Abstract Details
(2020) Stable and Radiogenic Strontium Isotopes in Seawater over the Late Quaternary
Wood M, Tatzel M, Pit S & Paytan A
https://doi.org/10.46427/gold2020.2886
The author has not provided any additional details.
14d: Plenary Hall, Tuesday 23rd June 00:39 - 00:42
Madison Wood
View abstracts at 3 conferences in series
Michael Tatzel View all 2 abstracts at Goldschmidt2020 View abstracts at 7 conferences in series
Susan Pit View abstracts at 3 conferences in series
Adina Paytan View all 6 abstracts at Goldschmidt2020
Michael Tatzel View all 2 abstracts at Goldschmidt2020 View abstracts at 7 conferences in series
Susan Pit View abstracts at 3 conferences in series
Adina Paytan View all 6 abstracts at Goldschmidt2020
Listed below are questions that have been submitted by the community that the author will try and cover in their presentation. To submit a question, ensure you are signed in to the website. Authors or session conveners approve questions before they are displayed here.
Submitted by Boehm Florian on Friday 19th June 16:16
You do not discuss how the data (right panel) fit the model (left panel). Maybe that is because the timing of the two isotope excursions (minima at about 30 kyr and 70 kyr) is inconsistent with sea-level (dropping with minor ups and downs from a maximum at 120Kyr to a minimum at 20 Kyr)? Could this be due to age uncertainties of the samples? What are the horizontal error bars in the diagram (the age uncertainties of the samples)? Florian Böhm
Hi Florian, thanks for your question. The uncertainty for the PC72 age model has been reported as +/- 30%, so the inconsistent timing of the apparent minima in relation to sea-level changes for these samples could be due to this uncertainty. To address your larger point about interpreting the data in the context of the model, I think this requires that the preliminary data set be filled in at higher resolution and with cores from various locations to confirm consistency of trends (which is the plan!). The main point I want to communicate with this preliminary data set is that we observe measurable differences in the stable Sr composition of barites over glacial/interglacial timescales, which makes us hopeful that the hypothesized imbalances in the Sr budget over this period can be resolved in a high-resolution record of seawater stable Sr.
You do not discuss how the data (right panel) fit the model (left panel). Maybe that is because the timing of the two isotope excursions (minima at about 30 kyr and 70 kyr) is inconsistent with sea-level (dropping with minor ups and downs from a maximum at 120Kyr to a minimum at 20 Kyr)? Could this be due to age uncertainties of the samples? What are the horizontal error bars in the diagram (the age uncertainties of the samples)? Florian Böhm
Hi Florian, thanks for your question. The uncertainty for the PC72 age model has been reported as +/- 30%, so the inconsistent timing of the apparent minima in relation to sea-level changes for these samples could be due to this uncertainty. To address your larger point about interpreting the data in the context of the model, I think this requires that the preliminary data set be filled in at higher resolution and with cores from various locations to confirm consistency of trends (which is the plan!). The main point I want to communicate with this preliminary data set is that we observe measurable differences in the stable Sr composition of barites over glacial/interglacial timescales, which makes us hopeful that the hypothesized imbalances in the Sr budget over this period can be resolved in a high-resolution record of seawater stable Sr.
Sign in to ask a question.