the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Precession driven low-latitude hydrological cycle paced by shifting perihelion
Abstract. Paleoclimate proxies reveal a significant precessional impact on the low-latitude hydrological cycle. Classical theory suggests that precession modulates the inter-hemisphere summer insolation difference, and hence controls the meridional displacement of the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone. Accordingly, low-latitude precipitation variations are expected to be in-phase (for the Northern Hemisphere) or anti-phase (for the Southern Hemisphere) with the Northern Hemisphere summer insolation. However, increasing number of proxies, particularly those absolutely dated ones, reveal that variations in terrestrial precipitation at different low-latitudes follow distinct precession rhythms that are very often out-of-phase with hemispheric summer insolation. The mechanism underlying such spatial complexity remains elusive. In this study, we argued that the precession driven low-latitude hydrological cycle is paced by shifting perihelion, rather than the hemispheric summer insolation. More specifically, precession of the Earth’s rotation axis alters the occurrence season and latitude of perihelion. When perihelion occurs, increasing insolation raises the moist static energy over land faster than over ocean due to differing thermal inertia. This thermodynamically moves the tropical convergence precipitation from the ocean to the land, contributing to enhancing the terrestrial precipitation over the latitudinal rain belt. As perihelion shifts towards different latitudes and seasons at different precessional phases, this leads asynchronous terrestrial precipitation maxima at different latitudes. Our hypothesis, supported by both model simulations and geologic records, suggests that the insolation in individual seasons is equally important in shaping the orbital scale climate changes at low-latitude. This offers an alternative dynamical interpretation for the complex evolution of low-latitude hydrological cycle under precessional forcing.
- Preprint
(6358 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1100 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 15 Jan 2025)
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2778 - Be precise, use the proper wording', Marie-France Loutre, 14 Oct 2024
reply
This is a very technical comment on the paper but not at all a review on the scientific findings, and their validity.
The authors wrote “The latitude of the perihelion is introduced as the latitude of Sun’s zenith point when perihelion occurs. This latitude also represents the latitude of maximum incoming solar radiation at the top of atmosphere.”
As far as I know the zenith is defined for an observer on the Earth but not for the Sun. What the authors mean is probably something else. Is it the angular distance of the Sun (at the perihelion) from the zenith, i.e. co-latitude?
« the latitude of maximum incoming solar radiation » Do the authors mean on the day that the Sun reached the perihelion ? In that case when perihelion occurs at summer/winter solstice the maximum incoming solar radiation is at the pole (north/south), not between the tropics.
“Currently, perihelion happens in boreal winter … About 11 kiloyears ago, perihelion occurred in boreal summer … » My understanding is that it means 180deg in 11kyr, which does not correspond to « around 20.4 minutes per year ».
The authors should clearly be more careful in their explanation. For example, they wrote ‘when perihelion occurs’. As soon as the eccentricity is not zero, there is a perihelion. Therefore, it always ‘occurs’. The authors probably meant something else but it is unclear what.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2778-CC1 -
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2778', Anonymous Referee #1, 20 Dec 2024
reply
The paper presents a hypothesis on how precession drives the low-latitude hydrological cycle, arguing that it is paced by shifting perihelion rather than hemispheric summer insolation. The content appears to be relevant to the field of paleoclimatology and orbital forcing of climate.
In general, the authors provide a comprehensive background on some classical theories and observations. The authors highlight limitations of classical theory in explaining asynchronous precipitation patterns observed in proxy records. Their hypothesis offers a plausible explanation that addresses these inconsistencies. The study's strengths lie in its multi-faceted approach, combining theoretical analysis, climate modeling, and proxy evidence. However, improvements could be made in the discussion of uncertainties, organization of results and discussion sections, and some aspects of writing clarity and citations.
Structure
Overall, the paper presents a well-structured argument for the proposed hypothesis. The paper follows a logical structure which allows readers to easily follow the progression of ideas. The authors effectively use subheadings to guide the reader through different aspects of their study. One suggestion for improvement would be to more clearly delineate the transition between results and discussion sections. While the current structure works, a more explicit separation could help readers distinguish between the presentation of findings and their interpretation.
Methodology
The authors effectively use a combination of theoretical analysis, climate model simulations, and comparison with geological records to support their claims. My impression is that the methodology employed in this study is overall appropriate and well-executed. In principle, the selected speleothem records from South America and Asia seem to be appropriate for the study, but it would be beneficial, if additional records could be included if available (e.g., when checking the SISAL database?). Concerning the model simulations, my expertise is limited, but my impression is that the experiments are well-designed, with an idealized Earth system experiment and a set of simulations reconstructing a full precessional cycle. However, one area that could be strengthened is the discussion of potential limitations or uncertainties in their model simulations and proxy interpretations. While the authors do mention some caveats, a more explicit treatment of uncertainties would enhance the robustness of their conclusions.
Writing clarity
While the writing is generally clear, there are a few instances where key concepts could be described with more precision or clarity (this is also related to the previous community comment…). For example, the statement about "the latitude of maximum incoming solar radiation at the top of atmosphere" oversimplifies the complex relationship between perihelion and insolation patterns, which depends on multiple factors including axial tilt.
To improve clarity, the authors should carefully go through their MS again and reconsider such explanations, to provide more accurate and precise descriptions of key orbital mechanics concepts. This would strengthen the paper's foundation and help readers better understand the novel hypothesis presented.
Discussion
In the discussion, the authors consider some alternative explanations and address potential weaknesses in their hypothesis. For example, they acknowledge factors like changing obliquity. However, I still consider their treatment of alternative explanations for asynchronous precipitation patterns as one area where the authors could improve in. While they mention various factors (e.g., ice sheets, vegetation feedback) that could disrupt summer insolation's control on the hydrological cycle, they don't engage deeply with these alternative explanations. A revised discussion should involve how the approach is able to combine thermodynamic and dynamic (atmospheric) processes, and how it compares to other works (e.g., Bischoff et al 2017, Singarayer et al. 2017, ...).
Furthermore I miss in the discussion a statement, how representative the selected speleothem records are, given that previous works have shown differences between locations are observed on the precessional to orbital scale, (e.g., Windler et al 2021, Parker et al., 2021, Wu et al. 2023). In addition, care should be taken regarding fidelity of the δ18O proxy as a “precipitation proxy”, and it should be clearly distinguished when the study is focusing on “precipitation amount” or “monsoon”, which is not necessarily the same, and not always adequately represented in speleothem δ18O (e.g., Patterson et al., 2024, Wu et al., 2023).I acknowledge that some of this discussion may be beyond the scope of this paper, but an overall more comprehensive discussion of the uncertainties and limitations of the approach and the hypothesis, as well as alternative models and explanations is very desirable.
Minor comments
L53 do you mean “presence”? Also these factors are mentioned here but not really discussed later how that fits to their hypothesis
L57 affects
L63 strictly speaking, you are not constructing new geological records, but use already published data.
L63 to hypothesize
L98ff It would be beneficial to reiterate for the individual records how the speleothem δ18O is interpreted and how representative it is for local rainfall amount. Also have you checked the SISAL database (e.g., Kaushal et al., 2024) if there are more records available that could be included?
L119 Could this definition be described even more clearly? It is a bit confusing… But this is very crucial, possibly a sketch illustrating a few “screenshots” of different phases shown in the supplementary movie could make this clearer?
L132 see comment above.
L134 To be honest, Fig. 2 is not very intriguing to someone who is not expert in orbital processes and associated notations. (compare also previous comments)
L164ff How do the results explained in this paragraph compare to the so-called “classical theory”?
L213 Just because the records document the precession-dominated variations, it doesn’t demonstrate the selected records are truly representative for their latitudes.
L215 This is not true, that the growing season is always the rainy season. It depends on cave ventilation and vegetation activity, etc. In many cases growing season is winter. This is however generally independent on what the δ18O in the speleothem represents, which is usually a (infiltration-weighted) annual mean value (e.g., Baker et al 2019) and can be hydrologically influenced (e.g., Treble et al 2022, Patterson et al 2024)). This interpretation is too generalized.
L235 This is based on only three records, possibly there are more available (see earlier comment)
L260 with this conclusion, the authors should think about the overall wording if using the notation of “summer” (and similar) is precise and adequate at all instances…?
L276 This paragraph could be more expanded
L284 If there was indeed a direct comparison with the classical theory (see earlier comment) this statement would be easier to follow.
Figure 5: Is this data also available? This would be valuable to test the hypothesis for other records. Moreover, could the y-axis be complemented with secondary floating/ relative timescale? This would make a comparison with comparison with proxy records from different latitudes easier.
References
Baker, A., Hartmann, A., Duan, W., Hankin, S., Comas-Bru, L., Cuthbert, M. O., ... & Werner, M. (2019). Global analysis reveals climatic controls on the oxygen isotope composition of cave drip water. Nature Communications, 10(1), 2984.
Bischoff, T., Schneider, T., & Meckler, A. N. (2017). A conceptual model for the response of tropical rainfall to orbital variations. Journal of Climate, 30(20), 8375-8391.
Kaushal, N., Lechleitner, F. A., Wilhelm, M., Azennoud, K., Bühler, J. C., … and SISAL Working Group members: SISALv3: a global speleothem stable isotope and trace element database, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 16, 1933–1963, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-1933-2024, 2024.
Parker, S. E., Harrison, S. P., Comas-Bru, L., Kaushal, N., LeGrande, A. N., and Werner, M.: A data–model approach to interpreting speleothem oxygen isotope records from monsoon regions, Clim. Past, 17, 1119–1138, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-17-1119-2021, 2021.
Patterson, E., Skiba, V., Wolf, A., Griffiths, M., McGee, D., Bùi, T., ... & Johnson, K. (2024). Local hydroclimate alters interpretation of speleothem δ 18O records. Nature Communications, 15(1), 9064.
Singarayer, J.S., Valdes, P.J. & Roberts, W.H.G. Ocean dominated expansion and contraction of the late Quaternary tropical rainbelt. Sci Rep 7, 9382 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-09816-8
Treble, P.C., Baker, A., Abram, N.J. et al. Ubiquitous karst hydrological control on speleothem oxygen isotope variability in a global study. Commun Earth Environ 3, 29 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-022-00347-3
Windler, G., Tierney, J. E., & Anchukaitis, K. J. (2021). Glacial-interglacial shifts dominate tropical Indo-Pacific hydroclimate during the late Pleistocene. Geophysical Research Letters, 48, e2021GL093339. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL093339
Wu, Y., Warken, S., Frank, N., Mielke, A., Chen, C. J., Li, J. Y., & Li, T. Y. (2023). Northern Hemisphere summer insolation and ice volume driven variations in hydrological environment in southwest China. Geophysical Research Letters, 50(23), e2023GL105664.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2778-RC1
Data sets
AWI-ESM precessional cycle simulation Hu Yang https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.13681175
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
316 | 48 | 49 | 413 | 23 | 4 | 6 |
- HTML: 316
- PDF: 48
- XML: 49
- Total: 413
- Supplement: 23
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1