Paper detail

Low time resolution analysis of polar ice cores cannot detect impulsive nitrate events

Ice cores are archives of climate change and possibly large solar proton events (SPEs). Wolff et al. (2012) used a single event, a nitrate peak in the GISP2-H core, which McCracken et al. (2001a) time associated with the poorly quantified 1859 Carrington event, to discredit SPE-produced, impulsive nitrate deposition in polar ice. This is not the ideal test case. We critique the Wolff et al. analysis and demonstrate that the data they used cannot detect impulsive nitrate events because of resolution limitations. We suggest re-examination of the top of the Greenland ice sheet at key intervals over the last two millennia with attention to fine resolution and replicate sampling of multiple species. This will allow further insight into polar depositional processes on a sub-seasonal scale, including atmospheric sources, transport mechanisms to the ice sheet, post-depositional interactions, and a potential SPE association.

preprint2015arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.