Shukla et al. explored paleoclimatic signals from a ~8 m thick profile of a moraine-dammed lake in the central Himalaya exposed due to lake burst from a flash flood in 2013. The main objective of their research work is to understand the complex glacial-climate system during late-Holocene. They attempted a novel multi proxy approach for paleoclimate reconstruction but their work suffers from misinterpretation of various proxies and erroneous/misleading discussion. We therefore report following major points in this comment article. (1) Misinterpretation of magnetic parameters: Magnetic susceptibility (χlf) has been used to interpret changes in magnetic mineralogy rather than concentration of magnetic minerals. Susceptibility of anhysteretic remanence (χARM) has been used at several places to indicate presence of superparamagnetic (SP) and multi domain (MD) ferrimagnetic particles rather than single domain (SD) ferrimagnetic (magnetite) particles. Interpreting erroneous negative values of percentage of frequency dependent susceptibility (χfd%) for climate change. (2) Poor chronology: Overlaps in ages of glacial-lake sediments. (3) References: Several statements in paper have not been referenced and some of them have out of place citations. (4) Carefree writing: Authors have shown typical example of carefree writing of a research article, for example, giving units to dimensionless parameter S-ratio, and χfd%, differences in units of χlf in text and figure, different depths for the same age in text and figure. (5) Over interpretation: Authors at places have interpreted climatic variations based on only one sample. (6) Poor justifications: Authors did not provide any detailed justification for proxy data while interpreting climatic variations. (7) No data (results) on mineralogy and trace elements were given. Overall it is not only a problem of presentation and misinterpretation of proxy data but the study also fails to deliver the final message of climate change and glacier dynamics in the central Himalaya.

中文翻译：

---

曲解古气候信号的代理数据：对 Shukla 等人的评论。2020年

舒克拉等人。探索了来自 2013 年因山洪暴发而暴露的喜马拉雅中部冰碛湖的约 8 m 厚剖面的古气候信号。他们研究工作的主要目标是了解晚期复杂的冰川气候系统-全新世。他们尝试了一种新的多代理方法来重建古气候，但他们的工作受到对各种代理的误解和错误/误导性讨论的困扰。因此，我们在这篇评论文章中报告了以下要点。(1) 对磁性参数的误解：磁化率 (χlf) 已被用来解释磁性矿物学的变化，而不是磁性矿物的浓度。非磁滞剩磁 (χARM) 的磁化率已在多个地方使用，以表明存在超顺磁性 (SP) 和多畴 (MD) 亚铁磁颗粒，而不是单畴 (SD) 亚铁磁（磁铁矿）颗粒。解释气候变化的频率相关敏感性百分比 (χfd%) 的错误负值。(2)年代学差：冰川湖沉积物年代重叠。(3) 参考文献：论文中的几个陈述没有被引用，其中一些有不恰当的引用。(4) 无忧写作：作者展示了一篇研究文章无忧写作的典型例子，例如给无量纲参数S-ratio和χfd%，文本和图形中χlf的单位差异，不同深度的单位。文字和图中的年龄。(5)过度解读：各地的作者仅根据一个样本来解释气候变化。(6) 理由不充分：作者在解释气候变化时没有为代理数据提供任何详细的理由。(7) 没有给出矿物学和微量元素的数据（结果）。总体而言，这不仅是代理数据的呈现和误解问题，而且该研究也未能传达喜马拉雅中部气候变化和冰川动态的最终信息。