Cited by 101Geology and Paleoclimatology ResearchPaleontology and Stratigraphy of FossilsClimate variability and models

A reassessment of the precision of carbonate clumped isotope measurements: implications for calibrations and paleoclimate reconstructions

Open access
Fernandez, Alvaro, Müller, Inigo A., Rodríguez‐Sanz, Laura, van Dijk, Joep, Looser, Nathan, Bernasconi, Stefano M.·2017·Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems

Abstract

Carbonate clumped isotopes offer a potentially transformational tool to interpret Earth's history, but the proxy is still limited by poor interlaboratory reproducibility. Here, we focus on the uncertainties that result from the analysis of only a few replicate measurements to understand the extent to which unconstrained errors affect calibration relationships and paleoclimate reconstructions. We find that highly precise data can be routinely obtained with multiple replicate analyses, but this is not always done in many laboratories. For instance, using published estimates of external reproducibilities we find that typical clumped isotope measurements (three replicate analyses) have margins of error at the 95% confidence level (CL) that are too large for many applications. These errors, however, can be systematically reduced with more replicate measurements. Second, using a Monte Carlo‐type simulation we demonstrate that the degree of disagreement on published calibration slopes is about what we should expect considering the precision of Δ 47 data, the number of samples and replicate analyses, and the temperature range covered in published calibrations. Finally, we show that the way errors are typically reported in clumped isotope data can be problematic and lead to the impression that data are more precise than warranted. We recommend that uncertainties in Δ 47 data should no longer be reported as the standard error of a few replicate measurements. Instead, uncertainties should be reported as margins of error at a specified confidence level (e.g., 68% or 95% CL). These error bars are a more realistic indication of the reliability of a measurement.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/2017gc007106

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [3]3. Blainey, P., Krzywinski, M., & Altman, N. (2014). Points of significance: Replication. Nature Methods, 11, 879-880. https://doi.org/10.1038/ nmeth.3091
  2. [20]20. IUPAC (2006). UPAC. Compendium of chemical terminology, (the ''Gold Book'') (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science Publishing. Retrieved from: http://goldbook.iupac.org

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fernandez, A., Müller, I. A., Rodríguez‐Sanz, L., van Dijk, J., Looser, N., & Bernasconi, S. M.
Affiliations
  • Geological Institute, ETH Zürich Zürich Switzerland
  • ETH Zurich (CH)
  • Australian National University (AU)
Venue
Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems
Published
2017-12
Volume
18
Issue
12
Pages
4375-4386
ISSN
1525-2027 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2785025338
Cited by
101
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3
FWCI
6.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems (publishedVersion)
  • DIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)) (acceptedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Swiss National Science Foundation (200020_160046, 200021_143485, 200021_169849, IZK022‐160377)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Geology and Paleoclimatology Research
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Paleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate variability and models
Keywords
carbonate clumped isotopes, Δ47, measurement precision, interlaboratory reproducibility, calibration uncertainty, paleoclimate reconstruction, replicate measurements, error reporting, confidence intervals, Monte Carlo simulation, paleotemperature

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review