Jun
11th
2015
Guess Who Has a Shiny New Masters Degree! · 10:11am Jun 11th, 2015
So my thesis is finally completed, defended, and submitted to the library. I'm done. Graduated with my Masters in Geology. If for some reason you are just dying to read it, you can find it here. Check it out if you're really into lakes, paleoclimatology, or geochemistry.
Does this mean I'll be back to writing more Heart of Loyalty? Well it certainly doesn't hurt. I need to look over things and remember where I was going with it before reality intruded. The main thing I SHOULD be doing now is desperately job hunting so I don't run out of money and starve in two months, but we'll see how that goes. If anyone knows of a spot open for a petrophysicist/geophysicist/geochemist/environmental geologist let me know.
Report
PonyAmorous · 330 views
·
CONGRATULATIONS!
Was there ever any doubt you'd succeed? I had none. Cool on you for sticking with it, and earning it though.
I don't make any claim to understand a lot of the terminology, or any of the chemistry involved, so I'm basically taking it at face value that you know what you're talking about when you come to the conclusions you came to. What I do understand of it makes sense though, and overall it looks like a well-reasoned experiment.
If I am understanding correctly, the method (GCMS) you used to test the historical lake levels is a different method than your predecessors (Blunt and Negrini) whom you were comparing your findings to? So, in essence, your thesis is an explanation of this method and concluding that it is an effective one? You used the terms "straight forward" and "inexpensive" so is this also perhaps essentially an advertisement of this method as being a suitable better method of making these tests while still being accurate?
3139952
That's essentially correct. It's taking the lake levels from the previous study and confirming that they're actually due to rain instead of say, a river migrating in and out of the basin. I wouldn't say it's a 'better' method for determining lake level (as Clay% is actually really straightforward and cheaper) but there's a handful of such proxies to use (C/N, total organic/inorganic carbon, etc.), and you generally want to use as many as you can to check each other. This is another useful addition to the set and works well in lakes with really low organic carbon levels (and bad pollen preservation) that might make some other methods difficult.
Also, regarding terminology, I have a vague idea of making a few tweaks to the power point I used at my defense, finding a mic, and throwing up a youtube video. This was written to be formally submitted as a journal article and for departmental review as a thesis, so the terminology is skewed towards people who are already experts, but I'm pretty sure I can make it a lot more accessible to laymen.