or more of them. Here are our tentative schedules, which are subject to change based on whim, burnout, and bumping into old friends in the hallway.

Sunday

A post by Anne JeffersonI’m starting my AGU week a day early by participating in the 5th Annual Berkeley Catchment Science Symposium. This day-long event features four long-format talks by watershed scientists doing provocative work. With 40 minutes for each talk and 20 minutes for Q&A, I’m looking forward to getting to hear some cutting-edge watershed hydrology in depth. (My PhD advisor, Gordon Grant, is giving one of the talks, based in part on my PhD work, so I’ll try not to heckle that one from the audience.) In addition to the long talks, there is time for short (3 minute) pop-ups, and I’ll probably give one about the urban watershed work with which I’m now involved.

A post by Chris RowanUnlike Anne, I’m at a bit of a loose end on Sunday at the moment, although with so many old colleagues arriving from Europe I’m sure I’ll find something to do. If the weather looks nice, Andrew Alden brought my attention to a little expedition to find a fault, which looks like it’s being organised by my old South African geoblogging pal Christie Rowe (formerly at the Cape).

Monday
A post by Anne JeffersonIn the morning, I’m probably going to be browsing posters in session H11G. Measurements and Modeling of Storage Dynamics Across Scales I. In the early afternoon, I’m going to have to decide between talks in C13C. Innovative Modeling and Snowmelt Partitioning in Mountain Environments I (3010 Moscone West) and H13I. Measurements and Modeling of Storage Dynamics Across Scales II (3016 Moscone West). I’m a co-author on a talk in the latter session, so it might be nice to hear the questions from the audience. Later on, I’m hoping to catch some talks in the sessions H14D. Megascale Hydrogeology: The Promise and Challenge of Examining Groundwater Systems at Regional and Continental Scales I (3016 Moscone West) and H14B. From Pores to Catchments: Coupling Hydrologic Concepts and Models Across Multiple Scales II (2002 Moscone West).

A post by Chris RowanIt looks like my Monday is going to start off grand and sweeping – just the way I like it- with talks in T11G & T12C. The Wilson Cycle Revisited: From Microplates and Mobile Terranes to Supercontinent Dispersals I & II. I’d also like to browse the posters for GP11A. Geomagnetism and Paleomagnetism General Contributions I. In the afternoon, I’ll probably end up browsing the Wilson Cycle session posters before heading for T14B. Subduction Zone Segmentation Over Multiple Earthquake Cycles II

Tuesday
A post by Anne JeffersonOn Tuesday a number of fantastic sessions on groundwater-surface water interactions take off. In the morning there are poster sessions H21B. Groundwater/Surface Water Interactions: Dynamics and Patterns Across Spatial and Temporal Scales I and H21C. Groundwater/Surface Water Interactions: Linking Physical and Biogeochemical Processes in Modeling and Management Frameworks I . There’s also poster sessions H21G. Water Resources Science and Strategies for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change I and EP21C. Megaflooding: Causes, Processes, and Effects that are liable to draw me in. Somehow, I’ll have to get through all those posters by 10:00, because the latter half of the morning features the must-attend Langbein Lecture by Bill Gray on the topic of “Opportunities for Impacting the Trajectory of Hydrologic Model Development.”

In the afternoon, my various research interests put me in conflict again. There’s session EP24B. The Morphodynamics of Big Rivers: What Do and Don’t We Know? I (308 Moscone South), relevant to some work a graduate student and I are trying to finish up this spring. But at the same time, there’s H24C. Groundwater/Surface Water Interactions: Linking Physical and Biogeochemical Processes in Modeling and Management Frameworks II (2009 Moscone West) with some fantastic talks relevant to other work I’m doing. They are not even in the same building!

A post by Chris RowanThere’s not much standing out for me on Tuesday morning at the moment, except for DI22B. Time Variability of the Geomagnetic Field I. Posters for that session are in the early afternoon, and T23C. The Formation and Deformation of the Mediterranean Basins, Continental Margins, and Arcs III also looks interesting. And I’ll finish up the day with GP24A. Frames of Reference for Plate Motion looks to be a great relevance to the project I’m starting here in Chicago, (which is all about global plate reconstructions).

Wednesday
A post by Anne JeffersonI’m sensing a pattern as, once again, Wednesday morning is likely to find me heading to the poster hall, this time to take in H31D. Groundwater/Surface Water Interactions: Stream Tracers and Techniques I. But I’m going to have to split my time between those posters and more groundwater/stream talks in H31J. Groundwater/Surface Water Interactions: Dynamics and Patterns Across Spatial and Temporal Scales II (3014 Moscone West). Either way, I’ll probably be cognitively primed for my own talk H32C-04. Spatial heterogeneity in isotopic signatures of baseflow in small watersheds: implications for understanding watershed hydrology at 11:05 am in H32C. Groundwater/Surface Water Interactions: Dynamics and Patterns Across Spatial and Temporal Scales III (3014 Moscone West).

In the afternoon, I’ll definitely stop by Chris’s poster and try to catch some talks in H33I. Groundwater Inputs to Rivers, Lakes, and Oceans II (3020 Moscone West) and H34A. Groundwater/Surface Water Interactions: Stream Tracers and Techniques II (3014 Moscone West).

A post by Chris RowanWednesday morning will probably see me gracing a mix of talks from T31E and T32B. New Advances in Studies of the Tibetan Plateau and the Himalayas I & II, T31F. What Lies Beneath “Stable” Eastern North America I and GP32A. Geomagnetic Secular Variation Determined From Paleomagnetic Observations I. But who knows – maybe I’ll take a brief detour into stream water isotopes instead.

In the afternoon I’ll be manning my poster GP33C-0959: Oman’s low latitude “Snowball Earth” pole revisited: Late Cretaceous remagnetisation of Late Neoproterozoic carbonates in Northern Oman, ready to confuse awe people with the wonders of paleomagnetism. I don’t have to be there for the full period between 2 and 6, so I may wander through the other posters in my section for a while, as well as the posters for GP33A. Frames of Reference for Plate Motion II. If you want to swing by, give me a tweet!

Thursday
A post by Anne JeffersonIn the morning, I’ve got a bunch of posters to see, spread across too many sessions to list, and I’m aiming to see some talks in EP42A. Advances in Critical Zone Research: Interactions Among Water, Rock, and Life at Earth’s Surface I (310 Moscone South). In the afternoon, I’ll be participating in the blogging panel (and you can too!), but I’m definitely going to stop by the wonderfully-titled EP43B. Does Size Matter? Does Local Count? The Role of Extrafluvial Events in River and Landscape Evolution Posters.

A post by Chris RowanThursday morning has proven to be one of the more difficult periods to fix a schedule for, because there are several interesting looking large-scale tectonics sessions, such as T41D. Raising a Plateau From Earthquakes, Basins, and Fold-Thrust Belts I, G42A. Plate Motion and Continental Deformation II and T42B. Lithospheric Structure and Cenozoic Tectonics in East Asia: From Tibetan Plateau to the Marginal Seas I, but I’m also severely tempted to drop in on T41C and T42A Fault Behavior Models: Improved Understanding Using Long Paleoseismic Records II & III, which includes talks on the paleoseismology of the Alpine Fault. There are also a couple of interesting looking poster sessions, including B41B. Drilling Deep Time: Windows Into Earth’s Early Biosphere and T41A. Latest Results From EarthScope’s San Andreas Fault Observatory at Depth

Then, in what looks like one of the few occasions when Anne and I will actually be in the same conference room this week, I’ll be sitting on the blogging panel between 2 and 4 pm, although at some point I want to check out some posters in G43A. Plate Motion and Continental Deformation III.

Friday
A post by Anne JeffersonOn Friday, I’ll be sad to miss some wonderful geomorphology and hydrology sessions, but I’ll be flying back across the country with a virtual pile of grading on my laptop. When the geomorphologists convene at Berkeley for Gilbert Club on Saturday, I’ll be sitting at my university’s commencement ceremony cheering on our proud seniors (and hopefully not still grading).

A post by Chris RowanLike Anne, I’m unfortunately going to be departing on Friday – although there do look to be several interesting posters in T51B. Great Earthquakes and Active Fault Scientific Drilling and T51D. What Controls Strong Versus Weak Coupling on Subduction Interface Faults?. The latter has some new research on the Hikurangi subduction zone off New Zealand, which was the subject of my PhD thesis research. Maybe I’ll manage a quick browse before I leave for the airport.

So, that’s what our weeks are looking like. Let us know what amazing things we’re missing. And if any readers are attending the conference and giving a talk/poster, feel free to drop the details in the comments – perhaps we’ll get the chance to drop by.

Categories: by Anne, conferences

Geobloggers – why do you blog?

Posted on December 8, 2010 by Anne Jefferson

A post by Chris RowanA post by Anne JeffersonFor geology bloggers, one of the most interesting, and encouraging, things about 2010 was that two big geological organisations – the Geological Society of America and the American Geophysical Union – have started to grasp, and exploit, the potential of blogging and social media for science outreach and communication. Both are active on Twitter (GSA, AGU); the GSA has a group/guest blog, Speaking of Geoscience; and the AGU recently launched its own blog network. This recognition is an important step in encouraging wider acceptance of blogging in the geological community, and will hopefully encourage further growth of the geoblogosphere in the future.

In a further encouraging step, the AGU is holding a blogging workshop at next week’s 2010 Meeting in San Francisco. From the AGU meeting website:

Writing a science blog can help you spread the word widely about your research, engage those who share your scientific interests, enhance your ability to communicate about science you care about, and more. But a blog can also become a time sink, expose you to criticism, and otherwise spell trouble unless some simple cautions and good practices are followed. Learn why and how to successfully blog and use social media to create community —without the pitfalls— from a panel of experienced bloggers from academia, government, and the private sector.

If you look at the list of panelists, you’ll see that both of your friendly Highly Allochthonous bloggers are going to be there, as well as Brian Romans, Erik Klemetti, Jessica Ball, and Cian Dawson.

Our part of the discussion will explore how a blog is a tool that can be used in several distinct ways, and address a range of difference audiences depending on one’s particular goals and preferences. Your goals could be public outreach, for yourself or your organisation; promoting discussions amongst peers, either in your lab group or the wider world; personal development of your writing and teaching skills.

One important facet of this is that your goals and strategy may vary depending on your career status. A grad student or post-doc might be looking to engage with a different audience than a more senior faculty member, or someone who works in government or industry. This seemed like an area where some actual data would be useful, so Anne has put together a brief online poll to get some idea of why people blog. It’s only one question, and we invite anyone who blogs about subjects relevant to the AGU to take part.

CLICK HERE TO TAKE THE SURVEY

Another thing we think we’d like to touch on is how your aims, your strategy, and your audience, may evolve (or co-evolve) with time. For example, Chris started Highly Allochthonous to develop his writing skills; but as he gradually built an audience and achieved quasi-stable employment in research, the outreach and peer interaction became far more important to him. We wonder if other people have seen their goals change over time? If so, perhaps you could discuss how in the comments. Hopefully some readers will also be able to join what looks to be an interesting discussion in San Francisco next Thursday afternoon.

Categories: bloggery, public science, science education

Stuff we linked to on Twitter last week

Posted on December 5, 2010 by Chris Rowan

A post by Chris RowanA post by Anne Jefferson

Arsenic bacteria

The big story of the week – and for not always the right reasons

Earthquakes

Volcanoes

Planets

Fossils

(Paleo)climate

Environmental

General Geology

Interesting Miscellaney

Categories: links

Small rocky exoplanets galore

Posted on December 3, 2010 by Chris Rowan

A post by Chris RowanResearchBlogging.orgThis week, rather excitable speculations about a NASA press conference were somewhat punctured when in turned out to be about the discovery of some exotic, but determinedly terrestrial, Californian lake bacteria that incorporate arsenic instead of phosphorous into their cell structures if we force them. Ed Yong provides a great write up, and other people discuss how a PR mistep (note to NASA: in the future, do not refer to stuff you find on this planet as ‘astrobiological discoveries’) and the determined maintenance of the Science embargo allowed speculation the flourish in the absence of people in the know being allowed to say what the research was actually about.

It’s certainly fascinating to read about the latest unexpected biochemical trick that bacteria are capable of, and it does once more demonstrate our ignorance of the true biochemical range in which life-like processes can occur. However, beyond the broad cautionary point that we need to moderate our Earth-centrism when looking beyond it, I struggle to see more than a tenuous link to the search for extraterrestrial life. But it did remind me of another Science paper that came out about a month ago, which doesn’t talk about extra-terrestrial life per se, but does present some promising data regarding the abundance of potential homes for it.

In the study, UC Berkeley astronomer Andrew Howard and his co-authors looked for planets around a pre-selected group of 166 stars with similar masses and temperatures to the Sun (yellow G- and orange K-types). Planets were identified by looking for slight deviations in a star’s motion towards or away from the earth due to the gravitational pull of an orbiting body (to date, this radial velocity technique has been the most successful way of finding exoplanets). The team found 33 planets around 22 of the stars, but in this paper they concentrate on the 16 of these that have an orbital period of less than 50 days. Their Figure 2 below shows the range of masses that these planets are calculated to have, ranging from ‘Super-Earths’ with between 3 and 10 times the mass of our own planet, to planets larger than Jupiter (which is about 300 times the mass of the Earth). The plot also includes ‘candidate’ and ‘missed’ planets’. The former are probable planet detections which still need further observations to rigorously confirm. The latter is an attempt to account for the fact that the lower mass planets are approaching the current detection limits for the radial velocity technique, and the data collected from some of the stars surveyed are not yet sufficient to confirm or deny their presence. The number of ‘missed’ planets is extrapolated from the rate of detections from stars where the observations are sufficient to find them or rule them out.

Mass-frequency distribution of exoplanets with an orbital period of less than 50 days identified by Howard et al.

(note: there is some discrepancy in the numbers of planets given at various points in this paper. The text and another less easy to interpret figure indicate 16 confirmed planets with an orbital period of less than 50 days, whilst there are only 15 in this figure – the missing one is in either the 3-10 or the 10-30 Earth mass bins. Likewise, a 4th candidate planet in the 3-10 Earth mass bin is missing from this plot)

What these data appear to show is that within the same orbital range, there are more low mass planets than high mass ones – possibly a lot more. This trend is apparent even if we just restrict ourselves to looking at the firm detections; the candidate and missed planets just strengthen it. This is very promising, but two key questions remain. Firstly, does this trend continue into lower mass ranges – Earth-like mass ranges? If it does, the authors calculate there a planet with between 1 and 3 Earth masses, and an orbital period of less than 50 days, will be found around 1 in 4 of these types of star. The second question is, does this relationship hold true in longer orbits – say, orbital periods of a few hundred days? Although there is no data from the lower end of the mass range, the authors argue that more smaller, Neptune mass exoplanets have been found in wider orbits than bigger, Jupiter mass ones, which suggests, but does not confirm, that there are more low-mass planets in these realms too. Extrapolating further, the authors claim that there is about a 1 in 6 chance that a sun-like star has a 1-3 Earth mass planet in some orbit around it.

Projecting from known data into the unknown regions we’re actually interested in is a risky business, so all of this is still very tentative. Fortunately, in the next few years there will be actual data from Kepler and Corot to compare these projections against. However, these results raise the tantalising possibility that there may be a lot of Earth-mass rocky planets orbiting other stars. Who knows, some of them may even turn out to be home to arsenic-based microbes.

Howard, A., Marcy, G., Johnson, J., Fischer, D., Wright, J., Isaacson, H., Valenti, J., Anderson, J., Lin, D., & Ida, S. (2010). The Occurrence and Mass Distribution of Close-in Super-Earths, Neptunes, and Jupiters Science, 330 (6004), 653-655 DOI: 10.1126/science.1194854

Categories: paper reviews, planets