Project

Cyclostratigraphy Intercomparison Project

Goal: The objective of this project is to investigate and quantify reproducibility of cyclostratigraphic studies and to provide a platform to discuss the merits and pitfalls of different methodologies, and their applicability.

Updates
0 new
16
Recommendations
0 new
25
Followers
0 new
64
Reads
0 new
699

Project log

Matthias Sinnesael
added an update
Dear all,
The www.cyclostratigraphy.org website keeps growing with:
A second lecture on Orbital cycles and time-distribution in shallow-marine carbonate sequences by André Strasser: https://www.cyclostratigraphy.org/teaching-materials
And four very interesting and diverse podcasts: https://www.cyclostratigraphy.org/podcast
Check it out!
 
Matthias Sinnesael
added an update
Dear all,
A follow-up initiative: the https://www.cyclostratigraphy.org/website!
This website is an online confluence for the cyclostratigraphic community. We are working on the creation of new teaching materials for cyclostratigraphy, open-access quality figures in a figure repository, a new CycloPod podcast series, hosting a newsletter … and we hope to keep growing.
Check it out and let us know!
Best Regards,
The CIP-Team
 
Christian Zeeden
added an update
Dear Colleagues,
the abstract deadline for next years’ EGU is coming up January 15th, I would like highlight two sessions which have been interesting and successful over the last years, ‘Integrated Stratigraphy - Recent advances in stratigraphic systems and geochronology’ and ‘Climate response to orbital forcing’ please find the links below.
Hope to see you next May in Vienna!
 
Matthias Sinnesael
added an update
Dear all,
The pre-proof version of our open access CIP summarizing paper in Earth-Science reviews is now available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825219304179
Stay tuned for the edited version.
Best Regards,
The CIP-Team
 
Matthias Sinnesael
added a research item
Cyclostratigraphy is an important tool for understanding astronomical climate forcing and reading geological time in sedimentary sequences, provided that an imprint of insolation variations caused by Earth’s orbital eccentricity, obliquity and/or precession is preserved (Milankovitch forcing). Numerous stratigraphic and paleoclimate studies have applied cyclostratigraphy, but the robustness of the methodology and its dependence on the investigator have not been systematically evaluated. We developed the Cyclostratigraphy Intercomparison Project (CIP) to assess the robustness of cyclostratigraphic methods using an experimental design of three artificial cyclostratigraphic case studies with known input parameters. Each case study is designed to address specific challenges that are relevant to cyclostratigraphy. Case 1 represents an offshore research vessel environment, as only a drill-core photo and the approximate position of a late Miocene stage boundary are available for analysis. In Case 2, the Pleistocene proxy record displays clear nonlinear cyclical patterns and the interpretation is complicated by the presence of a hiatus. Case 3 represents a Late Devonian proxy record with a low signal-to-noise ratio with no specific theoretical astronomical solution available for this age. Each case was analyzed by a test group of 17-20 participants, with varying experience levels, methodological preferences and dedicated analysis time. During the CIP 2018 meeting in Brussels, Belgium, the ensuing analyses and discussion demonstrated that most participants did not arrive at a perfect solution, which may be partly explained by the limited amount of time spent on the exercises (~4.5 hours per case). However, in all three cases, the median solution of all submitted analyses accurately approached the correct result and several participants obtained the exact correct answers. Interestingly, systematically better performances were obtained for cases that represented the data type and stratigraphic age that were closest to the individual participants’ experience. This experiment demonstrates that cyclostratigraphy is a powerful tool for deciphering time in sedimentary successions and, importantly, that it is a trainable skill. Finally, we emphasize the importance of an integrated stratigraphic approach and provide flexible guidelines on what good practices in cyclostratigraphy should include. Our case studies provide valuable insight into current common practices in cyclostratigraphy, their potential merits and pitfalls. Our work does not provide a quantitative measure of reliability and uncertainty of cyclostratigraphy, but rather constitutes a starting point for further discussions on how to move the maturing field of cyclostratigraphy forward.
Christian Zeeden
added an update
  • Dear colleagues, The AGU session entitled “PP009: Cyclostratigraphy and Astronomical Forcing of Past Climates” aims to highlight recent advances in cyclostratigraphy and astronomical forced climate change. Also contributions on the various challenges in paleoclimatology and cyclostratigraphy are encouraged.
  • A presentation on the CIP results is invited
 
Matthias Sinnesael
added an update
The results of the CIP will be presented at the EGU (Integrated Stratigraphy session, SSP2.2/CL1.36 ) and STRATI (Cyclostratigraphy session) meetings:
Dear colleagues, please note the STRATI field trip registration is closing today, abstracts are due 10th March. Several relevant sessions include (http://www.strati2019.it/):
ST2.1 Chemo- and biostratigraphy: complementary or antagonistic tools?
ST2.3 Applications of cyclostratigraphy in understanding Earth history
ST9.2 Calibrating rates and dates in stratigraphy
 
Matthias Sinnesael
added an update
Dear all,
Next week we will have the CIP workshop in Brussels, exciting! Below you can find the last circular with the final programme.
Best Regards, The CIP-Team
 
Matthias Sinnesael
added an update
Dear all,
To give everybody the opportunity to finish analyzing as much case studies as possible, the deadline for submission and payment will be delayed once to Monday July 09.
Best Regards, The CIP-Team
 
Matthias Sinnesael
added an update
Dear all,
A sharp eye has noticed an inconsistency between the data provided for case two and the image that was plotted in the accompanying document ‘CIP_CaseStudies.pdf’. This has been corrected, the raw data in the excel file were correct, the figure has been updated in the attached files‘CIP_CaseStudies_corrected.pdf’.
Our sincere apologies for this inconvenience.
The CIP-Team
 
Matthias Sinnesael
added an update
Dear All,
Attached you can also find the data files for he case studies.
 
Matthias Sinnesael
added an update
We are excited to share the second circular for the Cyclostratigraphy Intercomparison Project (CIP) Workshop which will be held in Brussels from Monday July 30 till Wednesday August 01 2018.
Here we also present the three case studies!
Participation in this project in possible in several ways:
1) Join us at the workshop (minimal condition: analyze at least one, preferentially more, case study and submit the results before 01/07/2018 + pay registration fee + email with expression of interest).
2) Analyze and submit results on one or more records. To be considered as a co-author in a potential review-style publication without participation to the workshop, all three artificial case studies have to be studied and submitted before 01/07/2018 (independently per participant!).
 
Matthias Sinnesael
added an update
The main goal of this 3-day workshop is to test reproducibility, standardization of results and uncertainties in the field of cyclostratigraphy by studying three case studies in detail. This implies the analysis of 3 artificial geological records by (20-30) individual researchers.
All participants are free to determine their method of choice; however, a handful of criterions will be required as an outcome must be comparable. The different results will be compared and even more importantly, their pathways and resulting (in)accuracy will be discussed.
See First Circular or contact Matthias.Sinnesael@vub.be for more information. More information on registration and content will follow.
 
Matthias Sinnesael
added 2 research items
The objective of this project is to investigate and quantify reproducibility of cyclostratigraphic studies and to provide a platform to discuss the merits and pitfalls of different methodologies, and their applicability. The project will be structured around several “test scenarios”, which are signals to be analyzed by participants that feature state-of-the-art challenges in time-series analysis of geologic signals. Participants will be solicited to submit and/or present and describe their solutions to one or several of the ”test scenarios” at a common event (e.g. workshop).
The study of astronomical climate forcing and the application of cyclostratigraphy have experienced a spectacular growth 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.
Matthias Sinnesael
added an update
Project goal
The objective of this project is to investigate and quantify reproducibility of cyclostratigraphic studies and to provide a platform to discuss the merits and pitfalls of different methodologies, and their applicability.
Background and motivation
The study of astronomical climate forcing and the application of cyclostratigraphy have experienced a spectacular growth 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.
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.