Boulders and landscapes preserved beneath cold-based, nonerosive glacial ice violate assumptions associated with simple cosmogenic exposure dating. In such a setting, simple single isotope exposure ages over estimate the latest period of surface exposure; hence, alternate approaches are required to constrain the multi-stage exposure/burial histories of such samples. Here, we report 28 paired analyses of 10Be and 26Al in boulder samples from Thule, northwest Greenland. We use numerical models of exposure and burial as well as Monte Carlo simulations to constrain glacial chronology and infer process in this Arctic region dominated by cold-based ice. We investigate three specific cases that can arise with paired nuclide data: (1) exposure ages that are coeval with deglaciation and 26Al/10Be ratios consistent with constant exposure; (2) exposure ages that pre-date deglaciation and 26Al/10Be ratios consistent with burial following initial exposure; and (3) exposure ages that predate deglaciation and 26Al/10Be ratios consistent with constant exposure. Most glacially-transported boulders in Thule have complex histories; some were exposed for tens of thousands of years and buried for at least hundreds of thousands of years, while others underwent only limited burial. These boulders were recycled through different generations of till over multiple glacial/interglacial cycles, likely experiencing partial or complete shielding during interglacial periods due to rotation or shallow burial by sediments. Our work demonstrates that the landscape in Thule, like many high-latitude landscapes, was shaped over long time durations and multiple glacial and interglacial periods throughout the Quaternary.
January 28, 2016To the Editor:After performing a second set of revisions from two reviewers, we are resubmitting our manuscript, Constraining Multi-Stage Exposure-Burial Scenarios for Boulders Preserved Beneath Cold-Based Glacial Ice in Thule, Northwest Greenland, for publication in Earth and Planetary Science Letters.We appreciated the additional comments from the two Reviewers who revisited the manuscript and are glad to hear that our first round of revisions was effective. During this second round, we focused on making the minor wording changes suggested and providing additional information about quantification of Al in samples. Attached, you will find a list of the reviewers' suggestions and details about how we incorporated those suggestions.We are optimistic that these minor revisions have finished polishing the manuscript to ready it for publication. Thank you in advance for considering our revised draft. Thank you for the re-submission of this paper and for dealing so thoroughly with the comments of the previous reviewers. As I suggested I would in my decision letter last time, I sent the revision to two of the previous reviewers. Both or these are very happy with the revision and have only minor comments.Please could you attend to the final points listed below on your revised manuscript, and then I will be able to ...