4.7 Article

Bahamian speleothem reveals temperature decrease associated with Heinrich stadials

期刊

EARTH AND PLANETARY SCIENCE LETTERS
卷 430, 期 -, 页码 377-386

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2015.08.035

关键词

speleothem; Heinrich event; stable isotope; fluid inclusion; Bahamas

资金

  1. NSF [AGS-1103489]
  2. Geological Society of America Graduate Student Research Grant [9575-11]
  3. National Geographic Society [EC0428-09]
  4. Directorate For Geosciences
  5. Div Atmospheric & Geospace Sciences [1304540] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  6. Directorate For Geosciences
  7. Div Atmospheric & Geospace Sciences [1103489] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Temperature reconstructions across Heinrich stadials 1-3 are presented from an absolute-dated speleothem from Abaco Island in the Bahamas to understand the nature of climate change across these intervals in the subtropical Atlantic. The stalagmite carbonate record, dated by the U-Th geochronometry technique, includes higher delta O-18 and delta C-13 values within Heinrich stadials 1, 2, and 3 followed by rapid declines at the end of the stadials. To aid in the interpretation of these results, the delta O-18 of fluid inclusions associated with the Heinrich stadials were also analyzed. These measurements, which allowed for the relative influence of temperature and delta O-18 of precipitation to be distinguished, demonstrate minimal changes in the delta O-18 of fluid inclusions, suggesting that change's in the delta O-18 values of the speleothem carbonate associated with Heinrich stadials 1-3 are principally driven by an average similar to 4 degrees C temperature decrease, rather than a change in the delta O-18 of the rainfall (hence rainfall amount). These findings support previous work in the North Atlantic and are consistent with the climate response to a weakening of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. (C) 201 5 Elsevier B.V. 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