the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 17 Feb 2026
An ice core record of volcanic eruptions for the past 4000 years from Dome A, Antarctica
Abstract. Improving the spatial and temporal coverage of volcanic records is essential to accurately quantify volcanic forcing and to provide reliable references for climate models validation. In this study, we present a new volcanic record derived from a 133 m ice core (DA2009) drilled at Dome A, Antarctica. Based on measurements of non-sea-salt sulfate concentrations, 95 volcanic events are identified. Using 15 volcanic age markers aligned with the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) Divide ice core (WDC) record, the DA2009 core is dated to cover the past 3951 years, from 1951 BCE to 2000 CE. By comparing the DA2009 record with three Antarctic ice cores from WAIS Divide, Dome C and South Pole, 12 prominent volcanic events are recognized. The period between 1000 and 2000 CE exhibits the most intense volcanic activity of the past 4000 years. The mean snow accumulation rates calculated between adjacent age markers indicate a marked decline in accumulation at Dome A since the 13th century CE. This low-accumulation interval coincides with a pronounced cold phase on the East Antarctic Plateau, suggesting a potential connection between regional climate variability and local accumulation rates at Dome A.
- Preprint
(936 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(185 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 06 May 2026)
- CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-769', Alexey Ekaykin, 22 Feb 2026 reply
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-769', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Apr 2026
reply
An et al. provide a volcanic record for the past 4ka from Dome A. The record is based on sulfate measurements and volcanic matching to the WAIS Divide ice core. The identification of volcanic events follows established methods and seems robust. The dating also appears reasonable. The record is largely similar to other Antarctic ice core records, while raising some intriguing questions about the relative magnitude of deposition around Antarctica.
The main question I had while reading this manuscript is why more effort was not put into matching the volcanic events with Dome C and South Pole (SPICEcore) , in addition to WAIS Divide. Yes, WAIS Divide has the benchmark chronology, but it has been transferred to the volcanic events at both Dome C and South Pole, which are both considerably closer to Dome and more similar in climate characteristics. That, the volcanic matching to Dome C and South Pole should be more robust. Both cores have publicly available sulfate data (https://www.usap-dc.org/view/dataset/601850 and https://www.usap-dc.org/view/dataset/601759).
I would also be interested in seeing the patterns of volcanic events in the sulfate records matched instead of just the inferred event fluxes. Matching of individual events is less compelling, especially when very large events like Tambora can be missing the Dome A record and the 1809 Unknown vent is larger. This raises the possibility of mis-identification, and additional figures and support for the matching of patterns of events would be help establish the specific reliability of the Dome A timescale.
Â
In conclusion, I recommend publication after some revisions that more fully incorporate at least the Dome C and SPICEcore sulfate records.
Â
General Comments
-Provide density data used to convert to an accumulation rate.
Â
Specific comments
L82 – Cole-Dai, 2010 seems like a strange reference for this given how many papers were written before this
L105 – fewer significant figures given measurements precision
L117 – Why use WAIS Divide and not EDC, SPICEcore?
L130 – I don’t understand how this is used to determine the dating uncertainty.Â
L161 – Table 1 – how do you get the timing to a fraction of the year? Is this from WAIS Dvide? If so, isn’t there a good chance the transport times are enough different to affect the precise dating? Need to define timescale
L175 – what about local volcanic events in the more active West Antarctica? And I don’t think it’s that volcanic deposition is different. I think it’s that the snow accumulation at Dome A can be disrupted by wind scour/redposition
L204 – This is a really weird table. I think it would be a lot easier to list the events and put their ranking. This doesn’t make much sense to me in table form. Is there a way to show it graphically?
L209 – This sentence needs to be reworded
L225 – I’m concerned that the volcanic frequency and flux cannot be used to reliably indicate an increase in the past millennium. For the two higher resolution cores, WDC and SP, the frequency of events does not stand out as being statistically significant. For the flux, there Is evidence of rapid diffusion in the firn, which would lead to older (deeper) events being broader in width, and thus having less sulfate cross the threshold, making them appear smaller. I’m concerned that in the low accumulation cores, DA and EDC, this is a preservation issue rather than a reliable signal. At the least, these conclusions should be tested statistically and issues discussed.
L236 and Figure 5 – the accumulation history is interesting. First, it would be good to show and post the density data and determine the uncertainty. I wonder if the recent decrease is because of poor core recovery leading to densities that are too low. This should be considered and discussed.
Â
Data Availability – I appreciate the data being publicly available. I was able to download it without problem.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-769-RC1
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 234 | 117 | 20 | 371 | 41 | 23 | 46 |
- HTML: 234
- PDF: 117
- XML: 20
- Total: 371
- Supplement: 41
- BibTeX: 23
- EndNote: 46
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Dear authors, thank you for the manuscript! You might be interested in comparing your results with Vostok data as well: . Sincerely, Alexey