Cloud Physics Has a Diversity Problem, and the Data Prove It

Cloud physics sits at the heart of modern climate science. The tiny airborne particles that seed droplets and ice crystals, the microphysics of storms, and the behavior of tropical convection all feed directly into the models that project how a warming planet will behave. Yet a sweeping new study of the field’s own people reveals a discipline that has been drawing its insights from a strikingly narrow slice of humanity. Combining a bibliometric analysis of nearly 7,000 peer-reviewed papers with an anonymous survey of 198 working cloud physicists, researchers led by Luis A. Ladino of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and Zamin A. Kanji of ETH Zurich have produced one of the most detailed portraits to date of who gets to study clouds, who gets credit, and who quietly leaves. The findings, published in the journal Geoscience Communication, reach far beyond one subfield and speak to structural inequities that pervade the geosciences as a whole.

The bibliometric half of the study is a feat of patient data work. The team searched the Scopus database for English-language articles and reviews containing the terms “cloud physics” or “cloud microphysics” published between 1970 and 2020, filtered them to Earth and planetary science journals, and winnowed the initial 8,199 candidates down to 6,987 papers. For each one, they extracted author names, affiliations, countries, and funding information, then used an automated Python script together with the genderize.io service to assign a probable binary gender to first authors and co-authors, accepting only inferences with a certainty estimate above 75 percent. The authors are candid about the limits of this approach: name-based inference cannot capture non-binary or gender-diverse identities, and the survey itself confirmed that at least three respondents identify outside the gender binary. Still, the scale of the dataset makes the broad patterns difficult to dismiss.

Those patterns are stark. Women first authors barely appear in the cloud physics literature before the mid-1990s; only after roughly 1997 does their presence as lead authors become clearly visible, and even by 2020 just about 17 percent of studies in the field were led by women. The geographic skew is even more pronounced. Seventy-seven percent of all analyzed papers were led by authors from just seven countries: Canada, China, France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Scientists based in the tropics, defined as those living and working between 23.5 degrees north and 23.5 degrees south, accounted for only about 5 percent of publications, with most of those coming from India, Brazil, Taiwan, Mexico, Indonesia, and Thailand. For a region that drives much of the planet’s precipitation and convection, the numbers amount to a scientific blind spot with colonial roots.

The most provocative finding concerns what the authors call parachute science. Of the 6,987 papers analyzed, only 44 were explicitly performed in the African tropics or used data from that region, and just seven of those, a mere 16 percent, included a tropics-based scientist as a co-author. In other words, when wealthy institutions send researchers to sample the atmosphere of lower-income countries, the local experts who make that work possible are frequently left off the byline. The pattern echoes a broader analysis of the Nature Index, which found that between 2015 and 2022 only 2.7 percent of articles across 82 natural science journals featured collaborations between higher-income and lower-income countries, and that in those articles richer countries contributed three authors for every one from a poorer nation. The study’s authors caution that excluding non-English papers may have shaped this conclusion, but the signal is consistent with decades of documented extractive practice.

The survey data add a human dimension to the statistics. Distributed before the 2021 virtual International Commission on Clouds and Precipitation meeting hosted from Pune, India, the 42-question instrument drew 231 responses, reduced to 198 after quality checks, covering an estimated 30 to 47 percent of the community’s active membership. Respondents skewed young, with 64 percent under 40, and 57.1 percent identified as men, 41.4 percent as women, and 1.5 percent outside the binary. Twenty-three percent of respondents identified as belonging to a historically and currently excluded group, and nearly half of those, 21 of 46, said that identity had negatively affected their careers through collaborations, promotions, publishing, funding, salary, or citations. Ten respondents reported disabilities, and six of them described feeling excluded because of it.

The numbers on harassment and hostility are difficult to read. One third of all respondents said they had experienced bullying or harassment from someone in the cloud physics community, and the burden fell unevenly: 44 percent of women reported such experiences compared with 27 percent of men, a statistically significant difference. Similarly, 37 percent of women versus 10 percent of men reported working in a hostile environment tied to their gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or disability, a moderate statistical association. Among LGBTQIA+ respondents, the share who did not feel included in the community rose to 44 percent, compared with 30 percent overall. The authors interpret these patterns through the lens of intersectionality, the framework developed by legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw, in which overlapping marginalized identities compound the likelihood of discrimination, while noting that small subgroup sizes limit statistical confidence in some of the finer breakdowns.

Not every result is grim. When the team traced individual Scopus author IDs to measure how long researchers stayed active in the field, they found that after 1995 there was no meaningful difference between men and women in how many years they remained, judging by publication activity. Women are not dropping out faster than men, contrary to the leaky-pipeline narrative that dominates discussions of academic gender gaps. The problem, instead, is at the entrance: even in the most recent five-year cohort, between 2015 and 2020, only about a third of scientists newly entering the field were women. The authors also found that papers led by women were published in journals with impact factors statistically comparable to those led by men, whereas papers from tropics-based scientists landed in lower-impact journals on average, a gap the authors link partly to language barriers, editorial desk rejections, and pressure to publish in local, non-indexed venues.

One intriguing secondary finding suggests a practical lever for change. Papers led by women included a better balance of women co-authors than papers led by men, mirroring a recent result from ice-core science showing that women-led studies had 20 percent more women co-authors. Tropics-based first authors likewise tended to bring in other tropics-based collaborators. Whether this reflects deliberate mentorship or homophily, the implication is the same: who holds the lead-author position shapes who else gets included. Putting more women and more scientists from the Global South into senior and leading roles may be one of the most direct mechanisms for diversifying the authorship base of the field, which in turn feeds into who designs the field campaigns and whose data enter the models.

The stakes extend well beyond fairness. The tropics host extraordinary biodiversity, biomass burning, dust emissions, and the vast convective systems of the Intertropical Convergence Zone, yet input observations for climate models are often calculated rather than actually sampled there. Excluding the scientists best positioned to collect those measurements is both an ethical failure and a scientific one, degrading the very data needed to validate satellite retrievals and improve projections for the regions already being hit hardest by climate change. The authors argue that an equity-centered approach, grounded in ethical responsibility rather than a business case for diversity, is what the moment demands, a stance aligned with the International Association for Promoting Geoethics.

The paper closes with concrete recommendations: institutional diversity training that extends beyond recruitment, funded participation of Global South early-career scientists in major conferences, unconscious-bias training for reviewers, gender-balanced hiring and editorial boards, journal policies against parachute science, and funding priorities for projects conceived and led by tropics-based researchers, alongside support for networks such as the Latin America Early Career Earth System Scientist Network and the cloudsfor.africa initiative. The journal’s editor went further, writing that the findings concern all of geoscience and deserve to be read by every geoscientist. For a community whose models must describe the whole planet, the message is unambiguous: the science of clouds cannot be done well by a fraction of the world’s scientists sampling a fraction of its sky.

Subject of Research: Diversity, equity, and inclusion in the cloud physics research community

Article Title: The state of diversity, equity, and inclusion in the cloud physics community

Article References: Ladino, L. A., Ardon-Dryer, K., Pereira, D. L., Proske, U., Ramirez-Diaz, Z., Velicu, A., & Kanji, Z. A. (2026). The state of diversity, equity, and inclusion in the cloud physics community. Geoscience Communication, 9(3), 415-436. https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-9-415-2026

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.5194/gc-9-415-2026

Keywords: cloud physics, diversity, equity, inclusion, geosciences, parachute science, gender gap, Global South, tropics, bibliometrics, harassment, climate science