Date post: | 17-Aug-2015 |
Category: |
Science |
Upload: | coralsncaves |
View: | 292 times |
Download: | 1 times |
INSERT'YOUR'TITLE'ETC'HERE'
FORCED OR UNFORCED? NEW VIEWS OF ENSO FROM 6,000 YEAR AGO TO PRESENT
Kim M. Cobb Pamela Grothe, Hussein Sayani, Intan Nurhati Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Georgia Tech Chris Charles, SIO, UCSD Larry Edwards, Hai Cheng, UMN
• Pa
leocli
mate R
esearch • Georgia Tech •
Cobb Lab
IS ENSO CHANGING?
DID ENSO CHANGE IN THE PAST? (AND IF SO, WHY?) ROLE OF FORCED VS INTERNAL VARIABILITY?
AN 18YR OBSESSION
FIRST, A FIELDTRIP
Christmas Island reefs, 2013
1mm
samp
ling transect for
coral oxygen isotopes (�
18O)
! 5
Coral-to-coral offsets in δ18O and Sr/Ca The legend for Figure 2 reveals that the overlapping sections of fossil coral have
markedly different mean δ18O values – differences far larger than the ±0.07‰ (1σ) analytical uncertainty. Linsley et al., 1999 noted similar offsets while comparing mean δ18O values from modern corals growing on the same eastern Pacific reef. Indeed, we observe a similar spread of mean coral offsets in an ensemble of late 20th century modern coral δ18O records from Christmas Island (Figure 3), but the origin of such offsets remains unknown. Given the empirical coral δ18O-SST relationship of roughly -0.2‰/ºC, such offsets (±0.09‰, 1σ) translate into uncertainties of ~±0.5ºC, 1σ.
Figure 3. Plot of 4 different modern coral δ18O records from Christmas Island, with coral-to-coral offsets reported in legend, shown with satellite-blended SST from Christmas Island (Reynolds and Smith, 2002). Unpublished data, P. Grothe.
Perhaps not surprisingly, recent work in our lab has revealed ±0.1mmol/mol (1σ) coral-to-coral offsets in Sr/Ca from Palmyra modern corals (Figure 4), roughly equivalent to ±1ºC (1σ) using the Nurhati et al., 2011 Sr/Ca-SST relationship. Our approach seeks to minimize the uncertainties associated with coral-to-coral δ18O and Sr/Ca offsets by analyzing hundreds of individual fossil corals covering the last 6,000 years.
Figure 4. Plot of 3 different modern coral Sr/Ca timeseries from Palmyra Island, with coral-to-coral offsets corrected and reported in legend, shown with satellite-blended SST from Palmyra Island (grey; Reynolds and Smith, 2002). Unpublished data, H. Sayani. The existing Line Islands coral reconstruction
Amassed over the course of six field expeditions over the last 15 years by the PI, the northern Line Islands coral δ18O dataset is comprised of ~1000 year’s worth of monthly-resolved records. It presents a detailed view of central tropical Pacific climate over the last 7,000 years – one that raises as many questions as it provides answers.
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
−5.5
−5
−4.5
−4
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
−5.5
−5
−4.5
−4
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
−5.5
−5
−4.5
−4
Evans99Nurhati09X12−6X12−3
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
−5.5
−5
−4.5
−4
Evans99−0.15Nurhati09+0.03X12−6+0.09X12−3+0.03IGOSS SST
Cor
al δ
18O
(‰)
Years (CE)
1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998
Sr/C
a (m
mol
/mol
)
8.7
8.8
8.9
9.0
9.1
9.2
SS
T (°
C)
26
27
28
29
30
31PM1, 0.004 P1, -0.10P5, +0.09IGOSS SST
Line Island coral δ18O records: MODERN
Multiple corals from Christmas Island
Evans&et&al.,&1998&Nurha3&et&al.,&2009&Grothe&et&al.,&In&Prep&
resolution: 8-20 pts/yr
150°E 180° 150°W 120°W
Line Island coral δ18O records of ENSO
Warmer, wetter conditions during El Niño ! lower coral δ18O Cooler, drier conditions during La Niña ! higher coral δ18O
a “Mickey Mouse” technique to compare coral to regional SST
NIN
O3.
4 SS
T (°
C)
coral'isotopes' NIÑO3.4'SST'
Cobb&et&al.,&Nature&2003&
ENSO in Line Island coral δ18O records: MODERN 30yr highpass
���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����
����
����
�
���
���
�18 O
Ano
mal
y (‰
)
SS
T A
nom
aly
(°C
)
2
1
0
-1
-2
������� �������
�������������
Year ���������Cobb&et&al.,&Science&2013&
&&
Line Island coral δ18O records of ENSO MODERN, ALL ISLANDS
2-7yr bandpass
Overlapping fossil corals
- U/Th dated - highly reproducible
Cobb&et&al.,&in&prep&
10 20
1960 1980 2000 Date A.D.
Coral Length (relative years)
Fanning Island modern coral
V10: 3066±12yrs
Cor
al δ
18O
V30: 5979±13yrs V13: 6020±12yrs !
V8: 6073±18yrs V28: 6350±13yrs !
V33: 6593±13yrs V11: 6878±15yrs
1990 1970
30 20 40 50 60 70 80 10
10 40 20 30 20 10
10 20 30 40 10 20
10 20 30
1950
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
-6 -5.5 -5
-4.5 -4
-3.5 -3
-6 -5.5 -5
-4.5 -4
-3.5 -3
-6 -5.5 -5
-4.5 -4
-3.5 -3
-6 -5.5 -5
-4.5 -4
-3.5 -3
-6 -5.5 -5
-4.5 -4
-3.5 -3
-6 -5.5 -5
-4.5 -4
-3.5 -3
-6 -5.5 -5
-4.5 -4
-3.5 -3
-6 -5.5 -5
-4.5 -4
-3.5 -3
Figure S2. Plots of the raw coral δ18O sequences from Fanning (this page) and Christmas (next page), shown with their respective U-series dates (see Table S1).
Line Island coral δ18O records of ENSO: FOSSIL
New fossil coral data: # sequences: 22 dating: U/Th (±0.5% error) resolution: monthly record lengths: 19-81yrs
Cobb&et&al.,&Science&2013;&Grothe&et&al.,&in&prep&
���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����
����
����
�
���
���
�18 O
Ano
mal
y (‰
)
SS
T A
nom
aly
(°C
)
2
1
0
-1
-2
������� �������
�������������
Year ���������
How to measure ENSO strength through time?
metric of ENSO strength: standard deviation of 2-7yr filtered records in 30yr windows
standarddevia?on'
'
30yr&
01000200030004000500060007000
−60
−40
−20
0
20
40
60
Year
Cha
nge
in s
tdev
of 2−7
yr b
and
(%)
0 500 1000
−60
−40
−20
0
20
40
60
1900 1920 1940 1960 1980
−60
−40
−20
0
20
40
60
Year
a
e
Lake
Pal
lc.
Red
Inte
nsity
R = -0.16
c b
20th century coral stdev(2-7yr) All fossil coral stdev(2-7yr)
010002000300040005000600070000
10
20
30
Years Before Present
El J
unco
% S
and
Comparison of SA Lake Records
Lake PallcacochaEl Junco
60
160
126.6
93.3
0 1000 2000
−60
−40
−20
0
20
40
60
Chan
ge in
std
ev o
f 2−7
yr b
and
(%)
d
e Model Year
CCSM4 stdev(2-7yr)
GFDL CM2.1 stdev(2-7yr)
stronger ENSO
weaker ENSO
Figure'2'
1900 1920 1940 1960 1980
−60
−40
−20
0
20
40
60
Year
Chan
ge in
std
ev o
f 2−7
yr b
and
(%) 20th century 30yr window std(2−7yr)
PNG−LiangPNG−MadangPNG−MS01PalmyraChristmasNINO3.4
1900 1920 1940 1960 1980
−60
−40
−20
0
20
40
60
Year
PNG−LiangPNG−MadangPNG−MS01PalmyraFanningChristmasNINO3.4
01000200030004000500060007000
−60
−40
−20
0
20
40
60
Year
Cha
nge
in s
tdev
of 2−7
yr b
and
(%)
Christmas MA
1900 1920 1940 1960 1980
−60
−40
−20
0
20
40
60
Year
Chan
ge in
std
ev o
f 2−7
yr b
and
(%) 20th century 30yr window std(2−7yr)
PNG−LiangPNG−MadangPNG−MS01PalmyraFanningChristmasNINO3.4
C'
Compilation of new and published coral-based paleo-ENSO reconstructions
MODERN FOSSIL
Key points: 1) large range in paleo-ENSO variations implied by available data
Woodroffe&et&al.,&2003&Tudhope&et&al.,&2001&
Cobb&et&al,&2013&Cobb&et&al.,&2003&McGregor&et&al.,&2004,&2013&Grothe&et&al.,&in&prep&
01000200030004000500060007000
−60
−40
−20
0
20
40
60
Year
Cha
nge
in s
tdev
of 2−7
yr b
and
(%)
0 500 1000
−60
−40
−20
0
20
40
60
1900 1920 1940 1960 1980
−60
−40
−20
0
20
40
60
Year
a
e
Lake
Pal
lc.
Red
Inte
nsity
R = -0.16
c b
20th century coral stdev(2-7yr) All fossil coral stdev(2-7yr)
010002000300040005000600070000
10
20
30
Years Before Present
El J
unco
% S
and
Comparison of SA Lake Records
Lake PallcacochaEl Junco
60
160
126.6
93.3
0 1000 2000
−60
−40
−20
0
20
40
60
Chan
ge in
std
ev o
f 2−7
yr b
and
(%)
d
e Model Year
CCSM4 stdev(2-7yr)
GFDL CM2.1 stdev(2-7yr)
stronger ENSO
weaker ENSO
Figure'2'
1900 1920 1940 1960 1980
−60
−40
−20
0
20
40
60
Year
Chan
ge in
std
ev o
f 2−7
yr b
and
(%) 20th century 30yr window std(2−7yr)
PNG−LiangPNG−MadangPNG−MS01PalmyraChristmasNINO3.4
1900 1920 1940 1960 1980
−60
−40
−20
0
20
40
60
Year
PNG−LiangPNG−MadangPNG−MS01PalmyraFanningChristmasNINO3.4
01000200030004000500060007000
−60
−40
−20
0
20
40
60
Year
Cha
nge
in s
tdev
of 2−7
yr b
and
(%)
Christmas MA
1900 1920 1940 1960 1980
−60
−40
−20
0
20
40
60
Year
Chan
ge in
std
ev o
f 2−7
yr b
and
(%) 20th century 30yr window std(2−7yr)
PNG−LiangPNG−MadangPNG−MS01PalmyraFanningChristmasNINO3.4
C'
Compilation of new and published coral-based paleo-ENSO reconstructions
MODERN FOSSIL
Key points: 1) large range in paleo-ENSO variations implied by available data 2) almost all coral data fall below late 20th century benchmark
Woodroffe&et&al.,&2003&Tudhope&et&al.,&2001&
Cobb&et&al,&2013&Cobb&et&al.,&2003&McGregor&et&al.,&2004,&2013&Grothe&et&al.,&in&prep&
1968K1998&
Li&et&al.,&2013&
“Our data indicate that ENSO activity in the late 20th century was anomalously high over the past seven centuries . . .”
ENSO reconstruction from 2,222 tree ring records
! 3!
evolution of interannual variance in 14 different ENSO reconstructions over the last 600 years, compiling both single proxy records as well as multi-proxy reconstructions. They conclude that ENSO variance over the period 1979-2009 was significantly higher than ENSO variance for the last 400 years (Figure 2). Taken at their face value, such studies suggest that ENSO may be strengthening in response to anthropogenic greenhouse forcing. However, both of these studies are associated with different types of uncertainties. In the case of Cobb et al., 2013, it is possible that the corals’ original climate signals have been subtly altered by geochemical alteration over the last several millennia of exposure. In the case of McGregor et al., 2013, many of the multi-proxy reconstructions that they use to track ENSO variance may have accumulated dating errors in the older portions that essentially lead to a smoothing of interannual variance.
The above discussion illustrates the profound uncertainties inherent in quantifying paleo-ENSO variance from the existing set of proxy data. First, as discussed in the previous section, multi-century records of ENSO are required to yield robust estimates of pre-industrial ENSO variance, given the high level of natural variability in ENSO. Second, proxy records often reflect a complex mixture of local environmental parameters that is often obscured by noise in the proxy recorder itself (see Cobb et al., 2008 and Jones et al., 2009 for reviews on high-resolution proxy uncertainties). Second, the spatial footprints of central Pacific vs eastern Pacific ENSO extremes differ appreciably (e.g. Ashok et al., 2007), even in the core of the ENSO region. Therefore, ENSO reconstructions that rely on a single proxy record may under- or over-estimate ENSO variance during a given interval, depending on the frequency of central vs. eastern Pacific extremes. But the existing set of multi-proxy reconstructions of ENSO are not immune, given
Figure 2. Evolution of ENSO variance in 14 different proxy reconstructions of ENSO over the last 600 years, plotted as the running variance of 10-yr highpass filtered individual reconstructions (grey circles) and as their mean running variance (black line with error envelope). The number of proxy ENSO reconstructions available through time is show in pink. Also plotted is the evolution of the 10-yr highpass filtered NIÑO3.4 SST variance derived from four different instrumental products (cyan circles), with their mean running variance (blue line). The red star indicates the variance of the 1979-2009 NIÑO3.4 index. Modified after Fig 7 of McGregor et al., 2013.
Discu
ssio
nP
ap
er
|D
iscu
ssio
nP
ap
er
|D
iscu
ssio
nP
ap
er
|D
iscu
ssion
Pa
pe
r|
! 25!
1! 2!Figure 6: a) the 5% (dashed line plus +’s), 50% (solid line) and 95% (dashed lines plus x’s) of 3!the correlation coefficients calculated between the CM2.1 rainfall MRV and ENSO running 4!variance, while b) displays the percentiles of correlation coefficients calculated between CM2.1 5!rainfall RVM and ENSO running variance. The black lines indicate those percentiles using data 6!with no introduced temporal shifts, while the red, yellow, green and blue line respectively 7!represent those percentiles using data with 1/5, 1/4, 1/3, 1/2 of the time series including an 8!introduced temporal shift. 9! 10!!11!!12!!13! !14!
2 4 6 8 10 12 140
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Number of grid point time series used in the common signal
r (M
RV,
N34
RV)
2 4 6 8 10 12 140
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
r (R
VM, N
34R
V)
b)a)
Fig. 6. (a) The 5 % (dashed line plus +’s), 50 % (solid line) and 95 % (dashed lines plus x’s) ofthe correlation coe�cients calculated between the CM2.1 rainfall MRV and ENSO running vari-ance, while (b) displays the percentiles of correlation coe�cients calculated between CM2.1rainfall RVM and ENSO running variance. The black lines indicate those percentiles using datawith no introduced temporal shifts, while the red, yellow, green and blue line respectively rep-resent those percentiles using data with 1/5, 1/4, 1/3, 1/2 of the time series including an intro-duced temporal shift.
2963
Discu
ssio
nP
ap
er
|D
iscu
ssio
nP
ap
er
|D
iscu
ssio
nP
ap
er
|D
iscu
ssion
Pa
pe
r|
Fig. 7. The 30 yr running variance (grey dots) of each of the 14 high-pass filtered (HPF, 10 yrcuto�) ENSO reconstructions, overlaid with the MRV (thick black line). At any point in time priorto the observation period, the thin black linesrepresent the widest median running variancesignal error bars of the two types of error analysis detailed in the Appendix A. Inside the windowof instrumental data these error bars change to thin black dash-dot lines, as we have a directmeasurement of ENSOs variance. The width of each of these two error bar estimates variesdepending on the number of ENSO variance proxies available (see purple line at top of panel).Cyan dots indicate the 30 yr running variance of the 4 observed HPF Niño 3.4 SST anomalies,while the blue line represents the observed ensemble median running variance. The red starindicates the most recen value of the ensemble median 30 yr running variance of the 4 observedHPF Niño 3.4 SST anomalies (1979–2009), while the thin red line just extends this most recentvalue back through time, for comparison with the ensemble median proxy running variance andits error bars.
2964
1979-2009 variance
mean variance of 14 ENSO paleo-reconstructions
instrumentalNIÑO3.4variance
num
ber
ofpr
oxie
s12963
McGregor&et&al.,&2013&
Recent variance changes in 14 paleo-ENSO reconstructions
“. . . we find that the common ENSO variance over the period 1600-1900 was considerably lower than during 1979–2009.”
Fig. 3. Our NIÑO4 ENSO reconstruction. (A) The reconstruction of NIÑO4 SSTs from
the prior December to current October over 1190–2007 AD. SST anomalies (SSTAs) are
relative to the mean of observed SSTs during 1971–2007 AD. The red bold line denotes a
30-yr low-pass filter. The gray area is ±1σ error bars. The arrow is the 1651 AD very
strong El Niño event. (B) The 31-yr and (C) the 100-yr running variances of the each
individual series and the reconstruction (thick red line). (D) Comparison of our NIÑO4
SSTs reconstruction (red) with the ring-width based NIÑO3.4 SST (blue, Prior November
to current January) reconstruction for the past six centuries (Li et al., 2013), and (E) 50-yr
low-pass filter to both series.
Fig. 3. Our NIÑO4 ENSO reconstruction. (A) The reconstruction of NIÑO4 SSTs from
the prior December to current October over 1190–2007 AD. SST anomalies (SSTAs) are
relative to the mean of observed SSTs during 1971–2007 AD. The red bold line denotes a
30-yr low-pass filter. The gray area is ±1σ error bars. The arrow is the 1651 AD very
strong El Niño event. (B) The 31-yr and (C) the 100-yr running variances of the each
individual series and the reconstruction (thick red line). (D) Comparison of our NIÑO4
SSTs reconstruction (red) with the ring-width based NIÑO3.4 SST (blue, Prior November
to current January) reconstruction for the past six centuries (Li et al., 2013), and (E) 50-yr
low-pass filter to both series.
Fig. 3. Our NIÑO4 ENSO reconstruction. (A) The reconstruction of NIÑO4 SSTs from
the prior December to current October over 1190–2007 AD. SST anomalies (SSTAs) are
relative to the mean of observed SSTs during 1971–2007 AD. The red bold line denotes a
30-yr low-pass filter. The gray area is ±1σ error bars. The arrow is the 1651 AD very
strong El Niño event. (B) The 31-yr and (C) the 100-yr running variances of the each
individual series and the reconstruction (thick red line). (D) Comparison of our NIÑO4
SSTs reconstruction (red) with the ring-width based NIÑO3.4 SST (blue, Prior November
to current January) reconstruction for the past six centuries (Li et al., 2013), and (E) 50-yr
low-pass filter to both series.
100yr'windows'
14 replicated Taiwan tree δ18O records, 1190-2007AD
Yu&et&al.,&submiOed&
Fig. 1 Map of study site plotted with the spatial correlation field of composite tree-ring δ18O: (A) 1950–2007 AD; (B) Our NIÑO4 SSTs reconstruction and Kaplan
global SSTs (Kaplan et al., 1998) records from December of the previous year to October
of the current year. Analyses are confined to post-1970, when the availability of
high-quality SST estimates increased greatly with the advent of satellite observations (Xie
et al., 2010). The black rectangle denotes the NIÑO4 region. The shaded letters denote
the locations where δ18O are sensitive to CP ENSO: 1–Taiwan (This paper); 2–Fujian,
China (Xu et al., 2013a); 3–Mu Cang Chai, Laos (Xu et al., 2013b); 4–Phu Leuy
Mountain, Vietnam (Sano et al., 2012); 5–Maiana (Urban et al., 2000); 6–Palmyra (Cobb
et al., 2003); 7–Quelccaya (Thompson et al., 2013) (table S2).
Several lines of paleo-evidence suggest that 20th century ENSO is stronger than in recent past.
NOTE: all records in question rely (to varying extents) on hydrological response to ENSO SST anomalies
Is SST variance higher? or Are we already seeing “more rainfall bang for SST buck”? (Power et al., 2013; Cai et al., 2014)
01000200030004000500060007000
−60
−40
−20
0
20
40
60
Year
Cha
nge
in s
tdev
of 2−7
yr b
and
(%)
0 500 1000
−60
−40
−20
0
20
40
60
1900 1920 1940 1960 1980
−60
−40
−20
0
20
40
60
Year
a
e
Lake
Pal
lc.
Red
Inte
nsity
R = -0.16
c b
20th century coral stdev(2-7yr) All fossil coral stdev(2-7yr)
010002000300040005000600070000
10
20
30
Years Before Present
El J
unco
% S
and
Comparison of SA Lake Records
Lake PallcacochaEl Junco
60
160
126.6
93.3
0 1000 2000
−60
−40
−20
0
20
40
60
Chan
ge in
std
ev o
f 2−7
yr b
and
(%)
d
e Model Year
CCSM4 stdev(2-7yr)
GFDL CM2.1 stdev(2-7yr)
stronger ENSO
weaker ENSO
Figure'2'
1900 1920 1940 1960 1980
−60
−40
−20
0
20
40
60
Year
Chan
ge in
std
ev o
f 2−7
yr b
and
(%) 20th century 30yr window std(2−7yr)
PNG−LiangPNG−MadangPNG−MS01PalmyraChristmasNINO3.4
1900 1920 1940 1960 1980
−60
−40
−20
0
20
40
60
Year
PNG−LiangPNG−MadangPNG−MS01PalmyraFanningChristmasNINO3.4
01000200030004000500060007000
−60
−40
−20
0
20
40
60
Year
Cha
nge
in s
tdev
of 2−7
yr b
and
(%)
Christmas MA
1900 1920 1940 1960 1980
−60
−40
−20
0
20
40
60
Year
Chan
ge in
std
ev o
f 2−7
yr b
and
(%) 20th century 30yr window std(2−7yr)
PNG−LiangPNG−MadangPNG−MS01PalmyraFanningChristmasNINO3.4
C'
Compilation of new and published coral-based paleo-ENSO reconstructions
MODERN FOSSIL
Key points: 1) large range in paleo-ENSO variations implied by available data 2) almost all coral data fall below late 20th century benchmark 3) prolonged reduction 3-5kybp (NEW)
Woodroffe&et&al.,&2003&Tudhope&et&al.,&2001&
Cobb&et&al,&2013&Cobb&et&al.,&2003&McGregor&et&al.,&2004,&2013&Grothe&et&al.,&in&prep&
d13C, Mg/Ca SST, d18O of seawater (d18Osw), d18O ofindividual G. ruber (N = 2071), and C-14 ages used in theage model (Table 1). Stratigraphic relationships are consistentwith other open-ocean cores from the EEP [Lea et al., 2006;Pena et al., 2008] establishing the site as representative. TheLGM is defined by maximum d18O enrichment (Figure 2a)terminating !19 ka with a warming step in Mg/Ca SST(Figure 2b) and a correlative negative d13C shift (Figure 2d)previously observed in other sites from the EEP [Spero andLea, 2002; Pena et al., 2008]. The SST amplitude fromLGM to Late Holocene averages 2.0"C (Figure 2b), similar tothe !1.8"C change in nearby core TR163–22 [Lea et al.,2006]. V21–30 also shows a !1.5"C deglacial reversalduring the Younger Dryas, a previously ambiguous signal inMg/Ca but more clear in alkenone records [Kienast et al.,2006]. The d18Osw calculated from G. ruber d18O andMg/Ca shows a mean LGM-Holocene shift of 1‰ consistentwith the mean ocean shift due to ice volume [Waelbroecket al., 2002] but with a lag during deglaciation evident alsoin nearby TR163–22 [Lea et al., 2006]. A key advantage ofV21–30 is its shallow depth, which minimizes carbonatedissolution and contributes to superior preservation and highabundance of G. ruber. Our main objective here is to exploitthese attributes for single-specimen d18O analysis to recon-struct shifts in variance.
[10] The full ensemble of individual G. ruber d18O isshown in Figure 2a, and the corresponding estimates ofvariance are shown in Figure 3. As a test of our method’sability to reproduce modern conditions we compared themean and variance of d18O in core top samples withexpected values from instrumental data. Two core tops withages of 0.96 and 1.06 ka from V21–30 (617 m water depth)and nearby V21–29 (712 m water depth) [Koutavas andLynch-Stieglitz, 2003] produced identical d18O distributionswith means of #1.72 and #1.78‰ and standard deviationsof 0.507 and 0.510‰. By comparison expected values frominstrumental (1958–2007) monthly SST and salinity [Cartonand Giese, 2008] average #1.55 to #1.88‰ (bracketed bythe equations of Bemis et al. [1998]) and standard deviationof 0.514‰. The core top and late twentieth century valuesare indistinguishable indicating the method faithfully capturesboth mean and variance. We proceed to examine recon-structed monthly variance in the past from G. ruber d18O.
4. Holocene
[11] The complete sequence of reconstructed d18O variance(s2) in our samples is shown in Figure 3. For reference thefigure also shows the late twentieth century variance calcu-lated from instrumental data [Carton and Giese, 2008] (green
Figure 3. d18O variance of individual G. ruber from the Holocene and LGM. The variance is calculatedas the squared standard deviation (s2) of individual d18O in each sample. Two bars are shown for eachsample: the high bar includes all the data while the low bar excludes the heaviest and lightest value fromeach distribution, to test for spurious outlier effects. Both approaches yield similar shifts in variancedowncore. The age of each sample is indicated at the top of each bar (rounded to 0.1 ka). The 1.1 ka sampleis the core top of V21–29. The 7.0 ka sample marked with a star appears anomalous as its variance is drivenby two positive outliers (>3-sigma from the mean) and may be spurious. This sample was excluded fromfurther analysis. Green bar on left and dashed horizontal line indicate the 1958–2007 monthly d18Ovariance from instrumental SST and salinity [Carton and Giese, 2008]. Orange bar marked “No ENSO”is the monthly variance due to the annual cycle only [Locarnini et al., 2006]. Dashed arrows suggest broadtrends in the data. Hatched bars mark data breaks.
Figure 2. Stratigraphic and paleoclimatic proxies from core V21–30. (a) d18O of bulk G. ruber (red line), d18O of G. ruberindividuals (open circles) and their mean values (red circles). (b) Mg/Ca SST of G. ruber. (c) d18O of seawater calculatedfrom G. ruber Mg/Ca and d18O, compared to global ocean d18O [Waelbroeck et al., 2002]. (d) d13C of G. ruber. Trianglesat bottom indicate C-14 ages used in the age model (Table 1). The Holocene and LGM are shaded in gray.
KOUTAVAS AND JOANIDES: ENSO EXTREMA IN THE HOLOCENE AND LGM PA4208PA4208
5 of 15
Variance of single foraminifera δ18O near Galapagos suggests EP ENSO disappeared ~4-6ky
Koutavas&and&Joanides,&2012&
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 00
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3Observations
ENSO variance ratio AC amplitude ratio
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
012
West
PI
0 1 2 3
MH
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 00
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3Observations
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
024
PI
0 2 4
MH
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 00
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
012
Center
0 1 2 3 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 00
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
024 0 2 4
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 00
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Time (ky BP)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
012
East
Density0 1 2 3
Density9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Time (ky BP)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
024Density
0 2 4Density
HadGEM2GISSKCM
CCSM4MIROCMPI
CNRMIPSLCSIRO
ObservationsGCMsref. 13, 14this studyref. 11, 12ref. 18, 19
ref. 15, 16, 20, 21ref. 17ref. 22, 23ref. 24, 25
Data-model synthesis of Holocene ENSO Emile-Geay et al., submitted (PMIP paleovar group)
WEST
CENTRAL
EAST
reduced ENSO
Problem: If ENSO proxies reflect ENSO’s sensitivity to spring/fall precessional forcing, then GCM simulations of ENSO responding to summer/winter forcing are inaccurate.
!0.5 !0.4 !0.3 !0.2 !0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.50
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
mean=0.138mean=0
x95%=0.106 x95%=0.036
x95%=0.052 x95%=0.088
x95%=0.024 x95%=0.116
Null TRACE
Linear regression coefficient (oC/10000yr)N
umbe
r of o
ccur
ence
s
Nino3.4 pseudocoral PDFsets:100000 win:30yrs
nsample=50
nsample=200
nsample=1000
!60
!40
!20
0
% c
hang
e of
TRA
CE
ENSO
benc
hmar
k la
st 1
ka
20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
Age (ka)
ENSO
var
iabi
lity
(1.5
!7
yr)
a
b
e.g.&CCSM4&Liu&et&al.,&2014&
seasonality&de
creasing&
ENSO&increas
ing&
Opportunity: How to explain a large, prolonged reduction in ENSO activity? Forced by spring/fall precessional insolation? Or was it unforced?
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8Proxy Observations
Scal
ed E
NSO
var
ianc
e
Scaled Seasonality
TLS fit, ̀o = +0.1±0.1
TLS fit, 95% CI
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3General Circulation Models
Scal
ed E
NSO
var
ianc
e
Scaled seasonality
HadGEM2 PI
GISS PI
KCM PI
CCSM4 PI
MIROC PI
MPI PI
CNRM PI
IPSL PI
CSIRO PI
TLS fit, ̀m
= -0.012±0.0042
TLS fit, 95% CI
ref. 13, 14
this study
ref. 11, 12
ref. 18, 19
ref. 15, 16, 20, 21
ref. 17
ref. 22, 23
ref. 24, 25
Emile-Geay et al., submitted (PMIP paleovar group)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8Proxy Observations
Scal
ed E
NSO
var
ianc
eScaled Seasonality
TLS fit, ̀o = +0.1±0.1
TLS fit, 95% CI
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3General Circulation Models
Scal
ed E
NSO
var
ianc
e
Scaled seasonality
HadGEM2 PI
GISS PI
KCM PI
CCSM4 PI
MIROC PI
MPI PI
CNRM PI
IPSL PI
CSIRO PI
TLS fit, ̀m
= -0.012±0.0042
TLS fit, 95% CI
ref. 13, 14
this study
ref. 11, 12
ref. 18, 19
ref. 15, 16, 20, 21
ref. 17
ref. 22, 23
ref. 24, 25
Emile-Geay et al., submitted (PMIP paleovar group)
A) Proxies Need more data. Separate SST and hydrological components? How to combine proxies to isolate signal (mean state, decadal, and ENSO)? B) Models Need to revisit annual cycle-ENSO relationship. ENSO teleconnections – sensitivity to mean state?
NEAR-TERM CHALLENGES
A) Proxies Need more data. Separate SST and hydrological components? How to combine proxies to isolate signal (mean state, decadal, ENSO)? B) Models Need to revisit annual cycle-ENSO relationship. ENSO teleconnections – sensitivity to mean state?
NEAR-TERM CHALLENGES
water&isotopes&(salinity)&
forward&models&of&proxies&(‘pseudoproxies’)&
THE&GLUE&
PMIP&
Line&Islands&Project&2014K2016&