2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2022.103814
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The marine δ18O record overestimates continental ice volume during Marine Isotope Stage 3

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

1
15
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 162 publications
1
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The second way our Sulu Sea reconstructions address the MIS 3 controversy is in regard to comparisons between GIA modeling, shoreline, and ice margin-based GMSL estimates and interpretations of the GMSL contributions to foraminiferal δ 18 O records (see Dalton et al, 2022). If higher estimates of maximum MIS 3 sea level of approximately −40 m are correct (Batchelor et al, 2019;Dalton et al, 2022;Pico et al, 2016Pico et al, , 2017, as discussed in Dalton et al (2022), there is a clear disconnect between those paleo-records and interpretations of the sea level components of foraminiferal δ 18 O reconstructions (Siddall et al, 2008;Spratt & Lisiecki, 2016).…”
Section: Comparison To Other Sea Level Recordsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The second way our Sulu Sea reconstructions address the MIS 3 controversy is in regard to comparisons between GIA modeling, shoreline, and ice margin-based GMSL estimates and interpretations of the GMSL contributions to foraminiferal δ 18 O records (see Dalton et al, 2022). If higher estimates of maximum MIS 3 sea level of approximately −40 m are correct (Batchelor et al, 2019;Dalton et al, 2022;Pico et al, 2016Pico et al, , 2017, as discussed in Dalton et al (2022), there is a clear disconnect between those paleo-records and interpretations of the sea level components of foraminiferal δ 18 O reconstructions (Siddall et al, 2008;Spratt & Lisiecki, 2016).…”
Section: Comparison To Other Sea Level Recordsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For Tahiti, our modelled relative sea level is consistent with the estimate pointed out by Yokoyama et al (although the estimate in ref. 18 was −67 to −101 m, not −65 to −75 m). This proxy is from the final part of MIS 3 when the ice sheets were advancing, and does not represent the MIS 3 highstand period.…”
mentioning
confidence: 86%
“…The geological constraints of limited ice sheet extent make it implausible for global average sea level to be −60 to −90 m during most of MIS 3 18 , even when accounting for two different hypotheses for Laurentide Ice Sheet configuration 19 , 20 . It is possible to increase the ice volume in our model by increasing the basal shear stress.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Global average sea level remained above −55 m for the period between 30-55 ka. From glacial isostatic modelling and geological constraints, a global mean sea level between −30 m and −50 m is inferred (Dalton et al, 2022). For much of MIS3, since the Eurasian ice sheets and the Cordilleran Ice Sheet were likely restricted to mountain-based caps (Helmens, 2014;Hughes et al, 2016), the primary control on ice volume is assumed to be from the LIS.…”
Section: Northern Hemisphere Ice Sheetsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For much of MIS3, since the Eurasian ice sheets and the Cordilleran Ice Sheet were likely restricted to mountain-based caps (Helmens, 2014;Hughes et al, 2016), the primary control on ice volume is assumed to be from the LIS. Recent work in the area of the Hudson Bay (Dalton et al, 2016(Dalton et al, , 2019McMartin et al, 2019;Dalton et al, 2022) suggests ice-free conditions may have occurred during mid-MIS3. This implies climatic conditions in this region similar to present (Dalton et al, 2017), and a LIS margin removed from the southern Hudson Bay.…”
Section: Northern Hemisphere Ice Sheetsmentioning
confidence: 99%