 Good afternoon. My name is Megan Lowry. I'm a media officer with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Thank you for joining us this afternoon for a webinar on the report that was just released this morning titled, A Vision for NSF Earth Sciences 2020-2030 Earth and Time. You can now download a copy of the report and other supporting materials at www.nap.edu and that URL is also on the first slide of our presentation. A recording of this webinar will be available in the coming weeks, also on the National Academy's website. And you can follow the conversation about this report on Twitter at hashtag Earth in Time. For those of you not familiar with the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, we are private non-profit institutions that provide independent objective analysis and advice to the U.S. to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions related to science, technology, and medicine. For each requested study, panel members are chosen for their expertise and experience and serve pro bono to carry out the study statement of task. The reports that result from the study represent the consensus view of the committee and must undergo external peer review before they are released, as did this report. So I have with me several members of the committee to discuss the report, but before I introduce them I just want to go over a few reminders. Please note that this webinar is scheduled to last one hour. We'll start off with a presentation summarizing the report by committee members, and then we'll open it up to any questions you all may have. Simply click the Q and A. Jim Yoder, chair of the committee and Dean Emeritus of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Greg Borosa, Stanford University, Andrea Dutton, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Michael Foote, University of Chicago, George Carroll's University of Arizona, Kate Huntington, University of Washington, Donna Whitney, University of Minnesota, and with that I'll turn it over to Dr. Yoder. Good afternoon everybody. Thanks to all of you for taking the time to listen to our presentation on our report, which we are very proud. Six committee members will summarize our report today, and I thank them for the time they've spent putting together their presentations. Their presentations were also based on the entire committee report, and so all the committee members have some sort of input on this. The 40-minute presentation pretty much follows the organization of our report, and we will be happy to take questions and comments at the end. So let's get started. Michael Foote is next. Unmute yourself, Michael. Let's try that again. I'm unmuted. Could I have the next slide, please? Thanks, Jim. So before we begin, I'd like to introduce a few terms we'll be using, as you can see from this organizational chart. NSF is the National Science Foundation. GO is the directorate for geosciences, one of seven directorates within NSF. There are four divisions within the GO directorate, covering ocean sciences, atmospheric and geospace sciences, polar programs, and the focus of this committee, Earth Sciences, or EAR. Next slide, please. EAR asked the national academies to develop a vision for earth sciences in the coming decade. The committee organized by the academies was charged with three tasks. First, to identify a concise set of high priority science questions to advance earth science research and potentially transform our understanding of the earth. Second, to assess earth science infrastructure. This task involved three components, to identify the infrastructure needed to advance the priority questions, to discuss current infrastructure supported by EAR, and to analyze gaps between existing infrastructure and what will be needed to address the priority questions. Next slide, please. The third task was to discuss partnerships with other agencies within and beyond NSF that could maximize EAR's ability to address the priority questions. In addition, the academies convened a workshop to address future management models for geodetic and seismological capabilities. The workshop proceedings were released in September 2019. Next slide, please. The committee reflected a breadth of expertise in earth sciences, including physical, chemical, and biological perspectives, focus on earth's interior, surface processes, and climate, and laboratory computational and field-based approaches. Next slide, please. In this presentation, we will address a vision for earth science in the coming decade, lay out the details of the science priority questions developed in response to our first task, assess infrastructure needed to address these questions, including possible new infrastructural initiatives, and discuss partnerships that could help EAR leverage its capabilities. Next slide, please. EAR can further its mission to support basic science by considering the earth as an integrated system whose components interact on vast scales of time and space from milliseconds to billions of years, and from nanometers to thousands of kilometers. The statement that we need all hands on deck reflects the integration of sub-disciplines as well as the urgent societal relevance of many of the priority questions. Realizing this vision will depend on scientists who are intellectually and demographically diverse, who are individual investigators as well as those participating in larger research teams and networks, and who have expertise in analytical, computational, and field-based methods. Next slide, please. To identify science priority questions, the committee analyzed community perspectives in a number of ways, including review of white papers and other literature, town halls and listening sessions at national meetings of earth science organizations, and a community-wide questionnaire. The committee honed in on a small set of priority questions that are both of fundamental importance in earth science and poised for progress and transformative impact in the coming decade. Next slide, please. Many of the priority questions reflect earth as an integrated system, technological advances that enable new observations and computational models, and the societal relevance of basic research. Progress on the priority questions will depend on strong core programs and on research agendas driven by individual investigators and groups. We emphasize that the priority questions are not meant to exclude other areas of research. Basic research will always have the potential to lead to unanticipated transformative results. I'll now turn it over to Greg Baroza, who will begin a more detailed discussion of the science priority questions. Next slide, please. Great. Thank you, Michael. So shown here are the 12 questions determined by the committee to be poised for major advances over the next decade. The questions are arranged roughly in order from Earth's core to the clouds and embrace several themes. Questions span geological time, connections between Earth's surface and interior, the co-evolution of geology and life, and the effects of human activities. The questions themselves connect to one another, highlighting the many ways in which different components of the Earth's system connect and interact. So now we'll give a brief overview of each question. Next slide, please. First magnetic field is essential for life because it keeps the solar wind from stripping away the atmosphere. It's an ancient feature measured in rocks over 3 billion years old, yet it's changeable, reversing polarity a few times every million years. It also changes in strength on human time scales, which impacts navigation and satellite communications. The field is produced by fluid motion through a geodynamo in Earth's liquid metal outer core and requires tremendous energy to maintain. So where does that energy come from? A consensus has emerged that it arises primarily from the freezing of the fluid outer core onto the solid inner core. However, extrapolation back in time indicates the inner core is less than a billion years old. So if not via inner core freezing, how was the magnetic field produced over most of Earth's history? Would such a change in driving mechanisms be detectable in the rock record? This leads to our first priority question. How is Earth's internal magnetic field generated? Next slide, please. As humans explore the solar system, plate tectonics has emerged as a feature unique to Earth. Plate tectonics frames nearly all geological phenomena from the crust to the deep interior and provides basic controls on Earth's atmosphere and oceans. It underpins efforts to understand the physical processes that determine the surface deformation and magnetism responsible for geohazards, the storage and evolution of elements critical to biological activity in modern society, the evolution of life and biogeochemical cycles, long-term climate change, and the extent of flooding due to present-day sea level rise. Although it provides this unifying framework, we lack a fundamental understanding of when plate tectonics developed on the Earth, how it developed, and why it developed here and not elsewhere, leading to our second fundamental question, when, why, and how did plate tectonics start? Next slide, please. Certain elements have been dramatically redistributed in the Earth at different times in its history, resulting in major changes in the composition of the atmosphere and oceans with consequences for the evolution of life. Minerals that host these elements are transformed by processes related to fluids, to melts, and to deformation, and we need to understand these processes to understand the global cycling system, including how life and minerals have co-evolved. Recent work has clarified the cycling of water and carbon in the Earth, including mechanisms and time scales of cycling between surface and deep reservoirs. The next decade, we'll see innovative research on elements that are critical for the technological, energy, and other needs of society, as well as for creating the conditions for planetary habitability, which leads to the urgent priority question, how are critical elements distributed in Earth? Next slide, please. Earthquakes are a sudden onset geohazard that pose a profound and ongoing threat to lives and property. They are understood to occur as sudden motions of the Earth caused by rapid slip on planar faults. However, recent observations have revealed that earthquake rupture is geometrically and dynamically complex at all scales, and that Earth deforms through ordinary earthquakes, through slow earthquakes, and through diverse mechanisms that are completely assizing. This deformation occurs over a broad range of temporal scales from the seconds associated with earthquakes and rapid slip to millions of years for plate tectonics. The diversity of deformation styles has caused geoscientists to reconsider the very nature of earthquakes and their dynamics and led the committee to pose a deceptively simple question that we are now prepared to address in full, what is an earthquake? Next slide. Volcanic eruptions also pose a grave threat to society and are among the most spectacular and complex manifestations of the dynamic Earth system. Eruption of large igneous provinces that have occurred in Earth's past are far larger than any historical eruption and are linked with some of Earth's most significant mass extinctions. Somewhat smaller, but still massive and catastrophic eruptions have occurred on magnetic systems such as Yellowstone caldera. These eruptions are more frequent, yet they still dwarf any eruption in the historic record and would have horrific consequences for the modern world. Volcanic science stands poised to anticipate the duration, magnitude, and intensity of future eruptions through physics-based modeling of all key processes that drive them. Such models would be informed by the wealth of data that new technologies provide, much of which is now available in real time. This led the committee to pose a fundamental question poised for progress as what drives volcanism. So now I'll turn it over to Kate Huntington, who will present the remaining questions. Thank you, Greg. Great progress has been made in understanding Earth system interactions, linking climate, tectonics, and erosion to understand how they shape and are dynamically influenced by Earth's surface topography. This progress has revealed unexpected connections and brought into focus key scientific questions that must be addressed to understand them. For example, how to rock mechanical properties, short-term actors such as storms, and the rheology and dynamics of Earth's interior influence landscape evolution, and how do landscapes co-evolve with the atmosphere, cryosphere, sea level, and life. The relevance to humans is also more urgent than ever, with critical need to quantify topography's influence on ecosystems and hydrology in a changing climate, and its role in physical processes that underlie hazards posed by earthquakes, landslides, floods, and tsunami. New technology for measuring topography over geologic to human time scales now makes it possible to address these key scientific questions and their implications for urgent societal challenges. The stage is now set for breakthroughs and understanding the interconnected Earth system by asking, what are the causes and consequences of topographic change? Next slide, please. The critical zone is the reactive skin of the terrestrial Earth, which extends from the top of the vegetation through the soil and down to the bottom of actively cycling groundwater. Critical zone properties are driven by the interactions of tectonics, climate, topography, weathering, erosion, and life that over geologic time turn dense bedrock into a water-storing and chemically reactive environment. This frontier area of investigation, which is so important to life and to Earth processes, has enabled pioneering studies of water, nutrient, and carbon cycles and the connections between vegetation and the deep subsurface. But while we know the critical zone is influenced by climate, only recently have we begun to identify the extent and ways in which the critical zone also exerts influence on climate. The land is not just the bottom boundary condition for the atmosphere, but an integral part of the climate system. Moisture, groundwater, and energy and gas exchanges between the land and atmosphere are all influenced by the critical zone. We therefore pose the question, how does the critical zone influence climate as a vital component of understanding how the Earth system has responded to and will respond to global change? Next slide, please. Society is already experiencing major impacts from climate change, and such impacts will be defining issues for the 21st century. Earth scientists are integral to providing deep and compelling scientific context to these challenges. To anticipate future changes, we must understand climate change across the spectrum of time, from deep geologic time all the way to real-time investigations of modern climate change. Evidence of long-term and rapid environmental change in Earth's history helps us to understand Earth's system dynamics and provides magnitudes and rates of change, which are crucial for prediction. In particular, studying regions that are particularly vulnerable to rapid and or sustained transformations, like coastal zones and high latitudes, is also key to advancing our ability to project changes and adapt to them. Earth science is a critical lens through which to study recent and ongoing changes, particularly in transdisciplinary partnerships, to address issues such as geo-health, disaster risk, or urban regeneration and development. Given the rate of accelerating global warming presently occurring, there is a great urgency in posing the question, what does Earth's past reveal about the dynamics of the climate system? Next slide, please. The water cycle is vital to all terrestrial life, and now there is increased urgency to understand how the water cycle is changing due to the influence of people and climate change. How will climate change affect the nature and frequency of extreme events like droughts, floods, and fires and their impacts on human populations? Understanding current and future changes to the water cycle requires fundamental knowledge of the hydro-terrestrial system and how the water cycle interacts with other physical, biological, and chemical processes. The coming decade will see significant advances in modeling hydrologic systems from aquifer to atmosphere and in innovative research that recognizes the inseparability of the water cycle and human activity. Exciting research frontiers include the water cycle response to rapid changes in the cryosphere under sustained global warming and processes that integrate climate, shallow oceans, global water resources, and people. The urgent need now to understand the dynamic interplay of water through the Earth's system and within the context of rapid modern changes compels us to ask the question, how is Earth's water cycle changing? Next slide, please. To date, the Earth is the only known planet with an active biosphere. This biosphere has evolved and interacted with the chemical makeup of Earth's surface for billions of years, cycling elements through microbial activity and processes like photosynthesis, producing greenhouse gases, and influencing the chemistry and mineral diversity of Earth's surface. The next decade will bring advances in the mechanistic understanding of these biogeochemical cycles and the history of Earth as a habitable planet. Challenges will include relating the diversity of microbial communities, genes, and enzymes, rather than just species alone, to the community function, resilience, and geochemical rates of processes. To quantify biology's role through time in mineral formation and weathering, in carbon cycling, and in the composition of the very air we breathe requires a new understanding of biogeochemical cycles, leading us to pose the question, how do biogeochemical cycles evolve? The diversity of life on the Earth is a major characteristic of our planet, and yet we do not yet know how it came to be. Biodiversity varies over time, environment, and geography, including major extinction events. Understanding how and why it varies is central to many Earth life interactions and feedbacks, and it requires quantifying evolutionary rates as well as the timing and rate of geological processes that shape the environments in which evolution occurs. Recent developments make this an especially promising time to advance the study of biodiversity. Biologists and Earth scientists have recognized the need for a melding of data and methods from both fields to understand present-day biodiversity, its history, and prospects for the future, particularly in light of ongoing environmental change. The rapid growth of community-curated data platforms is empowering the quantitative analysis of millions of individual biodiversity observations and their integration with other big data, leaving us poised to address the question, how do geological processes influence biodiversity? Next slide, please. Over the last century, earthquakes, tsunami, volcanic eruptions, landslides, and flooding have killed many millions of people and caused many trillions of dollars in economic losses. Rapid urbanization in susceptible areas and increasingly connected and fragile urban infrastructure are magnifying the risk to human life and property. As a result, the expected severity of impacts from geohazards is rapidly increasing. Climate change will increase the frequency and consequences of extreme flooding as the water cycle changes and rainfall in hurricanes become more extreme. There's an urgent need to reverse these trends. Recent analyses show that fundamental aspects of geohazards need to be better understood through earth science research. Even the most thoroughly studied regions, for example Hawaii for volcanoes and Japan for tsunamis, continue to reveal unanticipated results regarding the frequency and severity of catastrophic events. Fundamental science questions must be addressed to have a predictive and quantitative understanding of geohazards to provide the essential foundation needed to reduce risks and to save lives and infrastructure. This leads us to pose this last grand challenge question for the next decade. How can earth science research reduce the risk and toll of geohazards? Taken together, these 12 science priority questions represent an ambitious vision for earth science research over the next decade, motivated by both a deep curiosity about how the earth works and a compelling relevance to the life and human societies the earth supports. Next, George Garrels will talk about the infrastructure needs to make it happen. So the next several slides will describe how we have addressed task two, which has three different components. For task two A, we describe the infrastructure that will be needed to address our science questions, and this was done in the previous presentation and in chapter two. For task two B, we describe the currently available infrastructure and show how it relates to the science questions. We do this in part with table three dash two, a portion of which is shown on the right. Across the top are the 12 science questions, and down the side are the 30 different EAR supported facilities. And then within the chart, boxes and dots show degrees of connection between the questions and the facilities. And then to address task two C, we analyze the capability gaps, which we'll discuss in just a moment. Next slide, please. For task two B, we begin by describing the infrastructure that currently is provided by EAR, GEO and NSF, and also from other partner agencies, such as NASA, USGS, DOE, etc. This information was gathered from agency websites and documents provided by agency representatives from descriptions of NSF awards, which are publicly available, and with input from facility operators. This information provides the basis for describing connections between the available infrastructure and our science questions. One of our challenges in analyzing these connections was to evaluate how well the available infrastructure serves the need of the various research communities as we found that the information needed to perform this type of assessment just was not available. And so this leads to our first recommendation, which is that EAR supported facilities and the entire portfolio of EAR supported infrastructure should be regularly evaluated using stated criteria in order to prioritize future infrastructure investments, potentially sunset facilities as needed, and to adapt to changing science priorities. Next slide, please. We noted that our analysis of infrastructure is somewhat different from previous discussions and that we focus on people as an essential third component. Instruments, of course, refers to the hardware used to make the observations necessary for earth science research. Cyber infrastructure refers to the software and hardware tools that are needed together, archive, analyze, integrate, and model data and metadata. And by humans, we refer to the people who design, build, maintain, operate, and continually improve these hardware and software tools. Describing people as an essential component of infrastructure reflects our view that future earth scientists will need new skills to develop the next generation of instruments and to access and utilize the available information in new ways. In our view, EAR has an opportunity during the coming decade to be creative and intentional in developing this expertise, such that we build an increasingly instrument savvy, cyber-capable, and more diverse and inclusive workforce. Next slide, please. The next several slides will present a set of possible new initiatives that address task 2C. We note that these initiatives are closely tied to the science questions. These initiatives originate from EAR research communities, as expressed in white papers and reports, responses to our community questionnaire, and also presentations and discussions in our public sessions. And we note that pursuing these initiatives will require a new source of funding and or the difficult decisions that go along with sunsetting current programs. Next, I'll hand off to Andrea Dutton, who will present our possible new initiatives. Thank you, George. The recommendations for new initiatives are summarized over the next two slides. I think we're on the wrong slide, though. Can we please go back? These initiatives were chosen because they provide potentially transformative capabilities to address the science priority questions and the infrastructure needs presented within the report. Three of these initiatives, creating a national consortium for geochronology, funding a U.S.-based, very large multi-angle press user facility, and establishing a near-surface geophysics center are well developed, with years of community involvement and support, including white papers, endorsement in previous community reports, and or proposals to NSF. Given their level of development, the breadth of science priority questions that these initiatives can advance, and their ability to increase capabilities, access, training, and or support to the community, the committee recommends funding these three initiatives if possible. Another initiative, known as SC4D, which is an initiative to investigate the processes that underlie seduction zone hazards, has had strong community support in recent years, including a large NSF-supported workshop and three funded research coordination networks, but is still developing its program plan. Hence, the committee recommends continued support of this development. Next slide, please. Three other possible initiatives listed here, continental drilling, the continental critical zone, and physical earth archives, have various levels of community engagement and program development. While these initiatives all have promising potential, they would require further exploration through broad involvement of the earth science community via workshops, white papers, and coordinating mechanisms such as RCNs. Next slide. Now I will turn to summarizing the recommendations that fall under the area of cyber infrastructure. In short, EAR faces a challenge in keeping pace with the rapidly evolving computational landscape. Cyber infrastructure challenges include things like data management and archiving, meeting fair data standards, and evolving computation needs. Hence the overarching recommendation here is that EAR should initiate a community-based standing committee to provide advice regarding cyber infrastructure needs and advances. This will be especially important in the coming years as EarthCube comes to an end. With respect to the issue of fair data standards specifically, the scientific community at large is increasingly recognizing the benefits of open science principles and of adopting fair data criteria, that is data that are findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable. While some communities within EAR have begun to work towards this goal, there remain challenges in scaling this up to a consistent division-wide practice. Hence the committee recommends EAR should develop and implement a strategy to provide support for fair data practices through community-based efforts. Next slide, please. Finally, I would like to turn to human infrastructure. This is an issue that is absolutely fundamental to the success in implementing the vision put forth in this report, yet it poses some challenges in developing and sustaining a sufficient capacity, expertise, and diversity. Preparing the next generation of Earth scientists for an increasingly technological field will be enhanced by strengthening financial support for technical staff in a way that is competitive with other opportunities that they may have. To that end, EAR should commit to long-term funding that develops and stains technical staff capacity, stability, and competitiveness. The next item is one that appears at the bottom of the list, but make no mistake, if we are to make true progress in the area of diversity, equity, and inclusion, then we must elevate this as a priority within the Earth science community. EAR has responded through multiple initiatives to address this issue, yet Earth science remains one of the least diverse STEM fields with respect to underrepresented minorities, and gender diversity drops off significantly with increasing career rank. In short, the representation and inclusion of diversity in our discipline continues to impede scientific progress and education. Hence the recommendation here is that EAR should enhance its existing efforts to provide leadership, investment, and centralized guidance to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion within the Earth science community. Now I will hand off to Donna Whitney, who will discuss partnerships and provide some final thoughts. The next two slides summarize conclusions and recommendations related to task three, which asks the committee to comment on how EAR can use partnerships with other units of NSF and other agencies, domestic and international, to complement and leverage capabilities and expertise. There are already many examples of EAR cooperation within and beyond GEO, and we've highlighted some of these in the report and identified other possibilities for consideration. EAR needs to be nimble and flexible in order to support innovative and impactful research that is interdisciplinary and that may cross geological or geographical boundaries. It's very clear from community input that the boundaries between disciplines, including those represented by EAR programs, are and should be more blurry and permeable than ever. New or strengthened partnerships within divisions of GEO and with NASA, DOE, and the USGS, among other agencies, would help the EAR support researchers working across Earth system boundaries that should not be hindered by administrative boundaries. We want to note that this is already occurring to some extent among EAR programs and across GEO, but that there is need for more innovation and flexibility. Next slide. Based on these conclusions, the committee recommends increased collaboration across and beyond GEO and NSF, so that, for example, boundaries between land and ocean, polar and non-polar regions, and land and atmosphere are not obstacles to research. The research that we envision in the science priority questions encompasses basic and applied science and a vision of integrated research that will advance fundamental understanding of the Earth and provide tangible benefits to society. Next slide. We'll leave you with four final thoughts that reflect some key points of this study. First, EAR's mission is more important and urgent than ever, as the report describes in detail with examples and ideas. Second, the 12 science questions illustrate the significance, breadth, and magnitude of the challenge and opportunities for Earth science research in the next decade, although these are, of course, just some of the many research questions that are poised for significant advance in the next decade. Third, implementing cyber and human infrastructure recommendations will require a commitment of funding and significant changes to the Earth science community, which needs to be more diverse and inclusive and to be trained in key skills necessary to advance research. Finally, EAR already leads investigation of Earth as an interconnected system and is poised to launch the next decade of innovative research. This report highlights the urgency, significance, and impact of research, education, and training supported by EAR and concludes with optimism for what Earth science researchers have accomplished, what we can do in the next decade with the support of EAR. Next slide. One more slide. Thank you. Thank you all so much. We'll now open it up for the Q&A. As a reminder, just click the Q&A button on the bottom of your screen to submit a question. It looks like our first question is, your report calls this an all hands on deck moment for Earth sciences. What do you mean by that? I think we'll ask Andrea to answer that. Great question. So this statement that we need in all hands on deck, it comes from the recognition of the societal relevance that runs through many of the science priority questions and not just the relevance, but I think the increasingly urgent relevance. And I know there are a lot of Earth scientists listening to this webinar today and we're all probably hyper aware of how much Earth science is now permeating our news feeds on a daily basis. But it also represents this integration of sub-disciplines that we're going to need everyone to tackle these questions. Even if you just choose a single question, there's so much integration through all aspects of Earth science. So realizing this vision is going to depend on scientists who are intellectually and demographically diverse, who are individual investigators, as well as those participating in larger research groups and teams and networks, and also those who have expertise in analytical, computational, and field based methods. So this really is an all hands on deck moment in our view. Andrea, our next question is, I do not see any questions that directly connect geosciences with human health. Was this considered? I'll ask Kate to answer that one. I think Donna is poised. I think Donna is probably... Okay, Donna, why don't you take that one? Sure. Yeah, it's definitely there. It's in a number of the questions explicitly. It comes up in conversations about geobiology, water, climate, and it's also in the critical elements question with a very specific mention of connection between needing to understand your chemistry and human health. So it's definitely there. Thanks, Donna. Our next question is, did the group discuss the role of citizen science efforts to help address any of the 12 questions? Okay, I think I have this one right. Kate, will you take that one? Sure. Thanks. So yeah, this is a really great question. And I think it's really roven into the report in terms of how this idea that this is a moment where we really need diversity and inclusion and the voices of everyone to address these challenges. So we're thinking in terms of how these getting an inclusive representation in how we look at science to have the potential to transform what we study and how we do it. This can unlock new perspectives and create new ways of framing our research questions. For example, by building opportunities for citizen science and as well as for things like making information more accessible to decision makers and the public. So we think that as we have more inclusion in academia, our scientists are really going to be able to engage more deeply with effective communities and solve those issues of critical societal importance. Everything from communicating seismic hazard along the west coast or mitigating sea level rise for Gulf Coast communities. And so this idea that the field of our sciences will benefit from increasingly diverse perspectives, including citizen science, is that it's important just as substantially as our field will benefit from advances in computational geoscience or higher precision instruments. Great. Thank you, Kate. We have another question that's in a similar vein to that one. Societal acceptance and use of the earth science knowledge resulting from our research is changing and it is becoming apparent that achieving better scientific literacy requires new approaches to engagement. So in what ways do the committee consider these challenges or consider EAR's role in increasing the broader societal impact of the proposed investments in earth science research through these new initiatives? Well, I think we talked a fair amount about trying to get our how to get a message across to the broader audiences. So that's one answer. Donna or Kate or Michael have any additional comment on that? Sure. I mean, just briefly, the report I think highlights how it's, you know, our ability to address these fundamental science issues and unknowns that underlie things like hazards or accessibility to resources in this changing world. All of that is only useful to the extent to which that we're able to disseminate that knowledge and implement it and use it for policy making and for changing the lives of everyday people in our nation. And so that is certainly a sentiment that I think rings loud and clear in portions of the report, including our vision for what we think the contribution, the critical contribution earth scientists can make over the coming decade. Thanks, Kate. All right, our next question is, what changes do you think are required in business as usual in the EAR community? I'll try that one. We, you know, the academy does not want us to tell EAR how to do their job. We do allude to, in several places, the idea that I think one of the words we use was nimble that in terms of the increasing interdiversity of interdisciplinary diversity in research, that it's important to think about the the boundaries that might prevent proposal funding of a proposal that crosses several disciplines. So as I say, I think it wasn't our job to tell EAR how to do their job, but we do allude to sort of, you know, improved ability to break down stovepipes when necessary to support high quality research. And I'd be happy to have anyone else jump in if they think that they have something to add to that. Yeah, I, if I may just jump in. This is great. So I completely agree with what Jim said. I would say another example is in having to do with data and having to do with computing. So the committee heard about and identified a number of issues related to sort of keeping up with the developments in technology, in particular high performance computing, computational science, and the need to develop deeper partnerships with people who do that as their main line of work. It's essential to what, to really parts of all of the questions that we covered. And the way things are being done now is not going to get us to where we need to be. So they're, you know, we made some recommendations along that line forming a committee to sort of keep pace with the changing landscape. Thank you. Next question is, how do you view the collaboration between divisions within NSF, GE, and are there strategies that need to be developed so we can better address these challenges? I think it's similar to the last question, if I understood the question right. Greg, did that ring a bell with you? Yeah, I could add to that. It does have overlap with the last question. I would say also, you know, we come out strongly in favor of partnerships with other federal agencies, other state agencies that have, you know, overlapping interests, and also with international programs. I mean, we should take full advantage of the, you know, setting the whole earth with our international partners. I'm not sure if that's addressing the question and sort of expanding it beyond NSF, but it's not just within NSF. Oh, we also do have a place in the report where we talk about how we need ways to, for example, in the interaction between the ocean and the land, you know, we need ways to cross the shoreline. And we need ways to fund research that has really interesting ideas on how that interaction works. And there are comparable things. I think in the critical zone discussion, there's the discussion about the importance of the critical zone to the flux of material to the atmosphere, including gases and other elements. Thank you both. Could the committee elaborate more on the need for a very large multi-annual press facility? That sounds like George to me. Is Steve on the panel here? He may be on the call. He's out on the panel though. Okay. So I'll just jump in and say that quantifying the physical and mechanical properties of rocks, minerals, and melts is a cornerstone of EAR research, but the U.S. still lacks certain technological capabilities that are needed to synthesize, not develop samples and to conduct key physical properties and deformation experiments. So we see this as technology that's lacking within the U.S. arsenal for high pressure studies. And we think that this is something that NSF EAR should pursue. Okay, great. Thank you. Did the committee consider any connections with the social sciences, especially as they relate to geohazards? Well, there are inversely all of the questions. There are discussions on the societal impacts and the role of the research in addressing societal needs. And so that would be a good place for direct cooperation with other parts of NSF that are concerned about that. Anyone else want to jump in on that one? Yeah, this is great. I'd say we talk about it explicitly in question number 12 that is reducing the risk and toll of geohazards. It's laid out right there that without that element we will not succeed. And just to point out, it comes up everywhere. For example, even in the critical zone question, the idea that to tackle the problem of the influence of the critical zone on climate, it's going to be earth scientists, biologists, climate scientists, and social scientists who are all going to need to work together to build collaborations across several NSF directorates, geosciences, biological sciences, the social, behavioral, and economic sciences as well. Our next question is, could you talk a little bit more about the national consortium of geochronology? How do you envision that working facilities would include? George, do you want to take that one on? You have to unmute George. Sorry, so I'll just start off with a little perspective that early on in the process, one of our committee members made the observation that previous decade reports, and bros and bros, you may know those acronyms, tended to present information in a spatial framework. And then as we began to mature our science questions, it became apparent that a lot of these questions were poised because of new opportunities to determine the timing of events and the rates of processes in the past, and also kind of combined with that the need to make predictions about when events will occur and what the rates and processes will be in the future. And so this brought to kind of focus the importance of time in our study as indicated by the title of the report as well. The consortium that we imagined putting together would be able to do several different things. I think one of the most important challenges for the consortium would be to deliver the geochronologic information that is needed by earth science researchers, but we also need to be able to develop new techniques, new instruments, new capabilities within geochronology. And so the idea is that we would have a consortium which consists of the lab operators, the people who generate geochronologic information. These would be single PI, geochronologists, and also larger facilities. Working together with researchers who need geochronologic information, and also working together with NSFs, sort of the three members in this consortium. And there would be four main goals we would try to be able to generate the geochronologic information that researchers need in a timely and cost effective manner. The geochronology labs would need to be able to provide the information needed above, described above, but also develop new chronologic instruments, methods, and applications. We would want the members of this consortium to commit to fair data policies for all chronometers, and also develop computational tools so we can process information a little bit better. And we also need to invest in improved education and training by geochronologic theory and practice such that we have a new generation of highly diverse cyber savvy geochronologists and researchers who can effectively use this geochronologic information and also a better public understanding of why geochronology is important for societal applications. Thank you, George. Our next question is, with recent pushes to enhance research transparency, data availability, and outreach in many instances, did the committee discuss the role of geoscientists in producing accessible and open science in years to come? Andrea, is that related to the FAIR? Yeah, there was a recommendation that is specifically focused on this issue of FAIR data, data that's findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable. And this is something, as I'm sure many of you know now, is now being mandated by some of the big journals that are out there. And it also increases the longevity of your own data and all the investment that EAR is making into collecting these data, if other people can find it and use it as well. And I think that the more individual researchers do this, they will see the value in making their data available in this way. So this was a focus of recommendations specifically. But also we talked about, you know, some of the other issues that were brought up in that question, outreach, which was also brought up in one of the earlier questions was something that definitely came up in the report. And, you know, it's no longer enough for us to do the research and just expect people to understand it and know what you really need to bridge that gap. And so this plays into the question before about involving social scientists, is how best do we communicate this? And what are the problems in getting people to understand the relevance of this to their lives? And so that will be critical as well. And that's also addressed in the report. Thank you. Thanks, Andrea. Our next question is on a bit of a bigger scale. But what do you want the Earth Sciences community to know the most about your report? Well, I think, I think if you look at the, I'll try to answer and then maybe Greg or Kate can jump in as well or Michael. The, you know, what we really, really spent a lot of time on with the questions and then developing those and making sure that they were based on solid, that it was solid basic science, but also all the questions are somehow linked to a societal need. The information that would be obtained by trying to answer those questions or working on those questions would be critical to many issues that face, face humans today. And, and, and are directly relevant to their well-being. So that's one area. The other is time, you know, we, the name of the report, sub name of the report is earth and time. And that's an important message and that we wanted to get across that that as someone mentioned, I think Greg mentioned it earlier, that, that there is a other reports focused on spatial spatial variability and space. But we really felt with the new technologies that are now available that time was an important focus for this report as well. And maybe Greg, Kate or Michael, do you want to jump in on this one? I'll jump in a little bit. I think the question was what would, what would we like earth scientists to know about this report? One thing I would really like everyone to know, I mean, there's a group of 20 of us who spent a year and a half writing this report, but I really would like our colleagues to know that the, this was a consensus report based on extensive input that we received from the broad earth science community. This was not our pet ideas or anything like that. We really, really tried to sort of scour the community for their ideas about where the field is going and integrate that into this consensus report. Yeah, if I could add to that, I just would like the, you know, our community to appreciate how intellectually compelling, exciting and important the work we are doing is and not to lose sight of that, not to sell it short when you're talking to other people about it. I hope that comes through in the, in the report. And I'll just say that, although, you know, the world has been profoundly disrupted, disrupted in recent months. And yet the overarching perspective of this report remains one of optimism. And I think it's still rings true. We are ready to embrace this, this idea of being able to understand earth as a interconnected system and really understand the wondrous nature of our natural world. At the same time, that pursuit is intimately linked and sort of inextricable from the potential we have for advancing what we need to do to help society. And so the fact that we we are now really poised to advance and do both in such exciting ways, like Greg says, is really special that we can embrace both that wonder of the natural world aspect, as well as the critical insight and information we need to for the future of modern society. Thank you all for those comments. So we have time, I think, for two more questions. Next one is beyond earth sciences, science and technology are evolving. For example, we are presently in the midst of a digital revolution with the increasing prominence of machine learning and deep learning approaches in dealing with large complex data sets that are prevalent in earth systems. Does your group consider four side analysis of what future earth science might look like? Greg, why don't you take that one? Yeah, absolutely. So we talked a great deal about that data, about how we can use techniques of AI like machine learning to extract as much information as we can from the data sets that we have, which are poised to grow tremendously sensor technology. So yeah, absolutely. There's a lot to be done there. And the committee recognized can't do it all ourselves. It's a rapidly changing, rapidly evolving field. We have to do all we can to piggyback on all the great developments that are going to help us answer the questions we need to answer. But we can't stay at the cutting edge of such work by ourselves. So we need to develop partnerships and we need to deepen those partnerships from where they are now. I think that's the answer to the committee. And if I could add to that, I don't think from our vantage point today, we can see all the ways in which this is going to go in the next 10 years. And that was part of the reason for the recommendation that there be a standing committee for NSF, particularly with respect to cyber infrastructure, and particularly in light of the fact that the EarthCube initiative is coming to the end in the next couple of years, which has been a geo level initiative, right? But it still affects EAR. And so the idea of that is that we can change and evolve and respond as things change over the next 10 years that we can't necessarily foresee today. That's a great point. So we already touched on this a little bit earlier with Michael's comments. But our last question today is, how were the thoughts and needs of the Earth science community taken into account by the committee? How did you go about gathering that data and processing it in your analysis? Kate, why don't you take that one? Sure. So of course, our committee represents a broad range of disciplinary expertise and the instrumental computational and field methods. Remember, it's not just those of us who are on your screen today. This is the shared consensus effort of a large group. And that large group dived into really omnivorous reading of white papers and reports over the past couple of decades, as well as review papers and literature to ensure that not just the communities who are already organized and having produced, you know, had workshops and produced reports in recent years, but they're cutting edge ideas and really the pulse of what they're talking about was incorporated. We also had a community online survey that had hundreds and hundreds of responses. We conducted listening sessions at many, several national conferences. We had open sessions of our committee meetings that included invited speakers. For example, we had one focusing on early career professionals. We targeted groups. I had one targeting groups that are specifically multiple ones can target targeting groups that are historically underrepresented in science. We had sessions with people from industry, different geographic areas and different types of colleges and universities. And with this, you know, our great, our sort of look into the literature deeply and broadly, as well as our reaching out to all of these sources, as well as a large number of colleagues in many fields, mid career and other levels. This report is, like Michael says, is really a report that does not belong to the committee, but to the earth science community. And I think really does capture what we need to do to satisfy our curiosity about these things and really the cutting edge of what the breadth of the community is really looking for and the challenges we're prepared to face. Thank you so much, Kate. It looks like those are all the questions that we have time for today. Once you exit this webinar, you will be redirected to our report page. And again, you can access the committee's report for free at any time from National Academy's press. That's NAP.edu. And with that, I'd like to thank our speakers for their time today. And thank you all again for participating and joining us. Adios.