the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Short-term cooling, drying and deceleration of an ice-rich rock glacier
Abstract. Observations in the European Alps show a long-term rise in rock glacier velocities, which is often associated with increased air and ground temperatures and, more recently, water content. Long term rock glacier acceleration is superimposed by a high interannual variability of their velocity and there is still a gap in the quantitative assessment of the role of water in rock glaciers and the factors leading to short-term rock glacier deceleration.
To address this research gap, we drilled three vertical boreholes in the Schafberg rock glacier, Swiss Alps, in August 2020. We documented their stratigraphy and equipped one of the boreholes with temperature sensors and piezometers, and the other two with cross-borehole electrical resistivity tomography sensors. Rock glacier velocities were determined using terrestrial laser scans. Using data from nearby weather stations and ground surface temperature sensors we analyzed the interactions between meteorological and subsurface conditions during a rock glacier deceleration period, from January 2021 to July 2023.
Our findings show that a lowering of the water content in rock glaciers is crucial for intermittent, interannual rock glacier deceleration. The impact of the snowpack, both as an insulator and as a water source is significant for rock glacier kinematics. Winters with little snow and relatively dry summers appear to be ideal for rock glacier cooling and drying, leading to deceleration. Summer heat waves have limited impact on rock glacier velocity if they are preceded by snow-poor winters.
Our study uses an innovative combination of borehole data to gain insights into rock glacier temperatures and water contents, allowing to detect relative changes in ice/water contents in ice-rich permafrost. The monitoring techniques used have the potential to contribute to a better understanding of factors affecting rock glacier kinematics and water availability.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(15377 KB)
-
Supplement
(305 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(15377 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(305 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-269', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Mar 2024
Dear authors,
please find attached detailed comments on your relevant and interesting study.
Best regards
- AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Alexander Bast, 04 Apr 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-269', Dimitrios Ntarlagiannis, 14 Mar 2024
The manuscript discusses a multi year glacier monitoring project using a variety of monitoring tools. The manuscript is well written and logically organized. The authors provide a lot of information, collected data and robust statistical analysis, that could aid in describing the glacier kinematics.
Although not an expert in this field (cryosphere), data, processing and conclusions seem logical and supported by the data presented an analysis.
My only concern are the presented ERT data (my area of expertise). The environment is difficult to perform ERT with very high contact resistances (need to be described) that could degrade the quality of the data. The subsurface resistivity images provided, show an interesting, to say the least, structure that does not seem to change over time (very minor changes at certain time periods). The described subsurface stratigraphy does not fully explain/support such resistivity structure where the dominant conductive (relative) feature is oriented vertically - with significant lateral variability; the stratigraphy provided does not seem to support such variability in such close distance. The authors need to explain what subsurface stratigraphy can create such resistivity distribution, and they can achieve that through modeling. I fear that this resistivity image might be the result of systematic error with the ERT data acquisition, maybe due to poor contact resistance (or erroneous electrode mapping), that creates the observed anomaly and any variability detected could be the effect of water freezing/thawing on contact resistances.
I am not suggesting that the data are bad, but due to the local environmental conditions all the options should be explored and discussed in the manuscript. Of course the glacier subsurface can be very variable that creates this resistivity image, but this need to be investigated.
Minor comments on the annotated pdf.- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Alexander Bast, 04 Apr 2024
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-269', Andreas Hördt, 15 Mar 2024
This is a nice case study with a comprehensive characterisation of a rock glacier using a novel combination of methods. I find the results significant and useful. The material fits into the scope of the special issue and clearly deserves to be published.
Most of the results are clearly presented. In particular, I like detailed figure captions.
I have no issues with the analysis and interpretation of the data, but I believe the discussion and presentation of the results could be improved. Since this is a highly interdisciplinary subject, special efforts should be made to make sure that readers from all disciplines can follow. This includes explaining a little more than one normally would do, avoiding slang, and using precise wording and definitions. I have marked some sections that might be improved in this respect.
I do not see the usefulness of figure 8, and suggest to remove it or replace it. In the current version, it is overloaded, and it is not clear which conclusions may be drawn from it that can not be made from other figures. For example, the resistivity images nicely show increase and decrease over the season, including spatial variations. By calculating an average over the entire volume, the information is being blurred. I suggest to re-think which message should be conveyed by the figure and redesign it correspondingly, or to remove it altogether.
I also have an issue with terminology; there seems to be confusion or imprecise usage of the term “active layer” and parameters related to it. The active layer is the layer below the surface that reaches temperatures above zero at least once during a season. It follows that the active layer thickness is the maximum depth of the thawed layer during a season. Therefore, the ALT cannot be measured at one point in time, and it cannot vary over a time scale of only one month or a few days. I recommend to be precise with terminology to avoid confusion for readers from other disciplines.
I also recommend to consider this additional reference, a study with simular goals, but a slightly different combination of methods and a different region.
Buckel, J., Reinosch, E., Voigtländer, A., Dietze, M., Bücker, M., Krebs, N., Schroeckh, R., Mäusbacher, R., Hördt, A. 2022. Rock Glacier Characteristics Under Semiarid Climate Conditions in the Western Nyainqêntanglha Range, Tibetan Plateau. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, 127, e2021JF006256. DOI: 10.5194/tc-15-149-2021.
- AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Alexander Bast, 04 Apr 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-269', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Mar 2024
Dear authors,
please find attached detailed comments on your relevant and interesting study.
Best regards
- AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Alexander Bast, 04 Apr 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-269', Dimitrios Ntarlagiannis, 14 Mar 2024
The manuscript discusses a multi year glacier monitoring project using a variety of monitoring tools. The manuscript is well written and logically organized. The authors provide a lot of information, collected data and robust statistical analysis, that could aid in describing the glacier kinematics.
Although not an expert in this field (cryosphere), data, processing and conclusions seem logical and supported by the data presented an analysis.
My only concern are the presented ERT data (my area of expertise). The environment is difficult to perform ERT with very high contact resistances (need to be described) that could degrade the quality of the data. The subsurface resistivity images provided, show an interesting, to say the least, structure that does not seem to change over time (very minor changes at certain time periods). The described subsurface stratigraphy does not fully explain/support such resistivity structure where the dominant conductive (relative) feature is oriented vertically - with significant lateral variability; the stratigraphy provided does not seem to support such variability in such close distance. The authors need to explain what subsurface stratigraphy can create such resistivity distribution, and they can achieve that through modeling. I fear that this resistivity image might be the result of systematic error with the ERT data acquisition, maybe due to poor contact resistance (or erroneous electrode mapping), that creates the observed anomaly and any variability detected could be the effect of water freezing/thawing on contact resistances.
I am not suggesting that the data are bad, but due to the local environmental conditions all the options should be explored and discussed in the manuscript. Of course the glacier subsurface can be very variable that creates this resistivity image, but this need to be investigated.
Minor comments on the annotated pdf.- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Alexander Bast, 04 Apr 2024
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-269', Andreas Hördt, 15 Mar 2024
This is a nice case study with a comprehensive characterisation of a rock glacier using a novel combination of methods. I find the results significant and useful. The material fits into the scope of the special issue and clearly deserves to be published.
Most of the results are clearly presented. In particular, I like detailed figure captions.
I have no issues with the analysis and interpretation of the data, but I believe the discussion and presentation of the results could be improved. Since this is a highly interdisciplinary subject, special efforts should be made to make sure that readers from all disciplines can follow. This includes explaining a little more than one normally would do, avoiding slang, and using precise wording and definitions. I have marked some sections that might be improved in this respect.
I do not see the usefulness of figure 8, and suggest to remove it or replace it. In the current version, it is overloaded, and it is not clear which conclusions may be drawn from it that can not be made from other figures. For example, the resistivity images nicely show increase and decrease over the season, including spatial variations. By calculating an average over the entire volume, the information is being blurred. I suggest to re-think which message should be conveyed by the figure and redesign it correspondingly, or to remove it altogether.
I also have an issue with terminology; there seems to be confusion or imprecise usage of the term “active layer” and parameters related to it. The active layer is the layer below the surface that reaches temperatures above zero at least once during a season. It follows that the active layer thickness is the maximum depth of the thawed layer during a season. Therefore, the ALT cannot be measured at one point in time, and it cannot vary over a time scale of only one month or a few days. I recommend to be precise with terminology to avoid confusion for readers from other disciplines.
I also recommend to consider this additional reference, a study with simular goals, but a slightly different combination of methods and a different region.
Buckel, J., Reinosch, E., Voigtländer, A., Dietze, M., Bücker, M., Krebs, N., Schroeckh, R., Mäusbacher, R., Hördt, A. 2022. Rock Glacier Characteristics Under Semiarid Climate Conditions in the Western Nyainqêntanglha Range, Tibetan Plateau. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, 127, e2021JF006256. DOI: 10.5194/tc-15-149-2021.
- AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Alexander Bast, 04 Apr 2024
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
347 | 156 | 25 | 528 | 43 | 12 | 14 |
- HTML: 347
- PDF: 156
- XML: 25
- Total: 528
- Supplement: 43
- BibTeX: 12
- EndNote: 14
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Robert Kenner
Marcia Phillips
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(15377 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(305 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper