the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Towards the construction of regional marine radiocarbon calibration curves: an unsupervised machine learning approach
Abstract. Radiocarbon may serve as a powerful dating tool in palaeoceanography, but its accuracy is severely limited by the need to calibrate radiocarbon dates to calendar ages. A key problem is that marine radiocarbon dates must be corrected for past offsets from either the contemporary atmosphere (i.e. ‘reservoir age’ offsets) or a modelled estimate of the global average surface ocean (i.e. delta-R offsets). This presents a challenge because the spatial distribution of reservoir ages and delta-R offsets can vary significantly, particularly over periods of major marine hydrographic and/or carbon cycle change such as the last deglaciation. Modern reservoir age/delta-R estimates therefore have limited applicability. The construction of regional marine calibration curves could provide a solution to this challenge. However, the spatial reach of such calibrations, and their robustness subject to temporal changes in climate and ocean circulation would need to be tested. Here, we use unsupervised machine learning techniques to define distinct regions of the surface ocean that exhibit coherent behaviour in terms of their radiocarbon age offsets from the contemporary atmosphere (R-ages). We investigate the performance of multiple algorithms (K-Means, K-Medoids, hierarchical clustering) applied to outputs from 2 different numerical models, spanning a range of climate states and timescales of adjustment. Comparisons between the cluster assignments across model runs confirm some robust regional patterns that likely stem from constraints imposed by large-scale ocean and atmospheric physics (i.e. locations of deep mixing, gyres, fronts, divergence etc.). At the coarsest scale, regions of coherent R-age variability correspond to the major ocean basins (Arctic, Atlantic, Southern, Indo-Pacific). By further dividing basin-scale shape-based clusters into amplitude-based subclusters, we recover regional associations that cohere with known modern oceanographic processes, such as increased high latitude R-ages, or the propagation of R-age anomalies from regions of deep mixing in the Southern Ocean to upwelling sites in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific. We show that the medoids (i.e. the most representative locations) for these regional sub-clusters provide significantly better approximations of simulated local R-age variability than constant offsets from the global surface average. This is found to hold when cluster assignments obtained from one model are applied to simulated R-age time series from another. The proposed clusters are also found to be broadly consistent with existing reservoir age reconstructions that span the last ~30 ka. We therefore propose that machine learning provides a promising approach to the problem of defining regions for which marine radiocarbon calibration curves may eventually be generated.
- Preprint
(2879 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1571 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on Marza et al', Paul Zander, 05 Feb 2024
Review of Marza et al. “Towards the construction of regional marine radiocarbon calibration
curves: an unsupervised machine learning approach”
Marza et al., present an analysis in which they use clustering algorithms to investigate the spatial and temporal variability of marine radiocarbon reservoir ages in model simulations. The authors demonstrate that this type of analysis has a strong potential for improving marine radiocarbon calibration curves compared to the current standard approach of applying constant reservoir age corrections to the global marine calibration curve. I find the analysis interesting and agree there is a strong potential for this approach to lead to better radiocarbon-based age models for marine cores.
Comments:
Overall, my comments are minor. The problem and questions are well-introduced and the results are explained mostly coherently. My one complaint would be that I hoped the authors could go further in demonstrating how the cluster results can already inform marine core age models.
If this analysis were conducted on a transient simulation of the deglaciation, then the sediment-based R-age estimates shown in Fig. 14 could be used as validation of the k-medoids results, and the regional R-age curves from the cluster analysis would probably provide already provide useful estimates of reservoir ages for paleoceanographers. However, the interval selected from MIS 3 makes validation with proxy data difficult, and the regional R-age curves are probably less useful given large uncertainties in 14C ages from MIS3. Clearly, redoing the analysis on a new set of simulations is outside the scope of the current study, however it would be worth including some justification in the methods about why the two model datasets were selected and not a transient simulation of the deglaciation.
The brief section on the sediment-derived R-ages feels somewhat disconnected from the results of the models. I was hoping to see some validation that could show that the clusters found in the models are somehow reasonable when real datasets are considered. To that end – what does Fig. 14 look like if you apply the clusters from Fig 10 rather than calculating new clusters? Are the results similar to what you obtained from clustering the proxy timeseries? This would provide a good test of the cluster results and show their utility for interpreting paleo records of reservoir ages.
The authors suggest that applying these cluster methods to data-based reservoir ages could help develop regional reservoir age curves, and I agree. However, I am also wondering if it is possible to already gain some improvements by applying the results of the cluster analysis shown here without the need for generating new proxy R-age records. Please comment, are the k-medoids timeseries of R-ages already useful for constructing regional calibration curves, why or why not? Are there next steps that can be suggested to achieve regional calibration curves based on modelling/statistical methods?Another idea that comes to mind for the application of these results could be a tool in which researchers can input a coordinate of a sampling location and then generate a map of the expected similarity of R-ages. With this information, one could select sites that have useful information about R-ages for your site of interest. Maybe an idea for future work…
Minor Comments
Fig 1 - Define U-Tr in caption. Over what timespan is this maximum variability calculated?
Line 240 – Line 245: I believe there are several discrepancies between how the text describes the figure, and what is shown in the figure and written in the caption. This makes it very difficult to follow. Some examples are below, but please check carefully.
Line 240 - Elbow is shown at K=6 in the figure, but written as K = 5 in the text.
Line 243 – K-medoids are on the right side of the plot, change “(Figure 4 left hand plots, dashed lines)” to say right hand plots
Line 244 - “when using normalized data (Figure 4)” – should it say “unnormalized data”?
Line 245 – I am unable to parse the meaning of the concluding sentence of this paragraph.
Fig. 5 - Label time step units. Label A, B, C as noted in text.
Line 279 – Suggest deleting relatively.
Fig. 9&10 – label time step units
Fig. 11 – How was 7 chosen as the number of clusters? Based on the dendrogram, 4 clusters appears more logical to me (greater gap in the distances there), and would allow a more direct comparison with Fig 9.
Personally, I find Fig. S3 more interesting (comparing results from two different models and two different timescales of variability) than some of the plots included in the main text (eg Fig 12, Fig 6).
It would be interesting to also compare the K-medoids timeseries obtained from the U-Tr raw data with those shown in Fig. 9 and 10. I.e. what happens if you just use un-normalized data rather than doing a two step procedure with normalized data and then subclusters on raw data?
Line 417 – I think Figure 1b should rather be 1a
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gchron-2023-26-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Luke Skinner, 28 Apr 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on gchron-2023-26', Tim Heaton, 21 Feb 2024
Thank you for letting me read your paper. I found it really interesting. Please find attached my comments - I hope they are useful,
Tim Heaton
- AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Luke Skinner, 28 Apr 2024
-
CC1: 'Comment on gchron-2023-26', Katy Sparrow, 24 Feb 2024
This article by Marza et al. deals with an important topic for studies involving the radiocarbon dating of marine samples. It is widely recognized within the scientific community that global curves are not ideal for the calibration of ages obtained from marine material. However, the authors appear to have overlooked the work of Alves et al. (2019), which directly addresses the same issue of marine calibration in radiocarbon dating and discusses the limitations and challenges associated with constructing regional marine calibration curves.Alves, E.Q., Macario, K.D., Urrutia, F.P., Cardoso, R.P. and Ramsey, C.B., 2019. Accounting for the marine reservoir effect in radiocarbon calibration. Quaternary Science Reviews, 209, pp.129-138, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2019.02.013Citation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/gchron-2023-26-CC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Luke Skinner, 28 Apr 2024
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on Marza et al', Paul Zander, 05 Feb 2024
Review of Marza et al. “Towards the construction of regional marine radiocarbon calibration
curves: an unsupervised machine learning approach”
Marza et al., present an analysis in which they use clustering algorithms to investigate the spatial and temporal variability of marine radiocarbon reservoir ages in model simulations. The authors demonstrate that this type of analysis has a strong potential for improving marine radiocarbon calibration curves compared to the current standard approach of applying constant reservoir age corrections to the global marine calibration curve. I find the analysis interesting and agree there is a strong potential for this approach to lead to better radiocarbon-based age models for marine cores.
Comments:
Overall, my comments are minor. The problem and questions are well-introduced and the results are explained mostly coherently. My one complaint would be that I hoped the authors could go further in demonstrating how the cluster results can already inform marine core age models.
If this analysis were conducted on a transient simulation of the deglaciation, then the sediment-based R-age estimates shown in Fig. 14 could be used as validation of the k-medoids results, and the regional R-age curves from the cluster analysis would probably provide already provide useful estimates of reservoir ages for paleoceanographers. However, the interval selected from MIS 3 makes validation with proxy data difficult, and the regional R-age curves are probably less useful given large uncertainties in 14C ages from MIS3. Clearly, redoing the analysis on a new set of simulations is outside the scope of the current study, however it would be worth including some justification in the methods about why the two model datasets were selected and not a transient simulation of the deglaciation.
The brief section on the sediment-derived R-ages feels somewhat disconnected from the results of the models. I was hoping to see some validation that could show that the clusters found in the models are somehow reasonable when real datasets are considered. To that end – what does Fig. 14 look like if you apply the clusters from Fig 10 rather than calculating new clusters? Are the results similar to what you obtained from clustering the proxy timeseries? This would provide a good test of the cluster results and show their utility for interpreting paleo records of reservoir ages.
The authors suggest that applying these cluster methods to data-based reservoir ages could help develop regional reservoir age curves, and I agree. However, I am also wondering if it is possible to already gain some improvements by applying the results of the cluster analysis shown here without the need for generating new proxy R-age records. Please comment, are the k-medoids timeseries of R-ages already useful for constructing regional calibration curves, why or why not? Are there next steps that can be suggested to achieve regional calibration curves based on modelling/statistical methods?Another idea that comes to mind for the application of these results could be a tool in which researchers can input a coordinate of a sampling location and then generate a map of the expected similarity of R-ages. With this information, one could select sites that have useful information about R-ages for your site of interest. Maybe an idea for future work…
Minor Comments
Fig 1 - Define U-Tr in caption. Over what timespan is this maximum variability calculated?
Line 240 – Line 245: I believe there are several discrepancies between how the text describes the figure, and what is shown in the figure and written in the caption. This makes it very difficult to follow. Some examples are below, but please check carefully.
Line 240 - Elbow is shown at K=6 in the figure, but written as K = 5 in the text.
Line 243 – K-medoids are on the right side of the plot, change “(Figure 4 left hand plots, dashed lines)” to say right hand plots
Line 244 - “when using normalized data (Figure 4)” – should it say “unnormalized data”?
Line 245 – I am unable to parse the meaning of the concluding sentence of this paragraph.
Fig. 5 - Label time step units. Label A, B, C as noted in text.
Line 279 – Suggest deleting relatively.
Fig. 9&10 – label time step units
Fig. 11 – How was 7 chosen as the number of clusters? Based on the dendrogram, 4 clusters appears more logical to me (greater gap in the distances there), and would allow a more direct comparison with Fig 9.
Personally, I find Fig. S3 more interesting (comparing results from two different models and two different timescales of variability) than some of the plots included in the main text (eg Fig 12, Fig 6).
It would be interesting to also compare the K-medoids timeseries obtained from the U-Tr raw data with those shown in Fig. 9 and 10. I.e. what happens if you just use un-normalized data rather than doing a two step procedure with normalized data and then subclusters on raw data?
Line 417 – I think Figure 1b should rather be 1a
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gchron-2023-26-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Luke Skinner, 28 Apr 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on gchron-2023-26', Tim Heaton, 21 Feb 2024
Thank you for letting me read your paper. I found it really interesting. Please find attached my comments - I hope they are useful,
Tim Heaton
- AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Luke Skinner, 28 Apr 2024
-
CC1: 'Comment on gchron-2023-26', Katy Sparrow, 24 Feb 2024
This article by Marza et al. deals with an important topic for studies involving the radiocarbon dating of marine samples. It is widely recognized within the scientific community that global curves are not ideal for the calibration of ages obtained from marine material. However, the authors appear to have overlooked the work of Alves et al. (2019), which directly addresses the same issue of marine calibration in radiocarbon dating and discusses the limitations and challenges associated with constructing regional marine calibration curves.Alves, E.Q., Macario, K.D., Urrutia, F.P., Cardoso, R.P. and Ramsey, C.B., 2019. Accounting for the marine reservoir effect in radiocarbon calibration. Quaternary Science Reviews, 209, pp.129-138, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2019.02.013Citation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/gchron-2023-26-CC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Luke Skinner, 28 Apr 2024
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
374 | 105 | 26 | 505 | 53 | 19 | 16 |
- HTML: 374
- PDF: 105
- XML: 26
- Total: 505
- Supplement: 53
- BibTeX: 19
- EndNote: 16
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1