Articles | Volume 12, issue 6
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-2571-2019
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-2571-2019
Methods for assessment of models
 | 
28 Jun 2019
Methods for assessment of models |  | 28 Jun 2019

Quantitative stratigraphic analysis in a source-to-sink numerical framework

Xuesong Ding, Tristan Salles, Nicolas Flament, and Patrice Rey

Related authors

Flexural isostatic response of continental-scale deltas to climatically driven sea level changes
Sara Polanco, Mike Blum, Tristan Salles, Bruce C. Frederick, Rebecca Farrington, Xuesong Ding, Ben Mather, Claire Mallard, and Louis Moresi
Earth Surf. Dynam., 12, 301–320, https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-12-301-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-12-301-2024, 2024
Short summary

Related subject area

Climate and Earth system modeling
The ensemble consistency test: from CESM to MPAS and beyond
Teo Price-Broncucia, Allison Baker, Dorit Hammerling, Michael Duda, and Rebecca Morrison
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2349–2372, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2349-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2349-2025, 2025
Short summary
Presentation, calibration and testing of the DCESS II Earth system model of intermediate complexity (version 1.0)
Esteban Fernández Villanueva and Gary Shaffer
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2161–2192, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2161-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2161-2025, 2025
Short summary
Synthesizing global carbon–nitrogen coupling effects – the MAGICC coupled carbon–nitrogen cycle model v1.0
Gang Tang, Zebedee Nicholls, Alexander Norton, Sönke Zaehle, and Malte Meinshausen
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2193–2230, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2193-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2193-2025, 2025
Short summary
Historical trends and controlling factors of isoprene emissions in CMIP6 Earth system models
Ngoc Thi Nhu Do, Kengo Sudo, Akihiko Ito, Louisa K. Emmons, Vaishali Naik, Kostas Tsigaridis, Øyvind Seland, Gerd A. Folberth, and Douglas I. Kelley
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2079–2109, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2079-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2079-2025, 2025
Short summary
Investigating carbon and nitrogen conservation in reported CMIP6 Earth system model data
Gang Tang, Zebedee Nicholls, Chris Jones, Thomas Gasser, Alexander Norton, Tilo Ziehn, Alejandro Romero-Prieto, and Malte Meinshausen
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2111–2136, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2111-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2111-2025, 2025
Short summary

Cited articles

Abreu, V., Pederson, K., Neal, J., and Bohacs, K.: A simplified guide for sequence stratigraphy: nomenclature, definitions and method, in: William Smith Meeting, 22–23 September 2014, The Geological Society, Burlington House, London, Paper number: 4, 2014. a
Ainsworth, B. R., McArthur, J. B., Lang, S. C., and Vonk, A. J.: Quantitative sequence stratigraphy, AAPG Bull., 102, 1913–1939, 2018. a
Bond, G. C., Kominz, M. A., Steckler, M. S., and Grotzinger, J. P.: Role of thermal subsidence, flexure, and eustasy in the evolution of early Paleozoic passive-margin carbonate platforms, in: Controls on Carbonate Platform and Basin Development, SEPM, Special Publication, 44, 39–61, 1989. a
Braun, J.: The many surface expressions of mantle dynamics, Nat. Geosci., 3, 825–833, 2010. a
Burgess, P. M.: RESEARCH FOCUS: The future of the sequence stratigraphy paradigm: Dealing with a variable third dimension, Geology, 44, 335–336, 2016. a, b
Download
Short summary
This work introduced a quantitative stratigraphic framework within a source-to-sink numerical code, pyBadlands, and evaluated two stratigraphic interpretation techniques. This quantitative framework allowed us to quickly construct the strata formations and automatically produce strata interpretations. We further showed that the accommodation succession method, compared with the trajectory analysis method, provided more reliable interpretations as it is independent of time-dependent processes.
Share