NASA Headquarters History
Office Oral History Project
Edited Oral History Transcript
Claire
L. Parkinson
Interviewed by Rebecca Wright
Greenbelt, MD – 1 June 2009
Wright: Today
is June 1, 2009. This oral history interview with Dr. Claire Parkinson
is being conducted at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt,
Maryland, for the NASA Headquarters History Office. Rebecca Wright
is the interviewer, with Sandra Johnson.
We thank you again for making time on your schedule. This is a continuation
of your oral history session that was first conducted on June 26,
2008, and there you shared information about how you began your career
with NASA. Before we move on to other topics, I’d like to ask
you to expand on one topic you mentioned the last time we talked.
We talked about the advantages that working with satellites brought
to scientists and researchers, such as being able to, “Get the
full global picture of what’s going on.” But in order
to fully utilize that capability, you and your colleagues had to do
all sorts of things to develop the techniques of how to analyze the
satellite data. In that statement you were studying sea ice, but you
added that other people at Goddard and other Centers were developing
techniques for analyzing data for satellites as well. Would you explain
in more detail the types of techniques that you developed, and how
you actually developed the process to develop those techniques?
Parkinson: First, thanks very much for coming out here to Goddard,
Rebecca and Sandra. Thank you. In terms of the techniques, when the
satellite sends us data, it’s sending us data regarding whatever
radiation it receives in the wavelengths and bands that it’s
collecting data in. So we get back all these numbers that reflect
radiation levels, but what we’re really interested in are aspects
about the Earth system: sea ice, vegetation, sea surface temperature,
atmospheric temperature, cloud cover, whatever the individual scientist
might be interested in. So for instance, when the group of us studying
sea ice started in the 1970s looking at the initial satellite data
regarding sea ice, we had to determine how to take those data that
were just data regarding radiation, and how to convert them into data
regarding sea ice.
In the sea ice case, we had this fortunate circumstance that in microwave
regions of the electromagnetic spectrum, sea ice emits very differently
from the water that’s surrounding the sea ice. It turns out,
somewhat counter-intuitively, that the ice actually emits more at
some of these microwave wavelengths than the water does, even though
ice is clearly colder than the water. Still, it will emit more at
some of these wavelengths. For us, the important thing is that there’s
a sharp difference and that we know what the difference is. Whether
sea ice emitted more or less wouldn’t really matter as long
as we knew what that difference was, so that when the data come down,
and we’re aware of exactly where the data had been collected
as the satellite moved from over the ocean to over the sea ice cover
and all of a sudden there’s this real jump in terms of the radiation
values that the satellite’s collecting at these microwave wavelengths,
then we’ve got a good clue that it’s probably just crossed
this boundary between water versus ice.
To get more quantitative about it, we develop equations that are termed
algorithms, sets of equations termed algorithms, that enable us to
calculate from the satellite data what percentage of the area that
the radiation came from, what percentage of that area is covered by
ice versus water. To give a simplistic example that will get across
the sense here, at one of the wavelengths that we used a lot early
on, the value for water came out about 135 Kelvin, and this is called
a brightness temperature. It’s related to the radiation that’s
coming from the surface. So the water recorded a brightness temperature
of about 135, whereas ice recorded a brightness temperature of about
235. So if at one location we got a value that was, say, 185, which
would be halfway in between, then our calculation using just that
one channel of information would show that at that location the ocean
surface is half-covered by ice and half-covered by water, whereas
if we got a value that was much closer to the water value, then our
calculation would come out with a lower concentration of the ice.
So we basically start from that very simplistic viewpoint. But we
also understand that not all water has exactly the same value of 135,
and not all ice has exactly the same value of 235. So there are complications
depending on whether the ice is really thin or thick, whether it’s
got ponds of water on it, whether it’s got a snow cover on it.
There are all sorts of things that can complicate the picture. And
that’s why it becomes valuable to have more than just one channel
of information, to have several channels of information and then to
try to use those different pieces of information to get a better end
product, in terms of not just what the percentage of the ice is but
how much of that ice might be the older ice versus the younger ice,
or the thinner ice versus the thicker ice. Then there are also other
complications such as the fact that for the radiation to get from
the surface up to the satellite, it goes through the atmosphere, and
so the atmosphere could have impacts that we then try to filter out
also. So additional pieces of information obtained through additional
channels on the satellite instrument help us to sort out some of these
complications.
Now, in addition to just sorting out, like what percentage is ice
versus what percentage is water, especially in the beginning we had
to think, “What kinds of things do we really want to show?”
We get a huge amount of data coming down to us, but what in that data
shows us something that’s really of interest? At first, we were
mainly interested in just mapping out what the satellite data showed
in terms of where the ice is and getting a really good feel for the
seasonal cycle, how the ice cover changes from summer to autumn to
winter to spring. In the beginning, we actually thought that was going
to look pretty much the same one year after another after another.
After just two years of data, we knew, “No, this does not look
exactly the same one year after another.” So we started to understand
that there is a big difference between years, and we started to try
to figure out how best to plot results to highlight the differences
between the years, and then how to plot other aspects.
Once we had a long enough data set so that we could actually see that
not only were there differences from one year to another, but there
seemed to be some trends in the data that maybe were long-term trends,
maybe were tied in with some cycles in the Earth system. There are
many cycles in the system that people are aware of, such as the North
Atlantic Oscillation and other cycles in the system. So we tried to
compare the changes in the ice with different cycles in the system,
to see if maybe there was a cyclical pattern. As we got more and more
data—and by now, we’ve got over 30 years of satellite
data of the Arctic sea ice and the Antarctic sea ice—by now,
we can see that there actually are some trends that are fairly prominent,
even though there’s a lot of variability from one year to another,
a lot of cases where the satellite data go up and down and up and
down. They certainly go hugely up and down during the course of the
year because there’s way more ice in the winter than there is
in the summer.
But we also see long-term trends, and in the Arctic case, these have
generated a lot of widespread interest because those trends by and
large have been downward, and lessened sea ice is very likely connected
with the fact that the Arctic region has been warming. So the warming
is probably a big factor in producing the lessened sea ice. But also
in return, the lessened sea ice contributes to the warming because
as you get less sea ice, that’s less of a very reflective white
surface that sends solar radiation that comes down and hits the surface,
sends it back into space.
So as time has gone on, we’ve realized that we need to look
at more methods and different techniques of how to show the data,
because we’ve found different things that we want to look at.
Whereas at first we were just trying to see how well the satellite
data could depict the sea ice cover, since then we’ve become
much more interested in what is it showing us about how the sea ice
cover is changing. That’s true of colleagues in other fields
also, in terms of looking toward the best presentation of how the
satellite data are revealing changes in the Earth system. So all this
requires revised techniques of what we’re showing and how we’re
showing it.
Wright: As
your techniques are becoming revised, are tools also? Are there certain
types of tools, like software tools—?
Parkinson:
Software tools have improved dramatically. Back in the 1970s when
satellite data were fairly new, everything we wanted to do we had
to, in large part, think through and develop, such as what color scale
to use to show the data. That has changed a lot also. Originally,
we used a color scale that had lots of different colors on it because
it was very useful for scientists to be able to see all the distinctions
that this color scale with lots of different colors on it would show.
However, as the public has become more interested in the results,
it’s become clear that a color scale with a whole lot of different
colors confuses the issue rather than helps to enlighten people. So
we’ve certainly changed color scales in order to make things
more immediately apparent to the viewer who is not planning on sitting
for hours analyzing the data themselves. What color scale is best
is very different depending on whether you’re aiming at other
scientists versus whether you’re aiming at the general public.
So we’ve revised things as we’ve gone along.
Computers have increased so dramatically in terms of the speed of
the calculations and in terms of the software tools available, so
that now if somebody wants to take a stream of data and make an attractive
plot from it, there are software tools where you can just say, “Here’s
the data, plot it up,” essentially, and the software tool will
give you a nice plot. But these tools were developed by us at Goddard,
and other people elsewhere, by meticulously figuring out how to get
the computer to plot the things that we wanted plotted. Tools are
so much better now, and it’s so much easier to get the plots
made because of what’s available.
Wright: Now
that you have—and I use the word “now” loosely—through
this evolution of the last 30 years, you have these software tools,
does it impact more of the accuracy of the data, whereas maybe before
the software tools your results might have been based on trends? I
mean, how do the tools affect the clarity and the accuracy of what
your results are?
Parkinson: I would say our numerical results have improved in accuracy
more because of improvements in the instruments on the satellites.
However, in terms of the presentation of the results, a huge improvement
has come by the fact that now our images can be created and go through
the printing process all digitally versus when we used to have to
go through a photographic process. For our plots, the fact that those
can be digitally produced to a high quality now, because of the really
nice software packages for getting good plots out, is a gigantic plus
versus the procedure we used to have, which was to have draftsmen
actually draft the lines. Now, good as the draftsmen might have been,
there’s no way they can draft the lines with the precision that
a computer doing it digitally can do, and so the digital presentation
of the data and the use of digital processes all the way through is
a huge improvement in terms of the accuracy of the published plot.
So it might not be that much of a change in terms of the numbers,
if we include numbers in the text or in a table, but in terms of the
plot, the fact that the computer can digitally get the plot drawn
exactly right versus having a draftsman approximate it is a gigantic
plus.
Wright: When
you first started more than 30 years ago, there were not many of you
doing this type of work. Have you seen an increase of people entering
your field, and if so, do you attribute it to the fact that the data
are so much more bountiful more people to get their hands on?
Parkinson:
There’s been a huge increase in the number of people involved,
and certainly the fact that it’s so much easier now is a big
factor. Another big factor is the fact that the field of climate studies
is now recognized as a very important field, whereas when we started
the work, certainly sea ice was not something that hardly anybody
really thought much about or thought had much impact beyond the Arctic
and the Antarctic regions where it existed. Now people realize that
the climate system is so intertwined that changes in any element of
the climate system are going to have impacts elsewhere. So the fact
that it’s become clear that it’s an important topic has
been a big factor, as well as the fact that it’s become a whole
lot easier. When we started in the 1970s, Goddard was the main place
in the entire world examining sea ice from satellite data. Now somebody
can be sitting at a desktop computer in an office or even at home
and start using the data and have a whole lot of data that they can
easily get off the Internet. So the situation has changed dramatically.
Wright:
Has the instant information access allowed you a more viable exchange
of information between colleagues, whereas in the past you might have
gone once a year or had an exchange through formal presentations?
Is that still pretty much the formality, at formal symposiums and
meetings, to exchange information, or are there results and exchanges
over the Internet as results are defined?
Parkinson: There is a huge difference in terms of how easy it is to
exchange information. Email is widely used, and it also makes it overwhelmingly
easier to collaborate with people who you might never actually see
face-to-face. Because of being able to exchange all aspects of the
work you’re working on, including the text and the figures and
the data, readily through email and the rest of the Internet, it just
allows collaborations and exchange of information that’s tremendously
increased over what it used to be.
Wright: Working
in the history field, we find sometimes documents and memos that are
30 and 40 years old that have been tucked away in a file, and there’s
always that concern that now exchanges of information through email
are only as good as the delete file. So do you find where you are
having to store and document information a little bit differently
than you might have 10 years ago when you receive it as such?
Parkinson:
I’m finding there is a huge problem because of the volume. I
do think that the speed that’s allowed through email has the
negative effect that therefore you might get very preliminary things
being exchanged, and as a result you might get an overload of different
versions and sometimes it becomes a real issue to figure out which
are the important versions versus which are not the important versions.
So it has negative as well as positive consequences.
Wright: A
little more challenging there, isn’t it?
Parkinson: Yes.
Wright: Can
you talk about how you exchange information with, for instance, some
of the other federal agencies, like working with NOAA [National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration] or EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency] or how you work with those, or if you do?
Parkinson:
In my role as the Project Scientist of Aqua [a satellite of the Earth
Observing System], there are actually lots of interconnections with
other agencies and with universities and with different countries,
as well as different places within the U.S. NOAA in particular is
one of our prime collaborators, partly because they have some very
good scientists who are interested in the climate change issues, but
also because they have weather forecasting responsibilities. They
have collaborated with us on Aqua since the beginning of the initial
stages of the formulation of the Aqua project. We provide the Aqua
data to them really quickly, so that they get it within hours of when
the data are collected, in order for them to be able to incorporate
it into the weather forecasts. Clearly for a weather forecast, data
are not all that valuable if they’re a few days late, which
is so different from most scientific uses of data where you don’t
expect to get data within a few days of when they’re collected;
you expect to get the data in a much longer time-frame after a lot
of corrections have been incorporated. So we work a lot with NOAA;
NOAA is our prime collaborator in terms of any federal agency in the
U.S.
However, there are others that we’re really pleased have found
that our Aqua data have been really useful to them. The U.S. Forest
Service has found that the Aqua data can show forest fires really
well, and so the U.S. Forest Service has used these data in order
to determine where to deploy the firefighters, because with the satellite
data they’re able to see exactly how far spread the fires are.
The Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, has used the data for some
of their air quality analyses. The Department of Defense has used
the data for monitoring things like dust storms. The U.S. Department
of Agriculture, USDA, has been involved in some of the analyses using
some of the data for agricultural studies.
So the Aqua data have been used by a lot of people, and again, the
closest collaboration is with NOAA in terms of the U.S. One of our
instruments, one of our prime instruments, is a Japanese instrument,
and so there’s a lot of involvement with the Japanese also,
as well as with other countries where they’re just using the
data. But the Japanese have been a prime collaborator in terms of
providing a major instrument on the satellite. So we have lots of
collaborations around the world and within the U.S.
Wright: As
Project Scientist, are you responsible for releasing that data, or
is it set up where it immediately flows to, for instance, NOAA?
Parkinson: Fortunately, the system is set up so that I have no immediate
connection with that string of data that ends up quickly getting to
NOAA. The string of data comes into Goddard to the Mission Operations
area of Goddard, and they’re able to bring the data down from
the satellite to Goddard and then distribute it out to the various
places that need it. In the case of NOAA, the data have to get distributed
out immediately.
Wright: I
know that in your other interview, you talked about how important
it was to do part of outreach, that you enjoy talking to students
and teachers that, of course, they come here. What other ways do you
disperse your findings and encourage the next generation of researchers?
Parkinson:
The main way that we disperse our science findings is through scientific
publications, and that’s mainly through journal articles, also
sometimes through chapters in books. But it’s mainly through
journal articles and also through presentations at scientific conferences.
So those would be the primary ways of getting our science results
out. But both of those ways are to scientists versus to the general
public or to students. In order to get the results out to the general
public and to students, NASA has a whole range of things that we do,
and I’ve been involved in quite a few of them. Certainly, I’ve
gone into classrooms and talked to students. I’ve also been
involved many times when groups of teachers and groups of students
come to Goddard, and I’ve given presentations to them.
I’ve also written a book titled Earth from Above that is essentially
for the younger generation, especially for those in the younger generation
who might be interested in getting into Earth sciences and especially
into satellite remote sensing of Earth sciences as a career. I’ve
also been involved in NASA’s annual calendar that we put out
with really nice NASA imagery in it and captions that tell the reader
something about the images; and involved in some of the posters that
NASA produces that go to lots of schools, teachers, universities;
and involved with creating cards called lithograph cards that show
results. We recently did one on our sea ice results, and it’s
kind of cool because they’re small cards that hopefully just
get people at least curious or maybe interested, and if they read
the text on the back, they’ll learn information about what’s
on the front of the card. So lots of outreach like that.
Recently, there was an event at the [Smithsonian National] Air and
Space Museum, and I went down there and helped to staff an exhibit
showing satellite imagery and changes in the Earth highlighted by
looking at pairs of satellite images. We had a small group of different
pairs of satellite images that showed neat things about how you can
look at the satellite images and see changes that are occurring in
the Earth system. That kind of event always tends to be rewarding
if a lot of people show up and you feel that they really are getting
interested in it. That happened that day. That was a Saturday several
weeks ago.
Wright: What’s
the most important message that, as a climatologist and/or a scientist,
you want to share with these people when you talk with them? Or that
you would like to share at any point, the statement or the message
you just want to tell folks?
Parkinson: In terms of the most important message, I’d say the
most important is that we live on a marvelous planet with many intricately
intertwined systems that we do not yet fully understand, but that
we should be conscientiously trying to preserve or at least not further
damage. That, I think, is the most important message, in terms of
importance. But when I’m talking with children, often another
point that I really want to get across is that science is just an
incredibly exciting field to go into, and that if they have any interest
in trying to further our understanding of any element of the world
around us, that they should seriously consider going into science
as a career.
Wright: If
you don’t mind, if you could take that further and just share
with us that you spent your life and your whole career in this work,
and now it’s an everyday topic. More and more people are becoming
conscious and somewhat even more respectful of the fact that we need
to take care of our Earth, and maybe you could share with us some
of the changes that you’ve seen in people’s attitudes
over the last years, and maybe some of the ones you’d like to
see in the future.
Parkinson:
I have certainly seen a big change. Among the changes that I’m
very pleased to have seen is I think people have become far more aware
of damage that we can sometimes do by being needlessly wasteful. And
I do think that the younger generation is growing up with a bigger
awareness that they should try to conserve more, that they should
try not to waste as much. Certainly in my mind, that’s a huge
plus. Aspects that I find more troublesome would be, I find that with
the increased media attention to the climate change issue, there’s
become an awful lot of polarization between people who feel very strongly
that humans are adversely affecting the climate and feel very strongly
that something should be done about it, versus other people who feel
equally strongly that some of the suggestions of what should be done
about it are going to be even more damaging than what’s being
attempted to be corrected. I find that the polarization in the science
community as well as in the public is troublesome, and I feel it’s
a huge negative impact of the increased attention to climate change.
So I have mixed feelings. I feel some of the increased attention has
been very good, other of the increased attention has been very unfortunate.
I wish that the discussion could be more civilized in some cases than
it seems to have become, because I do feel that the issues are extremely
important. But I feel that the various people addressing the issues
all have something important to bring to the table, and that it’s
too bad when the friction ends up not allowing a civilized discussion
to take place to try to advance the effort of doing whatever is best
for the planet and for society at large. Now all these comments, as
I’m saying these, I realize any comment that I make that relates
to policy like that, I’m stating as an American citizen, not
as a NASA employee. That’s important in terms of, as a NASA
employee I have repeatedly been told I’m allowed to say anything
I want, but if I’m saying something that’s policy-related,
I should say I’m saying it as an American citizen, I’m
not saying it as a NASA employee. However, when I present the results
of my science, whatever those results might be, that’s as a
NASA employee.
Wright: From
the statement that you just made, I’m going to assume that there
has been a discussion with you and your colleagues—I guess because
some have tried to politicize the science of climate. We know just
by reading the recent history that it has become somewhat of a political
football, not just here in the United States, but globally. How has
that influenced, or has that influenced how you’ve been able
to progress on your work in any way?
Parkinson: It has not really impacted me directly in terms of the
work that I do. It’s impacted me more in terms of concerns about
the discussion becoming too polarized. But in terms of the work that
I do, none of the work that I do has been stopped or slowed down or
speeded up because of external influences like that.
Wright: Do
you have any colleagues that have somewhat opted to not continue the
work because they feel political impact or political pressure on them
moving forward in their findings? I know sometimes when things get
so challenging, sometimes some of the best people will just stand
aside because it’s not worth the struggle. I didn’t know
if you’ve encountered any of that, those feelings, or have heard
of those feelings from any of your colleagues that just kind of throw
their hands up and say they’re moving on to something else.
Parkinson:
Offhand I can’t think of anyone who quite said that, although
I would understand it if they did. What I have seen is a sharp contrast
between different individual scientists in terms of how much they
will deal with the media. I have found that some simply will try not
to deal with the media at all and will basically not reply to media
requests, whereas I’ve found others who enjoy the media attention
and will definitely spend a lot of time with the media and sometimes
actually aggressively seek out media attention. I’d say in terms
of the people I know, the majority are intermediate between those
two extremes, and certainly I would place myself as intermediate between
those two extremes. In my case, I’m willing to talk with the
media when they call, often referring them to somebody else if I feel
like somebody else might be the more appropriate person, but willing
to answer questions if they’re asking me something that I feel
I am the appropriate person to answer. So I think there’s a
range of responses. I’ve certainly seen a range of responses
in terms of my colleagues.
Wright: One
of the issues that’s been in the media, I guess for the last
10 years and especially the last few years, is almost a proposed deadline,
that we only have so many years to change how the world is responding
to the climate changes if the world wants to stop or reverse these
trends, which almost gives an indication that your field of science
has now moved up into a higher level of importance. Do you feel that
this information that’s being distributed through the media
is, based on your trends and based on your findings, a statement that
we all need to contend with, or do you feel it’s something that
we need to—and if you want to think about this one, we can always
come back to it. But just reading some things, some scientists will
say that it’s at the time that we need to look at it more closely.
So I just thought I’d ask and see where you thought we were
at this point.
Parkinson: I feel that it’s very important for us at this point
to recognize that humans are having an impact and to try to lessen
that impact. That doesn’t mean that I necessarily agree with
the people who say we’ve only got 10 years or so; in fact, my
feeling is more along the lines of: there are a heck of a lot of unknowns.
I feel that with all those unknowns, the cautious route would be to
try to limit any further damage that we might be doing, not because
we know what would happen 10 years or more from now, but because we’re
not sure, and it could be really bad, what might happen. So I would
like to see a lessening of our emissions of gases to the atmosphere.
I certainly want to see a lessening of our dumping garbage into the
oceans and all sorts of things like that. But I also recognize that
industrialization has provided us with a whole lot that humans are
not about to do without now. So my feeling is: limit as much as we
can; and we can limit a lot just by being less wasteful. We can cut
back considerably and yet can still maintain our basic lifestyles.
Wright: You’ve
spent so many years in your field. You must have encountered some
obstacles and challenges along the way to be able to accomplish as
much as you have. Is there some areas of challenges or some major
obstacles that you can think of that you’d like to share with
us that, talk about how it kind of made you stop and think, and then
you had to learn how to figure out how to keep going based on getting
over that challenge after you’ve encountered it? I’m sure
everything hasn’t been smooth sailing. Or was it just the adventure
of discovery as you’ve gone along?
Parkinson:
There have been many challenges. Everybody’s set of challenges,
obviously, is different. In my case, I would say the biggest challenge
for me actually is the fact that I have a problem with seizures, and
this makes me far less capable at some moments than at others. I would
say my greatest challenge has been to deal effectively with that.
It becomes very tricky at times. If a seizure is big enough, like
a grand mal type seizure—which I fortunately very rarely have—but
if it is, then in some ways it’s easier to deal with because
you have the seizure, everybody sees you’re having it, and when
you’re done with it, you just get over it. It becomes more of
a challenge, the smaller seizures where I’m the only one who
knows I’m having them, and then that’s difficult because
I know I’ve become less capable temporarily, and yet if there
are other people in the room, it’s like I don’t want to
say anything because I don’t want to look like I’m coming
up with some excuse. But on the other hand, it’s troublesome
exactly how best to deal with it. My way normally is, as much as possible,
to simply be quiet. If I’m having a seizure and I don’t
have to be involved in a conversation, I just won’t be. But
it is difficult. So I would say that’s been my biggest personal
challenge, although there have been lots of other things. But all
the other things are kind of outweighed by that one.
Wright: I
could see that, yes. Have you had any setbacks or encountered any
challenges because you were a female in such a scientific community?
Parkinson: No. In terms of the impact of being a female, I would say
that as a scientist, I really haven’t had major obstacles put
in my way because of being a female. I would say major obstacles put
in my way because of being a female were more as a child, because
as a child there were certainly many things I couldn’t do because
of being a female. Fortunately, times have changed, and so girls growing
up now are allowed to do a lot of the things that I wasn’t allowed
to do. Among the things I wasn’t allowed to do would be I wasn’t
allowed to be on any of my high school athletic teams. There was not
a single sport that my high school allowed a female to participate
in, whereas the boys had all sorts of sports that they could participate
in. I wasn’t even allowed to have a paper route. Fortunately,
times have changed, and girls growing up now don’t have those
disadvantages. But those disadvantages, they not only are bad for
the time period, but they also mean that as an adult, you haven’t
had some experiences that males had, and so therefore there are differences.
Now in terms of being a female in the scientific community, I would
say I don’t feel that I was ever denied a promotion or an award
because of being a female. So I don’t feel anything explicit
like that has ever happened to me. But I do feel, especially early
in my career, that sometimes I wasn’t listened to in the way
that a male might have been listened to. I do feel that was more earlier
in my career than now. But I also feel that certain aspects of my
personality that are more common with females than with males do lead
to disadvantages. A prime example there would be that I tend not to
speak anywhere near as assertively or aggressively as a male might
tend to speak in the same circumstances. For instance, if I present
a result, I might be inclined to present it with more qualifiers that
might make it look less important as a result. Or if I present an
idea, I might present it as, “Well, one possibility might be,”
whereas a male might present it much more assertively as, “Oh,
the best idea we could consider would be,” something like that.
So I don’t feel I’m being mistreated because of being
a female, but I do feel there are aspects of my personality that do
put me at a disadvantage, and some of those aspects are related in
some way to being a female.
Wright: Are
there aspects that have been an advantage? Do you find yourself to
be more patient sometimes?
Parkinson:
I do find myself to be more patient than some of my colleagues sometimes,
and that sometimes is very good. I don't know if that’s a male/female
contrast so much—it might be; I’m just not sure, because
I certainly have some male colleagues who I feel are very patient
also. I have some male colleagues who are very impatient; but I have
seen a mixture. Now in terms of my colleagues, they are overwhelmingly
male, so I don’t really have good statistics in terms of male/female
differences because I just haven’t worked with anywhere near
as many females as I have with males.
Wright: We’ve
talked about satellite and software tools, and of course the Internet
access. Are there other aspects or elements through the last years
that you see as being very vital to advancing your field of science?
Maybe access to travel, is it easier or harder to get access to some
of the areas that you want to physically go see?
Parkinson: Travel is an interesting topic that you bring up. In terms
of travel, I’ve always been able to travel as much as I want,
but by now, I think it’s become clear that plane travel is one
of the most serious culprits in terms of greenhouse gas emissions
to the atmosphere. So I feel that people concerned about the environment
should put more effort into restricting their travel, and that certainly
does become more viable now with the Internet and other technological
advances such as the telephone, which of course has been around for
a long time now. Because of technology, we don’t physically
have to go places as much as might have been warranted in the past.
However, in terms of scientific field work, if you want to collect
data, you’ve still got to go to the place. Certainly travel
has become easier than it used to be decades ago, although in the
last 10 years it’s probably become more difficult because of
the increased rules and regulations at the airports. So in some ways
it’s certainly become easier than it would have been in the
early 20th century before you had a lot of commercial airplane flights;
but it’s become tougher both for the reason of the increased
regulations at airports and also for the recognition that any plane
travel is emitting greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Overall, people
concerned about the environment should try to limit the amount of
plane travel they do.
Wright: Where
do you see yourself moving? Not physically, but where would you like
to see your field go in the next 10 years or the next 20 years? Do
you see it discovering more or moving into different aspects? Do you
have a crystal ball that you see where you’re going?
Parkinson:
I don’t have a crystal ball that’s going to give me much
insight into this; however, I would say that a very important aspect
of where the field should be going is greater interdisciplinary research.
Most work in Earth sciences has been of a disciplinary nature, meaning
that some people study sea ice, some people study ice sheets, some
people study the atmosphere, some people study the oceans, some people
study very limited things in the ocean or the atmosphere or the ice
or the land or vegetation. I think by now, we have enough clues and
solid evidence that the system is hugely interconnected and that we
really can’t understand any aspect of it completely unless we
understand the other aspects too. It’s a hugely interconnected
system, and this hugely interconnected nature of it is also part of
the reason why we can’t know for sure what the climate is going
to be like 10 years, 20 years from now. There are just too many interconnected
aspects that are not fully understood yet.
Wright:
Do you have some other thoughts or some other experiences you’d
like to share with us today?
Parkinson: No, I think you’ve pretty much covered it.
Wright: Okay,
we can stop for now and if we think of some things you’d like
to add, you can do that with us as well. So thank you so much again.
Parkinson:
Thank you, Rebecca. Thank you, Sandra.
[End
of interview]