Deciphering the global carbon cycle is as fascinating as it is difficult. There are carbon fluxes in and out of the planet, all over the place, and at all time scales. Observational gaps are numerous and gaping. Uncertainties on country level emissions are increasing. Yet the global carbon budget is perhaps THE central bit of knowledge that society must have, if an informed decision on carbon mitigation is ever to be made. Corinne Le Quéré from the University of East Anglia is working to quantify — with enormous effort — just such a budget. You might think it’s like balancing a checkbook, and you’d be right. But only if your checkbook includes investments with unknown and time-variable interest rates, and frequent, untraceable withdrawals. As Corrine tells Mike, in spite of the massive challenges, the carbon cycle community is making tremendous progress in pinning down the many elusive processes that ultimately control the main variable of interest: atmospheric CO2 levels.
In episode 50 of Forecast, Julien Emile-Geay from the University of Southern California calmly presents a somewhat radical world view. Love of jazz as a means of selecting a grad school; universities as revolutionary institutions; pursuit of science as a subversive activity. Even more unusual: considering data and models not as separate entities, but as co-equal, and integral, facets of research into paleoclimate dynamics. For example, Julien is leading efforts on both massive data compilations, and on the massive Last Millennium Reanalysis. Progress is coming on many fronts, including ENSO dynamics, the always-controversial topic of solar-climate interactions, and low frequency climate variability — what Julien calls the “bassline of the climate soundtrack”.
In this episode of Forecast, Jess tells Mike about the origins of the TEX86 temperature proxy — an index of membrane lipids produced by mesophilic archaea. The origins in the 1980s in extreme ocean environment; discovery of membrane production in a huge range of environments; brute force discovery of the index; the inevitable struggles to understand what it actually represents; an unusually active and sometimes dismissive debate about its usefulness. All proxies have issues, but Jess and her colleagues are converging on the what/when/where for TEX86’s application. For Jess, work on TEX86 (and other methods!) is leading to an improved understanding of the atmospheric dynamics, surface processes, and feedbacks governing past climate variability, particularly in the tropics.
The causes of heat waves are kind of like the controls on a car. We know that pressure systems, land-atmosphere interactions, and modes of variability like ENSO act to control extremes, just as we know that the steering wheel, moderated by the brake and gas pedals, controls the direction and velocity of the car. But imagine driving a car blindfolded. Yes, you know what the controls do, but the chances of hitting something hard are pretty high if you keep the gas pedal down, careening across even the most familiar of roads. For extremes, the moment-to-moment, season-to-season occurrence of extremes will remain challenging to predict, like the exact moment at which you’ll veer out of your lane, but the coming impact of blindly increasing emissions is more certain. Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick from the University of New South Wales endured the horrendous heat of Australia’s 2017 summer – pregnant, in a badly insulated house with wobbly air conditioning – and is studying heat waves and how they will change in a persistently warming climate. As Sarah tells Mike, the news is almost uniformly not good. Unless the foot comes off the gas pedal, the car is going to hit the wall: rare events in today’s climate are likely to become seasonally persistent; different emission pathways might delay but won’t alter the ultimate arrival of catastrophic heat. Of course, society could adapt, and Australians could end up living the bulk of their lives in air conditioned spaces, at the cost of further emission increases, radical changes to lifestyle, and eye-popping expense. Is this the world we want? Let’s hope not, but the mitigation equivalent of self-driving cars is not going to magically appear. It’s just us.
Today’s interview, with Jory Lerback from the University of Utah, has both nothing and everything to do with climate science. I think for the first time in the history of Forecast, no one mentioned the word climate. Instead, we talked about Jory’s recent Nature Comment entitled “Journals invite too few women to referee“.
Image courtesy of the University of Utah
Jory’s work arose out of her time between undergraduate and graduate studies, when she worked at AGU headquarters analyzing their massive database of authors and referees.
There is some good news on the gender equity front. For the youngest cohorts of geosciences, women are at ~ 40% of corresponding authors.
But otherwise, it’s still discouraging. Overall, women are about 28% of AGU authors, yet make up only 20% of the pool of referees. So, even relative to their low representation as authors, women are even more underrepresented as referees.
The problem arises at least in part because corresponding authors recommend too few women and editors select too few women. Women also decline reviews at slightly higher rates.
At Nature, our informal analysis shows roughly similar results, although in some fields, submitting authors recommend women referees in the single digit range.
Addressing gender inequity in science is a perpetual topic, but for the specific case of referees, there is at least a practical way forward. Authors — recommend female referees! Editors — invite female referees … and when invited referees decline, ask for recommendations for appropriate female alternatives.
My post on restaurant picks for AGU 2016 was one of the more popular blog entries to date on Forecast, so I thought I’d add a quick podcast on the same topic. I got together with two of my colleagues from Nature Chemical Biology, Mirella Bucci and Grant Miura, to talk through some of my list, and a few new additions. We recorded in the loud, reverb-laden Nature office, so the audio quality is horrendous. And I did virtually none of my usual editing. Quick and dirty, just like a good Mission burrito. Happy eating!
Due to a flood of requests (ok, one, from Amy Clement) I’m providing an update of my restaurant recommendations for AGU. Last time I mentioned that prices are up. The big update for this year is that prices are up, again, in a big way. Options are terrific, but bring your piggy bank. It can also be extremely hard to get into the more interesting restaurants. So for me, the restaurant scene really epitomizes the Bay Area: yes, you can find great, cheap stuff … but a lot of the really excellent options are far too expensive and crowded. Continue reading →
Inequities exist throughout the scientific enterprise. Women continue to be progressively underrepresented at more senior career stages. Access to excellent research universities is unequally distributed. Representation by many minority groups is low. Nature Geoscience has an entire Focus issue on accessibility, or the lack thereof. Continue reading →
Over the past few months I’ve discussed with a variety of guests the emerging idea of trying to keep global warming below 1.5 °C, and our family of journals has certainly been active on the topic, particularly with regard to feasibility and mitigation pathways.
Dorthe Dahl-Jensen is one of the leaders of the second generation of Danish ice core scientists, following on from pioneers like Willy Dansgaard and Sigfus Johnsen. She’s began publishing in Nature and Science since 1993, and now has 16 papers between the two. Her career spans technical details, modeling, age models, abrupt change, isotopic interpretation … nearly any topic you can imagine about the Greenland ice cores.