Srivastava and Jovane (2020) have made several comments on our assessment of proxy data and challenged the outcome of Shukla et al. (2020) based mainly on interpretation of environmental magnetic parameters. We respond to their criticisms and re-evaluate our paper, remove ambiguities and validate our conclusions through additional proxies (grain-size and geochemistry). We welcome their comments and do not entirely rule out their interpretation for magnetic mineralogy. We highlight the importance of proxy validation for high-energy environments like Chorabari lake. However, single proxy data correlation is likely to produce biased results with no relevant meaning. The objective of our study was to understand complexities in the glacial-climate system by reconstructing late-Holocene climate variations using the glacial lake sediment records from the Mandakini River Basin, Central Himalaya, India. We presented the complexities in Shukla et al. (2020), and this was also highlighted by Srivastava and Jovane (2020). In response, we provide additional justification of proxy response and substantiate our results with present-day estimates from the Chorabari glacier valley. We disagree with the thesis put forward by Srivastava and Jovane (2020) in their conclusion as they overemphasize the interpretation of a single proxy. We maintain that the investigation of present-day glacial settings is an important precursor of paleoclimatic data interpretation and that this supports our conclusions. We will try to incorporate the important suggestions of Srivastava and Jovne (2020) relating to the interpretation of magnetic data in future work.

中文翻译：

---

曲解古气候信号的代理数据：对 Srivastava 和 Jovane 的回复，2020

Srivastava 和 Jovane（2020）对我们对代理数据的评估发表了一些评论，并对 Shukla 等人的结果提出质疑。(2020) 主要基于对环境磁参数的解释。我们回应他们的批评并重新评估我们的论文，消除歧义并通过额外的代理（粒度和地球化学）验证我们的结论。我们欢迎他们的评论，并不完全排除他们对磁性矿物学的解释。我们强调了代理验证对 Chorabari 湖等高能量环境的重要性。然而，单一代理数据相关性可能会产生没有相关意义的有偏见的结果。我们研究的目的是通过使用来自印度喜马拉雅中部曼达基尼河流域的冰川湖沉积物记录重建全新世晚期气候变化，了解冰川气候系统的复杂性。我们在 Shukla 等人中介绍了复杂性。（2020 年），Srivastava 和 Jovane（2020 年）也强调了这一点。作为回应，我们提供了代理响应的额外理由，并用 Chorabari 冰川谷的当前估计值证实了我们的结果。我们不同意 Srivastava 和 Jovane（2020）在他们的结论中提出的论点，因为他们过分强调了对单一代理的解释。我们坚持认为，对当今冰川环境的调查是古气候数据解释的重要先导，这支持了我们的结论。