the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 30 Jun 2025
East Greenland Ice Sheet retreat history during the last deglaciation
Abstract. The lack of geological constraints on past ice-sheet change in marine-based sectors of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) following the Last Glacial Maximum limits our ability to assess (1) the drivers of ice-sheet change, and (2) the performance of ice-sheet models that are benchmarked against the paleo-record of GrIS change. Here, we provide new in situ 10Be surface exposure chronologies of ice-sheet margin retreat from the outer Scoresby Sund and Storstrømmen Glacier regions in eastern and northeastern Greenland, respectively. Ice retreated from Rathbone Island, east of Scoresby Sund, by ~14.1 ka, recording some of the earliest documentations of terrestrial deglaciation in Greenland. The mouth of Scoresby Sund deglaciated by ~13.2 ka, and retreated at an average rate of ~43 m/yr between 13.2 ka and 9.7 ka. Storstrømmen Glacier retreated from the outer coast to within ~3 km of the modern ice margin between ~12.7 ka and 8.6 ka at an average rate of ~28 m/yr. Retreat then slowed or reached a stillstand as ice retreated ~3 km between ~8.6 ka to the modern ice margin at ~8.0 ka. These retreat rates are consistent with late glacial and Holocene estimates for marine-terminating outlet glaciers across East Greenland, and comparable to modern retreat rates observed at the largest ice streams in northeastern, and northwestern Greenland.
Competing interests: This information product has been peer reviewed and approved for publication as a preprint by the U.S. Geological Survey.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(4014 KB)
-
Supplement
(44 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(4014 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(44 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2780', Anonymous Referee #1, 29 Jul 2025
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jacob Anderson, 17 Sep 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-2780/egusphere-2025-2780-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jacob Anderson, 17 Sep 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2780', Anonymous Referee #2, 01 Aug 2025
Anderson et al. present a chronology of post-Last Glacial Maximum Greenland Ice Sheet retreat at Scoresby Sund and Storstrømmen Isbræ based on cosmogenic nuclide 10Be exposure dating. The exposure ages from erratic boulders and bedrock from these regions, when compared to radiocarbon ages and other in situ 10Be-dated samples, are consistent with the timing and rates of retreat documented at other sites across east and northeast Greenland. The patterns inferred from calculated ice margin retreat rates are also consistent with modern day observations. The additional dates and constraints presented in this study contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of Greenland ice sheet dynamics, and I would recommend publication. Below is a short list of minor comments.
Minor comments
It may be beneficial to readers who are new to this topic to provide a very brief description of the use of in situ 10Be along with citations (e.g., Nishiizumi et al., 1989; Lal, 1991; maybe Ivy-Ochs and Briner, 2014 for an overview/summary) so they can better familiarize themselves with the dating methods and other concepts (i.e., inheritance) discussed in this paper.
L45: The acronym “SI” is not used elsewhere in the manuscript – would recommend removing it. On a related note, “ZI” is only used once in L92. Perhaps consider just using Zachariae Isstrom instead.
L91-99 provides a list of already available retreat chronologies in east and northeast Greenland. In addition to the general explanation in L58-65, it may benefit the reader to explain the reasoning why additional dates from the two specific regions presented in this study are necessary.
Fig.3B: Consider including ages at Uunarteq and Kap Brewster, as well
Table 2: 23DMH-CR1 is italicized in Table 2 as an outlier, but it is not italicized in Fig.5
L279: 26.5 ± 0.6 ka should be 26.4 ± 0.6 ka
L307: “and are inboard of the M1 moraine,” and “On the northern margin of the island…”
Fig.7: It may be considerate to define any acronyms (i.e., TCN) in the caption for those readers who first browse a paper’s figures to understand the main points before reading in detail
L397: Delete “from”
L416: Change “At the Store Koldewey Trough, located west of Store Koldewey Island…” to “At the Store Koldewey Trough, located east of Store Koldewey Island…”
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2780-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jacob Anderson, 17 Sep 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-2780/egusphere-2025-2780-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jacob Anderson, 17 Sep 2025
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2780', Meredith Kelly, 25 Aug 2025
We want to let the authors know about our recently published work (Kelly et al., 2025: https://authors.elsevier.com/sd/article/S0277-3791(25)00351-8) that includes a review of our prior work (Hall et al., 2008a, 2008b, 2010; Kelly et al., 2008; Levy et al., 2016) and new data for the Milne Land stade moraines in the Scoresby Sund Region. The Milne Land stade moraines, deposited by mountain glaciers and ice-sheet outlets, occur ~100-150 km inland from the sites reported by Anderson et al. Our data show that recession to inboard of these moraines occurred by at least ~14 ka, creating a stratigraphic inversion when considered together with the ages presented in Anderson et al. Our data should be considered when determining rates of ice retreat in the Scoresby Sund Region.
Meredith Kelly, Thomas Lowell, Brenda Hall
References cited:
Hall, B.L., Baroni, C., Denton, G.H., 2010. Relative sea-level changes, Schuchert Dal, East Greenland, with implications for ice extent in late-glacial and Holocene times. Quaternary Science Reviews 29, 3370–3378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2010.03.013
Hall, B., Baroni, C., Denton, G., Kelly, M.A., Lowell, T., 2008a. Relative sea-level change, Kjove Land, Scoresby Sund, East Greenland: Implications for seasonality in Younger Dryas time. Quaternary Science Reviews 27, 2283–2291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2008.08.001
Hall, B.L., Baroni, C., Denton, G.H., 2008b. The most extensive Holocene advance in the Stauning Alper, East Greenland, occurred in the Little Ice Age. Polar Research 27, 128–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-8369.2008.00058.x
Kelly, M.A., Lowell, T.V., Hall, B.L., Levy, L.B., Smith, C.A., Salamido, K., Schwartz, R., Howley, J.A., 2025. Relative summer temperature changes from glacial fluctuations in the Scoresby Sund region, Central East Greenland, during late-glacial time. Quaternary Science Reviews 367, 109531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2025.109531
Kelly, M.A., Lowell, T.V., Hall, B.L., Schaefer, J.M., Finkel, R.C., Goehring, B.M., Alley, R.B., Denton, G.H., 2008. A 10Be chronology of lateglacial and Holocene mountain glaciation in the Scoresby Sund region, east Greenland: implications for seasonality during lateglacial time. Quaternary Science Reviews 27, 2273–2282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2008.08.004
Levy, L.B., Kelly, M.A., Lowell, T.V., Hall, B.L., Howley, J.A., Smith, C.A., 2016. Coeval fluctuations of the Greenland ice sheet and a local glacier, central East Greenland, during late glacial and early Holocene time. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 1623–1631. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL067108
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2780-CC1 -
AC3: 'Reply on CC1', Jacob Anderson, 17 Sep 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-2780/egusphere-2025-2780-AC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on CC1', Jacob Anderson, 17 Sep 2025
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2780', Anonymous Referee #1, 29 Jul 2025
The manuscript by Anderson et al provides new information on the last deglaciation of NE Greenland. Based on 29 10Be ages from Scoresby Sund and Storstrømmen Isbræ, they add to the existing geochronological data from the area. Overall, the new data is not surprising but generally supports the existing deglaciation chronology. The data is furthermore used to constrain the retreat rates from the outer coast to the present-day ice margin. Based on the compilation of data, they calculated retreat rates of 43 to 28 m/yr. These estimates are similar to what has previously been reported and identical to modern observations of ice retreat. One could be critical and argue that the new results lack novelty and are insufficient to warrant a new publication. However, I find it very valuable as it provides more data to constrain the deglaciation of NE Greenland – an area where little work has been done. Accordingly, I recommend publication as it provides one more piece in the puzzle of the deglaciation history of NE Greenland.
Overall, I find the manuscript well-written, and the data support the conclusions. Besides some general comments, I have only a few minor comments that are all provided to improve the quality of the manuscript.
General comments:
- Re-calibration of 14 The regional dR (-46 +/- 57) for East Greenland (cf. Pearce et al., 2023) has not been used. Instead, a local dR has been used. However, it is unclear how the local dR’s have been determined. Did you take the average of the nearest datapoints for each sample?
- The title is a little misleading. It gives the impression that the focus of the study is the regional ice sheet history of East Greenland. However, this is not the case, and the title should reflect that it is a more local study of two study sites in Scoresby Sund and Storstrømmen Isbræ.
- The potential link between a readvance/stabilisation at Storstrømmen Glacier and the 8.2 ka cold event is rather weak and should be toned down (see comment below).
Minor comments:
Line 14: As written in the abstract – the study area concerns Scoresby Sund and Storstrømmen Glacier and this should be reflected in the title.
Line 45: Change Storstrømmen ”Isstrøm” to ”Glacier”
Line 57: It would be relevant to add a sentence on the Holocene history of NEGIS i.e. Weidick et al., 1996; Bennike and Weidick 2001; Larsen et al., 2018; Roberts et al., 2024
Line 60: Leger et al have made an excellent review of the overall deglaciation history of Greenland based on existing data. However, the citation to their work here is misplaced as they don’t provide any new data in East Greenland, unlike the other cited papers.
Line 70: In Larsen et al., 2022, there are more comprehensive ice margin outlines in NE and E Greenland that could be added to the figure.
Line 96: Roberts et al., 2024 are determining the thinning history of 79N based on several dip-stick profiles. For the retreat history, it would be more accurate to cite Bennike and Weidick 2001; Larsen et al., 2018.
Line 100-105: This paragraph is not very relevant for this study.
Line 135: Add Germania Land and other place names to figure 1. The Milne Land moraines are discontinuous but have been inferred to run parallel to the coast from Scoresby Sund to Germania Land. However, it has only been dated around Scoresby Sund and the correlation is uncertain.
Figure 3: The age estimate from Levy et al is based on several 10Be dates. I suggest adding this information to the figure caption or to the figure as n=x next to the 10Be age.
I would make Panel A bigger and add the weighted mean from each site below the individual 10Be dates. Then Panel B could be omitted.
Line 159: Change Storstrømmen ”Isstrøm” to ”Glacier”
Figure 4: The age estimates are based on several 10Be dates from each site. I suggest adding this information to the figure caption or to the figure as n=x next to the 10Be age. It would also be relevant to include the 10Be ages from Håkansson et al. and Skov et al on the figure, although they are not used to calculate retreat rates.
Line 230 (table 2): Why are all the samples from Storstrømmen used to calculate a mean age? It would be more relevant to provide the mean ages of M1, and outboard.
Line 321. In the discussion of the deglaciation of Scoresby Sund I miss a discussion of the previous work of Hall et al., 2008a, b; Kelly et al., 2008 from Kjove Land, Gurreholm dal and Schuchert dal.
Figure 6: I suggest adding the calculated weighted mean, excluding outliers from table 2, to the camel plots.
Figure 7: It is not clear which 10Be + 14C dates have been used to constrain the retreat history. Maybe this could be highlighted on Figure 3 + 4?
Line 375: Within uncertainty, the M1 moraine (8.6 +- 0.3 ka) could be related to the 8.2 ka event when excluding one outlier of 9.6 ka. However, in theory, it might also be related to the 9.3 ka event if the samples dated reflect the stabilisation of the moraine rather than the deposition of the moraine cf. Heyman et al., 2011. Or something unrelated to climate - the glacier is retreating to a pinning point (the island), and this could halt the ice retreat and give rise to the deposition of moraine M1. Given that the authors only have data from one moraine, it is a little far-fetched to speculate that the ice sheet reacted to the 8.2 ka event despite compelling evidence from W Greenland (c.f. Young et al.). I urge the authors to tone down the potential relation to the 8.2 ka event (paragraphs line 375-397).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2780-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jacob Anderson, 17 Sep 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-2780/egusphere-2025-2780-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2780', Anonymous Referee #2, 01 Aug 2025
Anderson et al. present a chronology of post-Last Glacial Maximum Greenland Ice Sheet retreat at Scoresby Sund and Storstrømmen Isbræ based on cosmogenic nuclide 10Be exposure dating. The exposure ages from erratic boulders and bedrock from these regions, when compared to radiocarbon ages and other in situ 10Be-dated samples, are consistent with the timing and rates of retreat documented at other sites across east and northeast Greenland. The patterns inferred from calculated ice margin retreat rates are also consistent with modern day observations. The additional dates and constraints presented in this study contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of Greenland ice sheet dynamics, and I would recommend publication. Below is a short list of minor comments.
Minor comments
It may be beneficial to readers who are new to this topic to provide a very brief description of the use of in situ 10Be along with citations (e.g., Nishiizumi et al., 1989; Lal, 1991; maybe Ivy-Ochs and Briner, 2014 for an overview/summary) so they can better familiarize themselves with the dating methods and other concepts (i.e., inheritance) discussed in this paper.
L45: The acronym “SI” is not used elsewhere in the manuscript – would recommend removing it. On a related note, “ZI” is only used once in L92. Perhaps consider just using Zachariae Isstrom instead.
L91-99 provides a list of already available retreat chronologies in east and northeast Greenland. In addition to the general explanation in L58-65, it may benefit the reader to explain the reasoning why additional dates from the two specific regions presented in this study are necessary.
Fig.3B: Consider including ages at Uunarteq and Kap Brewster, as well
Table 2: 23DMH-CR1 is italicized in Table 2 as an outlier, but it is not italicized in Fig.5
L279: 26.5 ± 0.6 ka should be 26.4 ± 0.6 ka
L307: “and are inboard of the M1 moraine,” and “On the northern margin of the island…”
Fig.7: It may be considerate to define any acronyms (i.e., TCN) in the caption for those readers who first browse a paper’s figures to understand the main points before reading in detail
L397: Delete “from”
L416: Change “At the Store Koldewey Trough, located west of Store Koldewey Island…” to “At the Store Koldewey Trough, located east of Store Koldewey Island…”
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2780-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jacob Anderson, 17 Sep 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-2780/egusphere-2025-2780-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jacob Anderson, 17 Sep 2025
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2780', Meredith Kelly, 25 Aug 2025
We want to let the authors know about our recently published work (Kelly et al., 2025: https://authors.elsevier.com/sd/article/S0277-3791(25)00351-8) that includes a review of our prior work (Hall et al., 2008a, 2008b, 2010; Kelly et al., 2008; Levy et al., 2016) and new data for the Milne Land stade moraines in the Scoresby Sund Region. The Milne Land stade moraines, deposited by mountain glaciers and ice-sheet outlets, occur ~100-150 km inland from the sites reported by Anderson et al. Our data show that recession to inboard of these moraines occurred by at least ~14 ka, creating a stratigraphic inversion when considered together with the ages presented in Anderson et al. Our data should be considered when determining rates of ice retreat in the Scoresby Sund Region.
Meredith Kelly, Thomas Lowell, Brenda Hall
References cited:
Hall, B.L., Baroni, C., Denton, G.H., 2010. Relative sea-level changes, Schuchert Dal, East Greenland, with implications for ice extent in late-glacial and Holocene times. Quaternary Science Reviews 29, 3370–3378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2010.03.013
Hall, B., Baroni, C., Denton, G., Kelly, M.A., Lowell, T., 2008a. Relative sea-level change, Kjove Land, Scoresby Sund, East Greenland: Implications for seasonality in Younger Dryas time. Quaternary Science Reviews 27, 2283–2291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2008.08.001
Hall, B.L., Baroni, C., Denton, G.H., 2008b. The most extensive Holocene advance in the Stauning Alper, East Greenland, occurred in the Little Ice Age. Polar Research 27, 128–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-8369.2008.00058.x
Kelly, M.A., Lowell, T.V., Hall, B.L., Levy, L.B., Smith, C.A., Salamido, K., Schwartz, R., Howley, J.A., 2025. Relative summer temperature changes from glacial fluctuations in the Scoresby Sund region, Central East Greenland, during late-glacial time. Quaternary Science Reviews 367, 109531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2025.109531
Kelly, M.A., Lowell, T.V., Hall, B.L., Schaefer, J.M., Finkel, R.C., Goehring, B.M., Alley, R.B., Denton, G.H., 2008. A 10Be chronology of lateglacial and Holocene mountain glaciation in the Scoresby Sund region, east Greenland: implications for seasonality during lateglacial time. Quaternary Science Reviews 27, 2273–2282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2008.08.004
Levy, L.B., Kelly, M.A., Lowell, T.V., Hall, B.L., Howley, J.A., Smith, C.A., 2016. Coeval fluctuations of the Greenland ice sheet and a local glacier, central East Greenland, during late glacial and early Holocene time. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 1623–1631. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL067108
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2780-CC1 -
AC3: 'Reply on CC1', Jacob Anderson, 17 Sep 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-2780/egusphere-2025-2780-AC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on CC1', Jacob Anderson, 17 Sep 2025
Peer review completion
Post-review adjustments
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,076 | 77 | 25 | 1,178 | 26 | 35 | 51 |
- HTML: 1,076
- PDF: 77
- XML: 25
- Total: 1,178
- Supplement: 26
- BibTeX: 35
- EndNote: 51
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Jacob T. H. Anderson
Nicolás E. Young
Allie Balter-Kennedy
Karlee K. Prince
Caleb K. Walcott-George
Brandon L. Graham
Joanna Charton
Jason P. Briner
Joerg M. Schaefer
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(4014 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(44 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
The manuscript by Anderson et al provides new information on the last deglaciation of NE Greenland. Based on 29 10Be ages from Scoresby Sund and Storstrømmen Isbræ, they add to the existing geochronological data from the area. Overall, the new data is not surprising but generally supports the existing deglaciation chronology. The data is furthermore used to constrain the retreat rates from the outer coast to the present-day ice margin. Based on the compilation of data, they calculated retreat rates of 43 to 28 m/yr. These estimates are similar to what has previously been reported and identical to modern observations of ice retreat. One could be critical and argue that the new results lack novelty and are insufficient to warrant a new publication. However, I find it very valuable as it provides more data to constrain the deglaciation of NE Greenland – an area where little work has been done. Accordingly, I recommend publication as it provides one more piece in the puzzle of the deglaciation history of NE Greenland.
Overall, I find the manuscript well-written, and the data support the conclusions. Besides some general comments, I have only a few minor comments that are all provided to improve the quality of the manuscript.
General comments:
Minor comments:
Line 14: As written in the abstract – the study area concerns Scoresby Sund and Storstrømmen Glacier and this should be reflected in the title.
Line 45: Change Storstrømmen ”Isstrøm” to ”Glacier”
Line 57: It would be relevant to add a sentence on the Holocene history of NEGIS i.e. Weidick et al., 1996; Bennike and Weidick 2001; Larsen et al., 2018; Roberts et al., 2024
Line 60: Leger et al have made an excellent review of the overall deglaciation history of Greenland based on existing data. However, the citation to their work here is misplaced as they don’t provide any new data in East Greenland, unlike the other cited papers.
Line 70: In Larsen et al., 2022, there are more comprehensive ice margin outlines in NE and E Greenland that could be added to the figure.
Line 96: Roberts et al., 2024 are determining the thinning history of 79N based on several dip-stick profiles. For the retreat history, it would be more accurate to cite Bennike and Weidick 2001; Larsen et al., 2018.
Line 100-105: This paragraph is not very relevant for this study.
Line 135: Add Germania Land and other place names to figure 1. The Milne Land moraines are discontinuous but have been inferred to run parallel to the coast from Scoresby Sund to Germania Land. However, it has only been dated around Scoresby Sund and the correlation is uncertain.
Figure 3: The age estimate from Levy et al is based on several 10Be dates. I suggest adding this information to the figure caption or to the figure as n=x next to the 10Be age.
I would make Panel A bigger and add the weighted mean from each site below the individual 10Be dates. Then Panel B could be omitted.
Line 159: Change Storstrømmen ”Isstrøm” to ”Glacier”
Figure 4: The age estimates are based on several 10Be dates from each site. I suggest adding this information to the figure caption or to the figure as n=x next to the 10Be age. It would also be relevant to include the 10Be ages from Håkansson et al. and Skov et al on the figure, although they are not used to calculate retreat rates.
Line 230 (table 2): Why are all the samples from Storstrømmen used to calculate a mean age? It would be more relevant to provide the mean ages of M1, and outboard.
Line 321. In the discussion of the deglaciation of Scoresby Sund I miss a discussion of the previous work of Hall et al., 2008a, b; Kelly et al., 2008 from Kjove Land, Gurreholm dal and Schuchert dal.
Figure 6: I suggest adding the calculated weighted mean, excluding outliers from table 2, to the camel plots.
Figure 7: It is not clear which 10Be + 14C dates have been used to constrain the retreat history. Maybe this could be highlighted on Figure 3 + 4?
Line 375: Within uncertainty, the M1 moraine (8.6 +- 0.3 ka) could be related to the 8.2 ka event when excluding one outlier of 9.6 ka. However, in theory, it might also be related to the 9.3 ka event if the samples dated reflect the stabilisation of the moraine rather than the deposition of the moraine cf. Heyman et al., 2011. Or something unrelated to climate - the glacier is retreating to a pinning point (the island), and this could halt the ice retreat and give rise to the deposition of moraine M1. Given that the authors only have data from one moraine, it is a little far-fetched to speculate that the ice sheet reacted to the 8.2 ka event despite compelling evidence from W Greenland (c.f. Young et al.). I urge the authors to tone down the potential relation to the 8.2 ka event (paragraphs line 375-397).