4.7 Article

Transferring radiometric dating of the last interglacial sea level high stand to marine and ice core records

期刊

EARTH AND PLANETARY SCIENCE LETTERS
卷 265, 期 1-2, 页码 183-194

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2007.10.006

关键词

last interglacial; open-system ages; sea level; North Atlantic marine cores; ice cores

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In order to derive a radiometric age marker for the end of the penultimate glacial-interglacial transition, we compiled published U-series isotope measurements on corals from the period extending from stage 6 to the middle of the last interglacial, and computed the corresponding open-system ages using Thompson et al. model (Thompson, WG., Spiegelman, M.W, Goldstein, S.L., Speed, R.C., An open-system model for U-series age determinations of fossil corals. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 210 (2003) 365-381). We obtain a global mean age of 126 calendar kyr BP (ka) +/- 1.7kyr (2 sigma) for the beginning of the last interglacial sea level high stand. After showing that the phase relationships observed between changes in sea level, North Atlantic benthic and planktonic foraminifera oxygen isotopic records, and atmospheric methane over the last deglaciation were likely also valid over the penultimate deglaciation, we derive an age of 131.2ka +/- 2kyr (2 sigma) for the abrupt increase in atmospheric CH4 and North Atlantic surface temperature marking the end of the penultimate glacial-interglacial transition. This age is consistent with U-Th dates of the penultimate glacial-interglacial transition recorded in speleothems from sites where speleothems isotopic records are synchronous with North Atlantic temperature records over the last deglaciation. Finally, we show that the phase obtained between the climatic response and northern hemisphere summer insolation is not constant from Termination 11 to Termination 1, implying that northern hemisphere summer insolation alone cannot explain the timing of terminations. (c) 2007 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