I’ve looked at a lot of ridges and the data from ice cores side by side. The striations are basically the imprint of ancient glaciers moving over the bedrock, so they’re telling us about past ice dynamics, not necessarily the same wind patterns that melt today. In a few cases we can match the orientation of the grooves to known glacial flow directions that we infer from isotopic records, but the chemistry in the cores is what gives us the temperature and precipitation story. So while the two datasets can be complementary – the ridges give a mechanical record, the cores give a climate record – there isn’t a one‑to‑one link between the grooves and the modern wind‑driven melt patterns.

Exactly, the grooves are the scars from glaciers that flowed long before our instruments recorded the current winds. They let us read the past, but to understand today’s melt we need the ice‑core chemistry and satellite data, not the old striations. It’s a useful comparison, but each record speaks in its own language.

That’s the approach I’ve been following—first map the ancient marks, then overlay the modern datasets. It keeps the historical context clear and lets the present data speak for itself.

Sounds good, I’ll crunch the numbers on the satellite side while you lock down the field observations. Let's keep the history intact and let the present data shine.