the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Quantifying permafrost ground ice contents in the Tien Shan and Pamir (Central Asia): A Petrophysical Joint Inversion approach using the Geometric Mean model
Abstract. In the Central Asian Tien Shan and Pamir mountain ranges, permafrost is extensive, but in-situ data on permafrost remains scarce. Quantitative analysis of permafrost's subsurface components—ice, water, air, and rock—is vital for not only discerning the impact of climate change on increased slope instability due to permafrost degradation, but also for understanding its role as a potential water resource in high-altitude environments. Recent studies have employed a Petrophysical Joint Inversion (PJI) approach combining geoelectrical and seismic refraction data to model the subsurface's four phases (fractions of air, water, ice, and rock). However, most of these studies primarily rely on Archie’s law, which has limitations in coarse blocky substrates typical of mountainous terrains. Recognizing this limitation, the electrical Geometric Mean (PJI-GM) model may be used as an alternative implementation within the PJI. In this study, we assess the suitability of using the PJI-GM model across an extensive geophysical dataset comprising 22 profiles in Central Asia (Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan). Our goals are to (i) address the existing data gap concerning mountain permafrost and ground ice contents in the Tien Shan and Pamir of Central Asia and (ii) evaluate the performance of the GM model in comparison to Archie's law within the PJI framework across the different landforms at remote sites. The findings reveal that the ground ice content is more specific to landform types than to the different geographic regions surveyed, with rock glaciers exhibiting the highest mean ice contents (38–60 %), followed by moraines (18–40 %), talus slopes (20–40 %), and fine-grained sediments (0–20 %). The PJI-GM model performed especially well for ice-rich landforms such as rock glaciers, accurately reflecting high ice contents with minimal variability between model runs. The quality of a model result was hereby assessed by comparing a multitude of different model runs with different sets of inversion parameters and petrophysical variables using a clustering approach. This research provides one of the first comprehensive (geophysical) in-situ datasets on permafrost on various landforms and sites in Central Asia, highlighting the potential of the PJI-GM model as a more suitable alternative to Archie’s law, particularly for rock glaciers and other ice-rich landforms. These findings significantly advance our understanding of permafrost in the Tien Shan and Pamir and serve as a baseline dataset for future modeling studies.
- Preprint
(56782 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2795', Jacopo Boaga, 16 Oct 2024
The paper describes a novel approach to permafrost PJI tested in different sites of Tien Shan and Pamir. The paper is well written, with rigorous description of the methodologies adopted. Conclusions are fully supported by the relevant results. The only criticism I have is about the paper length ( 52 pages) that makes the manuscript hard to read. In my opinion the authors jointed 2 works that may be separated in 2 different contributions helping the reading: a work about the relevant permafrost characterisation of the remote studied areas, and a work about the novel PJI-GM approach and its comparison with the more common PIJ-AR. I obviously leave to the editor the decision about suggesting the splitting or not.
I suggest to sum up the discussion avoiding some repetition as in ln540, and to insert before the most relevant findings (e.g. Ln625-635) , and the important landforms / ice content relations.
I noted some typo that need corrections:
LN 472 Sentence about support of higher standard deviation not clear
LN 531, 533, 556 typo figures numbers
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2795-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2795', Anonymous Referee #2, 26 Dec 2024
The paper presents an extensive dataset of geophysical measurements (ERT and RST) collected from various sites across the Tien Shan and Pamir regions. For the interpretation of these datasets, the authors thoroughly explore the potential of petrophysical joint inversion (PJI) using the resistivity geometric mean model (PJI-GM) and partially compare it with the more commonly used PJI based on Archie's Law (PJI-AR).
The study is well-written and provides a detailed and rigorous description of the methodologies employed. However, it lacks a brief discussion comparing the inversion schemes in terms of convergence metrics (e.g., chi² and/or RMSE).
Beyond this observation, I have included additional comments in the manuscript attached to this review and recommend minor revisions or technical corrections to the paper.
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2795', Anonymous Referee #3, 08 Jan 2025
This paper employs the Petrophysical Joint Inversion (PJI) method, combining the Geometric Mean Model and Clustering approach to quantify the ground ice content of mountain permafrost across different landforms. It compares these results with those obtained using Conventional Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) Inversion and Archie's Law (PJI-AR) methods, evaluating the applicability of PJI-GM in mountain permafrost under various landforms. This study fills a data gap regarding the extent of ground ice in the Tien Shan and Pamir regions (Central Asia) and analyzes the respective advantages and disadvantages of PJI-GM and PJI-AR in mountain permafrost areas. The research is at the forefront of the field, the overall logic of the paper is clear, and I recommend acceptance after necessary revisions. Below are specific suggestions for modifications:
- Line 202: The authors mentioned using a modified PJI approach, which appears to refer to the PJI-GM method. However, in the introduction, the authors state that Mollaret et al. (2020) proposed the PJI-GM method (Line 107). It is unclear what are the modifications compared to Mollaret et al. (2020).
- Line 292: Although authors mentioned defining the zone of interest (ZOI) for each profile according to the method of Hilbich et al. (2022) to calculate the potential ground ice content, I suggest that the authors provide a detailed explanation of how the ZOI is defined, as the extent of the ZOI directly affects the subsequent calculation of ground ice content for each profile.
- Line 294: The term "zone of interest" seems to refer to Figure A2 rather than Figure A1.
- Line 313: "(Rücker et al., 2017)" should be changed to "Rücker et al. (2017)".
- Line 363: "Figure A" should refer to "Figure A3," right?
- The subfigure numbering format in all figures within the paper is inconsistent. Some use lowercase letters (a., b., c., d.), while others use uppercase letters (A, B, C, D).
- Figure 5a: The y-axis is missing a label, and the legend of the colorbar could be adjusted slightly to the right.
- Figure 8: What do the blue dotted lines on the surface represent? I did not find an explanation in the legend.
- Figure 11: A label indicating depth should be added to the y-axis.
- Figure 13: Similarly, a label indicating depth should be added to the y-axis.
- Lines 531, 533, and 556: The references to figures in the text are incorrect.
- Line 190: The extra question mark seems to indicate an incorrect citation?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2795-RC3
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
323 | 117 | 121 | 561 | 2 | 4 |
- HTML: 323
- PDF: 117
- XML: 121
- Total: 561
- BibTeX: 2
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1