- 1LIAG-Institute for Applied Geophysics, Hannover, Germany (christian.zeeden@leibniz-liag.de)
- 2Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
- 3University of Münster, Institute of Geology and Paleontology, Münster, Germany
- 4Liège University, Sedimentary Petrology, Belgium
- 5Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium
- 6Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Department of Chemistry (AMGC), Brussels, Belgium
The study of astronomical climate forcing and the application of cyclostratigraphy grew spectacularly over the last decades. In cyclostratigraphy a wide range in methods are used to assess cyclicity and orbitally forced cyclicity. However, comparative studies between these different approaches remain too rare. Different geological datasets clearly require specific approaches. With the growing importance of the field, questions arise about reproducibility, uncertainties and standardization of methods and reporting of results. To address these questions, we initiated a framework for analysing and comparing cyclostratigraphic investigations within 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 applicability. After a successful first Cyclostratigraphy Intercomparison Project (CIP) workshop in 2018, activities shifted online during Covid-19 with the development of the www.cyclostratigraphy.org website that hosts a growing suite of cyclostratigraphy-related educational and communication materials. In 2024, a second intercomparison workshop took place in-person during the summer in Brussels, Belgium. Participants analysed real cyclostratigraphic data before and during the meeting. The compiled results were presented and discussed during the workshop, state-of the art keynote lectures were given followed by topical debates. One relevant outcome of these efforts to be discussed in this session is that spectral analysis must always be considered in the context of background knowledge, and complementary data analyses are often needed to reach a conclusion.
Literature:
Sinnesael, M., De Vleeschouwer, D., Zeeden, C., Batenburg, S. J., Da Silva, A.-C., de Winter, N. J., Dinarès-Turell, J., Drury, A. J., Gambacorta, G., Hilgen, F. J., Hinnov, L. A., Hudson, A. J. L., Kemp, D. B., Lantink, M. L., Laurin, J., Li, M., Liebrand, D., Ma, C., Meyers, S. R., Monkenbusch, J., Montanari, A., Nohl, T., Pälike, H., Pas, D., Ruhl, M., Thibault, N., Vahlenkamp, M., Valero, L., Wouters, S., Wu, H., and Claeys, P.: The Cyclostratigraphy Intercomparison Project (CIP): consistency, merits and pitfalls, Earth-Sci. Rev., 102965, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2019.102965, 2019.
How to cite: Zeeden, C., Sinnesael, M., De Vleeschouwer, D., Da Silva, A.-C., Crucifix, M., and Claeys, P.: Initial Results of the Cyclostratigraphy Intercomparison Project 2, EGU General Assembly 2025, Vienna, Austria, 27 Apr–2 May 2025, EGU25-13786, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu25-13786, 2025.