4.7 Article

Late Miocene- early Pleistocene paleoclimate history of the Chinese Loess Plateau revealed by remanence unmixing

期刊

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS
卷 41, 期 6, 页码 2163-2168

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/2014GL059379

关键词

loess; red clay; Pliocene; environmental magnetism

资金

  1. (973) National Basic Research Program of China [2013CB956400]
  2. Chinese Academy of Sciences [XDB03020400]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation [41172329, 41321061, 41021091]
  4. Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China [20110211110012]
  5. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities
  6. CNCS [ID31/2010]
  7. Directorate For Geosciences
  8. Division Of Earth Sciences [1028690] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  9. Division Of Earth Sciences
  10. Directorate For Geosciences [1339505] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Previous studies show that the Quaternary loess sequence and the late Miocene-Pliocene red clay sequence on the Chinese Loess Plateau (CLP) share similar magnetic properties despite their being deposited under different climate conditions. To solve this paradox, we apply a novel remanence unmixing technique and demonstrate that loess and red clay on the central CLP contain a similar low-coercivity pedogenic component, but their high-coercivity components differ dramatically, reflecting different oxidation and temperature conditions. We infer that temperatures on the Chinese Loess Plateau cooled from the late Miocene to the Quaternary, in a manner similar to sea surface temperature records for the same time interval. This coherency between marine and terrestrial records argues for a CO2 forcing on long-term paleoclimatic variations. Key Points Backfield remanence data of Chinese loess and red clay consist of two components Loess and red clay have similar pedogenic but different detrital components The Loess Plateau experienced a cooling trend from the late Miocene to the Quaternary

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