[shmageggy]

Paper link https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2319652121 Absolutely infuriating that university press releases don't include this. They should be embarrassed.

[Daub]

Agreed. I would understand such oversight from the 'common press', but from a university I would expect better. Oddly, of the 16 authors, they credit the first and the last, yet authors are usually cited in order of importance. The writer of this article clearly did not know better. Perhaps she thought that to credit the first and the last would be somehow 'covering all bases'. As others have done, I also question the title of the article, which does not correspond to the facts presented in the paper. As a press release, this is a mess.

Regarding the actual content, I am no expert, but on surface evaluation their methodology seems generally sound. Importantly, they seem to be referencing data from first hand sources. However, I am still confused. They state:

> A total of 453 measurements were made from 249 individual depth levels on the WAIS Divide Ice core (79.48°S, 112.11°W).

Does that mean '453 measurements from each of the 249 depth levels'? Or '453 measurements from random points in the 249 depth levels'? Or what? And what is the difference between an 'individual depth level' and a 'depth level'.

Such imprecision aside, climate change = warming ocean = wind direction change = catastrophic climate change. I remain worried.

[doctoboggan]

The first author is important as you said, but the last author is almost always the PI or leader of the lab that published the paper. So I guess it’s you that clearly did not know better.