No Subject

From
Date
Many of the issues discussed in this thread were highlighted for me at the
workshop last week on "Numerical Experiments on Stratigraphy." Although I
found most of the talks very interesting and informative, I was distressed
by the near total absence of attention in the models and in the discussions
to paleontology.  The importance of biological processes as primary controls
on sedimentologic processes was almost totally overlooked, as well as the
importance of fossil data as output (and thus tests) of the models.  What
was especially striking was the last presentation, on inverse modeling.  It
was established that poor correlation has a much more dramatic negative
impact on model results than does fewer control wells.   To me, at least,
the implication is that improved correlation (i.e., rehiring
biostratigraphers) is a much more cost effective way to improve model-based
predictions than is poking more holes
in the ground.  When I pointed this out in discussion, one of the modelers
sarcastically stated "if we had better correlation, we wouldn't need to
model!"  -Roy (I tried to post this earlier but I sent it to the old
address, sorry if two copies arrive).
Roy E. Plotnick
Geological Sciences
University of Illinois at Chicago
845 W. Taylor St.
Chicago, IL 60607
plotnick@uic.edu
phone: 312-996-2111     fax: 312-413-2279


"The scientific celebrities, forgetting their molluscs and glacial
 periods, gossiped about art, while devoting themselves to oysters
 and ices with characteristic energy.." -Little Women, Louisa 
 May Alcott