|
| |
Introduction and Rationale
Determining paleoelevation is a key problem facing earth science. This is in
part because it bears on and links together tectonics, climate, and
geomorphological issues, and also in part because the research community has now
brought the problem to the verge of being tractable with the prospect for
reliable solutions to specific paleoelevation histories. There are a number of
very different techniques now being employed as proxy measures of paleoelevation
for the purpose of determining the timing and magnitudes of plateau uplift. The
number of conference sessions at GSA and AGU meetings, and numerous publications
in a diverse literature have highlighted the fact that to date, the results of
proxy measurements of paleoelevation depend strongly on the proxies and
techniques you use. From a tectonic perspective, this is not particularly
satisfying.
Consequently, we propose to launch a coordinated effort to apply all the tools
at our disposal to measure the detailed epeirogenic history (be it uplift,
subsidence, or combination) of specific highland regions. As a first step, we
propose to convene a workshop to bring together research leaders in a variety of
disciplines to present and compare approaches to paleoelevation measurement, and
to develop a strategy for combining all possible approaches to determine more
accurately than present possible, the epeirogenic history of a particular region
(to be selected at the workshop on the basis of applicability of available
approaches). This would bring together people who use each of the various
approaches to come to present and discuss their techniques, assumptions, and
data needs. From this, an outcome of the workshop would be to identify a
specific place and time interval for which we will reconstruct uplift/subsidence
using all methods simultaneously. The area will need to include the necessary
materials or potential observations for as many of the various techniques as
possible.
By examining each of the many approaches presently used to determine
paleoelevation, and applying them to a common problem, we can highlight any
differences between results produced from contrasting techniques and use these
to invert the analyses and explore the assumptions and formulations of the
techniques themselves. This could provide additional insights in a number of
related disciplines. In essence, one of the most useful outcomes of such a
comparison is not in finding similarities between approaches, but in using the
differences to shed light on our understanding of the tools we use to determine
the development of tectonically active systems.
The utility of the proposed paleoelevation technique comparison and consequent
consolidation of a new research "community" has been demonstrated as an
effective approach in other areas within the geosciences. In 1994 and 1995, a
pair of workshops brought together a diverse group of ecosystem modelers of and
climatologists and resulted in new insights in model intercomparison (Cramer et
al., 1999). In 1999, a diverse group of scientists convened to better establish
means of measurement and attribution of causal mechanisms of modern sea level
changes (Sahagian, 2000). More recently, in 2002, a new research community
formed following a workshop to compare volcanic conduit and eruption models
(Sahagian and participants, in press). These and many other former efforts have
proven the value of an integrated, multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary
approach to solving outstanding geologic problems by comparison and assessment
of contrasting techniques with a standardized application.
|
![[Company Logo Image]](images/logo.jpg){kind=logo}
