Abstract
Shukla et al. explored paleoclimatic signals from a ~8 m thick profile of a moraine-dammed lake in the central Himalaya exposed due to lake burst from a flash flood in 2013. The main objective of their research work is to understand the complex glacial-climate system during late-Holocene. They attempted a novel multi proxy approach for paleoclimate reconstruction but their work suffers from misinterpretation of various proxies and erroneous/misleading discussion. We therefore report following major points in this comment article. (1) Misinterpretation of magnetic parameters: Magnetic susceptibility (χlf) has been used to interpret changes in magnetic mineralogy rather than concentration of magnetic minerals. Susceptibility of anhysteretic remanence (χARM) has been used at several places to indicate presence of superparamagnetic (SP) and multi domain (MD) ferrimagnetic particles rather than single domain (SD) ferrimagnetic (magnetite) particles. Interpreting erroneous negative values of percentage of frequency dependent susceptibility (χfd%) for climate change. (2) Poor chronology: Overlaps in ages of glacial-lake sediments. (3)
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
