4.7 Article

Three thousand years of extreme rainfall events recorded in stalagmites from Spring Valley Caverns, Minnesota

期刊

EARTH AND PLANETARY SCIENCE LETTERS
卷 300, 期 1-2, 页码 46-54

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2010.09.032

关键词

stalagmites; fluorescent bands; cave flooding; extreme rainfall events; confocal microscopy; paleoclimate

资金

  1. Gary Corner Science and Education Foundation [CC8]
  2. National Science Foundation [EAR-0902867, EAR-0941666]
  3. GSA
  4. University of Minnesota Dennis and Emmons Fellowship
  5. Division Of Earth Sciences
  6. Directorate For Geosciences [902952, 0941666, 0902867] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Annual layer analysis in two stalagmites collected from Spring Valley Caverns, southeastern Minnesota, reveals hydrological response of the cave to extreme rainfall events in the Midwest, USA. Cave-flooding events are identified within the two samples by the presence of detrital layers composed of clay sized particles. Comparison with instrumental records of precipitation demonstrates a strong correlation between these cave-flood events and extreme rainfall observed in the Upper Mississippi Valley. A simple model is developed to assess the nature of rainfall capable of flooding the cave. The model is first calibrated to the last 50-yr (1950-1998 A.D.) instrumental record of daily precipitation data for the town of Spring Valley and verified with the first 50 yr of record from 1900 to 1949 AD. Frequency analysis shows that these extreme flood events have increased from the last half of the nineteenth century. Comparison with other paleohydrological records shows increased occurrence of extreme rain events during periods of higher moisture availability. Our study implies that increased moisture availability in the Midwestern region, due to rise in temperature from global warming could lead to an increase in the occurrence of extreme rainfall events. (C) 2010 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