Correlating paleoclimate time series: Sources of uncertainty and potential pitfalls. (15th May 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Franke, Jasper G.; Donner, Reik V.
• Is Part Of: Quaternary science reviews. Volume 212(2019)
• Page Start: 69
• Page End: 79
• Publication Date: 2019-05-15
• Subjects: Geology, Stratigraphic -- Quaternary -- Periodicals; Stratigraphie -- Quaternaire -- Périodiques; 551.79
• DOI: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2019.03.017
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0277-3791

Abstract

Abstract: Comparing paleoclimate time series is complicated by a variety of typical features, including irregular sampling, age model uncertainty (e.g., errors due to interpolation between radiocarbon sampling points) and time uncertainty (uncertainty in calibration), which—taken together—result in unequal and uncertain observation times of the individual time series to be correlated. Several methods have been proposed to approximate the joint probability distribution needed to estimate correlations, most of which rely either on interpolation or temporal downsampling. Here, we compare the performance of some popular approximation methods using synthetic data resembling common properties of real world marine sediment records. Correlations are determined by estimating the parameters of a bivariate Gaussian model from the data using Markov Chain Monte Carlo sampling. We complement our pseudoproxy experiments by applying the same methodology to a pair of marine benthic δ 18 O records from the Atlantic Ocean. We find that methods based upon interpolation yield better results in terms of precision and accuracy than those which reduce the number of observations. In all cases, the specific characteristics of the studied time series are, however, more important than the choice of a particular interpolation method. Relevant features include the number of observations, the persistence of each record, and the imposed coupling strength between the paired series. In most of our pseudoproxy experiments, uncertainty in observation times introduces less additional uncertainty than unequal sampling and errors in observation times do. Thus, it can be reasonable to rely on published time scales as long as calibration uncertainties are not known.