Deglaciation Rate of Selected Nunataks in Spitsbergen, Svalbard—Potential for Permafrost Expansion above the Glacial Environment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have read the manuscript with interest and I think that the work has potential value for other researchers. However there are some points that should be considered before publication.

• -For me the title results a bit confusing as I expected a study on permafrost when in reality what is done is just to analyse the evolution and development of nunataks in the study area, and yes they turn into periglacial areas where permafrost exists, but this is not explictly analysed.
• -Introduction in my opinion is very short and it does not go to the point. I do not fully agree about the perception of glacial and peroglacial is investigated as different entities, there are more and more research that relates both, many of the under the umbrella of paraglacial processes. The introduction should clearly state what is the problem and the implications worlwide and specifically in Spitsbergen, what has been already done (worlwide and Spitsbergen) and what is the contribution of your research in this field.
• -I am concern about chosing only one Nunatack per sector, and consider it as representative of what happens in that sector. I feel that the potential of remote sensing is here a bit lost more valid regional information a bout the formation of new nunataks should be provided..
•  
• Minor comments
•  
• Line 19 10 000 or 10.000?
• Research area: Which exact period has been used to determine 3.4-4.6ºC of warming?
• Sections 2-3 can be merged
• Line 81: temperature in "mountainous areas"
• Lines 134-135 should be presented in methods
• Where does come the information about glaciers foreheads from. It is not mentioned in section methods.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

I would like to thank you for all comments, suggestions and corrections.

Due to the numerous changes introduced to the text, according to the suggestions of the Reviewer 2 in particular, I present a list of all changes as the answer for both Experts.

On behalf of both authors, with kind regards,

Joanna Szafraniec

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a novel and interesting study focusing on current vertical deglaciation in Svalbard and development of periglacial zone on nunataks. In my opinion, the manuscript requires rather minor revision, however, because my critical (rather minor in significance) comments are abundant I recommend a “major revision”.

Numerous comment are put on the manuscript  in relevant places. In general:

1. Methods should be developed to include a clear description of all indices used.
2. Results should be a bit restructured (some parts should be moved to Introduction, other to Discussion) – specific fragments are indicated in the manuscript.
3. In numerous places the text in unclear / not well understood (requires development or rephrasing) – everything indicated in the text.
4. Figures require corrections (e.g. not all “regions” indicated on Fig. 1, double framing).
5. I recommend to enrich the reference list (specific suggestions in the text).
6. Some references to figures are missing.
7.  Conclusions should be more developed.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,
I would like to thank you for all comments, suggestions and corrections.   Due to the numerous changes introduced to the text I present a list of all changes as the answer for both Experts.   On behalf of both authors, with kind regards,
Joanna Szafraniec

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has been substantially improved and I recommend its publication. There are just two little editorial comments: 1) please improve the frames of the images (make them full rectangles – like in Fig 10), 2) please make sure to change “height” to “altitude” or “elevation” in all places (e.g. in the Figs 6 and 7 captions and the last sentence of section 5.1.)

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you very much for all the insightful, meticulous comments that allowed us to improve our article and make it more appropriate for the reader.

 

"1. please improve the frames of the images (make them full rectangles – like in Fig 10)"

 

I hope I understood this remark correctly. The proportion of figures 4, 6 and 7 were changed to fit the Fig. 10 proportion.

These visible external frames of each image (from the Word Microsoft Template) are possible to be modified due to the editorial needs. This means that the rest of figures (with the size set according to the Instructions for authors) can be modified by enlarging or reducing in size in preparation for printing.

 

"2. please make sure to change “height” to “altitude” or “elevation” in all places (e.g. in the Figs 6 and 7 captions and the last sentence of section 5.1.)"

 

The word “height” was changed to “elevation” or “altitude” in indicated places (lines: 161, 191 and 225) and additionally in lines: 18, 139, 141, 142, 179, 182, 185, 196, 232.

 

On behalf of both authors,

with kind regards,

Joanna Szafraniec