Details

Parent Category: outreach

Published on Saturday, 21 November 2020 17:26

2019–2020 Webinar Schedule

November 14. Richard Styron, GEM Foundation & Earth Analysis, LLC. The Release of the GEM Global Active Faults Database and Global Seismic Hazard Map
January. Winter Break
February 26. Brandon Schmandt, University of New Mexico. Seismic data and data products to motivate, guide, and test geodynamic models of the lithosphere and upper mantle
April 16. Boris Kaus, Tobias Bauman, Georg Reuber, and Anton Popov; Institute of Geosciences, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz. Geodynamic inversion: Methods to link models with data & how that helps to obtain insights in the physics and rheology of the lithosphere
May 14. Rene Gassmoeller, CIG UC Davis. Discovering and addressing social challenges during the evolution of scientific software projects

---

THURSDAY NOVEMBER 14 

The Release of the GEM Global Active Faults Database and Global Seismic Hazard Map
Richard Styron, GEM Foundation

In late 2018, the Global Earthquake Model Foundation (GEM) released the initial version of several major products relating to seismic hazard and risk, including the Global Seismic Hazard Map, the Global Seismic Risk Map, and the Global Active Faults Database. Though these are intended primarily to support GEM's mission to reduce earthquake risk, they may be of use or interest to geodynamics researchers and the broader Earth science community. The GEM Global Active Faults Database (github.com/GEMScienceTools/gem-global-active-faults) is a dynamic, evolving compilation of active faults worldwide, currently containing ~14,000 fault traces. Associated metadata describe the geometry, kinematics, slip rates and other parameters relevant to seismic hazard analysis. Metadata completeness varies regionally, with ~75% of faults having some slip rate information. The GEM Global Seismic Hazard Map (globalquakemodel.org/gem) displays the geographic distribution of Peak Ground Acceleration with a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years, and is derived from a mosaic of national or regional seismic hazard models created by a variety of organizations including the GEM Secretariat. Additional topics of collaboration or mutual beneficial research between the geodynamics and seismic hazard communities will be discussed. [pdf] 

 

 

THURSDAY FEBRUARY 26

Seismic data and data products to motivate, guide, and test geodynamic models of the lithosphere and upper mantle
Brandon Schmandt, University of New Mexico

Observational seismic data and data products are among the major sources of information about structure and multi-scale deformation in the lithosphere and underlying mantle. However, the data and products come in many forms that continue to evolve and the observational perspective is inherently messy. Physical modeling frameworks take a process-based perspective that can yield one or more viable explanations for the major features identified by observational seismology. Such interactions between seismology and geodynamics have been highly fruitful over the past few decades. The purpose of this webinar is to consider relatively new observational seismology products or methods of access that might facilitate advances on outstanding questions about tectonic and magmatic processes. Crust and upper mantle (an)isotropic tomography, imaging of sharp interfaces, and earthquake catalogs will be emphasized as observational constraints. Many of the outstanding questions emphasized will be related to deformation involving fluid-solid coupling or spanning multiple rheological regimes.

 

 

THURSDAY APRIL 16

Geodynamic inversion: Methods to link models with data & how that helps to obtain insights in the physics and rheology of the lithosphere
Boris Kaus, Tobias Baumann, Georg Reuber, and Anton Popov; Institute of Geosciences, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz

 

 

THURSDAY MAY 14

Discovering and addressing social challenges during the evolution of scientific software projects
Rene Gassmoeller, CIG UC Davis

In the last decade geodynamic software projects have increasingly incorporated state-of-the-art technical best practices like version control, documentation, and continuous integration into their development cycle. However, many projects still struggle to create and grow an active and welcoming user/developer community, and there exists little documentation on what makes a scientific software community successful.

In this CIG webinar I will summarize the work of my Better Scientific Software fellowship (https://bssw.io/), which collects typical social challenges and potential solutions that arise during the evolution of a scientific software project. Aimed at current and prospective software maintainers and community leaders, I will discuss topics such as building and maintaining a welcoming community atmosphere, overcoming skepticism of sharing science and software, mediating between users working on conflicting topics or publications, and providing credit and growth opportunities for community members. Finally, I hope to initiate a conversation about what makes communities successful so that we can earn from each other and improve scientific software together. CIG has promoted best software practices for years (https://github.com/geodynamics/best_practices), and can act as a discussion forum for what we think the future of scientific software development should look like.