From the University of Vermont
Science: There’s something ancient in the icebox
Researchers find 3-million-year-old landscape beneath Greenland Ice Sheet

Glaciers are commonly thought to work like a belt sander. As they move over the land they scrape off everything—vegetation, soil, and even the top layer of bedrock. So scientists were greatly surprised to discover an ancient tundra landscape preserved under the Greenland Ice Sheet, below two miles of ice.
“We found organic soil that has been frozen to the bottom of the ice sheet for 2.7 million years,” said University of Vermont geologist Paul Bierman—providing strong evidence that the Greenland Ice Sheet has persisted much longer than previously known, enduring through many past periods of global warming.
He led an international team of scientists that reported their discovery on April 17 in the journal Science.
Greenland is a place of great interest to scientists and policymakers since the future stability of its huge ice sheet—the size of Alaska, and second only to Antarctica—will have a fundamental influence on how fast and high global sea levels rise from human-caused climate change.
“The ancient soil under the Greenland ice sheet helps to unravel an important mystery surrounding climate change,” said Dylan Rood a co-author on the new study from the Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre and the University of California, Santa Barbara, “how did big ice sheets melt and grow in response to changes in temperature?”
The new discovery indicates that even during the warmest periods since the ice sheet formed, the center of Greenland remained stable; “it’s likely that it did not fully melt at any time,” Vermont’s Bierman said. This allowed a tundra landscape to be locked away, unmodified, under ice through millions of years of global warming and cooling.
![]() |
||||
“The traditional knowledge about glaciers is that they are very powerful agents of erosion and can effectively strip a landscape clean,” said study co-author Lee Corbett, a UVM graduate student who prepared the silty ice samples for analysis. Instead, “we demonstrate that the Greenland Ice Sheet is not acting as an agent of erosion; in fact, at it’s center, it has performed incredibly little erosion since its inception almost three million years ago.”
Rather than scraping and sculpting the landscape, the ice sheet has been frozen to the ground, “a refrigerator that’s preserved this antique landscape,” Bierman said.
The scientists tested seventeen “dirty ice” samples from the bottommost forty feet of the 10,019-foot GISP2 ice core extracted from Summit, Greenland, in 1993. “Over twenty years, only a few people had looked hard at the sediments from the bottom of the core,” Bierman said. From this sediment, he and a team at the University of Vermont’s Cosmogenic Nuclide Laboratory extracted a rare form of the element beryllium, an isotope called beryllium-10. Formed by cosmic rays, it falls from the sky and sticks to rock and soil. The longer soil is exposed at Earth’s surface, the more beryllium-10 it accumulates. Measuring how much is in soil or a rock gives geologists a kind of exposure clock.
The researchers expected to only find soil eroded from glacier-scoured bedrock in the sediment at the bottom of the ice core. “So we thought we were going looking for a needle in haystack,” Bierman said. They planned to work diligently to find vanishingly small amounts of the beryllium—since the landscape under the ice sheet would have not been exposed to the sky. “It turned out that we found an elephant in a haystack,” he said; the silt had very high concentrations of the isotope when the team measured it on a particle accelerator at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
“On a global basis, we only find these sorts of beryllium concentrations in soils that have developed over hundreds of thousands to millions of years,” said Joseph Graly, who analyzed the beryllium data while at the University of Vermont.
The new research, supported by funding from the National Science Foundation, shows that “the soil had been stable and exposed at the surface for somewhere between 200,000 and one million years before being covered by ice,” notes Ben Crosby, a member of the research team from Idaho State University.
To help interpret these unexpected findings, the team also measured nitrogen and carbon that could have been left by plant material in the core sample. “The fact that measurable amounts of organic material were found in the silty ice indicates that soil must have been present under the ice,” said co-author Andrea Lini at the University of Vermont—and its composition suggests that the pre-glacial landscape may have been a partially forested tundra.
![]() |
||||
“Greenland really was green! However, it was millions of years ago,” said Rood, “Greenland looked like the green Alaskan tundra, before it was covered by the second largest body of ice on Earth.” To confirm their findings about this ancient landscape, the researchers also measured beryllium levels in a modern permafrost tundra soil on the North Slope of Alaska. “The values were very similar,” said Bierman, “which made us more confident that what we found under Greenland was tundra soil.”
Many geologists are seeking a long-term view of the history of the Greenland Ice Sheet, including how it moves and has shaped the landscape beneath it—with an eye toward better understanding its future behavior. It’s 656,000 square miles of ice, containing enough water, if fully melted, to raise global sea levels twenty-three feet—”yet we have very little information about what is happening at the bed with regards to erosion and landscape formation,” said Corbett.
What is clear, however, from an abundance of worldwide indicators, is that global temperatures are on a path to be “far warmer than the warmest interglacials in millions of years,” said Bierman. “There is a 2.7-million-year-old soil sitting under Greenland. The ice sheet on top of it has not disappeared in the time in which humans became a species. But if we keep on our current trajectory, the ice sheet will not survive. And once you clear it off, it’s really hard to put it back on.”


It’s amazing how they can always put a CAGW spin on any finding they make, no matter how counter-intuitive it is. Perhaps the same ‘hidden force’ that’s protecting the sub-acrtic moths has preserved the Greenland ice sheet.
“There is a 2.7-million-year-old soil sitting under Greenland. The ice sheet on top of it has not disappeared in the time in which humans became a species. But if we keep on our current trajectory, the ice sheet will not survive. And once you clear it off, it’s really hard to put it back on.”
And just why would we want to recover Greenland with an ice sheet if its current one ever did melt off? Is ice better than green landscape?
So, Greenland was naked for a period of time
Now it’s covered with the 2nd largest ice sheet on the planet.
But WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!
I’d suggest that it’s more likely humankind and other species are likely to disappear before the Greenland ice sheet does. One needs to remember that the earths continents are tectonic plates in very slow motion. Anybody think they know where the current continents are going to be in say 1-100 million years from now and what species will still exist. Your guess on that question maybe more accurate than current prognostications about what a few 100 parts per million increase in CO2 will do to all earths species.
Look! let’s stop messing about and just give your pin number the IPPC
“[it] will have a fundamental influence on how fast and high global sea levels rise from human-caused climate change.”
I beg your pardon? Talk about an agenda-powered presupposition, in bold face. That slithered by the reviewers like sub-glacial slime mold.
This raises the interesting possibility of finding fairly fresh remains of long extinct species, either in Greenland or Antarctica.
Two of the main problems with some of the central Greenland cores, in particular GISP and GISP2 are described in:
http://epic.awi.de/10226/1/Nor2004a.pdf
“The two deep ice cores drilled at the beginning of the 1990s in
central Greenland (GRIP1–3 and GISP24,5, respectively 3,027m and
3,053m long) have played a key role in documenting rapid climate
changes during the last glacial period. However, it quickly became
clear that the bottom 10% of at least one (and most probably both)
of these ice cores4,6–9 was disturbed owing to ice folding close to the
bedrock. The Central Greenland ice core records are fully reliable
climate archives back to 105,000 years before present (105 kyr BP),
but the disturbances mean that no reliableNorthern Hemisphere ice
core record of the previous interglacial (the Eemian climatic period)
was known to exist in the Northern Hemisphere.”
The first problem being that ~10% of the bottom core is folded.
The second problem is that no ice dated older than 105,000 years has been described in the literature to my knowledge, which is what makes this somewhat dubious.
It is exceptionally difficult to age date ice, particularly if it has been disturbed. It normally requires layer counting, registration with known tephras (volcanic ash layers) etc. etc. So I will be interested to see how they dated this ice to some 25 TIMES older than the oldest known ice (at least known to me).
What they did and what they found is interesting but does not surprise – see closure history of the Panama Isthmus.
The last paragraph – from the pulpit – is pure “we made some stuff up.”
““There is a 2.7-million-year-old soil sitting under Greenland. The ice sheet on top of it has not disappeared in the time in which humans became a species. But if we keep on our current trajectory, the ice sheet will not survive. And once you clear it off, it’s really hard to put it back on.”
And as far as this bit of climatism goes, if they are right, then if we keep on this trajectory maybe we won’t have another ice age. Or is that the climatists want one……..
What’s our current trajectory? Warming or cooling?
What bothers me in reading this is how any climate scientist – or any layperson with an IQ over 90 – not come to realize the true magnitude of global climate variability, and from this see that the amount of increase in the latter part of the last century was nothing new or out of the norm? The spin is so apparent as to be nauseating – and to suggest we are headed for being warmer than any previous interglacial? Really?? Why not post some numbers from prior interglacials and let’s compare, rather than make some comment that some would take as truth because some “expert” said it is so.
before anyone queries the dates – “on this day” refers to April 22:
17 April: Yahoo: Julian Gavaghan: On This Day: British scientist first to link C02 to global warming – but thinks its beneficial for humanity
Callendar believed this warming would be beneficial to humanity because it would help delay a “return of the deadly glaciers”
April 22: British scientist Guy Stewart Callendar became the first expert to link carbon dioxide emissions to global warming in a groundbreaking paper published on this day in 1938.
The renowned steam engineer was also the first person to acurately demonstrate that global land temperatures had increased over the previous 50 years.
But, counter to modern scientific thinking, Callendar believed this warming would be beneficial to humanity because it would help delay a “return of the deadly glaciers”…
“In hindsight, Callendar’s contribution was fundamental,” Dr Ed Hawkins, a climatologist at the University of Reading, said in a report published last year….
Callendar’s research, published in Royal Meteorological Society’s journal, was an incredible feat for a man who considered climatology only an amateur interest…
His findings have since been shown to be remarkably accurate, which is an astonishing achievement given that he didn’t have a computer…
He performed his calculations by collecting temperature readings from 147 weather stations scattered over the planet and working out a global average.
However, Callendar, who was born in Montreal, Canada, had little or no data from the Arctic, Antarctica or the oceans, where recent studies have found the most warming.
Yet, despite scope for further tests, other climate experts at the time largely ignored Callendar’s findings and would remain sceptical for decades…
Even after warming resumed in 1975, there continued to be doubts. But Scientific and public opinion began to change at the end of the 1980s.
British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who had trained as a chemist at Oxford University, was the first global leader to voice alarm over climate change in 1988.
The same year, Americans also took notice when climatologist James Hansen told the U.S. Senate that global warming was to blame for a severe drought…
***Nevertheless, the general public and many governments, while acknowledging the effect, are much less inclined to agree with scientists that man is to blame.
But the fact that any debate or further research into the matter has been carried out remains an enduring credit to the work of Callendar, who died aged 66 in 1964.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/on-this-day–british-scientist-first-to-link-c02-to-global-warming—but-thinks-its-beneficial-for-humanity-161218843.html#UXCbsNz
What is clear, however, from an abundance of worldwide indicators, is that global temperatures are on a path to be “far warmer than the warmest interglacials in millions of years,” said Bierman.
THAT… is a lie.
What is clear, however, from an abundance of worldwide indicators, is that global temperatures are on a path to be “far warmer than the warmest interglacials in millions of years,” said Bierman. “There is a 2.7-million-year-old soil sitting under Greenland. The ice sheet on top of it has not disappeared in the time in which humans became a species. But if we keep on our current trajectory, the ice sheet will not survive. And once you clear it off, it’s really hard to put it back on.”
And did Bierman study these “worldwide indicators” before making such a claim? Even if the Greenland ice sheet does disappear, it won’t go in a flash like some magic trick or a tsunami. It would take decades at the least. There’d be time to adapt, and for nations to claim and fight for new territory. And there’d be time for anyone affected by the gradual sea level rise to move and adapt.
Even at high end warming estimates it would take hundreds of years to melt the Greenland ice sheet. The problem for future generations is that they will never have stable coastlines.
Had to get that last dig in. Actually what we NOW know is that we know even less than we thought.
I used to date ice. Then I met a Dutch girl.
And once you clear it off, it’s really hard to put it back on.”
It’s also hard to clear it off.
They gave ti add the last bit to get their paper published. Even though they know that this planet has done nothing but cool through it’s life.
if all the skeptics agreed to what ever it is the alarmists want would they give up on needing funding? it might be worth it given the drain they are on the public purse
I don’t see the article in Science. However, the following is interesting. They use the paired cosmogenic nucleotides 26Al and 10Be. Those are standards in geochemistry to measure erosion. The length of time a rock is buried after being exposed to cosmic rays on the surface can be determined by measuring the ratio of these cosmogenic isotopes in the sample. 26Al has a 0.7 myr half life, and 10Be 1.3 to 1.5 myr. See the second ref below for a discussion of dating methodology.
http://gsabulletin.gsapubs.org/content/early/2013/07/23/B30813.1
Constraining landscape history and glacial erosivity using paired cosmogenic nuclides in Upernavik, northwest Greenland
Lee B. Corbett1, Paul R. Bierman1, Joseph A. Graly1, Thomas A. Neumann1 and Dylan H. Rood
Abstract
21Ne is also useful. See http://noblegas.berkeley.edu/~noblegas/files/BalcoShuster(2009b)_Al_Be_Ne_burial_dating.pdf. You can read the entire article.
“The ice sheet will not survive.” I’m very sorry to hear such unscientific garbage from people who just did such a good research project.
Why garbage? About a year ago, Dahl-Jensen of the Niels Bohr Institute did a similar ice core study of Greenland. They found that during the Eemian, the warmer interglacial that preceded our own interglacial period (the Holocene), Greenland was about 8 degrees warmer than today for at least 6,000 years. During that time period, it lost 1/4 of its ice, or about 6 feet (note the U Vermont researchers say that if all of Greenland’s ice melted, it would be 23 feet, so 1/4 of that is almost 6 feet). That translates to a little over an inch per century over 60 centuries.
There isn’t any way we are going to keep putting CO2 up, century after century, once solar cells become cost effective, and can be put on rooftops and sides of buildings, and in pretty much any desert. So these scientists should know better than to say Greenland’s ice won’t survive.
Here is the link to the Dahl Jensen research:
http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/news/news13/greenland-ice-cores-reveal-warm-climate-of-the-past/
There’s something ancient in the icebox
————
Sounds like someone has been looking in my refrigerator.
Stephen Singer says:
April 17, 2014 at 5:46 pm
“Anybody think they know where the current continents are going to be in say 1-100 million years from now”
See link :
https://www.classzone.com/books/earth_science/terc/content/visualizations/es0807/es0807page01.cfm?chapter_no=visualization