English
 
Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Journal Article

Reply to comment on Ben Dor Y. et al. “Varves of the Dead Sea sedimentary record.” Quaternary Science Reviews 215 (2019): 173–184

Authors

Ben Dor,  Yoav
External Organizations;

/persons/resource/inaneu

Neugebauer,  I.
4.3 Climate Dynamics and Landscape Evolution, 4.0 Geosystems, Departments, GFZ Publication Database, Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrum;

Enzel,  Yehouda
External Organizations;

/persons/resource/mschwab

Schwab,  M. J.
4.3 Climate Dynamics and Landscape Evolution, 4.0 Geosystems, Departments, GFZ Publication Database, Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrum;

/persons/resource/tjalling

Tjallingii,  Rik
4.3 Climate Dynamics and Landscape Evolution, 4.0 Geosystems, Departments, GFZ Publication Database, Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrum;

Erel,  Yigal
External Organizations;

/persons/resource/brau

Brauer,  A.
4.3 Climate Dynamics and Landscape Evolution, 4.0 Geosystems, Departments, GFZ Publication Database, Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrum;

External Ressource
No external resources are shared
Fulltext (public)
There are no public fulltexts stored in GFZpublic
Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Ben Dor, Y., Neugebauer, I., Enzel, Y., Schwab, M. J., Tjallingii, R., Erel, Y., Brauer, A. (2020): Reply to comment on Ben Dor Y. et al. “Varves of the Dead Sea sedimentary record.” Quaternary Science Reviews 215 (2019): 173–184. - Quaternary Science Reviews, 231, 106063.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2019.106063


Cite as: https://gfzpublic.gfz-potsdam.de/pubman/item/item_4812892
Abstract
In the comment on “Varves of the Dead Sea sedimentary record.” Quaternary Science Reviews 215 (Ben Dor et al., 2019): 173–184. by R. Bookman, two recently published papers are suggested to prove that the interpretation of the laminated sedimentary sequence of the Dead Sea, deposited mostly during MIS2 and Holocene pluvials, as annual deposits (i.e., varves) is wrong. In the following response, we delineate several lines of evidence which coalesce to demonstrate that based on the vast majority of evidence, including some of the evidence provided in the comment itself, the interpretation of these sediments as varves is the more likely scientific conclusion. We further discuss the evidence brought up in the comment and its irrelevance and lack of robustness for addressing the question under discussion.