4.5 Article

North Atlantic Oscillation controls on oxygen and hydrogen isotope gradients in winter precipitation across Europe; implications for palaeoclimate studies

期刊

CLIMATE OF THE PAST
卷 12, 期 11, 页码 2127-2143

出版社

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.5194/cp-12-2127-2016

关键词

-

资金

  1. Irish Research Council (IRC) by a Government of Ireland Postdoctoral Fellowship [GOIPD/2015/789]
  2. Science Foundation Ireland through its Research Frontiers Program (RFP) Grants [07/RFP/GEOF265, 08/FRP/GEO1184]
  3. Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) [07/RFP/GEOF265] Funding Source: Science Foundation Ireland (SFI)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Winter (October to March) precipitation delta O-18(P) and delta D-P values in central Europe correlate with the winter North Atlantic Oscillation index (wNAOi), but the causal mechanisms remain poorly understood. Here we analyse the relationships between precipitation-weighted delta O-18(P) and delta D-P datasets (delta O-18(pw) and delta D-pw) from European GNIP and ANIP stations and the wNAOi, with a focus on isotope gradients. We demonstrate that longitudinal delta O-18(pw) and delta D-pw gradients across Europe (continental effect) depend on the wNAOi state, with steeper gradients associated with more negative wNAOi states. Changing gradients reflect a combination of air temperature and variable amounts of precipitable water as a function of the wNAOi. The relationships between the wNAOi, delta O-18(pw) and delta D-pw can provide additional information from palaeoclimate archives such as European speleothems that primarily record winter delta O-18(pw). Comparisons between present-day and past European longitudinal delta O-18 gradients inferred from Holocene speleothems suggest that atmospheric pressure configurations akin to negative wNAO modes dominated the early Holocene, whereas patterns resembling positive wNAO modes were more common in the late Holocene, possibly caused by persistent shifts in the relative locations of the Azores High and the Icelandic Low.

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

4.5
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