Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Greenland was nearly ice-free for extended periods during the Pleistocene

Nature volume 540, pages 252–255 (2016)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

The Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS) contains the equivalent of 7.4 metres of global sea-level rise1. Its stability in our warming climate is therefore a pressing concern. However, the sparse proxy evidence of the palaeo-stability of the GIS means that its history is controversial (compare refs 2 and 3 to ref. 4). Here we show that Greenland was deglaciated for extended periods during the Pleistocene epoch (from 2.6 million years ago to 11,700 years ago), based on new measurements of cosmic-ray-produced beryllium and aluminium isotopes (10Be and 26Al) in a bedrock core from beneath an ice core near the GIS summit. Models indicate that when this bedrock site is ice-free, any remaining ice is concentrated in the eastern Greenland highlands and the GIS is reduced to less than ten per cent of its current volume. Our results narrow the spectrum of possible GIS histories: the longest period of stability of the present ice sheet that is consistent with the measurements is 1.1 million years, assuming that this was preceded by more than 280,000 years of ice-free conditions. Other scenarios, in which Greenland was ice-free during any or all Pleistocene interglacials, may be more realistic. Our observations are incompatible with most existing model simulations that present a continuously existing Pleistocene GIS. Future simulations of the GIS should take into account that Greenland was nearly ice-free for extended periods under Pleistocene climate forcing.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: The GISP2 bedrock core and GIS deglaciation.
Figure 2: 10Be and 26Al data for the GISP2 bedrock.
Figure 3: Exposure–burial scenarios consistent with the data.

References

  1. Houghton, J. T. et al. (eds) Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2001)

  2. Bennike, O. et al. Early Pleistocene sediments on Store Koldewey, northeast Greenland. Boreas 39, 603–619 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Funder, S., Bennike, O., Bocher, J., Israelson, C. & Petersen, K. S. Late Pliocene Greenland—the Kap Kobenhavn Formation in North Greenland. Bull. Geol. Soc. Den. 48, 117–134 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bierman, P. R. et al. Preservation of a preglacial landscape under the center of the Greenland Ice Sheet. Science 344, 402–405 (2014)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. de Vernal, A. & Hillaire-Marcel, C. Natural variability of Greenland climate, vegetation, and ice volume during the past million years. Science 320, 1622–1625 (2008)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Reyes, A. V. et al. South Greenland ice-sheet collapse during Marine Isotope Stage 11. Nature 510, 525–528 (2014)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Willerslev, E. et al. Ancient biomolecules from deep ice cores reveal a forested Southern Greenland. Science 317, 111–114 (2007)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Alley, R. B. et al. History of the Greenland Ice Sheet: paleoclimatic insights. Quat. Sci. Rev. 29, 1728–1756 (2010)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  9. NEEM Community Members. Eemian interglacial reconstructed from a Greenland folded ice core. Nature 493, 489–494 (2013)

  10. Yau, A. M., Bender, M. L., Blunier, T. & Jouzel, J. Setting a chronology for the basal ice at Dye-3 and GRIP: implications for the long-term stability of the Greenland Ice Sheet. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 451, 1–9 (2016)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Calov, R., Robinson, A., Perrette, M. & Ganopolski, A. Simulating the Greenland ice sheet under present-day and palaeo constraints including a new discharge parameterization. Cryosphere 9, 179–196 (2015)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  12. Otto-Bliesner, B. L. & Brady, E. C. The sensitivity of the climate response to the magnitude and location of freshwater forcing: last glacial maximum experiments. Quat. Sci. Rev. 29, 56–73 (2010)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  13. Applegate, P. J., Parizek, B. R., Nicholas, R. E., Alley, R. B. & Keller, K. Increasing temperature forcing reduces the Greenland Ice Sheet’s response time scale. Clim. Dyn. 45, 2001–2011 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Stone, E. J., Lunt, D. J., Rutt, I. C. & Hanna, E. Investigating the sensitivity of numerical model simulations of the modern state of the Greenland ice-sheet and its future response to climate change. Cryosphere 4, 397–417 (2010)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  15. Gow, A. J. & Meese, D. A. Nature of basal debris in the GISP2 and Byrd ice cores and its relevance to bed processes. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Glacial Erosion and Sedimentation (ed. Collins, D.) 134–140 (International Glaciological Society, 1996)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Chmeleff, J., von Blanckenburg, F., Kossert, K. & Jakob, D. Determination of the Be-10 half-life by multicollector ICP-MS and liquid scintillation counting. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B 268, 192–199 (2010)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Korschinek, G. et al. A new value for the half-life of Be-10 by heavy-ion elastic recoil detection and liquid scintillation counting. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B 268, 187–191 (2010)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Nishiizumi, K. et al. Absolute calibration of 10Be AMS standards. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B 258, 403–413 (2007)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Nishiizumi, K. et al. In situ produced cosmogenic nuclides in GISP2 rock core from Greenland Summit. Eos 77, F428, abstr. OS41B-10 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Heisinger, B. et al. Production of selected cosmogenic radionuclides by muons: 2. Capture of negative muons. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 200, 357–369 (2002)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Heisinger, B. et al. Production of selected cosmogenic radionuclides by muons. 1. Fast muons. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 200, 345–355 (2002)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Balco, G. & Rovey, C. W. An isochron method for cosmogenic-nuclide dating of buried soils and sediments. Am. J. Sci. 308, 1083–1114 (2008)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  23. Granger, D. E. & Muzikar, P. F. Dating sediment burial with in situ-produced cosmogenic nuclides: theory, techniques, and limitations. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 188, 269–281 (2001)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Marrero, S. M. et al. Cosmogenic nuclide systematics and the CRONUScalc program. Quat. Geochronol. 31, 160–187 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Bender, M. L., Burgess, E., Alley, R. B., Barnett, B. & Clow, G. D. On the nature of the dirty ice at the bottom of the GISP2 ice core. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 299, 466–473 (2010)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Alley, R. B., Clark, P. U., Huybrechts, P. & Joughin, I. Ice-sheet and sea-level changes. Science 310, 456–460 (2005)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Fyke, J., Eby, M., Mackintosh, A. & Weaver, A. Impact of climate sensitivity and polar amplification on projections of Greenland Ice Sheet loss. Clim. Dyn. 43, 2249–2260 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Dutton, A. et al. Sea-level rise due to polar ice-sheet mass loss during past warm periods. Science 349, (2015)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Granger, D. E. in In-Situ Produced Cosmogenic Nuclides And Quantification Of Geological Processes (eds Siame, L., Bourles, D. & Brown, E. T. ) Spec. Pap. 415, 1–16 (The Geological Society of America, 2006)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Lisiecki, L. E. & Raymo, M. E. A Pliocene-Pleistocene stack of 57 globally distributed benthic delta O-18 records. Paleoceanography 20, PA1003 (2005)

  31. Schaefer, J. M. et al. High frequency Holocene glacier fluctuations in New Zealand differ from the northern signature. Science 324, 622–625 (2009)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Davis, J. C. et al. LLNL/UC AMS Facility and Research-Program. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B 52, 269–272 (1990)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  33. Granger, D. E. et al. New cosmogenic burial ages for Sterkfontein Member 2 Australopithecus and Member 5 Oldowan. Nature 522, 85–88 (2015)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Paul, M. Separation of isobars with a gas-filled magnet. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B 52, 315–321 (1990)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  35. Timmers, H., Weijers, T. D. M. & Elliman, R. G. Unique capabilities of heavy ion elastic recoil detection with gas ionization detectors. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B 190, 393–396 (2002)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Fifield, L. K., Tims, S. G., Gladkis, L. G. & Morton, C. R. 26Al measurements with 10Be counting statistics. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B 259, 178–183 (2007)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Balco, G., Stone, J. O., Lifton, N. A. & Dunai, T. J. A complete and easily accessible means of calculating surface exposure ages or erosion rates from Be-10 and Al-26 measurements. Quat. Geochronol. 3, 174–195 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Stone, J. Air pressure and cosmogenic isotope production. J. Geophys. Res. 105, 23753–23759 (2000)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Nishiizumi, K. Preparation of Al-26 AMS standards. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B 223/224, 388–392 (2004)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  40. Borchers, B. et al. Geological calibration of spallation production rates in the CRONUS-Earth project. Quat. Geochronol. 31, 188–198 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Phillips, F. M. et al. The CRONUS-Earth project: a synthesis. Quat. Geochronol. 31, 119–154 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Rovey, C. W. & Balco, G. Paleoclimatic interpretations of buried paleosols within the pre-Illinoian till sequence in northern Missouri, USA. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 417, 44–56 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Bierman, P. R., Marsella, K. A., Patterson, C., Davis, P. T. & Caffee, M. Mid-Pleistocene cosmogenic minimum-age limits for pre-Wisconsinan glacial surfaces in southwestern Minnesota and southern Baffin island: a multiple nuclide approach. Geomorphology 27, 25–39 (1999)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge help from the National Ice Core Laboratory (NICL) and thank the GISP2 steering committee for providing the bedrock core samples. J.M.S. acknowledges support by the Lamont Climate Center and the Comer Family Foundation. R.B.A. acknowledges support by the NSF (AGS 1338832), as do J.M.S., J.P.B. and N.E.Y. (PLR Arctic System Science Program number 1503959). We thank J. Fyke for assistance in producing Fig. 1b. G.B. acknowledges support from the Ann and Gordon Getty Foundation. M.W.C. acknowledges support from the US National Science Foundation, grant EAR-1153689. The pioneering cosmogenic-nuclide study of the GISP2 bedrock core under the lead of Kuni Nishiizumi in the late 1990s motivated our study. This is LDEO publication number 8068.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Geochemistry, Palisades, 10964, New York, USA

    Joerg M. Schaefer, Robert C. Finkel, Nicolas E. Young & Roseanne Schwartz

  2. Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University, New York, 10027, New York, USA

    Joerg M. Schaefer

  3. Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, 95064, California, USA

    Robert C. Finkel

  4. Berkeley, Geochronology

    Greg Balco

  5. Center, 2455 Ridge Road, Berkeley, 94709, California, USA

    Greg Balco

  6. Department of Geosciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

    Richard B. Alley

  7. Department of Physics and Astronomy, Purdue University, 525 Northwestern Avenue, West Lafayette, 47907, Indiana, USA

    Marc W. Caffee

  8. Department of Geology, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, 14260, New York, USA

    Jason P. Briner

  9. US Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, 03755, New Hampshire, USA

    Anthony J. Gow

Authors
  1. Joerg M. Schaefer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert C. Finkel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Greg Balco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Richard B. Alley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marc W. Caffee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jason P. Briner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Nicolas E. Young
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Anthony J. Gow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Roseanne Schwartz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

J.M.S. and R.C.F. initiated and coordinated the project, were in charge of the data production and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. G.B. provided the data analysis. R.B.A. participated in the GISP2 project, and provided glaciological expertise and model perspective. A.J.G. was part of the first scientist team at the GISP2 camp when the bedrock core was retrieved, examined the rock core and provided stratigraphic ice-bedrock expertise. M.W.C. measured the samples for Al isotopes. R.S. processed all the rock samples and did the Al and Be extraction. J.P.B. and N.E.Y. provided Arctic glacier expertise and prepared final figures. All authors read and edited multiple versions of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joerg M. Schaefer.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Additional information

Reviewer Information

Nature thanks P.-H. Blard, G. Milne and the other anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Figure 1 10Be and 26Al concentrations compared to production rates.

10Be (n = 5) and 26Al (n = 2) concentration–depth profiles compared to the depth dependence of nuclide production rates (including both spallogenic and muon production). In both a and b, the red and blue boxes represent 10Be (red) and 26Al (blue) measurements. The vertical dimension of each box represents a distinct segment of core, and vertical lines connect multiple core segments that were amalgamated for each 10Be or 26Al analysis. In most cases amalgamated segments were adjacent to each other, but in some cases (for example, the uppermost two core segments), they were separated by gaps. The width of the boxes shows measurement uncertainty (1σ; see Extended Data Table 1) on nuclide concentrations. In a, we attempt to fit the observations by assuming that the bedrock surface is the land surface, the erosion rate is zero, and by allowing the duration of a single period of exposure to vary. For this exercise we treat 10Be and 26Al separately, that is, the predictions are not forced to obey the production ratio. The continuous thin black lines show predicted nuclide concentrations for this model, and the discontinuous, darker, black bars show predicted nuclide concentrations averaged over depth ranges corresponding to each analysis. The black bars, therefore, are the model predictions that we compare to the measurements. This model cannot be fitted to the data, because observed nuclide concentrations do not decrease as rapidly as they would if the bedrock surface were the land surface during exposure. In b, we perform the same fitting exercise, but also include a thickness of shielding mass above the bedrock surface as an additional fitting parameter. This removes the systematic misfit shown in a and makes it possible to fit the observations. A cover thickness of 350 g cm−2 best fits the observations.

Extended Data Figure 2 Two-stage exposure histories fit to 10Be and 26Al measurements.

In a and d, the red and blue boxes represent 10Be (n = 5; red) and 26Al (n = 2; blue) measurements. The vertical dimension of each box represents a distinct segment of core, and vertical lines connect multiple core segments that were amalgamated for each 10Be or 26Al analysis. In most cases amalgamated segments were adjacent to each other, but in some cases (for example, the uppermost two core segments), they were separated by gaps. The width of the boxes shows measurement uncertainty (1σ; see Extended Data Tables 2 and 3) on nuclide concentrations. The thick black lines are nuclide concentrations predicted for each core segment by the best-fitting parameters of each model. b and e show the exposure history implied by the best-fitting parameters of each model compared to the LR04 oxygen isotope stack from ref. 30. Red bars represent periods of surface exposure and blue bars periods of cover by the ice sheet. c and f show observed nuclide concentrations compared to model predictions for samples in which both 10Be and 26Al were measured, normalized to production rates at their respective depths implied by each model, on a two-nuclide diagram29. Red ellipses are 68% confidence regions for the nuclide concentrations including measurement uncertainties only, and black dots are nuclide concentrations predicted by best-fitting model parameters. The solid black lines show the simple exposure region; darker dashed lines are isolines of burial in increments of 1 Myr, and lighter dotted lines are isolines of exposure time in increments of 0.1 Myr. a, b and c show the fit of model 1, the simplest possible model that fits the data, which includes a single period of surface exposure, a single period of burial, 350 g cm−2 of cover thickness above the bedrock surface during exposure, and zero surface erosion. In c, nuclide concentrations are normalized to production rates at sample depths below this additional cover thickness. This model provides a good fit to the measurements. The exposure history implied by the best-fitting parameters for model 1 (280-kyr exposure, 1.1 Myr burial) provides a maximum limiting constraint on the length of time the present ice sheet has been continuously present at the core site. d, e and f show the fit of model 1B, which includes a long period of continuous exposure with steady surface erosion, a single period of burial, and zero additional cover thickness above the bedrock surface. In f, nuclide concentrations are normalized to production rates at sample depths below the bedrock surface. This model cannot be adequately fitted to the observations.

Extended Data Figure 3 Two-stage exposure-burial models with four free parameters.

a–d show parameter values for two-stage exposure-burial models with four free parameters (model 1C: free parameters are exposure time texp, burial time, surface erosion rate during exposure, and additional cover thickness above the bedrock surface during exposure periods) that yield acceptable fits to the observations. All panels show the same set of results; only the axes differ. Note that model 1 with best-fitting parameters (280-kyr exposure, 1.1 Myr burial, zero surface erosion, 350 g cm−2 cover thickness) is an endmember of this distribution.

Extended Data Figure 4 Many-stage exposure histories fitted to 10Be and 26Al measurements.

In a, c, e and f, the red and blue boxes represent 10Be (red) and 26Al (blue) measurements. The vertical dimension of each box represents a distinct segment of core, and vertical lines connect multiple core segments that were amalgamated for each 10Be or 26Al analysis. In most cases amalgamated segments were adjacent to each other, but in some cases (for example, the uppermost two core segments), they were separated by gaps. The width of the boxes shows measurement uncertainty (1σ; see Extended Data Tables 2 and 3) on nuclide concentrations. The thick black lines are nuclide concentrations predicted for each core segment by the best-fitting parameters of each model. b, d, f and h show the exposure history implied by the best-fitting parameters of each model compared to the LR04 oxygen isotope stack from ref. 30. Red bars represent periods of surface exposure and blue bars periods of cover by the ice sheet. a and b show model 2, which is a dynamic steady state model with 100-kyr cycles. This model has one free parameter, which is the fraction of each cycle during which the site is ice-free, and assumes zero surface erosion and 350 g cm−2 cover thickness above the bedrock surface. The best-fitting length of ice-free periods for this model is 8,000 years. All other panels show models with ice-free conditions during some or all middle and late Pleistocene interglaciations, and have two free parameters: the duration of ice-free conditions during interglaciations, and the length of an initial ice-free period in the middle or early Pleistocene. c and d show a model in which the core site is ice-free during all interglacials within the period of 100-kyr-long glacial–interglacial cycles after 1.1 Myr ago, during an (arbitrarily long) series of short interglacials during 41-kyr-long glacial–interglacial cycles before 1.1 Myr ago, and during an initial longer period of exposure in the middle Pleistocene. The best-fitting duration of ice-free conditions during interglacials for this model is 4,200 years. e and f show ice-free conditions during MIS 9, MIS 11 and MIS 13, an (arbitrarily long) period of short ice-free interglaciations during 41-kyr-long cycles before 1.1 Myr ago, and an initial period of continuous exposure in the middle Pleistocene. The best-fitting duration of ice-free conditions during interglacials for this model is 7,400 years. g and h show ice-free conditions during MIS 9, MIS 11 and MIS 13, with (arbitrarily located) occasional ice-free periods in the early and middle Pleistocene. The best-fitting duration of ice-free conditions during interglacials for this model is 18,200 years.

Extended Data Table 1 10Be and 26Al concentrations of the GISP2 bedrock core
Full size table
Extended Data Table 2 GISP2 bedrock 10Be data
Full size table
Extended Data Table 3 GISP2 bedrock 26Al data
Full size table

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schaefer, J., Finkel, R., Balco, G. et al. Greenland was nearly ice-free for extended periods during the Pleistocene. Nature 540, 252–255 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature20146

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature20146

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing