Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Trees under retreating glaciers

  1. Jan 14, 2009 #1
    Three years ago, I spend some days on the Swiss Alps.
    All the glaciers we visited were in clear recession. Ok, this is a global issue.
    But I was suprised by a little detail in the Ferpècle Glacier, in the Évolène valley, near Sion, Switzerland.

    There were several trees on the river bed, just below the ice edge. A clearly retreating ice edge, one has to say. On the first photo, you'll see the remains of the tree on the river bed.
    The second photo show a general view from a recent morraine. You'll see the same hole on the glacier from which melt waters flow in its context. The area is at 2000m above sea level and you'll see no trees.

    Can anyone explain where these trees came from? I say trees because there were several of them, and we could even see one inside the glacier.
     

    Attached Files:

  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 14, 2009 #2

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Glaciers are slow, but not "frozen" in the sense that they do not move. When they advance, they pretty much knock down and engulf anything in the way. Since the trees knocked down by the last advance are encased in ice and protected from air, the wood can be preserved for a very long time (remember the "ice-man" found in a glacier years ago, with his clothing, tools, and weapons well-preserved?). No mystery.
     
  4. Jan 14, 2009 #3
    Ok. Agree, but let me clarify: nowdays, at 2000m (6500feet?) there are no trees on that area. And as you point, those trees were even higher when the glacier started to grow.

    So the question is: where were those trees growing when the glacier started to grow? And when the glacier started to grow?
     
  5. Jan 14, 2009 #4

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    As temperatures change, the borders between boreal forest/tundra change. Apparently, at some time prior to the last glacial advance, it was once warm enough to allow trees to grow at high elevations.
     
  6. Jan 14, 2009 #5

    Xnn

    User Avatar

    About 10,000 years ago, the earths orbit was differant than it is now, in that the perihelion occured during the northern hemisphere summer. This made summers warm enough to melt high elevation glaciers and resulted in Alpine glaciers retreating significantly.

    Since that time, as the earths orbit shifted towards cooler NH summers, Alpine glaciers have been generally advancing. So, those trees most likely grew in the general area between after 10,000 years ago.

    At about 6,000 years ago, the glaciers started to advance and have buried many things.

    It has only been fairly recently, with global warming, that the glaciers have retreated, despite perihilion occuring in the winter, and started exposing areas that were buried.
     
  7. Jan 14, 2009 #6
    So do you really think that those trees are 10000 years old?
     
  8. Jan 14, 2009 #7

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Carbon-dating would tell, though if a previous glacial recession had left them uncovered for many years, they would have rotted. It's probably safe to assume that these trees were buried in the last glacial advance in that region.
     
  9. Jan 14, 2009 #8
    I was wondering if the trees were not so old, and covered by the glacier not much higher than where they are now. The alternative is that they are as old as it seems, but then they must come from much higher!

    Basically, if Little Ice Age was playing a role on this issue, or a proof of a warmer Europe when Rome was ruling.
     
  10. Jan 14, 2009 #9

    Xnn

    User Avatar

    Otzi the ice man was about buried 5300 years ago. So, those trees could be roughly between 5,300 to 10,000 years old; at least that is my guess.

    Besides Otzi, I believe they also found other human belongings under some other alpine glacier that were about 6,500 years old. Apparently, ice is a great preservative. Maybe somebody will publish an actual scientific study them and come up with a precise age.
     
  11. Jan 14, 2009 #10
    Really nothing to speculate before having carbon dates. It could be anything. Remember that there were more trees under the ice. Like this "needle" under the ice core of NGRIP

    needlewhite.jpg

    However it turned out to be willow bark and it was beyond carbon dating. The ice around it was much older than 100,000 years.
     
  12. Jan 14, 2009 #11
    Of course carbon dating would tell, but I do not know if it has been dated.
    For me it is hard to imagine that such big trees suffering ice pressure for 10000 years apear in one piece. Melt waters on that area are milky due to glacier erosion on local rock.
     
  13. Jan 18, 2009 #12

    LURCH

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Sort of an aside, but...Vivesdn; you're a lot younger than I'd assumed.
     
  14. Jan 19, 2009 #13
    Ok. I should have spent some seconds to crop the picture.
    That kid today is still 6.

    D
     

    Attached Files:

  15. Jan 19, 2009 #14
    Really great photos, I love to visit spots like that.
     
  16. Jan 19, 2009 #15

    LURCH

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I would guess (and that's all it is) that the glacier picked up those trees somewhere below the treeline, and dragged them to their current location.
     
  17. Jan 19, 2009 #16

    mgb_phys

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Glaciers don't move up the valley as such, they melt at the end so the 'end point' moves up but it doesn't drag anything,
     
  18. Jan 20, 2009 #17
    It's even possible that the Gulf Stream was stronger in the recent past and that this brought even warmer weather than that of today to mainland Europe.
     
  19. Jan 20, 2009 #18

    mgb_phys

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    The climate for the last 20,000 years is pretty well known.
    Current glaciers are generally the remains of the glaciers formed in the last ice age.

    Glaciers gradually flow down the alley, bringing debris with them, as more snow falls at the top. The extent (position of the end) of the glacier does vary during the year (summer-winter) and year to year as temperatures change - although on average they have been retreating.

    The problem is that the ice preserves things rather well so without analysis it's difficult to tell if these trees are 1 year or 1000years old!
    It could be that a few warm decades allowed trees to grow in front of a retreating glacier which then expaned, or some trees might have grown in a sunny sheltered spot above the official tree line and were washed own into the glacier. Or they could even be the remains of some structure built last summer and have only just been covered.
     
  20. Jan 20, 2009 #19

    LURCH

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Or (as I was speculating) the tree could have grown below the treeline in a valley somewhere "upstream," within the glacier, then been pushed uphill (but "downstream") to where they currently lie.
     
  21. Jan 20, 2009 #20

    mgb_phys

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    The current glaciers are well above the current treeline and presumably since the last ice age the glaciers and the tree line have both been moving up. Thats the confusion.
     
  22. Jan 27, 2009 #21
    What I've found in several places is that in the middle ages, glaciers where growing, at least in Europe. Settlements in Greenland and Iceland where abandoned due to crop failure.
    What I do not know is where was the tree line and where were the glaciers before that.

    Depending on the answer, it is unlikely that the trees are young or there is a chance that those trees are not so old.
     
  23. Jan 27, 2009 #22
    I read a report last year about alps glaciers that reported several periods of retreat and advances proven by dating trees. They showed the RWP and MWP as being warmer than today long enough for trees to advance to higher altitudes. They also had time to reach a fair age as shown by rings.
     
  24. Dec 13, 2009 #23
    Trees under Glaciers and Global Warming

    Googling the web, I found a lot of different sites describing where trees and entire spruce forests have been found under some recently retreating glaciers, in locations where they had apparently grown 5 to 10 thousand years ago.

    This indicates that at that time such glaciers did not cover the area were the trees were discovered, and since sliding ice masses of glaciers have the power to dislocate and move earth (including rocks, soil, and anything that grows on it) down hill, the forest or trees that were found probably had been growing a lot farther up the glacial bed then where they were recently found.

    So the glaciers were not at these locations when the trees grew. That means the world was warmer at that time, than now when the trees were found.

    Much warmer then now, and for a very long time to allow any environment to become favorable for very primitive plant life such as lichens and moss to establish at first and gradually built up to that allowing growth of non-pioneering species of trees.

    The question then must be asked who caused the world climate to warm up then? Who burnt all the oil and gas then to cause global warming?

    If present global warming is supposed to be caused by extra carbon dioxide being added to the atmosphere by man's increased burning of fossil fuels, then why were there ice ages during times when all the carbon dioxide that is now buried as fossil fuel was still in the atmosphere?

    Yes, it had to be all in the atmosphere before it was absorbed by plants, some of which were consumed by animals, and all of which then formed peat moss, coal, natural gas, etc.

    A wise man once said an expert is somebody who has learned more and more in his field, until he knows everything about nothing and nothing else.

    The man-made global warming experts need to look a little bit beyond their expertise, to see the same facts of life seen by us mere laymen.
     
  25. Dec 14, 2009 #24
    I have found a number of wood samples from beneath glaciers in Washington and Alaska. They have all dated from the period of 4000-6000 BP. In general glacier were more restricted then. The Neoglacial advances then occurred, with the Little Ice Age in the Pacific Northwest being as large as any of the neoglacial advances.
    I reviewed a paper earlier this year from the Alps
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...rig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_search
    There is another paper I recall that reviewed the dating of wood including from Ferpecle.
    http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118596688/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
    In British Columbia I reviewed another paper this year on the topic. The link provides much more detailed pictures and maps then the typical paper.
    http://www.sfu.ca/~jkoch/research/Garibaldi/holocene.htm [Broken]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  26. Dec 15, 2009 #25

    Xnn

    User Avatar

    The Holocene Thermal Optimium occured between 5,000 to 9,000 years ago.
    Depending on the location, some areas of the northern hemisphere were warmer than the present or at least what we used to consider as normal.

    The earths orbit was significantly differant back then with more intense sunshine during the northern hemisphere summers. Since that time, the earths orbit has gradually reduced the intensity of sunshine during the northern hemisphere summers and we would expect to see the advancement of glaciers and ice caps in the north.

    However, the current rate of rise of CO2 levels has more than compensated for the falling levels of Northern Hemisphere sunshine which is why the melt back is occuring now.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook