the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Alternating cold and warm periods during the European late-Holocene
Abstract. The decadal to centennial scale climate variability of the past 4000 years consists of colder and warmer periods, potentially initiated by fast varying external forcing, or the lack thereof. These alternating cold and warm periods are most clearly visualized by the waxing and waning of glaciers in the Northern Hemisphere. However, these cold and warm periods are neither spatially nor temporally consistent, and using these defined periods to interpret local variations in climate and society could prove difficult. Here, we use two global earth system models, as well as available proxy reconstructions to examine to which extent the defined warm and cold periods of the last 4000 years before the industrial period are reflected in the climate for Northern, Southern, and Central Europe. We find that on regional scales, the relative role of internal variability appears more pronounced compared to the externally forced signal, thereby decreasing the forcing signal in local climate records. In addition, one model suggests that the climate variability for Northern Europe follows the external forcing more closely than the climate of Central and especially Southern Europe, while the other model shows rather ambiguous results. This study illustrates that periods defined by glacier advances and archaeology have to be carefully used in the interpretation of past events at a local scale, as it is likely that internal variability dominates on such scales.
- Preprint
(2351 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 10 Feb 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on cp-2024-79', Anonymous Referee #1, 17 Dec 2024
reply
I was quite surprised by the manuscript "Alternating cold and warm periods during the European late-Holocene" written by Evelien J.C. van Dijk and colleagues. The initial idea is quite good and I expected something solid, structured, based on multiple models. But, very quickly, we realize that this manuscript has many weaknesses and that it absolutely does not reflect a potential reality.
The first weakness, which is major, is based on the number of sites considered. The map (Figure 1) perfectly shows the extent of the problem. Only one site for the south, four for the center and four for the north. How can we draw conclusions about "southern Europe" from a single site in Spain? How is this site representative of the whole of southern Europe? The same is true for central Europe, four more or less agglomerated sites. How are these sites representative? How can the authors justify this? In the literature, there are many sites for each of these geographical areas that one wonders how this tiny selection was made.
The authors also mix annual data with summer data (Table 2). How can the two be combined? Especially since we have known for a long time that seasonality is a key element in ancient climates and that annual data are not conducive to this kind of exercise. So, mixing the two is meaningless (see the abundant literature on this subject).
Another major point is the temporal resolution. Basically, one point every 100 years. This gives smoothed curves (Figure 2; without any 1σ or 2 σ error!) that inevitably miss all the climatic variations between two consecutive and smoothed points. So, these curves are not even long-term trends [which result from multiple points (present on a graph) that are used to produce a smoothed curve with a maximum sampling step of 30 or even 50 years].
Finally, how can we evoke a potential link between these curves and societies when the foundation is so erroneous?
I suggest that the authors redo their entire study, incorporate multiple sites for each geographical area, justify why they have chosen particular sites, have a very precise temporal resolution and above all, work on seasonality. From there, they will be able to compare their reconstructions with archaeological and historical data. At present, this is absolutely not the case and this manuscript should be rejected.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-2024-79-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
188 | 35 | 4 | 227 | 5 | 5 |
- HTML: 188
- PDF: 35
- XML: 4
- Total: 227
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1