4.7 Article

Orbital precession modulates interannual rainfall variability, as recorded in an Early Pleistocene speleothem

期刊

GEOLOGY
卷 46, 期 8, 页码 731-734

出版社

GEOLOGICAL SOC AMER, INC
DOI: 10.1130/G45019.1

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Natural Environment Research Council (NERC, UK) [NE/J00443X/1, IP/1065/1108]
  2. Joint UK DECC/Defra Met Office Hadley Climate Centre Programme [GA01101]
  3. Australian Research Council [FT120100399]
  4. National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
  5. U.S. National Science Foundation P2C2 program
  6. DOE Abrupt Change program
  7. EaSM program
  8. NERC [NE/J00443X/1, nigl010001] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Interannual variability of African rainfall impacts local and global communities, but its past behavior and response in future climate projections are poorly understood. This is primarily due to short instrumental records and a lack of long high-resolution palaeoclimate proxy records. Here we present an annually resolved 91,000 year Early Pleistocene record of hydroclimate from the early hominin-bearing Makapansgat Valley, South Africa. Changes in speleothem annual band thickness are dominated by precession over four consecutive orbital cycles with strong millennial-scale periodicity. The frequency of interannual variability (2.0-6.5 yr oscillations) does not change systematically, yet its amplitude is modulated by the orbital forcing. These long-term characteristics of interannual variability are reproduced with transient climate model simulations of water balance for South Africa from the Late Pleistocene to Recent. Based on these results, we suggest that the frequency of interannual variations in southern African rainfall is likely to be stable under anthropogenic warming, but that the size of year-to-year variations may increase. We see an orbitally forced increase in the amplitude of interannual climate variability between 1.8 Ma and 1.7 Ma coincident with the first evidence for the Acheulean stone tool technology.

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