Reply
The authors respond to Hoffman et al. (2001), who acknowledged that methane may have played an important role in unusual events associated with Neoproterozoic glaciation, but questioned the authors' permafrost gas hydrate hypothesis for 13C-depleted cap carbonate formation. The critique focused...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Text |
| Language: | unknown |
| Published: |
Columbia University
2002
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://dx.doi.org/10.7916/d8fb5d3q https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D8FB5D3Q |
| Summary: | The authors respond to Hoffman et al. (2001), who acknowledged that methane may have played an important role in unusual events associated with Neoproterozoic glaciation, but questioned the authors' permafrost gas hydrate hypothesis for 13C-depleted cap carbonate formation. The critique focused on three issues: (1) an interpretation for tube structures in cap carbonates unrelated to gas migration; (2) the absence of a suitable source for methane gas; and (3) the degree of 13C depletion in sheet-crack cements. |
|---|