the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Hydroclimatic processes as the primary drivers of the Early Khvalynian transgression of the Caspian Sea: new developments
Abstract. It has been well established that during the late Quaternary, the Khvalynian transgression of the Caspian Sea occurred, when the sea level rose tens of meters above the present one. Here, we evaluate the physical feasibility of the hypothesis that the maximum phase of this extraordinary event (known as the “Early Khvalynian transgression”) could be initiated and maintained for several thousand years solely by hydroclimatic factors. The hypothesis is based on recent studies dating the highest sea level stage (well above +10 m a.s.l.) to the final period of deglaciation, 17–13 kyr BP, and studies estimating the contribution of the glacial waters in the sea level rise for this period as negligible. To evaluate the hypothesis put forward, we first applied the coupled ocean and sea-ice general circulation model driven by the climate model and estimated the equilibrium water inflow (irrespective of its origin) sufficient to maintain the sea level at the well-dated marks of the Early Khvalynian transgression as 400–470 km3/year. Secondly, we conducted an extensive 14C-dating of the large paleochannels (signs of high flow of atmospheric origin) located in the Volga basin and found that the period of their origin (17.5–14 ka BP) is almost identical to the recent dating of the main phase of the Early Khvalynian transgression. Water flow that could form these palaeochannels was earlier estimated for the ancient Volga River as 420 km3/year, i.e. close to the equilibrium runoff we determined. Thirdly, we applied a hydrological model forced by paleoclimate data to reveal physically consistent mechanisms of an extraordinarily high water inflow into the Caspian Sea in the absence of visible glacial meltwater effect. We found that the inflow could be caused by the spread of post-glacial permafrost in the Volga paleo-catchment. The numerical experiments demonstrated that the permafrost resulted in a sharp drop in infiltration into the frozen ground and reduced evaporation, which all together generated the Volga runoff during the Oldest Dryas, 17–14.8 kyr BP, up to 360 km3/year (i.e. the total inflow into the Caspian Sea could reach 450 km3/year). The closeness of the estimates of river inflow into the sea, obtained by three independent methods, in combination with the previously obtained results, gave us reason to conclude that the hypothesis put forward is physically consistent.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(1966 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1966 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-811', Tamara Yanina, 07 Oct 2023
Dear colleagues,
The paper covers relevant scientific topics and is very important to understanding the natural processes that took place in the Caspian Region. I consider the paper to be of high value in general, but I would like to address certain comments that would add correctness to the paper.
The review of the positions about the age of the Early Khvalynian transgression (lines 45-50) leads to the conclusion that prior to 1990s, there existed belief about the synchronous nature of the Early Khvalynian transgression and the Early Valdai (Early Weichselian, MIS 4) glacial epoch. Then, (referenced Svitoch et al., 1994, 1998), emerged a notion about a “young age” of the transgression based primarily on the radiocarbon data. However, these points of view existed concurrently and were the subjects of fierce debate in scientific community. A.A. Svitoch (whose works are referenced in your paper) defended the position on the “young” age of the transgression even as early as in 1970s. But the scientists who supported the other point of view (G.I. Rychagov, V.A. Zubakov) persisted in their opinion and believed that the radiocarbon method yielded faulty results (and later, the OSL method) and was not suitable for dating of the Lower Khvalynian sediments.
Furthermore, the interpretation of the conclusion on the age boundaries of the Khvalynina transgression reached by R. Makshaev and N. Tkach (2023) is not entire correct. R. Makshaev and N. Tkach (2023) presented analyses of not 180 dates, but of 234 (these represent all the radiocarbon dates available to date) and for the entire (!) Caspian. They did not identify two transgressive events in the Early Khalynian post LGM (as you present in the paper), but conjectured on the position of the levels at separate time segments based on the radiocarbon dates.
Besides, the radiocarbon and OSL dating correlate well and therefore, it doesn’t seem to be quite feasible to consider only OSL dating for the Lower Volga Region when building models for the entire Caspian.
The presented paper does not consider the Manych Strait, which played an important role in the Early Khvalynian basin. Therefore, how the Manych strait affected to the changes of water balance of the Early Khvalynian basin from the post-LGM to the Allerød? In addition, it is necessary to consider the existing radiocarbon and OSL dates obtained from lower Khvalynian deposits of Manych (Svitoch et al., 2010: Pleistocene of the Manych. Questions of the structure and development; Semikolennych et al., 2022: Dating the Khvalynian strait within the late Pleistocene history of the Manych Depression).
It is necessary to correct some inaccuracy in the text.
For example:
Line 56: Yenotaevian regression
Line 563: Yenotaevkian regression
Line 676: Chepalyga, A. L.: Late glacial great flood in the Ponto-Caspian basin, in: The Black Sea Flood Question: Changes in Coastline, Climate, and Human Settlement, edited by: Yanko-Hombach, V., Gilbert, A.S., Panin, A., and Dolukhanov, P.M., Springer, Dordrecht, 119–148, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5302-3_6, 2007.
Among the editors - Nicolae Panin from Romania, not A. Panin
Line 823: Rychagov, G.I.: Late Pleistocene history of the Caspian Sea, in: Comprehensive Studies of the Caspian Sea, edited by: Leontiev, O.K., Maev, E.G., MSU Press., Moscow, 18–29, 1974 (in Russian).
Line 855: Svitoch, A. A., and Yanina, T. A. (Eds.): Quaternary Deposits of the Caspian Sea Coasts, MSU Press, Moscow, 267 pp., 1997 (in Russian).
Not entirely clear "(Eds.)." Editors? This is a monograph of two of these authors.
Line 871: Varuschenko, S. I., Varuschenko, A. N., and Klige, R. K. (Eds.): Changes in the Regime of the Caspian Sea and Closed Basins in Paleotime, Nauka, Moscow, 239 pp., 1987 (in Russian).
The same. Not entirely clear "(Eds.)"
And as the conclusion: Thank you for the interesting paper.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-811-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Alexander Gelfan, 15 Nov 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-811', Tamara Yanina, 07 Oct 2023
Dear colleagues,
The paper covers relevant scientific topics and is very important to understanding the natural processes that took place in the Caspian Region. I consider the paper to be of high value in general, but I would like to address certain comments that would add correctness to the paper.
The review of the positions about the age of the Early Khvalynian transgression (lines 45-50) leads to the conclusion that prior to 1990s, there existed belief about the synchronous nature of the Early Khvalynian transgression and the Early Valdai (Early Weichselian, MIS 4) glacial epoch. Then, (referenced Svitoch et al., 1994, 1998), emerged a notion about a “young age” of the transgression based primarily on the radiocarbon data. However, these points of view existed concurrently and were the subjects of fierce debate in scientific community. A.A. Svitoch (whose works are referenced in your paper) defended the position on the “young” age of the transgression even as early as in 1970s. But the scientists who supported the other point of view (G.I. Rychagov, V.A. Zubakov) persisted in their opinion and believed that the radiocarbon method yielded faulty results (and later, the OSL method) and was not suitable for dating of the Lower Khvalynian sediments.
Furthermore, the interpretation of the conclusion on the age boundaries of the Khvalynina transgression reached by R. Makshaev and N. Tkach (2023) is not entire correct. R. Makshaev and N. Tkach (2023) presented analyses of not 180 dates, but of 234 (these represent all the radiocarbon dates available to date) and for the entire (!) Caspian. They did not identify two transgressive events in the Early Khalynian post LGM (as you present in the paper), but conjectured on the position of the levels at separate time segments based on the radiocarbon dates.
Besides, the radiocarbon and OSL dating correlate well and therefore, it doesn’t seem to be quite feasible to consider only OSL dating for the Lower Volga Region when building models for the entire Caspian.
The presented paper does not consider the Manych Strait, which played an important role in the Early Khvalynian basin. Therefore, how the Manych strait affected to the changes of water balance of the Early Khvalynian basin from the post-LGM to the Allerød? In addition, it is necessary to consider the existing radiocarbon and OSL dates obtained from lower Khvalynian deposits of Manych (Svitoch et al., 2010: Pleistocene of the Manych. Questions of the structure and development; Semikolennych et al., 2022: Dating the Khvalynian strait within the late Pleistocene history of the Manych Depression).
It is necessary to correct some inaccuracy in the text.
For example:
Line 56: Yenotaevian regression
Line 563: Yenotaevkian regression
Line 676: Chepalyga, A. L.: Late glacial great flood in the Ponto-Caspian basin, in: The Black Sea Flood Question: Changes in Coastline, Climate, and Human Settlement, edited by: Yanko-Hombach, V., Gilbert, A.S., Panin, A., and Dolukhanov, P.M., Springer, Dordrecht, 119–148, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5302-3_6, 2007.
Among the editors - Nicolae Panin from Romania, not A. Panin
Line 823: Rychagov, G.I.: Late Pleistocene history of the Caspian Sea, in: Comprehensive Studies of the Caspian Sea, edited by: Leontiev, O.K., Maev, E.G., MSU Press., Moscow, 18–29, 1974 (in Russian).
Line 855: Svitoch, A. A., and Yanina, T. A. (Eds.): Quaternary Deposits of the Caspian Sea Coasts, MSU Press, Moscow, 267 pp., 1997 (in Russian).
Not entirely clear "(Eds.)." Editors? This is a monograph of two of these authors.
Line 871: Varuschenko, S. I., Varuschenko, A. N., and Klige, R. K. (Eds.): Changes in the Regime of the Caspian Sea and Closed Basins in Paleotime, Nauka, Moscow, 239 pp., 1987 (in Russian).
The same. Not entirely clear "(Eds.)"
And as the conclusion: Thank you for the interesting paper.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-811-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Alexander Gelfan, 15 Nov 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
187 | 80 | 18 | 285 | 17 | 14 |
- HTML: 187
- PDF: 80
- XML: 18
- Total: 285
- BibTeX: 17
- EndNote: 14
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Alexander Gelfan
Andrey Panin
Andrey Kalugin
Polina Morozova
Vladimir Semenov
Alexey Sidorchuk
Vadim Ukraintsev
Konstantin Ushakov
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1966 KB) - Metadata XML