Publication Date:
2016-01-31
Description:
Wolff et al . [2016] comment on Smart et al . [2014], and, in doing so concentrate on issues other than the main point. They do not dispute our central assertion, the inadequate resolution of nearly all extant ice cores for detection of impulsive nitrate events (spikes) from any source, including past Solar Proton Events (SPEs). We explain why comparing two short-length cores from other researchers and analyzed by different methods is insufficient for disputing sub-annual reproducibility, and call for a multiple, fine-resolution, replicate core study to resolve this issue. While acknowledging the creation of nitrate by SPEs and the existence of ice core nitrate spikes detected by others, they present several weak arguments, such as alleged scavenging of nitrate by some unnamed and unmeasured aerosol and why no enhanced nitrate signal for documenting SPE statistics should be distinguishable in the ice. These are not derived from the main points in our Smart et al . [2014] paper. We address these briefly and show that ionization from the Feb 1956 SPE was sufficient to produce a winter, likely acidic, nitrate spike at Summit, Greenland. While noting some convergence of interpretation, we show why their claim that nitrate spikes cannot be used for deriving SPE statistics is unproven and why rejection of fine resolution core studies as unreliable is premature.
Print ISSN:
0148-0227
Topics:
Geosciences
,
Physics
Permalink
