4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

A new Late Holocene sea-level record from the Mississippi Delta: evidence for a climate/sea level connection?

期刊

QUATERNARY SCIENCE REVIEWS
卷 28, 期 17-18, 页码 1737-1749

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2009.04.003

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A detailed relative sea-level (RSL) record was constructed for the time interval 600-1600 AD, using basal peat to track sea level and containing 16 sea-level index points that capture similar to 60 cm of RSL rise. The study area is in the Mississippi Delta where the spring tidal range is similar to 0.47 m, the impact of ocean currents on sea-surface topography is limited, and crustal motions are well constrained. Age control was obtained by AMS C-14 dating and most ages represent weighted means of two subsamples. Sample elevations were determined by combining differential GPS measurements with optical surveying. All index points were plotted as error boxes using 2a confidence intervals for the ages, plus all vertical errors involved in sampling and surveying, as well as the indicative range of the samples. A striking clustering of sea-level index points between similar to 1000 and similar to 1200 AD suggests a possible acceleration in the rate of RSL rise. Removal of the long-term trend (0.60 mm yr(-1)) allows for the possibility of a sea-level oscillation with a maximum amplitude of similar to 55 cm. However, given the size of the error boxes the possibility that oscillations did not occur cannot be entirely ruled out. Comparison of the new RSL record with various proxy climate records suggests that sea level in this area may have responded to hemispheric temperature changes, including the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. However, given the error margins associated with this reconstruction, it is stressed that this causal mechanism is tentative and requires corroboration by high-resolution sea-level reconstructions elsewhere. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.7
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