Reply to the discussion paper by P. Sümegi and S. Gulyás: Some notes on the interpretation and reliability of malacological proxies in paleotemperature reconstructions from loess- comments to Obreht et al.'s “A critical reevaluation of paleoclimate proxy records from loess in the Carpathian Basin”

Abstract

In their discussion paper, Sümegi & Gulyás (2021) expressed their concerns about our remarks regarding the reliability of malacothermometer-based July paleotemperature reconstructions for the Carpathian Basin as published in Obreht et al. (2019). We are content to see that our paper inspired the continuation of the discussion, however, we have some concerns about the criticism expressed by Sümegi and Gulyás (2021), which we in this reply address.

Resources

• https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0012825221002385?via%3Dihub

Bibliography

Obreht, I., Zeeden, C., Hambach, U., Veres, D., Marković, S., Lehmkuhl, F. (2021): Reply to the discussion paper by P. Sümegi and S. Gulyás: Some notes on the interpretation and reliability of malacological proxies in paleotemperature reconstructions from loess- comments to Obreht et al.'s “A critical reevaluation of paleoclimate proxy records from loess in the Carpathian Basin”. Elsevier – In: Earth-Science Reviews, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2021.103737