4.2 Article

A detailed East Asian monsoon history surrounding the 'Mystery Interval' derived from three Chinese speleothem records

期刊

QUATERNARY RESEARCH
卷 82, 期 1, 页码 154-163

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.yqres.2014.01.010

关键词

Asian monsoon; Decadal climate change; Mystery Interval; Stalagmite; China

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [40972111, 41130210]
  2. Research and Innovation Project for College Graduates jiangsu Province [CXZZ13_0408]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The 'Mystery Interval' (MI, 17.5-14.5 ka) was the first stage of the last deglaciation, a key interval for understanding mechanisms of glacial-interglacial cycles. To elucidate possible causes of the MI, here we present three high-resolution, precisely dated oxygen-isotope records of stalagmites from Qingtian and Hulu Caves in China, reflecting changes in the East Asian summer monsoon (EASM) then. Based on well-established chronologies using precise Th-230 dates and annual-band counting results, the two-cave delta O-18 profiles of similar to 7-yr resolution match well at decadal timescales. Both of the two-cave records document an abrupt weakening (2%. of delta O-18 rise within 20 yr) in the EASM at similar to 16.1 ka, coinciding with the transition of the two-phased MI reconstructed from New Mexico's Lake Estancia. Our results indicate that the maximum southward displacement of the Inter-tropical Convergence Zone and associated southward shift of polar jet stream may generate this two-phase feature of the MI during that time. We also discover a linear relationship among decreasing EASM intensity, rising atmospheric CO2 and weakening Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation between the MI and Younger Dryas episodes, suggesting a strong coupling of atmospheric/oceanic circulations in response to the millennial-scale forcing, which in turn regulates global climate changes and carbon cycles. (C) 2014 University of Washington. Published by Elsevier Inc. 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

4.2
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