Misinterpreting proxy data for paleoclimate signals: A reply to Srivastava and Jovane, 2020

Srivastava and Jovane (2020) have made several comments on our assessment of proxy data and challenged the outcome of Shukla et al. (2020) based mainly on interpretation of environmental magnetic parameters. We respond to their criticisms and re-evaluate our paper, remove ambiguities and validate ou...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Holocene (Sevenoaks) 2020-12, Vol.30 (12), p.1874-1883
Main Authors: Shukla, Tanuj, Mehta, Manish, Dobhal, Dwarika Prasad, Bohra, Archna, Pratap, Bhanu, Kumar, Anil
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Climate
Climate system
Data
Data correlation
Data interpretation
Fluvial sediments
Geochemistry
Glacial lakes
Glaciers
Grain size
Holocene
Lake sediments
Magnetic data
Magnetic properties
Mineralogy
Paleoclimate
River basins
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Srivastava and Jovane (2020) have made several comments on our assessment of proxy data and challenged the outcome of Shukla et al. (2020) based mainly on interpretation of environmental magnetic parameters. We respond to their criticisms and re-evaluate our paper, remove ambiguities and validate our conclusions through additional proxies (grain-size and geochemistry). We welcome their comments and do not entirely rule out their interpretation for magnetic mineralogy. We highlight the importance of proxy validation for high-energy environments like Chorabari lake. However, single proxy data correlation is likely to produce biased results with no relevant meaning. The objective of our study was to understand complexities in the glacial-climate system by reconstructing late-Holocene climate variations using the glacial lake sediment records from the Mandakini River Basin, Central Himalaya, India. We presented the complexities in Shukla et al. (2020), and this was also highlighted by Srivastava and Jovane (2020). In response, we provide additional justification of proxy response and substantiate our results with present-day estimates from the Chorabari glacier valley. We disagree with the thesis put forward by Srivastava and Jovane (2020) in their conclusion as they overemphasize the interpretation of a single proxy. We maintain that the investigation of present-day glacial settings is an important precursor of paleoclimatic data interpretation and that this supports our conclusions. We will try to incorporate the important suggestions of Srivastava and Jovne (2020) relating to the interpretation of magnetic data in future work.
ISSN:0959-6836
1477-0911
DOI:10.1177/0959683620950481