Abstract Jara‐Muñoz et al. (2024), https://doi.org/10.1029/2024gc011541 , presented a new reconstruction of the lake level for the transition between paleolake Lisan and the Dead Sea, which prompted further discussion by Torfstein et al. (2025), https://doi.org/10.1029/2024gc011972 . We appreciate their interest in our work, although their critique partly relies on inaccurate statements and methodological misconceptions regarding our approach. Our study reconstructs past lake levels using lake‐level index points derived from dated stromatolites and surveyed paleoshorelines corrected for ground deformation. It thus appears that these methodological details may not have been fully considered in their evaluation. Contrary to their claim, earlier data sets were not ignored by us but compared based on a critical assessment. Our systematic approach requires index points with well‐constrained vertical and temporal uncertainties, a condition often not achieved in earlier data sets of lake level histories. While facies data remain important for interpreting lake dynamics, these cannot serve as index points in our reconstruction framework. Based on 89 radiocarbon and U‐series ages, our reconstruction constrains the Lisan highstand to 30–28.5 ka, approximately 5 ka earlier than previously estimated. This discrepancy does not arise from omission but from improved handling of uncertainties and tectonic corrections. The U‐Th dating bias alleged by Torfstein et al. (2025), https://doi.org/10.1029/2024gc011972 , to be caused by acid leaching seems to stem from a misunderstanding of our methods. In light of the careful data collection and analysis, our reconstruction remains internally consistent, statistically robust, and fully reproducible, qualities we hope will guide future discussions toward data‐based observations.
Jara‐Muñoz et al. (Wed,) studied this question.