the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Assessment and comparison of thermal stabilisation measures at an Alpine permafrost site, Switzerland
Abstract. Global warming provokes permafrost thawing, which leads to landscape changes and infrastructure damage, problems that have intensified worldwide in all permafrost regions. This study numerically investigates the impact of different thermal stabilization methods to prevent or delay permafrost thawing. To test different technical methods, an alpine mountain permafrost site with nearby infrastructure prone to damage is investigated. Model simulations represent the one-dimensional effect of heat fluxes across the complex system of snow-ice-permafrost layers, and the impact of passive and active cooling, including engineered energy flux dynamics at the surface. Results show the efficiency of different passive, active, and combined thermal stabilisation methods, in influencing heat transfer, temperature distribution, and the seasonal active layer thickness. Investigating each component of thermal stabilization helps quantify the efficiency of each method and determine their optimal combination. Passive methods despite provide efficient cooling in winter, due to heat transfer to the atmosphere, are less efficient as the active layer thickness remains over 1 m. Conductive heat flux regulation alone takes several years to form a stable frozen layer. Active, when powered with solar energy, cooling decreases the active layer thickness to a few decimetres. The combination of active and passive cooling, together with conductive heat flux regulation, performs best and allows excess energy to be fed into the local grid. Findings of this study show ground temperature and permafrost evolution at a representative alpine site under natural and thermally stabilized conditions, contributing to understanding potential and limitations of stabilization systems and formulate recommendations for optimal application.
- Preprint
(16599 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 13 Apr 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-4174', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Feb 2025
reply
General comments:
The manuscript is well-documented, providing a solid review of the state of the art. It addresses an interesting topic with a novel approach and is highly relevant to the current state of research in this field. However, at times, the manuscript becomes difficult to read due to the large amount of information presented, which is not always structured in a way that facilitates comprehension. A clear example of this is the first paragraph of the Results section, where the authors themselves include a clarification that should not be necessary if the text were more effectively organized.
In addition, the Results and Discussion section would benefit from a deeper discussion, as it sometimes feels like the authors are merely describing the experimental results rather than engaging in a more analytical interpretation. Furthermore, the manuscript lacks comparisons with similar studies or references that would help position this work within the broader context of the field.
There are also several typos and some unclear sentence constructions that should be reviewed. While I will highlight some specific instances in the Technical Corrections section, I strongly recommend a thorough proofreading of the manuscript to improve clarity and readability.Finally, some parts of the Conclusions section would be better placed in the Discussion, as they would strengthen the interpretative aspects of the study while also improving the clarity of the Conclusions, which currently feel somewhat long and not very straightforward.
Overall, I would like to congratulate the authors on their work and hope that they will consider the comments and suggestions provided to further improve the manuscript.Specific comments:
L190: The observational permafrost temperature and atmospheric data sets of this site are largely sufficient -> “largely” based on what?
L219: The simulations have been run from June 2000 to January 2017-> Why this period? Explain, please.
L220: …an hourly time step-> Why hourly? Explain, please.
L265: The objective of this experiment is to allow more efficient… -> Is that really the objective? It is not to analyze the applicability?
L268: We simulate the presence of a 50-100 mm thick… -> Why that thickness and not a different one? Explain, please.
L273: The albedo of the isolation material is assumed to be 70%... -> 70% based on what? Explain, please.
L299: …as evident in Equation (1).-> Not sure that “evident” is the right choice. If something is evident, there is no need to say it.
L329: For some periods, measured snow depth is below the simulated one indicating that the model would underestimate melt or erosion.-> What is the reason for this? Can you support this statement with a reference?
L527: No corrections here, I just wanted to say that, in my opinion, it is a really great paragraph.
Figures:
Maybe this is something on my side, but it is not clear to me why in some figures you choose daily averaged ground temperatures while in others you choose monthly averaged values.
In most of the figures, it is really difficult to distinguish the numbers within the blue color areas.
In Figure 1 I miss some location references (lat, lon or UTM).Technical corrections:
L31: Review the citing style-> I think this should be the correct one: (Hauck, 2002; Swiss Permafrost Monitoring Network (PERMOS), 2024).
L38: Review the citing style, same problem.
L48: Review the citing style, same problem.
L108: Review the citing style -> order?
L111: Review the citing style-> year?
L132: Review the citing style -> order?
L132-136: Repetitive use of “include”.
L153: When the ground temperatures reaches set threshold, the cooling system turns off, in the model it means is activated -> This sentence makes no sense, there is something missing or maybe the structure is wrong.
L204: Review the citing style -> order?
L212: The geological map (..) indicates a limestone bedrock on this site in depth and the with sandy… -> This sentence makes no sense, there is something missing here or maybe the structure is wrong.
L290: Thelatter are modelled by implementing an sink term…-> There is something wrong here.
L332-3: Repetitive use of “layers”.
L334-5: Repetitive and confusing use of “ALT”.
Figure 2: Redundant information (0°C isotherm).
Figure A2: Redundant 2000 to 2017.
Figure B2: Redundant 50 mm to 100 mm.
L637: Reference incomplete.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4174-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-4174', Anonymous Referee #2, 13 Mar 2025
reply
Overall comment
This manuscript deals with a relevant and up-to-date topic concerning permafrost thaw and associated infrastructure damage. It is highly relevant for the research on mountain permafrost and cold regions engineering. It presents novel data by a thorough comparison of numerically simulations on different thermal stabilization methods to prevent or delay permafrost thawing. The scientific methods are described and the results support the conclusions.
Yet, some elaborations and clarifications regarding the points raised below will help to improve the manuscript:
Major comments
The introduction is very long and contains a lot of information that is not necessary for this study. Shorten the introduction be removing redundant information and by concentrating on the aspects that are important for this study.
The description of the fieldsite is not sufficient. Please include the following information: What are the permafrost temperatures and how did they change over the past years (since the beginning of the measurements in 1998)? What is the active layer thickness and how did it change (you only mention that it doubled but from which value)? What about air temperatures? What about snow conditions (how long is the snow season)? What about precipitation amount? These are all parameters that influence the permafrost conditions and should be presented in the fieldsite description. Consider to split section 3 into two sections (study site description and data).
I would recommend to have an overview table where you compare the results of your model scenarios (e.g. ALT, ground temperatures at a certain depth) to compare the natural conditions with the thermal stabilisation experiments. You can see nicely the differences in the figures, but numbers would be really helpful. Then one does not have to scroll up and down to compare the effect of the scenarios.
I am missing a section about the limitations of your model (1D approach, lateral water fluxes on a slope, water bucket approach and others). You mention some uncertainties here and there (e.g. 541ff, 547 ff), but it would be beneficial to have them summarized in one section.
The section “results and discussion” mainly presents the results and the discussion is very limited, especially a comparison to other literature on this topic. Some parts of the “Conclusions and outlook” would fit well into the discussion, which would in turn shorten the last section, which would improve the clarity and structure of the conclusion.
Minor comments
I would recommend proof-reading the manuscript for grammatical mistakes (e.g. L8, L9, L14, L60 and others).
The title does not reflect that the assessment and comparison are based on numerical simulations and not field experiments.
L23: Include newer rates of Noetzli et al. (2024): Enhanced warming of European mountain permafrost in the early 21st century, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-54831-9
L36: Not only thawing but already warming permafrost can be a risk for the infrastructure.
L36: Why “built” infrastructure?
L37: What is meant with “such” infrastructure? Infrastructure on permafrost?
L49: What includes “other destructions”?
L 54: Improve the clarity of this sentence.
L108: also CryoGrid community model, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2607-2023
L138: Did you include drainage / seepage in combination to your bucket water scheme? Your simulated fieldsite is on a slope (Fig. 1), so this might be an important effect. If not included, discuss it in the uncertainties.
L166: Not clear, so it calculates the surface energy balance? What does it mean that it avoids the connection with the surface temperature?
L174: Which permafrost parameters? Ground temperature and active layer thickness?
L 175: How is the snow simulated? Based on the precipitation of the atmospheric data? On a mountain top that might be extensive snow redistribution due to wind. Is that considered? Furthermore, you are on sloping terrain, which may affect the snow accumulation. Do you take this into account? How is the melting handled? Is meltwater just removed from the system or can it infiltrate the ground?
L178: This sentence does not make sense. Do you mean: We selected this site because it us representative and because of the infrastructure?
L180: Give time period and active layer thickness before and after. What about the variability of ALT from year to year?
L193: Atmospheric data from which time period? Also refer here to table 1, as it is only listed in this table which parameters have been used and not mentioned in the text.
L198: How was the spinup performed?
Fig1: I recommend several improvements in this figure:
- Add lat / lon or UTM
- It is very difficult to see the permafrost conditions / solar radiation close to your fieldsite. I would recommend to zoom much closer to your fieldsite in your maps with solar radiation and permafrost distribution.
- Another possibility would be to display the permafrost distribution into the map on the right instead of only showing the topographic map.
- Change the colorbar of the solar radiation as the lower values are not applicable.
- Furthermore, make the green dots for the stations better visible.
L199: Is this data from the borehole? Then add it to table 1 where you describe the borehole.
L205: You say in line 199 that you have observational data for volumetric ice and water content, voids, density, thermal conductivity and heat capacity. Now you say it is based on borehole temperatures (?) and modelling. Which is true?
Table 2: Are the 3 layers divided into gridcells? What is the thickness of the gridcells and do they vary with depth?
L226: For those not familiar with Schmucki, please state the main principle so that one does not have to google the paper: is it e.g. an albedo aging factor?
L242-257: Would fit better in the discussion section than in the methods.
L253: Partly based? Which of the numbers were not based on Loktionov et al., 2022?
L309: Where does the number -7.5 dC come from?
L329: What about redistribution of snow by wind?
Fig. 2, 5, 7: Remove the 0 from the 0 dC isotherm, it makes them look messy. You anyway describe it in the caption.
Fig. 2 and others with the same colorbar: Consider using a scientific color scale (see https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19160-7; https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2541-2018).
L342: Could it be that this is true because you used the bucket water scheme? Do you think your results could look different using Richards equation? Discuss the uncertainties.
Fig. 4b / L343: In your simulations, reduced wind speeds lead during the entire year to lower ground temperatures. I am wondering: if you reduce wind speeds, this will reduce latent heat fluxes during summer, decreasing the evaporation and thus the cooling of the ground? Or is evaporation not included in the model?
L350: “affects negatively ground temperatures” can be misleading as temperatures are increased. Change the wording.
Fig. 5: State in the caption that it shows the total effect of shading.
L366: Fig. 6b does not show ALT
Fig. 12b: Increase the y axis to greater depth to show the entire active layer
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4174-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
172 | 37 | 14 | 223 | 7 | 8 |
- HTML: 172
- PDF: 37
- XML: 14
- Total: 223
- BibTeX: 7
- EndNote: 8
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 62 | 25 |
Switzerland | 2 | 57 | 23 |
Russia | 3 | 30 | 12 |
France | 4 | 10 | 4 |
Germany | 5 | 9 | 3 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 62