Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors, Dear Editor,

 

The manuscript is focussed on a rather theoretical problem and I my impression is that the Author tries to establish disjunctive classes in a situation of multiple overlapping. Personally, I do not consider the glacial and the periglacial domains as “different worlds”. In my view the processes acting in a certain environment are more important than sorting a site or environment into a human-defined class or to another one. Anyway, there are some useful thoughts in the manuscript which might be interesting to the readers who are also keen to this kind of classification so the paper can be published following some moderate revision.

Although I marked few typos among the specific comments, I note that I cannot provide a detailed linguistic review since I’m not a native English speaker.

 

General comments:

-I found that the text is to “emotional” in certain places (e.g., lines 96-102, 176-178). I suggest removing the emotional voice and keep the focus objectively on the scientific issues.

-I missed supporting references for a couple of statements. As an extreme example, strangely, there are no any reference cited in section 4.2.

-There are some formatting mistakes in the reference list

 

specific comments:

line	comment
33	probably “tend” instead of “ten”
43-44	Please replace “Glaciers” with “Glacier ice”, and some reference is needed to support this statement.
44	“ice sheets” instead of “ice-sheets”. In addition, I suggest adding “besides seas ice” to the end of the sentence.
67	“Periglaciology” sounds really strange. I suggest replacing this word with  “Periglacial research”
83	Please check whether “then” is the proper word here?
85&87	The dates seems to be mismatch in lines 85 and 87, or maybe the past tense should be changed in the latter sentence.
176-178	I recommend removing this sentence with dominantly emotional aspects.
225	“ice sheets” instead of “ice-sheets”
237	I think “ice crystals” should be written instead of “ice rock crystals”
265	I guess Author wishes to cite [4] instead of [6]
304	“{” should be replaced with “[”
308-309	I suggest referring to Fig.1 after “ground” and before the comma an not at the end of the sentence.
347	Please correct the name from “Kaeaeb” to “Kääb”
353	Please correct the referencing to (Everdingen 1998) as [4]

References:

line 426: please add a space between “and” and “mid”

The separators between the names of the cited authors need checking e.g., in lines 457, 459, 471

Please, spell capitalize first letter as “Russian” in line 481

Author Response

I understand maintaining a certain distance on the subject discussed. Perhaps it concerns a specific group of recipients. Nevertheless, the article is largely written as a polemic with a similar text to be published in the same thematic volume. This means that this subject arouses keen interest.

Other reviewers even point out that some theses contained in this work are controversial. The reviewer does not express such an opinion, which means that they do not run from previous scientific achievements. This is also my opinion. I am glad that it allows publishing this slightly different opinion because not everyone allows today to publish works deviating from the mainstream research.

In the text I made all the changes suggested by the reviewer, firmly embedding the text in existing publications and depriving him of emotional accents. I hope this will satisfy him and agree to publish it.

General comments:

-I found that the text is to “emotional” in certain places (e.g., lines 96-102, 176-178). I suggest removing the emotional voice and keep the focus objectively on the scientific issues.

Answer: The two “emotional” sentences in lines 100 – 102 was deleted. The same is made with sentences in lines 177-179

 

-I missed supporting references for a couple of statements. As an extreme example, strangely, there are no any reference cited in section 4.2.

Answer: 11 references were added in the text, including 9 new, to justify the opinions presented

 

-There are some formatting mistakes in the reference list

A: the reference list is improved and completed by additional references

 

specific comments:

line  comment

 

33 probably “tend” instead of “ten”

Answer: “d” was added at the end of this word

 

43-44 Please replace “Glaciers” with “Glacier ice”, and some reference is needed to support this statement.

A: “Glaciers” was changed to “Glacial ice”

 

44 “ice sheets” instead of “ice-sheets”. In addition, I suggest adding “besides seas ice” to the end of the sentence.

A: “ice-sheets” was replaced by “ice sheets”, “besides seas ice” is added at the end.

 

67 “Periglaciology” sounds really strange. I suggest replacing this word with  “Periglacial research”

A: “Periglacial research” is introduced instead of “Periglaciology”

 

83 Please check whether “then” is the proper word here?

A: “then” was deleted two times

 

85&87 The dates seems to be mismatch in lines 85 and 87, or maybe the past tense should be changed in the latter sentence.

A: the corect date is 1933 and change was made in the text “then” was deleted

 

176-178 I recommend removing this sentence with dominantly emotional aspects.

A: the sentence was deleted

 

225 “ice sheets” instead of “ice-sheets”

OK, L 223 (228)

 

237 I think “ice crystals” should be written instead of “ice rock crystals”

A: “rock” was deleted

 

265 I guess Author wishes to cite [4] instead of [6]

A: yes, that’s right, nr 4 (actually nr 5) was introduced

 

304 “{” should be replaced with “[”

A: yes, changed

308-309 I suggest referring to Fig.1 after “ground” and before the comma an not at the end of the sentence.

A: OK, Fig.1. is moved as suggested

 

347 Please correct the name from “Kaeaeb” to “Kääb”

A: correction was made

 

353 Please correct the referencing to (Everdingen 1998) as [4]

A: change was made as indicated (actually 5)

 

References:

 

line 426: please add a space between “and” and “mid”

A: the space was added

 

The separators between the names of the cited authors need checking e.g., in lines 457, 459, 471

A: separators were checked, two commas were added.

 

Please, spell capitalize first letter as “Russian” in line 481

A: change were made: “R” instead “r”

Reviewer 2 Report

The author does not present any new data and the manuscript is a review of literature on permafrost and glaciers and their classification schemes. The author seems rather selective in the use of literature and I miss reference to recent, key literature on permafrost and glaciers and how they are classified. I also find the author's view on the classification of permafrost and glaciers/ice sheets rather controversial and the author's view is not backed up by empirical data in the manuscript. I therefore recommend to reject the paper from being published in Geosciences.

Author Response

The answer to this short review requires a longer text. I decided to write it in a few points referring to each sentence of the review separately, and end the statement with a short summary. I address this answer to the same extent to both the reviewer and the editor.

1. Today, a significant proportion of scientists attach great value to data as the basis for scientific inference. Indeed, observation and measurement are of fundamental importance for scientific description. However, we know that even the most careful measurement raises a number of doubts: a) is it representative? b) what is the burden of error c) is there enough measurements d) can they be checked when other scientists raise doubts.

All these questions must be answered negatively. a) it can always be said that the measurement should be carried out in a slightly different place, b) there is always a problem with what we call measurement accuracy and what is actually measured. For example, in the case of soil temperature, the surface temperature of the sensor is measured, c) there are always too few measurements, and d) variability in time means that it is impossible to going back to the same test area and measure the same environment, but always different, changed in time.

However, no one questions the value of measurements as such, because whether they are used correctly or not, their interpretation decides and most importantly - inference leading to scientific generalization - the solution of the scientific problem. And this last goal is a scientific goal. What's more, currently most of the measurements today are collected by automatic stations. It is not a scientific activity because it is not related to intellectual effort.

In a scientific article there is no need to directly refer to new original data. This possibility is allowed in the instructions for authors, e.g. "Science". However, my article is based strictly, though not directly, on existing scientific findings, and its basic value lies in their reinterpretation.

The basic question is whether this reinterpretation is logically correct and correctly describes reality or not. If it is controversial is of secondary importance. The reviewer does not raise this issue at all, returning stubbornly in the last sentence to the issue of data.

2. References in each scientific article are a specific choice. It is partly dictated by the school from which the author comes. We are talking then about the specificity of a given school or author. On the other hand, such a huge amount of work is published today that it is not possible to quote or even read all of them. This does not detract from the value of work. It is of course the task of the reviewer to assess whether the references sufficiently support the thesis of the author. Here, I would like to point out that my work has 2 x more references than in Dąbski's 2019 work, which is largely concerned and which is to be published in the same volume. The reviewer does not indicate a single publication that I should include.

Nevertheless, the work was reviewed in this respect and the references were supplemented by 11 items, including 9 new ones

3. It is clear and obvious to many that my work is controversial. In my opinion, this is only because of the fact that many authors do not know the work older than 10 years and are ignorant in this issue. Many also simply reject the possibility of expressing a different opinion than the generally circulating one. This is also the case here. I find this a huge lack of professionalism. This is due to the fact that the reviewer is not able to refer to any thesis contained in the text in a concrete, constructive way, to formulate a specific objection as it is in other reviews.

I have the impression that the reviewer disregarded my work and its purpose is only to block the possibility of expressing a different opinion. The purpose of this volume of Geosciences is quite the opposite. It was conceived as a place of clash of different opinions, and therefore as his editor I did not block the publication of M. Dąbski's work with which I do not agree. I think that presenting both works in the same volume is very creative and will attract many readers who will be forced to take a position on this matter. What's more, this special volume of Geosciences will be released as the discussion on the glacier-permafrost relationship increases again. This is evidenced by the polemic that has recently appeared in the renowned Earth-Sciences Reviews.

Finally, I must say that in the light of this review I am not able to determine if and how I can improve my work. I have the choice of withdrawing it or a complete change of approach contrary to my intention which is not my intention ant not possible within 10 days.

Reviewer 3 Report

  This review is not critical, but rather a discussion and polemic with the author. He has already presented his views in many publications. The issues raised by the author are right and valuable in the discussion regarding the relationship between glacial and periglacial domains.

The article is a discussion and polemic for the critical remarks of some authors. The text itself is controversial in many points and relates to proving the author's own arguments. I get the impression that the very course of argumentation showing logical features is purely academic (even philosophical). Thus, it can lead to abuse and over-interpretation. Undoubtedly, the author raises a very important problem related to the definition of permafrost, indicating its ambiguity.

Nevertheless, in this approach I also agree with Dąbski's arguments: (...)

'If we give a glacier the status of a rock, because of its crystalline structure and natural occurrence, we should also regard a snow patch as a rock (of very porous texture), and a perennial snow patch (lasting for at least two consecutive years) should be regarded as permafrost. However, this would be against common sense and would lead only to misconceptions. (...) (after: Dąbski, M., Should Glaciers Be Considered Permafrost? Geosci. 2019, 9 (517), 1-4 419 doi:10.3390/geosciences9120517).

In the attached text, fragments, according to the reviewer, were marked as controversial and somewhat disputable. Nonetheless, not reducing the value of the study itself.

Best regards

reviewer

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reply

I greatly appreciate the fact that the third reviewer gives me the right to express my views, although partly disagrees with them. Like the second reviewer, he emphasizes the controversy of my speech, recognizing its value based on classical (philosophical) inference. This is indeed the case.

Indeed, common sense has been the beginning of scientific inquiry since antiquity and is a great starting point. I am glad that the reviewer, like M. Dąbski, refers to this old principle.

Perhaps in the text I did not express myself quite clearly, but the distinction I want to emphasize is to distinguish the very essence of the examined thing (unchanging features) from an attribute that may or may not belong to a subject, without affecting its essence, occurring alternately, accidently (variable features). Please forgive the comparison I will give below but in the past it was helpful also to me in understanding this difference.

Apple attribute can be: taste, color, size, shape, and more. They change in a very wide range (e.g. some apples are almost white and others extremely dark). Despite this, each of us is able to accurately recognize the apple by of it essence. Everyone has an internal image, the "definition" of an apple, which unmistakably allows you to distinguish it from another fruit.

Permafrost is rightly associated with underground ice, which is generally very old, and in Siberia is even a million years old. However, the definition only mentions two years. In addition, permafrost does not need to be frozen at all, when it is in a cryotic state. This definition is generally accepted, although it contradicts the very name of this phenomenon, which means "perennialy frozen"

It is similar with ice, although not everyone notices its analogy with other rocks. It seems to be something separate, while it is not: 1) in common opinion it melts easily, while in Antarctica it has been for 30 million years. 2) it floats on water like no other rock, and yet pumice is similar, 3) it has a low melting point: 0oC while native mercury "melts" at -39oC. 4) allegedly ice is a part of the hydrosphere and hydrological cycle, and yet the total freezing of the earth 700 million years ago (the concept of snowball earth) caused a suspension of the hydrological cycle, and the Earth's lithosphere consisted of ice just like the icy lithosphere of moon Europe at present.

The first task here is to distinguish the essence of snow from its accidental features. The definition of snow is clear and clearly states its material nature as ice. Its specificity, uniqueness is based on the unusual arrangement of the ice crystal structure in the form of snowflakes. This gives it a unique shape that then accumulates in the snow cover. It is this shape - a special condition of snow that makes it stand out from other types of ice. Nothing more.

In Antarctica, where dry snow diagenesis takes place, huge layers of it lie on the Antarctic ice sheet before it turns into glacial ice. It takes a long time because of the lack of melting snow on the surface. We are talking here all the time about geological processes (diagenesis, metamorphism) occurring in the lithosphere to which snow belongs, just like any loose rock: sand or gravel.

Why does the common sense definition of permafrost not conflict with the possibility that it is unfrozen, and the perennial snow patch, which even in its name contains the core "perennialy" just like permafrost, would be contrary to common sense? At least the snow patch is frozen. What misconceptions does this lead to? I can't indicate any.

I completely agree that some of the statements contained in the text are controversial. I am aware of this. However, the key criterion for me is whether they are false or correctly show reality. I will be reluctant to change my controversial mind, but I will always change my false mind to true. Otherwise my work loses its meaning. Therefore, I will be very grateful if the reviewer shows me a mistake that I could correct.

 

because the reviewer did not suggest changes in the controversial places of the text, they were not introduced in each case, while all controversies were answered in this text.

 

Detailed comments in the text:

L 66-67. the text has been supplemented with references:

Knight P.G., 2011. Glaciology in.: Singh, V.P., Singh, P., Haritashya U.K., (eds.) Encyclopedia of snow ice and glaciers, Springer ,  440-443

Jania J., 1993: Glacjologia. Nauka o lodowcach. PWN. Warszawa.

L 95-97 the text is supplemented by: “when ice is treated as a water reservoir [22] “ reference added:

Rodell, M.,  Famiglietti J.S. Wiese D.N. Reager J.T., Beaudoing H.K Landerer F.W., Lo,  M.-H Emerging trends in global freshwater availability. Nature 557 2018 651-659, /doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0123-1

 

L 127-128 The reviewer included here both permafrost definitions with a comment, but did not explain for what purpose? I do not think that quoting them “in extenso” is necessary. Clear and easily available references are available for the reader.

 

L 129-143 and further: In every case “soil” is replaced by “ground”

 

L 144-146: in these lines there is only simple conclusion which is based on lines 129 – 132. If permafrost is defined by NSIDC as a perennialy frozen ground exclusively, then such definition is false, because not includes cryotic state, as well as temperature 0^oC which is included in permafrost definition. Furthermore, several years means much more than “two consecutive years” included in correct IPA definition. Finally, if we have more than one definition of the subject it means that we have no definition at all. I agree, however, that in primary or secondary schools some simplifications are allowed, but not in precisely written scientific papers. Reviewer’s not suggesting any change here.

 

L 230-233: the sentence seems to be controversial, however, still in the 50-70s of the last century and especially at the time when glaciology began to take shape, it was a matter of course, as indicated above. Reviewer is not suggesting any change, therefore the sentence is not changed.

L 304-306: As above. I am ready to change every sentence if it is false or incorrect. But I am very grateful that the reviewer allows me for controversial opinions.

L 354-361 reviewer comment: “Depending on its location relative to the equilibrium line, the glacier surface undergoes various thermal processes. Especially the transition zone between accumulation and ablation areas. Layers and zones are precisely defined and described in the context of glaciology. For this reason, it is difficult to see the active zone here - despite the author's strong arguments.”

Answer: If glacier undergoes any thermal change means, that it is thermally active. According to my knowledge every border are easy recognizable only remotely, but in closer contact natural borders are blurred. Also reviewer calls it “transition zones”.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

None.