2022
DOI: 10.1126/science.abk0604
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cenozoic evolution of deep ocean temperature from clumped isotope thermometry

Abstract: Characterizing past climate states is crucial for understanding the future consequences of ongoing greenhouse gas emissions. Here, we revisit the benchmark time series for deep ocean temperature across the past 65 million years using clumped isotope thermometry. Our temperature estimates from the deep Atlantic Ocean are overall much warmer compared with oxygen isotope–based reconstructions, highlighting the likely influence of changes in deep ocean pH and/or seawater oxygen isotope composition on classical oxy… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

8
83
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 61 publications
(122 citation statements)
references
References 80 publications
(88 reference statements)
8
83
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The ∼1.5°C difference in reconstructed temperature between the calibrations in the low temperature range (<30°C) may seem trivial and requires the complete A. islandica data set (N = 278; see Figure 3) to resolve. However, in paleoclimate reconstructions (e.g., Agterhuis et al, 2022;de Winter, Müller et al, 2021;de Winter et al, 2017;Meckler et al, 2022;Petersen et al, 2016;Vickers, Fernandez, et al, 2020), this temperature offset may have significant consequences. A ∼1.5°C cold bias in temperature reconstructions may lead to a significant underestimation of climate sensitivity to CO 2 forcing, biasing the physical science basis for informing policymakers about future climate change (e.g., Dennis et al, 2013;IPCC, 2021;Modestou et al, 2020;Tierney et al, 2020;Westerhold et al, 2020).…”
Section: Calibrating the Clumped Isotope-temperature Relationship In ...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The ∼1.5°C difference in reconstructed temperature between the calibrations in the low temperature range (<30°C) may seem trivial and requires the complete A. islandica data set (N = 278; see Figure 3) to resolve. However, in paleoclimate reconstructions (e.g., Agterhuis et al, 2022;de Winter, Müller et al, 2021;de Winter et al, 2017;Meckler et al, 2022;Petersen et al, 2016;Vickers, Fernandez, et al, 2020), this temperature offset may have significant consequences. A ∼1.5°C cold bias in temperature reconstructions may lead to a significant underestimation of climate sensitivity to CO 2 forcing, biasing the physical science basis for informing policymakers about future climate change (e.g., Dennis et al, 2013;IPCC, 2021;Modestou et al, 2020;Tierney et al, 2020;Westerhold et al, 2020).…”
Section: Calibrating the Clumped Isotope-temperature Relationship In ...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, mismatches between deep ocean δ 18 O and pCO 2 have been noted, with Oligocene warmth presenting a conundrum (O'Brien et al, 2020). Progress on separating deep ocean temperature and ice volume variables, using Mg/Ca (Lear et al, 2000(Lear et al, , 2015 and later using clumped isotope paleothermometry, found warm deep ocean temperatures persist longer than thought, with temperatures of 5°C-10°C recorded across the Oligocene and Miocene (Meckler et al, 2022). Antarctic temperature reconstructions are vital to understand local climate-cryosphere coupling; however, accessing sedimentary archives remains challenging (e.g., McKay et al, 2022).…”
Section: Implications For Cenozoic Coolingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, our highly temperature-controlled A. islandica datapoints reveal that, despite uncertainty on formation temperature, the Meinicke et al (2021) The ∼1.5°C difference in reconstructed temperature between the calibrations in the low temperature range (<30°C) may seem trivial and requires the complete A. islandica data set (N = 278; see Figure 3) to resolve. However, in paleoclimate reconstructions (e.g., Agterhuis et al, 2022;de Winter, Müller et al, 2021;de Winter et al, 2017;Meckler et al, 2022;Petersen et al, 2016;Vickers, Fernandez, et al, 2020), this temperature offset may have significant consequences. A ∼1.5°C cold bias in temperature reconstructions may lead to a significant underestimation of climate sensitivity to CO 2 forcing, biasing the physical science basis for informing policymakers about future climate change (e.g., Dennis et al, 2013;IPCC, 2021;Modestou et al, 2020;Tierney et al, 2020;Westerhold et al, 2020).…”
Section: Calibrating the Clumped Isotope-temperature Relationship In ...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The latter represents an improvement over the often-used oxygen isotope paleothermometer (δ 18 O), which requires knowledge of the oxygen isotope composition of the precipitation fluid (δ 18 O w ; e.g., Epstein et al, 1953;Kim & O'Neil, 1997). The clumped isotope method has many applications, notably to reconstruct absolute temperature variability throughout Earth's history (e.g., Agterhuis et al, 2022;de Winter, Müller et al, 2021;Meckler et al, 2022;Henkes et al, 2018;Rodríguez-Sanz et al, 2017;Vickers, Lengger, et al, 2020).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%