Earthcube Annual Meeting call for abstracts (due Apr. 15)

With your health and safety top of mind, we are canceling the in-person EarthCube Annual Meeting, planned for June 2-4 in San Diego. Instead, we will offer a series of virtual events during the week of 15 June 2020.

It is important to reflect on the accomplishments and advances made by the EarthCube community this past year. It is crucial to provide ways for our community to connect as well as to share novel approaches used in geoscience research and the new tools, techniques, and data available to others as a result.

To allow for additional posters, notebooks and presentations, the new deadline for abstracts is April 15th. The Program Committee is re-envisioning this virtual event, tuned to remote delivery, such as a virtual poster session, online demos, and distributed interaction friendly to Eastern - Hawaii time zones and for those balancing work and caregiving.

Call for Abstracts - Due April 15 - Submit HERE

EarthCube welcomes project participants, new PIs, early career researchers and scientists, and all other interested parties to submit abstracts for oral & poster presentations, notebooks and working sessions. SUBMIT HERE

Oral Presentations
The 2020 EarthCube Annual Meeting welcomes abstracts for oral presentations.Topics may include: Science Outcomes, Community Engagement, Technology Integration, and EarthCube Project Sustainability.

Poster Presentations
As with many scientific meetings and conferences, the poster sessions will be the key communication platform. Posters will be grouped thematically, and will be presented on either Tuesday or Wednesday afternoon. The date/time of your presentation and the size of the poster display will be communicated to presenters upon acceptance. Poster presenters will have an opportunity to give a lightning talk during the Annual Meeting. The Organizing Committee members will accept only a single poster per presenter. Individuals may be a co-author on multiple posters.
In particular, we are interested in posters that:

  • Discuss science that uses or has been enabled by EarthCube;
  • Introduce science questions or projects looking to integrate EarthCube infrastructure;
  • Pair EarthCube Infrastructure with projects that use the tools;
  • Showcase educational outcomes using EarthCube Tools (notebooks, workshops, courses);
  • Are EarthCube Tools;
  • Are of Integration activities that link EarthCube Building Blocks;
  • Show results from Research Coordination Networks;
  • Science and other activities of direct relevance to EarthCube’s mission; or
  • Other posters dealing with social components of EarthCube Research or topics not covered here.

Working Sessions
We welcome submissions for working sessions (formerly called breakout sessions). Working sessions may consist of mini hack-a-thons, do-a-thons, work-a-thons, or other kinds of sessions in which the EarthCube community is engaged to discuss particular questions, provide feedback on new technologies, or evaluate new frameworks for data policies, procedures, or workflows. The goal of working sessions are to move the community forward on particular topics of interest to the EarthCube community. In particular we are interested in working sessions (mini hack-a-thons, do-a-thons, work-a-thons). No speakers or presenters allowed.

Submission Process
SUBMIT HERE All abstract submissions are due on April 15, 2020 and will be limited to 300 words in length.

All abstracts were subject to review by the 2020 EarthCube Annual Meeting Organizing Committee.

I’d love to see a range of interesting Pangeo submissions to this call. Particular topics we might want to share are:

  • Our multi-cloud federations of analysis-ready data
  • CMIP6 in the cloud
  • Dask gateway
  • Pangeo stacks
  • Science applications of Pangeo tools
  • Pangeo education activities (POETS)

We can discuss this at today’s meeting.

1 Like

Sounds like not many people are planning on being part of the EarthCube meeting.

I’ll submit a notebook focusing on analysis ready data across multiple clouds.

@rabernat I can submit something on Dask Gateway.

Does “across multiple clouds” potentially also include accessing data in one cloud from a client in another cloud? If so, I can invest some time in making the workflow I showed on last week’s call nicer.

Yes, I would like to show this capability off, as I think it really has transformative potential. It mitigates one of the main sources of doubt about cloud computing–the fear of data lock-in.

Tom, I’d love to have your help and to include you as a co-author on this. The abstracts are due Apr. 15, with the actual notebook due May 15. I think this time frame is doable.

Sounds good. Do you think there’s still value in a separate Dask Gateway proposal then? I’m not too familiar with the audience / community, but I’m assuming they’d be less interested in the guts of Dask Gateway, and more interested in what it enables (e.g. single login that gives access to data from any cloud region with a gateway).

If we have the appetite, we could submit two complementary notebooks.

  1. The Pangeo Catalog, focusing on the data storage formats, intake, web browser, etc, and especially the currently available data products. Led by me (also including @charlesbluca, @martindurant, etc.)
  2. Dask Gateway, emphasizing the cross-cloud potential. Led by Tom.

Does this sound good?


@rabernat, I am considering submitting a notebook on intake-esm, and I am wondering whether there might be some overlap.

Indeed, it sounds like there could be some overlap. The purpose of this thread is to coordinate our submissions to reduce such overlap. So we are on the right track. :slight_smile:

@andersy005, if you already have a submission in mind, I’m very happy for you to take the lead on a “cataloging” notebook. But I would love if you could expand your scope slightly beyond intake-esm to include Pangeo’s broader cataloging efforts, particularly and Perhaps you and @charlesbluca could collaborate on this, with you as lead author?

With this, we are now talking about 3 submissions:

  • Intake-esm / Pangeo catalog (Anderson + Charles)
  • Profiling zarr vs. netcdf vs. opendap for cloud native data analytics (this would become my lead)
  • Dask-gateway for cross cloud data federations

How does this sound?

1 Like

:+1: I concur. It is reasonable to cover intake-esm under the Pangeo’s broader cataloging efforts umbrella. I don’t have a submission in mind yet :), but I am confident that @charlesbluca and I will come up with something.

Happy to collaborate with @charlesbluca on this.

Also happy to collaborate on this! My only thought is to what a notebook concerning broader cataloging efforts would look like, and if there is enough scientific functionality behind something like Intake-esm to justify its own abstract/notebook - either way, I’m happy to start writing something :+1:


Regarding scientific functionality, we could use some input & example notebooks from some users of intake-esm like @jbusecke, and others. Another source of example notebooks would be last year’s CMIP6 Hackathon projects.


Please ping me once you have this set up. We could use

1 Like

I’ll leave the HackMD links open in case anyone wants to cross-collab :slight_smile: have a rough overview started here that anyone should be able to edit:

I am planning to submit an abstract that combines both xgcm and cmip6_preprocessing, but focus more on the actual computational aspect (this would focus more on a current WIP module, not so much the preprocessing module, which you can incorporate in more detail?). I think that way cmip6_preprocessing/intake-esm could be part of both submissions?
It is hard to seperate all these parts but I think it would be worth having two abstracts, one focussing on the cataloging/preprocessing ability and another using that in a brief form but then focussing on the computation of results. What do you think?

Sounds good to me. Are you planning on submitting a notebook as well? If yes, our notebook can reference your notebook.

Yup. I think it makes sense if we both cross cite. That is probably not necessary for the abstract though?

1 Like

I don’t think it is necessary for the abstract. We will cross cite in the notebook submissions.

1 Like

Let me know if you need any input on the cmip6_pp side. Happy to help.

1 Like

FYI: The link to my submission (requires login).

Hi all - just a quick note to flag that we just submitted an abstract for a community workshop around the “Jupyter meets the Earth” project. I’ve copied the abstract below for reference. Looking forward to connecting with you all at the (virtual) event!

Jupyter meets the Earth: community input

Fernando Pérez (UC Berkeley), Lindsey Heagy (UC Berkeley), Joe Hamman (NCAR), Kevin Paul (NCAR) Scott Henderson (University of Washington)

Project Jupyter is an open source platform for interactive computing and data analysis, widely used in research, education and industry. The Jupyter meets the Earth project is using research use cases in geosciences to drive technical developments within the Jupyter and Pangeo ecosystems. This project revolves around the following key goals: (1) Facilitate the discovery, integration, and effective use of the diverse sources of data in the geosciences. (2) Empower researchers to utilize modern, scalable compute resources. (3) Accelerate the process of discovery by enabling researchers to rapidly create and deploy custom interactive applications tailored to the research question at hand. (4) Make it possible to communicate scientific results in a manner that is tailored to the final consumers of research – be they other scientists, policy makers, students, or the general public.

Our technical targets include improvements in JupyterHub for interactive computing on High Performance Computing (HPC) and cloud infrastructure, the development of JupyterLab extensions for data discovery, and contributions to widgets and dashboarding solutions for researchers to easily create graphical user interfaces as well as interactive documents to share analyses with broad audiences.

We would like to gather input for how to best serve your research needs, exploring questions such as:

  • What are current bottlenecks in your interactive computing workflow?
  • What integrations with geoscience-specific tools would be useful, or could be made better via closer ties with Jupyter infrastructure?
  • How would you like to publish and share your computational research and where can improvements be made (e.g. Binder, JupyterBook, etc.)?
  • Desktop vs local cluster vs HPC vs cloud: what is your workflow today? What do you envision it will be in 5 years?
  • Where are the pain points in working with your data on shared infrastructure (cloud or HPC)? Data discovery? Sharing data with collaborators? …

Whether you are an active participant in the Pangeo community, you use Jupyter tools in your work, or are considering adopting some of these tools, we welcome your input and ideas.