the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 18 Dec 2023
Development of multiple taliks near settlements on Svalbard – a new source of drinking water for the High Arctic?
Abstract. This article presents a comprehensive documentation and analysis of long-term observations of year-round groundwater occurrences in rivers and various types of taliks under continuous permafrost conditions on Svalbard. Previously thought to be nonexistent, the existence of these taliks has been confirmed through rigorous field observations, geotechnical investigations, and extensive data collection. This discovery holds pivotal implications for our current understanding of permafrost conditions in central Svalbard. The research reveals the presence of several year-round taliks in close proximity to the settlements in Longyearbyen, Pyramiden, and Ny-Ålesund. Importantly, these findings open up opportunities for using these taliks as groundwater reservoirs for extraction of drinking water, either in natural state or with appropriate engineering modifications. Furthermore, climate change may the possibilities in future by expanding the size of these talik reservoirs due to rising air temperatures and increased inflow of fresh water over prolonged summer . The results underscore the importance of including river taliks in continuous permafrost areas in water management strategies for Svalbard and similar Arctic regions. This research not only challenges prior assumptions but also offers valuable insights for sustainable water resource utilization in a changing climate context.
- Preprint
(3261 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(5783 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2950', Anonymous Referee #1, 29 Apr 2024
I think this paper brings forward interesting observations but needs to be streamlined before publication. The paper puts forward explanations for the different icing-type features near settlements in Svalbard. Unfortunately, this paper currently reads more as a collection of interesting observations and ideas, with no formal classification (or a confusing approach) for icing types and icings of different origins. My main criticism of the paper can be summarized as follows:
1. The introduction is too lengthy and is not convincing in the potential of using river icing as a water supply in Svalbard. It also ignores a large body of literature about groundwater in Svalbard. I make many suggestions in the coming paragraphs to streamline the introduction.
2. The methods section should detail the author’s proposed classification of icing-type features and what evidence they gathered to categorize them. Here is a proposition for the icing classification:
-
- River icings: perennial supply of intra-permafrost (or sub-permafrost) ground water. Typically forms within river valleys. Water typically originates from sub-permafrost aquifers.
- Glacial icings: perennial supply of intra-permafrost (or sub-permafrost) ground water. Typically forms within glacial forefields. Water typically originates from pressurized subglacial water *but also* other sources (see Kleber et al., 2024)
- Slope (or talus) icings: perennial supply of intra-permafrost (or sub-permafrost) groundwater. Typically forms within sloping terrain. Water typically originates from neighbouring plateaus.
- Seasonal frost blisters: pressurized freezing of the supra-permafrost ground water. Typically found near zones of seasonal surficial flow. These features are differentiated from other types of icings by the absence of pressured groundwater through the winter season.
- Polygenetic icings: multiple sources of water.
3. The result section should present the proposed flow paths for each type of icing and an evidence-based classification for the observed icings. The processes could be presented in a single comprehensive figure (including Figures 9,10,13,14,15 and 16) that showcases the different flow paths potentially leading to different icing types. At present, each case study is presented in a different figure, which does not showcase that the authors have an overarching vision of the groundwater migration in permafrost. I would also recommend creating a map presenting the sub-surface observations described in section 3.2 with a symbology attributed to the depth of the aquifer.
4. All in all, the paper presents mostly qualitative data that should be presented as such. At present, the authors offer a high degree of detail to potential flow paths with very minimal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is not enough to support the degree of detail exposed in sections of this paper. I think some of the observations in this paper are worthy of being published and the authors bring forward interesting ideas – but the conclusions are out of proportion for the scope of the work. The conclusion should be more in the line of: ‘there is more groundwater movement than initially anticipated in High Arctic permafrost as evidenced by icing observations near settlements’. The authors could hint at water resource, impacts on the hydrological cycle, infrastructure challenges, nutrient and mobilizations, etc. but I think the main driving force of this paper – the water resource – is under supported by the findings.
Unfortunately, with the current short-comings, I suggest a rejection of the submission in its current state. Below are more general comments about each section.
Introduction:
This section is 10.5 pages long. Other than its length, my main criticism of this section is that there is a lack of emphasis on permafrost hydrology in the Svalbard area and a lack of understanding about icings and their origin. Here are a few points:
- There is a lot of repetition in the different sections which makes the reading redundant.
- e.g. the importance of permafrost degradation is discussed in section 1.2, 1.3.2 and 1.3.3. The author should streamline the introduction in a single section that flows logically. I suggest discussing water security in the High Arctic – then water security in Svalbard and potential future needs, including the effects of permafrost degradation – then the current state-of-the-art on river taliks (and icings) and why they could be an option for the future.
- If the introduction was written is a more targeted and succinct way – there would be no need for a glossary. Half of the terms are already introduced in the text anyways.
- I suggest using just two headings: 1. Introduction and 2.Study Site (presently section 1.4.1). This would make the text better structured.
- There is a wide use of the permafrost glossary (van Everdingen, 2005) in the introduction section – although there are much more detailed/appropriate sources for the different topics. Same goes for the UFC 3-130-05 report.
- Since figures are reproduced from other material, they are generic and don’t add much to the argument.
- e.g. Figure 3 serves little purpose to the text. Figures 1, 2, 4 and 6 could be merged as one by the authors to show the aspects that are important to Svalbard taliks.
- The problem of water security in Svalbard is not discussed clearly. Section 1.1 focuses solely on the High Arctic in general. The transitions towards why studying river taliks is then unconvincing.
- e.g. Why would river taliks be the only option for drinking water sources? The transition between line 58 and 63 should be detailed further.
- e.g. “The challenge of water security is especially acute in small remote Arctic communities, where large numbers of indigenous residents live” – this statement is irrelevant for a study that focuses on Svalbard.
- The paper ignores a large portion of groundwater literature on Svalbard (no chemistry papers are cited) and lacks detail about the origin of the groundwater.
- Line 273-289: Sub-permafrost water is not solely due to the presence of glaciers. This section needs more details. How about icings in the Longyeardalen area – are they all due to pressurized sub-glacial systems? Other origins are quickly mentioned in line 299-301 but not in enough detail. There is recent literature about this.
- The Advent groundwater system has been widely discussed in papers relating to the CO2 lab and more recent modeling efforts such as Hornum et al. 2020.
- The authors also seem to miss a few key points on the formation of river icings:
- e.g. what are river icing in the first place?
- e.g. In Arctic rivers the presence of taliks (line 63-65) is also largely related to the morphology of the river and the depth of the water column.
- The section between line 80 and 94 seems like it belongs in a new section about “geoengineering in river taliks” or equivalent. In this section, it is unclear to me why the wells described in lines 86-94 are relevant.
- e.g. the presence of icings in Svalbard in lines 303 to 311 can be widely observed on satellite imagery and there are publications about this.
- In line 103-104, the author suggests that water management could become an issue with permafrost becoming discontinuous. In what timeframe do the authors believe this would be likely happen in the Longyearbyen area?
Methods:
The authors would benefit from discussing their methods in more details. Were there specific field visits? How were the observations gathered? How were the icings identified? Many of these things are discussed in the results section but would be better suited for the methods section. The authors should propose a classification of river icings and field evidence for the different types.
Results:
- This section is divided based on the location of the icings, but I think this is where the authors should link up the classifications of the icings and their observations. This comes back to the question – what is a river icing? The authors should showcase a clear classification of their observations.
- e.g. some of the features discussed in Figure 8 (such as a., c. and g.) could also be considered frost blisters – unrelated to sub-permafrost groundwater flow – but originating from sequential seasonal freezing of the riverbed. How do the authors differentiate such features to river icings. The fact there is water flowing perennially? This needs to be specified in much earlier in text (there is attempt at explaining this line 468-476). Lines 517-521 state this disparity and add to the confusion.
- In general, the authors offer a high degree of detail about potential flow paths with very minimal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is not enough to support the degree of detail exposed in sections of this paper. There are simple ways to test some of hypotheses brought forward in this paper that were not done. The authors also mention that open-system pingos also originate from groundwater flow and disregard this extensive literature in the Adventelva section.
- The section detailed in 3.2. is interesting, but would benefit from a map with the depth of observations for groundwater. This would be a more efficient way of presenting the data.
- Section 3.4. is really interesting. How successful was this operation? The authors do not comment on the outcome of this installation.
- In section 3.5. the authors comment on the water quality and potential for groundwater being more “drinkable” in Svalbard. However, there has been no water chemistry done here. Also many of these icings are a ‘trickle’. How would harvesting such water sources be viable for a whole community? The conclusions seem a bit overhyped to me.
- I suggest presenting only Figure 13 and removing Figure 9.
More specific comments (please note that I stopped going into details after making the conclusion to request for a resubmission):
Line 53 : remove double parentheses.
Line 59: remove double parentheses.
Line 61-62: remove double parentheses.
Line 90: remove double parentheses.
Lines 223-227: State population in parentheses for each settlement for context.
Line 236: Missing “.” At end of sentence.
Line 236-237: The thaw season has increased by how much? Important in the context of permafrost degradation. Potentially state thawing-degree-days increase.
Line 248: remove double parentheses.
Line 249: remove double parentheses.
Line 250-251: by how much? This statement is vague. Right now the rate is 0.6 cm yr-1.
Line 256: state where these are.
Line 257: add reference
Line 264: what are the increase projections?
Line 265: Missing “.” At end of sentence.
Line 259-271: This paragraph is missing the link between surface runoff and the formation taliks.
Line 304-305: there is literature about intrapermafrost taliks in the form of cryopegs in Adventdalen.
Line 383-383: This seems like a quick conclusion based on few observations.
Line 428-430: There needs to be formal evidence for this or a reference.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2950-RC1 -
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2950', Anonymous Referee #2, 02 Jul 2024
This paper presents interesting observations of icings from Svalbard but needs a clear structure and narrative before publication. I regret to suggest a rejection of the paper in its present form and instead request for a resubmission. Some of criticism of the paper is described below (please note that I stopped reviewing after making the decision to suggest a rejection):
The research is motivated by the springs supposedly representing a new drinking water resource, yet this claim largely remains unsupported after reading through the article. Below are some comments, which could help improve the manuscript:
General comments
- Terms and glossary list – The authors include a glossary list for the readers convenience. However, I would prefer (for readability) that terms are defined when they first appear and leave the glossary list out. This is already the case for some terms, e.g, active layer, in which case the glossary list becomes redundant. The authors use the glossary list by van Everdingen (1990) as a reference to many ground-ice related terms. However, this reference is outdated for some of the terms, and I would generally suggest referring to more specific literature. As an example, for taliks, would suggest using O’Neill et al (2020), who provide a revised nomenclature for taliks.
- The introduction is very lengthy and does not clearly state what the motivation of the is.
- It contains many detailed descriptions, which do not seem relevant and obstruct the readability of the paper. Examples:
- Line 247-249: I do not find it relevant for this paper to describe
- On line 117-133, the authors use almost half a page to describe how different types of models (numerical and empirical) can be used in Arctic hydrological research, how they work and what type of data they require for calibration and validation. Since such models are not part of this research, this degree of detail is unnecessary and reduces readability.
- It contains many detailed descriptions, which do not seem relevant and obstruct the readability of the paper. Examples:
- The objectives of the study should be stated at an earlier stage in the introduction and not as part of the methods section.
- The method section should include descriptions of (1) how the observations were conducted and (2) a description of the classification scheme used to differentiate between the different icing types.
-
- It is unclear whether the authors searched for icings in any systematic way? For example, was Longyeardalen searched for icings throughout its stretch every year in the reporting period, or were observations made in a more randomized way?
- The suggestion of an increase in groundwater flow on lines 381-385 is bold when these are the only two years mentioned: “few icings were observed […] in […] 2008 […], but a significantly higher number […] in 2017. This difference may indicate an increase in groundwater flow […].”
- Results – In the current result section, the reports of icing observations are mixed with interpretations of how they were formed. The interpretations should be moved into a separate discussion section including the sketches of interpreted flow paths to the icings.
-
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2950-RC2
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2950', Anonymous Referee #1, 29 Apr 2024
I think this paper brings forward interesting observations but needs to be streamlined before publication. The paper puts forward explanations for the different icing-type features near settlements in Svalbard. Unfortunately, this paper currently reads more as a collection of interesting observations and ideas, with no formal classification (or a confusing approach) for icing types and icings of different origins. My main criticism of the paper can be summarized as follows:
1. The introduction is too lengthy and is not convincing in the potential of using river icing as a water supply in Svalbard. It also ignores a large body of literature about groundwater in Svalbard. I make many suggestions in the coming paragraphs to streamline the introduction.
2. The methods section should detail the author’s proposed classification of icing-type features and what evidence they gathered to categorize them. Here is a proposition for the icing classification:
-
- River icings: perennial supply of intra-permafrost (or sub-permafrost) ground water. Typically forms within river valleys. Water typically originates from sub-permafrost aquifers.
- Glacial icings: perennial supply of intra-permafrost (or sub-permafrost) ground water. Typically forms within glacial forefields. Water typically originates from pressurized subglacial water *but also* other sources (see Kleber et al., 2024)
- Slope (or talus) icings: perennial supply of intra-permafrost (or sub-permafrost) groundwater. Typically forms within sloping terrain. Water typically originates from neighbouring plateaus.
- Seasonal frost blisters: pressurized freezing of the supra-permafrost ground water. Typically found near zones of seasonal surficial flow. These features are differentiated from other types of icings by the absence of pressured groundwater through the winter season.
- Polygenetic icings: multiple sources of water.
3. The result section should present the proposed flow paths for each type of icing and an evidence-based classification for the observed icings. The processes could be presented in a single comprehensive figure (including Figures 9,10,13,14,15 and 16) that showcases the different flow paths potentially leading to different icing types. At present, each case study is presented in a different figure, which does not showcase that the authors have an overarching vision of the groundwater migration in permafrost. I would also recommend creating a map presenting the sub-surface observations described in section 3.2 with a symbology attributed to the depth of the aquifer.
4. All in all, the paper presents mostly qualitative data that should be presented as such. At present, the authors offer a high degree of detail to potential flow paths with very minimal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is not enough to support the degree of detail exposed in sections of this paper. I think some of the observations in this paper are worthy of being published and the authors bring forward interesting ideas – but the conclusions are out of proportion for the scope of the work. The conclusion should be more in the line of: ‘there is more groundwater movement than initially anticipated in High Arctic permafrost as evidenced by icing observations near settlements’. The authors could hint at water resource, impacts on the hydrological cycle, infrastructure challenges, nutrient and mobilizations, etc. but I think the main driving force of this paper – the water resource – is under supported by the findings.
Unfortunately, with the current short-comings, I suggest a rejection of the submission in its current state. Below are more general comments about each section.
Introduction:
This section is 10.5 pages long. Other than its length, my main criticism of this section is that there is a lack of emphasis on permafrost hydrology in the Svalbard area and a lack of understanding about icings and their origin. Here are a few points:
- There is a lot of repetition in the different sections which makes the reading redundant.
- e.g. the importance of permafrost degradation is discussed in section 1.2, 1.3.2 and 1.3.3. The author should streamline the introduction in a single section that flows logically. I suggest discussing water security in the High Arctic – then water security in Svalbard and potential future needs, including the effects of permafrost degradation – then the current state-of-the-art on river taliks (and icings) and why they could be an option for the future.
- If the introduction was written is a more targeted and succinct way – there would be no need for a glossary. Half of the terms are already introduced in the text anyways.
- I suggest using just two headings: 1. Introduction and 2.Study Site (presently section 1.4.1). This would make the text better structured.
- There is a wide use of the permafrost glossary (van Everdingen, 2005) in the introduction section – although there are much more detailed/appropriate sources for the different topics. Same goes for the UFC 3-130-05 report.
- Since figures are reproduced from other material, they are generic and don’t add much to the argument.
- e.g. Figure 3 serves little purpose to the text. Figures 1, 2, 4 and 6 could be merged as one by the authors to show the aspects that are important to Svalbard taliks.
- The problem of water security in Svalbard is not discussed clearly. Section 1.1 focuses solely on the High Arctic in general. The transitions towards why studying river taliks is then unconvincing.
- e.g. Why would river taliks be the only option for drinking water sources? The transition between line 58 and 63 should be detailed further.
- e.g. “The challenge of water security is especially acute in small remote Arctic communities, where large numbers of indigenous residents live” – this statement is irrelevant for a study that focuses on Svalbard.
- The paper ignores a large portion of groundwater literature on Svalbard (no chemistry papers are cited) and lacks detail about the origin of the groundwater.
- Line 273-289: Sub-permafrost water is not solely due to the presence of glaciers. This section needs more details. How about icings in the Longyeardalen area – are they all due to pressurized sub-glacial systems? Other origins are quickly mentioned in line 299-301 but not in enough detail. There is recent literature about this.
- The Advent groundwater system has been widely discussed in papers relating to the CO2 lab and more recent modeling efforts such as Hornum et al. 2020.
- The authors also seem to miss a few key points on the formation of river icings:
- e.g. what are river icing in the first place?
- e.g. In Arctic rivers the presence of taliks (line 63-65) is also largely related to the morphology of the river and the depth of the water column.
- The section between line 80 and 94 seems like it belongs in a new section about “geoengineering in river taliks” or equivalent. In this section, it is unclear to me why the wells described in lines 86-94 are relevant.
- e.g. the presence of icings in Svalbard in lines 303 to 311 can be widely observed on satellite imagery and there are publications about this.
- In line 103-104, the author suggests that water management could become an issue with permafrost becoming discontinuous. In what timeframe do the authors believe this would be likely happen in the Longyearbyen area?
Methods:
The authors would benefit from discussing their methods in more details. Were there specific field visits? How were the observations gathered? How were the icings identified? Many of these things are discussed in the results section but would be better suited for the methods section. The authors should propose a classification of river icings and field evidence for the different types.
Results:
- This section is divided based on the location of the icings, but I think this is where the authors should link up the classifications of the icings and their observations. This comes back to the question – what is a river icing? The authors should showcase a clear classification of their observations.
- e.g. some of the features discussed in Figure 8 (such as a., c. and g.) could also be considered frost blisters – unrelated to sub-permafrost groundwater flow – but originating from sequential seasonal freezing of the riverbed. How do the authors differentiate such features to river icings. The fact there is water flowing perennially? This needs to be specified in much earlier in text (there is attempt at explaining this line 468-476). Lines 517-521 state this disparity and add to the confusion.
- In general, the authors offer a high degree of detail about potential flow paths with very minimal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is not enough to support the degree of detail exposed in sections of this paper. There are simple ways to test some of hypotheses brought forward in this paper that were not done. The authors also mention that open-system pingos also originate from groundwater flow and disregard this extensive literature in the Adventelva section.
- The section detailed in 3.2. is interesting, but would benefit from a map with the depth of observations for groundwater. This would be a more efficient way of presenting the data.
- Section 3.4. is really interesting. How successful was this operation? The authors do not comment on the outcome of this installation.
- In section 3.5. the authors comment on the water quality and potential for groundwater being more “drinkable” in Svalbard. However, there has been no water chemistry done here. Also many of these icings are a ‘trickle’. How would harvesting such water sources be viable for a whole community? The conclusions seem a bit overhyped to me.
- I suggest presenting only Figure 13 and removing Figure 9.
More specific comments (please note that I stopped going into details after making the conclusion to request for a resubmission):
Line 53 : remove double parentheses.
Line 59: remove double parentheses.
Line 61-62: remove double parentheses.
Line 90: remove double parentheses.
Lines 223-227: State population in parentheses for each settlement for context.
Line 236: Missing “.” At end of sentence.
Line 236-237: The thaw season has increased by how much? Important in the context of permafrost degradation. Potentially state thawing-degree-days increase.
Line 248: remove double parentheses.
Line 249: remove double parentheses.
Line 250-251: by how much? This statement is vague. Right now the rate is 0.6 cm yr-1.
Line 256: state where these are.
Line 257: add reference
Line 264: what are the increase projections?
Line 265: Missing “.” At end of sentence.
Line 259-271: This paragraph is missing the link between surface runoff and the formation taliks.
Line 304-305: there is literature about intrapermafrost taliks in the form of cryopegs in Adventdalen.
Line 383-383: This seems like a quick conclusion based on few observations.
Line 428-430: There needs to be formal evidence for this or a reference.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2950-RC1 -
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2950', Anonymous Referee #2, 02 Jul 2024
This paper presents interesting observations of icings from Svalbard but needs a clear structure and narrative before publication. I regret to suggest a rejection of the paper in its present form and instead request for a resubmission. Some of criticism of the paper is described below (please note that I stopped reviewing after making the decision to suggest a rejection):
The research is motivated by the springs supposedly representing a new drinking water resource, yet this claim largely remains unsupported after reading through the article. Below are some comments, which could help improve the manuscript:
General comments
- Terms and glossary list – The authors include a glossary list for the readers convenience. However, I would prefer (for readability) that terms are defined when they first appear and leave the glossary list out. This is already the case for some terms, e.g, active layer, in which case the glossary list becomes redundant. The authors use the glossary list by van Everdingen (1990) as a reference to many ground-ice related terms. However, this reference is outdated for some of the terms, and I would generally suggest referring to more specific literature. As an example, for taliks, would suggest using O’Neill et al (2020), who provide a revised nomenclature for taliks.
- The introduction is very lengthy and does not clearly state what the motivation of the is.
- It contains many detailed descriptions, which do not seem relevant and obstruct the readability of the paper. Examples:
- Line 247-249: I do not find it relevant for this paper to describe
- On line 117-133, the authors use almost half a page to describe how different types of models (numerical and empirical) can be used in Arctic hydrological research, how they work and what type of data they require for calibration and validation. Since such models are not part of this research, this degree of detail is unnecessary and reduces readability.
- It contains many detailed descriptions, which do not seem relevant and obstruct the readability of the paper. Examples:
- The objectives of the study should be stated at an earlier stage in the introduction and not as part of the methods section.
- The method section should include descriptions of (1) how the observations were conducted and (2) a description of the classification scheme used to differentiate between the different icing types.
-
- It is unclear whether the authors searched for icings in any systematic way? For example, was Longyeardalen searched for icings throughout its stretch every year in the reporting period, or were observations made in a more randomized way?
- The suggestion of an increase in groundwater flow on lines 381-385 is bold when these are the only two years mentioned: “few icings were observed […] in […] 2008 […], but a significantly higher number […] in 2017. This difference may indicate an increase in groundwater flow […].”
- Results – In the current result section, the reports of icing observations are mixed with interpretations of how they were formed. The interpretations should be moved into a separate discussion section including the sketches of interpreted flow paths to the icings.
-
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2950-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 686 | 214 | 43 | 943 | 91 | 34 | 52 |
- HTML: 686
- PDF: 214
- XML: 43
- Total: 943
- Supplement: 91
- BibTeX: 34
- EndNote: 52
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States of America | 1 | 247 | 27 |
| Norway | 2 | 138 | 15 |
| Ireland | 3 | 68 | 7 |
| France | 4 | 66 | 7 |
| Netherlands | 5 | 59 | 6 |
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 247