21 Aug 2020
21 Aug 2020
Bias and error in modelling thermochronometric data: resolving a potential increase in Plio-Pleistocene erosion rate
- 1Department of Earth Sciences, ETH-Zurich, Zurich, 8092, Switzerland
- 2Institute of Earth Surface Dynamics, University of Lausanne, Switzerland
- 3Department of Earth Sciences, University College, London, UK
- 4Department of Geosciences Everhard Karls University Tübingen, Germany
- 5School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria, Canada
- 6School of Geosciences, Zhejiang University, China
- 1Department of Earth Sciences, ETH-Zurich, Zurich, 8092, Switzerland
- 2Institute of Earth Surface Dynamics, University of Lausanne, Switzerland
- 3Department of Earth Sciences, University College, London, UK
- 4Department of Geosciences Everhard Karls University Tübingen, Germany
- 5School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria, Canada
- 6School of Geosciences, Zhejiang University, China
Abstract. Thermochronometry provides one of few methods to quantify rock exhumation rate and history, including potential changes in exhumation rate. Thermochronometric ages can resolve rates, accelerations, and complex histories by exploiting different closure temperatures and path lengths using data distributed in elevation. We investigate how the resolution of an exhumation history is determined by the distribution of ages and their closure temperatures through an error analysis of the exhumation history problem. We define the sources of error, defined in terms of resolution, model error and methodological bias in the inverse method used by Herman et al. (2013) which combines data with different closure temperatures and elevations. The error analysis provides a series of tests addressing the various types of bias, including addressing criticism that there is a tendency of thermochronometric data to produce a false inference of faster erosion rates towards the present day because of a spatial correlation bias (Schildgen et al., 2018). Tests based on synthetic data demonstrate that the inverse method used by Herman et al. (2013) has no methodological or model bias towards increasing erosion rates. We do find significant resolution errors with sparse data, but these errors are not systematic, tending rather to leave inferred erosion rates at or near a Bayesian prior. To explain the difference in conclusions between our analysis and that of Schildgen et al. (2018), we examine their paper and find that their model tests used an incorrect geotherm calculation, invalidating their models. We also found that Schildgen et al. (2018) applied a biased operator to the results of Herman et al. (2013) thereby distorting the original results producing a bias that was falsely attributed to the original inverse model. Our reanalysis and interpretation show that the original results of Herman et al. (2013) are correct and there is no evidence for a systematic bias.
Sean D. Willett et al.


-
SC1: 'Comment on Willett et al.', Peter van der Beek, 17 Sep 2020
-
AC2: 'Reply regardeing geotherms and synthetic data generation', Sean Willett, 05 Oct 2020
-
SC2: 'Further discussion of Bias and Error in modelling thermochronometric data', Peter van der Beek, 08 Oct 2020
-
AC5: 'RESPONSE to Comment', Sean Willett, 25 Oct 2020
-
AC6: 'General regarding reproducible methodoloiges', Sean Willett, 12 Nov 2020
-
AC5: 'RESPONSE to Comment', Sean Willett, 25 Oct 2020
-
SC2: 'Further discussion of Bias and Error in modelling thermochronometric data', Peter van der Beek, 08 Oct 2020
-
AC7: 'Reply to Comment', Sean Willett, 07 Dec 2020
-
AC8: 'Reproducing comment models', Sean Willett, 17 Dec 2020
-
AC2: 'Reply regardeing geotherms and synthetic data generation', Sean Willett, 05 Oct 2020
-
EC1: 'General comment', Richard Gloaguen, 18 Sep 2020
-
RC1: 'Comments on manuscript', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 Sep 2020
-
AC9: 'Reply to RC1', Sean Willett, 06 Jan 2021
-
AC9: 'Reply to RC1', Sean Willett, 06 Jan 2021
-
RC2: 'Review of ESurf-2020-59', Anonymous Referee #2, 05 Oct 2020
-
AC3: 'Response to Reviewer 2', Sean Willett, 15 Oct 2020
-
AC3: 'Response to Reviewer 2', Sean Willett, 15 Oct 2020
-
RC4: 'Revised review of Willet et al., including responses', Anonymous Referee #3, 22 Oct 2020
-
EC4: 'PLEASE READ - EDITOR COMMENT -', Richard Gloaguen, 22 Oct 2020
-
AC4: 'Response to Reviewer 3', Sean Willett, 24 Oct 2020
-
EC4: 'PLEASE READ - EDITOR COMMENT -', Richard Gloaguen, 22 Oct 2020
-
EC5: 'Update', Richard Gloaguen, 22 Oct 2020
-
EC6: 'Update 2', Richard Gloaguen, 23 Oct 2020
-
RC5: 'Comment from a reviewer', Anonymous Referee #4, 26 Oct 2020
-
EC7: 'PLEASE READ - EDITOR COMMENT -', Richard Gloaguen, 26 Oct 2020
-
EC7: 'PLEASE READ - EDITOR COMMENT -', Richard Gloaguen, 26 Oct 2020
Sean D. Willett et al.
Sean D. Willett et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1,683 | 339 | 5 | 2,027 | 13 | 10 |
- HTML: 1,683
- PDF: 339
- XML: 5
- Total: 2,027
- BibTeX: 13
- EndNote: 10
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1