CRONUS-Eart-Earth 
Annual Meeting 2007 
Berkeley, California, 8-9 December 


CRONUS-Earth Meeting Minutes 

Saturday, December 8, 2007 

Attendees 

Fred Phllips 
Tim Jull 
Greg Balco 
Bob Reedy 
Janet Sisterson 
Alice Doughty 
Meredith Kelly 
Aaron Putnam 
Mike Kaplan 
Marian Scott 
Lisa Majkowski 
Katrin Mai 
Kees Welton 
Marek Zreda 
Darin Desilets 
Kuni Nishiizumi 
Nat Lifton 
Brian Borchers 
Bailey Dugan 
Brent Goering 
David Argento 
Shasta Marrero 
Enriqueta Barrera 
Jonathan (Kuni’s student) 

Missing 

John Gosse (delayed in transit) 
Tibor Dunai (missed flight) 
Marc Caffee (Antarctica) 
Joerg Shaefer (baby expected) 
Mark Kurz (Antarctica) 
Bob Finkel (France) 
John Stone (Antarctica) 


Meeting began at 12:45. 



Housekeeping (Nishiizumi) 

• 
Conference center housekeeping (history of conference center, restrooms, drinks, 
tour of Kuni’s clean lab later in the day). 
Welcome (Phillips) 

• 
Change in format of meeting. 
• 
Time to think in terms of how individual efforts will contribute to global project 
goals. 
• 
Standardized reporting. 
NSF Perspective (Barrera) 

• 
Group invited to ask questions. 
• 
Pleased with the success of program (leadership, participation, organization, 
results). 
• 
Looking forward to February information meeting. 
• 
International connection brings a lot of attention to NSF. 
• 
Other earth science community news – new/future projects will find role for 
cosmogenic nuclides (Critical Zone Observatories, climate change studies). 
• 
NSF trend to develop observatories. 
• 
CRONUS-Earth work will feed into work in plans for the next ten years. 
• 
Future support: 
o 
no new funding in 2008 (flat or down). 
o 
Earth Scope is the priority. 
o 
Submit annual report soon – need to get funds before money gets 
reallocated to Earth Scope (before end of January). 
• 
Number of positions available at the NSF: 
o 
Earth Science Division Director -would like to have someone in surface 
earth processes. Apply for position or share the announcment. Closes at 
end of January. 
o 
Positions available with Enriqueta – biology, geomorphology. 
• 
Geosciences and geoinformatics – CRONUS-Earth needs to develop a 
compellation of databases with standardized terminology. 
• 
Questions: 
o 
What are three observatories? 
NSF had funds for allocated for 2 two observatories and supported the third 
from the core program –UC Merced (located in the Sierra Nevada), U 
Colorado Boulder, Penn State (Susquehanna). Observatories open for 
collaboration. Researchers can apply for additional funding to work at these 
laboratories. 
o 
If observatories and CRONUS-Earth are taking large amounts of money 
from the core program, will this change the nature of how NSF funds 
smaller research projects? 
CRONUS-Earth and observatories have a finite life (five years). Last year, 
program budget increased by 20%. Makes up for prior under-funding. 
However, Earth Scope and NEON are long term, with infrastructure funding 
coming from Congress. Eventually, the NSF will have to support these long



term projects, maybe from core program. Waters Programs is important 
because it includes surficial processes. because it includes surficial processes. 

Action item: Submit annual reports before end of January. 

Issue 1: Improvement of accuracy of cross-sections 

Geological calibration 

Moderator: Phillips 

Overview (Phillips) 

• 
Production rate – measure it empirically or measure energy dependant cross-
sections and integrate. 
• 
We have funds for processing of samples. 
• 
Sampling on schedule except for Hawaii (need additional radiocarbon samples, 
permitting issues). 
• 
Slower than expected on analyses due to change in procedure. All rock now 
ground at central site and homogenized, then aliquots sent to individual 
investigators – slow process. 
• 
John Stone is working on the borehole in Antarctica. 
• 
Mid to high latitudes are utility for basic production rate calculations Low 
latitudes (high altitude) used for scaling. 
• 
Questions: 
o 
Purpose of Peru elevation transect? 
Provides low altitude sample. 
o 
Getting samples from Joe Licciardi and John Gosse’s Wind River sites to 
do duplicates? 
Fred will contact Joe and John. 


o 
Are there radiocarbon samples from Hawaii flows? 
Yes. 
o 
What were the initial criteria for calibration sites? 
Geology had to be well known, age control on site, and evidence of boulder 
erosion rates. 
Action item: Contact Licciardi and Stone for samples. 
Action item: Need to develop criteria for sites -minimum number of samples must agree 
before site is identified as calibration data set and the role of investigator site 
knowledge/judgment. 
Action item: Need to get field/lab evidence for “wacko” sites -should try to say why site 
is not correlating. 


Sample submission forms (Majkowski) 

• 
An online form for requesting reimbursement for sample preparation (and 
analysis, in the case of noble gas samples) will soon be up and running on the 

NMT website. Please review the prototype online sample form and give 
feedback. feedback. 

• 
Suggested amendments: 
o 
Drop-down list of sample sites 
o 
Blank option to enter different sample site 
o 
Option to select multiple nuclides simultaneously for single sample 
o 
Require password to access sample form 
o 
Update lab costs 
o 
Add noble gas, U Arizona to lab selection 
o 
Generate figures for labs to invoice 
o 
Add data from other tests (XRF, etc.) 
Action item: Make changes to form. 
Action item: Check laboratory costs. 
Action item: Go live by January 15, 2008. 
Action item: Enter all previously analyzed samples. 


Promontory Point 

• 
Some samples have good agreement with a couple of outliers have seen this 
several times). Outliers may not be biased but quantitatively different. 
• 
Slightly over-estimating age. 
• 
Suggestion – start making duplicates within own lab. Could be a homogenization 
problem or different rock type. 
• 
Questions: 
o 
Are there radiocarbon dates? 
Bonneville well constrained, Tab Hill not as well controlled. 
Tabernacle Hill 

• 
3He has good agreement. 
• 
Slightly over-estimating age 
Scotland 

• 
Pleased with convergence of Scotland, Antarctica and Bonneville production rate. 
• 
Questions: 
o 
Getting PPT and Scotland samples? 
Contact Marc Caffee. 
o 
The assumption is 11.6 at Younger Dryas – is this a correct correlation? 
Any independent age control? 
Some are radiocarbon dated. Closely regional. Beetle temperatures. 

o 
Any effort to reproduce Scotland chronology? 
Would need to re-core bogs. Don’t have money in budget. 
o 
Brent has some Norway sites (well-constrained) within Younger Dryas 
(varves and ash) – could these be compared to Scotland? 
o 
Are supplemental funds available for additional Scotland work? 
Potentially but think it through this very carefully. Calibration dollars are on 
track. 

Action item: Fred to send out Marc’s report on Scotland. Fred to send out Marc’s report on Scotland. 

New England (Balco) 

• 
Location – Littleton, NH. 
• 
Boulder sheets lie within varve stratigraphy. Age well constrained. 
• 
See website http://depts.washington.edu/cosmolab/littleton/Littleton_report.html 
• 
Collected seven good samples 
Antarctic Core (Phillips for Stone) 

• 
Questions: 
o 
Status of drilling? 
Moving ahead. John has funding from Polar Program. He is making 
connections with New Zealand drillers. 
Moderator: Sisterson 

Laboratory X-sections (Sisterson/Caffee/Nishiizumi) 

• 
Kuni to receive Janet’s samples within the next year. Kuni will need to look at 
activities and determine when he can do them. 
• 
Tim has some low level samples. 
Measurements (Nishiizumi) 

• 
Questions: 
o 
Will Kuni be going again next year? 
Yes, he will do 200, maybe 300. 
Physics-based modeling (Reedy) 

• 
Methods for computing neutron fluxes are well-benchmarked but it is having 
good values for the production cross-sections that are the key to the ultimate 
production rates. 
• 
Clem found uncertainty in nitrogen x-section. 
• 
Quantity stuff gives a dataset that can be used – can this be used to tell which 
cross-sections that are problematic? By time the problems are identified, it is too 
late. Really need neutron cross-sections. Not possible to model neutron cross-
sections from proton cross-sections. At high enough energy, over 100 MeV, they 
kind of look the same (looking at the effect) – but for many reactions, this is not 
true. Can get an estimate but it may not be physical. 
• 
Bob needs input for parameterizing the cosmic ray flux at the top of the 
atmosphere. 
• 
Questions: 
o 
What does Brian need to in order to end up with better estimates for 
terrestrial rates? 
Bob can provide production at poles (with no-geomagnetic cutoff) within a +/10% 
uncertainty and +/-10% uncertainty on neutron cross-sections. Brian 
would like other locations at different latitudes and longitudes for scaling. 


o 
What about inputting geomag variability to see what happens at top of 
atmosphere? 
Nat says there are estimates from neutron studies. 


Action item: Bob needs input for parameterizing the cosmic ray flux at the top of the 
atmosphere. 
Action item: Bob can provide Brian with production at poles (with no-geomagnetic 
cutoff) within a +/-10% uncertainty and +/-10% uncertainty on neutron cross-sections. 


Parameter optimization modeling (Borchers) 

• 
Issues with result duplication – 36Cl, some PPT 10Be issues. 
• 
Should compile information so that we can see where this issue is happening. 
• 
CRONUS-Earth could hold workshop for users to bring in all data and talk about 
the problems. 
• 
Users haven’t gotten to the point of multiple samples (culture and cash). 
• 
Need to develop formal protocol for duplicates. 
• 
Site samples with variability indicate that there is something different in the 
geology. But what about different results from the same boulder? Must start at the 
beginning to understand where variability initiates. Need to do all steps on every 
sample. 
• 
Brian can’t do calculations until uncertainty is decided. He wants to have 
production rate calculated from neutron flux cross-sections with uncertainties next 
to geologic production rates to compare. He cannot come up with one big 
combination without unbiased estimates and uncertainties. 
• 
Bob cannot provide this information because it is very difficult to calculate the 
neutron flux cross-sections uncertainties. They are at least 10%. He cannot 
provide rigorous numbers. 
• 
Questions: 
o 
Could K and Ca be measured in solution after sample is dissolved? 
Yes. 
o 
What about inputting geomag variability to see what happens at top of 
atmosphere? 
Nat says there are estimates from neutron studies. 


Business Meeting (Phillips) 

Meeting began at 17:30. Fred Phillips chaired the meeting. 

Item 1: Election of three members for Steering Committee (can be new or existing 
members could continue by vote of acclamation). 

Current Steering Committee: Phillips, Jull, Kurtz, Schaefer, Borchers, Stone, Lifton. 

Greg Balco motioned to retain current committee. Bob Reddy seconded. All said aye. 


Item 2: Where to hold the next annual meeting. 

5th Annual Meeting will be held prior to AGU (December 13-14). Need to organize 
community outreach meeting to present appropriate results and protocols for public 
comment. Kuni requested to reserve SSL conference room for next year. Save GSA for 
final year. 

Item 3: Goldschmidt Conference 

Is it possible to organize a meeting for 2008 Goldschmidt (Vancouver, July 13-18)? 
Need to try to organize something with CRONUS-EU (project ending soon). 

Item 4: Additional topics that need more work? 

Trying to understand the sources of variability in sample-to-sample analyses. Once 
intercalibration results are in, CRONUS-Earth can hold a workshop on those plus 
calibrations results and a program to sample and analyze samples to reduce uncertainty. 
Workshop should be limited to those researchers who have had issues (must be careful 
about attendees). Unsure about timing. Needs to be in 2008 (last samples by March 
2008). 

Meeting adjourned at 18:15. 

Saturday, December 8, 2007 

Attendees 

Fred Phllips 
Tim Jull 
Greg Balco 
Bob Reedy 
Janet Sisterson 
Alice Doughty 
Meredith Kelly 
Aaron Putnam 
Mike Kaplan 
Marian Scott 
Lisa Majkowski 
Katrin Mai 
Kees Welton 
Marek Zreda 
Darin Desilets 
Kuni Nishiizumi 
Nat Lifton 
Brian Borchers 
Bailey Dugan 
Brent Goering 


David Argento 
Shasta Marrero 
Enriqueta Barrera 
John Gosse 
Tom Lowell 
Peter Vermeesch 
Shasta Marrero 
Enriqueta Barrera 
John Gosse 
Tom Lowell 
Peter Vermeesch 

Missing 

Tibor Dunai (missed flight) 
Marc Caffee (Antarctica) 
Joerg Shaefer (baby expected) 
Mark Kurz (Antarctica) 
Bob Finkel (France) 
John Stone (Antarctica) 


Meeting began at 08:55. 


Issue 2: Improvement of accuracy of scaling 

Moderator: Lifton 

Interpretation of neutron monitor measurements (Lifton for Clem) 

• 
Clem initially funded for two years. According to Enriqueta, there is no problem 
with getting two more years in the present form of proposal that Clem submitted. 
He must reapply after first year. Not funded yet but in process. 
• 
Issue with neutron monitors – may over-correct. Neutron flux increases with 
altitude. Clem is checking latitude and altitude variations. 
• 
Questions: 
o 
How can we check the neutron flux modeling (effects of uncertainty in 14N 
cross-sections) with actual data? 
Nat will check with Clem. Not a lot of data out there on nitrogen. There may 
be differences in binding energies of nitrogen and it may be incorrect to scale 
form 12C. 

o 
Has Clem only done it with FLUKA model? 
Not sure. There is a new model – MCNPX. The scaling effects will be less 
because you don’t scale from sea level to the top of the atmosphere. 
Action item: Nat will check with Clem about the neutron flux modeling (effects of 
uncertainty in 14N cross-sections). 

Geomagnetic secular variation/trajectory modeling (Lifton) 

• 
CALS7K.2 model. CRONUS-Earth has no calibration data for 50 ka but 
CRONUS-EU does. Katrin has some 51 ka – 300 ka samples from Canary 
Islands. Tibor sent Nat images from Canary Islands and a volcano in South 
America. 
• 
Questions: 

o 
Why does CALS7K.2 have a longitudinal effect? 
It could be because it is non-linear. The difference may be computational. 
o 
VADM data -why SINT-800 not SINT-2000? 
Nobody believes the SINT-2000 values. Cathy Constable indicates that there 
may be problems with way that the volcanics were calibrated. 
o 
How accurate are the time-integrated 14C at sea level (when using this 
model in the web calculator)? 
Given the quality of the calibration dataset, cannot distinguish between 
scaling schemes. Present calibration set will be able to distinguish the scaling 
scheme that is correct (at least Lal vs. neutron monitor). 

Geological scaling activities (Lifton) 

Saturated 14C 

• 
New number difference due to changes in sample processing (increased to 3-4 
days of etching). If you keep etching longer, do you see convergence of values? 
The problem is that grain size eventually gets too small. 
• 
Need to decide on atmospheric pressure for all calibration sites. 
• 
Joerg has pressure data for Tibet. 
• 
Desilets now has non-neutron monitor based-model (?meaning unclear?). 
• 
Questions: 
o 
How old are the saturated Chile samples? 
About 100 ka. 
o 
Have you considered rock surface uplift? 
No because only seeing the last 20 ka. 
o 
Have you read the James Divers paper on how the atmosphere 
compresses? 
Not yet. 


o 
To take non-dipole component information back, is there a way to use 
stochastic modeling to move it back in time using 7 ka record? 
Constable is extending model back 10 ka. She is using spherical harmonic 
models to take it back further. 

o 
Have you considered that samples from the Andes boulders may have 
been covered for a short time by ash? How persistent would it be? 
Could be multiple times but would be relative to location. 

In situ 14C Lab (Goehring) 

• 
Questions: 
o 
How can you check snow cover? 
Will be able to tell from 14C data. 
Canaries (Lifton) 

• 
Stone collected Holocene lavas, CRONUS-EU has Holocene and older lavas. 
• 
Questions: 
o 
What are the age controls? 
Radiocarbon. And Christopher Columbus saw it erupting in 1492. 

Quelccaya & Peru altitude transect (Kelly) (Kelly) 

• 
Erosion problem associated with late Holocene. 
• 
Potential to test the energy dependent scaling using 10Be. But to make a rigorous 
test, would need similar samples from sea level. May not be a high energy-low 
energy thing, may be neutron monitor bias due to dipole. 
• 
Difficult to get a very old minimum (calibrated). If minimum radiocarbon is 9 ka, 
then don’t have calibration site. No, not a problem because you don’t need to get 
that close because of scaling schemes. 
• 
Questions: 
o 
Is there a potential to get good radiocarbon ages from this setting? 
Yes, a lot of continuous peat deposits. 
o 
Can we be glacial geologists and say that this is a Younger Dryas 
moraine? 
No! Must have data supporting this. 


o 
What will you have to do to get minimum ages? 
Will have to core. 
o 
Would like to get an attitude transect for 14C – any thoughts? There are 
exposed higher bedrock ridges but they are highly eroded. 
o 
What about going up from sea level? 
It is a long way from Lima. Could do the altitude transect on the west side. 
o 
How humid is the climate starting at Lima? 
Not that humid. A better transect may be in Chile. 
o 
Is there a potential for snow cover? 
Not really, it’s very windy. 
Action item: Meredith will research potential altitude transects for Fred. 

Andes site (Kaplan) 

• 
Questions: 
o 
Are the errors due to scaling or are they analytical errors? 
Analytical. 
Secondary sites and possibilities (Breque, Iceland, Sierra Nevada, Zuni Bandera, 
Asian transect, Namibia, others?) 

• 
Have money in budget for two TBA sites. 
New Zealand (Doughty/Putnam) 

• 
Some disagreement about precision of data and degree of error (not within one 
sigma). 
Turkey Transect (Zreda) 

• 
No dates on the dome (dates from ash flow). Could potentially be a problem. 
• 
Low energy component may be over-estimated, resulting in 20% difference from 
radiocarbon dates. Maybe should use Fred’s unpublished production rate. 

• 
Other potential problem -sensitivity to any uncertainty in nucleogenic 
computation. 
• 
Questions: 
o 
How many ppm Cl? 
1000. 
Artificial targets (Zreda/Kurz) 

• 
Questions: 
o 
What is going on with Lal targets? 
Prepared toxic targets – could not get permission to put on sites. Lal is 
working on new targets. These targets will only take a few months of 
exposure. Lal has exposed some targets at White Mountains and at sea level in 
La Jolla. He is currently analyzing them and will know if his procedures are 
good. 
o 
Does the difference between targets on ground and on roof have any 
boundary effects? 
It should not affect high-energy neutrons. Could model to take this into 
account. Rooftop placement was due to security. 

o 
Will these samples freeze? 
Probably not. 10Be behavior will be different if water freezes. Freeze-melt 
could be very bad. 
o 
How much 10Be in the plastic? 
Kuni has found 10Be in water blanks. Kuni suggested measuring this first. 
Marek thinks not much 10Be. Could put a carboy under ground for three years. 
Artificial targets (Vermeesch) 

• 
Questions: 
o 
Where was 4500 m site? 
Monte Rosa. 
Artificial targets – action item: Put a 10Be blank carboy under ground for three years 

Issue 3: Improvement in accuracy of analytical measurements 

Moderator: Jull 

Standards and intercomparison (Jull/Scott) 

• 
Need Low Al quartz for 26Al sample. This could be difficult. 
• 
Questions: 
o 
Where does 36Cl fit into this? Does Shasta have material? 
Yes, collected limestone. Send it to Tim when it is ready and it will be used 
for second round. Need evidence that it’s homogeneous and chemical 
composition. Need a minimum of 8 aliquots. 
o 
Original recommendation was to use 5 grams etched with three HF 
treatments. Do you mind if they do more? 
You can etch it again but need to document that this was done. 


o 
Who has done petrography/geochemistry on quartz? Are there inclusions 
(rutile)? 
Tables with this data are available upon request from Tim. 

o 
Why did you do as much preprocessing? 
To test that component. 
o 
Kuni feels that there are problems with the previous sample (not good). 
Can there be better sample for Phase 2? 
Trying to identify some new samples. Work in process. Need to produce table 
of lab results. Need meeting to present all data. Rationale – trying to identify 
which part is problem – sample or processing. 

o 
What is the difference producing variability? 
Could be the splitting. 
Action item: Finalize acquisition and preparation of second suite of samples. 
Action item: Set timeline and distribute samples. 
Action item: Await results (distribute in April 2008, deadline for results December 
2008). 
Action item: Analysis of Phase 1 results by June 2008 (prior to Goldschmidt). 


10Be half-life (Nishiizumi) 

• 
Papers need to report the standard used. Reviewers need to ask for the standard 
and enforce reporting the standard. 
• 
Questions: 
o 
What to do with samples measured relative to NIST standard (with the 2 
half lives)? 
Examples of bad use of half-life are in the literature. Watch out for 
incorrectly reported data. We haven’t produced much data for CRONUS 
before the identification of this problem so this issue should be considered for 
all future data. 

o 
Measurement uncertainties are working their way into the uncertainty. 
How should this be treated for the community? 
Other communities report their findings for a standard, but we can’t do that. 
Must pass this information onto the community. Official notice to editors of 
relevant journals about this problem (may or may not work) 

Parameter optimization modeling (what do we need?) (Borchers) 

• 
You have to believe in the uncertainties that are reported. 
• 
Calculator: must provide the people using it some advice on the uncertainties that 
will be used (should be used) 
• 
Encourage people to have a standard reporting format. Make sure that people 
report the raw data so that things can be recalculated in the future. 
Action item: Intercomparison between labs (AMS labs not all the same). Need to address 
all these labs. 
Action item: ID more samples to use for inter-comparison. 
Action item: Workshop on this topic with all the people who contributed. 



Issue 4: A common interpretation platform A common interpretation platform 

Moderator: Balco 

CRONUS-Earth Web Calculator (Balco) 

• 
Updates on the end-user software. 
• 
Issues to discuss: 
1. 
What do do for resource allocation? Maintenance? Long-term solution? 
2. 
iCRONUS vs online calculator? Overlap? Transparency of end product to 
assimilation of overall project results? 
3. 
Planning issues for integration of online/end-user services with internal data-
assimilation effort (especially WRT uncertainties). 
4. 
Serious attention to databases? All the databases need to interconnect and that 
we can all share and exchange. 
• 
Current issues: 
1. 
Be-10 stds and half-life? How do we help people get the correct results based 
on their data? 
2. 
How and when do we update the calibration data set (include TAB or PPT). 
• 
It is still important to report the original data. The community may use this to 
calculate two different reported age/results on a common platform. 
• 
He3 calculator: (grad student PhD for CRONUS) developing calculator. Greg 
predicts opposition. Compositional variability of target is a contentious issue. 
Will add to website when done. 
ACE (Zreda) 

• 
Changes: web-based application changed to stand-alone application. Software 
will be done December -January. 
• 
Transparent code, modular (use what you need. Example: sea level correction, put 
in box, if you don’t want to correct for it, take it out). 
• 
Differ with this group on how production rates and scaling should be handled. 
This is a tool for people to use to “explore the cosmogenic universe”, not 
necessarily saying that it is better or worse than something else, but just giving 
them the tool. 
• 
Paper will be published summer 2008 announcing software, then another with 
details later. 
• 
Nothing is hard-wired; everything is customizable. The calibration set will be 
selectable. Any changes in the code will recalibrate automatically. The version 
numbers will be tagged with what has changed. You can always undo changes. 
• 
Depth profiles will be handled (high energy will use neutron attenuation length). 
Cosmocalc 

• 
The paper is online in g-cubed: Cosmocalc: An Excel add-in. 
• 
Install Cosmocalc from cosmocalc.googlepages.com 
• 
Calculates: scaling factors, shielding factor, snow shielding, thickness correction, 
banana plots, age-erosion rate, burial exposure, burial erosion, (some calcs do 

Monte Carlo), can convert lat/long/inclination. Fully customizable on hidden 
page. Implicit calibration: based on sites. page. Implicit calibration: based on sites. 

• 
Doesn’t do paleomagnetic corrections (too big, not user friendly). No thermal 
neutrons. Not ready for 36Cl, 14C. Can specify half-life. Parameter optimization 
modeling (interfacing with Web Calc / uncertainty calcs)(Borchers) (3:15-3:30 
pm) 
Parameter optimization modeling (interfacing with Web Calc / uncertainty calcs) 
(Borchers) 

• 
Question: 
o 
If you have only one common interpretation platform, how do you know if 
you have any error? 
In the calibration process, if you can fit you data, it is a good indication that 
the code is working. No validation yet if the Matlab code is working correctly. 

General review and discussion 

Tibor to provide update on Cronus-EU data sets. Should be available autumn next year. 
Action item: Get list from Fred. 

Joint Meeting 

• 
Goldschmidt would work well, however it may be a bit early (won’t have all the 
data). Link data discussion to major meeting in 2009. Could consider having it in 
Vienna. 
CRONUS Website (Caffee by proxy) 
Action item: Link to calculator. 
Action item: Send a list of things that people would like. Marc has someone to 
implement the suggestions 
Action item: Want revision on the logo. Spend some money on website design (check 
with Paul Bierman). 
Action item: Need option to upload photos. 
Action item: Need searchable database. 


EarthScope (Gosse) 

• 
Geochronologists have database that they want to make available -queryable, 
spatial geochronology (Geo Earth Scope and Earth Chem Projects). 
• 
Have been as to do this for Ur/Th/He – exactly what we’re talking about. Click 
for what has been done or check the whole database. 
• 
Hosted at U Kansas (Doug Walker). 
• 
Wants from us (in next 6 months) to come up with a set of protocols, a set of 
challenges, things that we want from the database, how to interface, how to query, 
right now – wants current data. 

Action item: John will send out email to CRONUS and Cronus-EU. To start, John will 
send around a proposal about what should be in our database, how to interface, how to 
query. They want to put files attached to each sample, Ur/Th -photo’s of zircons with 
measurements. 
Action item: Eventually, Doug Walker would come to CRONUS workshop or we could 
go to U Kansas for 2-3 day meeting. 
Action item: Enriqueta – although Doug Walker suggested that he would do the 
databases, CRONUS-Earth should dictate how the database should be built. Not sure if 
his money includes cosmogenic nuclides. 
John will send out email to CRONUS and Cronus-EU. To start, John will 
send around a proposal about what should be in our database, how to interface, how to 
query. They want to put files attached to each sample, Ur/Th -photo’s of zircons with 
measurements. 
Action item: Eventually, Doug Walker would come to CRONUS workshop or we could 
go to U Kansas for 2-3 day meeting. 
Action item: Enriqueta – although Doug Walker suggested that he would do the 
databases, CRONUS-Earth should dictate how the database should be built. Not sure if 
his money includes cosmogenic nuclides. 

Overview on Geological Calibration progress and future plans (Phillips/Lifton) 

• 
Production rates summary: 
o 
Where we are – calibration sampling program on target. Collected 2/3 of 
total samples. Good tropical sight (high altitude). Only thing lagging is 
Hawaii – problem with analyzing samples already obtained, permits. 
o 
Preliminary results for 36Cl and 10Be – certain samples have poor 
variability. Need to work with Brian about more systematic ways of 
analyzing samples to identify variability. Sample analyses running slowly. 
All calibration site samples must be analyzed by this time next year (can 
decide if we need another site). 
o 
Intercomparison is an important component of this program. Must do the 
intercomparison samples in timely manner. Time-consuming analyses plus 
crush, sieve, homogenize at Purdue takes a lot of time. Most of those are 
done – most people have most of the samples that they need. 
o 
Make it a process to run replicates of a certain percent of samples – Brian 
to help develop protocol. Processes seem very different at the various labs. 
People need to talk about this. 
o 
Can’t have a recipe that covers everything (samples can be different). 
o 
Intercomparison – will publish without names, but it would be easier to 
figure out happened if we knew…to diagnose the problem. The geologic 
calibration samples paid for by CRONUS are public. For 10Be, no names 
until problem is identified. 
o 
Kuni noted that the same sample with the same standard changes over 
time. 
Action item: Hawaii sampling. 
Action item: Need to work with Brian about more systematic ways of analyzing samples 
to identify variability. 
Action item: Brian to help develop protocol to run replicates of a certain percent of 
samples. 


Nat: 

• 
Standstill on neutron monitor modeling (Clem) but back on track. 
• 
Geologic calibration 14C – will go headway with three sites in hand. 
• 
Sat. 14C high altitude looks good. Don’t know what to make of sea level high 
latitude plots – still some scatter. 

• 
Temporal spatial distribution of nuclides – headway in coming year. 
• 
Making progress on geomag corrections. 
Action item: Neutron measurement and targets – need to get more He target out this 
year. Lal should get his stuff out. And Pieter. 

Tim: 

• 
Have initial intercomparison set out. 
Action item: Trying to identify additional samples. Second batch by April. 
Action item: First intercomparison batch completed by June 2008 (for Goldschmidt). 
Action item: Workshop at Goldschmidt. Problems with AMS standards. Look at all 
stages of process to see where there are inconsistencies. 
Action item: Need to provide the user communities with standard issues. Kuni – will 
paper have specific recipe? Yes, so that people can identify where they went wrong. 
Action item: Must follow through with analyzing intercomparison samples. Reminder 
now – MARIAN. 


Greg: 

• 
Not doing too bad but stalled. 
Action item: Need professional construction, maintenance and housing of website. 
Action item: Fred will work with Brian to see if 36Cl can come online. 
Action item: Possible stand alone Al/Be matlab module. 


Meeting Adjourned 4:58 PM