Supplementary material to "The Iso2k Database: A global compilation of paleo-δ<sup>18</sup>O and δ<sup>2</sup>H records to aid understanding of Common Era climate"

Identifying Hydro‐Sensitive Coral δ18O Records for Improved High‐Resolution Temperature and Salinity Reconstructions

“…Paired coral Sr/Ca and δ 18 O measurements provide a means of determining the contribution of SST and SSS/δ 18 O sw to δ 18 O coral values since Sr/Ca is primarily sensitive to SST (Corrège, 2006). However, most published δ 18 O coral records to date lack paired Sr/Ca data (Carré et al., 2021; Konecky et al., 2020).…”

Environmental records from coral skeletons: A decade of novel insights and innovation

“…Located in the center(s) of action for major modes of coupled ocean–atmosphere climate variability (e.g., ENSO and the Indian Ocean Dipole, IOD), coral records provide critical information about these modes without relying on stationary atmospheric teleconnections (a long‐standing challenge for terrestrial proxies). For example, a compilation of available δ 18 O (temperature and seawater δ 18 O—hereafter δ 18 O sw ) and Sr/Ca (temperature) records with coverage over the CE (PAGES 2k working groups: temperature, PAGES 2k Consortium, 2013; PAGES2k Consortium, 2017; Oceans 2k, Tierney et al, 2015; Iso2k, Konecky et al, 2020; and Hydro2k, PAGES 2k Consortium, 2019) have identified coherent signals of temperature (Figure 3) and hydroclimate change in response to volcanic (McGregor et al, 2015; PAGES 2k Consortium, 2019; Tierney et al, 2015) and anthropogenic aerosol and greenhouse gas forcing (PAGES 2k Consortium, 2019; Tierney et al, 2015; The PAGES 2k Consortium et al, 2016). These coherent trends emerge despite noise within individual proxies (e.g., Loope, Thompson, Cole, & Overpeck, 2020), regional differences in the timing and/or magnitude of change as a result of regional climate dynamics (Neukom et al, 2019), and differences in the proxy system itself (e.g., skill in reconstructing ENSO phases, Hereid et al, 2013, and/or the relative role of temperature and δ 18 O sw in δ 18 O coral , Konecky et al, 2020; Russon et al, 2013—see Section 5.1).…”

“…For example, a compilation of available δ 18 O (temperature and seawater δ 18 O—hereafter δ 18 O sw ) and Sr/Ca (temperature) records with coverage over the CE (PAGES 2k working groups: temperature, PAGES 2k Consortium, 2013; PAGES2k Consortium, 2017; Oceans 2k, Tierney et al, 2015; Iso2k, Konecky et al, 2020; and Hydro2k, PAGES 2k Consortium, 2019) have identified coherent signals of temperature (Figure 3) and hydroclimate change in response to volcanic (McGregor et al, 2015; PAGES 2k Consortium, 2019; Tierney et al, 2015) and anthropogenic aerosol and greenhouse gas forcing (PAGES 2k Consortium, 2019; Tierney et al, 2015; The PAGES 2k Consortium et al, 2016). These coherent trends emerge despite noise within individual proxies (e.g., Loope, Thompson, Cole, & Overpeck, 2020), regional differences in the timing and/or magnitude of change as a result of regional climate dynamics (Neukom et al, 2019), and differences in the proxy system itself (e.g., skill in reconstructing ENSO phases, Hereid et al, 2013, and/or the relative role of temperature and δ 18 O sw in δ 18 O coral , Konecky et al, 2020; Russon et al, 2013—see Section 5.1). However, despite the community focus on the Medieval Climate Anomaly (~800–1200 CE) and Little Ice Age (~1300–1850 CE) for understanding the climate system response to natural (solar and volcanic) forcing, reconstructions display little regional coherence (Neukom et al, 2019) and no consistent response of major modes of climate variability between these periods (e.g., ENSO: Dee et al, 2020; Emile‐Geay et al, 2013).…”

“…Years of laborious exploration of remote areas have further extended the temporal coverage and replication of pre‐industrial climate information from sub‐fossil coral colonies (e.g., Abram et al, 2020; Cobb et al, 2013; DeLong et al, 2010; Felis et al, 2014; Grothe et al, 2020; Leupold et al, 2021; McGregor et al, 2013; Sayani et al, 2019; Woodroffe et al, 2012). Several studies have also leveraged the spatial coherence and decorrelation length scale characteristic of major modes of oceanic variability to develop regional composites and syntheses of the rapidly expanding network of published records (e.g., Dassié et al, 2018; Gorman et al, 2012; Konecky et al, 2020; Linsley et al, 2015; Tierney et al, 2015).…”

“…All subpanels were obtained by searching the Elsevier Scopus database with keywords for each subfield; each list was carefully curated to remove publications that were outside the scope of this review (e.g., studies on azooxanthellate or non-Scleractinian coral species). International Coral Reef Society Proceedings and other conference proceedings are not included in the Scopus database; therefore, these panels are used to demonstrate the overall acceleration of research in these subfields since 2010 (light-gray shaded region), rather than the absolute number of publications in each area climate dynamics (Neukom et al, 2019), and differences in the proxy system itself (e.g., skill in reconstructing ENSO phases, Hereid et al, 2013, and/or the relative role of temperature and δ 18 O sw in δ 18 O coral , Konecky et al, 2020;Russon et al, 2013-see Section 5.1). However, despite the community focus on the Medieval Climate Anomaly (~800-1200 CE) and Little Ice Age (~1300-1850 CE) for understanding the climate system response to natural (solar and volcanic) forcing, reconstructions display little regional coherence (Neukom et al, 2019) and no consistent response of major modes of climate variability between these periods (e.g., ENSO: Dee et al, 2020;Emile-Geay et al, 2013).…”