the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 16 Jan 2026
Toward Greater Clarity: Revisiting The Coldest March and Its Portrayal of the Ross Ice Shelf Atmospheric Dynamic
Abstract. In the final chapters of The Coldest March: Scott's Fatal Antarctic Expedition, Dr. Susan Solomon analyzes the meteorological conditions surrounding the last blizzard that claimed the lives of Captain Robert Falcon Scott, Dr. Edward Wilson, and Lieutenant Henry Bowers. The book’s conclusion—that the storm could not have lasted ten days and that the men may have chosen to die—warrants close scrutiny. Solomon not only argues that the blizzard was virtually impossible but even suggests that Scott may have ordered Wilson and Bowers to die alongside him, a claim resting entirely on her meteorological misinterpretation, a sensational accusation that was subsequently repeated by several major newspapers. A reassessment of the book’s depiction of the behavior of the Ross Ice Shelf airstream reveals significant discrepancies with established meteorological science, satellite imagery, and historical records. Drawing on satellite observations, archival sources, and contemporary polar research, this article examines the methodological and interpretive problems that shaped Solomon’s conclusions, including oversimplifications of cyclonic incursions, and misunderstandings of barrier winds.
This is not a matter of one interpretation versus another; it is a matter of scientific evidence contradicting a narrative built on a misreading of that evidence.
Status: open (until 13 Mar 2026)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5720', Ursula Rack, 05 Feb 2026
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Mila Zinkova, 05 Feb 2026
reply
Thank you for taking the time to review my manuscript. I appreciate the effort you invested in your comments, and I would like to clarify several points where the intent and scope of the paper may not have been fully understood.
I was not attempting to reconstruct weather patterns or meteorological phenomena from contemporaneous 1912 data such as ship logbooks or historical scientific records. I have already done that work in my earlier article that you cited in your review. Likewise, in this manuscript I was not trying to demonstrate that a nine‑day blizzard was possible in this region; that analysis was also completed in my previous paper. The purpose of the present manuscript is different. It is to show that not a single statement Dr. Solomon made in her book regarding the final blizzard is supported by atmospheric science. This is not a matter of interpretation or opinion. It is a matter of physical evidence, demonstrated both by the satellite imagery presented and by the peer‑reviewed scientific research cited throughout the manuscript.
I agree that modern satellite and radar data cannot, by themselves, describe the weather phenomena of 1912 without supporting contemporaneous observations. That is precisely why my earlier article relied on all available 1912 data. However, this manuscript does not require such reconstruction. The relevant atmospheric processes—cyclone passages producing blizzards on the Ross Ice Shelf, the spatial limits of katabatic winds, and the fact that katabatic winds did not and do not affect the Corner Camp and Last Camp simultaneously—are stable, well‑documented features of the region. Demonstrating these physical constraints does not require re‑analysis of 1912 meteorological logs.
Regarding the imagery, I appreciate your comment about annotation and will revise the figures to improve clarity. The satellite images are not used to infer 1912 conditions but to illustrate the structure of airflow regimes that are well established in the scientific literature. I will make this distinction more explicit and strengthen the accompanying climatological explanation.
You noted that archival materials were mentioned but not reflected in the text or references. I would be grateful if you could indicate the specific line number where you believe the manuscript refers to archival material, as I want to ensure that any such reference is properly supported and cited. At present, I am not certain which passage you are referring to, and identifying the exact location will help me correct or clarify it appropriately.
Concerning originality, the earlier paper you cited addresses a different question, and the manuscript submitted here examines a separate issue: the scientific validity of a specific airflow interpretation and the influence of that interpretation on subsequent literature. I will clarify this distinction in the introduction to avoid any impression of redundancy.
Finally, while the manuscript focuses on atmospheric processes, these processes directly shape surface conditions on the Ross Ice Shelf and therefore have relevance to cryospheric interpretation. Nevertheless, I respect your view on disciplinary boundaries and defer to the editor regarding journal fit.
Thank you again for your review. Your comments have helped identify areas where the manuscript can be strengthened, and I will incorporate these improvements in the revision.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5720-AC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC1 a few clarifications', Mila Zinkova, 05 Feb 2026
reply
With your permission, I would like to add two brief clarifications to my response from yesterday.
If this manuscript had attempted to reconstruct the 1912 weather conditions, it would indeed have been redundant, as that reconstruction was already completed in the earlier paper you cited. The present study addresses a different question: whether the airflow interpretation introduced in The Coldest March is scientifically valid. That is the sole focus of the analysis.
You correctly noted that the book in question was published twenty‑five years ago. That is precisely why the issue warrants attention. The error did not remain confined to the book; it was repeated in major newspaper articles and again in Dr. Solomon’s own 2012 presentation. In each case, the same unsupported atmospheric claim was used to justify a striking accusation — made by Dr. Solomon herself — that Captain Scott was dishonest about the conditions the party faced during the final blizzard. The sensational nature of that allegation helped generate public interest in the book, but it also ensured that the error continued to circulate unchallenged. When a scientific assertion is used to support a charge of dishonesty against historical figures, and when that assertion is contradicted by established atmospheric physics, it becomes important to correct the record.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5720-AC2
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Mila Zinkova, 05 Feb 2026
reply
Viewed
Since the preprint corresponding to this journal article was posted outside of Copernicus Publications, the preprint-related metrics are limited to HTML views.
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 103 | 0 | 3 | 106 | 0 | 0 |
- HTML: 103
- PDF: 0
- XML: 3
- Total: 106
- BibTeX: 0
- EndNote: 0
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Since the preprint corresponding to this journal article was posted outside of Copernicus Publications, the preprint-related metrics are limited to HTML views.
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
This paper tries to showcase flaws from a 25-year-old publication, which was not a peer reviewed work as such (Solmon, Susan. The Coldest March. Scott’s fatal Antarctic Expedition. 2001). It is welcomed to discuss interpretations of data over time; however, this manuscript does not reach the depth of this approach. The language is fluent, but all other parts which are required for this review are not achieved sufficiently for the scope of this journal (see list of the 15 points for the peer review).
Infrared images have been used from NASA, but there is sufficient annotation missing and the quality of the used images does not help for interpretation to answer the research question. The climatological interpretation into the used images is missing.
This paper is not very original, because the author has already submitted a very similar paper in "Arctic, Antarctic and Alpin Research" https://doi.org/10.1080/15230430.2025.2522490 in May 2025, and in "Polar Journal" So Robert Falcon Scott wasn't lying? |in July 2025.
As a historian, I worked with historical climate data, but I am not a climate scientist. Therefore I consulted two glaciologists and climate scientists, who are very familiar with the area discussed in that paper. I know from my own work, that we can only reconstruct weather patterns and weather phenomenon from actual data from the time, such as from ship logbooks or from historical scientific data collections and reports. In this paper, the interpretation is mainly based on diary entries from Scott’s party on the way back from the Pole, George Simpson’s account from 1919, and Cherry-Garrad’s book “The worst journey in the world”. Direct data collections have not been used in this paper. It is also mentioned that archival material has been used for this research, but this is not reflected in the text or reference list. In discussion with the climate scientists, it became clear, that our modern data from satellites and radar images cannot effectively describe the weather phenomenon from 1912 without supporting data from the time.
The author explains that it could have been possible that a blizzard over 9 days in this particular area could have been possible, but the imagery and other comments do not reflect that sufficiently. The paper discusses katabatic and barrier winds and tries to proof that Susan Solomon has misinterpreted the Ross Ice Shelf airstream. This is also a reason, in my opinion, that this is not the right journal to publish this research, because it does not touch the cryosphere as such, it is more atmospheric physics related.
I leave it to the discretion of the editor to proceed further with this paper.