4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Magnitude and frequency of extra-tropical North Atlantic cyclones: A chronology from cliff-top storm deposits

期刊

QUATERNARY INTERNATIONAL
卷 195, 期 -, 页码 42-52

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.quaint.2007.11.010

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cliff-top storm deposits (CTSDs) are known to occur on cliffs at elevations of up to 50 m above sea level at exposed sites on the deep-water coasts of the British Isles. Eye-witness accounts and time-series field mapping of CTSDs demonstrate their formation over the historical period and their continued modification during major storms, with CTSDs burying a range of modern human-derived debris. Older deposits show surface lichen growth and weathering effects that relate to the relative age of CTSDs. Over longer time spans, buried sand and peat deposits provide dates on phases of CTSD emplacement and mobilisation and so provide an indication of the frequency and timing of the most severe storms. Two adjacent sites in Shetland provide a combination of 14 C dates on peat buried beneath storm-deposited boulders, 14 C dates on marine shells buried inside CTSD boulder ridges and optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) ages on sands intercalated with storm-derived boulders. Although the precision is low, this evidence identifies phases of exceptional storm activity spanning approximately 400-550, 700-1050, 1300-1900 and since 1950 AD. By the very nature of cliff-top erosion and deposition these records are fragmentary, yet the timeline of major storms recorded in the Shetland cliffs matches fairly well with the more general record of storminess in the North Atlantic derived from the sea salt record in the GISP2 ice core. As such CTSDs represent an overlooked archive of storm sedimentation with the potential to elucidate local storm chronologies as well as informing debate surrounding the palaeo-tempestology and impact of major cyclones and hurricanes. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据