4.7 Article

Spatial contrasts of the Holocene hydroclimate trend between North and East Asia

期刊

QUATERNARY SCIENCE REVIEWS
卷 227, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2019.106036

关键词

-

资金

  1. French National Research Agency [ANR-17-EURE-0015, ANR-10-LABX19]
  2. Academy of Finland (GRASS) [316702]
  3. Chinese Academy of Sciences [Y652001589, Y651031589, XAB20161301]
  4. National Natural Science Foundation of China [NSFC 41801090]
  5. Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) [ANR-17-EURE-0015] Funding Source: Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR)
  6. Academy of Finland (AKA) [316702, 316702] Funding Source: Academy of Finland (AKA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The hydroclimate over Asia has undergone important changes over the Holocene with spatially asynchronous trends. Proxy-based evidence shows that North Asia was markedly drier than today during the early Holocene, whereas East Asia, influenced by the monsoon system, was substantially wetter. Yet, the causes behind this contrast are only partly understood due to a lack of overview of the most important factors. Here we explore a combination of climate proxies and multiple climate-model simulations to show that the strong contrast between the dry North Asia and wet (mid-latitude) East Asia is explained by a complex interplay between the effects of remnant ice sheets and orbital forcing. In North Asia, the climate was dry due a weakening of the westerlies and reduced atmospheric humidity, linked to the ice sheets in North America and Fennoscandia. In East Asia, contrarily, the orbitally-forced enhancement of the summer monsoons caused the early Holocene climate to be much wetter than during the presentday. These results indicate that the sensitivity of the hydroclimate in Asia to climate-forcings is spatially different, with important implications for the interpretation of past and future climate changes in this region. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. 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