Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T21:58:51.051Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discussion Comments on Multiple Dating of a Long Flowstone Profile

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2016

Rainer Grün  and
Henry P Schwarcz
Rainer Grün
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, McMaster University, Hamilton Ontario, Canada
Henry P Schwarcz
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, McMaster University, Hamilton Ontario, Canada
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

We strongly welcome the investigation by Geyh and Hennig (1986) and agree with their conclusion that the boundaries of the interglacial periods cannot be determined exactly using the methods applied so far in the Heggen cave. However, since we have been engaged for several years in the application of these methods (except 14C), and since the paper gives a very different interpretation of the ESR results from that presented by one of us (Grün, 1985), we feel the need to make some comments on this paper.

Type
Notes and Comments
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , 1987 , pp. 148 - 152
Copyright
Copyright © The American Journal of Science 

References

Gascoyne, M, Ford, D C and Schwarcz, H P, 1981, Late Pleistocene chronology and paleoclimate of Vancouver Island determined from cave deposits: Can Jour Earth Sci, v 18, p 1643–1652.Google Scholar
Gascoyne, M, Latham, A G, Harmon, R S and Ford, D C, 1983. The antiquity of Castleguard Cave, Columbia icefields, Alberta, Canada: Tour Arctic & Alpine Research, v 15, p 463–470.Google Scholar
Geyh, M A and Hennig, G J, 1986, Multiple dating of a long flowstone profile, in Stuiver, M and Kra, R S, eds, Internatl 14C conf, 12th, Proc: Radiocarbon, v 28, no 2A, p 503–509.Google Scholar
Grün, R, 1985, Beiträge zur ESR-datierung: Sonderveröff Geol Inst Univ Köln, v 59, p 1–157.Google Scholar
Grün, R, 1986, ESR-dating speleothem records: Limits of the method, in Ikeya, M and Miki, T, eds, ESR dating and dosimetry: Tokyo, Ionics Pub Co, Ltd, p 61–72.Google Scholar
Hendy, C H, 1971, The isotopic geochemistry of speleothems. Part 1. The calculation of the effects of different modes of formation on the isotopic composition of speleothems and their applicability as paleoclimatic indicators: Geochim et Cosmochim Acta, v 35, p 801–824.Google Scholar
Hennig, G J, Geyh, M A and Grim, R, 1985, The interlaboratory comparison project of ESR dating—Phase II: Nuclear Tracks, v 10, p 945–952.Google Scholar
Peters, R J, 1981, Neutronenaktivierungsanalytische Bestimmungen von Spurenelementvariationen in Höhlensinter-Records und deren Absolutdatierung über die Th-230/U-234-Isotopenanalyse: Unveröffentliche Diplom-Arbeit, Univ Köln, 124 p.Google Scholar