Reply to the comment on “Bonneville basin shoreline records of large lake intervals during Marine Isotope Stage 3 and the Last Glacial Maximum” by S. Nishizawa, D. R. Currey, A. Brunelle, D. Sack [Palaeogeography Palaeoclimatology Palaeoecology 386 (2013)

In their comment, Oviatt et al. (this issue) criticize and dismiss our recent paper (Nishizawa et al., 2013) by arguing that it contains misinterpretations and unreliable radiocarbon ages, and therefore that our findings will confuse many people trying to understand the lacustrine chronology of the Bonneville basin. Their comment, however, does not present evidence to substantiate their criticisms against our paper. Oviatt et al. attribute statements to the paper that are not found in it, and their attempt to re-graph the radiocarbon ages omits 13% of our data. Numeric ages that Oviatt et al. contend are conflicting either are not or are not as problematic as those commenters claim. Comparisons of our lake-interval interpretations with sediment-core data likewise do not show the contradictions that Oviatt et al. claim. In essence, Oviatt et al. seem to advocate complete dismissal of all of our numeric ages and lake-size interpretations regarding MIS 3 on the basis of one tufa age. The following sections identify the incorrect information presented in the comment by Oviatt et al., review the complete set of numeric ages for the contested intervals, and respond to the implication that our late colleague, mentor, and coauthor, Donald R. Currey, did not actively participate in this research.