Seminář o aktuálních problémech v oblasti geodynamického výzkumu zemského nitra.
| 1. 3. | Libor Šachl (KG MFF UK) Baroclinic ocean model LSOMG PDF |
| 8. 3. | Kateřina Sládková (KG MFF UK) a Ondřej Souček (MÚ UK) Slapová deformace ledových měsíců PDF |
| 15. 3. | Vojtěch Patočka (KG MFF UK) Viskoelasticita v malých i velkých deformacích − shrnutí a perspektivy |
| 22. 3. | |
| 29. 3. | |
| 5. 4. | |
| 12. 4. | Petra Maierová (ČGS) Relaminace v kolizních orogénech − numerická studie |
| 19. 4. | |
| 26. 4. | EGU |
| 3. 5. | |
| 10. 5. | Marek Pšenka (MFF UK) Elektrická impedanční tomografie měkkých tkání: Řešení přímé a obrácené úlohy PDF |
| 17. 5. | rektorský den |
| 24. 5. | John R. Evans (U.S. Geological Survey, Santa Cruz, California) Epistemic uncertainty and other pitfalls of seismic tomography In the view of this old teleseismic tomographer, many interpretations of tomographic results go far beyond what can be inferred with any real confidence. Some of the issues are inadequate analysis of aleatoric uncertainty, the uncertainties one normally considers (e.g., via the checkerboard test). Happily, this interpretive weakness is relatively easy to correct by more nuanced and complete analyses of this type of uncertainty. However, there is another class of uncertainty, epistemic, that is almost always ignored in seismic tomography (and until recently, in most other fields). Epistemic uncertainties refer to not being certain that one is using apropos methods with the apropos data and apropos caution. These uncertainties are very difficult to quantify, but their existence should have profound effects on the limits of one’s confidence in making interpretations of tomographic results. This talk attempts to alert tomographers and all those, like geologists, who use the interpretations made by tomographers, to these issues and caution that over-interpretations are abundant in the literature and need to be reduced in future work. |
Semináře se konají v přednáškové místnosti katedry v Troji o středách od 13:10.