Dear Jonathan et al.,
Well, the geomorphologists that I have been in contact with didn't seem to
worry about the use of soil_surface for locations that don't have a soil cover
yet. One can think of these locations as having (at this moment) a soil cover
of zero thickness; this cover could vary
Hello Jonathan,
In my view this surface could be considered as the top of the ice, not the
bottom and then it can be used as the reference for ice core data. That would
remove one problem with 'solid-surface', although Bert doesn't like the term
due to his semantic interpretation of 'solid'.
Dear Bert and Roy
> In my view this surface could be considered as the top of the ice, not the
> bottom and then it can be used as the reference for ice core data.
That is true. I suppose that sediments under ice would be more likely to be
referred to bedrock (as a surface name) anyway.
> The
Hi Roy, Jonathan,
I hadn't thought much about ice yet; it can be a very difficult subject.
There are artic shores (e.g. northern Alaska) which are mostly composed of ice
and a little bit of sediment. This part of the ice would most definitely be
below the to-be-named surface; this is part of th
