The relationship of sea level changes to climatic change in northeast Asia and northern North America during the last 75 ka B.P.

Stuart A. Harris; Stuart A. Harris

doi:10.3934/environsci.2019.1.14

AIMS Environmental Science

2019, Volume 6, Issue 1: 14-40. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2019.1.14

Previous Article Next Article

Review

The relationship of sea level changes to climatic change in northeast Asia and northern North America during the last 75 ka B.P.

Stuart A. Harris ^,

Department of Geography, University of Calgary, Alberta, T2A 1E4, Canada

Received: 09 November 2018 Accepted: 02 February 2018 Published: 26 February 2019

The Arctic air mass is the cold, dry body of air slowly moving eastwards around the North Pole in the northern hemisphere. Its southern boundary consists of four planetary waves known as the Rossby waves that mark the interface with subtropical air bringing heat polewards. The Arctic air mass is constantly being modified by the addition of heat and moisture over the oceans, as well as by winter cooling over the land masses due to limited incoming solar radiation and constant reradiation of heat into the atmosphere. The coldest air in winter is located over northeastern Siberia and moves east, cooling Canada. Warm ocean currents add large quantities of heat to the air mass moving over them, but without this addition of heat, the Arctic air mass becomes significantly colder. Research in Tibet and Northeast Asia on depression of sea level shows that during the Late Wisconsin cold event (65–10 ka B.P.), vast quantities of sea water were sequestered on land primarily as ice sheets, exposing the sea bed in the Bering Strait from 50–10 ka B.P. together with the bottom of the South China Sea between 30–20 ka B.P.. The East China Monsoon failed to reach Tibet and much of Northeast China, resulting in severe cooling of northeast Siberia and northern Tibet. This, in turn, caused severe cooling in eastern Canada together with the development of a vast, predominantly cold-based ice sheet. As the sea levels started to rise (about 19 ka B.P.), the East China Monsoon slowly redeveloped and a gradual warming took place on both continents. However, along the west side of the North American Cordillera, the Late Wisconsin glaciation only began in 29 ka B.P. but continued along the west coast until about 10 ka B.P. This paper explores the relationship of the Late Wisconsin history on the two continents, together with the mechanisms causing the landforms and climatic differences. Finally, the probable effects of these climatic changes on the early peopling of North America are discussed.

Keywords:

Citation: Stuart A. Harris. The relationship of sea level changes to climatic change in northeast Asia and northern North America during the last 75 ka B.P.[J]. AIMS Environmental Science, 2019, 6(1): 14-40. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2019.1.14

Related Papers:

[1]	Muhammad Asif Zahoor Raja, Adeeba Haider, Kottakkaran Sooppy Nisar, Muhammad Shoaib . Intelligent computing knacks for infected media and time delay impacts on dynamical behaviors and control measures of rumor-spreading model. AIMS Biophysics, 2024, 11(1): 1-17. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2024001
[2]	Yong Zhou, Yiming Ding . Finding travel proportion under COVID-19. AIMS Biophysics, 2022, 9(3): 235-245. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2022020
[3]	C. Dal Lin, M. Falanga, E. De Lauro, S. De Martino, G. Vitiello . Biochemical and biophysical mechanisms underlying the heart and the brain dialog. AIMS Biophysics, 2021, 8(1): 1-33. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2021001
[4]	Kieran Greer . New ideas for brain modelling 6. AIMS Biophysics, 2020, 7(4): 308-322. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2020022
[5]	Mati ur Rahman, Mehmet Yavuz, Muhammad Arfan, Adnan Sami . Theoretical and numerical investigation of a modified ABC fractional operator for the spread of polio under the effect of vaccination. AIMS Biophysics, 2024, 11(1): 97-120. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2024007
[6]	Carlo Bianca . Interplay and multiscale modeling of complex biological systems. AIMS Biophysics, 2022, 9(1): 56-60. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2022005
[7]	Dafina Xhako, Niko Hyka, Elda Spahiu, Suela Hoxhaj . Medical image analysis using deep learning algorithms (DLA). AIMS Biophysics, 2025, 12(2): 121-143. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2025008
[8]	Alexander G. Volkov, Yuri B. Shtessel . Propagation of electrotonic potentials in plants: Experimental study and mathematical modeling. AIMS Biophysics, 2016, 3(3): 358-379. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2016.3.358
[9]	Omar El Deeb, Joseph El Khoury Edde . COVID19 vaccines as boosters or first doses: simulating scenarios to minimize infections and deaths. AIMS Biophysics, 2024, 11(2): 239-254. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2024014
[10]	Natarajan Mala, Arumugam Vinodkumar, Jehad Alzabut . Passivity analysis for Markovian jumping neutral type neural networks with leakage and mode-dependent delay. AIMS Biophysics, 2023, 10(2): 184-204. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2023012

Abstract

1. Introduction

Modelling epidemic spreading is a central topic in the research of both contagion spreading and network science [1]. With the gravity of the impact on global health and economy of the recent COVID-19 pandemic [2], the field has gained an increasing amount of attention. Accordingly, models of epidemic spreading have been of great focus with new models constantly being proposed and built upon earlier ones. One approach to such models is compartmental models that divide the population into compartments based on their current role in the spreading process [3]. A simple example of a compartmental model is the SIR model which classifies each individual as either susceptible, infected, or recovered. Once recovered, the infection can no longer be transmitted to the recovered individual. The SIR model is well-studied and has been applied to complex networks in the literature [4]–[6]. Other types of compartmental models include SIS, SIRS, and SEIR, [3] in addition to more complex ones [7]. Models of contagion spreading can be used to quantitatively study effective ways of epidemic prevention [8], [9].

In this article, we highlight two models for different applications introduced in our earlier articles [9]–[11] and explain their equivalent results even when applied to each other's use cases. Both of the models are based on similar foundations for calculating the probabilities of spreading or connections between nodes in a network [12], where methods of probabilistic networks [13] are applied.

As mentioned, the models (referred to as the Spreading model and the Connectivity model) are designed for two separate applications. While the Spreading model is built for epidemic and behaviour spreading [10], the Connectivity model is constructed to simulate the reliability of connectivity in a service network [11]. Since the models are built for different use cases, we will introduce general vocabulary to talk about both models more easily. We call influence spreading the propagation of contagion, information, or a similar phenomenon through nodes of a network. The interpretation of contagion as influence spreading is rather natural: contagion spreads from one individual to another when they are in contact and, through these contacts, continues to spread further. Connectivity in information networks can also be thought of as information spreading through nodes and connections of the network. Where information can be transferred, a connection exists. Neither model simulates the spreading process through time—instead, only the final state of the spreading is calculated.

As the models produce equivalent results, they can both be applied to epidemic spreading. In particular, they are applicable to a situation where individuals gain full immunity to a disease after contagion, as a result of the models' principle to spread influence to a node only once, similarly to the SIR model [3]. In the case of information network connectivity, immunity can be equated to the inactivity of nodes in the network. Diseases resulting in full or near full immunisation include measles, mumps, rubella, and chickenpox [14], though many infections give no or only partial immunity. We will propose a model for partial immunity epidemic spreading in a future study of ours.

The Spreading model is built to be extendable and has the potential for additional parameters that the Connectivity model lacks. For example, parameters such as maximum spreading path length (L_max) and breakthrough probability can be taken into account. This enables the calculation of novel forms of connectivity, based not only on the structure of the network but also on other possible phenomena arising from the new parameters.

2. Methods

We compare two simulation models built for two use cases: the epidemic spreading simulation model, and the connection reliability model. Both models consider a network as a set of weighted nodes and weighted directed edges between them. Undirected edges are modelled as two identical edges with the endpoints swapped. The output of the models is the two-dimensional probability matrix $C : V \times V \to [0,1]$ , where C(s, t) marks the conditional probability of influence spreading from node s to node t, given that spreading starts from node s and V is the set of nodes of the network. Even though both models work by simulation, their approaches differ. Additionally, we present applications of our models for calculating centrality measures for nodes in the network.

The probability matrix C(s, t) produced by both of the models gives the conditional probabilities of influence spreading from node s to node t given that influence starts to spread from node s. If the probabilities, at which the nodes initially start to spread influence are known, the conditional probabilities of the probability matrix can be multiplied by them, producing unconditional probabilities.

2.1. Models

The Spreading model works by simulating the spreading of influence from each node to the rest of the network separately. For each node as the source, the simulation is carried out a certain number of times: this is called the number of iterations. The probability of influence spreading to another node is calculated as the number of iterations where the node was influenced divided by the total number of iterations. The simulation itself works in steps, on which all newly influenced nodes (that is, nodes that became influenced on the step right before the current one) attempt to spread influence to all of their neighbouring nodes. This attempt automatically fails if the neighbouring node has been previously influenced. Otherwise, the spreading will succeed with a probability of w_e · W_t, where w_e is the weight of the edge connecting the nodes and W_t is the weight of the target node. If the spreading succeeds, the target node will be marked as influenced and will attempt to spread influence in the subsequent step. Another parameter, L_max, is used to limit the maximum spreading path length: influence will only spread along paths at maximum L_max edges long. Limiting L_max can be used to shorten the execution times of the model at the cost of less precise results or to model a situation where spreading paths are limited by some factor, such as cutting spreading chains as a preventive measure against an epidemic. A more detailed description and pseudocode for the Simulation model are provided in our earlier study [10].

The calculation in the Connectivity model works similarly in that it simulates the connectivity multiple times, taking the average results. Instead of simulating the influence spreading from each node separately, for each iteration, the set of active nodes and edges is randomly determined: the probability at which each node and edge is active is its weight. For each active node, the nodes that can be reached by paths consisting of active nodes and edges are considered connected to it. C(s, t) is then the number of iterations where the active node s had an active path to node t divided by the total number of iterations. Unlike the Spreading model, the Connectivity model does not have the L_max parameter, as the connectivity is not determined by stepping along paths. A more detailed description and pseudocode for the Connectivity model is provided in our earlier study [11].

2.2. Theoretical equivalence of the models

For both models, the probability of influence spreading through a path with a specified starting node is the product of the weights of each edge and node on the path, excluding that of the starting node. In other words,

$P (ℒ) = \prod_{i = 1}^{m} w_{e_{i}} W_{n_{i}},$ (2.1)

where P(ℒ) is the probability of spreading through the path ℒ of m edges and nodes excluding the starting node, and $w_{e_{i}}$ and $W_{n_{i}}$ are the weight of the ith edge and node on the path, respectively, excluding the starting node. This is clear in the Spreading model, as all attempts to spread along the path must be successful, which happens with the probability of the product of the individual spreading probabilities, corresponding to the weights of the edges and nodes along the path. Here, the weight of the starting node is not included in the product, as the spreading is assumed to start from there. Similarly, in the Connectivity model, for two nodes to be connected via a certain path, all edges and nodes of that path must be active. The probability at which the whole path is active is then the product of the weights of the edges and the nodes on the path. The starting node's weight is left out of the product, as an active path from it can only exist if it is active in the first place.

As the probability of influence spreading through a path is given by the same equation for both of the models, the models' results should theoretically be equivalent. This equivalence only holds, however, when L_max is not capped to some number in the Spreading model, in order to take into account all possible paths in the network as the Connectivity model does.

2.3. Applications

The probability matrix that both of the models generate can be used for various applications, as covered in our previous articles [9], [10]. At the core of these applications are different centrality measures that reflect how central each edge and node in the network is. These measures give insight into the structure of the network, helping to understand patterns and phenomena present therein. We give three examples of centrality measures: the in- and out-centralities and the betweenness centrality.

2.3.1. In- and out-centrality

The in- and out-centrality measures are a natural way to approach node centrality [10]. They represent how much influence flows in and out of the node, respectively. We define the in-centrality of node t as

$C^{(in)} (t) = \sum_{\begin{matrix} s \in V \\ s \neq t \end{matrix}} C (s, t)$ (2.2)

and, similarly, the out-centrality of node s as

$C^{(out)} (s) = \sum_{\begin{matrix} t \in V \\ s \neq t \end{matrix}} C (s, t),$ (2.3)

where V is the set of nodes in the network [10].

In other words, the in-centrality of a node is the sum of the probabilities of spreading from all other nodes to the node in question, and the out-centrality of a node is the sum of the probabilities of spreading from the node in question to all other nodes. The in- and out-centralities directly translate to physical quantities of the network. As C(s, t) is the probability of influence spreading from node s to node t, the sum can be thought of as an expected value. In the case of in-centrality (Eq. 2.2), the sum represents the expected number of nodes that will spread influence to the specified node, and, for the out-centrality (Eq. 2.3), the sum represents the expected number of nodes that influence from the specified node will spread to. As a concrete example, the out-centrality of a node represents the expected number of infected people in a social network, when a contagious infection begins to spread from the starting node, and the in-centrality of an individual's vulnerability to being infected by different sources.

2.3.2. Betweenness centrality

The betweenness centrality measure is another approach to studying node centrality. It represents the significance of a node in transmitting influence between different parts of the network. Betweenness centrality can be easily defined for a set of nodes S, where the betweenness centrality of a single node s can be expressed as that for the set {s}. We first define the cohesion of a network as

$𝒞 = \sum_{\begin{matrix} s, t \in V \\ s \neq t \end{matrix}} C (s, t)$ (2.4)

and the partial cohesion of the network without the set of nodes S as

$𝒞_{S} = \sum_{\begin{matrix} s, t \in V \ S \\ s \neq t \end{matrix}} C_{S} (s, t),$ (2.5)

where V is the set of nodes in the network and C_S is the probability matrix calculated with only nodes and edges between nodes in S taken into account. The probability matrix for partial cohesion has to be calculated independently from that for total cohesion, as the effects of removing nodes and edges can cut off paths between parts of the network and change the spreading probabilities.

With Eqs. 2.4 and 2.5, we define the betweenness centrality as the relative difference between the total and partial cohesion:

$b_{S} = \frac{𝒞 - 𝒞_{S}}{𝒞} = 1 - \frac{𝒞_{S}}{𝒞} .$ (2.6)

The cohesion portrays the total interconnectivity of the network. As the betweenness centrality is a relative difference in the cohesion (Eq. 2.6), the larger the betweenness centrality, the greater the effect of removing the specified nodes is on the interconnectivity. The betweenness centrality can be used to spot individuals who act in bridging roles between parts of the network, the isolation of which can help to contain the contagion to only a small part of the network.

3. Results and discussion

Figure 1. Visualisation of the networks used in the demonstration of the models. (a) A visualisation of the Student network. (b) A visualisation of the Organisation network. Edges drawn in black represent relations within a group and have a weight of 0.5. Edges drawn in grey represent leadership relations and have a weight of 0.3. No other edges exist in the network. The colours represent the network's division into departments.

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

To compare the models, we run them on two networks, the Student network [15] and the Organisation network [9] (Figure 1a,b). Precise descriptions of how the calculations in the models are carried out are presented in our earlier studies [9], [10]. The Student network is a small, 32-node network composed of empirical data on the relationships of Dutch university students [15]. We consider the network with all edge weights set to 0.5. The Organisation network, on the other hand, is a larger, 181-node network that represents a real-world organisation structure. The network consists of five departments with multiple groups forming each of them as well as hierarchical leadership relations. The Organisation network was first introduced in [9], along with different classes of preventive measures that simulate epidemic prevention by decreasing the weights of certain edges. In this article, we study the case where preventive measures are in use on all edges except on those representing leadership relations, which means that only edges representing leadership and group relations are present. Edges representing group relations have a weight of 0.5, and edges representing leadership relations have a weight of 0.3. Both of the networks are considered to be undirected with node weights equal to 1. The models work and give equivalent results for directed networks with varying node weights as well. Further study into the performance of the models and their application to other networks is presented in our earlier studies [9]–[11].

As both of the networks are real-life social networks, they are well suited for modelling epidemic spreading. Using the two networks, we can compare the models on networks exhibiting different properties: the Student network is small and sparse, whereas the Organisation network is larger and much denser. Together, the networks represent a multitude of different situations for our models to perform on. It is worth noting, however, that as the edges of the networks are undirected, the in- and out-centrality (Eqs. 2.2 and 2.3) for a node will always be equal due to the symmetry of spreading from and to the node. This is not the case for scenarios where a node can be influenced more than once, such as an epidemic of an infectious disease, the contraction of which does not lead to full immunity [2]. In practice, the probability of an infection spreading from one person to another is often different than the probability of spreading in the other direction, represented by different weights in the directed edges between them.

The models calculate the probabilities of spreading between all pairs of nodes given the layout and weight parameters of the network. The results can be used to calculate important quantities, specific to the network and its weights. One example of such quantity is the basic reproduction number for epidemics, which is a measure of contagiousness defined as the number of new infections a single infection on average leads to [16]. We have calculated the basic reproduction number for simulations run on the Organisation network as a function of edge weights in our previous study [9]. It is important to note that quantities such as the basic reproduction number are not specific to the models and must be independently calculated for any network and parameters that the models are run on. As each set of parameters and the input network define a unique spreading scenario, measures such as the basic reproduction number can always be calculated for any combination thereof. An example of such a calculation is provided in [9].

Figure 2. The normalised cohesion and betweenness centrality (Eqs. 2.4 and 2.6) for the Student network as a function of L_max calculated with 1 000 000 iterations in the Connectivity and Spreading models.

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

Figure 3. The normalised cohesion and betweenness centrality (Eqs. 2.4 and 2.6) for the Organisation network as a function of L_max calculated with 100 000 iterations in the Connectivity and Spreading models.

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

For both networks, we calculate the total cohesion (Eq. 2.4) and mean betweenness centrality (Eq. 2.6) using both models and varying L_max for the Spreading model. We normalise the total cohesion by the number of values constituting its sum, N(N – 1), where N is the number of nodes in the network, to get the node-wise average in- and out-centrality. This scaling factor is attained from the probability matrix being of shape N × N with the diagonal consisting of N missing values. The sum of the in- and out-centralities (Eqs. 2.2 and 2.3) are equal to the cohesion:

$\sum_{t \in V} C^{(in)} (t) = \sum_{t \in V} \sum_{\begin{matrix} s \in V \\ s \neq t \end{matrix}} C (s, t) = 𝒞 = \sum_{s \in V} \sum_{\begin{matrix} t \in V \\ s \neq t \end{matrix}} C (s, t) = \sum_{s \in V} C^{(out)} (s)$ (3.1)

From Eq. 3.1, the averages of the in- and out-centralities are also equal. This means that the normalised cohesion represents both the average node-wise in- and out-centralities.

The mean betweenness centrality is calculated as the average of the node-wise betweenness centralities. The minimum L_max value, for which the results of the models are ideally equal (assuming arbitrary precision), is the maximum length, for which a self-avoiding path exists in the network, since then the Spreading model is able to simulate spreading throughout the whole network. A self-avoiding path is never longer than the number of nodes in the network, which gives a trivial upper bound. Thus, as L_max increases, the results of the Spreading model approach those of the Connectivity model. In practice, this happens with L_max much lower than N (Figures 2 and 3). This is due to the probability of spreading through a path decreasing exponentially with the path length.

The cohesions of the Student and Organisation networks are around 19% and 40%, respectively (Figures 2a and 3a). The Organisation network achieves a higher cohesion due to its much denser nature. The difference in density can also be seen in Figures 2b and 3b, where the Student and Organisation networks' betweenness centralities (Eq. 2.6) are around 0.12 and 0.03, respectively. Nodes in the Student network are connected by much fewer paths than in the Organisation network, and therefore each node has a more prominent role in allowing connections between other nodes.

As the results given by the Spreading model converge already with lower values of L_max, epidemic simulation can be performed more efficiently by not taking longer spreading paths into account. With a low L_max, however, the results differ, which allows the simulation of scenarios where spreading paths are limited by factors such as consistent isolation of patients. Since the two models produce identical results with high L_max, both models can be used for the intended purpose of the other. The equivalence of the results indicates the similarities in the mechanisms of epidemic spreading [9] and information network connectivity [11]: where contagion spreads from node to node with immunity inhibiting it in epidemic spreading, in connectivity, information has to similarly travel from node to node with inactive nodes as a limiting factor. These similarities in the mechanisms might extend to other types of network modelling, which is a subject for future research.

The models can be run on any network with any edge and node weights but are capable of modelling only scenarios where any one node is influenced at most once. In our earlier studies, we have also presented a model where all nodes can get influenced any number of times. We will present a model capable of dealing with situations where getting influenced decreases a node's probability of getting influenced again by a given breakthrough probability in our future studies.

Modelling breakthrough influence is an example of how the models can be applied to the purposes of each other. Namely, many epidemics [9] and influence spreading [10] processes are based on similar spreading mechanisms. Both processes can have significant breakthrough probabilities depending on the specific characteristics of virus species or information types. For example, COVID-19 variants [2] can have different breakthrough probabilities despite being very close in nature. Rumours and propaganda have a higher breakthrough probability, as they circulate between people and change form more effectively than facts and knowledge.

4. Conclusions

We have compared the calculation methods and results of two models designed for epidemic spreading and connectivity simulation introduced in our earlier research. We call these models the Spreading model and Connectivity model, respectively. Even though the models are designed for very different applications, the manner in which they calculate their results is mathematically equivalent. Accordingly, the two models produce equivalent results with high enough spreading path length, L_max, for the Spreading model. As the models were independently developed for their different purposes, their equivalence highlights the similarities in the mechanisms of epidemic spreading and information network connectivity. The similar results also enable the application of the models to each others' intended purposes, allowing different parameters to be taken into account.

In this study, we have highlighted the opportunities for using interdisciplinary modelling and simulation methods in the research of epidemic spreading, resilience in communication networks, and influence spreading in social networks.

References

[1]	Harris S (2013) Climatic change: Casual correlations over the last 240 Ma. Sci Cold Arid Reg 5: 259–274. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1226.2013.00259
[2]	Imbrie J, Imbrie J (1980) Modeling climatic response to orbital variations. Science 4: 943–953.
[3]	Jin H, Cheng X, Lou D, et al. (2016) Evolution of permafrost in Northeast China since the Late Pleistocene. Sci Cold Arid Reg 8: 269–296.
[4]	Harris S, Jin, He R, et al. (2018) Tessellons, topography, and glaciations on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Sci Cold Arid Reg 10: 187–206.
[5]	Strahler A (1969) Physical Geography, 3Eds., New York: J. Wiley and Sons.
[6]	Wallen R (1992) Introduction to Physical Geography. Dubuque: Wm. C. Brown Publishers.
[7]	Rossby CG, et al. (1939) Relation between variations in the intensity of the zonal circulation of the atmosphere and the displacements of the semi-permanent centers of action. J Mar Res 2: 38–55. doi: 10.1357/002224039806649023
[8]	Harris S (2010) Climatic change in Western North America during the last 15,000 years: The role of changes in the strengths of air masses in producing the changing climates. Sci Cold Arid Reg 2: 371–383.
[9]	Harris S, Brouchkov A, Cheng G (2017) Geocryology. Characteristics and use of Frozen Ground and Permafrost Landforms, Baton Rouge, Florida: CRC Press.
[10]	Held I (2001) The portioning the tropical of the poleward energy transport between the tropical ocean and atmosphere. J Atmos Sci 58: 943–948. doi: 10.1175/1520-0469(2001)058<0943:TPOTPE>2.0.CO;2
[11]	Farneti R, Vallis G (2013) Meridional energy transport in the coupled atmosphere-ocean system: Compensation and partitioning. J Climate 26: 7151–7165. doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00133.1
[12]	Kang S, Shin Y, Codron F (2018) The partitioning of poleward energy transport response between the atmosphere and Ekman flux to prescribed surface forcing in a simplified GCM. Geosci Lett 5: 22. doi: 10.1186/s40562-018-0124-9
[13]	Wu CY (1985) Flora Xizancica. Science Press, Volume 5, In Chinese.
[14]	Charkevicz S (1985) Plantae Vasculares Orienttis Sovietici. Leningrad: Nauka, 8 volumes, In Russian.
[15]	Krasnoborov I (1988) Flora Sibirae. Novosibirsk: Nauka. 13 volumes. In Russian.
[16]	Breckle SW, Hedge I, Rafiqpoor M, et al. (2013) Vascular Plants of Afghanistan. Bonn: Scientia Bonnensis.
[17]	Harris S (1982) Cold air drainage west of Fort Nelson, British Columbia. Arctic 35: 537–541.
[18]	NSIDC, New study explains Antarctica's coldest temperatures. 2018. Available from: https://nsidc.org/news/newsroom/new-study-explains-antarctica-coldest-temperatures.
[19]	Arnfield A (2003) Two decades of urban climate research: A review of turbulence, exchanges of energy and water and the heat island. Int J Climatol 23: 1–26. doi: 10.1002/joc.859
[20]	Østrem G (1966) The height of the glaciation limit in southern British Columbia and Alberta. Geogr Ann A 48: 126–138. doi: 10.1080/04353676.1966.11879734
[21]	Sherzer W (1913) Glacial history of the Huron-Erie Basin: Geological report on Wayne County.In: Michigan Geological and Biological Survey, Lansing, Michigan: Wyakoop, Hallenbeck, Crawford Co., State printers Publishers.
[22]	Shackleton N, Hall M, Pate D (1995) Pliocene stable isotope stratigraphy of site 846. Proc Ocean Drill Program: Sci Results 138: 337–353.
[23]	Harris S (1994) Chronostratigraphy of Glaciations and Permafrost episodes in the Cordillera of North America. Prog Phys Geog 18: 366–395. doi: 10.1177/030913339401800305
[24]	Zheng B, Shen Y, Jiao K, et al. (2014) New progress and problems of Quaternary moraine dating in the Tibetan Plateau. Sci Cold Arid Reg 6: 183–189.
[25]	Zhang H, Chang F, Li H, et al. (2018) OSL and AMS ¹⁴C age of the most complete mammoth fossil skeleton from northeastern China and itspaleoclimate significance. Radiocarbon 61: 347–358.
[26]	Vandenburghe J, Wang X, Vandenburghe D (2016) Very large cryoturbation structures of the last permafrost maximum age at the foot of the Qilian Mountains (NE Tibet Plateau, China). Permafrost Periglac 27: 138–143. doi: 10.1002/ppp.1847
[27]	Harris S, Jin H, He R (2017) Very Large cryoturbation structures of last permafrost maximum age at the foot of Qilian Mountains (NE Tibet Plateau, China): A discussion. Permafrost Periglac 28: 757–762. doi: 10.1002/ppp.1942
[28]	Voris H (2000) Maps of Pleistocene sea levels in Southeast Asia: Shorelines, river systems and time durations. J Biogeogr 27: 1153–1167. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2699.2000.00489.x
[29]	Harris S, Jin H (2012) Tessellons and "sand wedges" on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau and their palaeoenvironmental implications. Proceedings of the 10^th International Conference on Permafrost, Salekhard, Russia, 1: 147–153.
[30]	Yu L, Lai Z (2012) OSL Chronology and palaeoclimatic implications of aeolian sediments in the eastern Qaidam Basin of the northeastern Qinhai-Tibetan Plateau. Palaeogeogr Palaeocl 337–338: 120–129.
[31]	Liu B, Jin H, Sun L, et al. (2013) Holocene climatic change revealed by aeolian deposits from the Gonghe Basin, northeastern Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Quatern Int 296: 231–240. doi: 10.1016/j.quaint.2012.05.003
[32]	Yang S, Jin H (2011) δ¹⁸O and δD records of inactive ice-wedges in Yitulihe, Northeast China and their paleoclimatic implications. Sci China Earth Sci 54: 119–126. doi: 10.1007/s11430-010-4029-5
[33]	Yang S, Cao X, Jin H (2015) Validation of wedge ice isotopes at Yituli'he, northeastern China as climate proxy. Boreas 44: 502–510. doi: 10.1111/bor.12121
[34]	Tarasov P, Bezrukova E, Karabanov E, et al. (2007) Vegetation and climate dynamics during the Holocene and Eemian interglacials derived from Lake Baikal pollen records. Palaeogeogr Palaeocl 252: 440–457. doi: 10.1016/j.palaeo.2007.05.002
[35]	Tarasov P, Bezrukova E, Krivonogov S (2009) Late Glacial and Holocene changes in vegetation cover and climate in Southern Siberia derived from a 15 kyr long pollen record from Lake Kotokel. Clim Past 5: 285–295. doi: 10.5194/cp-5-285-2009
[36]	Murton J, Edwards M, Lozhkin A, et al. (2017) Preliminary paleoenvironmental analysis of permafrost deposits at Batagnika megaslump, Yana Uplands, northeast Siberia. Quaternary Res 87: 314–330. doi: 10.1017/qua.2016.15
[37]	Lozhkin A, Anderson P (2018) Another perspective on the age and origin of the Berelyokh Mammoth site (northeast Siberia). Quaternary Res 9: 1–19.
[38]	Clague J, Curry B, Dreimanis A, et al. (1993) Initiation and development of the Laurentide and Cordilleran Ice Sheets following the last interglaciation. Quat Sci Rev 12: 79–114. doi: 10.1016/0277-3791(93)90011-A
[39]	Prest V (1990) Laurentide ice-flow patterns: A historical review, and implications of the dispersal of Belcher Island erratics. Geogr phys Quatern 44: 113–136.
[40]	Lemke R, Laird W, Tipton M, et al. (1965) Quaternary geology of the Northern Great Plains, In: Wright H.E., Jr., Frey, D.G. Editors, The Quaternary of the United States, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 15–27.
[41]	Koerner R (2010) Glaciers of the Hugh Arctic Islands, In: Williams, R.S., Jr., Ferriguo, J.G. Editors, Satellite Image Atlas of Glaciers of The World, United States Geological Survey Professional Paper, 1486–J–1, J111–J–146.
[42]	Gooding A (1963) Illinoian and Wisconsin Glaciations in the Whitewater Basin, Southeast Indiana, and adjacent areas. J Geo 71: 665–682. doi: 10.1086/626948
[43]	Frye J, Willman H, Black R (1965) Outline of glacial geology of Illinois and Wisconsin. In: Wright H.E., Jr., Frey, D.G. Editors, The Quaternary of the United States, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 43–61.
[44]	Wayne W, Zumberge J (1965) Pleistocene geology of Indiana and Michigan, In: Wright H.E., Jr., Frey, D.G. Editors, The Quaternary of the United States, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 63–83.
[45]	Goldthwait R, Dreimanis A, Forsyth J, et al. (1965) Pleistocene deposits of the Erie Lobe, In: Wright, H.E., Jr., Frey, D.G. Editors, The Quaternary of the United States, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 85–97.
[46]	Teller, JT, Fenton, MM (1980) Late Wisconsin Glacial stratigraphy and history of southeastern Manitoba. Can J Earth Sci 17: 19–35. doi: 10.1139/e80-002
[47]	Christiansen E (1992) Pleistocene stratigraphy of the Saskatoon area, Saskatchewan, Canada: An update. Can J Earth Sci 29: 1767–1778. doi: 10.1139/e92-139
[48]	SkwaraWoolf T (1980) Mammals of the Riddell Local Fauna (Floral Formation, Pleistocene, Late Rancholabrean) Saskatoon, Canada. Saskatoon: Culture and Youth Museum of Natural History, Regina.
[49]	Dyke A (2004) An outline of North American deglaciation with emphasis on Central and northern Canada. In: Ehlers, J., Gibbard P.L. Editors, Quaternary glaciations–Extent and Chronology, Part II. Amsterdam: Elservier Science and Technology Books.
[50]	Barendregt R, Irving E (1998) Changes in the extent of North American ice sheets during the Late Cenozoic. Can J Earth Sci 35: 504–509. doi: 10.1139/e97-126
[51]	Patton H, Hubbard A, Andreassen K, et al. (2017) Deglaciation of the Eurasian ice sheet complex. Quat Sci Rev 169: 148–172. doi: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2017.05.019
[52]	Monegato G, Ravizzi C (2018) The Late Pleistocene multifold glaciation in the Alps: Update and open questions. Alp Mediterr Quat 31: 225–229.
[53]	Patterson C (1998) Laurentide glacial landscapes: The role of ice streams. Geology 26: 643–646. doi: 10.1130/0091-7613(1998)026<0643:LGLTRO>2.3.CO;2
[54]	Dredge L, Thorleifson L (1987) The Middle Wisconsin history of the Laurentide ice sheet. Geogr phys Quatern 41: 215–235.
[55]	Liverman D, Catto N, Rutter N (1989) Laurentide glaciation in west-central Alberta: A single (Late Wisconsinan) event. Can J Earth Sci 26: 266–274. doi: 10.1139/e89-022
[56]	Young R, Burns J, Smith D, et al. (1994) A single, late Wisconsin Laurentide glaciation, Edmonton area and southwestern Alberta. Geology 22: 683–686. doi: 10.1130/0091-7613(1994)022<0683:ASLWLG>2.3.CO;2
[57]	Jackson L, Little E (2004) A single continental glaciation of Rocky Mountain Foothills, south-western Alberta, Canada. Dev Quatern Sci 2: 29–38.
[58]	Andriashek L, Barendregt R (2016) Evidence for Early Pleistocene glaciation from borehole stratigraphy in north-central Alberta, Canada. Can J Earth Sci 54: 445–460.
[59]	Marshall S, Clarke K, Dyke A, et al. (1996) Geologic and topographic controls on fast flow in the Laurentide and Cordilleran ice sheets. J Geophys Res 101: 17827–17839. doi: 10.1029/96JB01180
[60]	Margold M, Stokes C, Clark C (2015) Ice streams in the Laurentide Ice Sheet: Identification, characteristics and comparison to modern ice sheets. Earth-Sci Rev 143: 117–146. doi: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2015.01.011
[61]	Henderson E (1959) Surficial geology of Sturgeon Lake map-area, Alberta. Geol Surv Can Memoir 303.
[62]	Tokarsky O (1967) Geology and groundwater resources (Quaternary) of the Grimshaw area, Alberta (Canada). Unpublished M.Sc. thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton.
[63]	St. Onge D (1972) La stratigraphie du quaternaire des environs de Fort-Assiniboine, Alberta, Canada. Rev Géogr Montreal 26: 153–163.
[64]	Alley N (1973) Glacial stratigraphy and limits of the Rocky Mountain and Laurentide ice sheets in southwestern Alberta, Canada. B Can Petrol Geol 21: 153–177.
[65]	Alley N, Harris S (1974) Pleistocene Glacial Lake sequence in the Foothills, southwestern Alberta, Canada. Can J Earth Sci 11: 1220–1235. doi: 10.1139/e74-115
[66]	Stalker A (1976) Quaternary stratigraphy of the southwestern Canadian Prairies. In: Mahoney, W.C. Editor, Quaternary Stratigraphy of North America, Strodsberg, Pennsylvania, 381–407.
[67]	Mathews W (1978) Quaternary stratigraphy and geomorphology of Charlie Lake (94A) map area, British Columbia. Geol Surv Can 76–20.
[68]	Duk-Rodkin A, Barendregt R, Tarnocai C, et al. (1995) Late Tertiary to late Quaternary record in the Mackenzie Mountains, Northwest Territories, Canada: Stratigraphy, paleosols, paleomagnetism, and chlorine-36. Can J Earth Sci 33: 875–895.
[69]	Bednarski J, Smith T (2007) Laurentide and montane glaciation along the Rocky Mountain Foothills of northeastern British Columbia. Can J Earth Sci 44: 445–457. doi: 10.1139/e06-095
[70]	Clayton L (1967) Stagnant glacier features of the Missouri Coteau. In: Clayton L., Freers T. Editors, Glacial Geology of the Missouri Coteau and adjacent areas. North Dakota Geological Survey Miscellaneous Papers, 30: 25–46.
[71]	Prest V, Grant D, Rampton V (1968) Glacial Map of Canada. Geological Survey of Canada Map 1253A.
[72]	Ryder J, Fulton R, Clague J (1991) The Cordilleran Ice Sheet and the glacial geomorphology of southern and central British Columbia. Geogr phys Quatern 45: 356–377.
[73]	Fulton R (1991) A conceptual model for growth and decay of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet. Geogr phys Quatern 45: 281–286.
[74]	Nichol C, Monahan P, Fulton R, et al. (2015) Quaternary stratigraphy and evidence for multiple glacial episodes in the north Okanagan valley, British Columbia. Can J Earth Sci 52: 338–356. doi: 10.1139/cjes-2014-0182
[75]	Jackson L, Clague, J (1991) The Cordilleran Ice Sheet: One hundred and fifty years of exploration and discovery. Geogr phys Quatern 45: 269–280.
[76]	Harris S (1985) Evidence for the nature of the early Holocene climate and paleogeography, High Plains, Alberta, Canada. Arct Alp Res 17: 49–67. doi: 10.2307/1550961
[77]	Jackson L (1977) Quaternary stratigraphy and terrain inventory of the Alberta portion of the Kananaskis Lakes 1:250,000 sheet (82-J), Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Calgary, Calgary.
[78]	Jackson L (1980) Glacial history and stratigraphy of the Alberta portion of the Kananaskis Lake map area. Can J Earth Sci 17: 459–477. doi: 10.1139/e80-043
[79]	Borns H (1973) Late Wisconsin fluctuations of the Laurentide ice sheet in southern and eastern New England. Geol Soc Am Bull 139: 37–45.
[80]	Mulligan R, Bajc A (2018) The pre-Late Wisconsin stratigraphy of southern Simcoe County, Ontario: Implications for ice sheet buildup, decay and Great Lakes drainage evolution. Can J Earth Sci 55: 709–729. doi: 10.1139/cjes-2016-0160
[81]	Christiansen E (1979) The Wiscosin deglaciation of southern Saskatchewan and adjacent areas. Can J Earth Sci 16: 913–938. doi: 10.1139/e79-079
[82]	Upham W (1895)The Glacial Lake Agassiz; Monographs of the United States Geological Survey, Volume XXV, Washington.D.C.: Government Printing Office.
[83]	Teller J, Clayton L (1983) Glacial Lake Agassiz. Geological Association of Canada, St. Johns, Newfoundland.
[84]	Teller J (1990) Volume and routing of late-glacial runoff from the southern Laurentide Ice Sheet. Quaternary Res 34: 12–23. doi: 10.1016/0033-5894(90)90069-W
[85]	Fisher, T, Smith D, Andrews J (2002) Preboreal oscillation caused by a glacial Lake Agassiz flood. Quat Sci Rev 21: 873–878. doi: 10.1016/S0277-3791(01)00148-2
[86]	Teller J, Leverington D (2004) Glacial Lake Agassiz: A 5000 yr history of change and its relationship to the δ¹⁸O record of Greenland. GSA Bull 116: 729–742. doi: 10.1130/B25316.1
[87]	Churcher C (1968) Pleistocene ungulates from the Bow River gravels at Cochrane, Alberta. Can J Earth Sci 5: 1467–1488. doi: 10.1139/e68-145
[88]	Churcher C (1975) Additional evidence of Pleistocene ungulates from the Bow River gravels at Cochrane, Alberta. Can J Earth Sci 12: 68–76. doi: 10.1139/e75-008
[89]	Wilson M, Churcher C (1978) Late Pleistocene Camelops from the Gallelli Pit, Calgary, Alberta: Morphology and geologic setting. Can J Earth Sci 15: 729–740. doi: 10.1139/e78-080
[90]	Ritchie J (1976) The Late Quaternary vegetational history of the western interior of Canada. Can J Bot 54: 1793–1818. doi: 10.1139/b76-194
[91]	MacDonald G (1982) Late Quaternary paleoenvironments of the Morley Flats and Kananaskis Valley of southwestern Alberta. Can J Earth Sci 19: 23–35. doi: 10.1139/e82-003
[92]	Gryba EM (1983) Sibbald Creek: 11,000 years of Human Use of the Alberta Foothills. Archaeological Survey of Alberta, Occasional Paper #22.
[93]	Luckman B (1988) 8200-year-old-wood from the Athabasca Glacier, Alberta. Can J Earth Sci 14: 1809–1822.
[94]	Osborn G, Luckman B (1988) Holocene glacier fluctuations in the Canadian (Alberta and British Columbia). Quat Sci Rev 7: 115–128. doi: 10.1016/0277-3791(88)90002-9
[95]	Harris S, Howell J (1977) Chateau Lake Loiuse moraines–evidence for a new Holocene glacial event in southwestern Alberta. B Can Petrol Geol 25: 441–455.
[96]	Zoltai S, Tarnocai C, Pettapiece W (1978) Age of cryoturbated organic materials in earth hummocks from the Canadian Arctic. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Permafrost, Edmonton, Alberta. Ottawa, National Research Council of Canada: 326–331.
[97]	Harris S (2002) Biodiversity of the vascular timberline flora in the Rocky Mountains of Alberta, Canada. In: Koerner, C., Spehn, E. Editors, Mountain Biodiversity: A global assessment, Lancashire: Parthenon Publishing group, United Kingdom, 49–57.
[98]	Fontanella F, Feldman C, Siddall M, et al. (2008) Phylogeography of Diadophis puntatus: Extension lineage diversity and repeated patterns of historical demography of a trans-continental snake. Mol Phylogenet Evol 46: 1049–1070. doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2007.10.017
[99]	Harris S (2012) The role that diastrophism and climatic change have played in determining biodiversity in continental North America. In: Lameed, A. Editor, Biodiversity, Conservation and Utilization in a Diverse World, Intech Press, 233–260.
[100]	Zagura S (1984) The initial peopling of the Americas: an overview from the perspective of physical anthropology. Acta Anthropog 8: 1–21.
[101]	Kitchen A, Miyamoto M, Mulligan C (2008) A three stage colonization model for the peopling of the Americas. PLOS ONE 3: e1596. Available from: Doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0001596. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0001596
[102]	Fagan B (2016) Searching for the origins of the first Americans. Sapiens.
[103]	Anon (2018) Suspected first trace of Beringian people on the land bridge – now mostly sunken – joining Russia and North America. The Siberian Times.
[104]	Williams R, Steinberg A, Gershowitz H, et al. (1985) GM allotypes in Native Americans: Evidence for three distinct migrations across the Bering land bridge. Am J Phys Anthropol 66: 1–19. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.1330660102
[105]	Goebel T, Waters M, Dikova M (2003) The archaeology of Ushki Lake, Kamchatka, the Pleistocene peopling of the Americas. Science 301: 501–505. doi: 10.1126/science.1086555
[106]	Elias S, Crocker B (2008) The Bering Land Bridge: A moisture barrier to the dispersal of steppe-tundra biota? Quat Sci Rev 27: 2473–2483. doi: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2008.09.011
[107]	Murton J, Goslar T, Edwards M, et al. (2015) Palaeoenvironmental interpretation of Yedoma Silt (Ice Complex) deposition as cold-climate loess, Duvenny Yar, Northeast Siberia. Permafrost and Periglac 26: 208–288. doi: 10.1002/ppp.1843
[108]	Madsen D, Perreault C, Rhode D, et al. (2017) Early foraging settlement of the Tibetan Plateau Highlands. Archaeol Res Asia.
[109]	Sanchez G, Holliday V, Gaines E, et al. (2014) Human (Clovis)–gomphothere (Cuvieronius sp.) association ∼13,390 calibrated yBP in Sonora, Mexico. PNAS 111: 10972–10977.
[110]	Ferring C (2001) The Archaeology and Paleoecology of the Aubrey Clovis Site (41DN479), Denton County, Texas. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District. Center for Environmental Archaeology, Department of Geography, University of North Texas.
[111]	Goebel T, Waters M, O'Rourke D (2008) The late Pleistocene dispersal of modern humans in the Americas. Science 319: 1497–1502. doi: 10.1126/science.1153569

This article has been cited by:

1.	Into Almiala, Henrik Aalto, Vesa Kuikka, Influence spreading model for partial breakthrough effects on complex networks, 2023, 630, 03784371, 129244, 10.1016/j.physa.2023.129244
2.	Vesa Kuikka, Detecting Overlapping Communities Based on Influence-Spreading Matrix and Local Maxima of a Quality Function, 2024, 12, 2079-3197, 85, 10.3390/computation12040085
3.	Vesa Kuikka, Kimmo K. Kaski, Detailed-level modelling of influence spreading on complex networks, 2024, 14, 2045-2322, 10.1038/s41598-024-79182-9
4.	Vesa Kuikka, Opinion Formation on Social Networks—The Effects of Recurrent and Circular Influence, 2023, 11, 2079-3197, 103, 10.3390/computation11050103

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2019 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)