It is friday and therefore the end of an exciting week here in San Francisco. The last day was again quite calm, as there were mostly secondary priorities on my schedule. I started with some interesting talks on the action under the ice sheets before I took a walk through the poster hall and watched some talks on extreme sea-levels. The second part of the day was splitted between Informatics and Ice sheet modelling before my schedule ended with some extreme events several million years back.
So all in all it was an interesting week, with some surprises, many great discussions and much too many information. The greatest surprise was of cause the weather. I heard many reports in the last years about the great December in California from other people visiting the AGU, but this year was dominated by (partly) heavy rain.
As always at an end of a conference, it is worth to take a look back, about the good and bad things. First of all, the AGU is a very interesting conference which covers many research fields and is great to visit for someone, who is interested in interdisciplinary science. The city is also great, as well as the general location with the Moscone Centre. What I did not really liked was the schedule in terms of the poster sessions running parallel to the talks. In this instance is the EGU definitely much better. Furthermore, I would have prefered to have the posters all at one location. Distributing them over two lead to the consequence of missing many interesting ones, just because you are too lazy to cross the street at least twice a day. Yes, the conference is large, but I think that there would have been a different solution.
Another point is that I was definitely not happy about the software. It is more or less useless, as the website and the App is purely designed for people who are only visiting one discipline or know exactly what they want. It is not possible to search for all authors from one institution and landscape mode in the app is also not available. Together with the paper copy of the sessions (to get an overview) and the software (to see exactly which talks or posters are given by whom) it was possible to construct a personal session plan (of cause on paper, as the software solution is chaos). This point needs definitely improvement for the next years.
Apart from this there are only minor issues, but most come with the huge size of the conference. All in all it was a great week and I really enjoyed it. With this I say goodbye for this year and hopefully I will get a chance to get back here another time in the upcoming years.
The Thursday at this years AGU was dominated for me in taking a look at the data I am using during my work. Methods are important and are usually the focus of my work, but it all helps nothing when you do not understand the data on which you apply them. Therefore, this day was basically about the understanding of them. So I focussed in the morning on many poster discussions on dO18 stacks and other basic palaeo-proxies. I have learned a lot and it will definitely help me to understand better my current work. Continue reading
Today the highlight was to show my own work to the audience. So I presented some work on the sea-level oscillations during the LIG and the main result that the data I have is inconclusive on this topic. Yes, such results are not great and I always have hoped for a different outcome when I submitted my abstract, but science does not work like a wish list. Nevertheless, I personally think it is important to show the problems within the work and the possible ways to solve them, even when these solutions are not in your own control. I will work further on this and some similar questions and will hope to submit a paper on this in the next couple of months.
The second session was about atmospheric reanalysis data and their intercomparision. I very much liked it as it is well-connected to my former work and the developments there are always of interest. Seeing the developments and the new products in production make me hopeful that the next generation of atmospheric reanalysis will be even better. After lunch a very interesting poster session, attached to the session of my talk, occupied me for a long time. Many great poster, a lot of great science and definitely a field which is moving forward in large steps. And yes, it was also the session for the poster, which has my name as a co-author. And it was great to show that tiny differences can lead to large changes.
Apart from that, many meetings during and at the end of the day made the day a very good one. It was certainly the most productive one for receiving feedback and organising work for the next couple of months. After this highlights, the next two days will be again filled with interesting talks. So bring it on.
The second day started drier than yesterday, at least concerned the weather. As a first session I went to a software publication session. The most interesting topic for me therein is of cause whether it would be possible to design a formal software publication with peer review and all the other necessities to make it comparable to traditional publication. I saw some first steps into this direction and am very excited about the future developments in this field. Continue reading
It is Monday and the first day of the AGU 2014 here in San Francisco. The overarching topic was the heavy rain, which let a lot of scientists sprint between the venues and dominated the discussion topics in the morning. Another hot topic were the long queues at the registrations, for those who had not managed to register yesterday. Some reported a 1.5h waiting time, and the queues have definitely backed this claim up. Continue reading