My Experience at AGU 2024

These are my own personal views and not of my employer. .

Please note that most of this blog post was written prior to the Trump administration taking office in January 2025. If you are a scientist, please consider filling out AGU’s survey on the impact on the Trump administration’s on your scientific career. https://fromtheprow.agu.org/standing-together-for-science-supporting-our-community-amid-federal-funding-challenges/ If you do not work in science but still want to provide support, please consider calling or writing a letter to your local representatives to advocate for science. My next blog post will provide some resources on this topic, and will be published within the next two weeks.

This past December, I had the privilege to attend the 2024 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU 2024) in Washington, D.C., and present my poster, “Enhancing PM2.5 Composition Estimates over North America: Integrating Near-Real-Time Satellite AOD with Chemical Transport Modeling”. Over 30,000 scientists, engineers and researchers attended this conference. This year’s theme was, “What’s Next for Science?,” with keynote talks ranging in topic from climate change action, scientific communication, and cutting-edge scientific discoveries.  

Scientific conferences such as these are invaluable for researchers, offering opportunities to share research, receive constructive feedback and foster collaboration. Additionally, they can help build your professional network, which is especially important for early career scientists and PhD candidates such as myself, as I explore postdoctoral positions, fellowships and entry-level opportunities. The exhibit hall hosted numerous scientific organizations, federal agencies and company booths showcasing their research priorities, technologies, and career opportunities. One even shared a photo op with a dinosaur! Meanwhile, the poster hall featured a vast array of scientific topics. The poster hall began with research on Earth’s core and subsurface near the entrance, transitioning to Earth surface processes in the middle (e.g. hydrology, ground-level air quality, built environment) and concluding with space and planetary sciences near the exit. There were thousands of posters available to view each day!

In addition to the exhibit and poster hall, there were numerous oral sessions occurring simultaneously. Topics were as varied as the posters, ranging from wildfires to science-policy collaboration to subsurface processes on Mars. In case this was not enough, there were different networking happy hours occurring in the evenings, providing more even more opportunities to connect. Over the next few days, I will be sharing some of my experiences in attending AGU2024.

ZooLights at the Smithsonian National Zoo

Day 0 (Travel Day):

I had an early start to travel to D.C, taking the 6am flight out of Champaign. Luckily, several others from my department were on the same flight so we helped each other make it through the very  early morning. We arrived into D.C. by 11am after a brief layover in Chicago. After checking into our hotel, I spent the afternoon touring D.C. with one of my friends from undergrad who lives in the area. A highlight was the ZooLights at the Smithsonian National Zoo, and also visiting a Christmas Market!

Day 1 (Monday):

The first session of the day started at 8:30am. After grabbing a quick breakfast in the hotel lobby, I headed over to a session titled “Re-envisioning the Postdoctoral Experience in Earth and Space Sciences Oral”. This session discussed challenges and opportunities for postdoctoral fellowships. The National Postdoctoral Association shared survey results indicating that pay and benefits remain a major concern for postdocs. The U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), AGU, and NASA shared postdoctoral opportunities at their organizations, as well as how they seek to address some of the issues raised by the National Postdoctoral Association surveys. Their initiatives include having structured programs with formalized support, pay based on location and mentoring and professional development opportunities.  

Next, I attended the session “Wildfire Smoke in North America: Distribution, Health and Policy Implications II Oral”. The toxicity of wildfire smoke is of increasing concern, as wildfire smoke exposure becomes the new normal. There is also a pressing need to extend air quality warnings and effective communication to areas that do not currently have an active wildfire but are still impacted by smoke (presented by Sheryl Magzamen) (e.g., O’Dell et al., 2021). Indeed, other presentations also focused on the challenges of transboundary air pollution, such as the Canadian fires impact on air quality in the continental U.S. (data from 2023 Canadian wildfires presented by Robert Field, who previously published on 2017 wildfires: (Field et al., 2024)) and also Midwestern cities (Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium, n.d.). Several researchers discussed the results of improved modeling tools, such as using hindcasting and Random Forest to model fine particulate matter (<2.5 microns, PM2.5) in Alaska, advances in upgrading the NOAA HYSPLIT model, and an interactive map to model active smoke events (Sonoma Technology, n.d.). Mitigation strategies were also discussed, such as how prescribed burning could be an effective land management tool to reduce burn severity and thin vegetation in areas prone to fire (Kelp et al., 2024).

After this session, I went to Monday’s Featured Plenary: ‘What’s Next for Science, Navigating New Realities in a Changing World”. The panel included journalists from The Washington Post, The Guardian and Nature. It was nerve-wracking to hear how their organizations were anticipating more attacks on journalism, particularly in science communication, to increase with the Trump administration, similar to what they experienced after he first took office. They talked about measures to protect themselves, such as taking training courses to protect their online identity. They discussed how this was necessary after Elon Musk and his supporters recently went after the Editor-in-Chief of Scientific American on the social media platform X, necessitating her resignation for the sake of her own and her family’s safety. The panelists also discussed “Sharpie-gate” as an example of the Trump administration’s hostility towards science. This incident involved Trump using a doctored NOAA-produced weather map that was altered with a black sharpie to falsely show Hurricane Dorian on track to hit Alabama. Overall this panel set a very dark tone for the next few years, and provided some insight as to how the Trump administration may continue its attacks on science and science-journalism.

After a quick lunch break, I attended the session, “Advances in Climate Engineering Science III Oral”. Here, presenters discussed topics such as marine cloud brightening (MCB), solar radiation modification (SRM) and stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI). This was a relatively new topic to me, so it was fascinating to learn about ongoing research efforts to understand and quantify how different strategies could reduce or reverse global warming trends. A member of my research group, Erin Emme, presented her research on MCB. MCB involves spraying sea salt particles in low-lying marine clouds, creating more cloud condensation nuclei for droplets to form around, making the clouds more reflective. By reflecting more of the incoming solar radiation, there is less heat that can enter the atmosphere and be trapped by greenhouse gases. Her research using the modeling tool CESM2 (Community Earth System Model 2) found that the seasonality of sea salt injections can have a significant impact on the efficacy at reducing warming. Overall, there is a high amount of uncertainty with the climate modification strategies discussed during this session, necessitating more research before deployed at any scale. This is because an impact on any region’s climate can have knock-on effects elsewhere, and without a clear understanding or framework for managing these impacts, there is a risk of exacerbating climate change inequities.  

Finally, at the end of the day I headed to the Earth Science Women’s Network (ESWN) Happy Hour at Busboys & Poets, D.C. The venue was lovely—a restaurant and a bookstore combined—definitely can see why it is a favorite of AGU attendees! It was wonderful to meet other graduate students and career professionals in attendance and learn about ESWN’s resources to support women in science.

Day 2 (Tuesday)

To start the second day of AGU, I attended “Multisector Dynamics: Science and Modeling for Societal Transformation I Oral”. Multisector Dynamics is a multidisciplinary field of research that brings together our understanding of human and natural systems. It connects researchers that work in sectors that span many disciplines such as energy, water, land and economy. One researcher from Berkely National Laboratory discussed how to create guidance on use of climate data for scientific and policy applications (Mach et al., 2024). They discussed how there is a lack of scientifically appropriate and practical operational guidance on the use of climate data, which can overwhelm policymakers in trying to understand which modeling tools to use and how many model simulations to run. Programs such as HyperFACETS and CalADAPT seek to improve accessibility of climate models for this purpose. Another researcher discussed using low-cost air quality sensors for high resolution mapping at the neighborhood scale. By engaging with the public, local knowledge helped provide more sources and understanding of patterns, and ensure air quality sensors were place appropriately (Giang et al., 2024). A colleague from undergrad, Adam Weichman, presented his research on how the politics of infrastructure investment can influence communities’ abilities to adapt to environmental change, by affecting the redistributive and response capacity (e.g., Wiechman et al., 2024).  Other presenters discussed topics such as: equity in flood risk, human behavior in climate models, drought challenges in India, and how increased shipping in the Arctic can impact air quality.  

Next, I headed to the workshop “Don’t Say DEI: Supporting Scientists in Spite of Political Resistance”. This workshop began with panelists discussing how they navigate anti-DEI attitudes at their institutions and incorporate these strategies in university decisions. They discussed the importance of building communities amongst students, and promoting outside resource groups if the university is legally unable to provide them. We then broke into discussion groups based on topics such as Career Repercussions of DEI Work, Navigating Resistant Environments, and Mentoring. I attended the discussion group ‘DEI Values in Grant Proposals’ and learned about strategies to strengthen DEI statements in research proposals and also how to navigate funding applications where at the state-level DEI is banned but federal funding requires it. Afterwards, all the groups summarized what they discussed. It was encouraging to hear how there are various professors, federal employees, and other professionals dedicated to continuing DEI efforts despite potential institutional resistance.

The keynote panel on Tuesday was the “Frontiers of Geophysics Plenary Panel: Climate Intervention Research Issues & Opportunities: Navigating a Thoughtful and Inclusive Path Forward”. Climate Intervention Research involves what is familiarly known as “geoengineering”, in other words modifying the climate to try to mitigate or reverse global warming trends, through methods such as SRM as discussed previously or carbon dioxide removal. AGU President Elect Brandon Jones facilitated this panel discussion, and introduced the AGU’s Ethical Framework Principles for Climate Intervention Research. This Framework lists recommendations in seven critical action areas:

1. Societal interest/public participation

2. Environmental justice

3. Data Principles/Transparency

4. Scaling

5. Governance & Monitoring

6. Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR)

7. Solar Radiation Modification (SRM)

   
   

These principles ensure impacted communities have a voice, equity is a major consideration in research, and transparency/communication with the public is a priority. It also ensures that climate intervention research produces data that is FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable). Panelists spanned disciplines from climatology to philosophy to oceanography. They discussed the necessity for a global ethical framework such as what AGU proposes, otherwise climate intervention decisions made by governments could be solely on a cost-benefit basis, which dehumanizes impacted communities or countries, especially as the West tends to dominate the narrative over the global South. They discussed a worst-case scenario where chaos in the climate system leads to conflict between countries. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is considering topics on climate intervention for the 7th Assessment Report. This could lead to the United Nations (UN) beginning discussion and negotiation for climate intervention, and evaluating what are the risks/costs of inaction versus action. However, there still is not enough known about the impacts on the Global South. They discussed the sustainability of SRM—if we start these modifications, who is responsible for maintaining them? If we stop enacting this measure, it can cause “termination shock” where the climate system would be shocked from the sudden halting of the intervention strategy, and the climate would begin to change even more rapidly. They stated the public should be concerned and engaged, as climate modification would affect everyone. It is crucial that nature and people are centered in this discussion, and to prevent premature deployment before the technology is ready. This was truly an insightful panel to the risks of engaging in climate intervention research and the ethical responsibilities of scientists doing work in this field.

Afterwards, my friend Erin introduced me to the delightful café, Café Maman. Their food was delicious and I bought their cookbook—I have already made their chocolate chip cookie tiramisu. I will definitely be bookmarking this place for future D.C. AGU trips!

After lunch, we attended “Featured Plenary: From the Statehouse to the Global Stage: Leading Climate Action – Governor Jay Inslee (WA)”. Governor Inslee discussed the impacts climate change is already having on Washington, such as heat waves, forest fires, drought and asthma epidemic in areas close to highways (heat waves can exacerbate asthma symptoms). He discussed how states can often act faster than the federal government in enacting climate and environmental policies, and how these efforts cannot necessarily be stopped by climate deniers in the White House. He encouraged us to develop relationships with our elected representatives, stating that scientists have more power than we think.  His tone and messaging were much more uplifting than the plenary the previous day, stating “I don’t think human consciousness will allow for its own destruction.” It was definitely refreshing to hear a politician who both appreciates scientific research and takes action to enact science-based policies!

The final session I attended that day was “Building Climate Resilience with Local Policy Action.” This panel hosted several scientists that work with local communities to implement climate solutions. The Climate Resilience Project Coordinator from the Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center at the University of Maryland discussed their efforts to support local decision-makers through supporting access to the best available climate data. They focus on being additive, not duplicative, to local efforts and let the local planners prioritize the type of data they need, such as information relating to flooding, tree canopy, etc. They also discussed creating records to enable long-term access to data, citing concerns that the Trump administration may impede data accessibility. Other speakers discussed projects such as building climate-smart economies, developing tools for resilience and mental health in response to climate stress and extreme event preparation.   

After a long productive day, we treated ourselves to dinner at the Korean restaurant Mandu. 😊 

Day 3 (Wednesday):

The first session I attended on Wednesday was “Science & Society: Science for Policy Engagement I Oral.” Presenters emphasized that policymakers need tailored presentations that are relevant, timely, concise and actionable. One page summary sheets with informative graphics are especially useful for grabbing policymakers’ attention and making your point quickly. They also advised not to use too much jargon and ensure the words you use will make sense to your audience. Additionally, we should be aware that words sometimes mean something different in scientific fields as opposed to regular use. As an aerosol researcher myself, this is something I am especially conscience of (no I do not research hairspray! Aerosols in my field refer to suspended particles or droplets in the air, also referred to particulate matter)! We also heard from a lawyer from the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, an organization that provides legal help for scientists facing harassment. Other presenters stressed the need for collaboration, and creating a cohort of experts for best policy practices on complex issues that span science, economics, engineering, etc. The president of 314 Action, an organization that recruits, trains and elects scientists to all levels of government, gave a presentation on why and how scientists should run for office. Since the organization’s founding, they have helped over 200 scientists get elected in local, state and federal elections! It was heartening to see so many scientists combatting anti-science sentiment in politics by getting involved themselves.  

I then attended the panel, “External Pressures on Science: Perspectives on Globally Changing Landscape for Science Expertise, Funding & Innovation”. AGU President-elect Brandon Jones also moderated this discussion featuring panelists from research institutes, law institutes, NGOs and industry. They discussed their efforts to navigate the changing political landscape and carry out science-based policy and research. They talked about how the overturning of the Chevron Doctrine has significant implications for the enforcement of regulations across all sectors. Oftentimes, when regulations are written, they are purposely open-ended to account for any unforeseen changes and have defaulted to experts for settling ambiguity. They gave the example of the Endangered Species Act, which protects “distinct populations” of species. There is no legal definition of “distinct populations,” and this leaves more room for the experts to determine the critical populations of different types of species. However, with the overturning of the Chevron Doctrine, it would not be the experts making this call, but instead the judges who may have little to no background on the topic. This makes science education and communication all the more crucial, particularly through mediums such as a court brief (e.g. an amicus brief). Resources for the Future, a research institute, discussed the rise of importance of the private sector in investment in clean technology, and how innovation in this sector may be driven to outside the U.S. without federal support. A senior fellow from the Council on Foreign Relations provided an alternate perspective, challenging scientists to frame climate change as specific to American interests (and American interests only). He stated this upcoming administration will not care about future climate change effects, especially not the impacts outside of the U.S. He emphasized that every country acts in its own self-interest, and at the end of the day climate and energy is not that important to the average American. He went as far as to suggest that America is better off using economic or military force to make other countries adopt renewable and low-carbon technologies rather than invest in this technology within our own borders. While most scientists in the room disagreed with these statements and the sentiment behind them, it was useful to be exposed to this perspective, as it was likely shared by some in the new federal administration.  

Next, I went to the “Agency Lecture with Admiral Rachel Levine.” Admiral Levine was the Assistant Secretary for Health in the Biden Administration, and the first openly transgender person to hold an office requiring Senate confirmation. She is also the first openly transgender four-star officer in the nation’s eight uniformed services. She discussed the wide-ranging health impacts of climate change, such as: farmers who suffer renal damage from the heat stress, climate anxiety in the younger generations, and the impacts of a melting Arctic on traditional food sources for Indigenous populations in Alaska. Admiral Levine stressed the importance of being “patient but persistent.” She discussed how change can take a long time, but it will happen so long as people continue to advocate for it. She also stated “Choose to be positive and optimistic. Pessimism leads to complacency”. In response to the Trump administration’s hostility to terms like “climate change” and “diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)”, she responded that “Changing the words does not signify defeat.” She discussed the ways where important and meaningful work can still get done, even if we have to play around with the language a bit. Her positive attitude was truly inspirational, and it was refreshing to hear this perspective from someone with such an accomplished career in federal science-policy.

After a quick lunch break, I attended the Stephen Schneider Lecture, “Good Science & Effective Science Communication.” The speaker (Peter Gleick, Pacific Institute) discussed the legacy of Stephen Schneider, a climate scientist who served as a consultant to federal agencies and White House staff under several presidential administrations. Gleick defined science as “what is” and advocacy as “what could be”, but underscored that both are influenced by values. He reiterated the importance of scientists stepping up to oppose lies and disinformation, and need to counter political interference in science. He also emphasized that it is important to find common ground and common language when presenting to different audiences, and provide them with concrete steps to take action.

After this talk, I headed over to the poster and exhibit hall. I visited different booths from National Laboratories and federal agencies to learn more about their postdoctoral fellowship programs. I also stopped by colleague Joyce Yang’s poster on about creating a peer city framework for supporting inter-city knowledge transfer on climate action. She discussed how best practices for urban climate adaptations can depend on climactic zone and city size and layout. Her research identifies cities that have these characteristics in common, and therefore these cities would be good candidates for knowledge sharing of climate adaptation strategies with one another.

I then headed to a Science Policy Networking night. I ran into some researchers I met at the 11th International GEOS-Chem Meeting conference I attended over the summer. I got a quick dinner before heading to my second networking event of the night, an Atmospheric Science Networking meet-up.  

Day 4 (Thursday):

My first session of the day on Thursday was “Wildfires in a Changing Climate”. Researchers discussed how wildfires can influence the social cost of carbon, as it is predicted that there will be substantial increases in fire-sourced PM2.5 attributable deaths (Romitti et al., 2024). Other researchers discussed the impact of wildfires on water systems (e.g., Haley et al., 2024; Thurman et al., 2023). Some presentations focused on the impact of wildfire PM2.5 on mental health (Harker, 2024), and the linkages between dementia and smoke exposure (Liu et al., 2024). One researcher examined the health effects that occur after a fire—having taken samples of homes after wildfires in Colorado and finding elevated levels of ash and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (Reid et al., 2025). These findings suggest that health impacts from wildfires can extend beyond just exposure to smoke.

Next, I attended the session “Aerosols and Chemistry in Aquatic Environments,” where my advisor Hannah Horowitz was an invited speaker. She discussed the paper that she and group member Mashiat Hossain recently published (Hossain et al., 2024). Their work discussed the role of phytoplankton emissions in the Benguela Current, a highly bio-active upwelling zone off the coast in the southeast Atlantic near the Namibia and South Africa. They found that during the biologically active season, these marine emissions can be a significant source of organic aerosol concentrations, and that sulfate is the dominant aerosol species. This work provided more insight into marine sources of aerosols at the region, impacting understanding of local aerosol radiative forcing.

After her talk, I went to “Inclusive Science Plenary: Bridging Faith & Science Communication.” As a Catholic, who attended a Catholic undergraduate institution (University of Notre Dame), I really appreciated this panel highlighting how faith communities and scientists can support one another. When I attended Notre Dame, I felt this connection was clear—I took seminars on climate and energy from a Catholic Social Teaching perspective, worked with priests in advocating for campus environmental initiatives, and took theology classes focusing on the environment. However, outside of this institution, I found it more difficult to connect my religious and scientific identities. So, this panel, with speakers representing the Evangelical, Muslim. Catholic, and Indigenous faith traditions, was especially inspiring. They discussed how faith voices and communities are key for change as they are some of the strongest advocates for action, and that bridging faith and scientific communities is largely unexplored but necessary. Faith communities are already involved in disaster relief efforts and have a deep understanding of the devastating impacts of natural disasters like floods, wildfires and drought. Highlighting how climate action can prevent or alleviate the severity of these disasters can be one way to find common ground and provide a basis for collaboration. A shared sense of awe and wonder is another trait scientists and faith groups have in common. They discussed a past successful example of science-faith collaboration, where faith and scientific leaders convened on the topic of nuclear warfare and provided a unified opposition to this type of conflict. Their advice for the most important way science and faith communities can work together for a sustainable future encouraged talking together at a deep level, including Indigenous voices, starting conversations on climate action as a way to reduce harm, creating a community of faith and science (or a multi-knowledge enterprise), building relationships of mutual trust and respect, and creating better active listening platforms.

My last session of the day was the “Tyndall Lecture: The End of Supply-side Model of Science” in which Naomi Oreskes was presenting her research. I was especially excited for this talk, after reading Oreskes’ book “Merchants of Doubt” in undergraduate, inspiring my interest in science-policy. I had the opportunity to meet Oreskes when she gave a keynote lecture at the Midwest Student Conference on Atmospheric Research at UIUC in 2023, and attend her book talk for her new book, “The Big Myth”, at my local bookstore The Literary. After this book talk, my friends and I were inspired to start a book club to read this book and organize a documentary screening of ‘Merchants of Doubt’. Oreskes’ talk at AGU encompassed the themes of her books. She discussed how scientists are taught to do “the science” and if relevant politicians will do their job and act on it. This framework of supplying science for policy seemed to work well from WWII until the ‘90s. She gave the example of the 1987 Montreal Protocol which mandated the phase-out of chlorofluorocarbons (CFC’s), where scientists did extensive studies and publicized their work, driving public awareness and political action. However, this approach has seemed to fail in recent times, especially for topics such as climate change. She explained this is because of three key assumptions of supply-side science: 1) People understand what you are saying, 2) People want to hear what you are saying, and 3) There is a level playing field. The sustained opposition from industry and politicians serve as to challenges to points 2 and 3. She argues the rejection of climate science has nothing to do with the science itself, but actually its implications. She discussed the concerted efforts of the fossil fuel industry to cast doubt on climate science and misdirect public attention. They present defense of their industry of a question of individual freedom versus central power—in other words claiming that government regulations are a slippery slope to total government control. It was enlightening to learn about how many industries have taken this approach—from tobacco to chemical to fossil fuel companies, manipulating the public to continue their business practices that caused active harm while masquerading as advocates for freedom.

After the sessions had concluded for the day, I met friends from my undergrad to catch up over happy hour. Of course, us Fighting Irish grads had to meet at an Irish pub! It was great to catch up and hear about their graduate school experience and current careers.

After catching up I headed to yet another happy hour: The LGBTQ+Allies Happy Hour and Reception at the convention center. There, we heard from AGU President Lisa Graumlich, the first openly gay president (and self-declared “queen”) of AGU. It was such a warm and welcoming environment, it was great to see AGU has fostered such inclusivity in its organization. Graumlich is also very involved in her faith community, which is why she helped facilitate the plenary on science and faith at AGU this year.  

My colleagues and I concluded the penultimate day at AGU with a yummy dinner at the hotel.

Day 5 (Friday):

I treated myself (again) to some Café Maman before heading over to the poster hall to setup my poster. My plan was to be at my poster for a couple hours, take a short break to attend my colleague Manho Park’s presentation on using machine learning to accelerate chemical transport models, then return to my poster. However, I had good and steady attendance at my poster and ended up standing there the whole four hour session! Everyone who stopped by was really kind and encouraging, and provided helpful insight and pointed me to several resources and interesting opportunities. My poster “Enhancing PM2.5 Composition Estimates over North America: Integrating Near-Real-Time Satellite AOD with Chemical Transport Modeling” demonstrated my work to use near-real-time satellite observations to scale simulated PM2.5 to better estimate chemical composition of PM2.5 in the U.S. The motivation for this work is that there is increasing evidence that the chemical composition of PM2.5 matters just as much, if not more, than mass concentration when it comes to determining health impacts. In other words, what is making up the particulate pollution in the air matters just as much as the number of particles, as different components can have different toxicities. It is crucial that researchers have effective modeling tools to represent this pollution to understand the risks to the public, and my efforts to create a satellite-chemical transport model framework aids this modeling research.

After I wrapped up my poster, we grabbed a quick lunch then attended my friend Laura Gray’s presentation. She discussed the impact of green stormwater infrastructure on reducing urban runoff under climate change scenarios, simulated by using the Community Earth System Model (CESM2).

After Laura’s presentation, we decided to do some sightseeing in D.C. I visited the National Museum of African American History and Culture. I wish I had more time to explore this museum, and learn from its comprehensive and compelling exhibits on African American history. After the museum closed, I walked around the National Mall, visiting the Washington Monument, World War II Memorial, Korean War Memorial, and Lincoln Memorial. We celebrated a successful week with sushi at Umai Nori (possibly best sushi I have ever had!) and headed back to our hotel for the night.

Day 6 (Saturday):

After a very learning-filled and busy week, we left D.C. to go back to Champaign. I spent the winter break in Ireland with family, and reflected on my exciting AGU trip.  

References*:

* Please note I tried to match the content of the presentation that I described to published work by the presenting author, who may not be the first author of the manuscript. Not all of the work presented on has been published yet, if that is the case I either cite other relevant examples of other publications by that author or their research group, or just provide a citation for the conference abstract if they have not yet published on this topic.

Field, R. D., Luo, M., Bauer, S. E., Hickman, J. E., Elsaesser, G. S., Mezuman, K., van Lier- Walqui, M., Tsigaridis, K., & Wu, J. (2024). Estimating the Impact of a 2017 Smoke Plume on Surface Climate Over Northern Canada With a Climate Model, Satellite Retrievals, and Weather Forecasts. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 129(15), e2023JD039396. https://doi.org/10.1029/2023JD039396

Giang, A., Edwards, M. R., Fletcher, S. M., Gardner-Frolick, R., Gryba, R., Mathias, J.-D., Venier-Cambron, C., Anderies, J. M., Berglund, E., Carley, S., Erickson, J. S., Grubert, E., Hadjimichael, A., Hill, J., Mayfield, E., Nock, D., Pikok, K. K., Saari, R. K., Samudio Lezcano, M., … Tessum, C. W. (2024). Equity and modeling in sustainability science: Examples and opportunities throughout the process. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(13), e2215688121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2215688121

Haley, B., Austin, W., Wachter, C., Suter, J., Burkhardt, J., Pan, S., Parthum, B., & Kolstoe, S. (2024, December 16). The Effects of Wildfires on Drinking Water Quality in the Western United States, 2000-2022 [Reports and Assessments]. US EPA. https://assessments.epa.gov/risk/document/&deid%3D363697

Harker, R. (2024). Effects Of Wildfire Smoke And Nonsmoke Pm2.5 On Respiratory, Circulatory, And Mental Health In Nevada: A Case-Crossover Study On Emergency Department Visits From 2016-2019. Public Health Theses. https://elischolar.library.yale.edu/ysphtdl/2398

Hossain, M., Garland, R. M., & Horowitz, H. M. (2024). Quantifying the impacts of marine aerosols over the southeast Atlantic Ocean using a chemical transport model: Implications for aerosol–cloud interactions. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 24(24), 14123–14143. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-14123-2024

Kelp, M., Burke, M., Qiu, M., Higuera-Mendieta, I., Liu, T., & Diffenbaugh, N. S. (2024). Efficacy of Recent Prescribed Burning and Land Management on Wildfire Burn Severity and Smoke Emissions in the Western United States. https://eartharxiv.org/repository/view/8286/

Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium. (n.d.). Great Lakes Air Quality. Retrieved January 27, 2025, from https://www.ladco.org/public-issues/great-lakes-air-quality/

Liu, Y., Deng, Y., Zhang, D., Hao, H., & Steenland, K. (2024, December 12). Disparity in the Association between Wildfire Smoke and Incident Dementia in the American Medicare Population. AGU24. https://agu.confex.com/agu/agu24/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/1629000

Mach, K. J., Jagannathan, K., Shi, L., Turek-Hankins, L. L., Arnold, J. R., Brelsford, C., Flores, A. N., Gao, J., Martín, C. E., McCollum, D. L., Moss, R., Niemann, J., Rashleigh, B., & Reed, P. M. (2024). Research to Confront Climate Change Complexity: Intersectionality, Integration, and Innovative Governance. Earth’s Future, 12(6), e2023EF004392. https://doi.org/10.1029/2023EF004392

O’Dell, K., Bilsback, K., Ford, B., Martenies, S. E., Magzamen, S., Fischer, E. V., & Pierce, J. R. (2021). Estimated Mortality and Morbidity Attributable to Smoke Plumes in the United States: Not Just a Western US Problem. GeoHealth, 5(9), e2021GH000457. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GH000457

Reid, C. E., Finlay, J., Hannigan, M., Rieves, E. S., Walters, H., Welton-Mitchell, C., Wiedinmyer, C., de Gouw, J., & Dickinson, K. (2025). Physical Health Symptoms and Perceptions of Air Quality among Residents of Smoke-Damaged Homes from a Wildland Urban Interface Fire. ACS ES&T Air, 2(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestair.4c00258

Romitti, Y., Stowell, J., Danforth, C., Patton, A., Romitti, Y., & Stowell, J. (2024, December 12). Wildfires in a Changing Climate: Modeling and Estimating Landscape Fire’s Influence on Air Quality and Water Quality and Associated Impacts on Public Health I Oral. AGU24. https://agu.confex.com/agu/agu24/meetingapp.cgi/Session/240277

Sonoma Technology. (n.d.). Wildland Fire and Smoke Sciences. Retrieved January 27, 2025, from https://www.sonomatech.com/services/firesmoke

Thurman, E. M., Ferrer, I., Bowden, M., Mansfeldt, C., Fegel, T. S., Rhoades, C. C., & Rosario-Ortiz, F. (2023). Occurrence of Benzene Polycarboxylic Acids in Ash and Streamwater after the Cameron Peak Fire. ACS ES&T Water, 3(12), 3848–3857. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.3c00246

Wiechman, A., Alonso Vicario, S., & Koebele, E. A. (2024). The Role of Intermediate Collaborative Forums in Polycentric Environmental Governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 34(2), 196–210. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muad017