European Glacial Landscapes: The Holocene

European Glacial Landscapes: The Holocene presents the current state of knowledge on glacial landscapes of Europe and nearby areas over the Holocene to deduce the influence of atmospheric and oceanic currents and the insolation forcing variability and volcanic activity on Holocene paleoclimates, the existence of asynchronies in the timing of occurrence of glacier expansion and shrinkage during the Holocene, time lags between the identification of oceanic and atmospheric changes and those occurring in glacial extension during the Holocene, the role of Holocene glaciers on the climate of Europe, and on sea level variability, and the delimitation of landscapes that need special protection.

Students, academics and researchers in Geography, Geology, Environmental Sciences, Physics and Earth Science departments will find this book provides novel findings of all the major European Regions in a single publication, with updated information about Holocene glacial geomorphology and paleo-climatology and clear figures that model the landscapes covered.

• Provides a synthesis and summary of glacial processes in Europe over the Holocene period
• Features research from experts in palaeo-climatology, palaeo-oceanography and palaeo-glaciology
• Includes access to a companion website with an interactive map, photos of glacial features, and geospatial data related to European Glacial Landscapes

• Language: English
• Publisher: Elsevier Science
• Release date: Oct 21, 2023
• ISBN: 9780323997133

Book preview

Front Cover for European Glacial Landscapes - The Holocene - 1st edition - by David Palacios, Philip D. Hughes, Vincent Jomelli, Luis M. Tanarro

European Glacial Landscapes

The Holocene

Edited by

David Palacios

Department of Geography, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain

Philip D. Hughes

Department of Geography, School of Environment, Education and Development, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom

Vincent Jomelli

Aix-Marseille University, CNRS, IRD, Coll. France, INRAE, UM 34 CEREGE, Aix-en-Provence, France

Luis M. Tanarro

Department of Geography, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain

Table of Contents

Cover image

Title page

Copyright

List of contributors

About the editors

Part I: Introduction

Chapter 1. Introduction to the Holocene glacial landscapes

Abstract

Chapter Outline

1.1 The arrival of the Holocene in Europe

1.2 The status of European glaciers at the beginning of the Holocene

1.3 The meaning of the Holocene epoch

1.4 The Holocene and its climatic variability

1.5 The Holocene and its climatic forcing mechanisms

1.6 The Holocene and its atmospheric circulation variability

1.7 The evolution of sea level during the Holocene and its impact in the shorelines

1.8 Holocene environmental change and humans

1.9 The organisation of this book

References

Chapter 2. Homogenisation of cosmic-ray exposure ages

Abstract

Chapter Outline

References

Chapter 3. Quaternary interglacials

Abstract

Chapter Outline

3.1 Introduction

3.2 The concept of interglacial

3.3 The definition and the numbers of interglacials

3.4 The origin of interglacials

3.5 Differences between interglacials

3.6 The end of interglacials and the beginning of a new glaciation

3.7 The Holocene and the last interglacial

3.8 Conclusions

References

Chapter 4. Synthesis of Holocene glacial landscapes in Europe

Abstract

Chapter Outline

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Regional investigations

4.3 Conclusion

References

Part II: Climate changes during the Holocene in the Eastern North Atlantic and Europe

Chapter 5. Introduction to the Holocene climate

Abstract

Chapter Outline

5.1 Definition and formal subdivision of the Holocene

5.2 Sources of evidence for Holocene climate change

5.3 Timescales of climate variability

References

Chapter 6. Greenlandian Stage (Early Holocene, 11.7–8.2 ka)

Abstract

Chapter Outline

6.1 Onset of the Holocene

6.2 Early Holocene cold events (Preboreal Oscillation, 10.3, 9.3 and 8.2 ka events)

Appendix 6.A Supporting information

References

Chapter 7. Northgrippian Stage (Middle Holocene, 8.2–4.2 ka)

Abstract

Chapter Outline

7.1 Holocene Thermal Maximum

7.2 Middle Holocene rapid climate changes

7.3 Middle Holocene transition

Appendix 7.A Supporting information

References

Chapter 8. Meghalayan Stage (Late Holocene, 4.2 ka–present)

Abstract

Chapter Outline

8.1 General characteristics of the Meghalayan Stage

8.2 Onset of the Meghalayan Stage—the 4.2 ka event

8.3 Meghalayan climate fluctuations in Europe

8.4 Recent climate change (from 1850 CE to present)

8.5 Summary

References

Chapter 9. Synthesis and perspectives: drivers, rhythms, and spatial patterns of Holocene climate change

Abstract

Chapter Outline

9.1 Drivers of Holocene climate change

9.2 Rhythms and tempo of Holocene climate change

9.3 Patterns of spatial variability

9.4 Perspectives for European glacial landscapes

References

Part III: The European glacial landforms during the Holocene

Chapter 10. Holocene glacial landscapes of the Russian Arctic and the Urals

Abstract

Chapter Outline

10.1 Location and geographic settings of the glaciers in the Russian Arctic

10.2 The Urals

10.3 Novaya Zemlya

10.4 Palaeoclimatic evolution of Novaya Zemlya during the Holocene

10.5 Glacial Landscapes of Novaya Zemlya from the Early Holocene 11.7–8.2 ka

10.6 Glacial Landscapes of Novaya Zemlya from the Mid-Holocene 8.2–4.2 ka

10.7 Glacial Landscapes of Novaya Zemlya from the Late Holocene (4.2 ka–now)

10.8 The current state of glaciers of Novaya Zemlya and impact of present global warming: future perspectives

10.9 Franz Josef Land

10.10 Palaeoclimatic evolution of Franz Josef Land during the Holocene

10.11 Glacial landscapes of Franz Josef Land from the Early Holocene 11.7–8.2 ka

10.12 Glacial landscapes of Franz Josef Land from the Mid-Holocene 8.2–4.2 ka

10.13 Glacial landscapes of Franz Josef Land from the Late Holocene 4.2 ka–now

10.14 The current state of glaciers of Franz Josef Land and impact of global warming: future perspectives

10.15 Conclusions

Acknowledgement

Appendix 10.A Supporting information

References

Chapter 11. Holocene glacial landscapes of Svalbard

Abstract

Chapter Outline

11.1 Location, geographic setting, contemporary climate and glaciers

11.2 Holocene climate evolution of Svalbard

11.3 Glacial Landscapes from the Early Holocene (11.7–8.2 ka)

11.4 Glacial Landscapes from the Middle Holocene (8.2 to 4.2 ka)

11.5 Glacial Landscapes from the Late Holocene (4.2 ka to present)

11.6 State of glaciers and impact of global warming

11.7 Holocene evolution of Bolterdalen, central Spitsbergen

11.8 Conclusions

Appendix 11.A Supporting information

References

Chapter 12. Holocene glacial history and landforms of Iceland

Abstract

Chapter Outline

12.1 Location and nature of Icelandic glaciers

12.2 Climate and sea level evolution

12.3 Preboreal readvances and Early Holocene deglaciation (11.7–8.2 ka)

12.4 Middle Holocene (8.2–4.2 ka): Glacial minimum to the onset of the Neoglaciation

12.5 Late Holocene (4.2 ka to present)

12.6 Summary

Appendix 12.A Supporting information

References

Chapter 13. Early Holocene glacial landscapes and final-stage deglaciation of the Fennoscandian Ice Sheet

Abstract

Chapter Outline

13.1 Introduction and geographic setting

13.2 Climatic evolution of the region during the Early Holocene

13.3 Landscapes of Fennoscandia

13.4 The Fennoscandian Shield

13.5 The Baltic Sea

13.6 The Norwegian coastal mountains and fjord landscape

13.7 The Scandinavian mountains

13.8 Conclusions and outlook

Appendix 13.A Supporting information

References

Chapter 14. Holocene glacial landscapes of the Scandinavian Peninsula

Abstract

Chapter Outline

14.1 Location of glaciers in Scandinavia

14.2 Climatic evolution of the Scandinavian Peninsula during the Holocene

14.3 Scandinavian glacial landscapes during the Early Holocene (11.7–8.2 ka)

14.4 Scandinavian glacial landscapes during the Middle Holocene (8.2–4.2 ka)

14.5 Scandinavian glacial landscapes during the Late Holocene (4.2 ka to present)

14.6 Holocene glacier variations and climate

14.7 Current trends and likely future status of Scandinavian glaciers

14.8 Case study: Holocene glacier evolution of the Smørstabbtindan massif, central Jotunheimen, southern Norway

Acknowledgements

Appendix 14.A Supporting information

References

Further reading

Chapter 15. Holocene glacial and periglacial landscapes of Britain and Ireland

Abstract

Chapter Outline

15.1 Introduction

15.2 Location and geographic settings of the region

15.3 Climatic evolution of the region during the Holocene

15.4 Glacial landscapes from the Early Holocene

15.5 Glacial landscapes from the Middle Holocene

15.6 Glacial landscapes from the Late Holocene

15.7 The current state of late-lying snowpatches and impact of present global warming: future perspectives

15.8 Conclusions

Acknowledgements

Appendix 15.A Supporting information

References

Chapter 16. Glacial landscape evolution during the Holocene in Northern Central Europe

Abstract

Chapter Outline

16.1 Location and landscape of the region

16.2 Climatic evolution of the region during the Holocene

16.3 Evolution of Pleistocene landforms during the Early Holocene (Greenlandian, 11.7–8.2 ka)

16.4 Evolution of Pleistocene landforms during the Middle Holocene (Northgrippian, 8.2–4.2 ka)

16.5 Evolution of Pleistocene landforms during the Late Holocene (Meghalayan, 4.2 ka to present)

16.6 Impact of present global warming: future perspectives

16.7 Geodiversity–a protection of geotopes

16.8 Evolution of a representative study case

16.9 Conclusion

Appendix 16.A Supporting information

References

Chapter 17. Glacial landscape evolution during the Holocene in the Tatra Mountains

Abstract

Chapter Outline

17.1 Location of the Tatra Mountains glaciated during the Holocene

17.2 Climatic evolution of the Tatra Mountains during the Holocene

17.3 Tatra glacial landscape evolution during the Early Holocene (11.7–8.2 ka)

17.4 Tatra glacial landscape evolution during the Middle Holocene (8.2–4.3 ka)

17.5 Tatra glacial landscape evolution during the Late Holocene (4.3 ka to present)

17.6 Current state of Tatra Mountains firn-ice patches, permafrost and active nival processes and landforms

17.7 Natural heritage of the landscape and state of preservation

17.8 Conclusions

Appendix 17.A Supporting information

References

Chapter 18. Glacial landscape evolution during the Holocene in the Romanian Carpathians

Abstract

Chapter Outline

18.1 Location of the Romanian Carpathians mountains glaciated during the Holocene

18.2 Climatic evolution of the Romanian Carpathians during the Holocene

18.3 Romanian Carpathians glacial landscapes during the Early Holocene (11.7–8.2 ka)

18.4 Romanian Carpathians glacial landscapes during the Middle Holocene (8.2–4.2 ka) and Late Holocene (4.2–present)

18.5 Current state of permafrost and active periglacial processes and landforms

18.6 Natural heritage of the landscape and state of preservation

18.7 Conclusion

Appendix 18.A Supporting information

References

Chapter 19. Holocene glacier variations in the Northern Caucasus, Russia

Abstract

Chapter Outline

19.1 Location and Geographic settings of the region

19.2 Climatic evolution of the region during the Holocene

19.3 Glacial landscapes from the Early Holocene (11.7–8.2 cal ka BP)

19.4 Glacial landscapes from the Mid-Holocene (8.2–4.2 cal ka BP)

19.5 Glacial Landscapes from the Late Holocene (4.2 cal ka BP to present)

19.6 The current state of glaciers and impact of present global warming: future perspectives

19.7 Conclusions

Appendix 19.A Supporting information

References

Chapter 20. Holocene glacier variations in the Alps

Abstract

Chapter Outline

20.1 Alpine massifs glacierised during the Holocene

20.2 Climatic evolution in the Alps during the Holocene

20.3 Diverse Early Holocene glacial landscapes in the Alps—from Lateglacial-like ice extents to smaller-than-present glaciers (11.7–8.2 ka)

20.4 Middle Holocene glacial landscapes in the Alps—pursuing the long lasting interval of marked glacier retreat (8.2–4.2 ka)

20.5 Late Holocene glacial landscapes in the Alps—the renewal of glacier activity during the Neoglacial (4.2 ka to CE 1860)

20.6 Rock glacier activity through the Holocene in the Alps

20.7 Evolution of a representative case study: the Rutor Glacier (Graian Alps, Italy)

20.8 The geomorphic legacy of Holocene glaciation

20.9 Conclusions

Appendix 20.A Supporting information

References

Chapter 21. The Pyrenees: glacial landforms from the Holocene

Abstract

Chapter Outline

21.1 Introduction

21.2 Holocene climatic evolution in the Pyrenees

21.3 Pyrenean glaciers during the Early and Middle Holocene (11.7 to 4.3 ka)

21.4 Glacier readvance during the Late Holocene (4.3 ka) and preceding millennia (6–5 ka)

21.5 Pyrenean glaciers during the Little Ice Age

21.6 Pyrenean glaciers in the context of 21st century global warming

21.7 Purveyors of water resources and geoheritage: glaciers and society

21.8 Conclusions

Appendix 21.A Supporting information

References

Chapter 22. Holocene glacial landscapes of the Iberian Mountains

Abstract

Chapter Outline

22.1 Location of the Iberian mountains glaciated during the Holocene

22.2 Climatic evolution of the Iberian Mountains during the Holocene

22.3 Iberian glacial landscapes during the Early Holocene (11.7–8.2 ka)

22.4 Iberian glacial landscapes from Middle Holocene (8.2–4.2 ka)

22.5 Iberian glacial landscapes from Late Holocene (4.2 to present)

22.6 Current state of Iberian glaciers, permafrost and active nival processes and landforms

22.7 Evolution of a representative study case: the ‘Corrales’ of Sierra Nevada

22.8 Natural heritage of the landscape and state of preservation

22.9 Conclusions

Appendix 22.A Supporting information

References

Chapter 23. Holocene glacial landscape of the Apennine Mountains

Abstract

Chapter Outline

23.1 Introduction

23.2 The environment of the Apennines mountains during the Holocene

23.3 Holocene environmental changes and geomorphological responses in the Apennines

23.4 The Calderone glacier: the southernmost glacier of Italy (and of Europe)

23.5 Final remarks

Acknowledgments

Appendix 23.A Supporting information

References

Chapter 24. Holocene glacial landscapes of the Atlas Mountains, Morocco

Abstract

Chapter Outline

24.1 Introduction

24.2 Glacial Landscapes from the Early Holocene (Greenlandian, 11.7–8.2 ka)

24.3 Glacial Landscapes from the Middle Holocene (Northgrippian, 8.2 to 4.2 ka)

24.4 Glacial Landscapes from the Late Holocene (Meghalayan, 4.2 ka to present)

24.5 The current state of glaciers and impact of present global warming: future perspectives

24.6 Evolution of a representative study case

24.7 Evolution of Pleistocene landforms during the Holocene

24.8 Holocene rock glaciers

24.9 Relations between Holocene snow cover and humans: risks and water resources

Acknowledgements

Appendix 24.A Supporting information

References

Chapter 25. Holocene glacial landscapes of the Balkans

Abstract

Chapter Outline

25.1 Location and geographic settings of the region

25.2 Climatic evolution of the region during the Holocene

25.3 Glacial landscapes from the Early Holocene

25.4 Glacial landscapes from the Middle Holocene

25.5 Glacial landscapes from the Late Holocene

25.6 The current state of glaciers in the Balkans

25.7 The impact of global warming: future perspectives

25.8 Evolution of a representative case study

Appendix 25.A Supporting information

References

Chapter 26. Holocene glacial landscapes of the Anatolian Peninsula

Abstract

Chapter Outline

26.1 Location and geographic setting of Anatolia

26.2 Climatic evolution of Anatolia during the Holocene

26.3 Anatolian glacial landscapes from the Early and Middle Holocene

26.4 Anatolian glacial landscapes from the Late Holocene

26.5 The current state of glaciers and impact of present global warming: future perspectives

Appendix 26.A Supporting information

References

Part IV: Synthesis of the European Landscapes during the Holocene

Chapter 27. The European glacial landscapes from the Early Holocene

Abstract

Chapter Outline

27.1 The Early Holocene–Pleistocene transition: the climatic context

27.2 The evolution of the European Glaciers during the Early Holocene

27.3 The evolution of the European Glaciers in the context of the North Hemisphere during Early Holocene

27.4 The evolution of the European Glaciers in contrast to the Southern Hemisphere in the Early Holocene

27.5 The evolution of the European Glaciers in the Early Holocene and comparisons with the tropics

27.6 Conclusions and main challenges

References

Chapter 28. The European glacial landscapes from the Middle Holocene

Abstract

Chapter Outline

28.1 The evolution of the European Glaciers during the Middle Holocene

28.2 The evolution of the European Glaciers in the context of the Northern Hemisphere

28.3 The evolution of the European Glaciers in contrast to the Southern Hemisphere in the Middle Holocene

28.4 The evolution of the European Glaciers in the Middle Holocene and comparisons with the tropics

28.5 Conclusions and main challenges

References

Chapter 29. The European glacial landscapes from the Late Holocene

Abstract

Chapter Outline

29.1 The evolution of the European Glaciers during the Late Holocene

29.2 The evolution of the European Glaciers in the context of the Northern Hemisphere

29.3 The evolution of the European Glaciers in contrast to the Southern Hemisphere

29.4 The evolution of the European Glaciers in the Late Holocene and the tropics

29.5 Conclusions and main challenges

References

Chapter 30. Recent evolution and perspectives of European glacial landscapes

Abstract

Chapter Outline

30.1 Recent evolution of climate and its relationship with present glacier retreat

30.2 Recent evolution of the European glaciers

30.3 Recent evolution of the European glaciers in a global context

30.4 Conclusions

References

Index

Copyright

Elsevier

Radarweg 29, PO Box 211, 1000 AE Amsterdam, Netherlands

The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, United Kingdom

50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States

Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.

This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein).

Notices

Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary.

Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.

To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.

ISBN: 978-0-323-99712-6

For Information on all Elsevier publications visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals

Publisher: Candice Janco

Acquisitions Editor: Peter Llewellyn

Editorial Project Manager: Sara Valentino

Production Project Manager: Sruthi Satheesh

Cover Designer: Christian Bilbow

Typeset by MPS Limited, Chennai, India

List of contributors

Naki Akçar,     PD Dr. Institute of Geological Sciences, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

Lis Allaart,     The Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS), Department of Marine Geology, Universitetsbyen, Aarhus, Denmark

James Allard,     Department of Geography, School of Environment, Education and Development, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom

Nuria Andrés,     Department of Geography, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain

Florina Ardelean,     Department of Geography, West University of Timişoara, Timişoara, Romania

Mircea Ardelean,     Department of Geography, West University of Timişoara, Timişoara, Romania

Lovísa Ásbjörnsdóttir,     Icelandic Institute of Natural History, Garđabær, Iceland

Benjamin A. Bell,     Department of Geography, School of Environment, Education and Development, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom

Ívar Örn Benediktsson,     Institute of Earth Sciences, University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland

Oana Berzescu,     Department of Geography, West University of Timişoara, Timişoara, Romania

Albertas Bitinas,     Nature Research Centre, Vilnius, Lithuania

Pierre-Henri Blard

CRPG, CNRS, Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France

Laboratoire de Glaciologie, ULB, Brussels, Belgium

Andreas Börner,     State Authority for Environment, Nature Protection and Geology Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Geological Survey, Güstrow, Germany

Roger J. Braithwaite,     Department of Geography, School of Environment, Education and Development, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom

Skafti Brynjólfsson,     Icelandic Institute of Natural History, Garđabær, Iceland

Irina S. Bushueva

Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

Faculty of Geography and Geoinformation Technologies, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia

Mirosław Błaszkiewicz,     Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization Polish Academy of Sciences, Toruń, Poland

Marc Calvet,     Department of Geography, University of Perpignan, Perpignan, France

Olivier Cartapanis

Aix-Marseille University, CNRS, IRD, Coll. France, INRAE, UM 34 CEREGE, Aix-en-Provence, France

Centre Européen de Recherche et d’Enseignement des Géosciences de l’Environnement (CEREGE) - UMR 7330 Europòle Méditerranéen de l’Arbois, Aix-en-Provence, France

Emmanuel Chapron,     Department of Geography, University of Toulouse Jean Jaurès, Toulouse, France

Joanna Charton,     Aix-Marseille University, CNRS, IRD, Coll. France, INRAE, UM 34 CEREGE, Aix-en-Provence, France

Chris D. Clark,     Department of Geography, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom

Renato R. Colucci,     CNR, National Research Council, Institute of Polar Sciences, Venezia-Mestre, Italy

Henk L. Cornelissen,     Department of Geography, School of Environment, Education and Development, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom

Magali Delmas,     Department of Geography, University of Perpignan, Perpignan, France

Wesley R. Farnsworth

Institute of Earth Sciences, University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland

Globe Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

Marcelo Fernandes,     Centre for Geographical Studies, IGOT, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal

José M. Fernández-Fernández,     Department of Geography, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain

David Fink,     Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, Menai, NSW, Australia

William J. Fletcher,     Department of Geography, School of Environment, Education and Development, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom

Jessica Gauld,     Department of Geography, School of Environment, Education and Development, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom

Philip L. Gibbard,     Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom

Carlo Giraudi,     ENEA Centro Ricerche Saluggia, Saluggia, Italy

Neil F. Glasser,     Department of Geography & Earth Sciences, Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth, United Kingdom

Andrey F. Glazovsky,     Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

Sarah L. Greenwood,     Department of Geological Sciences, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

Yanni Gunnell,     Department of Geography, University Lumière Lyon 2, Lyon, France

Rimante Guobyte,     Lithuanian Geological Survey, Vilnius, Lithuania

Bogdan Gdek,     Faculty of Earth Sciences, University of Silesia, Sosnowiec, Poland

Anna L.C. Hughes,     Department of Geography, School of Environment, Education and Development, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom

Philip D. Hughes,     Department of Geography, School of Environment, Education and Development, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom

Susan Ivy-Ochs

Laboratory for Ion Beam Physics, ETH Zürich, Switzerland

Department of Earth Sciences, ETH Zürich, Switzerland

Vincent Jomelli

Aix-Marseille University, CNRS, IRD, Coll. France, INRAE, UM 34 CEREGE, Aix-en-Provence, France

Centre Européen de Recherche et d’Enseignement des Géosciences de l’Environnement (CEREGE) - UMR 7330 Europòle Méditerranéen de l’Arbois, Aix-en-Provence, France

Piotr Kłapyta,     Jagiellonian University, Faculty of Geography and Geology, Institute of Geography and Spatial Management, Kraków, Poland

Melaine Le Roy

Institute for Environmental Sciences, Climate Change Impacts and Risks in the Anthropocene (C-CIA), University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland

Université Grenoble Alpes, Université Savoie Mont Blanc, CNRS, EDYTEM, France

Jan Mangerud,     Department of Earth Science and Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

Leszek Marks,     Polish Geological Institute–National Research Institute, Warsaw, Poland

John A. Matthews,     Department of Geography, College of Science, Singleton Park, Swansea University, Swansea, Wales, United Kingdom

Giovanni Monegato,     CNR, National Research Council, Institute of Geosciences and Earth Resources, Padova, Italy

Filipa Naughton,     Portuguese Institute for Sea and Atmosphere (IPMA), Lisbon, Portugal

Atle Nesje,     Department of Earth Science and Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

Kurt Nicolussi,     Department of Geography, Universität Innsbruck, Austria

Marc Oliva,     Department of Geography, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

Alexandru Onaca,     Department of Geography, West University of Timişoara, Timişoara, Romania

David Palacios,     Department of Geography, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain

Richard Pope,     Environmental Sustainability Research Centre, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Derby, Derby, United Kingdom

Carl Regnéll,     Department of Geological Sciences, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

Jürgen M. Reitner,     Department of Geological Mapping, GeoSphere Austria, Vienna, Austria

Théo Reixach,     Department of Geography, University of Perpignan, Perpignan, France

Pierre René,     Association Moraine, Luchon, France

Ali Rhoujjati,     Cadi Ayyad University, Faculty of Sciences and Technics, Laboratory of Georesources, Geoenvironment and Civil Engineering, Gueliz Marrakech, Morocco

Adriano Ribolini,     Department of Earth Sciences, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy

Vincent Rinterknecht,     CNRS, IRD, INRAE, CEREGE, Aix Marseille University, Aix-en-Provence, France

Maria Fernanda Sánchez Goñi

Ecole Pratique Des Hautes Etudes (EPHE), PSL University, Pessac, France

UMR 5805 EPOC, University of Bordeaux, Pessac, France

Irene Schimmelpfennig

Aix-Marseille University, CNRS, IRD, Coll. France, INRAE, UM 34 CEREGE, Aix-en-Provence, France

Centre Européen de Recherche et d’Enseignement des Géosciences de l’Environnement (CEREGE) - UMR 7330 Europòle Méditerranéen de l’Arbois, Aix-en-Provence, France

Heikki Seppä,     Department of Geosciences and Geography, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

Olga Solomina

Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

Faculty of Geography and Geoinformation Technologies, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia

Matteo Spagnolo,     Department of Geography & Environment, School of Geosciences, University of Aberdeen, St. Mary’s Building, Elphinstone Road, Aberdeen, United Kingdom

Markus Stoffel

Institute for Environmental Sciences, Climate Change Impacts and Risks in the Anthropocene (C-CIA), University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland

Department F.-A. Forel for Environmental and Aquatic Sciences, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland

Department of Earth Sciences, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland

Luis M. Tanarro,     Department of Geography, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain

Matt D. Tomkins,     Department of Geography, School of Environment, Education and Development, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom

Karol Tylmann,     Faculty of Oceanography and Geography, University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland

Petru Urdea,     Department of Geography, West University of Timişoara, Timişoara, Romania

Jamie Woodward,     Department of Geography, School of Environment, Education and Development, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom

Jerzy Zasadni,     Faculty of Geology, Geophysics and Environmental Protection, AGH University of Science and Technology, Kraków, Poland

About the editors

David Palacios

Department of Geography, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain

David Palacios is a full professor in the Complutense University of Madrid since 2011. He teaches general physical geography, glacial and periglacial geomorphology and mountain physical geography. He has conducted several training and research stays in leading research centres from Sweden (University of Stockholm), Mexico (UNAM), Peru (IGP), the United States (Universities of California, Colorado, CVO and Washington), Chile (Universities of Magallanes) and Iceland (University of Akureri). He has been principal investigator of 16 international projects related to climate change and natural hazards in high mountain environments since 1995. He is the coordinator of the UCM High Mountain Physical Geography Research Group since 2008. He has published more than 100 articles in top journals on geomorphological and paleoclimate topics, focusing on deglaciation in Iberian mountains and (sub)polar environments. He is a coordinator with more than 20 collaborators of a recent large paper about the deglaciation of Americas (Earth-Science Reviews).

Philip D. Hughes

Department of Geography, School of Environment, Education and Development, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom

Philip D. Hughes is a professor of physical geography at the University of Manchester, United Kingdom. He obtained his degree in geography from the University of Exeter in 1999. He earned his master’s degree in Quaternary Science and then PhD in geography (2004), both from the University of Cambridge. His PhD was on the glacial history of the Pindus Mountains, Greece, which was followed by postdoctoral research examining the glacial history of Montenegro at the University of Manchester. He has since worked on glaciation across the Mediterranean mountains in Greece, Albania, Montenegro, Croatia, Spain and recent research activities have focused on the Atlas Mountains, Morocco. His research has utilised U-series dating and cosmogenic nuclides to date moraines in a variety of different lithologies. In addition to studies of Mediterranean mountain glaciations, he has also published on global glaciations and stratigraphy in Quaternary Science. In addition to several edited scientific volumes on glaciation, in 2016 he published the textbook The Ice Age with coauthors, Jürgen Ehlers and Philip Gibbard. In 2011 Philip also coedited with these same collaborators the highly successful Elsevier volume Quaternary Glaciation: Extent and Chronology – A Closer Look.

Vincent Jomelli

Aix-Marseille University, CNRS, IRD, Coll. France, INRAE, UM 34 CEREGE, Aix-en-Provence, France

Dr. Vincent Jomelli is a director of research at Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS) and a geomorphologist who works at CEREGE in the University of Aix-Marseille, France. He has worked on natural hazards and palaeoglacial studies conducted in different alpine regions in Europe, Asia and in the Southern Hemisphere. In this research, he has utilised cosmogenic nuclides to date glacial landforms and he has published on global glacier variations during the Holocene published in Quaternary Science Reviews. He has written several papers on Holocene glacier fluctuations in the Pyrenees, the French Alps, the tropical Andes, Greenland, Caucasus and Kerguelen. He has also been involved in scientific papers on contemporary glaciology and mass balance of glaciers in Nepal, tropical Andes, Kerguelen and Antarctica.

Luis M. Tanarro

Department of Geography, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain

Dr. Luis M. Tanarro is a professor of physical geography in the Complutense University of Madrid (Spain). His PhD was on the application of computer-aided design (CAD) and geographic information system (GIS) to high detailed geomorphological mapping. His main research is focused on the monitoring geomorphological processes in mountains and on the development and design of geomorphological cartography with CAD and SIG techniques. He is principal investigator of over 16 research projects, in which he has responsibility for the geo-visualisation of the cartography in accordance with the application of the latest methodologies and technologies. He has published nearly 100 research papers on the dynamics of deglaciation in mountains, on monitoring of geomorphological processes and its impact on geodiversity. In addition to the Iberian mountains, he has conducted research in Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt and Iceland, which has given her a broad understanding of land surface processes in cold climate environments.

Part I

Introduction

Outline

Chapter 1 Introduction to the Holocene glacial landscapes

Chapter 2 Homogenisation of cosmic-ray exposure ages

Chapter 3 Quaternary interglacials

Chapter 4 Synthesis of Holocene glacial landscapes in Europe

Chapter 1

Introduction to the Holocene glacial landscapes

David Palacios¹, Philip D. Hughes², Vincent Jomelli³, William J. Fletcher² and Luis M. Tanarro¹,    ¹Department of Geography, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain,    ²Department of Geography, School of Environment, Education and Development, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom,    ³Aix-Marseille University, CNRS, IRD, Coll. France, INRAE, UM 34 CEREGE, Aix-en-Provence, France

Abstract

The onset of the Holocene and the state of European glaciers at that time is mainly understood in the light of the evolution of the last two periods of Termination I, the Bølling-Allerød Interstadial and the Younger Dryas Stadial. However, the concept of the Holocene began to be defined in the mid-19th century, but it is not until later that it was accepted as a epoch distinct from the Pleistocene. Only very recently, its boundaries and divisions have been precisely and formally defined. Although there were not such abrupt and large-amplitude climate changes as during Termination I, the Holocene has still experienced a relatively large climatic variability, which were driven by the interaction between internal and external factors to the planet, and a complex series of chain reactions within the systems of the cryosphere, the atmosphere, the oceans and, increasingly, anthropogenic systems. Indeed, humans are adapting to the major environmental changes in Europe, resulting from climate variability and sea-level rise, but they are also increasingly becoming the agents of these changes. The objectives of this book are planned in this context, where glaciers show a great sensitivity to this climate variability and leave traces of their changes in the landscape of Europe.

Keywords

European Glacial Landscapes; Holocene glaciers; Holocene climatic variability; Holocene environmental evolution; structure and content of the book

Chapter Outline

Outline

1.1 The arrival of the Holocene in Europe 3

1.2 The status of European glaciers at the beginning of the Holocene 5

1.3 The meaning of the Holocene epoch 6

1.4 The Holocene and its climatic variability 10

1.5 The Holocene and its climatic forcing mechanisms 11

1.5.1 Summer boreal insolation 11

1.5.2 Proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere 11

1.5.3 The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation 12

1.5.4 Solar activity 12

1.5.5 Volcanic activity 13

1.5.6 Vegetation cover 13

1.6 The Holocene and its atmospheric circulation variability 14

1.6.1 The variability of the northern westerlies and the North Atlantic Oscillation 14

1.6.2 The variability of the Asian monsoon 14

1.6.3 The variability of the African monsoon 15

1.7 The evolution of sea level during the Holocene and its impact in the shorelines 17

1.7.1 Holocene sea-level rise 17

1.7.2 Holocene sea-level rise—the impact on shorelines 18

1.8 Holocene environmental change and humans 20

1.9 The organisation of this book 22

1.9.1 Objectives of the book 22

1.9.2 The Holocene glacier regions of Europe 22

1.9.3 Structure of the book 22

1.9.4 Standardised radiocarbon ages and standard maps and glacial parameter used in the book 24

References 25

1.1 The arrival of the Holocene in Europe

In the first volume of the present collection (Palacios et al., 2022a), it was observed how glaciers had extended across Europe, along its northern sectors and its mountains, since 2.58 million years ago, from the beginning of the Quaternary. Indeed, the time that these landscapes were covered by ice is much longer than the time they have been uncovered, without ice (Ehlers et al., 2018; Palacios et al., 2022b). In the second volume of the present collection (Palacios et al., 2023a), it was shown how these large glacial extensions were interrupted by the rapid melting processes (terminations), lasting about 10–30 ka, up to a total of 41 times during the Quaternary. Of these terminations, 14 occurred when the glaciers reached previously an enormous extent in the northern continents and reached into their surrounding oceans (Ehlers et al., 2018). Initially, these terminations occurred in cycles of about 41 ka, but since 800 ka ago, glaciers have expanded to increasingly larger and longer extensions, in cycles of 80–120 ka (Hughes and Gibbard, 2018). The cause of terminations is complex and under investigation (Cheng et al., 2009; Palacios et al., 2023b), but they are undoubtedly related to orbital effects on maximum insolation intensity in the mid-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere (Imbrie and Imbrie, 1986). The orbital effect is a necessary factor, but not sufficient on its own to explain the climate changes observed through the Pleistocene, especially during terminations (Denton et al., 2010; Lisiecki, 2014). The termination begins when that maximum insolation coincides with a very low sea level and the maximum isostatic depression over the continents, such that a large area of the ice sheets becomes mostly marine-based (Denton et al., 2010; Gildor et al., 2014). This maximum glacier extension coincides with minimum CO2 in the atmosphere (Toucanne et al., 2022), minimum precipitation and minimum plant cover, and maximum dust in the atmosphere (Ellis and Palmer, 2016).

The last termination (Termination I) began after the large Northern Hemisphere Continental Ice Sheets (NHCIS), outside Greenland, reached their maximum extent for the last time, between approximately 29 and 19 ka depending on their different margins (Palacios et al., 2023b). The largest by far was the Laurentide Ice Sheet (LIS) located in North America, joined by the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS), centred over the island of Greenland. The European Ice Sheet Complex (EISC) was located in northwestern Europe as a result of the confluence of three smaller ice sheets, the Barents Sea Ice Sheet (BSIS), Fennoscandian Ice Sheet (FIS) and British-Irish Ice Sheet (BIIS) (Hughes et al., 2022). The Iceland Ice Sheet (IIS) was independent. The lowest sea level was reached at 26.5–19 ka, mainly driven by the expansion of the LIS (Clark et al., 2009). By 21 ka, coinciding with the end of the orbitally-driven Northern Hemisphere summer insolation minimum (Huybers, 2011), most of the margins of these Northern Ice Sheets were already retreating, as were most European mountain glaciers. By 19 ka, the retreat was already widespread in all of the Northern Ice Sheets: the LIS (Palacios et al., 2020), the GrIS (Vasskog et al., 2015) and EISC (Hughes et al., 2022), mainly due to the melting of marine-based ice streams (Margold et al., 2018). The marine-based sector of the IIS also collapsed at 19 ka (Benediktsson et al., 2022). The important Alps ice cap also started to retreat around 21–19 ka (Ivy-Ochs et al., 2022), as did most of the rest of the European mountain glaciers (Palacios et al., 2023b) and in North and Central American mountains (Palacios et al., 2020). Thereafter, sea level rose steadily, mainly due to melting of the LIS and EISC (Lambeck et al., 2014).

The evolution of glaciers in the Northern Hemisphere took place in sync with those in the Southern Hemisphere during the onset of deglaciation (Palacios et al., 2020). The Antarctic Ice Sheet, after reaching its maximum expansion between 21 and 19 ka, also began to retreat, although with less intensity and minimal contribution to sea-level rise (Siegert et al., 2022). Glaciers in the Southern Hemisphere mountains and in the Himalaya reached their maximum expansion at different periods, depending on their location with respect to the arrangement of cyclonic and anticyclonic pressure centres according to the general atmospheric circulation at that time, but the vast majority also began their significant retreat in the 19 ka (Shakun et al., 2015; Yan et al., 2021; Palacios et al., 2020; Owen, 2020).

In summary, it can be stated that from around 19 ka, Termination I had begun globally, after the lowest eustatic sea-level stand, the large ice sheets had a large proportion of marine-based glaciers and the extreme aridity had brought the maximum dust into the atmosphere (Palacios et al., 2023c). In these circumstances, the orbital effects on increased northern summer insolation triggered a chain reaction that allowed the abrupt reduction of albedo, changes in the general atmospheric circulation and, with them, the release of large amounts of CO2 stored in the oceans and, as a consequence, a general increase in global temperature and a widespread retreat of glaciers (He et al., 2013; Palacios et al., 2023c). The onset of Termination I is the last event where glaciers behaved practically synchronously across the globe, marking the general onset of glacier retreat worldwide. This retreat continued apace, albeit interrupted by readvances, such as during the Oldest and Younger Dryas (YD) right through to the onset of the Holocene (Shakun and Carlson, 2010).

Termination I, like the previous terminations, involved a drastic reduction in glacier mass and, in parallel, a dramatic and rapid rise in sea level (~80 m within 10 ka) (Lambeck et al., 2014). This compares to the much more gradual descent into the Last Glacial Cycle (~100 ka) (Naughton et al., 2023a). While the termination was rapid, glacial retreat did not occur constantly and, moreover, it did not occur synchronously across the globe (Palacios et al., 2023c). The retreat of glaciers at terminations depends on air temperatures, and air temperatures are, to a large part, controlled by insolation and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (Naughton et al., 2023a). Interestingly, the CO2 content of the atmosphere increased steadily, albeit with different intensities, throughout Termination I, while temperature oscillated sharply, and often inversely, in each Hemisphere (Naughton et al., 2023a). In fact, ice records show that when Greenland experienced an interstadial (glacier retreat; warm period), Antarctica was in a stadial (Glacier advance; cold period; Pedro et al., 2018). This different behaviour has been explained by an interplay between the two hemispheres, called the bipolar seesaw hypothesis, where the meltwater input from the northern continental ice sheets pushes the northern westerlies southward and weakens the Asian monsoon, the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is weakened, the southern trade winds and the southern westerlies move to the south, which ultimately leads to ventilation and upwelling in the southern oceans and provokes the intensive CO2 release (Broecker et al., 2001; Barker et al., 2009, 2010; Brook and Buizert, 2018; Pedro et al., 2018; Palacios et al., 2023c). The cooling of the Northern Hemisphere leads to the opposite reaction: advance of the glaciers, reduction in meltwater input, the increase of the intensity of the AMOC, the intensification of Asian monsoon, the northward migration of the southern trade winds and the southern westerlies and the retreat of the glaciers in the South Hemisphere (Barker et al., 2009, 2010; Pedro et al., 2018; Palacios et al., 2023c).

European glaciers, therefore, alternated between the phases of intense retreat, followed by the phases of readvance. The first and most important glacier readvances occurred during the Heinrich 1 stadial at ~18.2±0.2 and 16.2±0.3 ka, due to an intense cooling of the climate in the North Atlantic (Naughton et al., 2023b). However, this advance was abruptly interrupted, and by 15 ka, most of the European glaciers were clearly retreating (Palacios et al., 2023d). This retreat preceded the onset of the Bølling-Allerød Interstadial (B-A), at 14.6 ka, coinciding with an increase of boreal summer insolation, and sharply rising sea surface and air temperatures which is reflected in a range of records (lake, marine, speleothems and Greenland ice cores). Air temperatures rose by 5°C to 10°C, especially in the summer, when temperatures reached a level similar to today (Naughton et al., 2023c). Simultaneously with the warming around the North Atlantic region, AMOC was strengthening. As summer temperatures rose so dramatically, glaciers retreated drastically and sea level rose by 20 m in just a few hundred years (Pulse 1 A; Naughton et al., 2023c), contemporaneous with the transition between Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 2 and MIS 1 (Chapter 6 of this book). The EISC had split into its three components (FIS, BSIS and BIIS) and ice had disappeared from the North Sea. By the end of B-A, the former EISC retained only <30% of the area it had in 20 ka (Greenwood et al., 2023b). The FIS retreated from Denmark, southernmost Sweden, the southern Baltic Sea and coastal Norway (Greenwood et al., 2023a). The BSIS was reduced to cover its main archipelagos (Patton et al., 2023) and the BIIS may have disappeared completely (Hughes et al., 2023a). The IIS also collapsed and retreated far into the western and north-eastern highlands (Benediktsson et al., 2023a). In Northern-Central Europe, the remnants of dead ice and much of the permafrost melted (Marks et al., 2023). European mountain glaciers largely disappeared, with few exceptions: only small glaciers, similar in size to those at their Holocene peak, remained in the Alps (Ivy-Ochs et al., 2023a) and probably in the Balkans too (Hughes et al., 2023b). Europe was approaching a situation where its glacier extent was similar to that of the Holocene.

In the rest of the Northern Hemisphere, glacier retreat was similar to that in Europe. The GrIS collapsed and thinned significantly (Vasskog et al., 2015). The LIS retreated intensely and suffered a surface lowering of more than 1000 m (Barth et al., 2019), the Cordillera Ice Sheet (CIS) collapsed and glaciers retreated and mostly disappeared from the rest of the northern and central American mountains (Palacios et al., 2020). In the Southern Hemisphere, on the contrary, due to the bipolar seesaw effect, glaciers advanced in a cold stadial, called the Antarctic Cold Reversal (ACR). For example, glaciers advanced significantly in Central Andes of Peru and Bolivia (Jomelli et al., 2014), in central and southern Patagonia (Sagredo et al., 2018), in Kerguelen (Jomelli et al., 2018) and the Southern Alps of New Zealand (Shulmeister et al., 2019).

Europe was heading towards an interglacial, with minimal glacier extent, but there were still huge ice sheets (LIS and FIS) capable of cooling the oceanic waters of the Northern Hemisphere again and reversing the trend. This is what happened at 12.9 ka, with the beginning of a new stadial in the Northern Hemisphere, called the YD stadial (12.9–11.7 ka). The YD was the last stadial of Termination I, when there was a drastic cooling of 2°C–4°C in the North Atlantic and Europe (Naughton et al., 2023d) and up to 5°C–9°C in Greenland ice records (Buizert et al., 2014). The cause of this cooling is under discussion (García-Ruiz et al., 2023), but it is generally accepted that the melt waters of the LIS and FIS caused a drastic reduction of the AMOC, expansion of the winter sea ice and changes of the westerlies across Europe (Naughton et al., 2019; Naughton et al., 2023d; Rea et al., 2020). The degree of cooling and the distribution of precipitation varied across Europe, with a diverse response of its glaciers, although they mostly readvanced, albeit on different scales (García-Ruiz et al., 2023). The maximum cooling was around 12.5 ka; from 12.4 ka onwards, there was a gradual atmospheric and SST warming together with the strengthening of the AMOC, with particular instability between 12.0 and 11.7 ka (Naughton et al., 2023d). In contrast to Europe, the LIS did not have a clear response to this cooling and most of its margins continued to retreat during the YD (Margold et al., 2018), as did glaciers in Alaska (Brinner et al., 2017), although in the Rocky Mountains, Sierra Nevada and Mexico glaciers advanced (Palacios et al., 2020). In contrast, in the Southern Hemisphere, after the significant glacier advance during the ACR, the glaciers retreated throughout the YD, for example, in Patagonia or the Southern Alps (Kaplan et al., 2010; Sagredo et al., 2018; Shulmeister et al., 2019).

1.2 The status of European glaciers at the beginning of the Holocene

The cooling of the YD impacted the entire FIS, which advanced up to 50 km on many of its fronts, to reach a size similar to the GrIS today, but it was already retreating by the end of YD (Mangerud et al., 2023). The expansion of the FIS caused the formation of many proglacial lakes and blocked drainage routes, mainly in the eastern sectors (Hughes et al., 2023). The FIS readvanced also in Northwestern Russia and three moraine ridges were formed (Korsakova et al., 2023). In the Norwegian mountains, west of the margin of the FIS, many ice caps, cirque and valley glaciers were formed during the YD (Mangerud et al., 2023). In Northern-Central Europe, where the temperature dropped by −6°C compared to the B-A, the thawing of buried dead ice stopped and reaggradation of permafrost occurred (Marks et al., 2023). The expansion of the FIS blocked the drainage of the Baltic Ice Lake (BIL), which reached large dimensions, until, at the end of the YD, due to the retreat of the FIS, the final drainage of the BIL was initiated and the outflow of the northern rivers was unblocked (Marks et al., 2023). Increased sea ice extent limited precipitation in the Eurasian Arctic archipelagos and glaciers did not show clear advances during the YD (Allaart et al., 2023). In the British Isles, a major ice cap and numerous and peripheral mountain glaciers formed and advanced in Scotland and numerous glaciers formed in the mountains of England, Wales and Ireland (Hughes et al., 2023c). In Iceland, the IIS expanded again, increasing the glacial load, caused isostatic depression and transgression of relative sea level (Benediktsson et al., 2023b). In the Tatra and the Romanian Carpathian Mountains, small cirque glaciers reformed (Zasadni et al., 2023; Urdea et al., 2023). In the Alps, glaciers advanced considerably in the tributary valleys and developed cirque glaciers, but the glaciers were retreating at the end of the YD (Ivy-Ochs et al., 2023b). In the Pyrenees and Iberian mountains, cirque glaciers formed or advanced in the most favourable altitude and orientation situations (Delmas et al., 2023; Oliva et al., 2023). In the Apennines and the Balkans, cirque glaciers also formed and advanced, especially at the beginning of the YD (Ribolini et al., 2023; Hughes et al., 2023d). In Anatolia, significant advances have been detected in some of its valleys (Akçar, 2023). In general, whilst many areas saw significant glacier advances in the early and middle parts of the YD, European glaciers were already in retreat at the end of the YD (García-Ruiz et al., 2023).

The expansion of European glaciers during the YD left clear evidence in the landscape, with the formation of distinct moraine assemblages around the FIS, in Norway, in Scotland, in the Alps and in most of the European mountains. Specifically, on the southern margin of the FIS, fluvioglacial and glacio-lacustrine formations were also very important in reshaping the landscape. In the European mountains, due to the intensity of slope processes, some glaciers were transformed into debris-covered glaciers or rock glaciers at the end of the YD. During the colder phases of the YD, numerous talus-derived rock glaciers also formed, especially in the Alps (García-Ruiz et al., 2023).

By the end of the YD, all European glaciers were retreating, but Termination I had not yet come to an end, as ice sheets of significant size still remained on the northern continents, such as the FIS and especially the LIS. When the Holocene was about to begin, the European glacial landscape was primarily marked by landforms exposed during the great B-A deglaciation. These were considerably retouched during the YD around the the FIS, the IIS, and in western Scotland, although only marginally in the rest of Europe. European glaciers must have been roughly similar in extent to what they were in B-A as the onset of the Holocene approached (Fig. 1.1).

Figure 1.1 1-I Main evolution of climate forcing along the Holocene. (A1) Present division of the Holocene (Walker et al., 2019). (A2) Traditional division of the Holocene. (A3) Holocene Thermal Maximum: period of high temperatures and dominant glacial retreat and Neoglaciation: period of low temperatures and dominant glacial advance. These periods have different chronologies depending on the region. (A4) Cold events reflected in diverse climatic approximations, (A5) Periods characterised by cooling and glacial advance trends (blue) and periods of dominant warming. (B1) Global average temperature reconstruction from Marcott et al. (2013). (B2) Obliquity of rotational axis the Earth along the Holocene from Marcott et al. (2013). (C1) Winter insolation at 60°N and 60°S and (C2) Summer insolation at 60° N and 60°S from (Berger and Loutre, 1991). (C3) Contour plots of June and (C4) annual mean latitudinal insolation anomalies relative to present (Marcott et al., 2013; Huang, 2004). 1-II Main evolution of climate forcing along the Holocene. (D1) CO2 concentration in Antarctica ice core (Epica Dome C; Monnin et al., 2001). (D2) Methane concentration in Greenland ice cores (GISP2 and GRIP; Kobashi et al., 2007). (E) AMOC strength variability based in multiple proxy-derived Surface Sea Temperatures (Ayache et al., 2018). (F) 40-year averaged of Total Solar Irradiance (Steinhilber et al., 2009). (G) Holocene total volcanic stratospheric sulphur injection (VSSI) from explosive eruptions per century (Sigl et al., 2022). (H) North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) inferred circulation patterns (Olsen et al., 2012). (I) δ18O time series of the Dongge Cave stalagmite DA, in southern China, established by ²³⁰Th dates (Wang et al., 2005). Vertical yellow bars of the timing of Bond events 0–5 in the North Atlantic (Bond, 2001). Vertical grey bars, Asian monsoon events with no relation to Bond events. (J) Relative Sea Level deduce from grounded-ice equivalent (Lambeck et al., 2014). Blue area indicates uncertainty range.

1.3 The meaning of the Holocene epoch

The Holocene is defined as the second period of the Quaternary (11.7 ka to the present), following the Pleistocene (2.58 Myr to 11.7 ka). Etymologically, the name derives from the prefix Holos (all in ancient Greek) and the suffix Cene (new in ancient Greek). In reality, this name expresses the process of knowledge of the geological evolution of the Earth. In the 18th century, the most recent era in the history of our planet was the Tertiary or Cenozoic (recent life). The geologist Giovanni Arduino already proposed in 1760 the need to delimit a fourth era for the most recent sediments (Ell, 2011). Desnoyers suggested the possibility of calling this most recent period the Quaternary in 1828 (Desnoyers, 1828). The Scottish geologist Charles Lyell proposed the term Pleistocene (the most recent) to differentiate it from the preceding period, the Pliocene (more recent). He also suggested the possibility of considering an even more recent period, where the fauna was similar to the present (Lyell, 1839). Later, the palaeontologist Paul Gervais proposed the term Holocene, to differentiate a postglacial period from the Pleistocene and to emphasise that it was the completely recent or present-day period (Gervais, 1867–69). During most of the mid-19th century, the terms Quaternary, Pleistocene and Ice age were used synonymously, but always differentiated from a recent or present period, following the advice of Charles Lyell, and so they were discussed at the first International Geological Congresses in Paris (1876), Bologna (1881) (Vai, 2004), Berlin (1885) (Puche-Riart et al., 2017), and London (1888), when the term Pleistocene was definitively accepted as different from Holocene, but with great problems to differentiate their boundaries (Cox, 2022).

The Holocene is currently defined by the period encompassing the last 11,700 calendar yr b2k ± 99 years (years before the year 2000 of the Common Era, CE; this corresponds to 11.7 cal ka BP in calibrated radiocarbon ages; Walker et al., 2019; Chapter 4 of this book). It is the only epoch that does not use sedimentary series as a reference, or Global boundary Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP), as often it is difficult to differentiate their sediments from the Pleistocene. For this reason, for the Holocene, GSSP has been established in the annual layers in the NGRIP Greenland ice core, counting on the Greenland Ice Core Chronology 2005 (Walker et al., 2009; Chapter 4 of this book). The Holocene is subdivided into Greenlandian (Lower/Early Holocene), Northgrippian (Middle Holocene) and Meghalayan (Upper/Late Holocene) (Walker et al., 2019; Chapter 4 of this book). This division is based on the events reflected in the NGRIP1 Greenland ice core at 8236 years ± 47 years b2k on the GICC05 timescale (End of the Greenlandian; correspond to 8.2 cal ka BP; Walker et al., 2019; Chapter 4 of this book). The beginning of the Meghalayan occurs at 4250 years b2k ± 30 years, based on radiometric uranium-thorium (U-Th) dating of the speleothem deposit (correspond to 4.2 cal ka BP; Berkelhammer et al., 2012; Chapter 4 of this book). In this book, we will follow this age framework for the beginning of the study of Holocene glaciers and the study will be divided in each region into the three named subepochs.

The Holocene is perceived as the present interglacial, following the Last Glacial Cycle, defined by a constant warm climate. The Holocene is considered to be the period where human activity extended and transformed the natural world and, among other things, is driving the current great extinction of species. However, the Last Glacial Cycle had not yet physically ended at the beginning of the Holocene, as huge ice masses remained on the northern continents. On the other hand, the climate varied, sometimes very abruptly, throughout the Holocene, with major changes in atmospheric and oceanic circulation and with great regional variability. Sea levels were still rising by 60 m, transforming the coasts and their geographical conditions. The transformation of nature, especially vegetation cover and extinctions due to human activity had begun much earlier, in the Pleistocene; consider, for example, the much debated overkill hypothesis attributing the extinction of Pleistocene megafauna to human action (Martin, 1973; Surovell et al., 2016). It is, therefore, a complex period, where logically, a lot of information is available, but where the mechanisms that determine the evolution of the climate, and therefore of the glaciers, remain to be clarified.

The climate and environmental change of recent decades is so intense that it has been proposed that the Holocene may have come to an end and a new epoch, the Anthropocene (new human), has begun (Crutzen, and Stoermer, 2000; Crutzen, 2002). In fact, this term, which was used as an alternative to the Holocene as early as the 19th century, has been revitalised. The essence of this new epoch is that nature–human roles are seen as reversed and, since the industrial revolution, the human dominates and changes nature and not the other way around (Crutzen and Stoermer, 2000). This change would be evident in the processes of erosion/sedimentation, the composition of the atmosphere and oceans, the alteration of fundamental natural cycles, such as those of water, carbon and nitrogen, the mass extinction of species and, of course, the loss of the cryosphere (Zalasiewicz et al., 2017). In contrast to this trend, other researchers do not consider that there is a particular difference with other Holocene periods, in many of which humans have already been particularly destructive, for example, from the Neolithic onwards, altering the atmosphere, the hydrosphere and, above all, the biosphere (Ruddiman et al., 2020). Furthermore, neither the increase in temperatures, nor the retreat of glaciers, nor the alteration of oceanic and atmospheric circulation is very different from other periods of the Holocene. Thus, the sedimentary sequences would not be easily distinguishable from other Holocene sequences (Gibbard and Walker, 2014). While the impact of humans on the environment in the Holocene is not in doubt, the basis for formally defining human activity in the stratigraphical record is questioned (Gibbard and Walker, 2014; Gibbard et al., 2022). Nevertheless, there are researchers who consider that the level of environmental changes is of such magnitude that the sedimentary series will be differentiated from the rest of the Holocene (Owens, 2020).

One of the main problems encountered by the proponents of the Anthropocene as a new epoch is the need to determine a GSSP, which serves as a basis for differentiating it from the Holocene, as there have been multiple temporal proposals. For example, there are proponents for a start at 7 ka, when large deforestation initiated the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere in the Holocene, or at 5 ka, when rice cultivation and massive cattle ranching initiated the increase of CH4 in the atmosphere (Ruddiman et al., 2020). Another group of researchers advocates using the massive nuclear bomb explosions between 1945 and 1952, as they involved a global dissemination of bomb-produced radionuclides and therefore propose the mid-20th century as the GSSP of the Anthropocene (Waters et al., 2023). However, the whole effort to declare the Anthropocene as an epoch seems arbitrary, as it does not include the diachronic impacts of the human activity on global environmental systems. For this reason, the Anthropocene is proposed by some researchers as an event, as the human impact on the environment is multitemporal and spatially variable, from local to global (Bauer et al., 2021; Gibbard et al., 2022).

1.4 The Holocene and its climatic variability

The Holocene can be defined as a warm period, in contrast to the Last Glacial Cycle. But it should not be forgotten that similar temperatures were reached in the B-A period (Naughton et al., 2016). In any case, the Holocene onset is marked by a significant rise in temperatures (Marcott et al., 2013; Kaufman et al., 2020), clearly reflected in the Greenland Ice Cores and in marine and terrestrial records from the mid- and high latitudes of Europe and its Atlantic regions, but less clearly in the Mediterranean regions (Chapter 6 of this book). Greenland ice cores reflect a very abrupt increase in temperatures between the YD and the Holocene, which accelerated the decay of glaciers and ice sheets (Taylor et al., 1997). In fact, Termination I had not ended at the onset of the Holocene, but rather occupies practically half of this epoch, as sea level rose c. 60 m between 11.7 and 7 ka, as a consequence of the melting of the Northern Hemisphere Continental Ice Sheets (NHCIS; Smith et al., 2011; Lambeck et al., 2014). This meltwater input was delivered to the oceans in pulses that triggered a sequence of centennial-scale cold periods that interrupted the warming trend at 11.4, 10.3, 9.3 and 8.2 ka, imprinting a large climatic variability in the Early Holocene, which could be reflected in the evolution of glaciers (Chapter 6 of this book).

Despite the succession of these short-lived cold events, the overall temperature trend was steadily rising, reflecting the increase in summer insolation in the mid-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere (Axford et al., 2021), which peaked at 9 ka. However, the temperature rise continued in most European regions, showing a time lag of about 2 ka (Kaufman et al., 2020; Chapter 6 of this book). According to a recent analysis, the warmest 200-year-long interval took place around 6.5 ka, with Holocene global mean surface temperature 0.7°C higher than the preindustrial period (Kaufman et al., 2020).

This significant warming has led to the definition of the Holocene Thermal Maximum (HTM) as the highest temperature period of the Holocene (Renssen et al., 2009). However, the regional variability in the timing of the HTM is enormous and ranges mostly between 11 and 4 ka (Renssen et al., 2012; Cartapanis et al., 2022). This variability may be due to the following: the difficult harmonisation of different climate proxies (Axford et al., 2021; Cartapanis et al., 2022); the effect of meltwaters from the still present NHCIS that allowed a large sea ice extent, which kept the European continent cool (Park et al., 2019); the delay in the expansion of vegetation cover until it significantly reduced albedo (Longo et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2022; Thompson et al., 2022); the exposure to downstream atmospheric impacts of the shrinking LIS (Renssen et al., 2009); or the local impact of changes in the general atmospheric circulation caused by the warming itself (Deininger et al., 2020). Therefore, the HTM concept should not be considered in this book as a single chronological period, nor is it equivalent to the concept of the Middle Holocene. Rather, each region where glaciers are studied will define its own chronology based on local climatic approximations. Furthermore, this concept must be differentiated from the Holocene Glacial Minimum, when glaciers reached their Holocene minimum extent in a region, which may have a similar or different chronologies to the HTM. This is because glacier mass balance involves not only temperatures but also precipitation. Palaeoclimate evidence for the HTM in the North Atlantic and Europe, as well as superimposed climate variability, is discussed in Chapter 7 of the book.

Temperatures began to decrease globally from 6 ka onwards, in parallel with the decrease in summer insolation in the mid-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere (Marcott et al., 2013; Axford et al., 2021 Kaufman et al., 2020; Chapter 8 of the book). European glaciers tended to reflect this cooling by further expansion. Again, this glacier expansion had a large regional variability, ensuing from 6 to 2 ka or even later in terms of the first detected advances. From these events, there has emerged the concept of Neoglaciation, as the period of glacial advance that followed the Holocene minimum glacial expansion (Denton and Porter, 1970). But this concept should not be understood as a specific chronological period and much less as a synonym for the Late Holocene. On the one hand, because each region must define its own chronology based on the study of glacial landforms and, on the other hand, because this cooling was not continuous, but was concentrated in particularly cold periods, punctuated by much warmer periods. The most widespread glacial advances appear to be: at 4.4–4.2 ka, at the Bronze Age Cold Epoch which peaked at 3.5 ka, the Iron Age Cold Epoch (3–2.1 ka), the Late Antique Little Ice Age (which peaked at CE 536–660; LALIA), the Early Medieval Advance which culminated during the mid-9th CE and the Little Ice Age (CE 1260–1860; LIA) (Solomina et al., 2015; Chapter 8 of the book). Although these ages are approximate and each study has to define the ages of these cold periods themselves in a specific area, whether or not they impact on the advance of their glaciers, or even whether or not there are signs of them in the landscape.

The existence of these neoglacial cold periods, in addition to a tendency for summer insolation to decrease, must be accompanied by other causes, as they were interleaved by warm, even very warm, periods. This variability is related to important variations in solar activity and/or volcanic activity, in addition to other causes related to ocean-atmosphere interactions and greenhouse gas concentrations (Solomina et al., 2015; Chapter 8 of the book).

The LIA was one of the coldest periods of the last 8 ka where the advance of glacier came very close to the previous major