Reply to ‘Challenging the hypothesis of an arctic ocean lake during recent glacial episodes’ by Hillaire‐Marcel, et al
ABSTRACT Hillaire‐Marcel et al. bring forward several physical and geochemical arguments against our finding of an Arctic glaciolacustrine system in the past. In brief, we find that a physical approach to further test our hypothesis should additionally consider the actual bathymetry of the Greenland...
| Published in: | Journal of Quaternary Science |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , |
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2022
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jqs.3431 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/jqs.3431 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full-xml/10.1002/jqs.3431 |
| Summary: | ABSTRACT Hillaire‐Marcel et al. bring forward several physical and geochemical arguments against our finding of an Arctic glaciolacustrine system in the past. In brief, we find that a physical approach to further test our hypothesis should additionally consider the actual bathymetry of the Greenland–Scotland Ridge (GSR), the density maximum of freshwater at 3–4°C, the sensible heat flux from rivers, and the actual volumes that are being mixed and advected. Their geochemical considerations acknowledge our original argument, but they also add a number of assumptions that are neither required to explain the observations, nor do they correspond to the lithology of the sediments. Rather than being additive in nature, their arguments of high particle flux, low particle flux, export of 230 Th and accumulation of 230 Th, are mutually exclusive. We first address the arguments above, before commenting on some misunderstandings of our original claim in their contribution, especially regarding our dating approach. |
|---|