Reproducibility in cyclostratigraphy: initiating an intercomparison project
Matthias Sinnesael (1), David De Vleeschouwer (1,2), Christian Zeeden (3), and Philippe Claeys (1)
(1) AMGC, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium (firstname.lastname@example.org)
(2) MARUM, Center for Marine Environmental Science, Bremen, Germany
(3) PSL, IMCCE, Observatoire de Paris, 75014 Paris, France
The study of astronomical climate forcing and the application of cyclostratigraphy have experienced a spectaculargrowth over the last decades. In the ﬁeld of cyclostratigraphy a broad range in methodological approaches exist. However, comparative study between the different approaches is lacking. Different cases demand different approaches, but with the growing importance of the ﬁeld, questions arise about reproducibility, uncertainties and standardization of results. The radioisotopic dating community, in particular, has done far-reaching efforts to improve reproducibility and intercomparison of radioisotopic dates and their errors. To satisfy this need in cyclostratigraphy, we initiate a comparable framework for the community. The aims are to investigate and quantify reproducibility of, and uncertainties related to cyclostratigraphic studies and to provide a platform to discuss the merits and pitfalls of different methodologies, and their applicabilities.
With this poster, we ask the feedback from the community on how to design this comparative framework in a useful, meaningful and productive manner. In parallel, we would like to discuss how reproducibility should be tested and what uncertainties should stand for in cyclostratigraphy. On the other hand, we intend to trigger interest for a cyclostratigraphic intercomparison project. This intercomparison project would imply the analysis of artiﬁcial and genuine geological records by individual researchers. All participants would be free to determine their method of choice. However, a handful of criterions will be required for an outcome to be comparable. The different results would be compared (e.g. during a workshop or a special session), and the lessons learned from the comparison could potentially be reported in a review paper. The aim of an intercomparison project is not to rank the different methods according to their merits, but to get insight into which speciﬁc methods are most suitable for which speciﬁc problems, and obtain more information on different sources of uncertainty. As this intercomparison project should be supported by the broader cyclostratigraphic community, we open the ﬂoor for suggestions, ideas and practical remarks.