So we move to something completely different now, right? Stratosphere. We have an example. This advances your slides, also. This advances your slides. Before I open this up, I just wanted to announce people that, at the end, I included more slides than I know I'm going to get through, and I didn't do that because I was trying to pack things in. I did that because there are some things that I won't touch on, but I thought were important for you guys to all know about. And what I did was, at the end of my talk, I added all of the references. So if you see them, you can, because I think these are being made. The slides remain public and available, yeah? So then you can go and find the relevant papers and go to the direct sources. Just be aware of that. So show of hands. How many people have worked on the stratosphere, or have even read about stratosphere? OK, like three, right? OK, so I work at this place called the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. And when I first came there as a postdoc, it took a lot of abuse, ongoing. I endure a lot of jokes about that these are names for the stratosphere, the so what a sphere, the ignorosphere, the sponge layer, that it's the rigid lid for Matsuno modes. I think largely just telling me that my work is irrelevant. But that turns out to not be the case. So why should you care about stratosphere? Well, this is just one example. So this is by a paper by Hansen that just came out recently. And they're exploiting what's called a nudging experiment. And essentially what you do is you take the European Center climate model, or S2S model, and you nudge particular portions of the atmosphere to perfect conditions. So it's like saying, if we had a perfect tropics or a perfect stratosphere, what would the effect be on our predictability? And I show three panels here. The black line is the interim and the other is forecast model for 30 plus some years of data. And this is the NAO index for two types of nudging experiments. One is where they've taken observed SSTs and nudged tropics. So that's essentially, I don't know, 15 South to 15 North. And you take winds, temperature, all those sorts of things. And you say, OK, we got that perfect. What's going to be the extra tropical response? The other is a nudged stratosphere. So they pick some layer above which the model is getting perfect stratospheric variability. And what you'll see here is this is the correlation between the NAO for when you get perfect tropics. The correlation is significant, and it's 0.51. However, if you get perfect stratosphere, you get a correlation of 0.72. So the point being there, that despite being a sponge layer, you can get, you know, harness a lot of predictability out of knowing things out of the stratosphere. So I sort of assumed that most people don't know a lot about the stratosphere. So I'm giving a lecture on Wednesday that's going to really go through the particulars of teleconnections and stratrope coupling. But today, I wanted to just kind of go through some basic dynamics of the stratosphere and what's called a sudden warming, sudden stratospheric warming, because that's probably the most impactful type of event whereby you get communication between the stratosphere and the troposphere and enhance predictability. And I'm going to go through just kind of some basics of the triggering mechanisms for how these happen and some basic kind of deterministic predictability. Because when you have one of these warmings, you get maybe 60 days of enhanced predictability. So in my second talk, I'll talk about predictability of sudden warmings in a more probabilistic seasonal sense. But today, when I go over the basic dynamics of warmings, I'm going to talk at the end, I'll briefly touch a bit on the deterministic predictability. All right, so the stratosphere in some sense is maybe a little bit more simple of a, you know, I tease the people that I work with that make fun of me that the troposphere is kind of like this noise maker and you can't figure out what's going on. In the stratosphere, we have, I can distill it down to, in some sense, these two pictures. So essentially the interesting things that go on in the stratosphere is during the winter. We have what's called the Charney-Dresen condition, which essentially says if there's Easterlies, planetary waves can't propagate up into the stratosphere from the troposphere. But in the winter, we have westerlies and the window opens up and waves are allowed to propagate up into the stratosphere. So in the absence of those waves on the left panel here is what a temperature in January might look like for what's called radiative conductive equilibrium. So this is just the temperature that would occur if we didn't have any waves and essentially you get a very cold, cold and, you know, warm, more warm over the tropics. But in reality, this is what the actual temperature structure looks like. This is just from error interim. And really what you see is that actually over the equator, things are colder than they would be in radiative conductive equilibrium over the equator and warmer over the poles. And this is essentially due to the effects of waves propagating up, breaking and driving this equator to pole over turning circulation, which causes adiabatic cooling over the equator and adiabatic warming over the poles. So the balance essentially that we have here in the stratosphere is the atmosphere trying to relax to this very cold pole that sets up this circumpolar vortex. And then we have waves propagating up from the troposphere and breaking in the stratosphere and warming the stratosphere and slowing down that circumpolar vortex. So what does that look like? So what I've done here is I've taken a video and this is potential vorticity on an isentropic surface, maybe in the mid stratosphere. And this is what as the fall progresses from say October to December, this is what the spin up of the vortex looks like. And where the warm colors are is, you can just think of as warmer and where it's blue, it's cold. And the black line kind of gives you an idea of where the edge of the polar vortex is in the stratosphere. And kind of one of the things that you can notice right away is there's a lot of deformity to the vortex. And that's the effect of these Rossby waves that are propagating up from the stratosphere or from the troposphere and breaking on the periphery of the vortex. So these are the waves that cause kind of slowing to throw up the vortex and cause it to not be quite as cold and strong as it would be in the absence of those waves. Those waves turn out to be the portion of the dynamic that causes sudden stratosphere of warmings that are a part of the evolution of the sudden warming. And that is really the, this is the system that we wanna understand if we wanna understand predictability in terms of the stratosphere. Very pretty, right? You just like stare at this for like hours. It's like looking at the cream in your coffee or something like that that my wife teases me about. So I should point out that when I talk about the polar vortex, I'm talking about stratospheric portion. And Darren Wall kind of made this clear because at least in the US that the polar vortex has been talked about a lot in the news. And the point they were trying to make is that there's two really certain polar vortices, one in the troposphere and one in the stratosphere. And you can kind of see what these two look like. And the way that I kind of schematically think about this in my head is you can kind of think about these two vortices somewhat independent, but maybe they're coupled by some sort of string and as they both wobble around, they kind of interact with one another in sort of a loose manner. So if we perturb one, it's gonna do something to the other, though the character of that perturbation is an area of ongoing research and debate. But just know that when I'm talking about the polar vortex today, I'm largely talking about the stratospheric one and its impact of perturbations to that on the troposcuro cortex. So as I mentioned, the most impactful types of events in the stratosphere what are called sudden stratospheric warmings. And when one of these events happens, essentially it's defined by the following criteria. We take a latitude circle where I've drawn the red line around 60 degrees north at about 30 kilometers in height. What we need to see is the pole to equator temperature gradient switch from west release to east release. And we are, I'm sorry, the zonal wind needs to switch from west release to east release and the pole to equator temperature gradient needs to reverse. And I'll show exactly what that means. It's just so you're getting an idea of how big of an event this is. We're talking about over the course of a week, you're talking about the whole column inside this circle flipping by like say 40 degrees Kelvin. So we're talking about a huge dynamical disruption to the stratosphere. And they come in two flavors. On the left here I've showed kind of what a typical vortex looks like. Largely centered over the pole, it's pretty circular. And then on the left, the center and the right are two examples of what a sudden warming look like. And we call them two kinds. One is a displacement and that's because we essentially just take vortex and we just push it off the pole, okay? And the reason you gotta think when you take a zonal average, you're sampling it's not that the vortex is completely obliterated necessarily but when you take that zonal average around that circle, the wind is easterly in that averaged sense. It's not that the vortex itself has become easterly. The other kind of sudden warming is what's called a split and during one of those events which one could argue are a bit more violent is the vortex gets split into two pieces and then they start counter rotating. So, because I like seeing these things I think it's good to see what they look like visually. This is a PV map of a displacement.  The other type of event as I said is the split and this is in 2009 and for this one we're gonna see the vortex kind of get squeezed into a kind of a peanut shape and then be ripped apart and essentially completely obliterated. So, you could imagine that dynamically the difference between having this beautiful vortex centered over the pole like this and then having absolutely nothing throughout the whole column and the stratosphere, you can imagine that that has a, is somehow gonna translate some sort of large impact to the troposphere. Just so everyone knows, there's also some, those were on horizontal surfaces, there's vertical structure to these types of events and they are particularly dependent on one other's displacement or whether it's a split. For displacement, these on the right here, you see these are, the colors are two different levels and what you see is when that vortex gets pushed off the pole, that happens more strongly at upper levels than it does at lower levels. So it's really got like a first bear clinic vertical structure. Splits on the other hand, when the vortex rips apart like that and starts counter-rotating around itself, those structures, those two daughter vortices have largely bearer tropic structure. So they, that what happens at one level is happening through the whole depth of the atmosphere. So just to kind of summarize, there's two types of warmings, the displacement that's pushing it off the pole and the split where you rip it apart. They have a distinct vertical structure and from a kind of a predictive standpoint, one of the conditions we sort of wouldn't wanna know well how predictable are sudden warmings and when I say that in today's talk, I'm gonna be talking in a deterministic sense. So are there conditions that enhance the wave forcing? So this is the forcing that causes one of these events or might there be stratospheric basic states that are conducive to one of these types of events happening? So kind of the traditional theory goes back to Matsuno in 1971 and the idea here is that all we need to do is one of two things. Essentially you need to generate enough wave activity in the troposphere so that we get this huge wave that propagates into the stratosphere and that disrupts vortex and two, there's this notion of what's called preconditioning. So might there be basic states in the stratosphere that are more receptive to huge pulses of wave activity? So how does this, how do they kinda envision this working? So as I mentioned before, there's what's the Charney-Dresen condition and it just says that there's a wave propagation window such that winds have to be westerly greater than zero but less than some critical wave speed. So essentially we have waves propagating up and if that pulse is large enough, it gets into, it hits a critical line in the upper stratosphere say and it breaks and it reverses the winds from westerly to easterly and when that happens, you're now negative so there's no, the waves can't propagate any higher now so your window is closed and this just keeps happening at lower and lower levels and the cascade moves downward. So this is the critical layer cascade that Matt Simmel was getting after. So that critical layer, wave absorption is nonlinear but the propagation of those waves to that critical level is pretty much a quasi linear or linear phenomenon. So then as I mentioned, how do we trigger this critical layer cascade and the two questions are generating enough activity or focusing that this is the preconditioning idea. So evidence that supports this anomalous wave forcing type of idea, this paper by Lorenzo and Darren, Lorenzo Pavani and Darren Waugh in 2004 it gets cited a lot and you can stare at this plot if you like in your free time but I can just tell you what the message is here. They picked 100 hectopascals and for the North War heat flux that's essentially the waves coming through the 100 hectopascale surface in the lower stratosphere and they correlated that with the 10 hectopascale NAM and what they found is that that correlation peaks for about 40 days of integrated wave flux. So the idea there was is if we have periods of anomalously high wave flux integrated over a 40 day period that's the most strongly correlated with variations in the NAM. Okay, so that's. You want to explain what the NAM is? Oh, I'm sorry. So the Northern, thank you, the Northern annual mode. So depending on who you ask, that's the Arctic Oscillation, North Atlantic Oscillation, essentially the NAM is kind of a measure of the strength. You can just think of it as the strength of the vortex, right? So strong or when the NAM is in one phase of the other, at least in the stratosphere you can think of as a strong or weak vortex event. So the idea here being that if you have a lot of wave activity the vortex is very weak and vice versa. So in that traditional kind of theory preconditioning what happened in the following sense. So on this upper left panel here I've shown what kind of say the meridional PV gradient looks like under climatological conditions and you can think of that PV gradient as your wave guide. And I've drawn a red line here showing where you might expect your waves to propagate given that basic state and kind of the tendency is the waves propagate up and they due to curvature effects amongst other things they propagate equator word and they break somewhere not near the pole. And that's not conducive to breaking vortex down. So the idea is that if you can somehow change the PV gradient and then focus the wave activity pole word you're gonna, for a given amount of wave flux coming up from the troposphere you're going to disrupt the vortex more strongly. And kind of the idea here is is if you just take the absolute vorticity gradient the way that you might accomplish this is a precursor wave that propagates up and it breaks. And if we look at the dashed line as an initial absolute vorticity or PV gradient structure and then we add a perturbation that's a wave breaking that mixes low PV air pole word and high PV air equator word. In the end if you then recalculate what the gradient looks like the vorticity gradient you get a sharpened edge just like this. So here's kind of a weak PV gradient and here we have a sharpened PV gradient. And that's so if we have a wave that comes up breaks it reshapes the PV gradient and so then subsequent waves that come up now are experiencing a sharper PV gradient that's helping to focus things forwards. You can see this in simple shallow water models. Essentially if we start an upper left hand panel with kind of uniform PV field and then we go left to right across the screen and you start driving the model and you have a wave breaking event on the periphery of the vortex and by the time that's all said and done we see that the PV field has been reorganized and we have this nice sharp PV gradient that's tight up against the pole compared to what we had at the beginning. Okay, now I'll just leave this quote up here. This is from that Pobani wallpaper and it's just making the key point therefore that they were trying to make which is that these events are driven by anomalous wave activity generated in the troposphere. So that's kind of the traditional view. So that's not the end all story for how warmings are generated. So there are alternative views on this. Picking up on the resonance ideas I've given you a snapshot of the literature here. I would encourage everyone to go out and read it. I won't lie it's thick and it will take some time to, it's like chewing cement or something like that. I've tried to condense it down to kind of its essence so you can just get a kind of a flavor for it because I sort of feel like it's not appreciated and one of the reasons why it's not appreciated is it requires a non-trivial amount of mathematical sophistication and sometimes that doesn't translate in those papers to physical insight or kind of the general populists like us. So hopefully you can walk away from this knowing a little something about these other types of ideas. So there's two types of resonance. There's internal mode resonance and external mode resonance. The big thing to take away here is that there would be different notions of how the warming is triggered. In particular in a resonant framework you do not need an anomalous amount of wave activity. This is an internal nonlinear dynamic to the stratosphere, troposphere coupled system but the big story is you don't need to generate, you don't need a huge blocking event in the troposphere or something like that to drive wave activity. Likewise preconditioning can mean something very different or at least the interpretation of what the PB gradient looks like can mean something very different. Another set of papers that I'm not gonna go over are essentially Eleanor Neal's set of papers and these papers are very underappreciated. They don't get cited much. He's got some work going back to the 80s but if anybody's interested in sudden warming I would really encourage you to read those papers because even if it turns out that they're not right his papers are full of wonderful physical insight and they're very good to read even if you don't dig deeply into the details. So I included those series of references to be complete. So these resonant ideas while they don't need anomalous forcing you do need some amount of forcing, right? You need a wave present there to begin with. Just wanna make that clear that the stratosphere does not generate this wave activity initially on its own. You need some amount of wave activity coming out from the stratosphere. That's certainly key. And I'm gonna also discuss the notions of precondition how they differ in these types of scenarios. So as I mentioned there's two types of resonance. One is what's called an internal resonance and the way to think about this is you somehow build a high latitude wave cavity. So this would be on the right would be the north pole and the left would be the equator. And if we get conditions right essentially what you do is you stop the waves from being able to propagate the equator word. They have a reflecting surface or some such type of barrier in the upper stratosphere. And essentially you can think about this as reflecting the wave back down. And if the upward and downward components of that wave become in a phase they resonate with one another and you get this nonlinear interaction that causes a warming. So there the anomalous wave flexes that you see in the stratosphere are a function of that resonant interaction between the upward and downward components and not just a huge pulse from the troposphere. So that's internal mode resonance. External mode resonance is slightly different. So the way to think about this is if on the left panel we start with fixed topographic forcing that for this case I've shown a wave number two forcing we just generate a stationary Rossby wave that has a wave number two structure. Now on top of that if we have a free barotropic mode that is a traveling wave that's traveling around the periphery of the vortex their kind of idea is that the PV gradient and the width speed of the vortex itself determines the phase speed of that traveling wave. So that determines how quickly this traveling wave is winging around the vortex. So you could think about it like this if you look at the middle panel and you see this structure that's kind of oval shaped you can imagine that kind of whipping around vortex. And if we tune, we change the PV gradient and the wind speed such that we affect the phase speed of that traveling wave to the point where in the frame of reference of that stationary forcing you can see how we have plus plus minus minus if that traveling wave's wave number two pattern lines up it becomes stationary in the frame of reference of the fixed topography those two things line up and it's no longer traveling those two waves start resonating with one another and you get an explosion that triggers one of these warrants. As I mentioned in that sense of time I'm not gonna go through Elin O'Neill's work on vortex interactions but it's a very cool piece of literature and I don't wanna downplay it I just don't have time to go through today but as I said if people are interested in some warrants I would encourage you to read some of his work. So to summarize we have two kinds of ideas sort of three rather. We have kind of the traditional idea which is anomalous forcing and then we have the resonance ideas and then we have vortex interactions. So these are all kind of theoretical notions. What does the data tell us? Well there are some things that we can look at in the data to give us a clue. So if warrants are triggered by anomalous forcing then we should be able to trace large pulses of wave activity from the troposphere to the stratosphere, right? And this should happen at linear group velocity timescales to generate a wave it propagates up to the stratosphere and that should happen at some sort of to the critical layer where it triggers that downward critical layer cascade and we should be able to see this. So what do we see? So this is for the 2009 split sudden warming that was the second video that I showed you and what I'm plotting here is December through January and these are the 45 to 75 degree north averaged vertical wave fluxes in height and what I've superimposed here so you could think of each of these shoots going up that's like a pulse of wave activity. And what I've superimposed on here but with the arrows are standard group velocity timescales. So if we're thinking that things are propagating up at the linear group velocity timescale then we should get a nice strong match between the slope of that arrow and the slope of those wave fluxes going into the stratosphere. What we see for the early December late December events is that it works really beautifully. During those early events we see wave pulse coming up from the troposphere and propagating to the stratosphere at very beautifully what we would expect for standard group velocity timescales that are about five to seven kilometers per day. However, these right to flux events and I hope you can see the contours here these are the events that were associated with the warming and what we see is if you look at the contours is they don't follow the group velocity timescale at all. When something starts occurring here at 100 to 200 hectopascales it shows up almost instantaneously at all heights. Okay, so that doesn't look like linear propagation of an anomalous pulse. This is more when we have one of these resonant interactions we expect the wave energy to kind of explode all at once throughout the depth of the stratosphere. So this kind of gives us an idea that maybe the traditional ideas are not quite right. So essentially how could we look at, I showed you before these ideas of preconditioning of wave focusing, I showed you the PV gradient that was very sharp and indeed for the 2009 warming we did have this very sharp PV gradient. So what that means is in the traditional sense is instead of waves propagating a equator where it here I've shown what's called the refractive index for the DJF climatology in the republic, refractive index essentially just tells you where waves are gonna propagate. So for, you know, this could be, this is that idea of wave focusing in the traditional sense. Whoops. However, we also see, we can interpret this in terms of what it might mean for resonance. This very strong sharp PV gradient can be related to, as memory I told you about the external mode resonance. The phase speed of that traveling wave is a function of the vortex edge PV gradient. So as I changed that vortex edge PV gradient I bring that traveling wave, I slow it down so it becomes stationary in the frame of reference of that topographic wave.  Unfortunately, when you start looking at refractive index, I mentioned a wave cavity and I don't know if you can see it here, but this is the region of wave propagation kind of like in that diagram I showed you. And this looks very beautifully like a wave cavity, i.e. the wave would come up and reflect back down and the regions of white it can't propagate. So when it comes up reflected back down it can't go a equator word and we kind of hold it in. So it also looks like conditions are right for internal mode resonance, right? When I first started looking at this I went to a gentleman named Alan Plum and I was, he's a very sharp dynamicist and I was hoping that he could look at this and they're like, oh no, you need to look at this piece of information to help you differentiate between those two types of resonance. And also you could tell me it was, oh no, it looks like resonance but I don't have a way to tell you which one it is. So that's still an open question. However, all of these things are consistent with the ideas of resonance. Okay, so that's for one event. Can we extrapolate this to a larger series of events? So we're gonna do the following. We're gonna take error interim data for 30 plus years, 35, 36 years. And we're gonna do two things. One is we're gonna define an anomalous wave event as the de-seasonalized 10 day average vertical EP flux which is just, that's just the amount of wave activity vertically propagating in the stratosphere average between 45 and 75 north at 700 hectopascals. And that's, it gives you a time series, right? So that's a time series of essentially wave generation at 700 hectopascals. It's how much are we generating in the lower troposphere that's gonna then propagate in the stratosphere? And we define anomalous meant by two standard deviations. We do the flip side for anomalous winds. I'm not gonna go through that, but know that that result, you get a consistent result and I'm about to show you no matter how you look at this. Okay, so I'm gonna step you from left to right. Just the pictures consistent between the top and the bottom. The top is just for wave number one events and the bottom is for wave number two events. So that's essentially not necessarily displacement but more or less you can think about it like that. And what it's showing here is the black contours are the 10 hectopascal upward wave flux and the colors are the 10 day average zonal, not 10 hectopascal, the zonal wind tendency for all heights. And the one thing you need to know here is that we have taken these quantities and we've divided them by their standard deviation that's level specific, okay, right? And we've done that because one standard deviation of wave flux in the troposphere looks very different than one standard deviation of the wave flux in stratosphere. So you really wanna do this level by level. In essence, what that does is where you see contours, they're significant. So this little hatch mark here is we do correlations with respect to wave events as I define. So that's 700 hectopascals and these are forward and positive and negative lag. And essentially, as I said, the contours are the wave flux and the colors are the change in the wind, right? So during that time period for all the wave number, one large flux events, this is, we get this structure, you see wave activity and the zonal wind co-locating with one another, which is not surprising because the waves are driving the change in the wind. However, if we look, if we separate by wave events that started in the troposphere that did not produce strong decelerations in the stratosphere, what you see is that for wave events where there was no strong deceleration in the stratosphere, you look at this as the tilt here and essentially it's like looking at the plot I showed with the group velocity vectors. For those events, those wave events that started 700 hectopascals and propagate up, you get a nice clean linear group velocity propagation time scale into the stratosphere, but they don't cause a strong change in the forcing. However, if we look at the difference between events that do cause strong decelerations versus those that don't, the difference is that the wave fluxes are anomalous in the stratosphere, but not in the troposphere at all. Not only that, you'll notice that whatever happens in the lower stratosphere, it immediately happens throughout the depth of the stratosphere. And so this is offering another view that it's not just that 2009 warming that I looked at, it's essentially the bulk of all events is that you generate some amount of wave activity and then something nonlinear like resonance happens in the stratosphere and boom, it explodes and it happens at all levels. Why are these differences, are the mean states different or why is this different? Why are the waves different or is the mean state different? That is a open question. As I showed some of the mean state conditions, this is just for one event, you do see a strong evidence of the mean state being different, like the formation of a cavity or something like that. That's an open line of research right now. In fact, this paper we just published it this year. So this is just, I guess these ideas, these resonant ideas have been around for a long time, going back to the early 80s, but they've actually just started to be kind of brought up more recently. And we, in this paper, the whole idea was to just look at the data and see if the data supports one or the other. But as far as taking it beyond that, that's an open area of research. So the one thing I would like to point out here is that that's kind of the composite view, right? So only, it's a kind of takeaways from that, is only 11 of the 53 wave events in the data record, two standard deviation wave events in the lower troposphere are associated with a wind event. If you flip the coin and you define wave events and you get a similar view. So you say, well, only 11 of the 32 strong wave events in the stratosphere are preceded in the wind events in the stratosphere are preceded by a strong wave event in the troposphere. And in terms of sudden warmings, it's only seven of the 28 warmings in the data record are associated with anomalous wave events. So what does that mean? That means that kind of the on aggregate, most sudden warmings are not caused by anomalous generation of wave activity in the troposphere. But that doesn't mean that not all of them are. So if you look through every event, there are certainly events where you've been able to, there's a block or something like that, that generates a ton of wave activity and you can trigger a warming like that. But in general, that's not the case. And that has implications for both the deterministic and probabilistic predictability on seasonal time scales, right? How are we doing on time? What are we? How long have I been yammering? It's 120, so yeah. What time did I? It's just 10 minutes. Okay, yeah, no problem. Because I can, I mean, I don't know what time I started, but I can, I can. I think, 10 minutes? I can make it short. So this is a paper by, that just came out by a co-author of mine and essentially this is one of these nudging experiments and it just hits home kind of some of the topic, some of the ideas that I just put out. And essentially the idea behind the paper was can you nudge the troposphere to be identical and then run ensembles to see if changes to the stratospheric basic state like you're asking, do they matter? So you nudge from essentially 10 hectopascals or I mean, 10 kilometers down. So the whole troposphere is identical in all of these experiments. The difference is, is that 20 days before a warming, you perturb the stratosphere to wind a little bit. And essentially what you see here are our time series of the wind evolution at 60 north of 10 hectopascals. And this is for essentially, they took the model and did a free run, found some warmings, you pick a single warming and then you run ensembles of that warming where the troposphere is nudged. The red lines show ensembles that with the perturbed stratosphere where you got a warming and the blue lines show where the perturbation in the stratosphere to the basic state meant that you didn't get a warming. And essentially when you look at the wave injection, so this is the wave flux between 45, 75 north that set a latitude on a wave flux coming up. And what you see here is for the red lines where you had a warming versus the blue lines where you did not. And this is up at 100 hectopascals or let's see, that's 10 hectopascals, 100 hectopascals and 300 hectopascals. Essentially what you're seeing here is that despite the fact that what's coming in from the troposphere or 300 hectopascals is identical, all you gotta do is bump the stratosphere and you can get a very different set of occurrences. And that tells you something about the fact that the nonlinear dynamics in the stratosphere and the basic state are important. It's not necessarily the injection from below. Another way to look at this is to look at the coherence. So essentially these are plots of height and frequency and essentially what Alvaro did was he said, well let's pick two levels and let's look at the coherence of wave activity with that level with all other levels. And the top panel, the left panels are the 300 hectopascals and the right panel is 100 hectopascals and therefore, whoops, did I, oh these are for the two different types of warmings. And essentially what you see here is that the coherence at 300 hectopascals, so that's in the lower upward troposphere, lower stratosphere, depending on your latitude, the coherence of wave activity is rather weak with the stratosphere. It's not coherent with what's going on above. It's more coherent with what's going on below. If you pick 100 hectopascals, there's little coherence below with wave activity at 100 hectopascals with what's going on in the troposphere and there's a huge amount of coherence with what's going on in the stratosphere. Okay, so what is that telling you? So if you recall in that Pulvanean wallpaper, they said they correlated 100 hectopascals with the wind in the stratosphere. What this is telling you is that that's essentially correlating the event to itself. They're taking 100 hectopascals and saying the wave activity that's coming up is strongly correlated with the wobbling of the vortex. What we're saying here is that that level is internal to the event itself. So whatever nonlinear dynamic is going on in the stratosphere, that's generating one of these events, if you pick 100 hectopascals, it is the event. So you have, if you wanted to say something about what's coming in from the lower stratosphere, you need to pick a level that's lower, something like 300 hectopascals, at which point you don't get any coherence with what's going on above because it's dependent on the stratospheric nonlinear interaction. So just to summarize, sudden warnings are not typically associated with anomalous troposphere flexes. The stratospheric basic state strongly matters. Sudden warnings have vertical wave flex signatures of some sort of resident or vortex interaction dynamic. The 300 to 100 hectopascal region seems to be kind of a crucial layer for determining whether one of these events happens or not, not so much of what's going on in the troposphere. And the deterministic predictability limit is somewhere in the seven to 10 day range. Now it's a little bit longer than in troposphere, right? In the troposphere, I don't, you know, 10 days is probably asking a whole lot out of a forecast system model. But because of radiative damping timescales, things like that, the stratosphere, that gets stretched out a little bit to about 10 days. So in terms of seasonal predictability, that's interesting because if you have 10 days of predictability on predicting one of these events, and then once an event happens and you've got 60 days of anomalous weather in the troposphere, it gives you something into the future that you can use. So with that, I could take any questions.


Ah, clwrwch gael y Maen Ym Llywodraeth yn fy ysgolwch yma ar ôl sydd yn fawr, a'r Llywodraeth wedyn yn gyfu'r fawr. Felly mae'n gweld er mwynhau, ac mae'n gweithio'n ddiweddio yn cydweithio'r mai'r gerveis i eu drafyn gyffredigau. A oedd yma'r Gweith yma. Dwi weithio'r gweith yma. mae'n gyfnod o lanes i gweithio i gael a'r newid yr angen. Mae'n ddweud am gweithio a gweithio'n ymwinellion mwy o~~~~ bydd i gion ei gweithio i gweithio sy'n gweithio iawn, maen nhw'n ganw'n ymddangos, felly'n gallu'n cerddio'n gweithio mynd i gael eich gweithio'u gweithio. Mae'n ddweud iawn o'r ddweud ymddangos i chi ddweud. Mae'n gweithio a'r gweithio a'r gweithio. y ffocws yw i adeiladau o'r ffordd i'r ddiweddol gyda'r ffordd yw'r rwyf ar gweithio a chyflosio ar gyfer sefyddiol, gyda'r ffordd i'r wlad o ddiweddol, a'r ffordd i'r ddiweddol, i'r ddiweddol i'r ddiweddol eich bod yn yr Aelodol Llywodraeth. Felly, rydym nhw'n gweld i'ch gilydd, rydym nhw'n gweld i'ch ddiweddol, a maen nhw'n gweld i. Am ystod, a beth yw chwaith i yw ddwy'n peth ychydig, a dweud mwyaf a chweithio gael gweithio gweithio gweithio gweithio gweithio gweithio gweithio gweithio gweithio gweithio gweithio gweithio gweithio gweithio'n eifried. A os ydych chi'n dweud, mae hoff hon eich mynd i gweithio imheithio gweithio. So, mae hynny'n gallu gweithio i gweithio. pan gallwch yn cael y brifysgol iawn i chi gael eu cyflwyno yn fynd i'r cyflwyno arall, ac mae'r cyflwyno yn rhan o'r cyflwyno arall. Mae'n mynd i'r cyflwyno arall. Mae'n mynd i'n mynd i chi'n mynd i'n cyflwyno arall, mae'n gwybod i'n gwybeth i chi gael eu cyflwyno arall a'r cyflwyno arall neu'r cyflwyno arall a'r cyflwyno arall. First of all, I'd like to ask Branca to come on board and to introduce herself please. Hi everybody. I wish you all happy International Women's Day. I'm glad that I could join this discussion and thank you to Hillary and Joe for organising this every year in a different way. But I hope this discussion will be very successful. So, just to introduce myself at the moment, I'm Secretary General and I'm glad that I can work with the families team and to improve in all aspects of our work. And to help microbiologists all over the Europe. I am coming from Belgrade, Serbia, University of Belgrade and I work in the Institute of Molecular Genetics and Genetic Engineering. And of course I'm molecular biologist, microbiologist working on secondary metabolites of streptomises, conseptomises and recently I started to work also in environmental microbiology. But what I would like to stress at this point is that I was the director of the Institute for 12 years and even longer I was the head of laboratory. So coming from a former socialist country, we had equal opportunity both boys and girls in terms of education and I'm really proud to say that let's say in our institute something like 90% of employees are women. And in many institutes and universities women are at the position of directors and deans. So in that term the situation is good in Serbia but we will see later on where the obstacles are. So that's for now from me. Thank you. Thank you very much, Branca, and welcome. Could I turn next to Allie please? Hi, my name is Allie Hughes. I'm originally from Ireland and I am now doing my PhD at the University of Stratford in Scotland, focusing on marine biotechnology and drug discovery. I'm just in the last few months of that now so I'm finishing off at September 2021. I'm also an editor and a social media manager with Women in Ocean Science, which is an international community supporting women working in marine sciences and an early career research with the Scottish University Life Sciences Alliance. Excellent and welcome to you, Allie as well. Can I turn next to Diana please? Hi everyone. Happy International Women's Day. Thank you so much for having me. My name is Diana Gisby and I'm a first year PhD student at Newcastle University. I'm currently studying sugar breakdown and bacteroides in the low lab and I'm originally from Kenya, but as you can tell from my accent I grew up in Scotland and that's where my law for science began. So I chose to do a microbiology degree at the University of Stratford and that led me to do my PhD. I also run a blog where I talk about some issues that black women and retina face science as well, lifestyle and well-being as well. So yeah, thank you so much for having me and I can't wait for discussion. You're very welcome as well Diana. Could I turn next to Sylvia please? Hi everyone. Happy International Women's Day. My name is Sylvia and I'm originally from Greece, but currently I'm based in Aberdeen in Scotland. I am a postdoctor researcher although I'm a chemist by training, I have shifted into microbiology. I work with the marine secondary metabolites. Currently I'm working on a more of an environmental microbiology project working with cyanotoxins at Robert Gordon University here in Aberdeen. As I said I'm originally from Greece but throughout my PhD and my career in academia I moved around quite a bit so I worked and lived in Ireland, the UK and the United States. And except science I'm also very interested in science communication and public engagement and I have been involved in several events. And mainly I'm interested in mentoring schemes to support especially younger female students that would like to follow a career path into science. Oh that's excellent. Thank you again. You're very welcome to join in this as well Sylvia. Then our last guest, last but not least of course, is Egli please if you could introduce yourself. Hi everyone. Happy International Women's Day from Vilnius Lefhaimia. And I am Angela Las Tarskina. I am the director of the Institute of Biosciences here at Vilnius University. And my institute belongs to the Life Science Centre to the big department and I am the head of the smaller part of it. And also I am the member of the board of Lefhaimia Microbiological Society and responsible the head of the FEMS education group in Lefhaimia Microbiological Society. And my research is actually I'm working pretty much in the manly field kind of in the electroporation application of the electroporation for the inactivation of microorganisms. Working mainly with the skin, biopatogenic yeast and bacteria. So that's the main topic of my research. Well, thank you. Thank you all of you and it's very nice to have an opportunity to have a discussion with you as we celebrate International Women's Day right across all of the various societies within within FEMS. So as I said my name's Hilary Lapin Scott. In all of the history of FEMS I'm just the second female president to be elected. My research group works on biofilms and biodegradation of pollutants but one of my main passions is about campaigning for greater inclusion for girls and women in STEM as well. I'm from a very humble background where most of the girls would be encouraged to leave school at the age of 16 and go to work and contribute money to support the family as well.  So colleagues in this choose to challenge. There's a couple of areas I think that it would be really great to hear some of your thoughts on. So maybe we could get started on kind of a broad theme of what we feel are the challenges that are facing women in 2021 and now do we feel that's changed at all for those of us who've been working as scientists and academics for several years. What do we feel that the challenges are from that and anyone have any any thoughts that they'd that they'd like to put across please. Oh, yes, if I can turn to you first, Eglid, please. Thank you. So I think as compare the challenges because I'm not so young scientist anymore so I can remember the past so we moved a lot as a society as the women and science and we changed a lot of policies. But I think we need to continue in this field, because the job is not done yet we are treated differently. It's not so harsh anymore as it was before you know when everyone was looking at women and telling your places at home and don't do science at all. Of course we have the liberty now, but we need we still facing some challenges in the different relation towards us. If the man is coming it's kind of common sense that he knows the topic that he is the great scientist and the women need to prove it each day we need to prove that we are worth to be here and to have that position. So I think there is a lot of work in front of us for the next generation that is coming after us in order to not to have such as challenges anymore that each person should be treated equally. So I think that that's the main, not to stop in the middle of the way at the moment. Yeah, you've made some points very very compelling points there actually that women still get asked to prove themselves as well and I'll turn to Ali in a moment but I'm remembering some of the things that Branca was saying in her introduction that you know in her institution that most people are women. Even still we see where there's a very large number of women working in microbiology. Often the leadership positions are still occupied by by men and you know then it becomes a hard job to be the first woman to do fill in the dots there as well and it really becomes a challenge. Could I turn to you Ali please on your thoughts on that? Yeah, I think that we have progressed somewhat in terms of representation of women in science at certain levels, particularly at lower levels. I remember from when even I was doing my undergraduate degree a few years ago, there wasn't that many women in my undergraduate class but we now have almost equal representation in science subjects at university level at the undergraduate level. I think now we're starting to get the better representation of women at master's and PhD level. Again, I'm quite lucky to work in a department that has quite a lot of female PhD students and master's students. But as we keep going up those ranks of leadership it just gets fewer and fewer we see less and less women and therefore we don't have those role models that we need. I think we're still lacking in terms of role models, seeing women doing these positions and being successful in these positions and not being slated for it as well. I think a lot of times when women are successful and get into these leadership positions, there's a very different language that is used to describe these women compared to their male counterparts and it's very discouraging for women who are in early career stages to then want to pursue that career. It's weighing up the risks and the rewards of pursuing such a career and it's still very difficult for us to close that gap in representation as well as the literal gap in our pay. It's still an issue that we're fighting today in 2021 which is just beyond belief at this stage that there are still issues around the pay that women are receiving across the world for doing the same job as a man. I think you've made some really good points, Ali, that in most countries and in most laboratories where we see the further up the rank you go, it's kind of that pyramid still.  We've got Nobel Prize winners in chemistry for two women for the first time ever which is fantastic and delighted that they will be speaking at the conference that we're holding in June as well. I wish I can hear superb, but there's really just a not enough role models so those women who've kind of worked and worked to get right to the top of that pyramid, then I feel get asked to do a lot. So as well as the day job, they get a lot on their shoulders, you know, oh, could you be the one who does this, can you be the one who comes and speaks on this issue and that's very, very difficult too. So we do need to see successful women so that girls as well as women can look and go, oh actually, if you can see yourself at the front of a room, I think that that makes a difference. You go there's somebody who's like me for various reasons I can see myself in that person who's at the front of the room so if they can do it. And you know what, you know, I'm going to go all out for this and that we then again choose to challenge but I was very taken by also what you said Ali about different languages to to used to describe successful women. And you know, I think that's something that will pick up through our through this discussion over over the coming discussion points that we're going to raise as well. Is anything further on that. Otherwise, I'm going to move on to another important topic that we're asked a lot as well as doing excellent bench science and all of the other jobs around being a working scientist. How is it that we can expand our network as women. So I think that's useful thing to think about is if anyone has any tips or any recipes for success to think well these are a few things that I did to in order to expand my network. What is it that you feel are recipes for success there so that you know when I was at the early career stage that some of you guys are. I honestly thought it was enough to shut the lab door to get my head down on the bench and just work work at getting good papers and good output and I didn't know anything about networking and then suddenly you look up and think, you know, I thought somebody would be a journalist and would there be a chance for promotion and then you find not a chance. The networking, the, how you can then use that network becomes a recipe for success so anyone any, any thoughts on that at all on what they've done or what they've seen others do. Sylvia please if I could turn to you. Yes, so I completely agree about the network issue and I when I first started my PhD I was also thinking it's okay as long as I have my results from my lab work then I don't need anything else to get my postdoc or my future job. But this is really not true realities completely different. It's all about knowing a lot of people and not necessarily knowing the right people but because it's, it's also about being at the right place the right time. But networking meeting as many people as you can but I think that what people need to think is that we need to have a broad network so, for example, in my, in my field that I'm working in natural products is not just meeting the natural product is expansion network talk talk to people that you might not even think about talking to them because you never know where the opportunity is in the future and where like a career might lie within that network event also the most important thing as we all know is attending conferences which it is a great way of meeting people but we live in the social media era and I must say that I have met amazing people through Twitter we've never met in person but we know each other we have talked through direct messages and then I remember actually one instance that I was talking to one scientist through Twitter and then we happen to meet at the conference and we're like, oh, I know you you look familiar but we've never met. Ah yeah it was Twitter. So definitely social media channels are a way to to meet a lot of interesting and amazing scientists. Yeah, you've made some really great points there, Sylvia, thank you very much.  And actually I think this is the place where FEMS can step in a bit with the help, you know, in making that network, you know, in building some some mentoring system maybe, you know, some, I don't know some annual discussion panel like monthly, once per three months, you know, to discuss the challenges and the problems. And another thing, another issue that I want to talk about actually about when we were talking about that knowing the right people just working in the lab maybe it's going to be enough it's never enough. And it's the huge difference if you have the supervisor women, she's going to help you a bit, you know, she's going to show you the people she's going to help you to make those relationships. But as I was working and my supervisor was the man, he was doing everything instead of me. If I needed something he was making the agreements for me. It was very helpful. It was very nice. I appreciated it a lot, but I never build up my own network. And everyone knew me only as his student. He's just his PhD. And when I was coming somewhere and then introducing myself, everyone was telling, oh, I know you are that guy student. So that that is about also about opening the doors a bit for the early speech, you know, researchers and helping them a bit to move and to build up that network for themselves. So maybe we can, you know, help a bit in this. Yeah, yeah, that's some good really good points there. Can I turn to you Diana please. Sure. I really like what you said, Sylvia, but, you know, using social media and quite a lot of people are quite nervous to sort of reach out to people who they've never met before. But it's been an amazing, so there's such an amazing community of scientists all over the world on social media that you can't have access to in person. Of course, if location and, you know, in the past year with COVID we've not even been able to travel.  There's lots of people who run accounts who are able to sort of share, you know, what other people are doing in their own field or even other people's fields as well.  And there's also different networks as well. And if there's not a network in your particular field or something that you think would benefit you and other people, make one. You know, I think we need to sort of start trying to think inside the box and not have everything on a platter for us. Sometimes we just need to make the things to expand that network as well. Yeah, and just speaking to people and coming to people with propositions as well. You know, we've got an idea to collaborate on something, do that as well. Really, really good points there too. So thank you, Diana. I'll pick up a couple of them after we hear from Ali as well please. Yeah, I just kind of wanted to follow on from the sort of networking of being in the right place in the right time and utilizing social media. And I just want to say to like any woman that's listening to this stream at the minute, stop selling yourself short is probably the biggest thing that affects our ability to network. And to do that is that we are constantly questioning whether we're qualified enough for this, whether you know, should we reach out to that person are we really in a high enough position to be able to to email the president of this society or or you know someone who's in an important position. And, and I would just say just go for it.  I think particularly when you compare men and women together it's one thing that men are incredibly good at doing. I've had men just walk up to me and they have no idea who I am, but they are very confidently sticking their hand out saying hi, I am so and so this is who I am and this is what I want. And I very rarely see women do it. And I think that, you know, we are doing just as great of work and we are just as important what we have to say is just as important so stop selling yourself short. Go and send that email, go and introduce yourself to that person, go apply for that internship, whatever it is, we'll do it. Really, really good points there. We were mentioning there about you know what could FEMs do as well. Actually what I've done for about the last three, four FEMs conferences is that I run a session for early career researchers and it's about how to network and how to get the most from a conference. And, you know, this is one of the exact things that I say, don't sit there quietly thinking people will notice you because you're working hard. I did that. It doesn't get you noticed at all. It is about who can, you know, how can your advisor open doors for you and pushing your advisor your mentors on that social media like you've said there is such a good way forward. I've often, as you guys were saying, have met people at conferences. Yeah, I know you're from Twitter and it's a great way to do that. Did you have anything to add to that, Branca, at all? Not too much, you said all. I just wanted to agree with Silvia. You don't know where is your chance. So it's not important just to network within scientists in your field. It's important to go out to outreach to the popularization, to do popularization and communication in science. Also, keep in contact with your former students. That's important. They are moving, like Silvia said, from Greece to UK and then further on and they meet another people. So it's important also to keep contact with all your former students, follow their career and also make respect to your professors as well. Eagly said that some of them are nice person and network with them as well. I think we've got some really great points have come across from that. So thank you. I mean, if you think of women and all the challenges that they can have through a lifetime of working, some of the challenges are around women who are mothers and what the difficulties would be, for example, in terms of attending a conference. So I think it's a be a really good idea if we give that a bit of thought of what is it that's available because we don't want this important stages in a woman's life, but we still want that women have an opportunity still to participate in conferences and similarly that they feel supported when they wish to do that as well. Wondring Silvia, did you have any thoughts or comments on that, please? Yeah, I'm not a mother myself, but I have a lot of colleagues that they are great scientists and they have kids and they have shared some of their thoughts and concerns around this matter. So for example, when there is a conference that they would like to attend, I remember one colleague of mine, she was saying that I prefer to go, I choose a conference within Europe than an international one that might be in Asia or in Australia because knock on wood something happens, of course it's a lot harder to travel from that far away, unless whereas a European conference it means that it might be like within two maximum four hours flight away. And I understand, I understand the concern and I completely understand the logic behind it, but it's just so unfair that, for example, me that I don't have any children, I am able to go to Asia or to Australia to attend these conferences and of course these are probably international conferences so this ties back to the networking issue that we were talking about in the previous point. So it seems that I would get more chances of meeting more people than my colleague that she has decided to have a family. And I really feel it's so unfair and although there are conferences that they provide some funding, like you know the same as travel funds, there is a small grant for that but it's not always enough or is not always ideal. Yes, I have seen now that some societies offered funding for this, I think it's more common if I look back maybe over 10, 12 years of going to conferences, it's much more common now to see young children in a conference venue. It's much more common that there might be a crash facility there and frequently this is a kind of a subsidised level as well. So definitely I think here there has been improvement. Eglai, did you have any points to raise on this please? Yes, since I am the mother of two kids so I can tell everything from my own experience and actually I must be honest my scientific travels were frozen for five years. Because I got the two kids one after other and it was just impossible for me to travel. Because the two small kids at home I couldn't leave them for one week for even for four days it was challenging all the time. So of course the pandemic maybe showed us now the new opportunities to participate in the conferences remotely and it's opening the horizons a bit. But it's still like Sylvia told about conferences are about networking. So if you're going to attend remotely you're not going to get that opportunity to make some new connections. So yes, so some funding system to be able to travel with the kids maybe it would help a lot because it's not a big issue to do actually. Just a little push from the side of the funding and it can happen. Yes, I would absolutely agree with that. I had a child very, very early on when I was appointed as an academic and it wasn't possible to take any paid leave at all. I had to keep working throughout from when my son was five weeks old. And if I wanted to go to a conference which I did go in the first even in the of him being in the first year old. And then I had to get family members would come and stay at the house and help out. But it's very, very difficult still and we just don't want to see that disadvantage in women at all. Any further points on that? Branca please. Yes. We are now in a completely different situation because of this pandemic. So on one hand, this is a sort of advantage that we have online conferences, which is not the same as a live conferences when you have a possibility to meet people, chat with people, make new connections. And the other thing is that many parents are now in a very, very difficult situation because some of the kindergarten are not working, schools are not working. They have to stay at home and do parallel their own job and to take care of education of their kids because they have online schools. So it's really, really a nightmare for many parents that have young children or children that are going to school. So I think that we all hope that this situation will end soon and that kids will go to school and we will go to work and to conferences. Yes, absolutely agree. Agree with that and I know that we're all looking forward to and I hope to get chance to meet up with you all soon in person as well. One thing that's very, very much on my mind as FEMS president is about the participation and representation of women of colour as well. But also how that intersects with wider representation of women in science. So I'd be really keen to hear your points of view. Could I start with you first Diana please? Yeah, definitely. For a long time I know we've all been sort of fighting against misogyny and stereotypes of women in order for gender equality to be established in all the areas of life. And in science we've got a hugely male dominated field. However, I think what's often missed in these conversations is how race and class intersect with female representation. It's not quite outrageous to assume that these key factors almost from a barricade for women of colour to get granted equality even when it comes to conversations around gender equality. There's a very visible totem pole in all workplaces. And as sad as it sounds, it's actually one of the main reasons I chose to pursue a PhD myself. I knew to achieve the goals that I wanted to achieve. It'd be extremely difficult to do without a title to back up, my capability and all my work. So I'm very aware that equity has to sort of come into place in terms of quality. So I think women of colour, you know, unfortunately aren't afforded the same, the same opportunities in science when it comes to closing the gender gap. And that's probably why there's a 20% gap between, you know, women of colour, women of colour and white counterparts as well and the makeup of the same workforce. So the issues of race and class definitely do be discussed a lot more when it comes to gender quality. It's not enough to just say, you know, yes, it exists and there's a problem, but actually have solutions based conversations and say, you know, what are we going to do to make sure that women of colour are actually represented in the same way as white women. Yeah, yeah, you've made some really good points there around ensuring that women of colour participate as well, that they're supported to be able to, they're represented, but they're able to participate. That there's a voice that their voices will be listened to as well. And it's that role models again, if we could, you know, who can I see at the front of the room? Who can I see are the people that are, that are speaking, that are becoming role models? And it really, really makes that that bigger difference. Could I turn to you, Allie, please? Yeah, just on the back of what Diana was saying, I think this is a good time to sort of mention the theme for International Women's Day this year is choose to challenge. And I think it's very important that although we are still dealing with sexism and misogyny and gender equity issues as a white woman from, you know, from a developed country, from, you know, a rich country, I have an awful lot more privilege. And even though I think that I don't, you know, like I feel like I'm still at the bottom of the pool, but I do have a lot of privilege in my position as do other white women and men. We're not forgetting you in this conversation either. And so I think it's really important to choose to challenge the people around you to raise those voices to highlight it shouldn't just be left to black women and women of colour and people of colour to promote themselves and to fix this issue. This is this is a systemic issue that was built without their, their, their knowledge without their consent in many, many, many situations. This was done purposefully to disadvantage people of colour. And I think it's really important that we choose to challenge this and that in any situation where, and obviously this depends on people being able to use their privilege and feeling comfortable to do so. But even within your personal circles, just challenging these things and asking questions about the systems that are in place, asking questions about the curriculum you're being taught at school and whether this is a fair view that you're getting, whether there are people being left out of this narrative. And I think that's somewhere that we can really help and support other women and not just leave leave all of the work of handling sexism and racism on the shoulder of women of colour because it's a huge, huge load to carry so we need to share that out. Oh, that's such a good point, points there that Diana and, and Ali's made and you write Ali to, to remind us, those of us who are, you know, white women that we are privileged. And it is part of our job and for, you know, someone like myself, I've to recognise that being a more senior white woman as well brings brings privileges. You know, so myself and others like me, we have to challenge, we have to raise the voices as well, use your voices, call it out and absolutely choose to challenge and I think that, you know, that to me, I feel is one of the main messages that I'd like to get out of this discussion today and to highlight that because I think it's such such a key point. Was there anything else from anyone else on that otherwise I'll slide into, do you know another aspect I think that's perhaps related it's about the way women are perceived and recognised in the media but in many aspects of of our daily lives as a scientist and it's where for example we've seen that on the news and I'm thinking here from a UK perspective that very frequently when there's experts on on COVID on the TV that the men will be given no then this is Professor X, Y and Z and please speak now and turning to the females and oh now it's Paula's turn you know over to you and there isn't the courtesy of and the respect shown to what women have achieved by by using the titles and we do need to call that out as well I wondered Ali perhaps you do you have any any thoughts on on that. Yeah, I think it's a really valid point to make that that women are not given the same level of respect and I kind of touched on at the start as well about the language that is used and it's amazing how you know between a man and a woman the word changes from boss to bossy you know it's it's the language that we use it's not giving it's not giving women their you know their fair dues for the work that they've put in and I think we saw this recently with them. But when I'm going to get it wrong now the, and was it the Wall Street Journal, I don't want to throw them under the bus unfairly that published an article, you know, laughing at Dr Jill Biden wanting to use her title which she earned through studying for a PhD and absolutely has the right to use that title. And they saw that this was almost comical that you know a woman should demand respect in such a way to use her doctor title even though she's just the first lady she's just supposed to be there to be beside the president the important person in the relationship. And that's just incredibly unfair. One of the things that I love seeing on the back of that was women on Twitter, changing their Twitter handles to say that they were Dr so and so on Professor so and so hoping a few months time I'll be able to join them and changing my own Twitter handle. And I think that's really important that when when something happens where a woman is being called out and not being given the respect that she deserves that we come together as a community to support that woman to call it out and to do what we can and and something like that is quite a small gesture to do it doesn't it doesn't put anyone at home you're not opening yourself up to any particular criticism by doing it. But it's just those small gestures just to show some solidarity which I think is really important for us to support one another through this. I'm on as well and then make sure to give us a title to anyone else and just make sure to give us our credit. I think you've made some very, very good points there and I can remember actually from a FEMS board meeting. A few years ago that I when I was the Vice President, and one of the women in the room one of the women board directors made a point and it wasn't picked up. And then five minutes later, one of the men made the same point. I actually stopped the meeting. And I said, excuse me, the woman in the room there I'll call her. Ellie has made that exact point so you know why are you repeating it. That's her point of view. And you know, it's about calling it out when when we see that did you have something to add to that Sylvia please. So really great points there and what I wanted to connect this is that these kinds of behaviors and this way that women have to prove themselves that they do deserve the PhD we work as hard. If not harder than than our male colleagues because some of us had kids well in PhD or we had kids while doing a postdoc and looking for the second one so we do deserve the title but also. I want to point out that we are here to serve to serve as role models for the younger generation so they need to know that becoming a female scientist is actually worth it, and we need to change this perception of females being respected as as much as male because they're students or early career researchers that they want to follow this path, and we need to let them know that it is great to be a female scientist. Some some really really good points there. And I was thinking about this language that's used about women and thinking of my own experiences. The words like bossy used to go no, no, I'm the boss. It's not bossy I'm the boss or feisty this word it's, do you ever hear a man get called feisty.  Anyway, can I turn to you just before we move on please. I want to say a few things about that topic so actually it's about us supporting each other. And it's always about supporting and like Hillary she stopped the meeting to point it you know that the women made the nice idea and she she did it you know not that man that repeated after her. Sometimes you maybe someone is too shy to just to stop everything and to correct or something but we need to get united a bit you know in this field. And if you see the person that is too shy maybe you can just stop the meeting can tell that let's give the word to this person. Let's hear the voice of the woman because actually sometimes it's really difficult to interrupt the man, the manly society. But if you're going to be united I think everything is doable. I think that's a really good point I mean I look for ways in meetings to take some of the points that women has made and emphasize them, you know refer to them in meetings you know. Oh that was a great point that Ali made thank you very much earlier and you know just working in that way that's coordinated to give support to other women that are in the room really makes a difference and then you find more people find a voice. Just because the clock is ticking a little bit of a different issue now. And that's about when we're training our PhD students and our postdocs and then what might we do in terms of thinking about women moving from academia into industry. So that concept of thinking that there's lots of different careers. If you do a PhD do a postdoc. It's not the only one route is to stay in academia. I wondered if any of you had any kind of good examples of perhaps women who have made that change from academia to industry or you know how how might we encourage more women to think of these particular opportunities of going into, you know, working for the government or working in publishing, working in scientific writing, working for industry as well. I mean, if I could start off on that I've had actually with my various PhD students, I think 65% of my, my PhD students have been have been female and I'd a lot of the funding that I got was actually from businesses and from industry. And we had very regular reporting that there would be reports to write would be lots and lots of visitors to the lab who came from businesses and just that way of introducing your lab, your lab group to people working from different companies and get them to, you know, encourage that them and support them to give presentations and to speak and it kind of erodes the barriers between what the different jobs are. In fact, it's going on to say, as a PhD student as a postdoc you've got loads of skills that are transferable into the world of business and industry. So what we've done in FEMS is we've set up some new initiatives around policy and working with businesses. Brunker, might you be able to tell us a little bit about that initiative? Please, Brunker, about what we're doing? Yes, actually now we have a new director in the FEMS working on business and policy and we are trying to connect people from to more engage microbiologists working in the industry to be a member of FEMS. So we are trying to find a way how to engage these people. We don't know much about them, only if they are members of some particular societies, but it is important for us to know more about people working in the industry. We all know different examples. Personally, we know people who establish companies or just go to work in a big pharma company or biotechnology companies, but actually we have to network with those people and to show good examples, role models for young microbiologists, how to move from academia to industry, how they can be successful to establish their own companies. I work in a country that is in a transition and our industry is always destroyed. There are only big international companies coming now and establishing different businesses, but we need more interaction with the people who have their own ideas, own business plans. Now in my country we are trying to do this and I think that FEMS is also a good platform to establish this network across Europe. It is very, very important that women pay the role and find their piece of cake in this part of the business. I hope that with some new ideas we can come to you and see what can be done in the future. That's a really good point actually in terms of the whole variety, a new quite rightly pointed out there, Branca, that what about women being entrepreneurs and taking their science ideas and setting up their own businesses. I'm really thrilled that over the last months that we are taking this new initiative and that in the conference, our conference in June, we will be having some discussions with businesses about how to support women to be entrepreneurs and set up their own business too. But that helps me kind of slide into almost our last question and as Branca's brought up FEMS and what they're doing, it's kind of what more could women, pardon me, what more could FEMS do to encourage and support women? Do you have ideas here where you really want to push FEMS in terms of what they could or ought to be doing to make a difference? So any ways that you would choose to challenge FEMS here as an organisation, any thoughts, anything Diana, any thoughts that you think, come on, this is your old FEMS, step up? Yeah, I think definitely just exposure and opportunities being present. I think things like this conversation that we're having is amazing because we're bringing the challenges to the forefront already, but actually having things like mentorship schemes, the initiatives that Branca mentioned, opportunities to talk to business leaders, having those role models as well, their front and centre for you to speak to and see someone that you could be in the future as well. And I think it all comes down to money. It all comes down to funding and making things accessible because it would be great to be able to do things and just have the experience. But people can't afford to take time out of their research or time out of their personal finances to do things that aren't funded. So making sure that everybody and every women is able to access these opportunities is definitely the way forward to make sure that we are rising through the ranks and we have a fairer way to get to the top. That's some really great points that you've made there. So thank you very much. Have we got Ali back in the room? Hi, apologies there for that. Any other comments on terms of how we might push FEMS and challenge FEMS to do more, to step up and support, to give support to women? Any final thoughts? No? Oh yes, please Ali. Sorry, I may be repeating what some of the rest of you said because of course it wouldn't be 2021 without some technical issues. But yeah, one thing that I think is really great and that some societies have started doing is doing some of their own studies and surveys into issues that face their community. And I think FEMS is in a really powerful position to be able to do this because there's so many members societies across Europe that focus on different areas of microbiology as well as different areas geographically as well. So it would be great. An example of that is the Royal Society of Chemistry. They've published quite a few studies about, you know, they've done research into the experience of women in chemistry fields in the UK in particular I think. And that would be a really great thing to see forward as just FEMS driving some of those conversations. I think it would be a really great thing to bring forward. That's great. Thank you. Thank you very much. And then I've really enjoyed working with all of you over the last hour or so. I just thought we'd kind of wrap up this. The time's gone really quickly, hasn't it? Where did it go? It's been good fun. I've really enjoyed it. But I just wondered if each of you maybe have a final comment on on anything that's kind of been popping in your head. You haven't had a chance to say regarding this International Women's Day and and choose to challenge. So if I go perhaps to you, Branca, first, was there anything you didn't get a chance to say that you think this is really important? I think it is very, very important that we have such meetings, roundtables, and I'll be glad to receive, not only from five of you, but also from the people listening this, any suggestions, any ideas, how FEMS can impact. And improve any kind of efforts so that our community is growing and being more successful. So at the end, I just would like to thank Hillary and Joe, who is in the backstage, dealing with all this technical stuff. So thank you all. No, thank you for making that. So I was going to go around the room. So Sylvia, please any kind of burning final comment? So my final comment for today's discussion, which I really enjoyed it, and I think it has been very constructive. And I really hope that our audience is not just female scientists. I hope that there are men out there living with us, because as we mentioned before, these challenges that we are facing will not be solved just from female scientists.  So my final comment is that I choose to challenge these society stereotypes that a woman can be only a mother, can be only a scientist, can be only one thing. A woman can be anything she wants to be and she can be even better or as better as the male colleagues. So there's nothing that can stop us from pursuing our dreams and also moving forward into career, whether that's in academia or in the private sector because we're female doesn't mean that we do not stand a chance. And thanks again all of you for this great discussion. That's a great challenge. Diana, any burning comment that you haven't had a chance to say or any way to wrap up from you? I really just wanted to echo what Sylvia said, just definitely choose to challenge that narrative around who's a scientist.  But yeah, you can be anything, you can have other passions or the interests that make you you. And it's important to bring those qualities and those skills that you learn from running a YouTube channel or having a blog or being a science communicator along to your job and giving you that edge.  So yeah, that's my comment. Thank you so much for the discussion. Oh no, that's that's fantastic. Thank you very much.  So first of all, I would like to thank everyone for the nice discussion. I was so nervous at the start and the time just passed. And I'm thinking just about one thing, if you are to shy to make the huge differences, if you are to shy to, I don't know to make some huge, you know, move front or something just start from the little things. So make those challenges each day step by step and it's going to change and that's how we change the policy here in Lithuania step by step moving slowly forward and now we have pretty nice loss according to the, to the maternity lives and other policies regarding the women in science. So just start from the small things don't be shy and keep them in mind each day and then challenge yourself as well each day. So thank you very much for this discussion. I'm very happy to participate. There's some more great points there. Love it. Absolutely love it. Ali, definitely last is not least. Over to you. What's what's your thoughts please. Yeah, I think I think the choose to challenge theme is really great theme. I do also think that it does come with a little bit of a caveat in that, you know, being in a position of privilege in order to be able to call things out in that way and challenge them in a very blatant and obvious way. But, as Agli said, there's there's small things that you can do choose to challenge within your own circle where you feel comfortable and where you are respected. Choose to challenge yourself. I'm sure that there's a lot of introspection has been done over the course of this pandemic, but do continue to choose to challenge yourself as well and some of the biases that you have, the things that you can do in your life and to bring it forward. And I think we can't talk enough about the sort of like grassroot foundations and we saw it in Ireland with legalising abortion a few years ago. It all came from grassroot camp, grassroot campaign and we saw it as well in Portland during the Black Lives Matter protests last summer and just how important these small community initiatives are. There is no set that is too small when we have such massive challenges to face. Superb, superb. Look, thank you very, very much all of you. I've really enjoyed a chance to have a chat and I hope that we can meet in person soon. That would be just wonderful. So we're going to sign off now. So from all of us.