Science Data Dump Versus Scientific Story

I. States a topic without a motive

II. Describes method and/or data but doesn’t explain relevance, build forward, or connect successive ideas

III. Lists results and gives interpretations, but doesn’t show a progression of thought or relate back to the main point

IV. Conclusions stated but sound redundant (not reiterative), haven’t been well developed, or not memorable

Science Data Dump

Gravity from the Nu’uanu Park to Kailua

GG304 Lab, Garrett Ito

Outline

I. IntroductionII. Data and

analysisIII. ModelingIV. Conclusions

(No real information about whats to come)

I. Introduction

Gravity varies over the earth due to variations in mass

Rocks of different types have different densities

Gravity is measured in mGal or 1 millionth of a G-force

Gravity measurements over the Pali will reflect variations in elevation & density(list of poorly connected facts)

II. Data & Data Analysis

II. Data & Data Analysis

(so what?!)

III. Modeling

7 km

20 km

III. Modeling

High density block

Bou

guer

(to

pogr

aphy

-cor

rect

ed)

Conclusions

I. Gravity decreases with elevation and increases with density

II. Bouguer gravity anomaly is corrected for predictable topographic effects

III. We can model gravity by considering simple solutions of different geometric shapes.

IV. A large dense crustal body exists beneath Kauilua. In fact its about as large as Kilaeua’s magma chamber

I. Defines a question, problem, or hypothesis and tells why its important.

II. Method and/or data is relevant, ideas connect successively and build forward

III. Results and interpretations, show a logical progression of thought or relate back to the main point. Also, shortcomings are acknowledged.

IV. Conclusions reiterate key points, have been well developed, AND are memorable

Scientific Journey or Story

Searching for the Koolau Magma Chamber With a Gravity Transect Over the Pali

Highway to KailuaGG304 Lab, Garrett Ito

Gravity reveals, otherwise hidden, deep heterogeneity

Intrusive rocks near- & off-shore Kailua are evidence for ancient Koolau magma chamber

Magma chamber marks the center of the volcano and its size reflects processes of magma plumbing & storage in Hawaiian shields

Objective: Locate and constrain size and density of Koolau intrusive

complex

I. Data: Measure gravity from Nu’uanu Park to Kailua Beach

II. Data Analysis: Remove topographic effects to isolate subsurface

III. Modeling: Quantify size of density anomaly that can fit topography-corrected gravity

IV. Interpretations of intrusive complex size

II. Correct for topography to isolate signal from subsurface

Nuuanu Park

Greater distance from Earth

Smaller gravitational pull

II. Correct for topography to isolate signal from subsurface

Nuuanu Park

Increases gravitational pull

Mass of Pali Greater

distance from Earth

Smaller gravitational pull

Isolated pull from subsurface

III. Forward modeling to determine location and size of crustal density anomaly

High density block

Bou

guer

(to

pogr

aphy

-cor

rect

ed)

IV. Interpretation: frozen magma chamber

> 7 km

Tens of km

-Off-shore distance not well constrained & requires off-shore data

-Given 2D approximation, 7 km is minimum thickness. Much thicker than Kilauea’s active magma chamber but comparable to total thickness of frozen intrusives.

-Perhaps hot/active chamber is only the thin shallowest part, over a taller column of intrusive rocks [Kauahikaua, 2000]?

-Does shield size or height relate to magma chamber size?

Searching for the Koolau Magma Chamber With a Gravity Transect Over the Pali

Highway to Kailua • GG304 Pali-Kailua survey reveals an increase in Bouguer

gravity toward Kailua by 60-70 mGal• This is explained by a dense (2950-3050 kg/m3) rock at least

7 km in thickness with southern edge starting in Kailua• Koolau intrusive complex extends deep, comparable to total

intrusive thickness beneath Kilauea Caldera

I. Defines a question, problem, or hypothesis and tells why its important.

II. Method and/or data is relevant, ideas connect successively and build forward

III. Results and interpretations, show a logical progression of thought or relate back to the main point. Also, shortcomings are acknowledged.

IV. Conclusions reiterate key points, have been well developed, AND are memorable

Scientific Journey or Story