Study: Greenland Ice Sheet was smaller 3000-5000 years ago than today

From the University of Buffalo

Clues in the Arctic fossil record suggest that 3-5,000 years ago, the ice sheet was the smallest it has been in the past 10,000 years

shells in a hand
Shells from Greenland. By dating fossils like these, scientists have come up with a new technique for determining when glaciers were smaller than they are today. Credit: Jason Briner

Summary:

  • Ice sheets are like bulldozers. As they grow, they push rocks, boulders, clams, fossils and other debris into piles called moraines.
  • By dating ancient clams in moraines, scientists have come up with a new technique for determining when glaciers were smaller than they are today.
  • The technique suggests that the Greenland Ice Sheet was at its smallest point in recent history 3-5,000 years ago — information that could improve our understanding of how ice responds to climate change.

BUFFALO, N.Y. — Think Greenland’s ice sheet is small today?

It was smaller — as small as it has ever been in recent history — from 3-5,000 years ago, according to scientists who studied the ice sheet’s history using a new technique they developed for interpreting the Arctic fossil record.

“What’s really interesting about this is that on land, the atmosphere was warmest between 9,000 and 5,000 years ago, maybe as late as 4,000 years ago. The oceans, on the other hand, were warmest between 5-3,000 years ago,” said Jason Briner, PhD, University at Buffalo associate professor of geology, who led the study.

“What it tells us is that the ice sheets might really respond to ocean temperatures,” he said. “It’s a clue to what might happen in the future as the Earth continues to warm.”

The findings appeared online on Nov. 22 in the journal Geology. Briner’s team included Darrell Kaufman, an organic geochemist from Northern Arizona University; Ole Bennike, a clam taxonomist from the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland; and Matthew Kosnik, a statistician from Australia’s Macquarie University.

The study is important not only for illuminating the history of Greenland’s ice sheet, but for providing geologists with an important new tool: A method of using Arctic fossils to deduce when glaciers were smaller than they are today.

Scientists have many techniques for figuring out when ice sheets were larger, but few for the opposite scenario.

“Traditional approaches have a difficult time identifying when ice sheets were smaller,” Briner said. “The outcome of our work is that we now have a tool that allows us to see how the ice sheet responded to past times that were as warm or warmer than present — times analogous to today and the near future.”

The technique the scientists developed involves dating fossils in piles of debris found at the edge of glaciers.

To elaborate: Growing ice sheets are like bulldozers, pushing rocks, boulders and other detritus into heaps of rubble called moraines.

Because glaciers only do this plowing when they’re getting bigger, logic dictates that rocks or fossils found in a moraine must have been scooped up at a time when the associated glacier was older and smaller.

So if a moraine contains fossils from 3,000 years ago, that means the glacier was growing — and smaller than it is today — 3,000 years ago.

This is exactly what the scientists saw in Greenland: They looked at 250 ancient clams from moraines in three western regions, and discovered that most of the fossils were between 3-5,000 years old.

The finding suggests that this was the period when the ice sheet’s western extent was at its smallest in recent history, Briner said.

“Because we see the most shells dating to the 5-3000-year period, we think that this is when the most land was ice-free, when large layers of mud and fossils were allowed to accumulate before the glacier came and bulldozed them up,” he said.

Because radiocarbon dating is expensive, Briner and his colleagues found another way to trace the age of their fossils.

Their solution was to look at the structure of amino acids — the building blocks of proteins — in the fossils of ancient clams. Amino acids come in two orientations that are mirror images of each other, known as D and L, and living organisms generally keep their amino acids in an L configuration.

When organisms die, however, the amino acids begin to flip. In dead clams, for example, D forms of aspartic acid start turning to L’s.

Because this shift takes place slowly over time, the ratio of D’s to L’s in a fossil is a giveaway of its age.

Knowing this, Briner’s research team matched D and L ratios in 20 Arctic clamshells to their radiocarbon-dated ages to generate a scale showing which ratios corresponded with which ages.

The researchers then looked at the D and L ratios of aspartic acid in the 250 Greenland clamshells to come up with the fossils’ ages.

Amino acid dating is not new, but applying it to the study of glaciers could help scientists better understand the history of ice — and climate change — on Earth.

The study was funded by the National Geographic Society and U.S. National Science Foundation.

Download High-Res Images:
Two researchers picking fossils out of a large rock-like entity

UB researchers Sam Kelley, left, and Sandra Cronauer pick fossils out of a Greenland moraine — a rock, sediment and shell pile created when a growing glacier bulldozed material in its path into a pile. Such fossils hold clues about the history of the Greenland Ice Sheet, a new study finds. Credit: Jason Briner

icebergs floating on water in front of a steep cliff

View of Upernavik Isfjord, where icebergs pass by on their way from Greenland to the ocean. A new study uses Arctic fossils to illuminate the history of the Greenland Ice Sheet, which drains huge volumes of ice through a few select glaciers that calve into the ocean. Credit: Jason Briner

an expanse of ice meeting water

A calving glacier on western Greenland. Glaciers like this flow on top of ocean mud, which contain fossils, scooping it into piles called moraines that sit at the glacier’s edge. Credit: Jason Brine

a hand holding whitish shells

Shells from Greenland. By dating fossils like these, scientists have come up with a new technique for determining when glaciers were smaller than they are today. Credit: Jason Briner

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

82 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
milodonharlani
November 22, 2013 12:33 pm

It’s refreshing to see real paleoclimate science being practiced.
Climate scientivists will have a hard time getting rid of the Holocene Optimum.

otsar
November 22, 2013 12:49 pm

Good work.
The climastrophists also have a rough time explaining away the rise and fall of the Maritime Archaic. Mostly it is just ignored, as with most other real findings.

Mike Bromley the Kurd
November 22, 2013 12:55 pm

Gee, an article where “this is important towards an understanding of climate change” actually might have some substance.
But then:
“It’s a clue to what might happen in the future as the Earth continues to warm.” right back to the old meme, as if ‘warming’ was something unnatural…and there was grant money for the picking.
Meh.

John
November 22, 2013 12:56 pm

This is pretty interesting, it shows the effects of lags, it seems to me.
Our present interglacial, the Holocene, was at its warmest about 8 K to 6 K years ago, and has been cooling since. However, even with the cooling, Greenland apparent continued to lose ice for another few thousand years. That is the lag, just as July and early August are very hot in the northern hemisphere, usually hotter than June 21, even though the summer solstice is June 21.
Then Greenland started to add ice, the beginning of the long descent into the next ice ago.
That has now reversed, with Greenland losing tiny amounts of mass, largely due to — got to say it, it is true — greenhouse gas emissions. My sense is that future losses will be quite small, since there was a 6,000 year period during the previous interglacial (the Eemian) when Greenland was about 8 degrees warmer than today, yet only lost about one inch per century (the Dahl Jensen article, from the Bohr institute, reported in WUWT several months ago).
So acknowledging the role of greenhouse emissions isn’t the same as saying catastrophe will soon happen, or we have to have a large social cost of carbon, it is just saying what is true.

Berényi Péter
November 22, 2013 1:04 pm

That’s consistent with the emergence of Saqqaq culture (the first human population) in western Greenland 4500 years ago. They went extinct 2800 years ago.

otsar
November 22, 2013 1:13 pm

Even though the explanation for the findings are aesthetically apealing, there are always the confounding factors. A long time ago I thought I somewhat understood glaciers after spending a year helping with some measurements of the Greenland ice cap in IGY 1968. After a talk with Roman Motyca, a glacier expert, at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks, I realized I knew nothing. Glaciers have their own internal surge-stick cycles which may be periodic or random from daily to hundreds of years which are also modulated by local and regional climatic conditions. It will require considerable more interference free work to get a hint of what happened and is happening with regards to glaciers and ice caps. The work by this group is a good effort a gathering data.

November 22, 2013 1:14 pm

That’s probably the really warm period around 1200 BC in Greenland, when it was damn cold in the temperate zone:
http://smpro.ca/crunch/GISP2Civil.png
http://environmentaljusticetv.wordpress.com/2013/08/17/climate-change-may-have-caused-demise-of-late-bronze-age-civilizations-latimes-com/

Bruce Cobb
November 22, 2013 1:16 pm

John says:
November 22, 2013 at 12:56 pm
That has now reversed, with Greenland losing tiny amounts of mass, largely due to — got to say it, it is true — greenhouse gas emissions.
Care to expound on how GGEs are melting the ice? Thought not.

dp
November 22, 2013 1:25 pm

A long time ago something happened that changed the framework within which weather happens. Historically we know this time as the beginning of the Little Ice Age. We don’t know what happened but we know how the weather responded – the Earth endured hundreds of years of cold weather. That event, what ever it was, ended after some unknown period, and the weather responded by returning to approximately what it was prior. We don’t know what the periods were for the initiating event that altered the climate framework or for the response the weather had for that change. We probably have the information carefully collected as to the exact cause but the exact cause has nothing to do with humanity and so offered no path for social engineering and so is ignored. Our go-to climate experts are certifiable morons.
We should probably start looking for the event that modified the framework and stop looking at the responses (such as receding glaciers, warming, increased CO2, SUVs) as if they were the cause. Knowing this might help us to understand what events cause the framework to change so drastically that we end up in these brief interglacial periods, because this one is going to end some day and no amount of social engineering is going to stop it. Along the way there will be – or at least can be – more events that tweak the climate framework in ways that create climate optimums and little ice ages. The Climate Consensus Age has ended and it’s time move beyond the morons and get back to hard science.
Australia and Canada have already started the process, and Japan is coming on board. It all starts with how you vote.

dp
November 22, 2013 1:26 pm

Mods – sorry, mistyped my email address in the previous post.
[Understood. Mod]

GeologyJim
November 22, 2013 1:27 pm

Just another reason I roll my eyes every time some “warming-doomster” declares that this or that is “UNPRECEDENTED”
CRIPES!! It’s all a matter of perspective and time-scale.
From my geological perspective, it is patently obvious that CO2 is largely immaterial in climate history.
BTW, just finished “The Chilling Stars” by Svensmark and Calder. Excellent readable summary of evidence for influence of cosmic rays on cloud formation and, thus, climate. Highly recommended!

Alec, aka Daffy Duck
November 22, 2013 1:33 pm

The glaciers in Glacier National Park are only a few thoundand years old…. Hints that it was a lot warmer 4,000 years ago
http://www.nature.nps.gov/geology/parks/glac/

Apoxonbothyourhouses
November 22, 2013 1:41 pm

For goodness sake stop bringing facts into an emotional / religious subject. AGW devotees will see what they want to see and surround themselves with like minded zealots – voila successful groupthink. All the time straining at gnats whilst unseeing of the elephant in the room.
In Oz we have a wonderful commentator called Gerard Henderson. His weekly epistle “Media Watch Dog” (not to be confused with the ABC’s contortions of the same name) this week expressed it as follows …..
“This wasn’t news. More like a (secular) Church where preacher Anna Fromberg got the congregation to join in her climate change chorus in a choir where everyone agreed with everyone else.”

November 22, 2013 1:46 pm

Buffalonians tend not to bother correcting people on this, but it should be “From the University at Buffalo”.

Bill
November 22, 2013 1:47 pm

During the period of time talked about in the article the northern hemisphere was at the tail end of the hypsithermal interval that lasted for approx. 4 thousand years . This time period was [very] arid and hot and greatly affected the archaic Native American culture.
[For other readers who don’t know your terms, please define hypsithermal. Mod]

otsar
November 22, 2013 1:54 pm

Over interpretation of the data is almost a sin. I dont know how they can come to the conclusion that the glaciers were smaller when the mollusks were growing. All it means is that the glaciers were not moving enough to reach the mollusk beds when mollusks were growing in the beds. The reasons for the glaciers not reaching the beds are many. Other data from the area, such as sediments that contain pollen, glacier silt, other life forms, etc, are needed in order to make a more credible fairy tale. The interpretations in my view are always fairy tales. The data, if high quality, may provide valuable insights in the future for other fairy tales that more accurately describe and make sense of reality. Science in my view is always a work in progress.

jimmi_the_dalek
November 22, 2013 2:04 pm

Gosh, 16 posts and nobody has mentioned the Vikings. Don’t you know it was all green when they were there otherwise why would it be called Greenland /sarc
The points made by otsar are interesting. If glaciers respond to local climate, then it means that
(a) you cannot conclude that, if a glacier retreats, it means that it is getting warming.
but also
(b) if a glacier retreats and exposes something interesting, then you cannot conclude it was warmer back then.
In fact, the simple act of retreating or advancing of on glacier shows nothing (presumably if they all do it however that does show something)

rabbit
November 22, 2013 2:23 pm

As I understand it, sea levels were lower 4000 years ago than they are today.
If this is so, and if Greenland had less ice, then other locations must have had much more ice. So where was the ice?

November 22, 2013 2:32 pm

Good article and seems to chip away at the “unprecedented” climate change claims. Dating by amino acid racemization has some problems accurately getting time frames, but looks like a good method. http://www.icr.org/article/amino-acid-racemization-dating-method/

November 22, 2013 2:33 pm

Is it possible that whatever was happening in Greenland 3000 – 5000 years ago was a local climate variation and not a global one? Not all climate changes are global, after all. One area can warm while another cools, right?

November 22, 2013 2:37 pm

Because radiocarbon dating is expensive, Briner and his colleagues found another way to trace the age of their fossils.
Their solution was to look at the structure of amino acids —

Say what? They didn’t use the generally accepted methodology to date their samples which is inexpensive enough that it appears in hundreds if not thousands of papers? Instead they substituted some other method they call D&L. Ooops, they DID use radiocarbon dating for 20 shells as a calibration for the other 250 shells. So they could afford to mount the expedition, and do radiocarbon dating on 20 shells, and amino acid profiles of 250…. Seriously, they couldn’t just do radiocarbon dating on the other 230, it was THAT much cheaper to count amino acids instead?
I smell a rat. Or a rotten clam. Well something stinks.
The vikings apparently found a much smaller ice sheet too, that’s why they settled there a thousand years ago.

November 22, 2013 2:48 pm

davidmhoffer says:
“The vikings apparently found a much smaller ice sheet too, that’s why they settled there a thousand years ago.”
They prospered there when it was colder in Europe but warmer in the Arctic:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/23/the-medieval-warm-period-in-the-arctic/#comment-1398577

clipe
November 22, 2013 2:53 pm

rabbit says:
November 22, 2013 at 2:23 pm
As I understand it, sea levels were lower 4000 years ago than they are today.
If this is so, and if Greenland had less ice, then other locations must have had much more ice. So where was the ice?
I don’t know but were there not whales and walruses in the Great Lakes about then?

DCA
November 22, 2013 2:54 pm

rabbit,
The same place it is today…Antartica

1 2 3 4