Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-th4rj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T12:05:56.651Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Phase relationships between Antarctic and Greenland climate records

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 September 2017

Eric J. Steig
Affiliation:
Quaternary Research Center and Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-1360, U.S.A. E-mail: steig@ess.washington.edu
Richard B. Alley
Affiliation:
Environment Institute and Department of Geosciences, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802-7501, U.S.A.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Comparison of climate records from Antarctic and Greenland ice cores shows that the two regions respond asynchronously during millennial-scale climate changes. the apparent out-of-phase relationship between the records has been described as a climate ``seesaw’’ in which cooling in the Northern Hemisphere is balanced by warming in the Southern Hemisphere. the same relationship has also been attributed to the initiation of climate-change events in the Southern Hemisphere, rather than the North Atlantic as is conventionally assumed. A simple statistical approach−band-pass filtering combined with lag–correlation tests−used to examine the phase relationships in more detail shows that neither an anti-phase nor a phase-lag relationship adequately describes the observations. Whereas Antarctic and Greenland climate records do exhibit approximate anti-phase behavior about 50% of the time, they are generally in phase during cooling. A phase lead of Southern Hemisphere climate of 1000–1600 years is statistically indistinguishable from a lag of 400–800 years, whether for Dansgaard–Oeschger, Heinrich or longer-duration events. the ``seesaw’’ or ``Southern lead’’ appearance of the data arises from the fundamentally different characteristics of the climate time series, most importantly the absence of rapid warming events in Antarctica comparable to those in Greenland. to be consistent with the observations, climate models will need to capture these characteristics, in addition to reproducing the correct phase relationships.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © the Author(s) [year] 2002
Figure 0

Fig. 1Comparison of ice-core paleotemperature (δ18O) records from Greenland (GISP2, lower) and Antarctica (Byrd, upper), using the time-scales of Blunier and Brook (2001). ACR, YD and B/Arefer to the Antarctic Cold Reversal, Younger Dryas and Bølling/Allerød respectively.

Figure 1

Fig. 2Lag–correlation space for the Byrd and GISP2 δ18O records, showing correlation coefficients (colors) of high-pass filtered data as a function of high-pass cut-off frequency, 1/ 80 kyr–1to 1/5 kyr–A positive lag indicates a lag of GISP2 relative to Byrd.

Figure 2

Fig. 3(a) Correlation between combined PCs explaining the largest amount of millennial-scale variance in the GISP2 (PCs 3 and 4) and Byrd (PCs 4 and 5) data as a function of lag. (b) Lag–correlation space as in Figure 2, but using band-pass filters covering a period of 2 kyr and centered on the frequency shown. Dashed lines show frequencies of significant oscillatory components in the GISP2 data. A positive lag indicates a lag of GISP2 relative to Byrd.

Figure 3

Fig. 4(a) Synthetic Greenland (solid line) and Antarctic (dashed line) δ18O time series that are exactly in phase during cooling but where warming is abrupt only in Greenland. (b) Lag–correlation of these synthetic time series. A positive lag indicates a lag of Greenland relative to Antarctica.