Datasets
| Location | Distance to next exposure (miles) | Exposure Age (years before present) | Rate of Retreat (miles/year) | Method |
| Androscoggin Moraine (ME) | 0 | 13200 | 0 | Cosmogenic |
| Berlin Moraine (NH) | 15 | 13700 | 0.03 | Cosmogenic |
| Littleton-Bethlehem Moraine (NH) | 30 | 13800 | 0.3 | Cosmogenic |
| Buzzard’s Bay Moraine (MA) | 200 | 20300 | 0.030769231 | Cosmogenic |
| Old Saybrook Moraine (CT) | 5 | 20700 | 0.0125 | Cosmogenic |
| Ledyard Moraine (CT) | 75 | 20700 | 0.016666667 | Cosmogenic |
| Terminal Moraine (NJ) | 205 | 25200 | 0.045555556 | Cosmogenic |
| Terminal Moraine (MA) | 70 | 27500 | 0.030434783 | Cosmogenic |
| Temple Hill (NY) | 0 | 12800 | 0 | Macrofossils |
| Long Pond (NY) | 205 | 12800 | 0.683333333 | Macrofossils |
| Scotchtown (NY) | 210 | 13100 | 0.7 | Macrofossils |
| East Barnet (VT) | 230 | 13100 | 2.3 | Macrofossils |
| Crocker Pond (ME) | 60 | 13200 | 0.6 | Macrofossils |
| Arborio (NY) | 260 | 13600 | 0.65 | Macrofossils |
| Cherry Pond (NH) | 50 | 13700 | 0.5 | Macrofossils |
| Allamuchy Pond (NJ) | 290 | 14400 | 0.414285714 | Macrofossils |
| Martin Meadow Pond (NH) | 295 | 14400 | 2.95 | Macrofossils |
| Alpine Swamp (NJ) | 265 | 14500 | 2.65 | Macrofossils |
| Pond of Safety (NH) | 275 | 14600 | 2.75 | Macrofossils |
| Dutchess Quarry Cave (NY) | 265 | 14700 | 2.65 | Macrofossils |
| Readway Pond (NY) | 220 | 14900 | 1.1 | Macrofossils |
| Sutherland Pond (NY) | 215 | 14900 | 2.15 | Macrofossils |
| Sutherland Fen (NY) | 1 | 15000 | 0.01 | Macrofossils |
| Marthas Vinyard (MA) | 200 | 18300 | 0.060606061 | Macrofossils |
| Gillett Pond (VT) | 0 | 10500 | 0 | Bulk Sediment |
| Miller Brook (VT) | 10 | 10500 | 0.02 | Bulk Sediment |
| Falmouth (MA) | 230 | 11000 | 0.46 | Bulk Sediment |
| Glovers Pond (NJ) | 225 | 12100 | 0.204545455 | Bulk Sediment |
| Middletown (NY) | 35 | 12900 | 0.04375 | Bulk Sediment |
| Bugbee Bog (VT) | 240 | 12900 | 2.4 | Bulk Sediment |
| Lantern Hill Pond (CT) | 200 | 13000 | 2 | Bulk Sediment |
| West Pt (NY) | 5 | 13100 | 0.05 | Bulk Sediment |
| Boyd Pond (NY) | 260 | 13100 | 0.2 | Bulk Sediment |
| Lake Quassapaug (CT) | 220 | 14400 | 0.169230769 | Bulk Sediment |
| Squibnocket (RI) | 75 | 14500 | 0.75 | Bulk Sediment |
| Binnewater Pond (NY) | 145 | 14800 | 0.483333333 | Bulk Sediment |
| Cedar Swamp (CT) | 135 | 15000 | 0.675 | Bulk Sediment |
| Sterling Pond (VT) | 215 | 15200 | 1.075 | Bulk Sediment |
| Bergen Pond (NJ) | 250 | 15300 | 2.5 | Bulk Sediment |
| New Hampton (NY) | 35 | 15300 | 0.7 | Bulk Sediment |
| Alpine Bog (NJ) | 40 | 15350 | 0.8 | Bulk Sediment |
| Totoket Bog (CT) | 60 | 15900 | 0.109090909 | Bulk Sediment |
| Red Maple Swamp (CT) | 40 | 16000 | 0.4 | Bulk Sediment |
| Rogers Lake (CT) | 10 | 17300 | 0.007692308 | Bulk Sediment |
| Francis Lake (NJ) | 135 | 22200 | 0.02755102 | Bulk Sediment |
The cosmogenic rate is the most consistent with more variability within the bulk sediment and macrofossil rates. This could be partially explained by the discrepancy between the range of dates for the sample locations for each method. The cosmogenic data is over a longer timescale with fewer data points with gaps of over 5000 years between some data points. Compare this to other two datasets where excluding the oldest two samples, time gaps are roughly under 1000 years. The bulk sediment dataset also has several samples that are younger then samples from the other datasets.
The lack of consistent ages on the ends of each dataset could introduce some variability when comparing the dataset. Despite having sampling locations with similar coordinates, there is a several thousand year difference between datasets for the youngest and oldest data points. Another importance source of variability is the uncertainty in dating the calibration/exposure age. Changing this age could result in a different order of locations for the sequence of retreat that would change the distance to the next location of exposure. This could significantly impact the rate of retreat for each of the methods.
Both the bulk sediment and macrofossil rates of retreat could support the Laurentide Ice Sheet as a major contributor for sea level rise over the past 30000 years. The rate provided by the cosmogenic method is too low to support this. The uncertainty in the sequencing of retreat between locations for calculating the rate of retreat makes it hard to offer strong support for one method over the other.