Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 299

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 132 of the 132 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Beyond the bipolar seesaw: Toward a process understanding of interhemispheric coupling

Open access
Pedro, Joel B., Jochum, Markus, Buizert, Christo, He, Feng, Barker, Stephen, Rasmussen, Sune O.·2018·Quaternary Science Reviews

Abstract

The thermal bipolar ocean seesaw hypothesis was advanced by Stocker and Johnsen (2003) as the ‘simplest possible thermodynamic model’ to explain the time relationship between Dansgaard–Oeschger (DO) and Antarctic Isotope Maxima (AIM) events. In this review we combine palaeoclimate observations, theory and general circulation model experiments to advance from the conceptual model toward a process understanding of interhemispheric coupling and the forcing of AIM events. We present four main results: (1) Changes in Atlantic heat transport invoked by the thermal seesaw are partially compensated by opposing changes in heat transport by the global atmosphere and Pacific Ocean. This compensation is an integral part of interhemispheric coupling, with a major influence on the global pattern of climate anomalies. (2) We support the role of a heat reservoir in interhemispheric coupling but argue that its location is the global interior ocean to the north of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC), not the commonly assumed Southern Ocean. (3) Energy budget analysis indicates that the process driving Antarctic warming during AIM events is an increase in poleward atmospheric heat and moisture transport following sea ice retreat and surface warming over the Southern Ocean. (4) The Antarctic sea ice retreat is itself driven by eddy-heat fluxes across the ACC, amplified by sea-ice–albedo feedbacks. The lag of Antarctic warming after AMOC collapse reflects the time required for heat to accumulate in the ocean interior north of the ACC (predominantly the upper 1500 m), before it can be mixed across this dynamic barrier by eddies.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.quascirev.2018.05.005

Cites

132 of 132 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 132 references

Cited by

See all 299

Metadata

Authors
Pedro, J. B., Jochum, M., Buizert, C., He, F., Barker, S., & Rasmussen, S. O.
Venue
Quaternary Science Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-07
Volume
192
Pages
27-46
ISSN
0277-3791 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2804568521
Cited by
299
References
132
FWCI
13.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Beyond the bipolar seesaw: Toward a process understanding of interhemispheric coupling. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.quascirev.2018.05.005
The paper
Pedro, J. B., Jochum, M., Buizert, C., He, F., Barker, S., & Rasmussen, S. O. (2018). Beyond the bipolar seesaw: Toward a process understanding of interhemispheric coupling. Quaternary Science Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2018.05.005

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.